ORDER :

The Appellant aggrieved by his conviction Under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'Indian Penal Code') and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years has preferred this appeal with the leave of the Court.

2. The Appellant happens to be the husband of Tejinder Kaur. The marriage had taken place on 04.10.1990 at Zira. On 30.05.1993 at about 5.20 p.m. the dead body of Tejinder Kaur was found on the railway track between Daun Kalan and Patiala railway stations. The deceased was run over by the train. Nobody appeared to claim the dead body of Tejinder Kaur. After post mortem, photographs were taken for the purpose of identification and the dead body was cremated. On 04.06.1993, the identity of the deceased came to be known. On 06.06.1993, PW-7 Maan Singh father of the deceased gave report and on that basis, the First Information Report was registered. According to the prosecution, Tejinder Kaur, wife of the Appellant committed suicide due to harassment caused by her husband in connection with the demand of dowry.

3. The police after usual investigation submitted the charge-sheet and the Appellant was committed to the court of sessions to face the trial. He denied to have committed any offence and from the trend of the cross-examination, his defence seems to be that the deceased met with an accidental death and there was no question of her being subjected to harassment in connection with the demand of dowry as both of them were living happily. In order to establish that, the Appellant had examined D.W.-1 Kamaljit Kaur and D.W.-2 Iqbal Kaur mother of the Appellant.

4. The trial court on appraisal of evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove all the ingredients necessary for commission of offence Under Section 304B Indian Penal Code and hence convicted and sentenced the Appellant as above. The same has been affirmed by the High Court in appeal.

5. It is well settled that to constitute offence Under Section 304B Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove the following facts:

(i) The death of a woman has been caused by any bums or bodily injuries or has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;

(ii) Such death has taken place within seven years of the marriage;

(iii) Soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and

(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry.

6. In the present case, there is no dispute "that marriage had taken place on 04.10.1990 and deceased Tejinder Kaur died on 30.05.1993. Further, the fact that the Appellant is the husband of the deceased is not disputed.

7. In view of the aforesaid, we have only to see as to whether the prosecution has proved that the death had taken place otherwise than under normal circumstances and the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the Appellant in connection with the demand of dowry soon before the death.

8. Mr. Badridas Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, submits that the deceased met with accidental death and therefore, one of the ingredients for constituting the offence Under Section 304B Indian Penal Code has not been established. This being the position, according to the learned Counsel, the Appellant deserves to be acquitted.

9. Mr. Jayant K. Sud, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Respondent-State, however, submits that there is overwhelming evidence to show that the deceased came under the wheels of the train in the circumstance which clearly shows that the death had taken place otherwise than under normal circumstances.

10. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Sharma.

11. Undisputedly, the deceased came under the wheels of train which led to her death. There is no evidence that the deceased while crossing the railway track came under the wheels of the train accid