ORDER :

This appeal has been preferred by appellants - Brother-in-law, Sister-in-law and Mother-in-law of the deceased against judgment dated 25th May, 2010 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 525-SB of 1999. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants and affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 498-A and 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :

Complainant Ram Phal, father of deceased - Bimala, lodged a report with the Police Station stating therein that daughter - Bimala was married with accused Ajit in the year 1990 and on the same date, his another daughter Guddi was also married with accused Bijender, brother of co-accused Ajit. Bimala gave birth to two children whereas Guddi has no issue. The complainant gave dowry more than his capacity but both Ajit and Bijender as well as their mother Smt. Chanderpati and sister Bimla maltreated both Bimala and Guddi and used to taunt them for bringing less dowry. Accused Ajit and Bijender made demands from time to time and about 2 years prior to the occurrence of the said event, they both demanded Rs.50,000/- for purchasing a tempo and on account of his helplessness to pay such amount, the accused started harassing both the daughters of the complainant. He also took the Sarpanch of his village, to the Village of the accused twice and the accused assured not to harass Bimala and Guddi in future. About one month prior to the occurrence, Guddi visited her parental home and told them about the harassment. Thereafter on 6th February, 1994, the complainant got an information about the death of Bimala and on the next day, he was accompanied by ex-sarpanch Surat Singh went to the house of the accused and found 5-6 people sitting on the ground outside the house. At that time, Sitar Singh told that a mistake had been committed and begged for forgiveness. According to the complainant, all the accused had killed his daughter Bimala on 4th February, 1994 on account of dowry and cremated the body. On the basis of this Statement, a case was registered against the accused for the offence under Section 498A, 304-B and 201 IPC. However, at the stage of framing of the charge, trial court framed charges for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC.

3. To prove the case, prosecution placed 11 witnesses; a number of exhibits were also produced. The defence in support of their case produced 10 witnesses, a number of exhibits including out door patient prescription slips of Bimala Exb. DG, prescription slips Exb. DH and Exh. DI etc.

4. The accused in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded their innocence.

5. The Trial Court after going through the evidence on record convicted the accused/appellants as noticed above.

6. Being aggrieved, the appellants and another accused - Ajit preferred appeal before the High Court. Learned Single Judge of the High Court mainly relying on statement of PW-8 Ramphal, PW-4 Guddi, PW-7 Surant Singh and PW-6 Dhoop Singh held the charges proved, dismissed the appeal and upheld the finding of the trial court.

7. The main plea taken by learned counsel for the appellants is that the prosecution failed to prove the basic ingredients, namely, (i) the death of the deceased was caused by burn or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances and (ii) soon before her death the deceased has been subjected to cruelty or harassment by any of the accused for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, in view of the statement of the witnesses, namely PW-4, PW-8, PW-6 and PW-7, the Trial Court and the High Court rightly held that the accused committed dowry death and they committed harassment.

9. We have heard the parties and perused the record.

10. PW-8-Ram Phal-complainant and the father of the deceased-Bimala in his dep