ORDER :

The appellants happen to be the father-in-law and husband of the deceased-Saroj and aggrieved by their conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of seven years are before us with the leave of the Court.

2. According to the prosecution, three daughters of PW 3 Hari Singh, namely, Saroj Bala (deceased), Raj Bala PW 1 and Bimla were married to the three brothers, namely, Ram Parshad, appellant No. 2 herein, Dharamvir and Surender in the year 1984. It is their case that, at the time of settlement of these marriages, Hari Singh had promised to pay a sum of Rs. 21,000/- each in the marriage of the three daughters. It is further alleged that after the settlement of the marriage and before its solemnisation, the Panchayats of several villages unanimously resolved that a sum of Rs. 100/- only to be given to the groom or his parents at the time of marriage. In light of the said decision, according to the prosecution, Hari Singh PW 3 paid Rs. 100/- to each of his three sons-in-law separately at the time of the marriages of his three daughters. This caused annoyance to appellant No. 1-Dod Ram, father-in-law and when he went to the house of Hari Singh PW 3 in connection with 'Muklawa' ceremony, reminded Hari Singh of his promise to pay Rs. 21,000/- to him. However, the amount was not paid but a promise was made that the payment shall be made in instalments and, accordingly, 'Muklawa' ceremony was performed and the deceased-Saroj was taken to the matrimonial home. The demand for dowry was repeated by appellant No. 1 on several occasions thereafter.

3. In the night between 29.05.1988 and 30.05.1988, Hari Singh PW 3 was informed that his daughter-Saroj was lying ill in the hospital. Hari Singh PW 3 along with his uncle and about 30 co-villagers came to the house of Saroj where she was found lying dead in the court-yard. He did not suspect any foul play and participated in her cremation along with her other relations. However, on 1.06.1988, when his another daughter, namely, Rajbala PW 1, informed about the beating of Saroj by her husband, she got suspicious. On the basis of the information gathered by the father, he gave report to the Police and on that basis F.I.R. No. 91 dated 2.06.1988 under Section 302/34, 304-B and 201/34 of the IPC was registered.

4. After usual investigation, the Police submitted the charge sheet against the appellants, i.e., father-in-law and the husband besides brother-in-law, mother-in-law and the sister-in-law.

5. During the trial, charges under Section 498-A and 304-B and in the alternative under Section 302/34 and 201 of the IPC were framed. The accused denied to have committed any offence and their plea is that the deceased died of heat strokes and, therefore, they cannot be held guilty of the offence for which they have been charged. The Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, by the judgment and order dated 12.02.1990 convicted all the accused, excepting the brother- in-law of the deceased i.e. Dharamvir, under Section 304-B of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Aggrieved by the same, the convicts preferred an appeal before the High Court and the High Court by the impugned order dated 27.08.2003 has upheld the appellants' conviction but acquitted others of the charges. This is how the appellants are before us with the leave of the Court.

6. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that there is no evidence brought by the prosecution that the deceased Saroj died otherwise than under normal circumstances and hence one of the ingredients necessary for constituting the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC is missing.

7. Mr. Rahul Bakshi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Haryana, submits that the very fact that the deceased was beaten in the night preceding the date of her death clearly shows that she died otherwise than under nor