JUDGMENT

P.S. Teji, J. Since both these appeals have been preferred against a common judgment of conviction and order on sentence, therefore, both these appeals are being decided together.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 25.07.2001 convicting the appellants, namely, Paramjeet Kaur and Mangat Singh finding them guilty under Sections 304B/34 and 498A/34 IPC and order on sentence dated 28.07.2001 vide which the appellants were sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304B/34 IPC and also to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A/34 IPC with a fine of Rs.500/- each, and in default of payment of fine they were ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months, the present appeals have been preferred.

3. The factual matrix emerging from the record is that deceased Jaswant Kaur was married to the accused Sher Singh on 24.11.1989 and after a few months into their marriage, the relations between the deceased and her in-laws started deteriorating wherein they treated her with cruelty for bringing insufficient dowry. On 01.09.1990, the in-laws of the deceased caused injuries on her person with some hot object and strangulated her. Thereafter, accused Sher Singh took the deceased who was in an unconscious state and admitted her to Batra Hospital where she remained in coma till 04.09.1990 after finally passing away. Hospital authorities informed the police who reached hospital and found the deceased unfit for statement. Baldev Singh, father of the deceased also reached the hospital and on the basis of his statement, FIR of the instant case was registered.

4. In his statement made to the police, the complainant had stated that his deceased was married with accused Sher Singh on 24.11.1989. After about 3-4 months of her marriage, when deceased came to her parental home she informed them that her in-laws were harassing her with petty domestic matters. He further stated that the accused Sher Singh kept quiet every time the deceased complained to him. He had spoken to the accused Sher Singh in this regard but to no avail. On 30.08.1990, the deceased came to her parental home and informed her parents about the continued harassment on the part of her in-laws. On the subsequent date, accused Sher Singh came to his house to take back the deceased after giving an assurance of causing no harassment to the deceased. On 01.09.1990, he came to know that his daughter was admitted in a hospital.

5. During investigation, the police seized one knife and a nylon rope with hair stuck on it from the matrimonial home of the deceased. Accused persons were arrested and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.

6. Charge under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC was framed against both the appellants and other accused persons, namely, Balwant Singh, Jageer Kaur, Sher Singh and Surjit Singh to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution had examined as many as 31 witnesses, namely, PW1 Baldev Singh, PW2 Dr. Dilshad Khan, PW3 Bihari Lal, PW4 Tarsem Kaur, PW5 Rajvinder Kaur, PW6 Ranjit Singh, PW7 B.K. Kaghroo, PW8 Ct.Sewa Ram, PW9 Smt. Santosh, PW10 Surjit Singh, PW11 HC Vikram Singh, PW13 Dr.Chander Kant, PW14 Dr.R.K. Mani, PW15 Kali Charan, PW16 HC Darshan Kumar, PW17 ASI Meer Singh, PW18 Insp. Davinder Singh, PW19 HC Roshan Lal, PW20 HC Darshan Kumar, PW21 Smt.Rajvinder Kaur, PW22 Satnam Singh, PW23 Ct.Rajbir, PW24 K.K. Arora, PW25 D.S. Chakoutra, PW26 Insp.Bhag Singh, PW27 Surjit Singh, PW28 Insp. Seeta Ram Meena, PW29 Insp. Davinder Singh, PW30 HC Jasbir Singh and PW31 Insp.Rajbir Singh.

7. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Accused persons examined DW1 Gopal Kishan Sharma as their defence witness.

8. The appellants were held guilty by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment of conviction dated 25.07.2001 and passed the order on sentence on 28.07.2001.

9.