The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of circumstantial evidence, completion of the chain of events, and the role of motive in cases of dowry harassment and related offenses under the Indian Penal Code.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

These appeals are instituted against Judgment dated 10.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Case No. 25/99 RBT 11/2004, whereby appellant-accused namely Yashpal (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’ for convenience sake), was convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 and 498A IPC and acquitted of offences punishable under Section 304-B and 315 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further under go simple imprisonment for one year under Section 302 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of 2,000/- for offence under Section 498-A IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for two months. Appellant-accused Sarla Devi (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’ for convenience sake) was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of 2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code In default of payment of fine, she is to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, they were taken up together and are being disposed of vide this common judgment.

3. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 17.1.1999 at about 10.15 PM a telephonic information was received in the Police Station Gagret from Kashmir Singh Up Pradhan Gram Panchayat Oel regarding death of Meena Kumari wife of Yashpal. Thereafter, police from police station Gagret went to the spot. Dead body was found with the help of torch, lying in the bushes at a distance of 200 meters from the house of the accused. Shri Onkar Singh, PW-4 inspected the body of Meena Kumari. He noticed scars on the face and other parts of the body. Parents of the deceased also came there. PW-14 Onkar Singh recorded the statement of Darshan Singh, brother of the deceased under Section 154 Cr. P. C. He disclosed that Meena Kumari was his younger sister and was married to accused in November 1995. They had given dowry in the marriage according to their capacity but accused were not satisfied. After 3-4 months of marriage when deceased Meena Kumari came to her parental house, she told the complainant and her parents that she was being harassed by her husband Yashpal and her mother-inlaw Sarla Devi used to taunt her for not bringing sufficient dowry. On the complaint of Meena Kumari, complainant and parents visited the house of accused many times and requested not to harass her. Thereafter, accused shunted Meena Kumari out of their house. She came to the house of her parents at village Nagnoli and remained there for about 3-4 months where she gave birth to a daughter. Nobody came to look after Meena Kumari and her daughter. Meena Kumari was sent back after convening a Khangi Panchayat, to her matrimonial house. Accused kept on harassing her. On 18.1.1999 a message was received by the complainant through one Jamal Deen of his village that Meena Kumari had died in village Oel. Compromise Ext. PF was taken into possession. Viscera of the deceased was sent to FSL Junga for chemical examination. According to the post-mortem report, deceased died due to fracture and dislocation of cervical vertebrae at level C-1-2 and C-2-3. Death was caused by beatings given to her with fist and kick blows. She was carrying pregnancy of 34-36 weeks. Matter was investigated and challan was put up in the Court after completing all codal formalities.

4. Prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Accused were convicted and sentenced as notice by us above. Hence, these two appeals.

5. Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused.

6. Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advoca