The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry, and that the accused was responsible for her death, in order to secure a conviction under Section 304-B, IPC.

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by Sarvan Singh (hereinafter described as to the appellant) directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC. By the subsequent order of sentence dated 24th of November, 1994, the appellant was sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of three months.

2. The brief resume of the facts can well be made. Deceased Paramjit Kaur d/o Gulzar Singh was married to the appellant in October, 1991. The son of Gulzar Singh died during those days. No dowry articles were given at the time of marriage of Paramjit Kaur. Deceased Paramjit Kaur had visited the house of her parents 1 to 1/2 months prior to her death and told them that they should give whatever they could. She was taunted and maltreated for bringing insufficient dowry.

3. On 17th of April, 1992 Gulzar Singh, father of the deceased, had come home on leave. He had already collected some articles to give to his daughter. The deceased and the appellant had also come and were allowed to sit in a separate room. After few minutes he heard the cries of his daughter. He rushed there. The deceased told her parents that the appellant had slapped her. She had taken two pills of poison because she was being tortured for not bringing sufficient dowry in her marriage. In the meantime, the appellant ran away, threatening that he will see what Gulzar Singh can do.

4. After some time, the deceased expired. On the statement of Gulzar Singh, First Information Report was recorded. On 18th April, 1992 Dr. Karnail Kaur (PW 1) conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of Paramjit Kaur-deceased. Viscera was sent for chemical examination and it was pointed out thereafter by Dr. Karnail Kaur that the cause of death was consumption of aluminium phosphide poison.

5. Investigation has been taken up by Sub Inspector Nirmal Singh. Besides getting the First Information Report recorded, he had drawn the inquest report and prepared the rough site plan. On 18th April, 1992 he took into possession the clothes of the deceased vide a recovery memo, and the appellant as such was arrested.

6. The learned Trial Court on appraisal of the evidence held that so far as other relatives of the appellant were concerned, there is a possibility that they were implicated indirectly. By way of abundant caution, therefore, they were awarded the benefit of doubt. As against the appellant, the Trial Court believed the prosecution evidence that deceased consumed poison because she was being harassed by the appellant for bringing insufficient dowry. Adverse inference was drawn under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. With these findings, the impugned judgment and the order of sentence were passed. There is no controversy that has been raised that deceased left for her heavenly abode by consuming aluminium phosphide. This was the cause of her death. There is also no controversy that death occurred within seven years of the marriage.

7. Gulzar Singh PW 2, father of the deceased, was the first witness examined. Pertaining to the incident referred to above, he stated that about 1 to 1 1/2 months his prior to the death of his daughter, the deceased had told him and his wife that they should give whatever dowry they could afford. On 17th April, 1992 he had come home on leave and was sleeping in a separate room. He heard his daughters cry and when he reached the said room, he found his wife and younger son already there. Kulwant Singh had also come there. The deceased told them that the appellant had been harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry. She had left his house and come back home. The appellant followed her and thereupon after giving two slaps made her swallow two pill