Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- Tersely, the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that the marriage of appellant-convict Jit Singh son of Gurcharan Singh (for brevity “the appellant”) was solemnized with Rani, daughter of complainant Mithu Singh (PW1) (for short “the complainant”) about four years (24th Soun,1994) prior to the present occurrence. The marriage was arranged by Jaspal Singh, brother-in-law (Sandhu) of the complainant. Neither any dowry was demanded by her in-laws nor given by her parents. After solemnization of the marriage, they resided together, cohabited as husband & wife and a female child was born out of their wedlock.

2. After some time of solemnization of marriage, appellant Jit Singh (husband) and Surjit Kaur (mother-in-law) (acquitted accused) have started taunting her for not bringing dowry articles. Rani narrated her tale of woe to her father. The complainant projected his inability to fulfill their demand of dowry on account of paucity of funds. They did not stop harassing her. Thereafter, the complainant, in order to pacify the demand, gave one golden Kara, one gold ring, one wrist watch and other customary gifts, but in vain. The appellant & his mother again started taunting and demanded more money from her. The golden and silver ornaments were stated to have also been given by the complainant to the accused at the time of birth of the female child.

3. According to the prosecution that one year after the present occurrence, Gurcharan Singh, father of the appellant (acquitted accused) had returned from abroad and all the three accused had started treating Rani with cruelty and demanded more money from her. The complainant had again given Rs. 5000/- to them to settle the dispute. They further demanded Rs. 10,000/- from her. He (complainant) showed his inability to pay the same. Thereafter, the accused gave beating to Rani. She was carrying seven months’ pregnancy at that time. About 15 days prior to the present occurrence, Gurprem Singh son of, and Nahar Singh brother of, the complainant had gone to the matrimonial home of Rani. She narrated to them the entire episode of demand of Rs. 10,000/- made by the accused and told that if their demand of Rs. 10,000/- was not met, then, they would not allow her to stay in her matrimonial home. Rani felt annoyed on it.

4. Sequelly, the case of the prosecution further proceeds that on 8.8.1998, the complainant received a telephonic message from mediator Jaspal Singh that Rani had been burnt and taken to Rampura Hospital. He went to Civil Hospital, Rampura, from where, she was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. On 9.8.1998, he reached Patiala and came to know that his daughter had already died in the evening of 8.8.1998 in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala.

5. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that his daughter Rani had died an unnatural death caused by burn injuries within a period of seven years of her marriage. Soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. Thus, the accused have committed the offence of dowry death. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement (Ex.PA) of the complainant, the instant criminal case was registered against appellant Jit Singh (husband), Gurcharan Singh & Surjit Kaur (parents-in-law) of the deceased, by means of FIR No.51 dated 9.8.1998 (Ex.PA/2), on accusation of having committed an offence punishable under section 304-B IPC by the police of Police Station Dayalpura, District Bathinda, in the manner depicted here-in-above.

6. After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted by the police ag