The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent and cogent evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports, to establish guilt in a murder case.

1. Appellants-accused Lovepreet Kaur and Gurmit Kaur were held guilty and were convicted for the commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each vide order dated 19.07.2003. It was ordered that the fine amount, if recovered, shall go to the complainant and that the period of detention already undergone by each convict shall be set off against the period of sentence awarded to them. Precisely, the story of the prosecution was that Gurjant Singh was resident of Malli Patti, Sehna and was running a Kiryana shop alongwith Jasbir Singh son of Gurcharan Singh at Village Nainewal. He was married with Lovpreet Kaur alias Raj Kaur daughter of Gurmail Singh, resident of Khaiala Kalan about three and a half years ago. A female child was born out of their wedlock. The parents of Lovepreet Kaur were poor persons and about one and a half years prior to the date of occurrence, father of Lovepreet Kaur had borrowed a sum of ` 50,000/- from Gurjant Singh, which he did not return. Subsequently, Lovepreet Kaur again raised a demand of ` 50,000/- before Gurjant Singh for her parents. Gurmit Kaur, mother of Lovepreet Kaur, had come to their house for that purpose, but he was not ready to pay the money. Lovepreet Kaur threatened him that in case the demanded amount is not paid, she would kill the daughter and would also kill herself.

On 24.08.2001, at about 8:00 P.M., after closing the shop Gurjant Singh alongwith his partner Jasbir Singh came back home. As they entered, they saw that in a room of the house, Gurmit Kaur, his mother-in-law was holding his daughter Kulbir Kaur from her arms and his wife Lovepreet Kaur was forcibly pouring some poisonous substance in her mouth. On being questioned, Lovepreet Kaur replied that she had given poison to the daughter to teach him a lesson for not giving money to her parents.

Gurjant Singh and his companion Jasbir Singh raised an alarm on which the ladies left Kulbir Kaur and fled away. Gurjant Singh resorted to rescue his daughter but she died. Hearing their shouts, Basant Singh son of Mohinder Singh came at the spot.

Gurjant Singh while reporting the matter to the police stated that the motive behind the occurrence was that his in-laws were demanding money from him and he was reluctant to pay the same because the money earlier paid by him had not been returned. He added that nourishing the said grievance and with the common intention, Lovepreet Kaur and her mother Gurmit Kaur had killed his daughter by administering some poisonous substance to her.

2. Based on the statement of complainant Gurjant Singh, formal First Information Report was recorded and investigation commenced. The dead body of Kulbir Kaur was subjected to postmortem examination. In his report, the doctor opined that the mode of death was "asphyxia". Subsequently, on receipt of chemical examiner report on the viscera, the doctor gave opinion that the cause of death was chloro compound group of insecticide which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

3. Initially, the prosecution filed charge-sheet only against Lovepreet Kaur (accused No. 1) and Gurmit Kaur (accused No. 2) was found to be innocent and was not challaned. Subsequently, during the trial, on an application, presented by the prosecution, invoking the provision of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and finding that Smt. Gurmit Kaur was equally liable for commission of offence, she was summoned by the Court to face trial alongwith accused Lovepreet Kaur.

4. Both the accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. As many as seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution to s