The central legal point established is the requirement for credible evidence to prove dowry-related offenses, emphasizing the need for a direct link between the accused and the alleged acts.

SNEH PRASHAR, J.

1. The appellant, having been convicted and sentenced for commission of offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “I.P.C.”) vide judgment and order dated 17.04.2003/18.04.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, had filed the instant appeal. The sentence awarded to the appellant was under:-      

It was ordered that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

The relevant facts garnered from the record are recapitulated hereunder:-

2. Complainant Giasi Ram had five daughters and three sons. His daughter Anila (since deceased) was married to Manmohan, an Army personnel on 08.03.1997. In his complaint Ex.PA given to the police on 04.10.1999, Giasi Ram stated that he had given dowry consisting of valuable articles like scooter, refrigerator, television, ornaments etc. besides a sum of Rs.51,000/- in cash and had spent on marriage in excess of his financial capability. His daughter informed him that her husband, parents-in-law and sister-in-law were not happy with the black and white television and had asked for a colour T.V. He then gave a colour T.V., but when his daughter visited his house, she informed him, her mother and younger brother Naresh that her in-laws were demanding Rs.50,000/- in cash from her and on resistance by her they had been beating her. Anila gave birth to a female child and on that occasion all customary gifts including cash amount etc. were given by him to her in-laws family.

3. The complainant further stated that her daughter about 20-25 days prior to that day i.e. 04.10.1999, his son-in-law Manmohan visited his house and informed him in the presence of his wife and son that he had be laboured Anila before coming to their house and he declared that in case his demand for a Maruti car is not fulfilled, he and his family members would finish Anila. On the next day, he sent his son Naresh to enquire about Anila. After visiting her, Naresh informed him that there was tension in the house but Anila was not being beaten any more but her in-laws were demanding money.

4. The complainant added that after Anila had given birth to a daughter, neither she was being sent to her parental home nor his sons were allowed to meet her. About 5-6 days prior to that day i.e. 04.10.1999, Kartar had threatened him in the village to fulfill the demand of his son. On that day i.e. 04.10.1999, Ishwar son of Puran Singh, resident of village Ghosgarh informed him that his daughter had locked the door from inside and was not responding to the call. Thereupon he alongwith Jai Narain, Mahinder Singh and Ram Saran of his village went to village Ghosgarh and saw that his daughter was hanging. The police arrived and first opened the window of the room with the help of a 'Danda' and then opened the bolt (Sankal) of the door. On going inside, Anila was found dead.

5. The complainant expressed suspicion that because of greed of dowry, his daughter had been murdered on the planning of his son-in-law Manmohan by Kartar, father-in-law, Sarwan Devi, mother-in-law of their daughter.

6. Based on the complaint given by Giasi Ram, father of the deceased Anila, a First Information Report No.217 dated 04.10.1999 (Ex.PA/2) was registered against Kartar, Sarwan Devi and Manmohan. During investigation, Kartar and Sarwan Devi alongwith their daughter Asha Kumari were arrested, but Manmohan, husband of the deceased was not arrested. On completion of investigation and necessary formalities, the charge sheet was presented against the aforesaid three accused and the name of Manmohan-appellant was