IMPORTANT POINT
.

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the orders of conviction and sentenced, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala on 13.02.2004/16.02.2004, vide which the husband, his two brothers and mother were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for commission of offence under Section 304-B alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. The accused were acquitted under Section 302/34 IPC.

2. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant no.2– Santosh Rani had died and her appeal had abated.

3. The facts as projected by the prosecution in nutshell is as follows:-

Meenu d/o Bhajan Lal was married to Dinesh on 03.12.1997. Meenu was a S. Teacher and was highly qualified. She gave birth to a child on 13.05.2000. Dinesh brought Meenu back from Malerkotla to Barnala on 23.06.2000. The allegations are that at the time of departure, the complainant had given gold ornaments and clothes of about Rs.40,000/-. While leaving, his daughter started weeping and did not want to go to the house of the in-laws and had told her parents that her mother-in-law, husband and Jeth (elder brother of her husband) would kill her or she would die on account of harassment by them. The complainant in his complaint mentioned that he pacified his daughter and told her that daughters look good in their in-law's house. He also stated that his daughter had told him that the in-laws were harassing her for dowry. The complainant got a call at 6:00 AM from a relative of Rekha wife of Naresh (one of the accused) that Meenu had died at night. On receiving this information, they came to Barnala and found the dead body of their daughter in the room. They found no injuries but believed that she had died on account of harassment by the son-in-law, his brothers and mother-in-law on account of dowry. The police after investigation filed the challan only against the husband. Later on the remaining accused were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

4. Charge was framed under Section 302/34 IPC and in the alternative under Section 304-B IPC. The accused claimed trial.

5. The prosecution examined the Medical Officer, the parents of the deceased and the Investigating Officer. Veeru sister of the deceased was given up as unnecessary.

6. The accused abjured the trial and denied that there was any demand of dowry. It was stated that the allegations of dowry had been introduced to implicate them and on 23.06.2000 Dinesh was on duty from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM and he was not present at Malerkotla. The other accused Naresh and Rajesh stated that they were residing separately and had a separate kitchen and were working independently. They had also introduced in evidence the memorandum of partition dated 19.11.1999.

7. By way of defence, the accused had examined 12 witnesses.

8. The prosecution witnesses had produced a diary maintained by Meenu. The father had admitted her handwriting. The audio recording between the complainant and wife of one of the accused was produced by the defence. It was sent to the forensic science laboratory and positive report had been received. The trial Court rejected this evidence. The trial Court considered the oral statements and it was held that the accused was silent as to how Meenu had died and since they had not sent any intimation to the police or the complainant, they had things to hide and it was a case of demand of a Maruti car. The trial Court held that there was no circumstance to show that the girl had been murdered. The accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC but were convicted under Section 304-B IPC.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no evidence of dowry demand and a perusal of the complaint would show that it only speaks about harassment and it does not mention what was demanded and when it was demanded. The counsel submits that the husband was a Junior Engineer and the deceased was a Teacher in Government boys school and both the brothers of the husba