The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove a proximate and live link between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and death, as well as the need to establish the elements of cruelty or harassment for dowry demand soon before the death of the woman.

JUDGMENT

Anita Chaudhry, J. - This appeal is by the appellants who were convicted in FIR No. 183 dated 23.05.2000 registered Section 304-B/34 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a year.

2. The revision has been preferred by the complainant and his plea is that the accused were men of means and they deserved compensation and therefore, the sentence be enhanced and the fine be increased and compensation be awarded to petitioner.

3. A resume of facts. Swati sister of Hiren (complainant) was married to Vivek on 28.02.2000 at Ahmedabad. They were engaged in November 1999. Gauri Shankar and Bimla are Vivek's parents. Amit is his younger brother. All of them were living in a house in Sector 7 at Faridabad. A complaint was given to the police upon the death of Swati. It was disclosed at the complaint that on 23.05.2000 Gauri Shankar informed them at 9:00 P.M. that their daughter had died. Two days earlier Gauri Shankar had called the complainant at 12:25 AM and asked him to speak to his sister. Swati spoke to Hiren elder brother of Swati. The complainant disclosed that Swati was crying and she was unable to speak and they coaxed her to tell what the matter was and she told them that all of them were troubling her and used to beat her and were demanding money saying that they had no business and were asking for money and when he asked her as to who was troubling her then she named Amit, Vivek and the in-laws. The complainant mentioned that he told his daughter that they would visit her in 2 3 days. The allegations are that before he could come, all the accused had forced her to end her life.

4. The complaint was given to the police at 1:00 P.M. on 23.05.2000. Earlier Gauri Shankar had got a DDR entered the previous night with the police at 11:55 P.M. The version given by him was that their daughter-in-law had gone for the afternoon nap and did not get up for tea. They knocked at the door but the door was bolted from inside and she did not open. Their younger son came in the evening and they forced the door open and found the body hanging. They brought the body down and took her to the doctor where she was declared dead.

5. Police lodged the FIR and completed the investigation and filed the challan against all the persons named in the FIR. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses, out of which 11 witnesses were the Draftsman, the Photographer, the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer. The complainant and his son stepped in the witness box as PW-2 and PW-3.

6. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused abjured the trial and pleaded that the marriage was simple and it was not a case of dowry demand nor the girl was being harassed and she was not keeping good health and was overweight and they had spent a lot of money on her treatment for weight reduction. It was stated that the couple had gone for their honeymoon and they were to go to Jammu on 27.05.2000 for which tickets had been booked. It was also stated that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- had been deposited with VLCC for weight reduction programme. It was also stated that Swati was nominated as a beneficiary in the contributory scheme as well as the insurance policy. It was stated that the girl was hot headed and used to pick quarrels on petty matters and she used to get enraged and committed suicide in a fit of anger. It was also stated that she was taken to a psychiatrist.

7. The accused examined a neighbour, private practitioner, a family member and a servant of the house to negate the prosecution story.

8. The trial Court convicted all the accused under Section 304-B/34 IPC and held that the conviction was not required to be recorded under Section 498-A IPC as the offence was of the same genre and minor in nature. The accused were convicted to the imprisonment mentioned here-in-before.

9. The submission on behalf of th