The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving cruelty or harassment for dowry and the conditions for raising the presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Puri, J. - The appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 03.09.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which Rakesh Kumar-appellant has been convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and the order of sentence dated 05.09.2003 vide which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years and to pay fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months.

2. The appellant along with his brother Amarjit Kumar have been sent up to face trial for having committed the offence under Section 304-B IPC by the officer incharge, Police Station Maur. The facts as put forth by the prosecution are to the effect that Brij Lal-complainant was running a shop of Radio/TV mechanic at Sirsa. His son Anil Kumar was serving in Navy and he had two daughters Sunita and Anju. The marriage of his eldest daughter Sunita was solemnized on 13.12.1995 with the appellant in accordance with Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. Sufficient dowry articles were given at the time of marriage. After some time of the marriage, the family members of her in-laws started mal-treating and harassing Sunita for bring less dowry and had been taunting her. They were mal-treating and harassing her for bringing more dowry. The complainant had been fulfilling the demands raised by the appellant, his brothers Amarjit Kumar and Surinder Kumar and sisters-in-law Kirna Rani and Kamlesh Rani with a hope to settle his daughter in the matrimonial house. Two children i.e. a daughter aged about 3-3/4 years and a son aged about 2-1/2 years were born to her daughter. In the month of December 1999, the family members of her in-laws again started mal-treating and harassing the deceased and they raised a demand of Rs. 1 lakh. The complainant took a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from his relatives and along with his brother Kundan Lal delivered the same to Amarjit Kumar in the presence of the appellant. They were requested to refrain from harassing Sunita. Even thereafter, Sunita informed that they are not refraining from mal-treating her. A month prior to the occurrence, Sunita disclosed that the family members of her in-laws were raising demand of motorcycle. On 16.09.2000, the complainant had a telephonic talk with her daughter who informed that on the previous night, she was given beatings on account of demand of motorcycle. The complainant along with his brother Kundan Lal visited the house of the appellant, who along with other family members threatened to kill Sunita in the event, the demand was not honoured. The complainant and his brother returned back and at about 9.30 p.m., he received an information that Sunita has died. After making arrangement for vehicle, the complainant along with his relatives came to Maur Mandi and found the dead body of Sunita lying in the lobby of the house. She was bleeding from her nose and ear. It has been alleged that the deceased has been killed on account of demand of dowry by the appellant along with his brothers and sisters-in-law.

3. During the course of investigation, Surinder Kumar, his wife Kirna Rani and Kamlesh Rani wife of Amarjit Kumar were found innocent. The challan was presented against the appellant and his brother Amarjit Kumar. As the offence under Section 304-B IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in terms of order dated 23.12.2000. A prima facie case under Section 304-B IPC and in the alternative under Section 302 IPC was made out against the accused. The charge was accordingly framed. The contents thereof were read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty.

4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 07 witnesses. The statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') of the appellant a