The main legal point established is the requirement for specific allegations and the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish the ingredients of dowry death, as well as the need for strong, compelling reasons to set aside an acquittal.

JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J. - Appellant - complainant seeks to appeal against judgment dated 13.03.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, Moga to the extent respondents No. 1 and 2 (parents-in-law of the deceased) have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 304B, 498A IPC.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are that FIR No. 83 dated 18.06.2017 under Sections 304B, 498A read with Section 34 IPC was registered at Police Station Samalsar, District Moga on the statement of complainant - Raj Kumar (PW3), who stated that he was running a Karyana shop. It is stated that complainant had three daughters and one son, all of whom were married. Complainant's daughter Rajni Bala (deceased) was married with accused Pardeep Kumar alias Deepu on 28.11.2010 as per Hindu rites and rituals.

3. Sufficient dowry as per his capacity is stated to have been given at the time of marriage but in-laws of complainant's daughter were stated to be unhappy with the dowry given and kept taunting complainant's daughter. Motorcycle is stated to have been given at the time of marriage. Same was returned after two months and further demand of money in cash was raised, upon which, Rs.50,000/- in cash is stated to have been paid by the complainant. Mother-in-law of the deceased i.e. accused - Suhagwanti is alleged to have asked the deceased to bring a big refrigerator from her parents. Sister-in-law of the deceased namely Neetu (though named as an accused was found innocent during investigation and not proceeded against) is stated to have been given gold earrings (tops) but she was unhappy that she was not given a gold set at the time of marriage. Complainant's daughter is stated to have been told the complainant that accused - Pardeep Kumar was raising a demand of Swift Dzire car. Complainant stated that on 18.06.2017, he received a telephonic call from accused Pardeep Kumar at about 12.30 noon that he was coming to pick up the complainant. Said accused also requested the complainant not to disclose this fact to anyone. At about 1.30 p.m., accused Pardeep Kumar alongwith his son Ridam (grandson of the complainant) reached at Sultanpur Phatak, Lohian Khas in Swift car. Complainant also reached there and proceeded to Kot Ise Khan. Complainant is stated to have proceeded to the house of his other son-in-law Shakul Sikri after reaching Kot Ise Khan at 2.30 p.m., from where he alongwith Shakul Sikhri, Madan Lal alias Budhu (uncle of Shakul Sikri) proceeded to the house of Pardeep Kumar where they saw the complainant's daughter hanging with the ceiling fan of a room with a dupatta tied around her neck. Complainant's son-in-law Shakul Sikri cut the dupatta with knife and put the complainant's daughter on bed and found that she had died. It is alleged that complainant's daughter committed suicide due to demand of dowry and harassment by accused Pardeep Kumar, Suhagwanti, Jagir Lal and Neetu i.e. husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law respectively, of the deceased. Complainant informed the matter to the police and on the basis of his statement, FIR (Ex.PW7/B) was registered. Rough site plan (Ex.PW7/F) was prepared. Post mortem was conducted and viscera sent for forensic examination. Statements of concerned witnesses were also recorded. After completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented against three accused. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 13.09.2017. Charges under Section 304B, 498A IPC were framed against accused Pardeep Kumar, Suhagwanti and Jagir Lal.

4. The prosecution examined eight (8) witnesses to substantiate its case. Incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the accused, who denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. Statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.

5. Accused Pardeep Kumar (husband of the deceased) denied all allegations of demand of dowry, harassment or maltreatment. He pleaded that he was living happily with his wife and they had good