The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the provisions of Section 304-B of the IPC and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act to establish the presumption of dowry death and the evidence required to prove the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Puri, J. - The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2004 vide which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and the order of sentence dated 27.03.2004 vide which they have been sentenced as following:-

It was further directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently

2. The appellants have been set up to face trial for having commission of offence under Section 304-B/34 of IPC by the Officer incharge, Police Station City Gurgaon.

3. Briefly the case of the prosecution is to the effect that the marriage of Harjit Kaur deceased was solemnized with Inderjeet Singh-appellant on 15.09.2002. Sufficient dowry articles were given at the time of marriage, but the appellants were not happy with the dowry articles given at the time of marriage. Soon after the marriage, they started harassing the deceased for bringing cash amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from her parents as they were to purchase the goods for the shop and also to make payment of the borrowed amount. The deceased was treated with cruelty on account of demand of dowry and she died on 25.05.2003 as a result of hanging. On the receipt of the message, ASI Hawa Singh along with police officials had reached the house of the appellants where dead body was lying. On the basis of the statement of Tejinder Singh, the brother of the deceased, the FIR has been registered.

4. On completion of the investigation, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented against the appellants.

5. 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 in terms of the order dated 05.08.2003 passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon.

6. A prima facie case under Sections 498-A/304-B read with Section 34 IPC was made out against the appellants. Accordingly, the charge was framed and the contents thereof were read over and explained to them, but they pleaded not guilty.

7. In support of its allegations, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses besides producing documentary evidence. The statement of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded, but no defence evidence has been led by them.

8. Vide judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 27.03.2004, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned aforesaid.

9. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, present appeal has been filed.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Inderjeet Singh-appellant No.2 on 15.09.2002 and death took place on 25.05.2003. The case has been registered on the basis of the statement of Tejinder Singh, PW-7, who is the brother of the deceased. Rattan Singh, PW-8 and Balwinder Kaur, PW-10, are the father and mother, respectively, of the deceased. Suresh Kumar @ Shashi Dua, PW-9, was the mediator in the marriage. ASI Prabhu Dayal, PW-1, had recorded the FIR Ex.PA/1 on the receipt of the ruqa (Ex.PA). Inspector Sube Singh, PW-2, was the officer incharge, who presented the challan after completion of the investigation. Constable Lal Chand, PW-3, had carried the dead body to the hospital for the purpose of post mortem examination. Dr. B.B. Aggarwal, PW-4, along with Dr. R.K. Sachdeva had conducted the post mortem examinatio