The prosecution must prove all the required elements for dowry death under Section 304-B of the Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt, including the unnatural nature of the death.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants, in these appeals, have assailed their conviction and sentence recorded by the learned third Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Session Trial Nos. 81 and 164 of 2007 vide judgment and order dated 31.03.2014 and appellants - Sachin, Ajeet and Vinod were directed to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 304-B of the Penal Code whereas, appellants - Omwati and Mantlesh were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Sections 304-B of the Penal Code; all the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- each and in default to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of six months under Section 201 of the Penal Code with the further stipulation that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The appellants - Sachin, Ajeet Singh (father of Sachin) and Smt. Omwati were charged with the offence under Section 304-B and 201 of the Penal Code interalia on the allegation that on 06.01.2007, PW-1 Mohit Kumar lodged an F.I.R. before the S.H.O. Manglaur, stating that his sister - deceased’s marriage was solemnized on 23.02.2006 with Sachin S/o Ajeet Singh, R/o Village Tikola, P.S. Manglaur, District - Haridwar. He further stated that for solemnization of her marriage, they have expended the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs and gave dowry in the form of colour TV, washing machine, double-bed, sofa, cloths, utensils and ornaments etc. Further, the case of the prosecution is that even though, the deceased’s father has given dowry to the husband of the deceased, they were not satisfied with it. Soon after the marriage, they started demanding a car and started torturing her both mentally and physically. On different occasions, when she was visiting her maternal house, she was complaining about their behavior and demands for more dowry. She was assured by her parents that after the festival of Teej, they were tried to satisfy the demand but they were not satisfy with the promises and started ill-treating the deceased even more. About 03 months prior to her death, Sachin, his father and his uncle left the deceased in the maternal house when she was pregnant. But when they made them understand about 20 days prior to the occurrence they took back the deceased with promise that they will not demand any motor car and shall not also ill-treat the deceased.

On 06.01.2007, one Pritam Singh S/o Anup Singh gave intimation that Amita has been murdered by her husband - Sachin, father-in-law - Ajeet Singh and uncle - Vinod and hence cremated her body. The informant further stated in the F.I.R. that the accused persons did not intimate about the death of the deceased before cremation. He has further stated that because of a hope of solving the problem, they have not given report of earlier incidents of demand of dowry and submissions of such report, a criminal case was registered and the Investigating Officer took up investigation of this case and in course of investigation, he examined the complainant and the other witnesses visited the spot and upon completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 304-B and 201 of the Penal Code. No charge-sheet was submitted under Section 498-A of the Penal Code or under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1964. The defence took the plea of simple denial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses; PW1 is Mohit Kumar - complainant in this case, PW2 - Bhim Singh, PW3 - Smt. Kaushal @ Kaushalya Devi are the parents of the deceased, PW4 - Head Constable, Pankaj Kumar and PW5 - T.D. Bela is the Investigating Officer of the case.

3. The defence, on the other hand, examined 8 witnesses in an attempt to show that the deceased was suffering from certain ailments because of her pregnancy and that the death of the deceased was natural. The evidences of the prosecution witnesses show while being examined PW 1 - Mohit Kumar - complainant has reiterated the stand taken in the F.I.R. and state