IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:- 26.09.2025 Date of Decision: 13.10.2025 Parkash Kaur @ Parkash Rani ......Appellant Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Argued by: Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate, Ms. Komal Parveen Singh, Advocate and Mr. Nipun Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Kamaldeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. G.S.Kaura, Advocate for the complainant.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.06.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) cum P.O. Fast Track Court, Ropar, in case FIR No. 102 dated 13.4.2004, under Section 306/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Mohali, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment along with fine as under:-

Under Section Sentence Fine In default of payment of fine

306 IPC Rigorous imprisonment 2000/- Rigorous imprisonment for two years for six months Factual matrix

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.4.2004, at about 4.15. P.M., complainant Parveen Walia, brother of the deceased, got recorded his statement with the police alleging therein that his family had given dowry as per their capacity at the time of the marriage of his sister (since deceased), the eldest of the four siblings, which was solemnized with Manoj Chawla in May, 1995, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, after sometime of the marriage, his sister had informed them that her mother-in-law and sister- in-law were harassing her for want of dowry and also on account of non- birth of child. It is further alleged that when at one point of time she had fallen seriously ill, her in-laws left her at her parental house, and she was got treated by the complainant side. After recovery, the sister of the complainant (since deceased) was taken back to her matrimonial home by her in-laws, who also used to inform them telephonically that she was being harassed by her in-laws family. On 7.4.2004, at about 7.30 A.M., the complainant side received a telephonic message that the deceased was unwell. Subsequently, the parents of the complainant reached the matrimonial home of the deceased, where they found that the deceased had already passed away and her body was lying on the bed. The family members of her in-laws did not disclose the reason of her death. Thereafter, on the same day at 9.30 A.M., the father of the complainant informed the police. On the basis of the above statement, the present FIR was registered and investigation was carried out.

3. After completion of investigation, challan was presented before the Court of learned Court concerned.

4. Since the offence under Section 306 IPC was exclusively I attest to the accuracy tarndiable by the Court of Session, therefore, the learned committal Court concerned, through a committal order dated 04.12.2004 committed the case to the Court of Session.

5. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 306 read with 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as

13 witnesses.

7. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the prosecution case and pleaded false implication. The accused led one defence witness into the witness box.

8. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial Court concerned vide impugned judgment/order convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 306 IPC. However, the other co-accused namely Santosh Kumari and Renu alias Bobby were acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving benefit of doubt.

Submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant is the old aged mother-in-law of the deceased, and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the