To sustain a conviction under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must strictly prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with a dowry demand soon before her death; failure to establish this essential element through credible and corroborated evidence necessitates acquittal.

1. With regard to commission of offence punishable under Section 304-B of ‘the Indian Penal Code, 1860’, arising out of FIR No. 479 dated 20.10.2000, a trial held by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, hereinafter being referred to as “the learned trial Court” only, culminated into conviction of the accused. Aggrieved of the above mentioned judgment dated 03.08.2004 and order on quantum of sentence dated 04.08.2004, this appeal has been preferred by the accused/convict/appellant, hereinafter being referred to as “appellant” only.

2. The sentence awarded to the above named appellant, by virtue of order on quantum of sentence dated 04.08.2004, was as under:-

3. In nut-shell the facts emerging from the record are that the above-mentioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Mool Chand’, hereinafter being referred to as “complainant” only. It was stated by the complainant that the marriage of his daughter, namely ‘Kanchan’ was solemnized with ‘Ashwani Kumar’ (the appellant herein), and that the appellant was staying with his mother, one unmarried brother, namely ‘Sanjeev’ and one married brother-‘Devinder Kumar'. According to complainant the appellant and his family members were in the habit of frequently picking quarrels with his daughter ‘Kanchan’, and that similar dispute arose on 23.06.1999. As per complainant he (complainant) along with some respectable members of the community had visited Bathinda and filed an application before the police. The complainant further alleged that the Panchayat had intervened and therefore, he brought his daughter back to his home at Abohar.

4. It was further alleged by the complainant after the above mentioned incident the appellant visited his house and requested that ‘Kanchan’ be sent back to her matrimonial home at Bathinda, but he (complainant) refused and asked him to bring some respectable members of the community, who could ensure proper treatment of his daughter in her matrimonial home. According to the complainant during the above-mentioned period his daughter ‘Kanchan’ stayed in her parental home for about 11 months and thereafter, he (complainant) received a call from the President of ‘Mahavir Mandir, Bathinda’ who assured the complainant that the appellant and his family members had improved their behaviour, and that ‘Kanchan’ would be properly maintained in her matrimonial home.

5. As per complainant after the above-mentioned conversation the appellant visited the house of complainant and the complainant agreed to send his daughter ‘Kanchan’ with the appellant to her matrimonial home. According to complainant the above-mentioned event had taken place approximately six months prior to 19.10.2000, when at about 07.00 P.M. he received a message from ‘Manoj Kumar’ that ‘Kanchan’ had died. According to complainant in view of above-mentioned information he rushed to Bathinda and found his daughter dead with bluish marks on her neck. The complainant had alleged that his daughter was killed by the appellant and his family members, namely ‘Devinder Kumar’, ‘Sanjeev Kumar’ and their mother ‘Nir