JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. Inter alia but primarily the appellant has raised a question of law inthe present appeal. The contention is, that every demand by the husband or his family members cannot be termed as `dowry demand' within the meaning of Section 2 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short referred to as `the Act') and consequently, the death of the deceased cannot be termed as a `dowry death' within the ambit and scope of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code') and, as such, the 1conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant is liable to be set aside.

2. It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that the question of law has to be examined in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. Thus, reference to the facts giving rise to the present appeal would be necessary.

3. Vipin @ Chanchal @ Rekha, the deceased and Ashok Kumar, the appellant herein, were married on 9th October, 1986. Harbans Lal, the father of the deceased had given sufficient dowry at the time of her marriage according to his means, desire and capacity. But, the appellant and his family members i.e. Mukesh Kumar, the brother of the appellant and Smt. Lajwanti, the mother of the appellant were not satisfied with the dowry. They allegedly used to harass and maltreat the deceased and used to give her beatings. They had demanded a refrigerator, a television etc. One week prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased came to the house of her father at Kaithal and narrated the story. She specifically mentioned that her husband wanted to set up a new business for which he required a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The father of the deceased could not manage the same due to which the appellant and his family members particularly, Lajwanti and Mukesh alleged to have burnt the deceased by sprinkling kerosene oil on her as a result of which the deceased died in the hospital at about 4.00 p.m. on 16.05.1988. The father of the deceased received information of the incident from his sister's son Subhash Chand. Neither the appellant nor his family members informed him about the said demise. The father of the deceased moved a complaint (Ex. PA) before SI Randhir Mohan who made endorsement (Ex. PA/1) on the basis of which FIR (Ex. PU) was recorded. This was done by SI Randhir Mohan on the basis of ruqa (Ex. PQ) received on 16.05.1988 at about 5.45 p.m. The deceased was brought to the hospital as a burnt case in gasping condition and she expired in casualty. The said officer went to the General Hospital, completed the proceedings under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short `the Cr.PC') and during those proceedings he recorded the statements of Lajwanti, mother in law of the deceased, Ram Lal, father in law of the deceased, Khem Chand, Harbans Lal and one Arjun Dass. Thereafter, the body was sent for postmortem which was handed over to Hanbans Lal, after the post mortem. The complaint was made by Harbans Lal (PW-1) on 17th May, 1988. Site Plan (Ex. PW) as well as the photographs (Ex. P-14 to P-17) and their negatives (Ex. P-18 to P-21) were prepared by Photographer Satish Kumar (PW-10). Ex. P6 was also taken into possession which was half burnt small tin, containing 3 litres of kerosene oil under Ex. PH which was sealed. Certain other goods like hammer (Ex. PK), broken piece of a wooden door (Ex. P-11), half burnt match stick, match box etc (Ex. P-12) were also taken into possession.

4. After completing the investigation of the case and recording the statements of the relevant witnesses, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet in terms of Section 173 of the Cr.PC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned CJM vide his order dated 18th October, 1988 which framed the charge under Section 304-B of the Code read with Section 34 of the Code. Upon completion of the evidence of prosecution, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. 4

5. T