JUDGMENT :

B.P. Singh, J.

The appellant herein has appealed by special leave impugning the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.482-SB of 1993 dated February 2, 2005 affirming his conviction under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (Indian Penal Code) and affirming the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and two years respectively on those counts. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant Sanjiv Kumar was married to deceased Raj Rani about 4½ months before the occurrence which is alleged to have taken place on 24th August, 1991. The case of the prosecution is that the matrimonial home of the deceased was at village Gobindpura. Her parents resided at village Khadayal at a distance of 150 kms. One of the brothers-in-law of the deceased namely Balwant Rai is a resident of village Ghunder which is at a distance of about 5 kms. from village Gobindpura.

3. The case of the prosecution is that 15 days after her marriage when the deceased came to village Khadayal she complained to her family members that her husband - the appellant herein, as also her in laws namely Sanjiv Kumar and Maya Devi (since acquitted) and Mrs. Nirmala Devi, sister of the appellant (not sent up for trial) maltreated her on the ground that she had not brought sufficient dowry. They were pressing her to bring more dowry. The deceased was sent back to her matrimonial home but when she came again after a month, she again complained that the appellant and his sister had been maltreating her and beating her off and on. She was again persuaded to go back to her matrimonial home. She again came to her father's village a month later and this time she was not sent back to her matrimonial home. Later, the appellant assured that the deceased would not be maltreated and therefore, it was agreed that the deceased shall accompany her husband to her matrimonial home.

4. About twenty days prior to her death, the deceased complained to her family members that she was not willing to stay in her matrimonial home as they were physically torturing her and maltreating her. On this, her brother PW-4 Ramesh Kumar went to village Gobindpura and brought her to village Khadayal. When he had come to village Gobindpura, he had noticed his sister being abused by the appellant and his sister and they were making a demand of a colour television and a refrigerator as also a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on the pretext that they had to run a shop for the appellant. He assured them that he would send the amount to them as also the desired articles when they would be in a position to do so. However, the deceased accompanied her brother to village Khadayal 20 days before the occurrence.

5. The case of the prosecution is that on 20th August, 1991 the appellant came to village Khadayal and assured the family members of the deceased that he would stay separately from his parents and that he will establish his own shop and they should arrange a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for him. The deceased was not agreeable to the demand of the appellant. In the meantime, Jeewan Kumar PW-6, one of the neighbours came to their house and in his presence some discussion took place. After staying for two days at Khadayal, the appellant left for Govindpura but again came to the village on 23.8.1991 and persuaded the deceased to accompany her. The deceased accompanied the appellant and both of them left for village Gobindpura. PW-4 had assured the appellant that he would come to village Govindpura on Sunday along with Rs. 10,000/- as agreed. The appellant retorted by saying that if he did not come with the money on 25.8.1991 he may repent his sister's death.

6. On 24.8.1991 one Ram Sarup came and informed the family members of the deceased that the appellant and his sister had administered poison to the deceased and that the deceased was admitted in the Rajendra Hospital at Patiala. On getting this news h