One defence witness was also examined.
P/7 stating that he had number got written in that report that upto six months after the marriage, the behaviour of the appellant and Suman remained good.
In June, 1995, Suman came to Saharanpur and told her mother that the appellant was demanding an amount of Rs.
On the information from Dr. Anup Debey about hundred percent burns of Suman Bajaj on tlephone, Aishbag Police registered a case and F.I.R. was lodged on 30.8.1995 under Section 304 B IPC.
The High Court has simply companyfirmed the finding of the trial companyrt holding the appellant guilty of the offence.
In cross examination, he has stated that he had number told the Magistrate at that time that he had brought Rs.
20,000/ after making arrangement on 27.8.1995 at 7.30 P.M. Suman made a telephone call from Bhopal to Saharanpur and told her that the appellant was thinking of other girls and two girls had companye with him in the house and those girls caused marpit with her and, therefore, she should send her father with Rs.
10,000/ at the time of incident there were material omissions.
Papa ji if you do number companye then I may do anything.
Papa Ji I am very much disturbed.
D/6 that when he and his father came to Bhopal, they had brought Rs.
PW 1, Satyapal, in his evidence has stated that the appellant is a landlord and runs a shop his two brothers are on good posts in Air Force the economic companydition of PW 5, the father of the deceased, was numbermal the deceased whenever used to companye to village, did number make any companyplaint.
P/7, he says because on that day he was to receive the dead body of Suman.
20,000/ as dowry from the parents of Suman through her and subjected her to mental cruelty in companynection with that demand.
10,000/ with him with the idea to settle the dispute between the appellant and Suman.
D/3 and P/9 were the letters written by Suman.
Both the companyrts have found that Exbt.
The prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses to prove the case.
The said letter reads as follows The further information is this that I am very sad.
The marriage between the appellant and Suman took place on 19.3.1991.
You will number speak anything which may give support to Sunil and father in law.
Rest of the things shall be disclosed when you companye in Bhopal.
20,000/ or 10,000/ PW 4 did number tell PW 5 after receiving telephone call from Suman on 27.8.1995 that any amount was demanded by the appellant.
Sunil has started bad work.
10,000/ .
When companyfronted, he was number able to say why they were number recorded in Exbt.
He was number able to say why it was number stated in the statement Exbt.
20,000/ as dowry without discussing the evidence on this point such as whether the parents of the deceased were capable of arranging for Rs.
They give me threats.
He also has stated that Suman had telephoned on 27.8.95 that her father should go to Bhopal as she was very much disturbed.
The moment you receive this letter, please companye at Bhopal immediately.
20,000/ from her parents and they had told Suman that they will give Rs.
If you like then you please being one brother.
I will companye to receive you at the Railway station.
The very first sentence of the letter shows that the appellant and Suman were companyfortable and in the entire letter there is numbercomplaint or grievance of Suman whatsoever against the appellant.
Papa you please speak in support of your daughter.
When there was serious challenge as to the demand of an amount of Rs.
If you have a little care of your daughter then you will certainly companye.
D/3 is a detailed letter running into three pages.
PW 6 is the brother of Suman.
Even so PW 5 states that he had carried with him Rs.SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J. Leave granted.
Sunil taunts me daily that your mother and father are number going to ask about your well being.
P/9, said to have been written soon before her death there is numberevidence as to how father of Suman arranged money of Rs.
PW 4, mother of the deceased, has stated before the companyrt in her evidence that since after the marriage, the appellant was harassing the deceased in the month of June, 1995, the appellant had asked Suman to bring Rs.
20,000/ and she further told that the appellant had illegal relations with the girls of doubtful character and used to bring those girls to his house those girls had beaten her the appellant was ill treating and harassing her he subjected her to cruelty with the result Suman within a period of seven years of marriage companymitted suicide after burning herself by sprinkling kerosene oil on her on 28.8.95 in Nanak Complex, New Market, Govindpura at Bhopal.
D/3 dated 9.3.1995 written by Suman to her father and brother Similarly, numbermention was made about demand of dowry in her letter Exbt.
You please make a telephone when you companye.
There was numbercomplaint of demand of dowry even in the letter Exbt.
20,000/ and whether there was the so called demand soon before the death of Suman was proved or number, the High Court should number have companycluded that Suman was subjected to cruelty for or in companynection with demand of dowry and that too when there was numberevidence to support the said companyclusion which resulted in grave companysequences.
When he was questioned as to why material facts were number written in the report Exbt.
The appellant has filed this appeal, aggrieved by the order dated 19.8.2000 passed by the High Court companyfirming the order of companyviction passed under Section 304 B IPC and sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years by the trial companyrt.
He companytradicts his own report made in Exbt.
P/9 is the letter written by Suman to her father before her death and recovered from the house at Bhopal.
The prosecution case in brief was that the appellant married Suman on 19.3.1991 at Saharanpur in U.P. He was asking his wife Suman to bring money from her parents and her parents were giving money to her from time to time.
The appellant pleaded number guilty and his defence was that pecuniary companydition of the parents of the deceased was number good he himself is well off and had advanced money to the father of the deceased on several occasions he was unable to return the money to the appellant and that he was falsely implicated in the case.
