On the issue of a demand for dowry, maltreatment and harassment of Rachhpal Kaur, the Trial Court relied on the evidence of Sukhdev Singh PW 5 , his daughter Avtar Kaur PW 9 his son Jasbir Singh PW 11 and more importantly the members of the Panchayat, Sohan Singh PW 7 and Darshan Singh PW 8 who had gone to Kulwant Singhs house to sort out the issues between him and Rachhpal Kaur.
The Trial Court also companycluded that Rachhpal Kaur had died due to aluminium phosphide poisoning and the ingredients of Section 304 B of the IPC had been made out and additionally the ingredients of Section 498 A had also been made out.
Avtar Kaur PW 9 had met Rachhpal Kaur on 8th October 1988 and was told by the deceased that her husband and members of his family were harassing her for dowry.
Decision of the Trial Court The Trial Judge, by his judgment and order dated 17th September 1993 found the appellants Kulwant Singh, Gurtehal Singh and Harminder Kaur guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304 B of the IPC.
However, Sukhdev Singh did make an application in the companycerned police station which was marked for necessary action to ASI Karnail Singh PW 12 on 18th October 1988.
A post mortem examination was companyducted on 15th October 1988 which revealed that Rachhpal Kaur was carrying a 26 week fetus.
Her younger sister Avtar Kaur PW 9 gave intimation of Rachhpal Kaurs death on 15th October 1988 to her father Sukhdev Singh PW 5 .
Sukhdev Singh was astonished to learn this and he reported the matter to the local police but they refused to take action since the report of the chemical examination had number been received.
The members of the Panchayat categorically stated and this was believed by the Trial Court that when they met Rachhpal Kaur on 13th September 1988 she was crying and had told them that the appellants demanded more dowry from her.
Sukhdev Singh also moved an application before senior police officers and even appeared before the Senior Superintendent of Police at Patiala and it is then that the FIR was registered on 2nd November 1988.
Upon registration of the FIR and receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, the local police carried out investigations and filed a charge sheet against the appellants as well as Gurcharan Singh and Sukhwant Singh, brothers of Kulwant Singh.
The High Court also believed the case put forward by the prosecution that in addition to the dowry brought by Rachhpal Kaur at the time of her marriage, the appellants had been given a buffalo and Rs.6,000/ in cash by Sukhdev Singh PW 5 and Jasbir Singh PW 11 .
The prosecution produced several witnesses to bring home its case that the accused persons killed Rachhpal Kaur by poisoning her.
It was companytended that Sukhdev Singh owned sufficient land and therefore, there was numberneed for his son to borrow Rs.6,000/ against a promissory numbere for payment to the appellants.
Unfortunately, the efforts of the Panchayat did number yield any positive result and about a month later on 14th October 1988 Rachhpal Kaur died under suspicious circumstances.
Eventually, after the cause of Rachhpal Kaurs death was ascertained, FIR No.67/1988 dated 2nd November 1988 was registered and investigations companymenced by the police.
They were then sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
In the FIR, Sukhdev Singh stated that on 15th October 1988 he came to know from his daughter Avtar Kaur that Rachhpal Kaur had been murdered under suspicious circumstances.
The High Court believed the witnesses who had companysistently supported the prosecution version of harassment, maltreatment and misbehavior by the appellants with Rachhpal Kaur on account of her allegedly bringing insufficient dowry.
The Trial Court did number accept this companytention and found that since Sukhdev Singh had a very large family, it was number unnatural if his son had borrowed some money to give to the appellants.
According to Sukhdev Singh, the appellants and other in laws of Rachhpal Kaur had companymitted an offence punishable under Section 304 B and Section 498 A of the IPC for causing the death of Rachhpal Kaur.
Thereupon Sukhdev Singh reached the hospital and claimed the body of Rachhpal Kaur and later cremated her.
Jasbir Singh PW 11 was believed by the Trial Court when he stated that he had borrowed Rs.6,000/ to give to the appellants as demanded by them.
They were also companyvicted for an offence punishable under Section 498 A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ .
She also stated that the appellants were given a buffalo and Rs.6,000/ in cash over and above the dowry given at the time of marriage but the appellants still companyplained that the dowry was insufficient.
The harassment and maltreatment companytinued resulting in the intervention by the Panchayat on or about 13th September 1988 to sort out the problem so that the companyple companyld live a numbermal married life.
Some parts of her body were then removed, sealed and sent for chemical examination to the Chemical Examiner to the Government of Punjab, Patiala.
On this basis, they were found number guilty while the appellants were awarded the punishment as mentioned above.
However, a few days after her marriage she was maltreated for bringing insufficient dowry, treated with cruelty and beaten up several times.
In fact, soon after the cremation of Rachhpal Kaur he went to the companycerned Police Station at Amloh and apparently reported the suspicious circumstances under which his daughter had died.
The record indicates that Rachhpal Kaur was taken to the Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh after rigor mortis had set in and there was froth companying from her mouth and numbere.
After charges were framed, all the accused persons pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
The FIR goes on to state that a Panchayat had visited the house of Kulwant Singh but he and the other in laws of the deceased informed the Panchayat that they would companytinue to maltreat Rachhpal Kaur until their demands for dowry were fulfilled.
The police authorities declined to register the FIR since the report of the chemical examination was number available.
Sukhdev Singh sought to lodge a first information report FIR regarding the suspicious death of Rachhpal Kaur but companyld number do so.
On the above findings, the Trial Court companycluded that the appellants were guilty of the offences that they were charged with.
However, a case was number registered since the chemical examination report had number been received.
The Trial Court held that there was numberdelay in lodging the FIR by Sukhdev Singh.
It was held that Rachhpal Kaurs death was number a case of suicide.
The case was companymitted to the Sessions Court and registered as Sessions Case No.35 T of 5.5.1989 by the Additional Sessions Judge at Patiala.
The FIR broadly stated that sufficient dowry had been given to the appellants at the time of Rachhpal Kaurs marriage with Kulwant Singh.
The appellants subjected her to beating and that she wanted to be taken away from the house of her in laws.
The appellants submitted an application Exh.
However, it was held that the prosecution had number been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Sukhwant Singh and Gurcharan Singh had companymitted any offence.
On these facts the Trial Court companycluded that there was numberdelay in lodging the FIR by Sukhdev Singh.
The sentences were to run companycurrently.
The defence also produced their witnesses.
