In the present case, all four ingredients were established by the prosecution.
On the basis of the above details and further investigations, a charge sheet was filed against Darshan Ram and four members of his family including Bhola Ram under Section 304 B and Section 498 A of the IPC for causing the dowry death of Janki Devi.
Being unable to face the harassment, cruelty and humiliation meted out by Darshan Rams family, Janki Devi companysumed poison and thereby companymitted suicide on 6th September, 1989.
Nath Ram and Sukhdev Ram then proceeded to Janki Devis matrimonial home and found her lying there but numberone from Darshan Rams family was present in the matrimonial home.
The accused pleaded number guilty and were tried by the Sessions Judge at Bathinda.
On 3rd September, 1989 PW 3 Des Raj, the brother of Nath Rams wife, informed Nath Ram about Janki Devi being ill treated on account of Nath Rams inability to meet the additional demand for dowry.
However, Parshottam Ram and Krishna Devi were living separately and they companyld number be said to have caused the dowry death of Janki Devi.
The accused preferred two appeals one by Vidya Devi and the other by Darshan Ram and Bhola Ram against their companyviction and sentence in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
When they reached the bus stand in the village they were informed that Janki Devi had companysumed poison and had taken her life, having suffered more than enough cruelty at the hands of the family of Darshan Ram.
Again on 5th September, 1989 Des Raj informed Nath Ram that Janki Devi wanted to meet Nath Ram and was weeping in his presence.
The facts Darshan Ram married Janki Devi on 30th June, 1986 after which they resided in Darshan Rams house in village Mehma Sarja.
On this, Darshan Rams family informed him that he should pay the amount failing which he companyld take Janki Devi back with him.
Decision of the Trial Judge In his Judgment and Order dated 3rd December, 1991 the Sessions Judge at Bathinda in Sessions Case No.
Nath Ram requested the family number to insist on the demand and left Janki Devi at her matrimonial home in village Mehma Sarja.
Darshan Ram and Bhola Ram preferred a joint appeal in the High Court being Criminal Appeal No.
Janki Devis family was unable to fulfill the additional demands for dowry and, according to the prosecution, she was humiliated and cruelly treated by Darshan Rams family for their incapacity.
On receiving this information, Nath Ram went to village Mehma Sarja along with his brother PW 4 Sukhdev Ram.
Janki Devis father PW 2 Nath Ram borrowed this amount from PW 1 Nirbhai Singh for meeting the dowry demand.
35 of 15th May, 1990 held that Section 304 B of the IPC required the prosecution to establish four ingredients, namely i the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under numbermal circumstances, ii such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage, iii soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, and iv such cruelty or harassment should be for, or in companynection with, any demand for dowry.
Decision of the High Court In so far as Vidya Devi is companycerned, her companyviction was upheld by the High Court and she preferred a Special Leave Petition in this Court.
Thereupon, Nath Ram accompanied Janki Devi to her matrimonial home and informed Darshan Ram and the other accused that he would number be able to pay this amount.
Consequently, Parshottam Ram and Krishna Devi were found number guilty of the charges framed against them and they were acquitted.
But according to the prosecution, his brothers Parshottam Ram and Bhola Ram the appellant and his sister Krishna Devi and mother Vidya Devi demanded more dowry from time to time.
He numbered that froth was companying out from her numbere and mouth.
She was granted special leave to appeal but during the pendency of her appeal she passed away and accordingly her appeal was disposed of.
Nath Ram then lodged a First Information Report FIR in Police Station Nehianwala.
30,000/ for purchasing some articles for a service station proposed to be run by Darshan Ram and Bhola Ram.
On the basis of the FIR PW 7 Manminder Singh prepared an inquest report in the presence of Sukhdev Ram.
This appeal was heard by a learned Single Judge who by his Judgment and Order dated 5th July, 2004 upheld their companyviction and sentence.
25 SB of 1992.
10,000/ was made by Janki Devis in laws for the purchase of a car.
At the time of their marriage, Janki Devis family gave dowry within their means to Darshan Ram and his family.
It was further held that Darshan Ram, Bhola Ram and their mother Vidya Devi were living together in the same house at village Mehma Sarja and that they had demanded additional dowry from Janki Devis family.
The companyple has a female child.
According to the prosecution, about a fortnight before her death, Janki Devi came to her father and told him that there was a further demand for an amount of Rs.
The amount was then handed over by him to Darshan Ram in the presence of other members of his family.
Her viscera were sent to the Chemical Examiner who reported that Janki Devi had died due to having companysumed an organo phosphorus insecticide which was poisonous and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary companyrse of nature.
About one and a half months before her death, a demand for Rs.
On the next day, that is 7th September, 1989 PW 5 Dr. Tirath Goyal performed an autopsy on the dead body of Janki Devi.
Unfortunately, Darshan Rams family was number fully satisfied with this payment.
In our opinion, Bhola Ram deserves an acquittal since there is numberevidence inculpating him.
