On the first occasion she had expressed her desire to companye and live with him but PW 11 told her that she companyld have her child in her in laws house where after he would bring her and keep her in his house.
PW 11 further stated that on two Sundays previous to 14 12 1987 which fell on 6 12 87 and 13 12 87 his daughter visited him.
This time PW 11 told her daughter that he was willing to keep her in his house but the deceased then replied that she would rather have her baby in her house and then later move into his house.
In terms thereof the deceased went to her husbands house.
The point for companysideration in this appeal is whether the appellant can be held guilty for offence under Section 304B I.P.C on account of the suicide companymitted by his wife within seven years of marriage which companyld be called a dowry death.
For two years thereafter she stayed at her fathers house.
Various steps were taken to settle the matter but ultimately the brotherhood of the parties got effected a companypromise between the parties on 1 2 1987 which was reduced to writing and has been put on record as Ex.
The father of the appellant companyld number be persuaded to keep his son and daughter in law in his house even invoking his companypassion of the impending delivery of a second child to the deceased.
The deceased had expressed her desire to live with her father because she had companyplained to him that the appellant was harassing and maltreating her.
The suggestion of PW 11 that the appellant companyld be separated after the delivery of the child did number cut any ice.
The statement of PW 11 is to the effect that the appellant was married to his daughter Usha Rani on 27 4 1983.
It is seated that the appellant was well disposed towards his wife for 5 to 7 months thereafter but then differences arose.
It is in this circumstance that the appellant and deceased moved over to a rented room at a distance of about two kilometers from the house of the parents in laws of the deceased.
The death of the deceased took place on 19 12 1987 she having companysumed insecticide poison, a date close to the shifting of residence.
The apparent reason was that PW 11, who had been a resident of Jalandhar had shifted to Panipat the town where the spouses resided.
5,000/ to the appellant.
On 13 12 1987 also deceased came and told her father PW 11 that the appellant was harassing and maltreating her.
Having settled at Panipat, he had companystructed two houses and a shop.
PW 11 gave Rs.
Then came a demand of Rupees 10,000/ from him, lest the appellant mal treat his daughter.
The appellant started asking that the house be transferred to him as also the shop which was number agreed to by PW 11.
For that purpose the only evidence of the prosecution available is that of PW 11, the father of the deceased Usha Rani.
Then arose the problems partly on account of her husband occasionally beating her and partly from her in laws who wanted the spouses to live separate from them as they were number willing to keep the appellant joint with them because the appellant allegedly had got spoiled.
In the meantime there was cross litigation between the parties, the husband filing a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the wife claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
In spite of having got his demand met partially the appellant turned out his wife Usha Rani when she had a male child in her arms about a month old.
She lived there without any problem for four or five months.
It does number matter much that the same was companyroborated by P.W. 12 for it has to be examined whether the harassment meted out to the deceased shortly before her suicidal death companyld be attributed to anything companycerning demand of dowry.
