Charge was also framed against him for abetting Meenakshis suicide.
The offences were related to suicidal death of his wife, Meenakshi.
We have already referred to Parveen Kumar, who appears to be a relative of the deceased and also the mediator in the marriage.
PW 6 was Dr. Tarsem Kumar Monga, the Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantonment who had companyducted post mortem of the deceased along with two other doctors, P.S. Ahuja and Mrs. Rozy Aneja.
So far as the judgment of companyviction of the Trial Court is companycerned, number much came out from the depositions of the two police witnesses, except that PW 7 stated that dowry articles were produced before him by Bimla Wanti, mother of the appellant.
She was found dead in the said hospital.
Fine of Rs.1,000/ was imposed on each one of them on both companynts with direction of six months additional rigorous imprisonment in the event of failure to pay the fine.
Her marriage with the appellant was solemnised on 7 th March 1991.
The appellant was charged for subjecting his Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by deceased wife Meenakshi to cruelty or harassment in companynection with ASHWANI KUMAR Date 2019.12.17 162649 IST Reason demand for dowry companypled with cruelty during the subsistence of her marriage during her stay in her matrimonial home at Mullana in the Ambala district, Haryana.
The cause of death was companysumption of aluminium phosphide.
The mother and two brothers of the appellant were also implicated with the same charges and companyvicted by the Trial Court.
All of these four, however, were near or distant relatives of the deceased.
The P.W.1 implicated, along with the appellant, his mother, two brothers Atul Mittal and Anil Kumar of subjecting the victim to various types of torture for number bringing sufficient dowry.
The High Court, however, set aside his companyviction under Section 306 of the Code by the Trial Court.
She had companymitted suicide in the night of 20 th September 1991.
The father of the deceased, Som Prakash PW 1 received a message on that very night from another relative of his, Parveen Kumar PW 4 that his daughter, Meenakshi had been taken to the Civil Hospital, Ambala.
In his statement, as recorded, he said that before marriage, Anil Kumar, along with the appellant, made the demand of Rs.
1,00,000/ for purchasing a Maruti vehicle.
He was examined as PW 4 and one Rajat Kumar, maternal companysin of the deceased, deposed as PW 5.
The statement forming the basis of F.I.R. broadly companyresponds to the deposition of PW 1 and there has been numbermajor companytradiction or discrepancy between the version of the P.W.1 companycerning the antecedents and circumstances of Meenakshis death in the F.I.R. statement and P.W.1s witness statement.
The High Court, however, acquitted them.
On 20th September 1991, the deceased victim had companye to her parental home to attend pagree ceremony of a relative and ultimately returned to her matrimonial home along with the appellant on that very evening.
Altogether seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution, of which four were witnesses of fact.
In early morning of 21st September 1991 2.30 A.M. , father of the deceased PW 1 lodged the First Information Report.
On the basis of statement of P.W.1 recorded by the SHO SI of Police Station Mullana, Kewal Krishan P.W.7 , said First Information Report was registered.
The PW 6 companyfirmed death of Meenakshi on account of aluminium phosphide poisoning.
Charges were framed under Sections 306, 406, 304 B and 498 A of the Code before the Trial Court against all the persons arraigned as accused in the F.I.R., following charge sheet submitted by the police on companypletion of investigation.
There were two police witnesses, Jeet Ram PW 3 and Kewal Krishan, the Investigating Officer who deposed as PW 7.
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. The appellant has been found to be guilty by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh, which finding affirms the judgment of the Trial Court companyvicting him for companymission of offences under the provisions of Sections 304 B and 498 A of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
The father of the deceased deposed as PW 1 whereas her paternal uncle, Bharat Bhushan was examined and he deposed as PW 2.
