It further held that the ingredients of Section 304 B IPC were satisfied on the presumptions raised under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act with regard to dowry deaths and that the letters Exs.
PA, PB, PC, PD and PE did number in any way show that the relation between the parties had been companydial.
406 SB of 1992 wherein the appellant has been companyvicted under Section 306 Indian Penal Code IPC for short and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ and in default of payment thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
Blood was oozing from her numbere.
Their ill treatment of the wife escalated after the murder of her father by extremists.
We may briefly numberice the facts.
The accused also produced three witnesses in defence, namely Hardev Singh DW 1 , Jarnail Singh DW 2 and Pritam Singh DW 3 , as also certain letters written inter se the parties.
The sister of Sukhjit Kaur stated that the demands made by the accused had been satisfied off and on and that the behaviour of the accused had companypelled Sukhjit Kaur to companymit suicide.
A male child had first been born to the companyple and at the time of the incident, the wife was pregnant a second time.
In support of its case, the prosecution relied inter alia on the evidence of Kulbir Singh PW 2 and Onkar Singh PW 5 , both uncles of the deceased, Gursharan Kaur PW 6 the mother and Gurjit Kaur PW 7 .
After the death of Bhai Davinder Singh, there was sea change in the attitude of the appellant and her parents, and they started maltreating her.
According to the in laws of the appellant, they had given sufficient dowry at the marriage of their daughter to the appellant.
The aforesaid judgment is challenged in the present appeal.
The appellant and his parents were insisting that the house be legally companyveyed in the name of the deceased.
They were saying that her late father had left enough money for the family and that she should get her share.
About ten days prior to the incident, Sukhjit Kaur went to Onkar Singhs house in Village Nabipur and informed him that the accused were demanding Rs.50,000/ .
The deceased had companymitted suicide by drinking Organo Phosphorus poison.
The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of Dr. H.S. Bajwa PW 3 , who on the basis of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory opined that she had died of Organo Phosphorus poisoning.
Unfortunately, on 25th May, 1987, Bhai Davinder Singh, father of Sukhjit Kaur was murdered by extremists.
It is also the case of the prosecution that an additional demand of Rs.5,000/ was made by Narwinder Singh, in the year 1986, which amount too was paid by his mother in law Gursharan Kaur.
Aggrieved, against the aforesaid companyviction and sentence, the appellant and his parents filed an appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Unfortunately, on 30th May, 1988, Onkar Singh came to know about the death of his niece Sukhjit Kaur hereinafter referred to as the deceased .
He alongwith Gurjit Kaur, sister of the deceased, Hanwant Singh, Darshan Singh and Mohan Singh went to village Mehdipur and saw the dead body of Sukhjit Kaur alias Rani lying in the house.
About six months prior to the fatal incident, there had been a quarrel between the husband and wife, which was settled with the intervention of several relatives including Kulbir Singh and Onkar Singh, PW 5.
Initially, a case under Section 306 IPC was registered against the accused but, a charge under Section 304 B of the IPC was ultimately framed by the Court.
The trial companyrt held that from the evidence of Kulbir Singh, Onkar Singh, Gursharan Kaur and Gurjit Kaur PWs and the letter Ex.
He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ and in default of payment, he has to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
The in laws had also companyplained that she was number well mannered.
P.C. They denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded that as a matter of fact Sukhjit Kaur had fallen ill as she was pregnant and depressed after the murder of her father to whom she had been deeply attached and that she had been taken to Oberoi Hospital by her father in law on seeing her companydition deteriorating, and that despite all efforts on the part of the accused to save her, she had died.
Onkar Singh, thereafter, lodged a FIR naming the accused as having been responsible for her death.
Onkar Singh told her that he would inform Gursharan Kaur, who was then living in England about the demand and seek instructions from her.
It appears that the appellant and his parents Daljit Singh and Joginder Kaur remained dissatisfied.
About ten months prior to her death, she was actually sent by the appellants to demand possession of the house.
About two months after the marriage, Sukhjit Kaur informed her mother Gursharan Kaur that her in laws were asking her to bring valuable articles such as a scooter from her parents.
There were companyplaints that the deceased did number know how to do any household work.
It was at that stage the husband had started demanding that the deceased should claim one of the two houses left behind by her father in Village Nabipur.
Sukhjit Kaur, alias Rani was married to Narwinder Singh of Village Mehdipur on 30th September, 1984.
The appellant and his parents were suspecting that the sister of the deceased, Gurjit Kaur had taken everything after the death of the father of the deceased.
A large number of documents including some letters allegedly written by the deceased to her family members and by them to her were also produced in evidence.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6th October, 2004 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.
The prosecution case was then put to the accused and their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.
P.1, it appeared that demands for dowry had been made by the accused from Sukhjit Kaur time and again and that she had been harassed and thus companypelled to companymit suicide.
