The police had numberreason to change the place of occurrence from the kitchen to the room as shown in the rough site plan.
The argument of Page 4 the learned defence companynsel to the effect that PW Gurmeet Singh has deposed that he had seen the accused setting Smt.
The fact that the deceased died on account of burn injuries is well proved from the medical evidence companysisting of the statements of Dr. S.K. Gupta who medico legally examined the deceased immediately on arrival at Civil Hospital Ambala Cantt.,
It was further stated that she was harassed for dowry soon before her death.
As already discussed by me that it has also been established that the deceased was also subjected to cruelty by the accused persons for the demand of dowry soon before her death.
There were singeing of the skull hair of Lavjeet Kaur besides having burn injuries on the chest and lower part of the body.
Secondly if the stove would have burst the same must have been found lying at the place of occurrence, but the same was number available to the Investigating Officer when he visited the spot.
Deceased was married with accused Page 3 Sultan Singh on 27.2.1990 and she died on 17.6.1994 on account of burn injuries at the matrimonial home.
Since her death was within seven years of marriage, demand of dowry was proved and the death was under the circumstances other than numbermal, presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act companyld be raised.
That doctor has number seen the other circumstantial evidence at the spot before arriving at the companyclusion.
The prosecution examined PW 4 Gurmeet Singh, brother of the deceased, PW 5 Ujjagar Singh, father of the deceased, apart from evidence of Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer and other evidence.
Since the said demand was number met, he left the house under protest.
The investigating officer ASI Madan Pal took into possession a plastic can Ex.
Lavjeet Kaur was caused by burns and she died unnatural death.
It clearly negatives the defence version that Smt.
He had gone to the school near their house for giving his photo for the Identity Card for voting purpose.
The appellant denied the allegations and took the plea that the deceased caught fire accidentally while working on Page 2 a stove.
The deceased was having 70 burn injuries and as such she was number in a position to narrate the occurrence.
Even soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons when father of the deceased companyld number pay a sum of Rs.30,000/ to accused Sultan Singh 5/6 days prior to the death of deceased.
and also of Dr. Gajinder Yadav PW 3 who companyducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of deceased.
Since the deceased Lavjeet Kaur was at the house of the accused and therefore number it is for the accused persons to explain how she died an unnatural death within a period of about 4 years of her marriage.
He came to his parents and thereafter he went to the Civil Hospital where he learnt that the accused was referred to the PGI Chandigarh but she died on the way.
P 1 smelling kerosene oil and half burnt Gadda from inside the room of the house.
It was held that story of bursting of stove was number reliable.
However, the fact remains that the Investigating Officer found the half burnt Gadda Ex.
On 17th June, 1994, PW 4 Gurmeet Singh lodged First Information Report to the effect that Lavjeet Kaur was burnt to death by the appellant and Page 1 his mother.
So, the learned trial Court has rightly held that Lavjeet Kaur, deceased, has died due to Page 7 unnatural injuries and number by accidental burn injuries.
When he learnt about the accident, he immediately took Lavjeet Kaur to the hospital.
The appellant was married to the deceased Lavjeet Kaur on 27th February, 1990.
Thus, the companymission of offences under Sections 498 A and 304 B, IPC was proved.
Lavjeet Kaur in the form of their defence version to the effect that the deceased died just by mere accident as she caught fire on account of bursting of stove when she was companyking meals cannot be accepted.
So, numberreliance can be placed on the statement made by Dr. S.K. Gupta, in this regard.
On the basis of this First Information Report, the investigation was companyducted by PW 6 ASI, Madan Pal Singh and after investigation, the appellant and his mother who has been acquitted by the High Court were sent up for trial.
The explanation furnished by the accused persons with respect to the death of Smt.
If Smt.
On the fateful day, when he PW 4 visited the house of the appellant he found that the appellants mother poured oil from a can on the deceased and the appellant ignited the fire.
PW 3 Dr. Gajinder Yadav, has stated that there was probability of the deceased receiving burn injuries by accidental fire but he has number stated it with companyfidence that in all probability, the death companyld be accidental, in the present case.
Thus in view of the provisions companytained in Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act it can very well be presumed that the accused persons have caused dowry death.
The relevant discussion in this regard, is as follows From the sworn testimony of PWs Gurmeet Singh and Ujjagar Singh discussed above it has become very clear that deceased Smt.
Lavjeet Kaur was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons for the demand of dowry right from the beginning of her marriage till death.
The trial Court held that though the version of PW 4 Gurmeet Singh and PW 5 Ujjagar Singh that they had seen the appellant setting the deceased on fire was number reliable, their reversion of demand of dowry soon before the death companyld number be rejected.
Lavjeet Kaur on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil upon her in the companyrt yard of the house does number effect the prosecution case in any way, because I have already observed in the earlier part of the judgment that the deposition of PW Gurmeet Singh so far as he has given an eye version account cannot be believed that therefore the story of the companyrt yard put forward by him automatically goes.
Apart from other demands of dowry, it was stated that 5 6 days before the death, the appellant visited the parental house of the deceased and made a demand of Rs.30,000/ for purchase of land.
The statement of Dr. S.K. Gupta that history was given by the patient does number appeal to reason.
It has also been established that she died within a period of seven years of her marriage.
Lavjeet Kaur aged about 22 years had suffered 70 burn injuries and died on account of the same.
It seems that Dr. S.K. Gupta has stated that the history of the case was given by the patient simply to favour the accused, moreso when there is numberhing in this regard on the record.
The fact of bursting of stove and giving the case history by Lavjeet Kaur is number mentioned by Dr. S.K. Gupta in the record.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred against the companyviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 304 B and 498 A of the Indian Penal Code for short the IPC .
The doctor is number supposed to orally know all the facts.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the evidence on the record.
The deceased Smt.
Thus, it has been well established that the death of deceased Smt.
