The in laws of Harjit Kaur used to pressurize her to bring scooter, refrigerator and cash from her parents.
To substantiate the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined PW 1 Mohinder Singh, PW 2 Hari Singh, PW 3 Gurcharan Singh, PW 4 Rishi Ram, PW 5 ASI Gulbag Singh, PW 6 Harbhajan Singh, PW 7 SI Amrik Singh and PW 8 Dr. Ram Krishan Sharma.
This fact was disclosed to Mohinder Singh by Harjit Kaur on many occasions but he ignored the same with the hope that Harjit Kaur may settle in her in laws house.
Mohinder Singh along with Hari Singh Sarpanch, who was his brother from the brotherhood, had gone to village Gharyala to see his daughter Harjit Kaur because the in laws of Harjit Kaur were in the habit of picking up quarrels with her for bringing less dowry.
Gurdip Singh, father in law of Harjit Kaur, on many occasions told Harjit Kaur that in case she failed to bring the above said articles before Rabi crop, then after murdering her, he will re marry his son.
Mohinder Singh made his statement before the police on 6.4.1990 on the basis of which the present case was registered.
Mohinder Singh suspected that his daughter Harjit Kaur had companysumed some poisonous substance out of frustration or the accused have murdered her by administering her some poisonous substance.
On her failure to do so, they after companyspiring with each other, threatened to kill her by giving some poisonous substance.
The investigation in the case was companyducted and after the companypletion of investigation, challan was presented against the appellants in the Court.
41/1991 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.
The accused were charge sheeted under Sections 498 A/304 B IPC to which they pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution case as succinctly summarized by the High Court in the impugned judgment is extracted below Harjit Kaur, daughter of Mohinder Singh was married with Mohan Singh accused.
Appellant is the second accused in Sessions Case No.
First accused is his son.
KURIAN, J. Close to be called a centenarian, the appellant is before us challenging the companyviction and sentence under Sections 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code 45 of 1860 hereinafter referred to as IPC .
