Indermeet Kaur ORDER
Indermeet Kaur, J.
1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 27.11.2012 and 10.01.2013 respectively wherein the appellant Sunil (husband) had been convicted under Sections 498A/304B of the IPC. For his conviction under Section 498A of the IPC he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 3 months; for his conviction under Section 304 B of the IPC he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 8000/- in default to undergo SI for a period of 6 months.
2. The version of the prosecution is that the deceased Sandesh was married to the appellant Sunil on 06.5.2006 as per Hindu rites. After her marriage, her father-in-law, mother-in-law and the appellant (husband) started harassing her for dowry. In September, 2008, the victim was left outside her parent's house. She filed a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC. In December, 2008 the appellant made a demand of Rs. 50,000/- and the same was paid to him. He opened a shop. On 21.5.2009 (3 days prior to the incident) the deceased was visited by her brother. She showed injury marks on her body which was caused to her by her in-laws because of dowry demands. On 24.5.2009 the unfortunate incident of the victim having succumbed to her death by taking poison had been informed to the parents of the victim. FIR was registered.
3. In the course of the investigation the prosecution examined 20 witnesses of whom, brother of the deceased, Sushil Kumar was examined as PW-1. Father of the victim, Kamal Singh was examined as PW-8. Her foofa, Vinay Pal Singh, was examined as PW-7. Her 'mausa', Brijesh, was examined as PW-4. These were the four persons who were examined from the family of the victim. The post mortem of the victim had revealed that she died because of poisoning. The post mortem report is Ex.PW-5/A. The cause of death was by aluminum phosphide poising.
4. On the basis of the aforenoted evidence collected by the prosecution the accused was convicted and sentenced as aforenoted. The charge sheet had been filed against the in-laws (mother-in-law and father-in-law) of the victim as well, however, they both stood acquitted. The Trial Judge did not find any evidence against them.
5. Arguments have been addressed by learned counsel for the appellant. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is that even presuming that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- had been paid by the victim's family to the appellant which was for the purpose of opening of a shop; this purpose would not be a dowry demand within the meaning of "dowry" as enshrined under Section 304 B of the IPC. In the absence of a dowry demand having been proved by the prosecution the conviction of the appellant suffers from an infirmity. There is also no proximity between the date of the so-called alleged demand which as per the prosecution was made in December, 2008 and the victim having succumbed to her death on 24.5.2009 (6 months later); the distance in time also does not establish the ingredients of Section 304 B of the IPC. Attention has been drawn to a compromise which had been arrived at between the parties pursuant to a complaint which was lodged by the deceased. This compromise is dated 21.7.2008. Submission being that even in this compromise deed there is no mention at all that the victim had suffered any c........