P.S. Teji JUDGMENT
P.S. Teji, J.
1. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 11.07.2002 convicting the appellant finding him guilty under Section 304B IPC and order on sentence dated 12.07.2002 vide which the appellant was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304B IPC, the present appeal has been preferred.
2. The factual matrix emerges from the record is that the FIR No. 403.1987, under Section 304B/34 IPC, Police Station Tilak Nagar was registered on the basis of statement made by the complainant Naresh Kumar. He had stated that the marriage of his sister Renu was solemnised with the appellant Ramesh Grander on 16.08.1986 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Initially, his sister did not say anything but she was found to be unsatisfied. After some months of marriage, she stated that she was harassed by her in-laws. She also stated that she was taunted for bringing insufficient dowry by her husband and in-laws. Ultimately, Renu committed suicide by burning herself which resulted into registration of FIR of the instant case. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.
3. Charge under Sections 304B read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution had examined as many as sixteen witnesses namely PW1 Naresh Kumar, PW2 S.I. Ajit Singh, PW3 SI Rampat, PW4 HC Ishwar Singh, PW5 Kanwal Nain Narang, PW 6 Shyam Sunder, PW7 HC Vikram Prasad, PW8 Promila Budhiraja, PW9 Insp. Devender Singh, PW10 ASI Jai Bhagwan, PW11 HC Sheo Ram, PW12 Lajpat Rai, PW13, HC Gajraj Singh, PW14 SI Bhim Singh, PW15 Mahinder Kumar and PW16 Insp. Gurdev Singh. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
4. So far other co-accused Munshi Ram and Kanta Rani are concerned, proceedings against them were abated since they died during the pendency of trial.
5. The appellant was held guilty vide judgment of conviction dated 11.07.2002 and passed the order on sentence on 12.07.2002.
GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE
(a) The impugned judgment is contrary to law and facts.
(b) There is no legal evidence against the appellant to convict under Section 304-B IPC.
(c) There was no earlier complaint regarding any demand or harassment for dowry against the appellant.
(d) There was no charge under Section 498A IPC, as such his conviction under Section 304-B IPC is bad in law.
(e) Medical evidence does not support the case of prosecution.
(f) No evidence that soon before her death, the deceased was subject to cruelty or harassment for dowry.
(g) There is delay in lodging the FIR which has not been explained.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the allegations levelled against the appellant are general in nature. In the entire FIR, there is no specific allegation. The complainant has not given any specific date and time on which alleged demand of dowry was made from the deceased or her parents. The allegations are general in nature which cannot be made a ground to convict the appellant. It was further submitted that there are inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which makes their testimony........