(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 1.8.1997. Satnam Kaur deceased was married with Amardeep Singh appellant on 21.10.1990. Jaspreet Singh appellant is younger brother of Amardeep Singh, Satnam Singh and Jaswinder Kaur are parents of Amardeep Singh. At the time of judgment delivered by trial Court, Satnam Singh was aged about 59/60 years and Jaswinder Kaur was aged 56 years.
(2.) All the four accused were named as accused in case FIR No.2 dated 6.1.1996 registered at Police Station `B' Division, Amritsar for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The FIR Ex.PA/2 was registered on the basis of statement Ex.PA made by Surinder Singh PW1 brother of deceased Satnam Kaur. In his statement Ex.PA, Surinder Singh stated that he is a resident of Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar and is having a shop of Commission Agent. They were three brothers and four sisters. Younger sister Satnam Kaur was married according to Sikh rites with appellant Amardeep Singh and they had given dowry beyond their capacity. After three years of marriage, his sister Satnam Kaur was renamed as Simarjit Kaur. No child was born to his sister, therefore, she was taunted by her husband Amardeep Singh, brother-in- law Jaspreet Singh, mother-in-law Jaswinder Kaur and father-in-law Satnam Singh. They used to say that Amardeep Singh will remain issueless. Amardeep Singh was having a small Printing Press and he was demanding money from Satnam Kaur on day to day basis, as he was not doing well in the business. Parents of the complainant, with great difficulty used to fulfill the demand so that she could be rehabilitated in her matrimonial home. In spite of fulfilling the demands, Amardeep Singh, his brother Jaspreet Singh, father Satnam Singh and mother Jaswinder Kaur had made the life of Satnam Kaur difficult. On 31.12.1995 Satnam Kaur came to meet her parents at Raja Sansi and narrated her tale of woes. According to witness, earlier her sister had not disclosed all her problems to the parents but since she apprehended that she would be killed by her in-laws, therefore, she expressed her intention not to join matrimonial home, as her husband, brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law used to say that she should go and die some where so that Amardeep Singh could be remarried. Satnam Kaur was made to see reason that rightful place of daughter is in her matrimonial home, therefore, she was sent to her husband's house, on that day at 4.00 P.M. Surinder Singh went to leave her at her in-laws house where Amardeep Singh, his brother Jaspreet Singh, mother Jaswinder Kaur and father Satnam Singh were present. Complainant told them that it is not in the hands of ordinary mortal to bless Satnam Kaur to give birth to a child. It is God's will and Satnam Kaur be kept with all affection so, by the grace of God, she may conceive. When Surinder Singh was going to leave the house, his sister started weeping but in-laws said nothing. On the day of occurrence at 9.00 P.M., Jaspreet Singh informed on telephone that Satnam Kaur alias Simarjit Kaur fell from the stairs and has died. Family of complainant reached the house of the accused where Satnam Kaur was lying dead. On the body of Satnam Kaur, there was no injury. A suspicion was raised entertained by the complainant that probably accused had administered something poisonous and, therefore, his sister had died. The matter was investigated. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted.
(3.) Appellants were charged for offence under Sections 304-B IPC for having committed dowry death of Satnam Kaur on 5.1.1996 at about 9.00 P.M., as she died due to consumption of Aluminium phosphide a pesticide within seven years of marriage. In the alternate, the appellants were also charged under Section 302 IPC and lastly they were also charged for offence under Section 498-A IPC.