Daler Singh vs State of Punjab

Gurmit Ram, J.—Appellant-Daler Singh has come up in the instant appeal against the judgment and order of sentence dated 08.08.2001 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide which he was held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C. in short) and convicted thereunder along with his co-accused Satwinder Kaur alias Satya.

Said Satwinder Kaur alias Satya filed a separate appeal vide CRA-S-895-SB-2001. She expired during pendency of the appeal and her appeal as such was disposed of vide order dated 19.11.2014.

The prosecution version as per its case in concise is that on 12.06.1998 Police party of SI/SHO Sarwan Singh, Police Station Begowal consisting of ASI Satwinder Singh and other police officials was present at Bhadas chowk on a Government vehicle for patrolling. There came to him complainant-Munsha Singh son of Mohan Singh resident of village Talwandi Salan, District Hoshiarpur and made his statement before him, which is as under:--

"That he is resident of village Talwani Salan, District Hoshiarpur. He is doing the work of agriculture. He has two sons who are married and one daughter namely Pritpal Kaur. Marriage of his daughter was solemnized on 10.10.1997 with Daler Singh son of Puran Singh resident of Chardi Patti Begowal, District Kapurthala, according to requisite ceremonies. He gave dowry in the marriage of his daughter according to his capacity. After about one month of the marriage, Par Kaur, mother-in-law; Satya alias Satto, sister-in-law (Nanan) and his son-in-law Daler Singh started taunting his daughter on the pleas of inadequate dowry and that rings and bracelets (Kara) were not given to their sons-in-law. They often used to beat his daughter. About four months back they left his daughter at his house in village Talwandi Salan, District Hoshiarpur after beating her. Then he and Gurdeep Singh Ex-Sarpanch of his village took his daughter and left her in her in-laws'' house at Begowal and went away. Even thereafter his son-in-law used to taunt and maltreat his daughter by saying that nowadays people are giving cars in the marriages, as to why she has not brought car in her dowry. Regarding this demand of dowry, his daughter brought this fact to the notice of mediator Atma Singh, who was resident of Begowal. Thereafter on the intervening night 2/3.06.1998, the sister-in-law (Nanan) Satya alias Satto of his daughter came to her parental house in order to see the festival celebrated in connection with the Anniversary of Sant Baba Prem Singh. On this day, his wife Mel Kaur had also come to his daughter at Begowal. On this day also, Par Kaur mother-in-law, Satya alias Satto sister-in-law (Nanan) and Daler Singh husband had beaten his daughter and raised the demand of more dowry. Regarding this, he told this fact to Atma Singh also. The said persons had been harassing his daughter physically as well as mentally for bringing inadequate dowry. Atma Singh, who was mediator in this marriage had persuaded mother-in-law and husband of his daughter, but they uttered that she has brought very less dowry. They will not keep her and they are to kill her. After persuading them, Atma Singh went back to his house. Then on 12.06.1998, he along with his brother Tulsa Singh was present in his house. There came said Atma Singh who told them that his daughter Pritpal Kaur has expired. On hearing this information, he along with his family members reached at Begowal and came to know that his son-in-law Daler Singh, mother-in-law Par Kaur and sister-in-law (Nanan) Satya alias Satto has caused the death of his daughter by administering her some poisonous substance on account of inadequate dowry".

The abovesaid statement of complainant was read over to him by SI/SHO Sarwan Singh, who signed the same in Punjabi after admitting it to be correct. He also made his own endorsement on this statement of the complainant and sent the ruqa for registration of the case, on the basis of which instant case was registered under Section 304-B of the IPC. Thereafter SI/SHO Sarwan Singh visited the spot of occurrence and prepared the inquest proceedings with regard to dead body of the deceased. He also prepared the site-plan after the spot inspection. Post-mortem on the dead body of deceased was also got conducted. Accused Daler Singh and Par Kaur were apprehended in this case on 13.06.1998. The name of accused Satwinder Kaur alias Satya on the basis of Police inquiry was kept in column No. 2 of challan. Viscera of the deceased was sent to the office of Chemical Examiner, Patiala and her secret part was sent to Head of Pathology Department, Medical College, Amritsar. In the post-mortem report, the Doctor gave the opinion that death of Pritpal Kaur had been caused due to strangulation. Statements of witnesses were recorded, on the completion of investigation, challan against accused Daler Singh and Par Kaur was presented in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate, who committed the same to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala for trial, after making compliance of the provisions of Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short, the Cr.P.C.)

Then as per the record, the prosecution filed an application under Section 193, Cr.P.C., for summoning of Satwinder Kaur alias Satya wife of Hardev Singh resident of village Maqsudpur, Tehsil and District Kapurthala as an accused in this case. This application was accepted and said Satwinder Kaur alias Satya was ordered to be summoned as an accused in this case to face trial under Section 304-B, IPC. Her presence was procured.

Finding a prima facie case under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC against the accused, they were charge-sheeted accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial proceedings before the learned trial Court, accused Par Kaur was expired.

The prosecution in order to establish its case against the accused examined as many as seven prosecution witnesses in all.

Then the accused were duly examined as required under Section 313, Cr.P.C., during which all the incriminating evidence as well as circumstances brought on the record against the accused by the prosecution was put to them which was denied by them entirely. Appellant/accused Daler Singh also took plea that he was married with Pritpal Kaur on 10.10.1997, who died due to an attack. He has no hand in her death. He has been involved in this case falsely in connivance with the Doctor and the Police. He never demanded any dowry. After this case, he was approached by his father-in-law who demanded money for the compromise. He had very love and affection with his wife. His wife had some heart problem, due to which she had died a natural death.

In defence, three witnesses were examined by the accused.

The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and going through the record as well held the present appellant along with his co-accused Satwinder Kaur alias Satya (since dead) guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and Section 498-A, IPC and convicted them accordingly vide the impugned judgment and order of sentence.

Being aggrieved from this judgment and order of sentence appellant/accused-Daler Singh has come up with the instant appeal.

Notice of appeal was given to the respondent-State. Record of learned trial Court was also requisitioned.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have scrutinized the record with their valuable assistance.

The learned counsel for the appellant has firstly argued that Pritpal Kaur (since deceased) was suffering from heart ailment and that her death was natural death having been caused due to said heart problem. In this regard he has referred to the statement of appellant/accused recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., wherein he took the said plea specifically. But in order to establish this plea the appellant did not bring on the record any medical evidence pertaining to the treatment of deceased on account of her said heart problem nor any Doctor was examined by the appellant in this regard who had provided any treatment to the deceased in order to cure her from her alleged heart problem. Then in this case the parcel containing heart of the deceased was sent to the Pathology Department of Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar for the test and after the test, the said pathology department submitted the report Ex. PC with regard to the condition of the heart of the deceased. This report of the Pathology in original is proved by PW-5 Dr. Anil Puri as Ex. PC. As per this report, no abnormality was detected regarding heart of the deceased during the test. So the above plea of the learned counsel for the appellant has remained un-established on the record for want of any evidence corroborating and supporting to it. Resultantly his above contention is declined and disposed of accordingly.

The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Mel Kaur, mother of deceased was cited as prosecution witness in this case, but she was given up by the prosecution during the trial of the case. In order to illustrate his contention, he has contended that as per the case of the prosecution, the said Mel Kaur had gone to the in-laws'' house of his daughter (since deceased) at Begowal on 2nd/3rd June, 1998 and even on that day also, mother-in-law, sister-in-law (Nanan) and husband of her daughter had beaten her and raised the demand of more dowry. Complainant-Munsha Singh apprised Atma Singh about this act and conduct of the accused. Herein he has also contended that in this backdrop, the said Mel Kaur was significant witness of prosecution in this case and since she has been withheld by the prosecution during the trial of case from appearing in the witness box, so as such an adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution and further to disbelieve the prosecution version as alleged. Relating to it, it is also his contention that since Mel Kaur has not been examined by the prosecution as prosecution witness, so statement of Atma Singh-PW4 is to be treated as a hearsay evidence, carrying no value in the eyes of law.

As per the case of the prosecution, it is a fact that said Mel Kaur had visited the in-laws'' house of her daughter at Begowal on 2nd/3rd June, 1998 and on that day also, her daughter was beaten by her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Nanan) by highlighting the demand of more dowry. Now let us see the remaining evidence of the prosecution and to determine the point as to whether the remaining evidence of prosecution without the statement of said Mel Kaur is upto to the hilt to prove the guilt of the appellant or not. In this case, complainant-Munsha Singh, is husband of said Mel Kaur. The machinery of criminal law was put into motion in this case on recording his statement Ex. PB, which he had made before PW-6 Sarwan Singh-SI on 12.06.1998, who at the relevant time was posted as In-charge, Police Station, Begowal. He appeared as PW-2 during trial of the case. His statement is to the effect that his daughter Pritpal Kaur (since deceased) was married with Daler Singh accused on 10.10.1997 and he gave sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. After one month of marriage, Daler Singh-Husband, Par Kaur mother-in-law and Satya @ Satto sister-in-law (Nanan) started taunting his daughter for not giving rings and bracelets to their sons-in-law. On one occasion, the husband of her daughter had left her at her parental house after beating her. Then he and Gurdeep Singh Ex-Sarpanch of his village took his daughter to the house of Daler Singh after taking mediator Atma Singh along with them and rehabilitated his daughter in the house of her husband. Even then, the husband of his daughter did not desist from maltreating her and persisted to beat her by raising demand of car in dowry. Further he also stated about the abovesaid visit of his wife Mel Kaur to the in-laws'' house of her daughter on 2nd/3rd June, 1998 and beating of her daughter by the accused in her presence. His wife brought this fact to the notice of Atma Singh-Mediator, who whereupon went to the accused for persuading them not to beat and mal-treat the deceased, but all in vain, since his advice did not cut any ice upon them, rather they reiterated their plea that Pritpal Kaur (since deceased) had brought meager dowry and they needed a car in dowry. His wife came back to his house. Then he again went to said Atma Singh and the accused person continued their demand of dowry before both of them. Then said Atma Singh informed him and his brother Tulsa Singh about the death of his daughter Pritpal Kaur on 12.06.1998 and he got recorded his statement Ex. PB before the police on the same day with regard to this occurrence. The abovesaid Gurdeep Singh and Atma Singh appeared in this case as PW-3 and PW-4 respectively and supported the version of prosecution out and out. Statement of PW-4 Atma Singh is not solely based on the fact whatever was told to him by Mel Kaur, the wife of complainant Munsha Singh (PW-2). Atma Singh was the mediator in this marriage of deceased with accused Daler Singh. He is also resident of village Begowal and the in-laws of the deceased are also resident of this village/town. His house is at a distance of about 8 yards from the house of the accused. Then it is also in his statement that he had seen the accused while causing beatings to Pritpal Kaur (since deceased). Then he also associated Munsha Singh (PW-2) and Gurdeep Singh (PW-3) to the house of accused, when the deceased was dropped at her parental house by Daler Singh accused after beating her. Despite their persuasion, the accused did not remise their demand of car in dowry. Rather they also showed the protest that their sons-in-law are not given rings and bracelets. Then he also deposed about the visit of Mel Kaur to his house and revelation of woes of her daughter as narrated to him by her (Mel Kaur). PW-3 Gurdeep Singh is an elderly person and Ex-Sarpanch of the village of complainant-Munsha Singh. He along with Munsha Singh (PW-2) and Atma Singh (PW-4) Mediator also visited the house of the accused at Begowal and made them understand not to raise the demand of any dowry. On asking, Pritpal Kaur (since deceased) revealed him that accused persons are demanding a car in dowry. So in the light of above discussed depositions of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, it is concluded without any hesitation that prosecution is on its strong footings to prove its case against the appellant/accused. Non-examination of Mel Kaur does not have any material impact on the case of prosecution. Then with this, it is also held that statement of PW-4 Atma Singh could not be treated as a hearsay evidence for the reason that this witness had acquired knowledge about the facts of this case from the sources other than whatever was revealed to him by Mel Kaur. For instance in this case as abovesaid his house is located at a distance of about eight yards from the house of the accused in village/town Begowal. He had also personally seen the accused while causing beatings to the deceased. Further he also played the role of mediator in this marriage. So in the end, it is held that abovesaid contention of learned counsel for the appellant also does not subsist and same is accordingly turned down.

Then it is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the most material witnesses i.e. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 examined by prosecution are interested witnesses since they are related to each other and as such their statements do not inspire any confidence and hence not suffice to prove the case of prosecution. Here he has referred to the cross-examination of PW-4 Atma Singh wherein he has stated that his daughter is married to the son of Munsha Singh. Then this fact is also admitted by PW-2 Munsha Singh in his cross-examination wherein he has narrated that Atma Singh is the father-in-law of his son. But in this case as abovesaid, the said Atma Singh was mediator in the marriage of deceased with accused Delar Singh. He is also accolents of the accused since his house is situated at a distance of merely eight yards from their house. So as such, the said relationship of PW-2 with PW-4 Atma Singh is no ground to disbelieve their statements. Moreover in matrimonial cases only the relatives to the parties have the special knowledge about the matrimonial alliance in question and of the subsequent dispute, if any, in this regard and as such only they are the persons who could tell about the real facts about the controversy. Then nothing has come on record to say that PW-3 Gurdeep Singh is relative either of PW-2 Munsha Singh or of PW-4 Atma Singh. So resultantly the above contention of learned counsel for the appellant is also rejected.

Then learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that relation of appellant as well as the other members of his family with his wife (since deceased) were quite cordial as well as harmonious. They were leading a lief life. In support of this contention, he has referred to photographs Ex. D1 to Ex. D6 which had come on the record in the cross-examination of PW-2 Munsha Singh and contended that appellant who is husband of deceased cannot be fastened with any criminal liability in this case with regard to death of deceased. These photographs are allegedly pertaining to the deceased, her husband and some other persons showing them in some jolly mood. But these photographs are not bearing any time nor any date to show as to when these were snapped. In the case in hand, it is the plea of prosecution that the accused persons started taunting and maltreating the deceased by raising the demand of dowry and for not giving rings and bracelets to their sons-in-law after about one month of the marriage. So probably the abovesaid photographs could have been snapped during the said period of first month after the marriage, when their relations were cordial. Moreover it is hard fact that generally every person after his marriage go out of station for touring, enjoyment and merriment of the marriage. So these photographs also does not help the appellant from any point of view.

Then the learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out few improvements allegedly made by Munsha Singh (PW-2) in his statement while appearing in the Court. Herein he has referred to the cross-examination of this witness wherein he has stated that he had got recorded in his statement Ex. PB that, he, Gurdeep Singh Ex-Surpanch and his daughter had gone to the house of Atma Singh first and then they went to the house of accused. He also got recorded in the said statement that the accused demanded car in the presence of his wife, which fact was told to him by her. Then he also got recorded in his said statement that he again went to the house of accused along with Atma Singh and the accused continued their demand of car. Then he also stated before the police in his statement that the accused were sitting comfortably in their house around the dead body of Pritpal Kaur. But when this witness was confronted with his abovesaid statement Ex. PB, then all the abovementioned facts were not found to so recorded in it. As per the record, even if the abovesaid portion of alleged improvements is to be subtracted from the statement of PW-2, Munsha Singh, even then the remaining part of it is suffice to prove the case of prosecution in corroboration with the statements of PW-3 and PW-4 as above-discussed. Moreover these improvements are also not found to be any material in this case to cause any adverse impact on the case of prosecution. So this contention of learned counsel for the appellant is also held to be devoid of any substance and consequently the same is also turned down.

Then learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out few discrepancies in the statements of material PWs. In this connection, he has submitted that according to PW-2 Munsha Singh-complainant, the inquest report of the dead body of his daughter was prepared by the police which was lying in the Varandha and whereas according to PW-3 Gurdeep Singh the police did not do any writing work at the place, where Pritpal Kaur was lying dead. Herein it is his submission that it is the case of the prosecution that this PW-3 had accompanied PW-2 Munsha Singh to the in-laws house of his daughter at Begowal on receipt of information of her death. But PW-4 Atma Singh on this point has corroborated with the statement of PW-2 Munsha Singh wherein he has stated that the Police had come at the spot in his presence and prepared the inquest report. Then learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that the case of the prosecution is that deceased was being harassed and taunted on the persistent demand of dowry, but matter in this regard was never reported to the Police or to Panchayat of Begowal and on this ground also, the case of the prosecution as alleged becomes suspicious. Herein he has referred to the cross-examination of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 wherein they had admitted that the matter with regard to the alleged harassment and beating of the deceased by the accused was never reported to the Police or the Panchayat. But in the case in hand, the death of the deceased had occurred within less than one year from the date of marriage. The complainant party had not approached to the Police or Panchayat concerned with regard to the alleged harassment and beating of the deceased with the feeling in their mind that better sense may prevail upon the accused with the passage of time and also to save the matrimonial life of the deceased. These discrepancies in the case of prosecution are rather held to be natural as well as toothless to cause any dent in the case of prosecution.

So far as the DWs examined by the appellant/accused are concerned, these are mainly pertaining to the fact that Satwinder Kaur @ Satya was a married lady and she was residing in her in-laws house along with her family at village Maksoodpur. There is no need to discuss their depositions, since she was expired during the pendency of her appeal and has nothing to do with the case of present appellant.

Then lastly the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that subsequent to the passing of impugned judgment and order, a compromise has been effected between the parties. Now the appellant-Daler Singh has re-married and has got children from the second marriage. But the offence in question is not compoundable. Neither the alleged compromise is considerable in the eyes of law nor it can form a ground to reduce the sentence of appellant. Moreover as abovesaid in the case in hand the appellant has been awarded minimum sentence for seven years as provided by the statue. The learned counsel for Appellant has failed to show any provision of law or case law under which the sentence of present Appellant could be reduced to less than seven years imprisonment.

Now let us see the position of case laws with regard to the controversy involving in this case:--

"i. Satya Narayan Tiwari @ jolly and Another Vs. State of U.P., (2011) CriLJ 445 : (2010) 2 DMC 810 : (2010) 12 JT 154 : (2010) 11 SCALE 481 : (2010) 13 SCC 689 : (2011) 2 SCC(Cri) 393 : (2010) AIRSCW 7144 : (2010) 7 Supreme 537 .

In this case law, the appellant was married to deceased on 19.12.1997. An FIR was lodged on 3.11.2006 by the father of the deceased alleging the demand of dowry from him and that accused was insisting that Maruti car be given in dowry. Three months prior to occurrence, the father of the deceased along with his relative went to the house of the accused and explained his inability in giving the car in dowry to the accused. The accused insulted both of them. In this case law, another authority titled as Kunhiabdulla and Another Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 1731 : (2004) 1 DMC 533 : (2004) 3 JT 206 : (2004) 3 SCALE 57 : (2004) 4 SCC 13 : (2004) 2 SCR 853 : (2004) AIRSCW 1337 : (2004) AIRSCW 3204 : (2004) 4 Supreme 734 is discussed wherein it was held that in order to attract the application of Section 304-B, IPC, the following essential ingredients are required:--

The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than in normal circumstances;

Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;

She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;

Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry;

Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have meted out to the woman soon before her death.

It was held that there is testimony of demand of Maruti car being pressed by the accused after about six months of the marriage of deceased. She was pestered, nagged, tortured and maltreated on non-fulfilment of the said demand, which was conveyed by her to her parents from time to time. On receipt of message, three months prior to the occurrence, her father along with another person came to her in-laws house with a request to dissuade the accused persons for not pressing the demand of Maruti car, who were humiliated and turned out of the house by the accused. It was held that the test of ''soon before'' is satisfied in the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case in hand.

ii. Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, (2014) 4 CCR 514 : (2014) 4 Crimes 310 : (2014) 3 DMC 761 : (2014) 4 RCR(Criminal) 992 : (2014) 10 SCJ 584 .

In this case law, death of wife took place within 10 months of marriage. She was being harassed for bringing insufficient dowry and also by raising a demand of motorcycle etc. in dowry. She informed regarding this development on the part of the appellant and others to her parents telephonically. She died on account of burn injury. She left behind a suicide note that nobody was responsible for her death. Even then it was held that there is enough evidence on the record to prove the demand of dowry ''soon before her death''.

iii. Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana 2014 (2) RCR (Criminal) 752.

In this case accused was demanding scooter in dowry and bride was mal-treated. On this account even on one occasion a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid in cash to the accused. Death was caused in an unnatural manner since Aluminium Phosphide was detected in all the major limbs of deceased sent for chemical examination. Death of deceased took place within 7 years from the day of her marriage. Appellant/Accused was held guilty for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC. His sentence was however, reduced from 10 years to 7 years.

iv. Davinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) AIRSCW 4411 : (2014) 8 SCALE 282 .

In this case law death of deceased took place within 7 month of the marriage due to burn injury, i.e. not in normal circumstances. Eyewitnesses in their statements stated specifically about the harassment of deceased by accused person in connection of demand of dowry. Deceased also telephonically complained about her harassment. It was held that prosecution has succeeded to prove the harassment of deceased by the accused in connection with dowry soon before her death. Conviction of the appellant was held proper."

In the case in hand, as per the case of prosecution, the accused were demanding a car in dowry. Besides, this, they were also taunting the deceased for not giving rings and bracelets to their sons-in-law in the dowry. Father of the deceased along with some responsible persons including mediator had visited the house of the accused showing his financial inability to give any car in the dowry, which did not have any effect on the accused. It is well proved on the record that deceased was taunted and beaten by the accused on the ground of insufficient dowry and also for not fulfilling the demand of car in dowry soon before her death. In this case the death of the deceased had occurred in the house of the appellant within seven years of her marriage. So in the light of these circumstances, all the ingredients as laid down in the case laws cited supra are fulfilled in this case.

In the present case admittedly the deceased was married with appellant-Daler Singh on 10.10.1997 and her death took place in the house of her in-laws on 12.06.1998, i.e. within 8-9 months of her marriage. As abovesaid PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have consistently deposed about the harassment of deceased on the part of the accused by raising the demand of dowry and also for not giving rings etc. at the time of marriage to their sons-in-law. Then cause of death of deceased in this case as stated by PW-1 Dr. Prem Singh was asphyxia as a result of injury on the front of neck which was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. This injury was ante-mortem in nature and the same as described in the statement of PW-1, is as under:--

"There is light blue discolouration alongwith diffuse swelling, irregular in shape on the front of the neck, on both sides of midline (right and left) at the level of upper part of thyroid prominent measuring 10x4 cms on its biggest dimension. On dissection-under the light blue discolouration and diffuse swelling, the subcutaneous tissue was congested underlying muscles congested. There was haematoma lying in the soft tissue and muscles of the neck on the both sides of the midline measuring 6.5 x 3 cm in size. Caronu of hyoid bone on right side and thyroid cartilage on right side was fractured. Wall of the right carotid artery was lacerated. Trachis and larynx were congested. Lumen of the thrachia contained fine blood stained frothyocreation."

There is no explanation on the part of appellant as to how these injuries were caused to the deceased in her in-laws'' house. So in these circumstances, the presumption of dowry death as envisaged under the provision of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act could be safely raised against the Appellant. Then as abovesaid the injury found on the body of the deceased during post-mortem was ante-mortem in nature. Then it has also come in the cross-examination of PW-1 Prem Singh that there is a very remote possibility of such injury on the neck being result of fall.

Then it is also to note that both the Sections 304-B, IPC and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act were inserted by Dowry Prohibition Amendment Act, 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths.

In the light of the above discussion, this appeal is held to be bereft of any substance, so it stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly. Judgment and order of sentence under appeal are affirmed.

Copy of this judgment be sent to the quarter concerned for the strict compliance.