Criminal Appeal No. 540-DBA of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 540-DBA of 2000 Date of decision : 13.5.2008 State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Sri Ram ...Respondent **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. P.S. Sullar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant. Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B IPC for want of evidence that the deceased lady (wife of respondent-accused) had been subjected to dowry-related harassment immediately before her death. As noticed by learned Trial Judge, PW 2 Amar Singh, father of the dceased, did not support the prosecution plea. Though the prosecution allegation was that the deceased had conveyed dowry demand to her mother, the latter was not examined at the trial. Likewise, two other witnesses relevant in the context i.e. Mool Chand and Devki Nandan Pandey could also not be examined at the trial. It may be noticed here that the prosecution did not produce those three Pws ( Kishan Pyari, Mool Chand and Devki Nandan Pandey) inspite of the fact that more than five years period was availed of by the prosecution to conclude its evidence. Criminal Appeal No. 540-DBA of 2000 -2- Thus, though the learned Trial Judge noticed that deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage, it found no evidence that deceased lady had been subjected to dowry-related harassment immediately before her death. Learned Trial Judge was also noticed that the respondent- accused was proved to have already possessed a scooter and respondent/accused was in the know of the fact that the natal family of the deceased was poor. Her father is proved on record to have been engaged as a labourer at Sikendrabad on daily-wages basis. He had to support a wife and three children as well, besides himself. We find that the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge is not perverse in character. Learned Trial Judge had taken a possible view based upon the facts available on the file. We have not been persuaded to interfere. Insofar as the parameters for adjudication of a such like controversy, we have to refer to law laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158. The present, we are of the considered opinion, is not a case falling within the parameters afore-mentioned. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the present plea must be invalidated and we so order accordingly. ( S. D. ANAND ) JUDGE May 13, 2008 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) Pka JUDGE