2010 (8) Supreme 482
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.
Sanjay Kumar Jain — Appellant
versus
State of Delhi — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2400 of 2010.
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2660 of 2010)
Decided on : 16-12-2010
(1996) 10 SCC 193; (2010) 8 SCC 593; JT 2010 (11) SC 419 – Relied upon
2007 (12) SCC 341 – Referred
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Evidence containing many infirmities – Conviction u/s 302 cannot be sustained. (Para 40)
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B /w section 113B, Evidence Act, 1872 – Deceased dying within seven years of marriage because of ante mortem injuries – Consistent cruelty and harassment by her husband in connection with demand for dowry established – Conviction converted from one u/s 302 to one u/s 304B – (Para 53)
(1991) 1 SCC 166; (1991) 3 SCC 1 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
1. Sanjay Kumar Jain was married to Smt. Anju Jain on 20th February, 1990. After marriage, only both of them started residing at house No.2803, Gali No.6, Chander Puri, Kailash Nagar, Delhi.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was harassed for insufficient dowry and the harassment continued till her death. Admittedly, Smt. Anju Jain died within one year and two months of marriage on 10.4.1991.
3. The trial court found the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC. He was convicted and was awarded life imprisonment. The conviction was upheld by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
In view of the infirmities in evidence, offence u/s 302 has not been established. However, a case s made out fore conviction u/s 304B.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi passed in Criminal Appeal No.63 of 1997 dated 12.11.2009.
3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:
The appellant Sanjay Kumar Jain was married to Smt. Anju Jain (since deceased) on 20th February, 1990. After marriage, only both of them started residing at house No.2803, Gali No.6, Chander Puri, Kailash Nagar, Delhi. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was harassed for insufficient dowry and the harassment continued till her death. Admittedly, Smt. Anju Jain died within one year and two months of marriage on 10.4.1991.
4. A call was received from one Nanak Chand, P.W.1 on 10.4.1991 at 8.50 p.m. at the police control room about the murder of the deceased and accordingly DD Entry No.11A was recorded. On reaching the spot, the police found Sub- Inspector Budh Sain along with police staff was already present there. A bunch of keys was provided by neighbour Sadhna PW8 and one of the keys fitted the lock and after opening the door, they climbed to the first floor where the appellant and the deceased resided. The dead body of the deceased was found lying on the floor. At the scene of the crime, broken bangles were found lying on the floor and a hair strand was also found on the chest of the deceased. Rukka was sent by making endorsement on the DD to the police station and on this basis FIR No.83 of 1991 was registered. The inquest proceedings were conducted through the area Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the spot was photographed whereafter the body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem.
5. Dr. L.K. Barua, P.W. 20 who conducted the post-mortem found ten ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased and the cause of the death was opined as asphyxia following strangulation by rope like material and the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
6. The parents of the deceased Mohan Lal, P.W. 2 (father) and Raj Bala, P.W. 3 (mother) were examined and in their statements it was clearly stated that the deceased was continuously being harassed on account of insufficient dowry.
7. Mohan Lal, P.W.2 in his statement clearly stated that:
“On the demand of accused, I paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- at one time and Rs.10,000/- another time after about 6/7 months of marriage of my daughter with the accused. The accused demanded the said amount as he started tent business.”
He further stated that:
“The accused again started harassing my daughter and used to compel her to bring money from her parents. My daughter had told the said facts to me.”
In the cross-examination, Mohan Lal, P.W.2 also stated that:
“I had given the amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- to the accused out of my saving which was lying in my house and also by taking some amount from my friends.”
In the cross-examination, he further stated that:
“My daughter had met me in my house about 1 or 1= months prior to her death. Even at that time she told me that the accused used to harass her and she was perturbed and she told me that she was hard of money and the accused had again demanded money from her. She did not tell the particular amount which the accused had demanded.”
8. Similarly, Raj Bala, P.W.3, the mother of the deceased also clearly stated in the statement that:
“Deceased Anju was my daughter and she was married with the accused on 20.2.90. My daughter used to tell us that accused Sanjay used to harass her because of insufficient dowry. She also used to tell us that accused used to give her a beating and that the accused used to demand money. The accused demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- but my husband had paid Rs.25,000/- to the accused once after 14 months of marriage of my daughter.”
9. It is abundantly clear from the statements of P.W.2 and P.W.3 that the deceased was harassed on account of dowry right from the point of marriage till her death.
10. The appellant was charged under sections 30
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.