Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Hari Om – Appellants
VERSUS
State of Haryana & Another – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1167 OF 2011
Decided On : 31-10-2014
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304-B r/w 498-A – Sentence – Word ‘may’ in section 304-B – Not mandatory to award life imprisonment – Sentence should not be less than seven years and life imprisonment should be awarded in rare cases – Present case is not a rare case – Sentence reduced to 10 years. (Para 21, 25, 27)
(1994) 6 SCC 727; (2003) 2 SCC 188; (2010) 3 SCC 152 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Poonam was married to A-1, a sub-inspector in Delhi Police, on 04.07.2002. In the marriage, Pooam's parents spent around Rs.6.50 lacs. An amount of Rs. 3.50 lacs was paid in cash to the appellant (A-1) for purchasing a car and the remaining amount was spent on gifts and other expenses.
Only after a week of the marriage, A-1 started making demands for more dowry and left Poonam at her parents’ house.
Due to persistent illegal demands by A-1, Poonam became tense and on 7.8.2002 at about 6.30/7.00 AM, she committed suicide in her room by consuming poison. She was taken to civil hospital in an unconscious condition where doctor declared her dead at 7.45 AM.
The trial court convicted A-1 to A-5 for the offences punishable under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC and imposed sentenced on them.
High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant (A-1) and upheld his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and allowed the appeals filed by the co-accused (A-2 to A-5) and set aside their conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
Conviction of the appellant is justified.
Result:
Appeal allowed partly.
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the accused, Hari Om (A-1), against the judgment and order dated 14.05.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal no. 190-DB of 2004, which in turn, arises out of judgment dated 31.01.2004/04.02.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind in Session Case no. 57/23.12.2002 and Session Trial No. 5 of 13.02.2003.
2. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant (A-1) and upheld his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) and allowed the appeals filed by the co-accused namely, Subhash, Dharam Pal, Ram Chander and Chander Kala (A-2 to A-5) and set aside their conviction and sentence.
3. So far as this appeal is concerned, we are only concerned with the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant - Hari Om (A-1).
4. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal need to be mentioned in brief.
5. As per the prosecution case, Poonam -a young girl having post-graduate degree to her credit, was married to A-1 on 04.07.2002. At the relevant time, A-1 was working as sub-inspector in Delhi Police. In the marriage, Pooam's parents spent around Rs.6.50 lacs. An amount of Rs. 3.50 lacs was paid in cash to the appellant (A-1) for purchasing a car and the remaining amount was spent on gifts and other expenses.
6. After a week of the marriage, A-1 made a telephone call to the parents of Poonam and demanded several items -such as furniture etc., which, according to A-1, were not given in marriage. On 21.7.2002, when A-1 visited Poonam's parents house, collected the demanded items. During that time, the appellant(A-1) also complained to them that Sarris given to his relatives in the marriage were of inferior quality and, therefore, they should pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- in cash in lieu thereof. Though Poonam's parents tried their best to convince A-1 that they did their best looking to their financial capacity in the marriage and now it may not be possible for them to satisfy his demands but A-1 did not agree and threatened that if they do not satisfy his demands, he will not keep Poonam with him.
7. After sometime, on 30.7.2002, Poonam’s parents (complainant) went to the house of A-1 and tried to persuade him and his parents to give up new demands, which included money for purchasing a flat in Delhi. However, out of sheer compulsion, Poonam's parents agreed to pay the amount as demanded at the earliest. On this assurance, A-1 said that they can take Poonam with them and when money is sent, she can come to matrimonial home. Then Poonam returned to parental home with her parents. On 5.8.2002/6.8.2002, A-1 made a telephone call to Poonam reminding her of payment for purchasing a flat in Delhi and in lieu of saris. Due to persistent illegal demands by A-1, Poonam became tense and on 7.8.2002 at about 6.30/7.00 AM, she committed suicide in her room by consuming poison. She was taken to civil hospital in an unconscious condition where doctor declared her dead at 7.45 AM.
8. This led to taking up of investigation on the basis of FIR No. 336 dated 07.08.2002 (EX-PN) lodged by the parents of the deceased against the appellant and her parents for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 304-B/498-B/34 IPC on the same day at about 12.50 PM at Jind Police Station. During the investigation, the police recovered one 3-pages hand written letter (Ex.PA) from Poonam's bedroom. On 7.8.2002, Dr. Satija (P.W.10) conducted post mortem and found no injury on the body of the deceased. During examination, stomach and its contents were sent for chemical examination. A piece of small intestine, a piece of large intestine, a piece of liver, spleen and kidney with their contents were also sent for chemical examination. The report of the chemical examiner (Ex-PT) revealed that Poonam consumed poison (aluminum phos
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
