Back
High Court Of Delhi
PRADIP KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 142 of 1994
Decided On : 09/08/1994
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 498A AND 306 IPC - CHARGE FRAMING - DOWRY DEATH - CRUELTY - ABETMENT OF SUICIDE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 498A AND 306 IPC - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS - ANALYSIS OF DYING DECLARATION - NO CASE MADE OUT AGAINST PETITIONERS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the framing of charges against them under Sections 498A and 306 IPC for dowry death and abetment of suicide. The deceased, Veena, died by suicide due to alleged harassment by her in-laws. The petitioners argued that there was no demand for dowry and that the deceased was living separately from them for three and a half months before the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dying declaration of the deceased clearly stated that there was no quarrel with her in-laws for dowry. The court also noted that the deceased was living separately from the petitioners for three and a half months before the incident and that the disharmony in the family was only on account of trivial matters. The court held that no case under Section 498A and 306 IPC was made out against the petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners subjected the deceased to cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC? 2. Whether the petitioners abetted the suicide of the deceased as defined under Section 306 IPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 498A IPC and held that the petitioners' conduct did not amount to cruelty as defined under the section. The court noted that there was no evidence of any willful conduct by the petitioners that was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide or cause grave injury to her life, limb, or health. 2. The court interpreted Section 306 IPC and held that the petitioners did not abet the suicide of the deceased. The court noted that the deceased was living separately from the petitioners for three and a half months before the incident and that the disharmony in the family was only on account of trivial matters. The court held that such incidents, even if they happened, were not sufficient to bring the case within Section 306 IPC.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order framing charges against the petitioners under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. The court held that no charge under these sections was liable to be framed against the petitioners.
( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 6. 5. 1994 whereby charge was framed against the petitioners under sections 498a and 306 Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have prayed that the charge framed against them is liable to be quashed. Earlier, a charge had been framed against the petitioners along with one Subhash Chand, brother of petitioners no. 1, 3 and 4 and son of petitioner no. 2 under section 306 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code vide order dated 20. 3. 1992. The petitioners had challenged the said order of framing of charge through a revision petition filed in this court being criminal revision no. 48 of 1992. The said revision petition was disposed of vide order dated 7. 1. 1994 whereby the order framing the charge was set aside and the case was remanded for fresh consideration on the question of framing of charge.
( 2 ) AFTER remand, the trial court reconsiderd the matter and by the impugned order dated 6. 5. 1994 framed charges against the petitioners including the said Subhash Chand under sections 498a and 306 Indian- Penal Code.
( 3 ) THE broad facts for purpose of appreciating the controversy in the present case are: Smt. Veena,deceased was married to Subhash Chand in January, 1986. After the. marriage, she started living along with her husband and her mother-in- law, petitioner no. 2; brother-in-law, petitioner no. l, and two sisters-in-law Shashi and Suman in the matrimonial home. According to the dying declaration of the deceased Smt. Veena, there was always some quarrel on petty matters in the house. Her sisters-in-law always used to quarrel with her. Her mother- in-law and her husband also used to side with her sisters-in-law. It was further stated in the dying declaration that Suman had slapped the deceased about three and a half months before the incident and had also thrown soap water in her eyes and had pushed her. Thereafter, the deceased started living separately on the First floor of the house along with her husband and children. The rest of the family members lived on the ground floor. Tension always prevailed in their house. On the day of the incident, Veena, wanted to go for a function in connection with the son of her sister. When she asked her husband to accompany her, he refused. Upon this, there was a quarrel between her and her husband. Her husband slapped her during this quarrel. After this, she bolted her husband and children inside the room and consumed dalfi an insecticide and thereafter poured kerosene oil on herself and set herself on fire.
( 4 ) VEENA sustained severe burn injuries which resulted in her death on 5. 6. 1989. The dying declaration of the deceased became the first information report and case under section 306 Indian Penal Code was registered. . On completion of the investigation, the petitioners alongwith co-accused Subhash Chand were chargesheeted and charge was framed on 20. 3. 1992 under section 306 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code.
( 5 ) IN the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 6. 5. 1994 whereby charge was framed against them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under sections 498a and 306 Indian Penal Code. While framing the charge, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has referred to the dying declaration of Veena and statements of her father, mother and brother.
( 6 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioners in the face of the dying declaration of the deceased, the statements of her father, mother and brother have no value. What they have stated is contrary to the dying declaration of the deceased. In her dying declaration, Veena is categorical when she says "i did not have any quarrel with my in-laws for dowry. " Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the present case cannot be a case of dowry-related -offence.
( 7 ) REGARDING cruelty as well as charge under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, he submits that no case is made out against the petitioners since admitted
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
