Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2122
High Court of Delhi
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
Gajinder Pal Singh & Others
Versus
State
CRL.A. No. 398, 574, 660 to 681 of 2006
Decided on: 17-09-2014
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Dowry Death
Act Referred
EVIDENCE ACT : S.113(b)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.498(a), S.304(b)
Headnote
Dowry Death - Indian Penal Code - 304-B, 498-A - [304-B, 498-A] - The court found the victim had been continuously harassed for dowry demands, leading to her unnatural death within seven years of marriage. The testimonies of the victim's parents and uncle were found to be cogent and coherent, establishing the harassment and demands made by the accused. The court held the husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law guilty of causing the tortuous dowry demand, while acquitting the brother-in-law and sister-in-law due to lack of evidence. The court upheld the convictions under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC, and dismissed the appeals, maintaining the minimum sentence of 7 years for the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, Neetu, died by hanging in her matrimonial home within 7 years of her marriage. The prosecution presented evidence of continuous dowry demands and harassment by the accused, leading to the unfortunate incident. The testimonies of the victim's parents and uncle, along with other evidence, supported the prosecution's version.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the victim had been continuously harassed for dowry demands, leading to her unnatural death within seven years of marriage. The testimonies of the victim's parents and uncle were found to be cogent and coherent, establishing the harassment and demands made by the accused. The court held the husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law guilty of causing the tortuous dowry demand, while acquitting the brother-in-law and sister-in-law due to lack of evidence. The court upheld the convictions under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC, and dismissed the appeals, maintaining the minimum sentence of 7 years for the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC.
Issues: The main issue was to determine whether the victim's death was a result of continuous dowry harassment and demands made by the accused, and to establish the guilt of the accused in causing the tortuous dowry demand. Another issue was to decide the quantum of sentence for the convicted accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimonies of the victim's parents and uncle, along with other evidence, to establish the continuous dowry harassment and demands made by the accused, leading to the victim's unnatural death within seven years of marriage. The court acquitted the brother-in-law and sister-in-law due to lack of evidence, while upholding the convictions of the husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court upheld the convictions under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC, and dismissed the appeals, maintaining the minimum sentence of 7 years for the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC. The husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law were found guilty of causing the tortuous dowry demand, while the brother-in-law and sister-in-law were acquitted due to lack of evidence.
Advocate Appeared
For the Appellants:Rajat Sharma, Anu Narula, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Fizani Hussain, APP.
Indermeet Kaur, J.
1. There are five appellants before this Court. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 05.05.2006 wherein the said appellants had been convicted under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and each of them had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years for the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC; no separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC.
2. This is a case of dowry death. Ajinder Pal Singh is the husband of the deceased Neetu. Pratap Singh is her father-in-law and Rama Devi is her mother-in-law. Gajinder Pal Singh and Pooja are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the victim.
3. Record shows that Ajinder Pal Singh and Neetu had been married on 19.02.2003 as per Hindu rites. The date of the incident is 21.11.2003 i.e. within almost 9 months of the marriage of the parties. The victim had died by hanging. She was found hanging from the ceiling fan in her bedroom in the matrimonial home. The death was within 7 years of her marriage. It was an unnatural death.
4. The version of the prosecution is that there were constant dowry demands which were meted out to the victim by the accused persons which had led to this unfortunate incident. Record reflects that in this intervening period of about 9 months, the victim had gone to her parental home at Kanpur on 3-4 occasions. Further version of the prosecution is that for the first about 1012 days, there was nothing untoward; she then visited her parental home where she disclosed that her in-laws were making the demand of a car. On 13.04.2003, her father had come to Delhi and had given Rs.50,000/- to appellants Pratap Singh and Rama Devi, the in-laws of the victim. This was in the presence of the other accused. Thereafter, on repeated demands, in the first week of August, another sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the father of the victim. On 22.10.2003, Shalinder Singh, the uncle of the victim (resident of Delhi) received a call from the victim, who stated that she was being harassed for more money and her husband told her that in case the money was not paid, she would have to go back to her parents’ house. On 17.11.2003, the victim was assured by her parents that money would be paid to her in-laws after making the necessary arrangements. On 19.11.2003, the deceased telephoned her father informing him that her mother-in-law Rama Devi and her sister-in-law Pooja had threatened her that in case she was not able to get the money from her father, she would be killed. On 21.11.2003, the unnatural death of Neetu was reported. As noted supra, she had died by hanging from the ceiling fan in her matrimonial home.
5. This in brief was the version of the prosecution.
6. 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution of whom PW-8 Ravinder Singh Chauhan was the father of the victim. The mother of the victim namely Smt. Rekha was examined as PW-9. Both the parents of the victim had also given their statements to the SDM which had been proved in their versions as Ex.PW-8/A and Ex.PW-9/A respectively. These statements had been recorded by the SDM Mohd. Ali Ashraf (PW-12) on 22.11.2003. He had also recorded the statement of accused Ajinder Pal Singh on an earlier date i.e. on 21.11.2003 and which had been proved as Ex.PW-12/B. Shalinder Singh, the uncle of the victim (chacha) who was a resident of Delhi and who had first received information about the death of the victim was examined as PW 10. Information about the incident was recorded in the local police station vide DD Ex.PW-14/A and investigation was marked to ASI Arjun Singh (PW-14) who reached the spot along with constable Hanuman Singh (PW-11). Crime team was summoned to the spot. Photographs were taken by HC Surender Kumar (PW-1) proved as Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/12 and negatives of which were proved as Ex.PW-1/13. The exhibits which were seized from the spot included a ligature rop
