Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 644
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
Mohd. Sarfaraj – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRL.A. No. 769 of 2014 & Crl. M.B. No. 9943 of 2014
Decided On : 24-04-2015
For the Appellant :K. Singhal, Jaideep Tandon, Advocates
For the Respondent: Pramod Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to suicide and the absence of a mandatory presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act in cases of abetment of suicide.
Headnote:
498A IPC - Cruelty - 498A, 306 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 498A IPC, Section 306 IPC, and Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court analyzed the elements of cruelty, abetment of suicide, and the presumption of abetment in cases of suicide by a woman within seven years of marriage.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 498A IPC for subjecting the deceased to cruelty related to dowry demands. The court found that the evidence proved the cruelty and harassment by the accused, leading to the deceased's untimely death. The appellant was also convicted under Section 306 IPC based on the presumption of abetment of suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction under Section 498A IPC but set aside the conviction under Section 306 IPC, as the evidence did not establish the essential elements of abetment of suicide.
Issues: The court analyzed the evidence to determine the presence of cruelty and harassment under Section 498A IPC and the abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to suicide and the absence of a mandatory presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. The court also considered the conduct of the accused and the nature of cruelty to establish the abetment of suicide.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction under Section 498A IPC was upheld, and the conviction under Section 306 IPC was set aside. The appellant was released as he had already undergone the sentence awarded under Section 498A IPC.
1. By virtue of this appeal u/s 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant challenges the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 28th April, 2014 and 30th April, 2014 in Sessions Case No. 95/2001 arising out of FIR No.410/2010 whereby he was convicted u/s 498A/306 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years and fine of Rs. 15000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s 306 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months u/s 498A IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. The appellant was married to the deceased on 7th June, 2009. According to the prosecution, the appellant subjected the deceased to cruelty at 310/25, Onkar Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi demanding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- at the time of delivery of a son and thereafter a sum of Rs.1 lac for purchase of computer. On account of unbearable cruelty, on 9th December, 2010, the deceased committed suicide by hanging with a ceiling fan.
3. In support of its case, prosecution examined 19 witnesses. The important witnesses who unfolded the prosecution story are PW10- Mohd. Kasim and PW13 Mohd. Sikandar, father and brother of the deceased respectively. PW1- Dr. Vijay Kumar Jha attached to BJRM Hospital conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. He opined that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ligature pressure over neck structure produced by ante mortem ligature hanging. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.
4. By placing reliance on the testimony of PW10 and PW13, learned Trial Court observed that prosecution succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the accused being the husband of the deceased subjected her to cruelty with a view to coerce her, her relatives to meet the unlawful demands of dowry of the accused. Hence, accused was convicted u/s 498A IPC. However, as regards offence u/s 304B IPC, learned Trial Court observed that one of the essential ingredients for proving the charge u/s 304B IPC is that the prosecution has to prove that harassment or cruelty given to the deceased was related to demand of dowry and was ‘soon before her death’. Although PW10 & PW13 had orchestrated a story regarding unlawful demand of Rs.1 lac by the accused for purchasing of computer, however, discrepancies regarding the same were noted by observing that PW10-Mohd. Kasim deposed that his daughter telephoned him and informed about the demand of Rs.1 lac and beatings given by the accused to her and that 10 days prior to her death, his daughter telephonically informed him regarding the cruelty, harassment and beatings given to her by accused due to non fulfillment of this demand. The factum of this demand of Rs.1 lac for purchase of computer was not disclosed by this witness when his statement was recorded by the SDM-PW12-Sh. Pradeep Baijal and the explanation given that due to death of his daughter, he was disturbed is not a proper explanation as when he disclosed all other material facts to the SDM, he could not have forgotten this very important and recent fact which was the immediate cause of death of his daughter. Furthermore, according to him the telephone call was received by his son Mohd. Sikandar but Mohd. Sikandar did not corroborate his version by stating that he was informed by his father that the accused was demanding Rs.1 lac to purchase a computer. Further, according to the witness, the accused also demanded Rs.1 lac from Rawana Parveen, sister of the deceased and on that issue, abuses were exchanged between accused and Rawana Parveen. However, Rawana Parveen was not examined by the prosecution. Under the circumstances, prosecution has failed to prove that ‘soon before death’, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused in connection with demand of dowry. As such, the evidence fell short of proving the essential ingredients of Section 304
