Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
State - Appellant
Versus
Vishesh Chaudhary & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.A. 627/2010
Decided on : 11.08.2015
498A - Cruelty - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A/306/34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 498A IPC has been analyzed in several decisions by the courts. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish the deceased was instigated by the accused to commit suicide. The prosecution has not produced any evidence on record to establish, or even create a doubt in the mind of the Court, that the deceased suffered from depression due to the deliberate conduct, acts and omissions in the relationship between the husband and wife, or due to the demands of dowry. The specific details of any particular instance of harassment, or cruelty are missing. For the offence to come within the ambit of Section 498A IPC, harassment has to be with the definite object, namely, to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of property, or valuable security. Neither the demand of dowry has been established by the prosecution, nor has it been established that there was culpable harassment, per se. Thus, the un-natural death of the deceased cannot be held to be a consequence of the demand and consequent harassment.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the acquittal of the accused persons who were charged with offences under Section 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The deceased, Kajal, was allegedly subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws, leading to her suicide. The prosecution failed to establish the allegations of harassment and cruelty beyond a shadow of doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused persons subjected the deceased to cruelty, harassment, or instigated or abetted the commission of suicide beyond a shadow of doubt. The court also noted that the specific details of any particular instance of harassment or cruelty were missing, and the demand of dowry was not established by the prosecution.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of harassment and cruelty against the accused, the demand of dowry, and the instigation or abetment of suicide. The court also considered the sufficiency of evidence and the credibility of witnesses in establishing the charges under Section 498A/306/34 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the prosecution to substantiate the allegations of harassment, cruelty, and dowry demands with incriminating evidence. The court emphasized the specific details of any particular instance of harassment or cruelty were missing, and the demand of dowry was not established. The court also highlighted the absence of evidence to establish that the deceased suffered from depression due to the deliberate conduct, acts, and omissions in the relationship between the husband and wife, or due to the demands of dowry.
Final Decision: The court upheld the impugned judgment of the Trial Court acquitting the accused persons, stating that there was no infirmity with the judgment and that there was no merit in the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Vipin Sanghi, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.05.2008, in SC No. 29/06, arising out of F.I.R. No. 126/05, under Section 498A/306/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, acquitting the respondents of the said offence.
2. The case of the prosecution, as taken note of in the impugned judgment, is that one Dr. Subhash Arora of Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi married his daughter Kajal with accused No.1 Vishesh Chaudhary on 21.11.1997 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, Kajal shifted to her matrimonial home in Shalimar Bagh itself, along with her father-in-law Bharat Bhushan (Accused No.4), mother-in-law Nirmal Chaudhary (Accused No.5) and two younger brother-in-law namely Parichay (Accused No.3) and Amit (Accused No.2). After a few months, Kajal and her husband (accused no. 1) shifted to United States of America (USA) for a period of about three years. Two children were born to the couple while staying in USA. In 2001, Kajal and her husband returned to India, and in July 2004, they shifted to a separate house in Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi. The matrimonial life of Kajal during this period was not smooth, and on many occasions the matter had to be sorted out by the parents of Kajal with the accused no.1. The accused persons were allegedly not happy with the dowry given at the time of marriage or on other occasions, such as birth of the two children, or festivals. On 12.01.2005, Kajal was brought to her parental home where she stayed till 15.01.2005. Accused No.1, Vishesh Chaudhary took her back with an assurance that she will not be harassed any more.
3. On 31.01.2005, the parents of deceased received telephonic information that their daughter has committed suicide by hanging herself. Accordingly, the matter was reported to the police. On the basis of statement of complainant/Dr. Subhash Arora, father of deceased, a case for offence under section 498A/306/34 IPC was registered at PS Prashant Vihar vide FIR no. 126/05 (Ex. PW-3/A) dated 09.02.2005. ASI Jai Bagwan (PW-8) was the investigating officer. After carrying out the inquest proceedings, the postmortem examination was conducted upon the dead body of the deceased/Kajal. Accused No.1 Vishesh Chaudhary was arrested in this case, but other accused persons obtained anticipatory bail orders and were only formally arrested. A writing on a piece of paper allegedly in the hand of deceased Kajal was also recovered from near the body. However, no admitted piece of handwriting or signatures of deceased could be made available to the IO, so the handwriting on the note could not be compared to the handwriting of the deceased.
4. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against all accused persons under Section 498A/306/34 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 498A/306/34 IPC. All the accused pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution examined eight witnesses in support of its case. They were: PW-1, Dr. Subhash Arora (father of the deceased); PW-2, Varun Arora (brother of the deceased); PW-3, HC Joginder (Duty Officer); PW4, HC Sajjan Kumar (Photographer); PW-5, Ct. Suraj Vir Tomar (DD Writer); PW-6, Dr. Anil Sandil; PW-7, Insp. Subhash Chand; PW-8, ASI Jai Bagwan (Investigating Officer).
6. Respondents/accused led their evidence in defence and examined six witnesses. They were: DW-1, Vishesh Chaudhary; DW-2, Bharti Chaudhary (wife of Accused Parichay Chaudhary); DW-3, Kamal Kishore (photographer); DW-4, Dr. MM Mendiratta, Professor Neurology, GB Pant Hospital, Delhi; DW-5, Sudeep Yadav, Ahlmad of the court and DW-6, Raman Shangari, colleague of accused Vishesh Chaudhary.
7. The learned ASJ on an analysis of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish that the accused persons, in any manner, subjected Kajal/deceased to cruelty, or harassment, or instigated or abetted the commission of suicide, be
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
