Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA, R.K. GAUBA, JJ.
Pushpender Singh and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A.160, 287 & 569/2015
Decided on : 12-10-2015
The Supreme Court held that the offense of dowry death (Section 304-B IPC) is not a substitute for the offense of culpable homicide (Section 299 IPC) but both are not mutually exclusive and may co-exist. Death in the case of culpable homicide is also an unnatural death brought about otherwise than under normal circumstances. Thus, if the evidence proves that the married woman had been subjected to culpable homicide by the perpetrator (say the husband) within seven years of her marriage for, or in connection with the demands for dowry on which account the husband and his relatives had treated her with cruelty or harassment soon before the occurrence, they can be convicted for the two separate offenses, the husband on the charge of culpable homicide (Sections 302 or 304 IPC as may apply in the case) and the relatives on the charge of dowry death (under Section 304-B IPC).
Fact of the Case:
The deceased Meena, a married woman, died under suspicious circumstances in her matrimonial home. The prosecution alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws for dowry, leading to her death. The husband and in-laws were charged with murder (Section 302 IPC), dowry death (Section 304-B IPC), and cruelty (Section 498-A IPC).
Finding of the Court:
The trial court convicted the husband and one of the in-laws for murder and acquitted the other in-laws. It also convicted all the accused for cruelty and dowry death. On appeal, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals and partly dismissed them.
Issues: 1. Whether the offense of dowry death (Section 304-B IPC) is a substitute for the offense of culpable homicide (Section 299 IPC)? 2. Whether both offenses can co-exist? 3. Whether the husband and in-laws can be convicted for both offenses if the evidence proves that the married woman was subjected to culpable homicide by the husband within seven years of her marriage for, or in connection with, the demands for dowry?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The offense of dowry death (Section 304-B IPC) is not a substitute for the offense of culpable homicide (Section 299 IPC). 2. Both offenses are not mutually exclusive and may co-exist. 3. If the evidence proves that the married woman had been subjected to culpable homicide by the perpetrator (say the husband) within seven years of her marriage for, or in connection with, the demands for dowry on which account the husband and his relatives had treated her with cruelty or harassment soon before the occurrence, they can be convicted for the two separate offenses, the husband on the charge of culpable homicide (Sections 302 or 304 IPC as may apply in the case) and the relatives on the charge of dowry death (under Section 304-B IPC).
Final Decision: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals and partly dismissed them. The conviction of the husband and one of the in-laws for murder was upheld. The acquittal of the other in-laws was also upheld. The conviction of all the accused for cruelty and dowry death was upheld. However, the conviction of the husband and the in-law for dowry death was set aside as they were already convicted for murder, which is a more serious offense.
R.K. Gauba, J.
1. By judgment dated 25.11.2014 in sessions case no. 83/2009, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (North) found the appellant-Ravinder (Crl.A.287/2015) guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for the murder of his wife Meena. By the same judgment, the said appellant-Ravinder alongwith four others viz. Pushpender, Phoolwati, Babu Lal and R. Harshinder (appellants in Crl.A.No.160/2015), were held guilty on the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 IPC, committed against Meena. The said four appellants (Crl.A.No.160/2015) had also stood trial with appellant Ravinder on the charge under Section 302/34 IPC, of which they were acquitted. By order dated 08.01.2015, the learned trial court awarded imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 25,000/- to Ravinder (A-1). Each of the appellants was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for ten years with fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offences under Section 304-B/34 IPC and R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.25,000/- each for offence under Section 498-A/34 IPC with further direction that in case of default in payment of fine they would undergo R.I. for six months and three months respectively.
2. The two criminal appeals (Nos. 160/2015 and 287/2015) have been preferred by the convicted persons to assail the aforesaid judgment and order on sentence. The acquittal (of the appellants in criminal appeal No.160/2015) on the charge for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC has been challenged by Mani Ram (father of the deceased Meena) by independent appeal no.569/2015.
3. Meena, daughter of Mani Ram (PW-3) and Gyanwati (PW-6), got married to appellant-Ravinder (accused No.1) on 20.06.1999. A male child (named “Harry”) took birth out of this wedlock on 26.08.2000. On 27.04.2001, at 0055 hours, First Information Report (FIR) No.129/2001 was registered (vide Ex.PW-9/A), at the instance of Meena, by Police Station Civil Lines (Delhi) for investigation into offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Allegations were made in the said FIR by Meena about she having been subjected to cruelty by her husband Ravinder (accused no.1) and his two brothers, namely, Pushpender Singh (accused no.2) and R. Harshinder (accused no.4) during her stay in the matrimonial home described as H.No.252 Old Chandrawal, Civil Lines, Delhi.
4. On conclusion of investigation into the said FIR dated 27.04.2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the first FIR”), report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was submitted. It resulted in trial of the Ravinder (accused no. 1), his father Babu Lal (accused no. 4), his mother Phoolwati (accused no.3) and Pushpender (accused no. 2) on the charge for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Delhi. Meena, when called for evidence (as prosecution witness No.1), in that case, however, refused to confirm the allegations in the FIR and made a statement, on 21.10.2003, expressing that she did not want to proceed with the case any further and that she had no grievance against the said accused persons, adding that the complaint (leading to the FIR) had been made by her “out of frustration and anger” and that she had been living “separately” with her husband and the child “happily” for the preceding two months. The learned Magistrate drew curtain on the said criminal case and, by her judgment dated 21.10.2003, directed that all the accused persons be “discharged”.
5. On the night intervening 28 and 29.05.2004, Meena, then carrying a pregnancy (of seven months), suffered homicidal death in House No. 38, Pocket-6, Sector-A5, Policy Colony, Narela, which is residential accommodation allotted to her husband (appellant-Ravinder), her dead body having been discovered sometime around 0820 hours on 29.05.2004, lying in a pool of blood on the floor of the room at the ground floor, her throat slit with a sharp edged we
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
