The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the demand for money in relation to the charges under Section 498A and 304B IPC, and the influence of medical evidence on the court's decision.

Sanjiv Khanna, J.

State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 20th December, 2010 passed by District Judge-VIII, Additional Sessions Judge and Incharge of Rohini Courts, in SC No. 82/2010 titled State versus Sanjay and Another arising out of FIR No. 691/2006, Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi. By the impugned judgment, the accused Sanjay (hereinafter referred to as A-1) has been convicted under Section 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). However, accused No. A-1 and other accused, namely, Jagdish Prasad, Sonu and Bishan Devi (hereinafter referred to as A-2 to A-4) have been acquitted of the charges under Section 304-B/302/34 IPC. A-2 to A-4 have also been acquitted under Sections 498-A/34 IPC.

2. The case pertains to death of Gudiya, wife of A-1, on 10th September, 2006. On the said date, she was brought to DDU Hospital and, on examination, she was declared to have been “brought dead” vide MLC (Ex. PW-13/A) which has been proved by Dr. Ashok Arora, CMO, DDU Hospital, written by Dr. Ishwar, who had since left the hospital. The MLC records that, as told, the injuries have been sustained by the deceased apparently due to fall from height.

3. The prosecution has alleged that the deceased was murdered and in support of the case, had relied upon statements of Sarla (PW-1) mother of deceased Gudiya, Suraj Pal (PW-2) father of deceased and the neighbor/landlord Meena (PW-3). We may, however, note that some of the neighbours- Babita (PW-4), Raman Sharma (PW-6), Vineeta (PW-7) and Preeti (PW-9)- have not fully supported the prosecution case. The prosecution has also relied upon statement of K.K. Sharma, SDM, Patel Nagar, who was examined as PW-5.

4. We are not examining, in detail and depth, the witnesses’ statement, in view of the order of remand which we shall now be passing. Detailed examination and consideration of the said statements will cause prejudice to the parties. The Court is passing the order of remand for reasons stated below;

5. In paragraph 31 of the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has recorded as under:-

“31. It is admitted case of the parties that deceased Gudia was married to accused Sanjay and PW-1 Mrs Sarla and PW-2 Suraj Pal are her parents. It is also not disputed that the death of Gudia occurred within seven years of her marriage with accused Sanjay. It is also not disputed that the victim Gudia died due to fall from the roof though there is dispute as to how she fell down. According to prosecution, she was thrown by the accused persons from the roof while, as per the case of the accused persons and the defence, she jumped from the roof herself and committed suicide as she was having problems from her parental side and not from the accused persons or in matrimonial home.” (emphasis supplied)

6. The Trial Court, Paragraph 33 onwards in the impugned judgment, has examined the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC. While examining the said charge, the Trial Court has dealt with the question of whether the deceased was thrown by the accused from the roof or she had jumped from the roof herself and committed suicide. After considering the evidence, the Trial Court has, in paragraph 35, recorded the findings that there was no direct evidence and no eyewitnesses to prove that they had seen the accused persons, individually or collectively, throwing Gudiya from the roof to the ground and causing her death. It observed that, in the present case, there was no weapon of offence involved and there was no direct or substantive evidence to implicate that the accused had pushed the deceased from the roof top. It records:-

“35. .…The fact that there was demand of money from the victim or her parents is remote cause for inferring the commission of offence under Section 302 IPC by the accused persons though it may be relevant and is to be analysed in relation to the charge under Section 304B/498A IPC.”

7. Thereafter, the Trial Court has examined the charge under Section 304B and, as noticed