The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of dying declarations and the application of legal principles related to abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

Pratibha Rani, J. (Oral);—

1. “Frailty thy name is women” said Hamlet, being angry that his mother, Gertrude, had married his uncle Claudius within a month of his father’s death. The speech generalizes the attribution of weakness from one particular woman to womankind.

2. Sneh, the deceased, reminds us of the weakness of a woman who, in the prime of her youth, set herself ablaze on not being able to bear harassment at the hands of her husband and her mother-in-law. The decision to end life was not taken in anger or haste. Love for her child, a daughter, made her think time and again to reconsider the decision to put an end to her misery by taking the extreme step. A diary written by her in her own hand has enabled us to understand her state of mind and the mental stress she withstood. She took almost 2½ months (date of incident 11.07.1996) to give a cool thought before handing over her body to fire and leave her infant daughter at the mercy of her tormentors, but mercifully the young infant girl has found safety in the house of her maternal uncle and as she stands before us in Court today, we find a young girl in her mid teens, full of vigour and zest in life. Having spoken to the young girl named Himanshi, we are proud of her courage and wish her all the best.

3. To be fair to Himanshi’s grand father, on the last date of hearing, he had volunteered to give Rs. 4 lacs to her and today, as recorded in the separate order, the grand father has given a bankers cheque drawn in the name of Himanshi in sum of Rs. 4 lacs and in respect of which we have passed directions that the money would be invested in a fixed deposit till Himanshi attains the age of 21 years.

4. The appellants; Sheela Devi (mother-in-law), Sunil Kumar (husband) and Sanjiv Kumar (brother-in-law i.e. Devar) of the deceased Sneh, are impugning the judgment dated 15.03.1999 and order on sentence dated 17.03.1999 convicting them for having committed offenses punishable under Sections 498-A/302/34 IPC. They have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of Rs.1000/- each for the offence punishable under Sec.302/34 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay fine in sum of Rs.1000/- each for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A/34 IPC.

4. Sneh (deceased) was admitted at Safdarjung Hospital by her husband Sunil on 11.07.1996 at about 8.00 AM, with 75% burns. The duty Constable at Safdarjung Hospital informed the concerned Police Station Malviya Nagar vide DD No.8-A which was assigned to ASI Shalu Singh.

5. ASI Shalu Singh along with staff reached the hospital and obtained certification from the doctor regarding fitness of Sneh to make statement. On not being able to contact any SDM, he ostensibly recorded the statement Ex.PW13/2 of Sneh and got the FIR registered for offences punishable under Sec.498-A/307/34 IPC. Statement of Sneh was recorded by the SDM on 13.07.1996 and in the wee hours on 14.07.1996 at 3.15 AM, she was declared dead and thereafter the additional offence pertaining to Section 302 IPC was added in the FIR.

6. Relying on the testimonies of PW-3 Sh.Charan Singh, PW-5 Sh.Navin, PW-6 Sh.Jai Narain, PW-8 Sh.Anil and PW-11 Sh.Naresh Kumar – acquaintance and close family members of the deceased before whom oral dying declarations were statedly made by the deceased and the two dying declarations Ex.PW13/2 and Ex.PW14/1, the learned Additional Sessions judge has convicted the appellants for committing offence punishable under Section 498-A/302/34 IPC. The co-accused Santosh Kumar (father-in-law) and Sunita (sister-in-law i.e. Nanad) were acquitted because no incriminating evidence surfaced against them.

7. Noting that two neighbours, Shri Dharambir PW-1 and Smt.Pushpa PW-2 did not support the case of the prosecution with respect to the stated dying declaration made by the deceased to them, we proceed to note the tes