2014 Supreme(Del) 3300
DELHI HIGH COURT
S. Muralidhar, J.
Sanjay - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Resopndent
Crl. A. No. 577 of 2010
Decided On : 18-12-2014
For the Respondent: Ms. Isha Khanna, APP.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for conclusive evidence of harassment in connection with the demand for dowry to establish the offence under Section 304B IPC.
Headnote:
Dowry - Criminal Law - IPC 304B, IPC 498A
Fact of the Case:
The appeal is by Sanjay, Accused No. 1, against the judgment convicting him for the offences under Section 304B IPC and Section 498A IPC. The deceased Rekha was allegedly harassed for dowry and subsequently died under suspicious circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court acquitted the Appellant of the offence under Section 304B IPC due to lack of conclusive evidence, but upheld the guilt of the Appellant for the offence under Section 498A IPC.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the harassment of the deceased for dowry, the cause of her death, and the applicability of Section 304B IPC and Section 498A IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for conclusive evidence of harassment in connection with the demand for dowry to establish the offence under Section 304B IPC. It also highlighted the importance of proving the death occurring 'otherwise than under normal circumstances'.
Final Decision: The Appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 304B IPC but was held guilty of the offence under Section 498A IPC.
S. Muralidhar, J.:--
1. The present appeal is by Sanjay, Accused No. 1, the husband of the deceased Rekha, against the judgment dated 21st April 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’) in SC No. 129 of 2009 convicting him for the offences under Section 304B IPC and Section 498A IPC and the order on sentence dated 26th April 2010 whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) for 10 years for the offence under Section 304B IPC and simple imprisonment (‘SI’) for 1 year along-with fine of Rs. 3,000 and in default to undergo SI for 3 months for the offence under Section 498A IPC.
2. It must be noted at the outset that as per the nominal roll dated 9th October 2014, the Appellant has already served 4 years 7 months and 11 days in imprisonment and also earned remission of 1 year 4 months and 3 days.
3. The deceased Rekha was married to Sanjay on 15th February 2004 and all was well for the first 2 to 3 months. According to Ram Bhool Singh (PW-6), the father of deceased, after three months of marriage Rekha visited their house with Sanjay and she was looking weak. When asked, Rekha told them she was being harassed by Sanjay and both her parents-in-law. Rekha told them they used to point out defects in the dowry articles and used to taunt her for not giving a motorcycle in dowry.
4. PW-6 stated that at the time of marriage, he had given dowry worth Rs. 1.5 lakhs. Rekha told them that she was doing all the household work from morning till night. She requested PW-6 to take her back to the parental house since all the accused persons taunted her. PW-6 further stated that Rekha’s father-in-law (the father of the Appellant) (who was Accused No. 3) had told PW-6 that they should be given one last chance to show their bona fides and nothing as apprehended by Rekha would happen. On the said assurance, PW-6 permitted Rekha to continue staying in the matrimonial house. After about 1½ months i.e. on 3rd July 2005, A-3 gave PW-6 a telephone call stating that the Appellant and Rekha were fighting with each other. PW-6 was called to the matrimonial house. According to PW-6, the call was received at around 11.30 am. PW-6 was apparently not present at that time and reached home at around 4.30 pm when his grand-daughter Seema informed him about the said telephone call. PW-6 then asked his son Rajesh (PW-9) to call A-3 to tell him that since it was a dispute between husband and wife it was not appropriate for them to visit their house every time. PW-9 then called up A-3 and asked A-3 to make the Appellant and Rekha understand.
5. PW-6 stated that on 3rd July 2005 itself at 11.30 pm, A-3 again called PW-6 to inform him that Rekha had died and they should take away her dead body. PW-6 along with his wife Krishna (PW-10), son Rajesh (PW-9), the neighbour Brahmanand (PW-5) and certain others visited the matrimonial home of Rekha and found her dead body on the ground floor. According to PW-6, for about 15 minutes none of the accused persons came downstairs and A-3 was called by someone. When PW-6 questioned A-3 as to how Rekha had died, A-3 replied that since she was suffering from loose motions she had died. Thereafter PWs-6, 9 and certain others went to the Police Station (‘PS’) Vasant Vihar and lodged a report. The statement of PW-6 (Ex.PW-6/A) was recorded. The police then accompanied them to the mortuary of Safdarjung Hospital. The statement of PW-6 was recorded in the presence of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (‘SDM’) R. Chopra (PW-14). The SDM also met the Appellant and recorded his statement (Ex.PW-4/C-5). The SDM carried out the inquest proceedings.
6. It appears that the Appellant and his parents i.e. A-2 and A-3 took Rekha first to Dr. Ashok Kumar (PW-1) for treatment on that very day. According to PW-1, Rekha told him that she was feeling like vomiting and had been given some medicine by her in-laws and her husband. PW-1 then referred them to the Safdarjung Hospital without giving Rekha any treatment. He