SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Del) 4161

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI and SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
SMT. SONIA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.A. 1 of 2004
Decided On : 04-02-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. M. L. Yadav with Mr. Lokesh Chandra.
For the Respondents: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, with Ram Kishor.

The judgment emphasizes the requirement for clear and specific evidence to establish dowry harassment under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, highlighting the importance of strong and specific allegations in such cases.

Headnote:

Dowry Harassment - Indian Penal Code - Section 498-A - 304-B - 498-A, 304-B

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code for dowry harassment. The deceased was married and subjected to dowry harassment by her in-laws, leading to her suicide. The appellant's role in the harassment was contested, as she had married and moved to her matrimonial home four months prior to the incident, and there was no direct evidence of her involvement in the harassment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish specific allegations against the appellant, and the evidence against her was weak, vague, and general in nature. The court set aside the judgment against the appellant and allowed the appeal.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the appellant's involvement in the dowry harassment and the sufficiency of evidence against her.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for clear and specific evidence to establish dowry harassment under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Vague and general allegations were deemed insufficient to convict the appellant.

Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment against the appellant and allowed the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. Present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 06.12.2003 and order on sentence dated 10.12.2003 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. The facts of this case, as noticed by the Trial Court, are as under:

“2. The brief facts of the case as made out from the record are that deceased was married to accused Deepak Srivastava on 07.12.1996 at 9, Mahila Colony, Delhi-110031 as per Hindu rites and customs. In the marriage, she was given a large number of dowry articles including three kilogram of silver jewellery, 40 tola gold jewellery, a Maruti-car, fridge, colour T.V., V.C.R., household furnitures and several other items. Sh. Roop Kishore Srivastava, father of the deceased spent around Rs.12,50,000/- (Rs. twelve lacs fifty thousand only) in the marriage.

3. For two months, the deceased remained quite well at her matrimonial house. Thereafter accused Deepak Srivastava, Rajinder Srivastava, Veena Srivastava, Jitender Srivastava, Poonam Srivastava and Sonia Srivastava started harassing her for bringing a Maruti 800 car in marriage and taunted her that it was humiliation for them and she ought to have brought ‘Maruti Esteem car’ in the marriage. They all started finding fault with other articles brought by her in marriage. They also taunted her that nothing has been given to their relatives by the parents of the deceased.

4. Thereafter father of the deceased gave the accused Rs.10,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.25,000/- on different dates. On the wedding anniversary of the deceased, her father sent Rs.11,000/-, but accused Rajinder, Jitender and others asked that Rs.51,000/- ought to have been sent. In the marriage of accused Sonia in February 1999, the parents of the deceased sent Rs.15,000/- and one golden ring, but the accused humiliated Sh. Dalip Srivastava brother of deceased stating that they had only one daughter and at least Rs.50,000/- ought to have been sent. The accused would not allow the deceased to speak to her family members nor would they allow her to make a telephone call. The harassment of the deceased continued thereafter. On 23rd of February 1998, accused Rajinder, Deepak and Jitender along with the deceased came to her parental house and demanded Rs. Two lacs for getting a business started for accused Deepak Srivastava. However, Sh. Roop Kishore Srivastava father of the deceased, expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount, but asked for sometime to pay the same. Thereafter all the accused persons along with Arti returned to her matrimonial house. The demand for Rs. Two lacs continued thereafter.

5. On 29th May 1998, accused Deepak came to her parental house and left her down-stairs asking her to take Rs. Two lacs from her parents. The deceased informed her family members about this demand. In the evening accused Deepak Srivastava came to her parental house and demanded Rs. Two lacs, but the amount was not paid and thereafter accused Deepak Srivastava left the parental house of the deceased leaving her there. The father and brothers of the deceased tried to reason with accused Deepak Srivastava and expressed their inability and also regretted their inability to pay the amount, but to no use. In the evening, they took Arti to her matrimonial house and again tried to assure the accused persons that the amount would be paid, but sought sometime. Accused Deepak Srivastava, Rajinder Srivastava, Veena Srivastava, Jitender Srivastava, and Poonam Srivastava were adamant and stated that by not paying the amount, they had dug a well for the deceased. They left the deceased at her matrimonial house. On 30.05.1998, Sh. Dalip Srivastava brother of the deceased, made a telephonic call at her matrimonial house and he was informed that the deceased was lying unconscious up-stairs. Father of the deceased along with ot































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top