Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 4488
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
P.S.TEJI, J.
RAMESH CHANDER – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.A. No.526 of 2002
Decided On : 21-12-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.K. Grover
For the Respondent: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, Arun Kumar
Headnote:
304B IPC - Dowry Death - [304B IPC] - The court discussed the necessary ingredients of dowry death under Section 304B IPC and emphasized the need to establish cruelty or harassment soon before the death of the woman. The prosecution failed to prove the chain of necessary ingredients to raise the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted of the charge framed against him.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 304B IPC for causing the dowry death of his wife. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demand by the appellant and his relatives, leading to her suicide by burning herself. The appellant challenged the conviction on various grounds, including lack of specific allegations and inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' statements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant for or in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death. The evidence led by the prosecution was deemed insufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant under Section 304B IPC.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to prove cruelty or harassment for dowry demand, the reliability of prosecution witnesses' testimony, and the failure to establish the necessary ingredients of dowry death under Section 304B IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death. It highlighted the importance of specific allegations and the chain of necessary ingredients to raise the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and order on sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge framed against him. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, and the appellant's bail bonds and surety bonds were discharged.
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 11.07.2002 convicting the appellant finding him guilty under Section 304B IPC and order on sentence dated 12.07.2002 vide which the appellant was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304B IPC, the present appeal has been preferred.
2. The factual matrix emerges from the record is that the FIR No.403.1987, under Section 304B/34 IPC, Police Station Tilak Nagar was registered on the basis of statement made by the complainant Naresh Kumar. He had stated that the marriage of his sister Renu was solemnized with the appellant Ramesh Chander on 16.08.1986 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Initially, his sister did not say anything but she was found to be unsatisfied. After some months of marriage, she stated that she was harassed by her in-laws. She also stated that she was taunted for bringing insufficient dowry by her husband and in-laws. Ultimately, Renu committed suicide by burning herself which resulted into registration of FIR of the instant case. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.
3. Charge under Sections 304B read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution had examined as many as sixteen witnesses namely PW1 Naresh Kumar, PW2 SI Ajit Singh, PW3 SI Rampat, PW4 HC Ishwar Singh, PW5 Kanwal Nain Narang, PW6 Shyam Sunder, PW7 HC Vikram Prasad, PW8 Promila Budhiraja, PW9 Insp. Devender Singh, PW10 ASI Jai Bhagwan, PW11 HC Sheo Ram, PW12 Lajpat Rai, PW13, HC Gajraj Singh, PW14 SI Bhim Singh, PW15 Mahinder Kumar and PW16 Insp. Gurdev Singh. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
4. So far other co-accused Munshi Ram and Kanta Rani are concerned, proceedings against them were abated since they died during the pendency of trial.
5. The appellant was held guilty vide judgment of conviction dated 11.07.2002 and passed the order on sentence on 12.07.2002.
GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE
(a) The impugned judgment is contrary to law and facts.
(b) There is no legal evidence against the appellant to convict under Section 304-B IPC.
(c) There was no earlier complaint regarding any demand or harassment for dowry against the appellant.
(d) There was no charge under Section 498A IPC, as such his conviction under Section 304-B IPC is bad in law.
(e) Medical evidence does not support the case of prosecution.
(f) No evidence that soon before her death, the deceased was subject to cruelty or harassment for dowry.
(g) There is delay in lodging the FIR which has not been explained.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the allegations levelled against the appellant are general in nature. In the entire FIR, there is no specific allegation. The complainant has not given any specific date and time on which alleged demand of dowry was made from the deceased or her parents. The allegations are general in nature which cannot be made a ground to convict the appellant. It was further submitted that there are inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which makes their testimony unworthy of credence. There is no evidence on record to show that there was any cruelty or harassment to the deceased on account of demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased.
7. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments in the case of Suraj Mal v. The State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1979 SC 1408, Rakesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1999 Cri.L.J. 4915, Meka Ramaswamy v. Dasari Mohan and others 1998 Cri.L.J. 1105, State v. Sohan Lal & Ors. 2011 (3) JCC 1966 and Durga Prasad v. State of M.P. 2010 (3) JCC 1852.
8. Per contra, arguments advanced by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State is that the appellant has been rightly held guilty under Sections 304B IPC by the trial court. The parents as well as other relatives of the deceased have duly supported the case of
