Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S.P. GARG, J.
PARVEEN KUMAR & ORS. - Appellants
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRL.A. 662, 841, 847 of 2014
Decided On : 20-02-2017
For the Appellants :Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr. Avinish Rana & Mr. Ajay P. Tushir, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP.
The cancellation of an alternate charge after evidence is led is not permissible in law, and the court has a duty to correct such errors.
Headnote:
Dowry Death - Criminal Law - IPC 304B/498A/34 - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case of dowry harassment leading to the death of the victim. The court found the appellants guilty under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC, but did not give any findings on the alternative charge under Section 302/34 IPC, which was deemed a grave error by the High Court. The judgment cites precedents to emphasize that the cancellation of an alternate charge after evidence is led is not permissible in law, and that the court has a duty to correct such errors. The matter was sent back to the Trial Court for disposal on merits and to give findings on the alternative charge framed under Sections 302/34 IPC too.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the victim died due to dowry harassment, and the appellants were found guilty under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC. However, the Trial Court did not give any findings on the alternative charge under Section 302/34 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court's failure to give findings on the alternative charge under Section 302/34 IPC was deemed a grave error by the High Court, and the matter was sent back to the Trial Court for disposal on merits and to give findings on the alternative charge framed under Sections 302/34 IPC too.
Issues: Failure of the Trial Court to give findings on the alternative charge under Section 302/34 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The cancellation of an alternate charge after evidence is led is not permissible in law, and the court has a duty to correct such errors.
Final Decision: The matter was sent back to the Trial Court for disposal on merits and to give findings on the alternative charge framed under Sections 302/34 IPC too.
S.P. GARG, J.
1. The instant appeals have been preferred by the appellants – Parveen Kumar, Ramesh Chander and Ajay Kumar to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 30.04.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.23/2013 arising out of FIR No.88/2011 PS BHD Nagar by which they were held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 304B/498A/34 IPC. By an order dated 05.05.2014, they were sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs.10,000/- each under Section 304B/34 IPC and RI for three years with fine Rs.2,000/- each under Section 498A/34 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that Meenakshi (since deceased) was married to Ajay on 19.04.2010. Her death took place in the matrimonial home on 16.05.2011. In her statement (Ex.PW-3/A) Laxmi – victim’s mother informed that on 16.05.2011 at around 08.00 p.m. she got a telephone call from Ajay, her son-in-law, informing that Meenakshi had fallen from the stairs. Before their reaching the hospital i.e. Ortho Hospital, Gopal Nagar, Meenakshi had already expired. She levelled allegations of harassment on account of dowry demands against the appellants. In his statement (Ex.PW-5/A) Sunil – victim’s brother alleged that his sister used to be given beatings during her stay in the matrimonial home.
3. During investigation, post-mortem examination of the body was conducted. As per post-mortem report (Ex.PW-6/A) dated 17.05.2011 prepared by PW-6 (Dr. Pervinder Singh) external injuries numbering 19 in all were found on the victim’s various body organs, including vital ones. On internal examination, it was observed :
“(1) Peritoneal cavity contained clotted blood.
(2) Left lobe of liver was lacerated.
(3) Effusion of blood present under the scalp over frontal region of skull. Sub dural and sub arachnoid haemorrhage present over left temporal lobe of brain in an area of 4.5 X 4.5 c.m. Contusion present over left temporal lobe of brain in an area of 4.5 X 4.5 c.m.”
Death was opined due to haemorrhage and shock along with cranio cerebral damage (head injury) consequent to multiple injuries described. All the injuries were opined ante-mortem caused by hard blunt force impact (object). These were found collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
4. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A/302/304B/34 IPC. By an order dated 15.09.2011, charge under Sections 498A/304B/302/34 IPC was ordered to be framed against the appellants.
5. Charge framed on 19.10.2011 against the appellants reads as under :
“That on or before 16.05.2011, at your house at RZ-B 204, Gopal Nagar Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Baba Haridas Nagar, you all the accused, subjected Smt. Meenakshi (deceased) w/o accused Ajay Kumar, to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and you all thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 498A IPC read with Section 34 IPC and within the cognizance of this court.
Secondly on 16.05.2011 at about 11.00 p.m., at RZ-B 204, Gopal Nagar Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Baba Haridass Nagar, Smt. Meenakshi (since deceased) was found dead otherwise than under normal circumstances within the span of seven years of her marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demands of dowry by you, in furtherance of common intention of you all and you all thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 304-B/34 IPC and within the cognizance of this court.
Or in alternative, on the aforesaid date and place, you all, in furtherance of your common intention committed murder of Smt. Meenakshi (deceased) W/o accused Ajay Kumar and thereby committed an offence of murder punishable U/s 302/34 IPC and within the cognizance of this court.
And I hereby direct that you all be tried for the aforesaid offences
