The seriousness of crimes against women and the need for harsh punishment, as well as the direction to frame an alternate charge under Section 302 IPC in addition to the charge under Section 304-B IPC.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 16.08.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi convicting the appellant-Rajesh Kumar Jain for the offence punishable under Section 498A/304-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) and order on sentence dated 18.08.2000, whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 498A IPC and in default of payment of fine the appellant was to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

2. Factual matrix emerging from the record is that the present case was registered on the basis of the statement of Dr. P.K. Jain, father of the deceased. In his statement made to the SDM, Dr. P.K. Jain had stated that his daughter Sunita was going to become a doctor. Marriage between Sunita and accused Rajesh Kumar Jain was solemnized on 02.05.1993 and on 29.06.1993, Sunita died. It was alleged that death of the deceased was not an accidental death but was a murder. It was further alleged that the father of the deceased got suspicious about the death of his daughter on seeing her dead body and thus he insisted on post mortem of the dead body. After post mortem, the cause of death of deceased was given as asphyxia resulting from manual smothering and strangulation. It was also alleged that the engagement between the deceased and accused was performed on 10.11.1992 and thereafter accused complained to the complainant and to his deceased daughter that the ring given to him and gold chain given to his mother were of light weight. On 27.04.1993, during Teeka ceremony, the complainant gave Rs.51,000/- cash to the accused, one gold chain and ring besides clothes to him and his family members. On 28.04.1993, the accused had made a telephonic call and demanded from the son of the complainant a Hero Honda motorcycle and VCR. Next day, the complainant telephoned the accused and informed that he would be unable to give the motorcycle and VCR demanded and that they had already purchased gold jewellery and his budget had been exhausted. It was further alleged that when Sunil, brother of the deceased Sunita went to bring her, he found her sad and on asking her about the same he was informed that the accused complained to her many times about the dowry given being inadequate and of sub-standard. On 07.05.1993, Sunil brought Sunita to Bhopal and accused also accompanied them and at that time, accused was made to understand and he assured that he would not harass Sunita in the future. Thereafter, on one occasion Sunita was admitted in Mool Chand Hospital, New Delhi and during conversation, she informed her father that accused used to treat her inhumanly. On 29.06.1993, some friend of accused rang up the father of the deceased and informed about Sunita’s death. When complainant made a telephonic call to the hospital, he was asked to come to Delhi. On 30.06.1993, complainant along with his wife and son Anil reached Delhi at Mool Chand Hospital, where he was told that Sunita died as a result of electric shock, whereas uncle of accused told him that Sunita had died due to a sudden fall caused by weakness. When complainant went inside the room of Sunita, he noticed a big spot of blood on the floor. When complainant insisted on seeing the dead body of Sunita, he was asked by the accused and his uncle to first go to the police station and make a statement that there was no dispute between the parties and that he did not wish to get the post mortem on the dead body. Thereafter, on seeing the dead body of Sunita, the complainant noticed that her face was swollen, there were injury marks and blood and froth were coming out from her nose. The complainant subsequently wrote a letter to SDM that his daughter had been mu