The judgment establishes the importance of evidence related to dowry harassment, demand for dowry, and the circumstances leading to the victim's death in cases under Section 498-A/306/34 of IPC.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 05.07.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/306/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.), and order on sentence dated 07.07.2000, whereby the appellant – Tilak Rathore has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 498-A/34 of IPC and in default of payment to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 306 IPC. As regards appellant – Sangeeta is concerned, she has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 498-A/34 of IPC and in default of payment to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant – Sangeeta was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

2. The factual matrix that emerges from the record is that the marriage of deceased Suman was solemnized with the appellant – Tilak Rathore on 30.04.1998 and after about six months, on 11.01.1999, she was found to be hanging from the ceiling fan. An information with this respect was recorded vide DD No.7A (Ex.PW-9/A). Sub-Inspector Ravi Kumar alongwith constable Maman Singh went to the spot and found from the window of the room that one lady was hanging with ceiling fan with a rope. The said room was bolted from inside. SDM was informed by Sub-Inspector Ravi Kumar. Door of the room was forcibly opened and place of occurrence was photographed and the spot was inspected by the crime team. Dead body was brought down from the ceiling fan, inquest proceedings were completed by the SDM and accordingly FIR (Ex.PW-8/A) was registered. SDM recorded the statements of the parents of deceased. It was stated that the deceased was being harassed and tortured by both the appellants due to which the deceased had committed suicide. Appellant – Tilak Rathore was arrested and appellant – Sangeeta was formally arrested, as she had obtained anticipatory bail in the case.

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court. Charge under Section 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC was framed against both the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. To bring home the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. They are father of deceased-Nanhe Rathore (PW-1); mother of the deceased-Smt. Sheela (PW-2); Constable Hans Raj (PW-3); Mr. Attar Singh Dabas, SDM (PW-4); Dr. L.C. Gupta, Police Mortuary (PW-5), Sub-Inspector Mohar Singh, Crime Team (PW-6); Constable Maman Singh (PW-7); Head Constable Bishamber Singh (PW-8), and Sub-Inspector Ravi Kumar (PW-9).

5. The statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the appellants have examined two witnesses in their defence, i.e., Mr. Ramesh Chand (DW-1) and Ms. Manju (DW-2).

6. After considering the facts, evidence led and the material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellants guilty for an offence punishable under Section 498-A/306/34 of IPC vide judgment and order on sentence, as mentioned above.

7. The appellants have filed the instant appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment on conviction as well as order on sentence. During pendency of the present appeal, the sentence imposed upon the appellants was suspended vide order dated 07.08.2000.

GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE

8. There are material contradictions between the main witnesses i.e., father a