The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sections 498A/306 IPC in the context of matrimonial disputes, evidence of physical and mental cruelty, and abetment of suicide.

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 05.10.2013 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.82/2013 arising out of FIR No.395/2010 PS Shalimar Bagh whereby the appellant – Vikas Mehta was convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A/306 IPC. By an order dated 26.10.2013, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs. 10,000/-under Section 306 IPC and RI for three years with fine Rs. 5,000/-under Section 498A IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are that on 15.11.2010 at around 01.00 p.m., the victim Neha married to the appellant Vikas Mehta as per Hindu rites and customs on 02.11.2009 committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan. The intimation was conveyed to the police by the appellant himself and DD No.20A (Ex.PW-5/A) came into existence at around 03.15 p.m. The investigation was assigned to SI Rajan Pal who along with Const.Durga Dass went to the spot i.e. 2nd floor of House No.197, Gali No.2, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Crime team visited the spot at around 04.30 – 05.00 p.m. Victim’s parents arrived at the spot. The body was sent to mortuary BJRN Hospital for post-mortem examination.

3. On 16.11.2010, the Executive Magistrate recorded statements of the victim’s mother – PW-9 (Neeru) and that of her father – PW-14 (Baldev Raj Bhardwaj). FIR under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC was registered. During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The appellant, his parents and sister were arrested. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against all of them in the court for the commission of the aforesaid offences. To prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the accused persons denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court convicted the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A/306 IPC. It is pertinent to note that other accused persons – Jeet Lal Mehta and Asha Rani (victim’s in-laws) and Sweety @ Suman Mehta (victim’s sister-in-law) were acquitted of the charges. The appellant was also acquitted of the charge under Section 304B IPC. State did not challenge their acquittal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied for conviction under Section 498A/306 IPC, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant’s counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. No independent public witness was associated at any stage of investigation though the victim had access to her neighbours. The appellant himself had gone to the Police Station to convey the occurrence; her parents were duly informed. The injuries found on the victim’s body were not sufficient to cause her death. Possibility of suffering bruise on her body during struggle at the time of hanging herself cannot be ruled out. There was no harassment whatsoever to the deceased on account of any demand of dowry. Learned APP urged that there are no valid reasons to disbelieve the statements of the victim’s parents who had no extraneous consideration to implicate the appellant.

5. Admitted position is that victim Neha was married to the appellant on 02.11.2009. She committed suicide on 15.11.2010 at her matrimonial home i.e. 2nd floor of House No.197, Gali No.2, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. It is also not disputed that initially the victim and the appellant were residing at House No.RZF 38, New Roshanpura, Najafgarh. Subsequently, they shifted to the house bearing No. 197, Gali No.2, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, owned by PW-1 (Jatin Chaudhary). In his testimony before the Court, Jatin Chaudhary disclosed that the premises in question were let out to the appellant on a monthly rent of R