: Analysis of evidence and legal provisions led to partial allowance of appeal.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. Since all the three appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order on sentence passed, they are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The instant appeals have been filed being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 28.02.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 and Section 306/34 IPC and order on sentence dated 04.03.2002. All the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment under Section 498-A IPC for a period of two years each with a fine of Rs .500/- each and in default of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. Appellant Sohanlal along with appellant Rajesh were further sentenced to undergo imprisonment under Section 306 for a period of five years and further a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default further simple imprisonment of 6 months. Appellant Rukma, with respect to offence under Section 306 IPC, was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default one month simple imprisonment.

3. The factual matrix that emerges from the record is that the deceased Sandhya was married with the appellant Rajesh Kumar on 02.04.1982 and subsequently two children were born out of this wedlock. Initially, the behavior of all accused persons was fine with respect to the deceased but thereafter, they started demanding money and the father of the deceased, Devi Lal (complainant in the present matter) gave Rs. 70,000/- but there was further demand of Rs. 50,000/-. On 05.09.1998, the father of the deceased received a telephone call from the accused Rajesh informing him that his daughter Sandhya was feeling suffocated and was further informed that he was calling from Janki Das Hospital. Father of the deceased thereafter reached the hospital and found his daughter lying on a stretcher, with her body covered with a cloth. He removed the cloth to find that froth was coming out of his daughter’s mouth and returned to his house. After 34 days he went to the police station Inder Puri and lodged a complaint.

4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court. The trial court framed the charage under Section 498-A/306/34 of IPC against all accused persons, namely – Rajesh Kumar, Sohan Lal and Rukma Devi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. To bring home the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. They are Dr. Alexander F. Khakha (PW-1); Devi Lal (PW-2); Geeta Devi (PW-3); Roshan Lal (PW-4); V. Venugopal (PW-5), HC Ganesh Das (PW-6); HC Manjeet Singh (PW-7); Ramesh Kumar (PW-9) and SI Juggu Ram (PW-10).

6. The statement of the appellants was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they claimed innocence. The defence in order to prove its case, examined two witnesses DW-1-Shanti Devi and DW2-Ramdhan.

7. 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/34 and 306/34 of IPC vide judgment and order on sentence, as mentioned above. Aggrieved by such judgment, the appellants have filed the instant appeal challenging the impugned judgment on conviction as well as order on sentence.

8. During pendency of the present appeal, the sentence imposed upon the appellants was suspended vide order dated 18.03.2002 (Rukma Devi) and 28.10.2002 (Rajesh Kumar) while the third appellant Sohan Lal was granted bail vide order dated 11.07.2002.

9. The impugned judgment of conviction has been challenged on the ground that no proper appreciation of material on record has been made by the Trial Court. That the father of the deceased and the brother of the deceased both had not complained about deceased being subjected to harassment or cruelty on account of demand of dowry. No cruelty has been proved as there is no specific allegation of de