The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of IPC 304B, IPC 498A, and IPC 306 in cases involving demand of dowry, harassment, and death of the deceased.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner who is the father of the deceased Dolly has questioned the order dated 23.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.243/2016 whereby respondent No.3 (father-in-law of the deceased) has been discharged and charges under Sections 498A and 306 IPC only have been framed against respondent No.2 (the husband of the deceased).

2. The daughter of the petitioner namely Dolly was married to respondent No.2 on 08.02.2013.

3. On 01.06.2015 an information was received in Jyoti Nagar police station that a woman had committed suicide in a house at Ashok Nagar. On that information, police visited the house of the respondents. The petitioner thereafter lodged the FIR alleging that only two days prior to the marriage, respondent No.2, Amarjeet had demanded a bullet motorcycle as a condition for marriage. The respondent No.2 was thereafter made to understand that later such demand would be fulfilled. Marriage between the deceased and the respondent No.2 did take place but the demand for dowry continued and on many occasions the petitioner paid money to the family of the respondents. On 01.06.2015, it has been alleged by the petitioner, respondent No.3 called him on telephone and informed the deceased has hanged herself. On such information, the petitioner is said to have gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased and found that her body was lying on the ground on the second floor of the house. The entire family members of the respondents were sitting on the ground floor and nobody was present near the dead body. The brother of the petitioner thereafter called the police on which the police arrived and necessary formalities were fulfilled. The petitioner subsequently stated that his daughter has been killed and she has not committed suicide. He wanted the accused persons to be punished.

4. The post mortem of the deceased disclosed ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. There were also a number of injuries on the person of the deceased. In the opinion of the doctor conducting the autopsy, the death was caused by asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. The injuries on the person of the deceased were also found to be ante mortem and were opined to have been caused by a blunt force impact.

5. After investigation, charge sheet dated 26.07.2015 was submitted against the respondents under Sections 304B/498A and 34 of the IPC. Thereafter a supplementary charge sheet was filed on 02.05.2016 along with the FSL report which suggested that the deceased could have committed suicide in presence of respondent No.2.

6. The Trial Court thereafter, vide a detailed order dated 23.01.2017 discharged respondent No.3 and framed charges only under Sections 306/498A against respondent No.2.

7. From the materials available on record, the learned Trial Court was of the opinion that the only allegation against respondent No.3 was that he did not stop respondent No.2 from beating the deceased. The investigation papers revealed that respondent No.2 stayed on the second floor of the house with the deceased whereas his brother and his family stayed on the first floor. Respondent No.3 occupied the ground floor of the house. It was further found out by the learned Trial Court that there was not much interaction between respondent No.2 and the other members of his family including respondent No.3. After the death of his first wife, respondent No.3 is said to have married another person with whom he was living in the same house. The allegation with respect to demand of dowry or harassment at the hands of respondent No.3 was found to be vague as it was not supported by specific instances.

8. The Trial Court, therefore, was not wrong in discharging respondent No.3.

9. However, with respect to the charges against respondent No.2, the Trial Court has not adopted a correct reasoning. A detailed discussion of the materials has been done by the learned Tria