The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 498A of the IPC in cases of dowry harassment and the requirement of clear and convincing evidence for causing dowry death under Section 304B IPC.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant S.M. Sachdev being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 24.02.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) and order on sentence dated 28.02.2003, whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. On the other hand, petitioner Meena Kathuria, filed a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned judgment of acquitting the accused for offence committed under Section 304B IPC. Since both appeal and revision petition have been preferred against the same judgment, therefore, both the cases are decided together.

3. The facts in brief are that Sh. A.D Malik had made a statement to the police that his daughter Ratna was married to accused Shyam Sundar on 3.12.1985. The accused used to live in Delhi and Ratna post marriage shifted to Delhi and started living with the accused. Post marriage, the accused and his mother started harassing, maltreating Ratna with cruelty for want of dowry. The accused turned out Ratna outside her matrimonial home on a number of occasions and the entire stay of Ratna with the accused was faced with torture and cruelty on account of demand of dowry. The complainant had given money several times to his daughter to meet the demands of accused persons. On 23.03.1989, he received a telephone call that his daughter Ratna had got burnt and was admitted in hospital and thereafter she succumbed to her injuries.

4. On the basis of statement made by the complainant, FIR of the present case was registered and the accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the trial court.

5. The appellant was charged with the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. To bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined PW1 Sh. Ved Prakash, PW2 Ascharaj Lal, PW3 Dr. B. Swain, PW4 Kaushal Sachdeva, PW5 Y.D. Malik, PW6 Mrs. Meena Kathuria, PW7 A.D. Malik, PW8 J.L. Kalra, PW10 Dr. Sebastian, PW13 Janak Raj, PW15 Dr. Iqbal Singh Cheema, the then SDM apart from other witnesses.

7. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

8. After considering the facts, evidence led on behalf of both the sides and the material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty for an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, however he has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC. Hence the present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order on sentence.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the letters allegedly written by the deceased did not implicate the appellant as there is nothing in it against the appellant. In her dying declaration, the deceased did not give any reason for burning herself. The appellant himself tried to put off the fire with blanket and in the process he also sustained burn injuries. There was no evidence on record from which it can be said that the appellant had ever demanded any dowry from the deceased or from her family members or that the deceased was ever meted with cruelty by the appellant for or in connection with demand of dowry. It was further contended that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence brought on record in correct perspective.

10. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Abhai Raj Singh 2004 AIR SC 3235, Sukhlal & Ors. V. State of U.P. 2014 Law Suit (All) 1665, Kunwar Bahadur Singh v. Sheo Baran Singh AIR 2003 SC 206