Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, I.S. MEHTA, JJ.
LEKH RAM & ANR - Appellants
Versus
State OF DELHI - Respondent
CRL.A. 247 of 2002
Decided on : 23-03-2018
Dowry Death - Cruelty and Harassment - Presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act - Rebuttable Presumption - Acquittal of Accused.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Promila, was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband, A-2, and his family members, including A-1, for dowry. She was killed by strangulation within four months of her marriage. The prosecution alleged that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment soon before her death, and that this had caused her death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death. The court also found that the accused had rebutted the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, which presumes that the husband or a relative of the husband of a woman who dies within seven years of her marriage has caused her death if it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death. 2. Whether the accused had rebutted the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death. The court noted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was contradictory and unreliable, and that the accused had provided a reasonable explanation for their conduct. 2. The court held that the accused had rebutted the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. The court noted that the accused had provided evidence to show that they were not present at the scene of the crime at the time of the deceased's death, and that they had not subjected her to any cruelty or harassment.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused of the offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC.
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11th March 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.190/1999 arising out of FIR No.93/1999 at Police Station (‘PS’) Jaffar Pur Kalan convicting both the Appellants for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. The appeal is also directed against the order on sentence dated 19th March 2002 whereby, for the offence under Section 304B IPC, both the Appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and, for the offence under Section 498A IPC, to undergo imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.10,000/- each. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The charges
2. The Appellant No.1 in this appeal is Lekh Ram (A-1) and Appellant No.2 is his son, Parambir (A-2). Both A-1 and A-2 were charged along with the co-accused Karan Singh and Darshna (both proclaimed offenders (POs) at the relevant time) with subjecting Promila (the deceased) between 9th March 1999 and 11th July 1999 to cruelty and thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC.
3. The second charge was that on 11th July 1999, A-1 and A-2 along with the aforementioned co-accused subjected Promila to cruelty and harassment in furtherance of their common intention soon before her death and then committed her dowry death punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC. An alternative charge was that A-1 and A-2 along with the co-accused committed her murder thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Background
4. The background facts are that Lekh Ram (A-1) was employed with the Delhi Police at the relevant time. His son, Parambir (A-2), was looking after the agricultural activities at Village Karkari. A-2 got married to the deceased on 9th March 1999.
5. According to the prosecution, whenever the deceased visited her parental house after marriage, she disclosed to her mother, Satyawati (PW-4), that she was being beaten by her in-laws and harassed for a Maruti car to be brought for them. The prosecution case is that on 11th July 1999, Nitin (PW-7), the cousin of the deceased and a nephew of PW-4, had gone to the matrimonial house of the deceased. The deceased is supposed to have told PW-7 that A-1, A-2 and her Jeth (Karan Singh) and Jethani (Darshna) were harassing her and were beating her for not bringing a Maruti car.
6. At around 3:30 pm, PW-7 went to the house of PW-4 and told her about the complaint made by the deceased. At 8 pm on that very day, PW-4 received a call from Karan Singh stating that the condition of the deceased was serious and that she should immediately reach Palam where an aunt of A-2 lived. PW-4 then gathered her relatives and all of them went to Palam in two cars. They reached around 12:00-12:30 am in the night, i.e. the early hours of 12th July 1999. There they found Karan Singh standing at the Palam Chowk. They followed his car to the village and upon reaching there they found that a Maruti car was standing outside the house of aunt of A-2 and behind it was a PCR van. When PW-4 opened the door of the Maruti Car, she found the dead body of her daughter lying in the back seat.
7. At around 12.40 am on 12th July 1999 a message was received at PS Dwarka that a call had been made by a person stating that the body of his sister who had died under suspicious circumstances was lying in a Maruti car in Palam village. On receiving this message Head Constable (HC) Amar Singh (PW-8) of PS Dwarka along with Constable (Ct.) Bhoop Singh reached Palam village. There he found the deceased lying dead in the rear seat of the Maruti car. The car and the body of the deceased were both then taken to the Dwarka PS. Since the matter related to PS Jafarpur Kalan, a message was sent to the said PS by wireless. PW-8 stated that when he reached the spot he found the two accused, Karan Singh, and Darshna present there. He also saw Baljeet (PW-3) th
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
