SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Del) 959

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, AJIT BHARIHOKE, JJ.
Girajo Devi and Others - Appellant
Versus
State (Delhi Admn.) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 1995
Decided On : 26-03-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : R.M. Tufail.
For the Respondent: Pawan Sharma.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the essential ingredients of the offences under IPC 304B and IPC 498A beyond reasonable doubt, failing which the accused must be acquitted.

Headnote:

Dowry Death - Criminal Law - IPC 498A, IPC 304B - The court discussed the provisions of Section 304B IPC, which defines dowry death and raises a presumption of culpability against the husband or his relatives if the death of the deceased lady is caused by burns or bodily injury within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand for dowry. The court also considered the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 498A IPC, which requires establishing that the victim was a married lady subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, consisting of harassment with a view to coerce a meeting of demand for dowry or conduct likely to lead to suicide or grave injury. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish these essential ingredients beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased was married to the appellant Ram Bahadur and was found dead in burnt condition in her matrimonial home. The prosecution alleged that the appellants demanded dowry and subjected the deceased to harassment and cruelty, leading to her death.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences under IPC 304B and IPC 498A beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

Issues: The issues revolved around the demand for dowry and the harassment or cruel treatment meted out to the deceased by the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of credible evidence to establish the demand for dowry and the harassment or cruel treatment, as required by the provisions of IPC 304B and IPC 498A.

Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, and the appellants were acquitted due to the lack of evidence to establish the charges against them.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.

1. The appellants Girajo Devi, Ram Bahadur, Satender @ Satte and Ramesh Chand have preferred this joint appeal against impugned judgment dated 17th October, 1995 in Sessions Case No. 109/90, FIR No. 242/90, P.S. Malviya Nagar in terms of which the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 498A and 304B, both read with Section 34 IPC as also against the consequent order on sentence dated 18th October, 1995 in terms of which all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default of payment of which, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of six months for the offences u/s 304B/34 IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of which, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of three months respectively u/s 498A/34 IPC.

2. During the pendency of appeal, the appellant Ram Bahadur expired, as such, the appeal against him abated. The appellant Satender @ Satte absconded during the pendency of appeal and was declared proclaimed offender. The appellant Ramesh Chand is in judicial custody and the appellant Girajo Devi is on bail.

3. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that Ms. Manju (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was married to the appellant Ram Bahadur (since expired) on 15th February, 1989. On 12th June, 1990, her dead body was found in burnt condition in the latrine of her matrimonial home i.e. House No. 87/4, Sector 1, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. Someone conveyed this information on 12th June, 1990 at 1:50 pm, which information was conveyed by PCR to the Police Post, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. The information was recorded in the daily diary maintained in the Police Post, Pushp Vihar as Entry No. 12 and a copy thereof was sent to the Police Station Malviya Nagar. On receipt of the copy of DD No. 12, SI Murari Lal proceeded to the place of occurrence where he found the dead body of the deceased lying in the toilet of House No. 87/4, Sector 1, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. The parents of the deceased were also present there. Sh. B.K. Sehgal, PW18, the then SDM, South Delhi also reached at the spot and recorded the statement Ex.PW11/A of Kanti Devi, mother of the deceased (PW11).

4. Kanti Devi, in her statement to the SDM narrated that the deceased was married to Ram Bahadur on 15th February, 1989. Everything was fine with marriage for about four months, thereafter, in- laws of the deceased started harassing her. She was not even provided with proper food and was not permitted to cook food as her father-in-law and brother-in-law did not find the taste of food cooked by her to their liking. Kanti Devi also stated that her daughter told her that her mother-in-law was demanding a colour T.V., her husband had raised a demand for Scooter, her father-in-law had demanded a plot and her brother-in-law Satte asked her to vacate her house of Pushp Vihar and shift to her parents? house and take a room there. Her son- in-law Ram Bahadur (since expired) was getting a meagre salary of Rs. 1200/- per month and because of that reason, they got the deceased admitted in a training course for Laboratory Assistant run by Safdarjang Hospital. On 11th June, 1990, the deceased came to their home with her brother Anupam and she told that her mother-in-law and brother-in-law had hit her with a bucket and a 'bhagona', resulting in an injury on her leg. After staying at the parental house for some time, the deceased insisted on going back to her matrimonial home and her father Mool Chand (PW6) dropped her there. She further stated that on the next day, they got a message through two boys that Manju was unwell and they should reach at her matrimonial house immediately. When they reached there, they found that Manju had died due to fire burns. She also stated before the SDM that since her marriage, Manju was being treated badly by




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top