Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 3349
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA, G.P. MITTAL, JJ.
Sudhakar Singh - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 1998
Decided On : 18-07-2014
For the Appellant :K.K. Sud, Senior Advocate, Chirag Khurana, Vishal Dabas and Banita Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Rajdipa Behura, APP, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of statutory mandates and interpretations of legal provisions to establish the offences under sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
498A and 304B - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - [498A] - [Cruelty and Harassment of Woman] - [304B] - [Dowry Death] - [498A, 304B]
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Sundari Devi, committed suicide within seven years of her marriage. The appellant, Sudhakar Singh, was convicted under sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code for subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment, and for causing her dowry death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant and his family members for failing to meet dowry demands. The court also upheld the conviction of the appellant under section 498A for mental and physical cruelty. The court reduced the appellant's sentence under section 304B from life imprisonment to seven years, while maintaining the sentence of three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000 under section 498A.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the suicide was a result of cruelty as defined in section 498A or the actus reus in the form of demand of dowry soon before the death, as mandated by section 304B.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the statutory mandates of Sections 113B and 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to weigh the evidence and establish the offences under sections 498A and 304B. The court also considered the dying declaration of the deceased and the interpretations of the legal provisions to reach its decision.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the appellant under sections 498A and 304B, modified the sentence under section 304B to seven years, and maintained the sentence under section 498A. The appellant was required to surrender and undergo the remaining sentence within one month from the date of the judgment.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
1. Appellant No. 2 Shyama Devi, mother of appellant No. 1 Sudhakar Singh died on 8th May, 2011 and the appeal filed by her stands abated. Appeal filed by Sudhakar Singh, appellant No. 1 challenging his conviction u/s 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) read with Section 34 remains on board and is being decided by this judgment. The appellant-Sudhakar Singh married the deceased-Sundari Devi on 17th November, 1986. Sundari committed suicide on 19th December, 1989 in her matrimonial home at A-111, Moti Bagh-I, New Delhi. At that time, no other person/family member was at home. Sundari Devi had committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan, which is apparent from the photographs Exhibits PW-12/A, B and C, which were proved by Sunil Kumar Sharma (PW-12). In fact, the said information was conveyed to the Police Station R.K. Puram and recorded in DD entry No. 38B Exhibit PW-18/A, which was handed over to SI Jagjit Singh and it was found that the house was bolted from inside. From the window they (i.e., Head Constable Ramji Lal (PW-18) and SI Jagjit Singh) noticed that a person was hanging from the ceiling fan. They broke the glass of the main door and entered the house and found that the deceased had committed suicide. The deceased had kept a stool on the bed to end her life.
2. The post-mortem report of the deceased, Exhibit PW-6/A, was proved by Dr. G.K. Chaubey (PW-6). He has referred to the ligature mark encircling front of the neck and going obliquely upwards/backwards to the nap of the neck and fading on the back of the neck. Cause of death, as opined by PW-6, was asphyxia as a result of hanging. Thus, it has been proved beyond doubt and debate that the deceased-Sundari Devi had died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage (in fact within about three years after marriage) in her matrimonial home.
3. The next and the primary question which arises for consideration is whether the suicide was as a result of the required actus reus, i.e., cruelty as defined in Section 498A IPC or the actus reus in the form of demand of dowry soon before the death, which is mandated by Section 304B IPC.
4. Before we dwell into the factual aspects, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 498A and Section 304B IPC.
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this Section, "cruelty" means-
(a) Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
304B. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
5. u/s 498A IPC, cruelty can be of two types. Firstly, wilful conduct of a nature which is likely
