The judgment emphasizes the requirement of clear and categorical evidence to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving serious criminal offences.

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 22nd March 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 39/2001 arising out of FIR No. 130/2001 convicting both Appellants Sanjeet Malik (Accused No.1 – ‘A-1’) and Sonu @ Munesh @ Mahesh (‘A-2’) for the offences under Sections 498-A, Section 302 and Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’) and the order on sentence dated 31st March 2003 whereby each of the Appellants was sentenced to imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.50,000/-, and in default payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one year for each of the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and 304-B IPC; and to three years rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) along with fine of Rs.10,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. At the outset it requires to be noticed that as far as A-2 is concerned, by an order dated 31st August, 2005 passed by this Court in Crl. Appeal No.307/2003, the sentences awarded to him were suspended during the pendency of the appeal. As far as A-1 is concerned, by an order dated 29th August, 2007 passed in Crl. Appeal No.309/2007, his sentence was suspended as well.

Charge

3. The charge against the Appellants was that both of them along with their mother Prakashi Devi (who remained a proclaimed offender throughout – ‘PO’) subjected the deceased Renu, wife of A-1, to cruelty by demanding dowry between 18th February, 1999 to 31st March, 2001 at their house at Village Masoodpur, New Delhi thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC; secondly, all of them in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of the deceased by bodily injuries other than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and that she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC. The alternative charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC was also framed against all of them, for having committed the murder of the deceased.

Trial

4. On behalf of the prosecution, 14 witnesses were examined. When the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, each of them denied them. As far as A-1 is concerned, he stated as under:-

“I had an altercation with my wife when I came back from my work place. I had found the child weeping on second floor and my wife was on the first floor washing cloth. She told me that I should go upstairs and she would be coming soon. I went upstairs and try to sooth baby and try to handover him but the baby kept on crying and Renu did not turn up. I again came downstairs and told my wife that she was not paying heed to what I say the child was continuing crying and she was not coming up. I insisted on her coming up leaving the work, she told that child was not going to die by weeping. On this I got enraged and gave her two three slaps and then my wife accompanied me upstairs and sooth the child. Thereafter, when we went to bed, my wife was full of anger. I tried to console her and expressed my sorry-ness for getting enraged. I thereafter went in sleep. After some time, I heard cries of my child, and woke up and saw Renu was not with my bedside. I went upstairs. She was not there also. Then I came to first floor and called her name but nobody replied. Then I found bathroom door closed inside. I bang the door but nobody opened it. I then taped through ventilator and found that she was hanging inside the bathroom. Then I immediately broke open the door and got untied the rope and got her down.”

5. As far as A-2 is concerned, he stated as under:-

“Sanjeet with his wife and child w