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

2019 Supreme(Del) 1139

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Hima Kohli, Manoj Kumar Ohri, JJ.

Sunil Duggal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 2004
Decided On : 25-02-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Nitin Sehgal, Adv., Ashok Soni, Adv., Amit Gupta, Adv.

In cases of murder inside a house, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the circumstances of the crime. The plea of alibi must be raised at the first instance and supported by cogent evidence.

Headnote:

Dowry Harassment - Criminal Law - IPC 302/34, IPC 498-A/34 - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case of dowry harassment leading to the murder of Sushma. The court analyzed the demands of dowry, the complaint filed by the deceased, the conduct of the accused, and the cause of death. The court found the appellants guilty under IPC 302/34 and IPC 498-A/34, and dismissed the appeal.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the murder of Sushma, who was allegedly harassed for dowry by the appellants. The prosecution presented evidence of demands for dowry, a complaint filed by the deceased, and the conduct of the accused. The cause of death was determined to be strangulation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellants guilty under IPC 302/34 and IPC 498-A/34 based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. The plea of alibi was rejected, and the appellants were directed to surrender before the Trial Court.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the demands of dowry, the complaint filed by the deceased, the cause of death, and the plea of alibi.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that in cases of murder inside a house, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the circumstances of the crime. The plea of alibi must be raised at the first instance and supported by cogent evidence.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the appellants under IPC 302/34 and IPC 498-A/34 was maintained. The appellants were directed to surrender before the Trial Court.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

Three appellants had jointly filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment dated 11.02.2004, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.86/90, arising out of FIR No.82/89, registered at Police Station Nabi Karim, Delhi, convicting them for the murder of Sushma, sister-in-law of appellant no.1, daughter-in-law of appellant no.2 and wife of appellant no.3 punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 498-A/34 IPC. As per the order on sentence dated 13.02.2004, the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 15,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for six months under Section 302/34 IPC. The appellants were also sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years under Section 498-A/34 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for four months. The fourth accused, Subhash Duggal was acquitted of all the charges framed against him. The fifth accused Mahender Nath Duggal had expired during the trial. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant No.2, i.e., Asha Rani Duggal also expired on 17.01.2014 and vide order dated 29.05.2014, it was recorded that the appeal stands abated qua the said appellant. Now the present appeal is confined to the appellant No.1 and appellant No.3 only.

2. As per the prosecution case, Krishan Kumar Chopra, complainant in the present case had brought up Sushma, an orphan and got her married to the appellant no.3, Ajay Duggal. On 13.03.1989, Krishan Kumar Chopra received a call from Sunil Duggal informing him that Sushma had expired. He reached the matrimonial home of his niece and found her dead body on a dirty sheet near the bathroom. He also noticed some marks on the neck of the deceased and it appeared to him that Sushma had been strangulated. In the meantime, information was also received at the local Police Station from the PCR at about 11:45 am to the effect that a lady has been poisoned to death in House No. AB-236, Amar Puri, Nabi Karim, Delhi. The said information was recorded as DD 19A (Ex.PW-1/E). SI Jagjit Singh (PW-42) and HC Hari Singh (PW-4) reached the spot. Simultaneously, Inspector Tulshi Ram (PW-43) also reached the spot. As the death had occurred within one year of the marriage, SDM, Punjabi Bagh, Mr. Vipul Mittra (PW-28) was called at the spot, who recorded the statement of Mr. Krishan Kumar Chopra (Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-43/A). Inspector Tulshi Ram (PW-43) made his endorsement and the rukka was sent through HC Hasmat Khan (PW-18) to the Police Station for registration of a FIR against all the appellants under Section 302 and 498- A IPC.

3. Investigation was carried out. Inspector Tulshi Ram (PW-43) prepared the unscaled site plan (Ex.PW-43/B). The Investigating officer lifted samples from the spot for analysis which included a lady's brown coloured shirt and salwar, synthetic brassiere and a light blue coloured chunni. The dead body of Sushma was sent for post mortem which was conducted at 9:30 am on 14.03.1989. The post mortem report (Ex.PW31/A) opined that the cause of death was "death due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation". In the meantime, the appellants and the other co-accused were arrested.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 45 witnesses in all. The material witnesses included Krishan Kumar Chopra, uncle of the deceased (PW-3); Rajinder Kumar Chopra, cousin of the deceased (PW-6); Surender Kumar Chopra, cousin of the deceased (PW-20); Minakshi, sister of the deceased (PW-34); Shamma Chopra, sister-in-law of the deceased (PW-21) and Goverdhan Malhotra, uncle of the deceased (PW-9). Another witness, Sunder Dass Malhotra was examined as PW-8. However, his testimony could not be completed and he was never offered for cross-examination. The prosecution also examined N.K. Sharma (PW15), Mangal Singh (PW-16), Ramesh Kumar (PW-19), Rakesh Kapoor (PW-25), Raj Kapoor (PW-26) an













































































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