The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of Section 498A of the IPC, emphasizing on the definition of 'cruelty' and 'harassment' and how it applies to cases involving dowry demands and coercion.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment dated 09.04.2009 and order on sentence dated 21.04.2009 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 20/09 vide which the appellants had been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 months. The appellants were further sentenced to payment of fine of Rs.4,000/- each and in default of same, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

2. The case of prosecution before the learned Trial Court was that a complaint had been received on 26.10.2004 whereby it was informed that one Smt. Rakhi, who had married to Babu on 22.06.2004, had committed suicide by hanging herself from ceiling fan of the room of first floor of her house. The death being unnatural and the deceased having been married recently, the SDM, Kalkaji was informed and investigation was carried out. Statements of witnesses were recorded and FIR for committing offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B/406/34 of IPC was registered. The post-mortem of the deceased was got conducted where the cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The viscera was preserved to rule out common poisoning, and the exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 498A/304B/406/34 of IPC against four accused persons. However, separate charge-sheet had been filed against Babu and Sarita before learned Juvenile Justice Board, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.

3. Vide order dated 28.04.2005, charge for offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B/34 of IPC was framed by learned Trial Court against appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. During course of trial, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses.

5. After perusing the testimony of all the witnesses, learned Trial Court vide detailed judgment was pleased to convict the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Vide the same judgment, the appellants were acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 304B of IPC.

6. The operative portion of the findings regarding reasons to convict the appellants under Section 498A of IPC is reproduced as under:

"16. Clause B of explanation to 498A IPC clearly provides that harassment of a woman with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand or any property or valuable security would amount to cruelty. In the present case, there is consistent evidence of not only there having been demand of motorcycle at the time of marriage which was fulfilled by the family members of the deceased but also harassment of the deceased for transfer of motorcycle in the name of her husband and for transfer of Rs.10,000/- to the accused persons which had been deposited in her name at the time of marriage by her parents. Such harassment clearly comes within the meaning of cruelty as defined u/s 498A IPC.

17. In case of K Prema S Rao & another v/s Yadia Siri Niwas Rao and others (2003) 1 SCC 217 similar facts as in hand came up for consideration. Amount in lakhs and house were given to the girl as a customary gift in the nature if Istridhan at the time of marriage to the bride by her father for her maintenance. However, soon after the marriage her in-laws started harassing her and demanded that the bride should transfer the ownership of lakhs and house which was given to the bride was a gift and not a dowry pursuant to demand of the parents of the husband, but the harassment thereafter to force the bride to transfer the house to them would amount to cruel treatment which is an offence us 498 IPC.

18. It had been argued on behalf of the accused persons that PW1 Hari Ram, father of deceased had admitted in his c