IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the urgency for the society and the legal system to comprehensively address the issues of dowry deaths and combat patriarchy, sexism, and misogyny.

JUDGMENT

INDEX TO THE JUDGMENT

BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2

ARGUMENTS ADRESSED BEFORE THIS COURT 4

RELEVANT PROVISION OF LAW AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS 5

i. Section 498A of IPC 5

ii. Section 304B of IPC 7

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 12

i. Testimonies Of Witnesses 12

ii. Medical Evidence 14

iii. Analysing The Testimonies In Light Of Evidence 15

CONCLUSION 18

i. Summarizing the Acts of Cruelty Against The Deceased 18

ii. Dowry Deaths and the Dominance of Greed Over Humanity 21

iii. The Ongoing Battle: Dowry Deaths in the Shadow of Misogynistic Mindset 22

iv. Striking At The Societal Thinking And Existing Patriarchal Norms That Still Are A Part Of Our Society Through Judicial Pronouncements And Understanding With Sensitivity Trauma Undergone By The Silent 24

v. The Decision 27

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 374 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the appellant impugning judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 16.04.2009 and 21.04.2009 respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi in case FIR bearing no. 180/2000 registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar for offence punishable under Section 498A/304B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC').

BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the appellant herein had got was married to the deceased on 28.03.1999 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies, and a daughter was born to the couple on 08.01.2000. It is the case of the prosecution that as per the statement of the parents of deceased Harmeet Kaur, she was being subjected to harassment for non-fulfillment of demands of dowry. The deceased had committed suicide in her matrimonial home on 31.05.2000 by hanging herself to the ceiling fan in her bedroom. It is stated that the appellant was not present at home at that time and when he had come, he had found the deceased hanging to the ceiling fan. Thereafter, he had taken her to the hospital where she was declared brought dead. The parents of the deceased were immediately informed and a complaint was lodged by the father of deceased at Police Station Prashant Vihar alleging that the deceased was being harassed since they were not able to fulfill their demand of a car, and she was being tortured and harassed on that account by the appellant and other family members. The father had also informed the police that earlier also, a report had been lodged with the Crime Against Women Cell by the complainant and there a compromise had taken place, and the deceased had been taken back to her matrimonial home by the appellant after giving assurance that he will not repeat such acts of torture and harassment in future, however, the harassment had continued. Thereafter, the present FIR was registered against appellant herein and his sister namely Ravinder Kaur and his brother namely Surjit Singh and his parents. Thereafter, appellant herein and other accused persons were arrested. During pendency of trial, co- accused i.e. parents of appellant herein had passed away. During investigation, complainant/father of victim had handed over two letters written by the victim.

3. By way of impugned judgment dated 16.04.2009, learned Trial Court had acquitted appellant's sister and brother and had convicted the appellant herein under Sections 498A/304B of IPC. By way of impugned order on sentence dated 21.04.2009, learned Trial Court had convicted the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years for offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC and rigorous imprisonment of 3 years for offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months in case of default thereof.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, appellant had filed the present appeal. The appeal was admitted on 19.05.2009 and the sentence of appellant was suspended on 13.07.2009.

ARGUMENTS ADRESSED BEFORE THIS COURT

5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that