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

2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 19215

DELHI HIGH COURT
ROZA BAI & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRL.A.-618/2009



NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER 2023/DHC/001671

CRL.A. 618/2009 Page 1 of 13

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 15.02.2023

Pronounced on: 06.03.2023

+

CRL.A. 618/2009

ROZA BAI & ANR.

..... Appellants

Through:

Mohd.

Yusuf,

Advocate

alongwith appellants

versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar,

APP for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

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.

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:13.03.2023

16:23:32

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER 2023/DHC/001671

CRL.A. 618/2009 Page 2 of 13

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.

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:13.03.2023

16:23:32

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER 2023/DHC/001671

CRL.A. 618/2009 Page 3 of 13

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.

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top