* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 06.04.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 15.04.2026 + CRL.A. 296/2017 DANVIR TOMER .....Appellant Through: Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate with Ms. Saniya Zehra, Advocate along with the appellant in person.

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State with SI Mitthan Lal, P.S. Sarita Vihar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.PC.), the first accused (A1), in Sessions Case No. 1852/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi assails the judgment dated 15.02.2017 and order on sentence dated 27.07.2017 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 304B read with

34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, Julie, the daughter of PW2 was married to A1 on 21.05.2013 as per the rites and customs of the community to which they belong. Pursuant to the marriage, A1, her husband and her in-laws, namely, the second accused (A2), the father of A1 and the third accused (A3), the brother of A1 in furtherance of their common intention subjected Julie to cruelty during her stay in the matrimonial home for the period from 21.05.2013 to 29.07.2013demanding more dowry due to which she committed suicide on 29.07.2013 by hanging herself. Hence, as per the final report/charge-sheet, the accused persons were alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections498A, 304B read with Section 34 IPC.

3. On the basis of Ext. PW2/B FIS/FIR of PW2, father of the deceased, given on 30.07.2013, Crime No. 283/2013, Sarita Vihar Police Station, i.e., Ex. PW7/A, FIR was registered by PW7, Head Constable (HC). PW15 conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, filed the charge-

sheet/final report dated 12.11.2013 and a Supplementary charge- sheet dated 05.04.2014 alleging commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned sections.

4. On appearance of the accused persons before the jurisdictional magistrate pursuant to receipt of summons, copies of all the prosecution reports were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, in compliance of Section 209 Cr.P.C, the case was committed to the Court of Session concerned.

5. When the accused persons appeared before the trial court, as per orders dated 10.01.2014 and25.04.2014, Charge under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 15 were examined and Ext. PW 1/A, Ext. PW 1/A1-A5, Ext. PW 2/A-C, Ext. PW 2/D1-4, Ext. PW2/E, Ext. PW 3/A, Ext. PW4/A-F, Ext.

PW5/A, Ext. PW 6/A-B, Ext. PW 7/A-B, Ext. PW 8/A, Ext. PW 11/A-F, Ext. PW 12/A, Ext. PW 15/A, Ext. PW 15/B-1 to 7, Ext.

PW15/C-1-11 were marked in support of the case.

7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused persons denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the case and denied demanding any dowry.

8. After questioning the accused under Section 313(1)(b)

Cr.PC., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C., was mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232 Cr.P.C., is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance of the said provision does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings unless omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (See Moidu K. Vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89; 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888). In the case on hand, the accused has