CRL.A.NO.613-2001

Page 1 of 37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ Crl. A. NO. 613/2001

Date of Pronouncement 27 April, 2009

#ARVIND DUBEY & ORS.

....

Appellants

Through

:

Mr.G.P. Thareja with Ms.Namita Roy,

Advocates for the appellnats.

Versus

STATE

....

Respondent

Through

:

Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP for the State.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI

1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the

Judgment ?

YES

2.To be referred to the Reporter or not?

YES

3.Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated

24.07.2001 and order on sentence dated 28.07.2001, passed by

the Ld. ADSJ, Delhi, in FIR No. 848/98, PS Malviya Nagar, under

section 498A/304B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter

referred to as, “IPC”). Post trial, appellants no.1 and 3 were

sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (hereinafter

referred to as, “R.I.”) for ten years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and

in default of the payment of fine, the said appellants were

directed to undergo a further RI for two months. Appellant no.2

was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with a fine of

Rs.5,000/- and in default of the payment of fine, he has been

directed to undergo RI for two months. The appellants were

2009:DHC:1756

CRL.A.NO.613-2001

Page 2 of 37

given the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, “Cr.P.C.”).

2.

The necessary facts as noticed by the trial court are: Ms.

Sughandi, daughter of PW-1, Sh. Devender, was married to

appellant no. 1 (Arvind Dubey) on 20.06.1997. Within fifteen

months of her marriage, she is stated to have committed

suicide on 06.09.1998, at the residence of her in-laws by

hanging herself. As per the case of the prosecution, at the time

of her marriage, the appellants had given sufficient dowry, as

per their capability, however, her in-laws were not satisfied and

they had made a demand for a colour T.V., which demand could

not be fulfilled by the father of the girl, although a Black and

White T.V. was given to the girl. However, the demand for a

colour TV persistent and a further demand for a motor cycle

was made. As the demands could not be met, the deceased

(Ms. Sughandi) was continuously harassed for the inability of

her parents to meet the demands. As per the case set up by

the prosecution, the deceased (Ms.Sughandi) was not being

allowed to even communicate with her family and write letters

to her father and brother and she was only able to write letters

in the absence of her husband and in-laws. During the fifteen

months period of her marriage, once she had come to stay with

her father in February, 1998 and at that time also she had

reiterated to her father that her in-laws were demanding a

colour TV as well as a motorcycle and as these items were not

being provided, her in-laws were harassing her and also used to

2009:DHC:1756

CRL.A.NO.613-2001

Page 3 of 37

beat her. She had pleaded to her father to give articles to her

in-laws so that she could live peacefully. In turn her father had

assured her that he wiykd somehow manage the amount and

purchase a colour T.V. for her in-laws. But before the colour T.V.

could be bought, the father received the news of suicide by his

daughter. Arvind Dubey, husband (appellant no. 1 herein),

Dhananjay Dubey, father-in-law (appellant no. 2 herein) and

Urmilla Dubey, mother-in-law (appellant no. 3 herein) of the

deceased were charged for the offence under section 498 A and

304 B, IPC.

3.

In this case, nine witnesses have been examined by the

prosecution. One witness was examined by the defence.

Before the evidence can be minutely examined and scrutinized,

the submission of learned counsel for the parties may first be

noticed.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted th