Brindavan Sharma vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2006 Latest Caselaw 2210 Del

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The appellant is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 27th March, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 162/99 convicting him of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). By another order passed on the same date, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. The appellant was married to one Meenakshi (the deceased) on 10th March, 1985. From the evidence of the witnesses, it appears that she was being harassed for bringing inadequate dowry. In fact, her father had stated that he had twice given Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant but even that was not enough. Sometime before her death, the appellant had asked Meenakshi to arrange Rs. 25,000/- but due to her inability to do so, she was beaten up by the appellant and sent to her father's house. On the intervention of some relatives as well as her father, Meenakshi was persuaded to return to her matrimonial home. She returned to her matrimonial home on 8th May, 1999 after expressing an apprehension that the appellant would not leave her alive.

3. On 12th May, 1999, a report was received by the police authorities at about 1.15 a.m. to the effect that Meenakshi had been burnt to death. Thereupon, the police conducted necessary investigations and filed a challan under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 25th October, 1999, the following charges were framed against the appellant:

That between 10.3.85 and 8.5.99 in your house No. 44-A, Arjun Park near Dairy within the jurisdiction of P.S. Najafgarh, you being the husband of Meenakshi subjected her to cruelty for want of dowry and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC and within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly, on or before 8.5.99 you caused the death of Meenakshi for want of dowry and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and within the cognizance of this Court.

And in the alternative, between 10.3.85 and 8.5.99 you harassed and tortured Meenakshi and abetted her to commit suicide and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 306, IPC and within the cognizance of this Court.

The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses but the more important ones are the children of the appellant as well as the doctor who conducted the post- mortem.

5. PW 5 Dr. Komal Singh who was posted as CMO, Civil Hospital, Rajpur Road, Delhi conducted the post-mortem on the deceased and opined that the cause of her death was asphyxia due to strangulation of the neck by means of ligature sufficient to kill a person. She stated that the mode of death was homicide and burn injuries were post-mortem in nature. The doctor was cross-examined but only on the nature of the burn injuries and not at all on the question how the death of Meenakshi took place.

6. PW-1 Surinder Sharma is the son of the appellant. At the time of his examination in September, 2000 he was about ten years old. He was put some Court questions to see whether he understood the questions properly and was able to answer them intelligently. Upon the Court being satisfied that the witness is competent, he was allowed to be examined. He confirmed that his mother had died on 12th May, 1999. On that day, he was sleeping on the roof of the house with his sister Renu and had been sent to the roof by his father. After some time, his father came upstairs and told him that he (the father) had a quarrel with the deceased and that he (the witness) should not tell this to anyone else. He later found that his mother had died. He was not cross-examined by the appellant.

7. PW-4 Renu Sharma is the daughter of the appellant. When she was examined in December, 2000, she was about twelve years of age. She narrated the events of the fateful evening and stated that her father had sent her and her two brothers on the roof of the house and that there was a quarrel between her parents which could be heard on the roof. Her younger brothers went off to sleep but she was awake and after some time her father came to the roof and told her that the deceased had got burnt and had died. At that time, the witness came downstairs and started weeping loudly but she was scolded by her father and made to keep quiet and was informed that if she told some one that quarrels used to take place between the appellant and the deceased, she (the witness) would be killed.

8. The witness was cross-examined on behalf of the appellant. It appears that before she had entered the witness box, she was reading some piece of paper and she was cross-examined with regard to the contents of the paper. She frankly stated that what was written on the paper was that her mother had died and all the children were in the room and that the appellant had scolded her and forbidden her from putting water. She stated that she was on the roof of the house and when she came down her father had told her to keep quiet, which she did out of fear.

9. We are of the opinion that the witness cannot be discredited on this ground. It is nobody's case that she was reading from some paper when she was in the witness box. The mere fact that she was given some paper outside the Courtroom, which she had read cannot, in the circumstances of the case, lead to the conclusion that she was tutored. Her testimony has a ring of truth in it and is even otherwise in consonance with what was generally stated by PW-1 Surinder Sharma.

10. The witness stated that her father used to beat the deceased very severely and quite often. On the night of 11th/12th May, 1999, when she was called down by her father, she saw her mother on the floor and not making any attempt to move. Thereupon, she made loud cries and her brothers who were on the roof came down after hearing the loud cries. She stated that none of the neighbours came for any assistance but some one had called the police. The witness, on her part, went to call a doctor and also informed her aunt on telephone.

11. PW-2 Ashutosh Sharma is the father of the deceased and he confirmed that the appellant had made demands for dowry and that he had occasionally helped the deceased by giving some money. He stated that the appellant used to beat the deceased for not bringing adequate dowry. According to the witness, about two or three months before her death, Meenakshi had come to his house after being beaten up by the appellant who had demanded Rs. 25,000/-. He stated that on 8th May, 1999 he had sent the deceased back to her matrimonial home and at that time she had expressed the fear that she would not be safe in the matrimonial home and a few days thereafter on 12th May, 1999 he came to know that Meenakshi had died. This witness was not cross-examined by the appellant.

12. The investigating officer SI R.S. Naruka entered the witness box as PW-8. He confirmed having reached the house of the deceased and informing her parents. He also confirmed seizing some incriminating material and recording the statement of Renu Sharma during investigations.

13. The appellant produced two witnesses on his behalf. One of them was his brother Mathura Prasad, DW-1. He stated that the appellant used to treat the deceased very well but could not testify with regard to the death of Meenakshi. D W-2 Satbir Singh was a friend of the elder brother of the appellant. He stated that the main reason behind the quarrel between the appellant and his wife was that Meenakshi wanted to sell his property in the village which he declined. He confirmed that there used to be quarrels between the appellant and his wife and that he had also, on one occasion, counselled them not to take their domestic matters to the police. As regards the death of Meenakshi, he came to know about it one and a half months after her death.

14. The above facts indicate that the relations between the appellant and Meenakshi were quite strained over her inability to bring sufficient dowry. Some time before her death, Meenakshi was asked to arrange for Rs. 25,000/- but when she could not, she was beaten up. She went to live with her parents but they persuaded her to return to her matrimonial home which she did while expressing her apprehension that she may be killed. In fact, she died only a few days later.

15. The post-mortem report of the doctor shows that before her death, Meenakshi was strangulated and it is only thereafter that her body was burnt. While the children of the appellant were not present in the room when Meenakshi died, it does appear from the testimony that they were asked to go to the roof of the house while the appellant and Meenakshi quarrelled. Thereafter, the Appellant asked his daughter PW-4 Renu Sharma to come down and it was then that the girl discovered that her mother had died. When she began crying loudly, her brothers who were also on the roof of the house came down and came to know about the death of their mother.

16. The above facts clearly suggest that as a result of Meenakshi being unable to arrange for Rs. 25,000/- in the immediate past, and because of the quarrel the appellant and Meenakshi had, she was strangulated by the appellant who then tried to set her body on fire.

17. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, there was no apparent motive for killing Meenakshi after fourteen years of marriage, We do not agree with learned Counsel for the simple reason that the demand of dowry had been persistent over a long period of time and even a few months before her death, the appellant had demanded money from Meenakshi. This was so stated by PW-2 Ashutosh Sharma, father of the deceased and he was not cross-examined on this issue. As regards the events of 11th/12th May, 1999, PW-1 Surinder Sharma stated that he was asked to go to sleep on the roof of the house by his father (the appellant). Quite clearly, the appellant did not want Surinder Sharma downstairs. Similarly, PW-4 Renu Sharma was also asked to go upstairs and it is when all the children were on the roof of the house that the appellant strangulated the deceased.

18. Ft is not possible for us to come to any conclusion other than that the appellant had caused the death of Meenakshi by strangulation. Even though the case is based on circumstantial evidence, there being no eye-witness to the events, the testimony makes it quite clear that there can be no other hypothesis for the strangulation of Meenakshi other than having been caused by the appellant.

19. We are of the view that the prosecution has been able to establish the case made out by it. We do not find any error in the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in accepting the case of the prosecution.

20. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.