Sucha Singh & Others vs The State
2009 Latest Caselaw 2287 Del

*                  HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

                       Judgment reserved on: May 14, 2009
                       Judgment delivered on: May 27, 2009

+                         Crl. Appeal No. 629 of 1999

%       Sucha Singh & Others     ...          Appellants
                  Through: Mr. Gurbaksh Singh and
                             Ms.Meenakshi, Advocates

                                      versus

        The State                         ...          Respondent
                          Through:   Mr. Amit Sharma, Additional Public
                                     Prosecutor for the State

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

1.      Whether the Reporters of local
        papers may be allowed to see
        the judgment?

2.      To be referred to Reporter or not?

3.      Whether the judgment should be
        reported in the Digest?

SUNIL GAUR, J.

1. In this appeal, there were four appellants/ accused. Appellant

- Sucha Singh was the father-in-law of the deceased. During the

pendency of this appeal, to secure the presence of the

appellants/accused, bailable warrants were issued against them.

When the bailable warrants of appellant-Sucha Singh were

returned back unexecuted with the report that he has died, then

vide order of 13th March 2009, his appeal stood abated. Copy of

death certificate of appellant- Sucha Singh was also placed on

record. The remaining three appellants/ accused are the mother-

Crl. A. No. 629/1999 Page 1 in-law of the deceased, uncle (Mausa) and aunt (Mausi) of the

husband of the deceased.

2. This appeal is directed against impugned judgment of 17th

November, 1999, vide which the appellants/accused were

convicted for the offence of dowry death and vide order of 19th

November, 1999, trial court had sentenced them to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each with fine of

Rs.5,000/- each.

3. The gravamen of the charge against appellants/accused was

that they had subjected Kanchan Kaur, daughter-in-law of

Bhagwanti Kaur, to cruelty and harassment for the demand of

dowry and within seven years of her marriage, Kanchan Kaur had

committed suicide by drowning herself in river Yamuna, in the

evening of 3rd March, 1996.

4. The deceased was married to son of appellant-Bhagwanti

Kaur on 10th November, 1994. After this incident, husband of the

deceased had also died. Initially, DD No. 33-B was recorded

regarding the recovery of a dead body of a lady and the inquest

proceedings were conducted and post-mortem on the dead body

was got done. Thereafter, the photograph of the deceased was

taken and her clothes were seized and on 11th April, 1996, Man

Singh (PW-5), brother of the deceased, had identified from the

photograph and clothes of the deceased that she was his sister

Kanchan, who was married in the family of the accused. On the Crl. A. No. 629/1999 Page 2 statement of Man Singh (PW-5), FIR No. 356 of 1996 was

registered at P.S. Mangole Puri, Delhi. Appellants/accused were

arrested in this case and after completion of investigation, charge-

sheet for the offence of dowry death was filed in the court

concerned.

5. Trial commenced as appellants/accused contested the

charge of dowry death held against them by the trial court. Out of

the fourteen witnesses examined at trial, the main ones are brother

(PW-5) and father of the deceased (PW-8). The SDM (PW-11)

had conducted the inquest proceedings in this case and the post

mortem on the dead body of the deceased was done by

Dr.Alexender (PW-1). S.I. Prem Mittal (PW-14) is the Investigating

Officer of this case.

6. Appellants/accused had denied the prosecution case at the

stage of the recording of their statements by the trial court. They

have claimed that the marriage of the deceased with their son was

a love marriage and because the first wife of the husband of the

deceased had started interfering in the matrimonial life of the

deceased, therefore, Kanchan Kaur had committed suicide out of

frustration. The two witnesses, who had deposed in favour of the

appellants/accused, were Jasbir (DW-1) and Kunti Devi (DW-2).

They claimed to be neighbours of appellant Bhagwati Kaur. All

that they have stated is that the deceased along with her husband

was residing at Mangol Puri and was not residing with the

Crl. A. No. 629/1999 Page 3 appellants/accused. The main thrust of their deposition is that

appellants Daya Singh and Attar Kaur were having ten children

and out of them, six were sons and, therefore, there was no

occasion for them to have adopted the husband of the deceased.

7. The trial ended with the conviction of the appellants/accused

for the offence of dowry death, which is under challenge in this

appeal.

8. Shri Gurbaksh Singh, learned counsel for the appellants as

well as Mr. Amit Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

the respondent-State, have been heard in this appeal and with

their able assistance, the evidence on record has been perused.

9. The three essential ingredients of the offence of dowry death

are; firstly, the death of the woman concerned has to be unnatural

one and secondly, it has to be within seven years of her marriage

and thirdly, the harassment/cruelty meted out to such a woman,

has to be "soon before her death".

10. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the

aforesaid third ingredient of the offence of dowry death is lacking in

the instant case and, therefore, the impugned conviction of the

appellants/accused is bad in law. It has been pointed out by

learned counsel for the appellants/ accused that since the

appellants were residing separately from the deceased and her

husband, therefore, there was no occasion for them to have

Crl. A. No. 629/1999 Page 4 demanded any dowry or to have harassed the deceased on

account of insufficiency of dowry and that too, soon before her

death. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants/accused

that no specific instances have been highlighted to show that the

deceased was ever treated cruelly by the appellants/accused. In

the last, it is submitted that the Apex Court, in its decision reported

in 1999 (1) JCC (SC) 59 had extended the benefit of doubt to the

mother-in-law of the deceased, as she was found to be living

separately and because, there was not any specific instance of her

treating the deceased cruelly. Thus, it has been urged that the

impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. Nothing else is

urged on behalf of the appellants/accused.

11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has

vehemently argued this appeal and has submitted that from the

evidence of the brother and father of the deceased, it does stand

established that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for not

meeting the dowry demands. It has been asserted that the

harassment/cruelty meted out the deceased was a continuing

offence and, therefore, the conviction and the sentence imposed

upon the appellants is justified.

12. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon

closer examination of the evidence on record, I find that although,

prosecution has succeeded in proving that the deceased had died

unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and that she

Crl. A. No. 629/1999 Page 5 was subjected to cruelty by the appellants/accused, but the

necessary ingredients of the deceased being subjected to cruelty,

"soon before her death" is missing, which renders the conviction of

the appellants/accused for the offence of dowry death illegal.

13. This court is not impressed with the submission of the

learned counsel for the appellant that merely because, appellants

were residing separately, they could not have possibly subjected

the deceased to cruelty or harassment for insufficiency of dowry. It

has not been clearly brought out in the evidence by the defence

that the appellants/accused were living so far away that they could

not have interacted with the deceased for treating her cruelly for

bringing insufficient dowry. The defence evidence does not inspire

the confidence of this court and is hardly plausible and in any

case, it is not at all sufficient to override the otherwise reliable

testimony of the father of the deceased, which is sufficient to

sustain the conviction of the appellant for the offence under

Section 498A/34 of IPC. In view of the aforesaid factual position,

reliance placed by the appellants upon the decision reported in

1999 (1) JCC (SC) 59 is of no help to the case of the

appellants/accused.

14. The allegations of cruelty and harassment of the deceased at

the hands of the appellants/accused are clearly brought out by

father of the deceased (PW-8), in his deposition. He has stated in

so many words that the appellants/accused used to demand colour

Crl. A. No. 629/1999 Page 6 TV, Fridge and Rs.50,000/- and out of the said demands, he could

fulfill the demand of Rs.20,000/- only and the deceased used to be

humiliated by appellants/accused for not meeting the aforesaid

dowry demands. Although, the offence of dowry death does not

stand proved from the evidence on record, but the

appellants/accused, still can be convicted for the lesser offence,

which they have committed i.e. for the offence under Section

498A/34 of IPC.

15. The facts and circumstances of this case justify the

conviction of the appellants/accused for the offence under Section

498A/34 of the IPC. The evidence on record has also been

scrutinized from the angle as to whether there can be any

conviction of the appellants/accused for the offence under Section

306/34 of the IPC, but this court finds that the evidence on record

falls short of the standard required for convicting the

appellants/accused for the aforesaid offence.

16. Although, the conviction and the sentence imposed upon the

appellants/accused for the offence of dowry death is being set

aside, but they stand convicted for the lesser offence, i.e. for

commission of the offence under Section 498A/34 of the IPC.

17. On the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the

appellants/accused are old and ailing persons and are in their

seventies and they have initially remained behind bars in this case

for a period ranging from one month to eight months. They have Crl. A. No. 629/1999 Page 7 faced the ordeal of trial since November, 1994. Ends of justice

would be met, if the substantive sentence imposed upon them is

reduced to the period already undergone by them. Such a course

is being adopted, as an offence under Section 498A/34 of the IPC

does not carry any minimum sentence. Resultantly, the

substantive sentence imposed upon the three appellants/accused

for the offence under Section 498A/34 of the IPC is the period

already undergone by them, with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. If not

already deposited, appellants are granted two weeks time to

deposit the fine, failing which, they shall have to undergo SI for

three months each. Trial court be apprised of this order, to ensure

its compliance.

18. In the terms as aforesaid, this appeal stands partly allowed.

Sunil Gaur, J.

May 27, 2009
rs/n




Crl. A. No. 629/1999                                            Page 8