Girajo Devi & Ors. vs State (Delhi Admn.)
2010 Latest Caselaw 1692 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                            Judgment reserved on: October 21, 2009
                            Judgment delivered on: March 26, 2010


+      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.242/1995


       GIRAJO DEVI & ORS.                        ....APPELLANTS

                        Through:    Mr. R.M. Tufail, Advocate

                                Versus


       STATE(DELHI ADMN.)                        ..... RESPONDENT

                        Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE

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

2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3.     Whether the judgment should be
       reported in Digest ?

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.

1. The appellants Girajo Devi, Ram Bahadur, Satender @ Satte and

Ramesh Chand have preferred this joint appeal against impugned

judgment dated 17th October, 1995 in Sessions Case No. 109/90, FIR

No. 242/90, P.S. Malviya Nagar in terms of which the appellants have

been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and

304-B, both read with Section 34 IPC as also against the consequent

order on sentence dated 18th October, 1995 in terms of which all the

appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default of payment of

which, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of six

months for the offences under Section 304-B/34 IPC and also to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of three years and to pay

fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of which, to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for the period of three months respectively

under Section 498-A/34 IPC.

2. During the pendency of appeal, the appellant Ram Bahadur

expired, as such, the appeal against him abated. The appellant

Satender @ Satte absconded during the pendency of appeal and was

declared proclaimed offender. The appellant Ramesh Chand is in

judicial custody and the appellant Girajo Devi is on bail.

3. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that Ms. Manju

(hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟) was married to the appellant

Ram Bahadur (since expired) on 15th February, 1989. On 12th June,

1990, her dead body was found in burnt condition in the latrine of her

matrimonial home i.e. House No. 87/4, Sector 1, Pushp Vihar, New

Delhi. Someone conveyed this information on 12th June, 1990 at 1:50

pm, which information was conveyed by PCR to the Police Post, Pushp

Vihar, New Delhi. The information was recorded in the daily diary

maintained in the Police Post, Pushp Vihar as Entry No. 12 and a copy

thereof was sent to the Police Station Malviya Nagar. On receipt of the

copy of DD No. 12, SI Murari Lal proceeded to the place of occurrence

where he found the dead body of the deceased lying in the toilet of

House No. 87/4, Sector 1, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. The parents of the

deceased were also present there. Sh. B. K. Sehgal, PW18, the then

SDM, South Delhi also reached at the spot and recorded the statement

Ex.PW11/A of Kanti Devi, mother of the deceased (PW11).

4. Kanti Devi, in her statement to the SDM narrated that the

deceased was married to Ram Bahadur on 15th February, 1989.

Everything was fine with marriage for about four months, thereafter, in-

laws of the deceased started harassing her. She was not even

provided with proper food and was not permitted to cook food as her

father-in-law and brother-in-law did not find the taste of food cooked by

her to their liking. Kanti Devi also stated that her daughter told her

that her mother-in-law was demanding a colour T.V., her husband had

raised a demand for Scooter, her father-in-law had demanded a plot

and her brother-in-law Satte asked her to vacate her house of Pushp

Vihar and shift to her parents‟ house and take a room there. Her son-

in-law Ram Bahadur (since expired) was getting a meagre salary of

Rs.1200/- per month and because of that reason, they got the

deceased admitted in a training course for Laboratory Assistant run by

Safdarjang Hospital. On 11th June, 1990, the deceased came to their

home with her brother Anupam and she told that her mother-in-law

and brother-in-law had hit her with a bucket and a „bhagona‟, resulting

in an injury on her leg. After staying at the parental house for some

time, the deceased insisted on going back to her matrimonial home

and her father Mool Chand (PW6) dropped her there. She further

stated that on the next day, they got a message through two boys that

Manju was unwell and they should reach at her matrimonial house

immediately. When they reached there, they found that Manju had

died due to fire burns. She also stated before the SDM that since her

marriage, Manju was being treated badly by the appellants who used

to beat her time and again. On the basis of said statement, a case

under Section 498-A IPC and Section 304-B IPC was registered at P.S.

Malviya Nagar on the directions of the SDM.

5. The Investigating Officer Murari Lal prepared a rough site plan of

the place of occurrence. He also got the scene of occurrence

photographed. The SDM also recorded the statement of the father of

the deceased as well as the appellants. On inspection, a plastic can

containing kerosene oil and a half burnt matchbox was found at the

spot, which were seized by the Investigating Officer. After completion

of the inquest proceedings, the dead body was sent to AIIMS for post-

mortem examination. The appellants were arrested at the spot. On

completion of the formalities of investigation, all the four appellants

were charge-sheeted and sent for trial.

6. The appellants were charged for offences punishable under

Section 498-A, 304-B and 406 IPC all read with Section 34 IPC and an

additional charge for the offence under Section 342 IPC was also

framed against the appellant Girajo Devi. The appellants pleaded

innocence and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellants, prosecution

examined 27 witnesses in all. On conclusion of the prosecution

evidence, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with

a view to afford them an opportunity to explain the incriminating

circumstances appearing against them. The appellants denied the

prosecution case in their respective statements. Appellants Girajo

Devi, Satender and Ramesh Chand took the plea that their‟s is a middle

class joint family with meagre means. The deceased was an ambitious

lady and wanted to lead a comfortable luxurious life, which was beyond

their means and perhaps because of that reason, she became

frustrated and lost interest in life and had committed suicide. No

witness in defence has been examined.

8. The learned Trial Court did not find any merit in the defence set

up by the appellants and relying upon the prosecution evidence found

the appellants guilty of offences punishable under Section 304B IPC

and Section 498A IPC both read with Section 34 IPC and convicted

them accordingly. As regards the other charges, appellants were

acquitted.

9. Section 304B IPC is an extraordinary provision which was

introduced into the Indian Penal Code by the Dowry Prohibition

(Amendment) Act 1986 with a view to combat the menace of dowry

death. It defines a new concept called dowry death and raises a

presumption of culpability against the husband or his relatives if the

death of the deceased lady falls within the four corners of the definition

of dowry death. It provides that where the death of a married woman

is caused by any burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal

circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that

soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by

her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with

the demand for dowry, such death shall be called dowry death. The

Second part of Section 304B(1) IPC provides that once it is established

that the woman has died a dowry death, such husband or relative of

the husband of the deceased who are seen to have indulged in

subjecting the deceased to harassment or cruelty for or in connection

with dowry shall be deemed to have caused the death. Thus, in order

to establish the guilt of an accused for an offence under Section 304B

IPC, the prosecution is required to establish following ingredients for a

dowry death:

       (i)      There was a married lady,


       (ii)     Her death occurred due to burns or bodily injury or it

                was an unnatural death,


       (iii)    That such death has occurred within seven years of

                the marriage,


        (iv)    That soon before her death, the deceased was

subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or

any of his relative.

(v) And if such ingredients are established, then as per

the second limb of Section 304B(i) IPC, the husband

or such relative of her husband shall be deemed to be

guilty of causing dowry death.

10. Thus, it is obvious that before raising the presumption of guilt

against the accused, the prosecution is required to establish the above

enumerated ingredients.

11. In order to succeed on the charge under Section 498A IPC, the

prosecution is required to establish following essential ingredients:

(a) That the victim was a married lady,

(b) That she was subjected to cruelty by her husband

or the relatives of her husband,

(c) That such cruelty consisted of either harassment of

the woman with a view to coerce a meeting of

demand for dowry or a wilful conduct of the

husband or the relative of the husband of such a

nature as is likely to lead the lady to commit

suicide or cause grave injury to her life limb or

death.

12. In the light of aforesaid provisions of law, we now proceed to

consider the submissions on behalf of the parties.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned

judgment, fairly conceded that the deceased was married to the

appellant Ram Bahadur and she died of an unnatural death by burning

within seven years of her marriage. He also stated that the appellants

Girajo Devi, Ramesh Chand and Satender are the parents and the

brother of the appellant Ram Bahadur. Learned counsel submitted that

the above fact by itself does not establish the guilt of the appellants.

In order to succeed on the charge under Section 304B IPC and Section

498A IPC, the prosecution was required to establish beyond doubt that

the appellants demanded dowry from the deceased or from her family

members and had subjected the deceased to harassment and cruel

treatment with a view to coerce her and her relatives to concede to

their dowry demands. Learned counsel submitted that the learned

Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has miserably

failed on both the counts, i.e., the demand for dowry and the

harassment or cruel treatment meted out by the appellants to the

deceased.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in order to

prove the demand of dowry harassment as well as the cruel treatment

meted out to the deceased for or in connection with the dowry

demand, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses who can be divided

into two categories i.e. neighbours residing in the vicinity of

matrimonial home of the deceased and others. So far as the

neighbours i.e. PW1-A Ms. Bindu Kharbanda, PW2 Ms. Kamlesh

Aggarwal and PW19 Ms. Amrawati are concerned, they have not

supported the case of the prosecution. Though they were cross-

examined at length by learned APP after seeking permission from the

court but nothing incriminating could be elicited from their cross-

examination. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

other witnesses are the relatives and the friends of the family of the

deceased who are interested in the success of the case and their

testimony is not reliable. In support of this contention, learned counsel

has made detailed submissions, which are not reproduced for the sake

of brevity and we propose to deal with the said submissions later.

15. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has argued that

from the testimony of PW1 Ganga Devi, PW3 Ajit Singh Saini, PW4

Kanwar Singh, PW6 Mool Chand, PW7 Alka, PW11 Kanti Devi and PW20

Surender Sharma, it stands established on the record that the

appellants, within a few months of the marriage had started

demanding for dowry and with a view to coerce the deceased and her

parents to meet their demands, they subjected the deceased to

harassment and cruelty, which ultimately resulted in the death of the

deceased by burning within a period of slightly more than a year of her

marriage. Thus, he submitted that the learned Trial Judge has rightly

convicted the appellant on two counts i.e. under Section 498A read

with Section 34 IPC and Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC.

16. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the

material on record.

17. PW6 Mool Chand Saini, father of the deceased is one of the main

witnesses of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that though in his examination-in-chief, he has supported

the case of the prosecution, his version is not worthy of credence as he

has made material improvements over his previous statement

Ex.PW6/DB recorded by the SDM on the date of death of the deceased.

In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellant has

drawn our attention to the relevant part of the cross-examination of

PW6 Mool Chand, which is, inter alia, reproduced as under:

"........In my statement made to the SDM I did not state that accused Ram Bahadur used to demand scooter. In my statement before the SDM I did not talk about any demand of dowry particularly. I had stated about the demand of plot which I consider to be demand of dowry. I had told the SDM that after Satte came back home, he and his mother Girajo Devi started harassing my daughter. I had told the SDM that accused persons used to harass my daughter for not bringing sufficient dowry. (Confronted with Ex.PW6/DB where this fact is not specifically mentioned.). I did not tell the SDM that in June, 1989 Smt. Girajo Devi accused had demanded a coloured T.V. from me. I did not tell the SDM that father-in-law of my daughter Manju asked in Sept. 1989 for a plot. I also did not tell the SDM that in October, 1989 Ram Bahadur accused made a demand for a scooter, which took I declined. I also did not tell the SDM that during all this period they continued to maltreat my daughter. I also did not tell the SDM that in Jan. 1990 Manju's Devar Satte asked me to spare on a separate room in my house for Manju and her husband or that this demand was made by him after consultation and after the advice of his parents. I also did not tell the SDM that for this reason the harassment of my daughter grew day by day. I had not stated in my

statement before the SDM that I implored them not to harass my daughter but no avail.

I had not stated before the SDM that in March, 1990 I got her admitted in S.J.Hospital for training course of Lab. Asstt. despite that her harassment continued, I also had not stated before the SDM that however, I did not think it proper to lodge the report with the police because the things may have flared up. I had also not stated before the SDM in my statement that in May 1990 they again raised the same demands but I flatly declined because I had no source to meet their demand.

In view of the aforesaid improvements made by the witness over his

previous statement on material aspects of the case, we do not find it

safe to place any reliance upon the testimony of PW6 Mool Chand.

18. The other important witness examined by the prosecution is the

mother of the deceased Ms. Kanti Devi (PW11). As regards demand for

dowry, she has stated that the brother-in-law of the deceased used to

demand colour T.V., father-in-law used to demand a plot and husband

used to demand scooter, besides that, the brother-in-law Satte told the

deceased to persuade her father to spare one room in his residence for

the deceased and her husband. In the cross-examination, the witness

changed her stand and stated that it was not the brother-in-law who

demanded colour T.V. but the demand for colour T.V. was made by

mother-in-law. The above referred version of PW11 Kanti Devi gives an

impression of an effort to rope in all the members of the family of the

husband of the deceased. Otherwise also, her version regarding

demand for dowry is vague and it is bereft of specific instances giving

approximate dates and place where the demand was made. Further,

had such demand actually been made by the in-laws of the deceased,

PW11 Kanti Devi, as also the deceased, under the natural course of

circumstances, were expected to discuss such demands with the father

of the deceased namely PW6 Mool Chand Saini and he would have

come to know about it. The fact that PW6 Mool Chand Saini in his

statement before the SDM has not said anything regarding dowry

demand raises a strong doubt that PW11 Kanti Devi is not speaking the

truth and she is not a reliable witness.

19. PW1 Ganga Devi, who claimed to be a friend of the deceased, is

another star witness of the prosecution. She has stated that the

deceased had joined the training programme for Laboratory Assistant

in Safdarjung Hospital, sometime in April, 1990. She always appeared

gloomy and sad and when asked as to why she was always sad, the

deceased told her that her mother-in-law and brother-in-law did not

allow her to prepare the meals and they always quarrelled with her.

She also told her that her mother-in-law demanded a scooter, brother-

in-law demanded a T.V., father-in-law demanded a plot and the

husband demanded a room in her parents‟ house which was lying

vacant. She also deposed that on 10th June, 1990 at about 11:30 am,

she visited the house of the deceased to ask for repayment of money

owed by her. When she reached near the entrance door of the house,

she heard noise of cries and utensils. In response to the door bell,

mother-in-law of the deceased opened the door and asked her about

the reason for her visit. When she told her that she had come to meet

the deceased, the mother-in-law, who was seemingly angry, pointed

towards the deceased who was weeping. She stated that at that time,

she saw an injury on the leg of the deceased. When she asked the

deceased as to how she had sustained the injury, she (deceased) told

her that her in-laws, in connection with their demands, had beaten her

and that her mother-in-law and brother-in-law had hit her with a "steel

bucket" and „bhagona‟ and that her father-in-law abused her and

husband slapped her. On careful scrutiny of her evidence, we do not

find her testimony worthy of credence because her testimony also

gives an impression that she is trying to rope in all the family members

of the husband of the deceased. Further it does not appear natural

that this witness, having known about the tense relationship between

the deceased and her in-laws, would have gone to the house of the

deceased on a Sunday to ask for return of so-called money owed to her

particularly when the next day was a working day and the deceased

would have met the witness in the Hospital on 11.06.90. We may also

note that PW6 Mool Chand has admitted in his cross-examination

recorded on 27.01.93 that he was an active member of the Employees

Union of Safdarjung Hospital and he had held various offices in the

executive of the union from time to time. Therefore, a possibility

cannot be ruled out that the father of the deceased, using his position

as holder of an office in the executive committee of union might have

influenced PW1 Ganga Devi to be a witness against the appellant. This

suspicion gets compounded by the fact that the statement of Ganga

Devi, PW1 was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after a long delay of

around 22 days from the date of the incident on 04.07.1990 for which

delay no reasonable explanation is forthcoming from the Investigating

Officer. Thus, we do not find the testimony of PW1 Ganga Devi

reliable.

20. As regards, PW3 Ajit Singh Saini and PW4 Kanwar Singh, maternal

uncle of the deceased, they claimed to have gone to the house of the

deceased on 11.06.1990 to talk with the in-laws of the deceased. Both

of them have stated that during their talks with the father-in-law of the

deceased, he told them that he had asked the father of the deceased

to arrange for a plot which has not been arranged till then. They also

stated that mother-in-law of the deceased demanded a colour T.V.,

husband of the deceased demanded a scooter and brother-in-law of

the deceased said that if the parents of the deceased were unable to

meet their demands, they should provide for a side room in their house

for the deceased and her husband. The aforesaid version of the

witnesses is also a parrot like repetition of the version of PW1 Ganga

Devi as also PW11 Kanti Devi, mother of the deceased, which appears

to be unnatural. It is unlikely that one day before the occurrence, the

in-laws of the deceased might have raised such demand in presence of

the witnesses. Further, testimony of these two witnesses is not reliable

because of the fact that they admit that they had visited the maternal

house of the deceased after her death on 12.06.1990. They have also

admitted that police as well as the SDM were also present at the spot,

but neither the police nor the SDM recorded their statements nor they

offered to give their statements to them. Their statements under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. had also been recorded after about 22 days on

04.07.1990. There is no cogent explanation on the record as to why

their statements were not recorded at an earlier date despite of the

fact that they were available to the police during the intervening

period. Therefore, a possibility cannot be ruled out that they have

been introduced as witnesses after due deliberations, so we do not find

it safe to rely upon their testimony. We may add that PW4 Kanwar

Singh is the maternal uncle of the deceased, therefore, under the

natural course of circumstances, had his version been true, he would

definitely have stated those facts to the SDM as well as the

Investigating Officer during the inquest proceedings conducted by the

SDM on 12.06.90.

21. We may note that prosecution has relied upon some purported

hand-written letters/notes of the deceased namely Exhibits PW6/A,

PW6/B, PW6/C and PW6/D. Ex. PW6/A is dated 09.06.1990 wherein it is

recorded by the deceased that in her absence, her parents-in-law and

brother-in-law had placed the sofa set etc. in her room. This writing of

the deceased gives an impression that there was some discord

between the deceased and her in-laws and for that reason, her

parents-in-law and brother-in-law had removed her sofa set etc. from

the drawing room/sitting room and placed the same in the room

allotted to her. This document, by no means, suggests that there was

any demand for dowry. Ex.PW6/B is an innocuous document, i.e., an

application for leave for 23.04.1990 and 24.04.1990. Ex.PW6/C is a

sort of diary note written by the deceased on 11.05.89, which is vague

and it records "Manju ko hanse hue bhi pata nahi kitne saal ho gaye

hain. Ab toh wo bechari hansna, bolna bilkul hee bhool gayi hai. Ab

toh sir ek yaad hai toh .......(paper torn) ya fir bahut adhik udaas sa

man lekar akele ghanton baithkar sochte rahna. Ab zindagi mein baaki

kuch bhi nahi bacha hai. Aur kahin is ladki ko kuch ho gaya toh iske

maa baap thatha rishtedar in logon ko kahin ka bhi nahi chodhenge.

Ye sab kuch bhool chuke hain. Sochte hain iska toh koi aage peeche

hai nahi. Bechari saara din tanao se grast rahti hai. Raat ko niyam ke

anusar Ram ka peekar aana, weh toh kisi ke saamne kuch keh bhi nahi

sakti hai. Isme iske maa baap ka koi dosh nahi, saara dosh ya toh

Manju ka hai ya phir uski kismat ka kyonki shaadi ke liye haan toh

kewal Manju ne hee ki thee. Mr. Ram, main toh abhi ghar se jaa rahin

hoon. Aur haan, aapke 150 Rs. Diary ke andar rakhe hue hain. Le

lena". At the bottom of this writing, she had further written (Ex.PW6/D)

that she was taking away the torn agreement with her and they would

meet in the High Court. This document gives an impression that there

was some dispute between the deceased Manju and her husband for

which, perhaps they had arrived at some agreement, which was later

on torn and the deceased left in May, 1990 threatening legal

proceedings in the High Court. Parents of the deceased in their

testimony have not thrown any light about said torn agreement or

what happened in May 1990. This writing Ex.PW6/D leads us nowhere.

On perusal of Ex.PW6/D, it transpires that it is the product of a

disturbed mind and it gives an impression that the deceased was under

some stress and tension. However, said reason has not been spelled

out in the note. There was not even a whisper of any dowry demand.

If there actually was dowry demand, in the ordinary course of nature, in

all probabilities the deceased was expected to write about it in her

written note Ex.PW6/D, which is not the case. This circumstance also

makes the prosecution story about the dowry demand suspect.

22. Coming to the issue regarding the cruel treatment meted out to

the deceased; in this regard, the material witnesses examined by the

prosecution are PW1 Ganga Devi, who stated that she visited the house

of the deceased on 10.06.1990. She found her weeping and crying and

she noticed that there was injury on her leg and when she asked for

the cause, the deceased told that she was beaten by her mother-in-law

and brother-in-law and hit by them with a steel bucket and a

„bhagona‟. PW6 Mool Chand Saini and PW11 Kanti Devi, parents of the

deceased have deposed that in the afternoon of 11.06.1990, the

deceased was brought to their home by her brother and they noticed a

bandage on her right leg. If the aforesaid version of the witnesses is to

be believed, then the deceased had suffered an injury on her leg for

which she also got treatment, presumably in Safdarjung Hospital or by

some other doctor. No doctor has been examined to substantiate this

allegation. The aforesaid version of the witnesses is belied by the

medical evidence. PW5 Dr. D.N.Bhardwaj, who conducted the post-

mortem on the dead body of the deceased, has categorically stated

that there was no evidence of mechanical injury on the person of the

deceased. This fact also finds mention in the post-mortem report

Ex.PW5/A. Thus, in view of the contradiction between the above-

referred oral testimony of witnesses and the medical evidence, we do

not find it safe to rely upon the testimony of above three witnesses.

23. We may note that if the version of PW6 Mool Chand Saini and

PW11 Kanti Devi is to be believed, then, they sent back their daughter

to her matrimonial home to suffer the ire of her in-laws despite of

having come to know that she was being ill-treated there and she had

been hit with a steel bucket and a „bhagona‟ resulting in an injury on

her leg. This conduct on the part of the parents of the deceased

appears to be highly unnatural. It is highly improbable that PW6 Mool

Chand, father of the deceased, after having come to know about the

injuries sustained by the deceased at the hands of her in-laws would

have dropped the deceased outside her matrimonial home without

even making an effort to talk to the husband and in-laws of the

deceased to clarify the situation. Thus, the above referred story of

injury caused to the deceased by her mother-in-law and brother-in-law

in presence of the other two appellants is highly doubtful. It appears

that aforesaid story has been concocted with a view to meet the

requirement of Section 304B IPC that soon before her death, the

deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty by her in-laws in

relation to their demand for dowry.

24. The doubt against the prosecution story is further compounded

by the fact that PW7 Kumari Alka has testified that a day before the

occurrence i.e. on 11.06.1990 at about 11:00 a.m., appellant Ram

Bahadur visited her office and threatened that in case her parents

failed to consider their demands, they will face the dire consequences.

If this version is to be believed, then PW7 Kumari Alka was expected to

convey this information to her parents and it would have been

reflected in their initial versions Ex.PW6/DB and Ex.PW11/A given to

the SDM on 12.06.1990, which is not the case. Further, if the appellant

Ram Bahadur had actually threatened Kumari Alka and asked her to

send her father to their house for settlement, under the natural course

of circumstances, the appellants were expected to wait for the meeting

with PW6 Mool Chand, which also is not the case. Therefore also, it

appears that PW7 Kumari Alka has been introduced as a witness with a

view to give strength to the prosecution case against the appellants.

25. In view of the evidence discussed above, we find that the

prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the basic

ingredients of the offence under Section 304B IPC as also under

Section 498A IPC, i.e., the appellants had demanded dowry from the

deceased or her relatives or they subjected the deceased to cruelty for

or in relation of their dowry demand or that they subjected the

deceased to such a treatment, which falls within the meaning of cruelty

as defined in the Explanation given in Section 498A IPC. A possibility

cannot be ruled out that since the deceased has died unnatural death

in her matrimonial home, the parents of the deceased held the

appellants responsible for her death and, therefore, they went to the

extent of accusing them of demand of dowry and subjecting the

deceased to harassment and cruelty. Thus, we are unable to sustain

the impugned judgment and the consequent order on sentence. We

accordingly accept the appeal and acquit the appellants, giving them

benefit of doubt.

26. The appellant Ramesh Chand is in jail. He be released forthwith,

if not required in any other case. Bail-cum-surety bonds of other

appellants are discharged.

27. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.

MARCH 26, 2010                              SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
akb/pst