Krishna & Anr vs State Of Delhi
2013 Latest Caselaw 2262 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                RESERVED ON : 22nd FEBRUARY, 2013
                                DECIDED ON : 15th MAY, 2013

+                                   CRL.A. 349/2000

      KRISHNA & ANR                                       ..... Appellants
                   Through :             Mr.K.B.Andley, Sr.Advocate with
                                         Mr.M.Shamikh, Advocate.


                           versus



      STATE OF DELHI                                       ..... Respondent

                           Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.

AND

+                                   CRL.A. 396/2000

      RAMESH                                              ..... Appellant
                           Through :     Mr.K.B.Andley, Sr.Advocate with
                                         Mr.M.Shamikh, Advocate.

                           versus



      STATE OF DELHI                                       ..... Respondent
                           Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG



CRL.A.Nos.349/2000 & 396/2000                                   Page 1 of 10
 S.P.GARG, J.

1. The appellants Ramesh (A-1), Krishna (A-2) and Sonia (A-3)

impugn judgment in Sessions Case No.69/1998 arising out of FIR

No.5/1998, PS Shahdara by which A-1 was convicted under Sections

498A/304B IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine. A-2

and A-3 were convicted under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to

undergo RI for 2 years with fine ` 1,000/- each.

2. Sheetal (since deceased) was married to Ramesh on

03.03.1995. She resided at her matrimonial home No.1/5102, Gali No.3,

Balbir Nagar, Shahdara after her marriage. On 01.01.1998, she expired

after sustaining cent-percent burn injuries. Daily Diary (DD) No.82B

(Ex.PW-7/A) was recorded at PS Shahdara at 07.15 P.M. The

investigation was assigned to SI Grudev Singh. He informed SDM

(Sh.Vinay Bhushan), who recorded statement of the deceased's father and

lodged First Information Report. Case under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC

was registered. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of witnesses

conversant with facts. Post-mortem on the body of the deceased was

conducted. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed

against the appellants. They were duly charged and brought to trial. The

prosecution examined ten witnesses to substantiate the charges. After

appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the

parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, convicted the

appellants as mentioned previously. It is relevant to note that the State did

not prefer appeal against acquittal of A-2 and A-3 under Section 304B

IPC.

3. Learned Senior Counsel urged that the Trial Court did not

appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into

grave error in relying upon the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 who were

interested witnesses. No independent public witness from the locality was

associated. There was no demand of dowry. A-1 and Sheetal had gone to

her parents' house and stayed there for 3 - 4 days. A-1himself sustained

injuries in an attempt to save Sheetal. There was no evidence to prove that

'soon before her death' any dowry demand was made by the appellants.

Learned APP urged that A-1 had demanded ` 30,000/- but deceased's

parents were able to give him ` 10,000/-. Soon after return from the

parents' house, Sheetal died an unnatural death in the matrimonial home.

PW-2 and PW-3 have no ulterior motive to falsely implicate the

appellants and their relationship with the deceased is not a factor to

discard their truthful version.

4. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have

examined the record. It is not disputed that Sheetal was married to A-1 on

03.03.1995 and she expired by sustaining burn injuries on her body on

01.01.1998 at her matrimonial home. A conjoint reading of Section 113 B

of the Evidence Act and Section 304 B shows that there must be material

to show that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or

harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry.

Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit

suicide or to cause grave injuries or danger to life, limb or health of the

woman are required to be established to bring home the application of

Section 498A IPC. It is a matter of record that at no stage prior to death,

Sheetal or her parents ever lodged any complaint whatsoever against any

of the appellants for harassment/ torture, physical or mental on account of

dowry demands. No 'Panchayat' was ever organised in this regard.

Admittedly, there was no demand of dowry by the accused prior to the

marriage. PW-2 (Harvinder Singh), Sheetal's father admitted that there

was no talk of dowry when marriage was negotiated. PW-3 (Madhu Bala),

Sheetal's mother also admitted that there was no dispute over dowry

articles either at the time of engagement or marriage. The accused persons

were old relatives of deceased's parents. The mediator in the marriage was

Harvinder's mother-in-law (deceased's grand-mother). PW-2 & PW-3

never lodged complaint with her against the conduct and behaviour of the

appellants towards the deceased for harassment on account of dowry

demands. Her statement was not recorded and she was not examined as a

witness. The Investigating Officer did not record statement of any

neighbour to ascertain the conduct and behaviour of the accused persons

towards the deceased during her stay in the matrimonial home. Nothing

emerged on record if any quarrel had taken place with the deceased in the

matrimonial home prior to the incident or she was subjected to any

physical or mental torture. There are no allegations that any of the

appellants abetted or instigated Sheetal to commit suicide. No overt act

was attributed to them. The prosecution has to establish that there must be

nexus between the cruelty and the suicide and the cruelty meted out have

induced the victim to commit suicide. She herself did not inform police or

any authority. She was not medically examined to find out if at any time

she was physically beaten. PW-2 & PW-3 have admitted that they used to

visit the matrimonial home at regular intervals. Sheetal and A-1 also used

to visit them regularly. They had gone at the house of Sheetal' parents on

26.12.1997 at Panipat and stayed there till 30.12.1997. They left on

31.12.1997 at noon hours. PW-2 (Harvinder Singh) admitted that no

quarrel took place during their stay at Panipat. No altercation or difference

of opinion occurred during that period. He sent them happily after two or

three days. PW-2 and PW-3 apparently did not find anything

suspicious/amiss.

5. Sheetal expired at 07.15 P.M. on 01.01.1998. Intimation was

given to her parents. They did not lodge FIR with the police after coming

to Delhi. The Investigating Officer took them next day on 02.01.1998 to

SDM for recording their statements. Thereafter SDM directed the police

to register the case as per provisions of law and take necessary action. It

appears that the Investigating Officer did not conduct proper investigation.

He did not investigate as to how and under what circumstances, Sheetal

sustained burn injuries. There was no investigation if any quarrel had

taken place in the family on any specific issue prompting the deceased to

take extreme step. He did not examine any witness from the

neighbourhood to ascertain whether the relationship of the deceased with

her in-laws was cordial or there used to be frequent quarrels. The body

was not taken to hospital from the spot. Specific plea has been taken by

A-1 that he had intervened to save the deceased and had suffered injuries.

He was medically examined but the MLC has not been placed on record.

Investigating Officer even did not opt to record statement of mediator of

marriage. There is no investigation if Sonia used to reside at her parents'

house after marriage or on the day of incident, she was present in the

house. The entire prosecution's case is based upon the testimony of PW-2

(Harvinder Singh) and PW-3 (Madhu Bala), deceased's parents.

6. PW-2 (Harvinder Singh), in the statement (Ex.PW-2/A)

disclosed to the SDM that A-1 used to demand ` 20,000/- - ` 30,000/-

every time on his visits to them with Sheetal. He used to give ` 10,000/- -

` 15,000/- to him to save her marriage. On 30.12.1997 also the accused

had demanded ` 30,000/- from him and he had given ` 10,000/- after

borrowing it. He also leveled allegations against Krishna and Sonia for

harassing Sheetal on account of dowry demands. PW-2 (Harvinder Singh)

on 28.09.1998 in his examination-in-chief, specifically stated that her

daughter used to tell that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to

quarrel with her. He further stated that her husband had not demanded

anything from her. Further examination of the witness was deferred at the

request of the learned APP as he had not gone through the file. This

witness was examined thereafter on 23.10.1998. He made improvements

from his previous deposition and alleged that A-1 used to demand cash

and he had paid ` 10,000/- to him on 30.12.1997. In the cross-

examination, he stated that A-1 used to demand ` 20,000/- - ` 30,000/- as

he required the money for his business. He further admitted that he was

not in a position to pay that amount to his son-in-law. He again changed

his version and stated that Sheetal used to demand from him and not A-1.

He further admitted that the accused persons had not demanded any

money from him. PW-3 (Madhu Bala) gave inconsistent version that A-1

had demanded ` 10,000/- from her as well as from her husband for some

work. ` 10,000/- were given to him for the first time after one year of the

marriage. Second time ` 10,000/- paid on 30.12.1997. Apparently, PW-2

(Harvinder Singh) has made improvements in his deposition before the

Court and there is inconsistencies in the statement of PW-2 (Harvinder

Singh) and PW-3 (Madhu Bala) as to when any demand of money was

made by the accused. No cogent evidence came on record to prove that `

10,000/- were paid by PW-2 (Harvinder Singh) or PW-3 (Madhu Bala) to

A-1 on 30.12.1997 and from whom the said amount was borrowed. In his

313 statement, A-1 categorically stated that he had opened an account

bearing No.4421 at Vijaya Bank, Rathi Mill, Shahdara and another

account at post office, Tehsil Camp, Ashok Nagar in the name of his wife

Sheetal. PW-7 (Gurdev Singh) did not investigate this aspect. He admitted

that he had collected A-1's MLC from the hospital but no MLC was

placed on record.

7. Sonia was married to DW-2 (Raju) and lived at Uttam Nagar.

DW-2 (Raju) deposed that at the time of incident he and his wife were

present at their residence. They came to know about the incident next day.

No evidence was collected as to when Sonia had visited the house and if

there was any provocation to force the deceased to end her life. No

findings were recorded against Krishna and Sonia for their involvement

under Section 304B IPC.

8. In order to attract application of Section 304B IPC, it is one

of the essential ingredients that the deceased must have been subjected to

cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative and such cruelty and

harassment should be for in connection with the demand of dowry and it

is shown to have meted out to the woman soon before her death. In the

instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the

victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment on account of dowry

demands. The evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the guilt

of the accused under Section 498A/304B IPC is highly scanty. The

investigation is defective and no attempt was made to find out the true

reasons for the unfortunate death of deceased within three years of her

marriage at the matrimonial home. The Investigating Officer did not

investigate the surrounding circumstances leading to the death of the

victim. The accused deserve benefit of doubt.

9. The appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence of

the appellants are set aside. Bail bonds and surety bonds of the appellants

stand discharged. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MAY 15, 2013 tr