Atul Sharma & Anr vs State
2013 Latest Caselaw 2453 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                 Reserved on: 6th May, 2013
%                                           Date of Decision: 23rd May, 2013

+      CRL. A. 142/2000

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

       STATE                                                ..... Respondent
                             Through:    Ms.Jasbir Kaur, APP

CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR

                                JUDGMENT

R.V. EASWAR, J.:

1. This is an appeal filed by Atul Sharma and Shashi Sharma against the

judgment dated 26.02.2000 convicting the appellants for the offences

punishable under Section 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code as well as

against the order dated 9.3.2000 sentencing both of them to RI for 6 years

plus fine of `2,000/- and in default for a further period of RI for 8 months

each under Section 306 and RI for 2 years plus a fine of `1,000/- in default to

undergo RI for further period of 4 months under Section 498A.

2. The appeal arises in the following circumstances. One Renu Sharma

got married to Atul Sharma, one of the appellants herein, on 12th October,

1988. After her marriage she came to the matrimonial home at house No.F32,

Turkman Road, Kamla Market, Delhi. It appears that at some later point of

time they shifted their residence to Flat No.1/F, Pocket A-1, Mayur Vihar,

Phase-III, Delhi. On 28.1.1996 it is alleged that she doused herself with

kerosene and set fire to herself. She was rushed to Noida Medicare Centre for

Treatment, by Atul Kumar Sharma, her husband. There were 98% burns on

her body. On 29.1.1996, at around 10:10 p.m., she succumbed to the burn

injuries.

3. The case of the prosecution is that Renu Sharma committed suicide

being unable to bear the dowry demands of her husband and mother-in-law,

the appellants herein, who are guilty of the offence under Section

306(abetment of suicide) and Section 498A (cruelty by husband or relative).

4. The complaint was filed by the brother of Renu Sharma whose name

was Raj Gopal Sharma. He is PW-2 in this case. The trial court has relied

upon two witnesses, namely, PW-2 and the evidence of Veena Shamra, PW-1,

who is the sister of the deceased. The trial court noted that the evidence of

Veena Sharma and Raj Gopal Sharma established the fact that there were

dowry demands and torture of Renu Sharma which ultimately led her to

commit suicide. The trial court conceded that the prosecution case was based

only on circumstantial evidence of dowry demand and torture and that no

evidence was adduced by the prosecution to the effect that it was the accused

persons who abetted the suicide. However, the trial court observed that in

such cases, direct evidence of abetment of suicide would hardly be available

and that it is only the circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the accused

persons which are to be taken into consideration for adjudicating upon the

truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution case.

5. The trial court first dealt with a preliminary point that the evidence of

Raj Gopal Sharma was unreliable because he deliberately gave the date of

marriage between the deceased and Atul Kumar Sharma as 12.10.1989 in

order to bring the case within the period of seven years mentioned in Section

304B of the IPC, whereas the actual date of marriage was 12.10.1988.

According to the trial court this was not done deliberately by Raj Gopal

Sharma which was an inadvertent error or due to the tendency of the family of

the deceased in such cases to be motivated by a sense of revenge against the

accused. According to the trial court the evidence of Raj Gopal Sharma

cannot be discarded merely on the ground that a wrong date of marriage was

given by him.

6. The trial court first dealt with the evidence of Veena Sharma.

According to the trial court, Veena Sharma had deposed that the deceased

used to tell her that Atul Sharma used to beat her after consuming liquor. He

would also make demands of dowry from the deceased in the form of scooter,

dining table and VCR. Veena Sharma also stated, according to the trial court,

that when she visited the matrimonial home of the deceased on 27.01.1996

she found both the appellants there. Shashi Sharma, the mother-in-law of the

deceased, complained to Veena Sharma that her brothers (which also means

the brothers of the deceased) did not respect her. Atul Sharma also asked her

to prevail upon her brothers to fulfil the demand of VCR. The defence tried

to point out that Atul Sharma already had a dining table and he had even

purchased a scooter with monies provided by his mother in August, 1990.

The trial court, however, did not pay much credence to the plea of the

defence. Certain photographs were sought to be produced before the trial

court by the accused to show that Atul Sharma already had a dining table but

the trial court dismissed them by observing that they are not suggestive of the

fact that the dining table was with him since the date of his marriage. The

defence had also attempted to show that the deceased had illicit relationship

with a person by name Rajbir Rana and that this was known to Veena Sharma

and it was because of the sense of shame and guilt that Renu Sharma had

committed suicide. But this attempt of the defence was also brushed aside by

the trial court by saying that Rajbir Rana was an imaginary person and it

cannot appeal to common sense that Atul Kumar Sharma would accept the

fact that his wife continued to have an illicit relationship with Rajbir Rana

even while continuing to reside with him (Atul Sharma) as his wife. In this

view of the matter, the trial court dismissed the theory of Rajbir Rana and his

influence over Renu Sharma driving her to commit suicide.

7. According to the trial court the version of Veena Sharma was

corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of Raj Gopal Sharma.

Both of them stated that their sister Renu Sharma was harassed and ill-treated

for dowry by her in-laws. The trial court observed that except the events

which happened on 27.1.1996 in the house of Atul Sharma there was nothing

to show how the days passed. It surmised that something unexpected had

taken place in the house which had made Renu Sharma to take the extreme

step to end her life. According to the trial court, based on the evidence of

Veena Sharma and Raj Gopal Sharma, Renu Sharma was tortured and ill

treated by the accused persons which ultimately led her to commit suicide.

According to the trial court, Renu Sharma was forced to think that the

continued hostile behaviour of the accused persons would not come to an end

and that the only way out for her was to embrace death by committing

suicide.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the trial court held that the circumstantial

evidence in this case established that the accused persons had abetted the

suicide by Renu Sharma. The accused were thus convicted for the offences

punishable under section 498A and Section 306 of the IPC.

9. The argument before me on behalf of the appellants was primarily that

there was no evidence to show that the appellants had made any dowry

demands on specific days from the deceased or that they had indulged in

physical or mental torture in order to justify the conviction. It was pointed

out that the dining table was already there with Atul Sharma and he had

purchased a scooter in August, 1990 with the help of his mother and evidence

in the form of the bank account of Shashi Sharma and the cheque leaves were

submitted before the trial court. It is contended that there is no direct

evidence of any beating or physical torture by the appellants and whatever has

been stated by Veena Sharma or Raj Gopal Sharma was merely hearsay. It is

contended that even the circumstantial evidence on which reliance was placed

by the trial court was unreliable and flimsy and no conviction can be based on

the same.

10. It was alternatively contended that even if the appellants are found

guilty, their sentence should be reduced to the period of six months already

undergone by them.

11. On the other hand, the learned APP contended that the evidence of

PW-1 and PW-2 corroborates each other in material particulars on the basis of

which the conviction under both the Sections of IPC should be maintained.

She took me through the important findings of the trial courts at pages 5, 11,

13, 14 etc. and submitted that these findings, though based on circumstantial

evidence, have stood the test of cross-examination and also represent a fair

inference which can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence. There is,

according to the learned APP, enough evidence to show that there was a

demand of dowry in the form of dining table, scooter and VCR and there was

also evidence to show cruelty, physical violence inflicted upon the deceased

Renu Sharma.

12. On the question of sentence, the learned APP submitted that the

appellants deserve no reduction thereof.

13. I have carefully considered the judgment of the trial court and also

examined the evidence in this case. I am unable to uphold the conviction of

the appellants under Section 498A and 306 of the IPC. I give my reasons

below.

14. The main evidence in this case has been described by the trial court as

"circumstantial". Even though conviction under Section 498A and 306 IPC

can be founded on circumstantial evidence in appropriate cases, I am of the

view that the circumstantial evidence should be reliable, cogent, not

imaginary and consistent only with the guilt of the accused. With this

observation, I proceed to examine the evidence of three main witnesses in the

case, namely, Veena Sharma (sister of the deceased), Raj Gopal Sharma

(brother of the deceased) and Bhim Singh, sub-inspector of police (PW-13),

who was the Investigating Officer (IO).

15. I will first take up the evidence of Veena Sharma, PW-1. As to the

existence of the dining table in the house of Atul Sharma which is one of the

demands stated to have been made by him, Veena Sharma is not categorical.

At one part of her deposition on 24.05.1999 she has stated that it was

incorrect that there was a dining table in the house of the accused persons

even prior to the marriage of Atul Sharma. It is not known as to how she can

be so categorical about the existence or otherwise of the dining table in the

house of Atul Sharma even before the marriage of Atul Sharma with her

sister. Be that as it may, in her deposition earlier on 16.04.1999 she stated

that she was not aware that there was a dining table in the house of the

accused, since the date of his marriage. These are statements which are either

irrelevant to the issue or were not categorical or firm. This is in contrast with

the evidence of Bhim Singh, the IO (PW-13) who stated in his deposition on

16.09.1999 that when he visited the flat of Atul Sharma, he saw the dining

table set in the room but he was unable to tell the exact location of the same in

the room. The existence of the dining table in the flat of Atul Sharma was

also attempted to be proved by showing photographs before the trial court

which the trial court brushed aside. After taking note of the ambivalent

deposition of Veena Sharma on this point and also taking note of the

categorical and firm statement of PW-13, I am of the view that there was a

dining table in the flat of Atul Sharma, which in turn means that Atul Sharma

could not have made it an issue.

16. Coming to the question whether Atul Sharma was possessed of a

scooter, it was the deposition of both Veena Sharma and Raj Gopal Sharma

that Atul Sharma was demanding a scooter right from the date of his

marriage. Veena Sharma admitted in the course of her deposition on

16.04.1999 that she cannot give the date of demand or the period that elapsed

after the marriage when the demand for scooter was raised. She, however,

stated that Atul Sharma raised the demand for scooter from her brother Raj

Gopal Sharma in her presence. She also admitted that no relative was called

to raise a protest against this demand nor did they lodge any complaint with

the police in connection with the demand. When she was confronted with the

fact that the accused had acquired a scooter on 20.08.1990, she pleaded

ignorance of the fact. She further stated that the sum of `20,000/- stated to

have been paid to Atul Sharma was not given to him in her presence. In

contrast, Atul Sharma in his statement dated 04.01.2000 under section 313 of

the Cr.P.C categorically stated that he never raised any demand for dowry in

the shape of scooter, VCR, dining table, etc. nor was any cash of any sort

given to him by the brother of Renu (apparently in a reference to Raj Gopal

Sharma). He confirmed that he was already having a dining table in his house

and an old scooter at the time of the marriage and that the scooter was

replaced by a new scooter acquired on 20.08.1990 with the help of his

mother's savings kept in her savings bank account; the documents for the

purchase of the scooter and the registration certificate, invoice, etc. were

marked documents before the trial court. In the light of the evidence adduced

by the accused, I am unable to accept the statement made by Veena Sharma

that the accused made a demand for scooter as dowry and kept on making the

demands from time to time after the marriage. It is also noteworthy that the

demand for scooter, according to the deposition of Veena Sharma, was made

by the accused from her brother (apparently referring to Raj Gopal Sharma)

and in her presence. The only witnesses to the demand, who are family

members of the deceased Renu Sharma, are PW-1 and PW-2 i.e. Veena

Sharma and Raj Gopal Sharma. It is very convenient for Veena Sharma to

allege that the accused Atul Sharma made a demand for scooter from PW-2

(Raj Gopal Sharma, her brother) and in her presence. It is strange that no

complaint was registered with the police in connection with the demand nor

was any relative called to raise a protest against the demand. This appears to

me to be very strange since the deceased Renu Sharma had other brothers and

sisters apart from PW-1 and PW-2 and in fact three brothers were even

residing together, as per the statement of Raj Gopal Sharma on 20.05.1998.

The other brothers and sisters of Renu Sharma are Krishan Gopal, Girdhar

Gopal, Ravi Gopal, Brij Gopal, Shakuntala Devi (eldest sister), Kusumlata

and Madhu Sharma. It not only appears to me to be strange but it also

appears quite unusual and opposed to the ordinary course of human conduct

and probabilities that if Renu Sharma was in fact being tortured and ill-treated

in her matrimonial home and dowry demands were being made by the

appellants, she did not report it to the other members of the family and had

taken only Veena Sharma and Raj Gopal Sharma into confidence. This is

particularly so when three of the brothers were stated to be residing together.

The normal human tendency is to confide in all the members of the family,

particularly when both the parents of the deceased were no more - the mother

died in the year 1982 and the father died in the year 1989 immediately after

the marriage of Renu.

17. Another surprising feature in this case is that the police have not

thought it fit to examine any other family member as witness. The story that

Renu Sharma was ill-treated and tortured in her matrimonial home and that

dowry demands were being made by Atul Sharma and Shashi Sharma is only

that of Veena Sharma and Raj Gopal Sharma. The police ought to have

examined the other members of the family such as Krishan Gopal, Girdhar

Gopal, Ravi Gopal, Brij Gopal (brothers) and Shakuntala Devi, Kusumlata

and Madhu Sharma (sisters); the failure to examine them as prosecution

witnesses is a serious lapse and weakens the case of the prosecution

considerably.

18. The depositions of Raj Gopal Sharma, the brother of the deceased are

revealing. On 11.11.1997 he stated that the accused Shashi Sharma (mother-

in-law of the deceased) came to the house of Renu Sharma (deceased) three

days before the incident took place and she had brought kerosene oil. A

question was posed to him as to how he knew that the kerosene oil was

brought by the mother-in-law of the deceased. His answer was that he was

told about this fact by her elder sister Veena Sharma when she returned home

after visiting Renu Sharma's house on 27.01.1996. It is a classic case of

hearsay evidence which the trial court failed to note. The allegation is quite

serious and is made against one of the accused, but it has been made in a

clever manner. Raj Gopal Sharma says that he came to know that Shashi

Sharma brought kerosene oil to the house of Renu Sharma three days before

the incident, from his elder sister Veena Sharma who is none else than PW-1.

This statement cannot be verified from Renu Sharma since she is no longer

alive. She was the only person who could have told this to Veena Sharma.

Veena Sharma tells Raj Gopal Sharma that she was made aware of this fact by

the deceased Renu Sharma. A serious allegation is made against Shashi

Sharma in this manner. The evidence is hearsay. Both Raj Gopal Sharma and

Veena Sharma are the only two family members of Renu Sharma who have

deposed in this case. Their evidence is unreliable.

19. It is further interesting to note the deposition of Raj Gopal Sharma on

20.05.1998. He stated that in the hospital where Renu Sharma was admitted

after the burns, about 10 persons from her mohalla were standing near her.

He confessed that he did not know the names of any of them, but also stated

that one of these persons was a resident of the flat below that of Atul Sharma

and another person was a shopkeeper who had a shop below the flat of the

accused. He further stated in the deposition that he inquired from the person

who was residing just below the flat of the accused and that the said person

told him that he did not hear about the burning, but told him that the accused

have been quarrelling with Renu Sharma. That person further told Raj Gopal

Sharma - and this is quite serious - that "while accused was taking my sister

to the hospital in the taxi he expressed the fear that as she was still breathing,

she may cause trouble to him". This is pure hearsay and it appears to have

been made only with the intention of implicating the accused. The witness

did not know the name of the person who told him this fact. The witness also

did not think it fit, strangely, to ask the name of the person so that such a

serious fact which can implicate the accused Atul Sharma can be further

investigated by the police, but Raj Gopal Sharma did no such thing. The

sentences which follow the aforequoted statement are more interesting: -

"Police did not ask me this question and, therefore, I did not tell to the police. Police was not present in the hospital, when I reached there. Police had reached there after about half an hour from P.S. Kalyanpuri. We remained in the hospital so long my sister survived."

The quoted sentences are shocking, to say the least. If according to Raj Gopal

Sharma, Atul Sharma had expressed the fear that since Renu Sharma was

alive at that point of time, her survival could cause trouble to him, that would

be a damning evidence (for Atul Sharma). Despite this, Raj Gopal Sharma

somehow did not think it fit to inform the police about it so that they can

make further investigation into the matter. He says that he did not inform the

police because the police did not ask him this question. I do not think it was

normal conduct for Raj Gopal Sharma not to inform the police about the fear

allegedly expressed by Atul Sharma, even though the police did not ask any

question on this issue. The police may not have been present in the hospital

when he was informed about this fact by the resident of the flat below the

floor of Atul Sharma, but even according to the statement of Raj Gopal

Sharma the police reached the hospital after about half an hour. It is unusual

that Raj Gopal Sharma, even after the police arrived in the hospital, did not

think it fit to inform the police about what the person residing below the flat

of Atul Sharma told him. The only inference is that this is a concocted story

which cannot be believed and was made only with a view to falsely implicate

Atul Sharma.

20. It is again surprising that the police did not examine any of the

neighbours of Atul Sharma/ Shashi Sharma in an attempt to elicit the truth

about the allegation that they were demanding dowry from Renu Sharma and

also torturing and ill-treating her. It would have been in my opinion most

natural to examine the neighbours of Atul Sharma, particularly when Atul

Sharma was residing in a flat which was surrounded by other residential flats,

as per the deposition of Veena Sharma on 24.05.1999. The police did not, for

some reason, think it fit to examine the neighbours of Atul Sharma/ Shashi

Sharma nor did they consider it fit to inquire or investigate the truth of the

allegatios from the brothers and sisters of Renu Sharma other than Veena

Sharma and Raj Gopal Sharma. These are serious gaps in the chain of events

alleged to constitute circumstantial evidence.

21. So far as the point regarding the bringing of kerosene oil to the house

by the mother-in-law Shashi Sharma is concerned, in his statement on

20.05.1998 Raj Gopal Sharma says that this fact was mentioned by him to the

SDM who conducted the inquest, but it was not something which was in his

direct knowledge; this had allegedly been told to him by his sister Veena

Sharma who is said to have heard it from Renu Sharma (deceased), I have

already adverted to this aspect. Raj Gopal Sharma also stated in his

deposition that though Atul Sharma had issued threats to him, he did not tell

anyone regarding those threats. There is no explanation as to why he did not

complaint to the police about the threats or did not even mention it to his

other brothers and sisters.

22. I will now turn to the evidence of PW-13, Bhim Singh, IO. He

deposed that Raj Gopal Sharma met him in the hospital and told him that the

marriage of Renu Sharma had taken place on 10.12.1989. Reckoning from

that date, the incident would have been within a period of seven years from

the date of the marriage and section 304B would have been attracted.

However, this date was wrong as it turned out later, and it was found that the

marriage had taken place on 12.10.1988. It is true that Raj Gopal Sharma had

given a wrong date, but I am unable to disagree with the trial court that this

could have been a genuine mistake, given the circumstances. In his

deposition on 16.09.1999, PW-13 stated that he had enquired about the

accused persons and the deceased Renu Sharma and could not find anything

adverse or in favour of any of the three persons concerned. He deposed that

he did not interrogate the neighbours about Sashi Sharma residing separately.

He, however, stated that none of the neighbours had informed him about any

quarrel or difference between Atul Sharma and Renu Sharma. If Atul Sharma

had expressed the apprehension that while taking Renu Sharma to the hospital

she was still breathing and she could therefore cause trouble for him if she

survived, to the knowledge of the resident of the flat below Atul Sharma, and

if that resident had really mentioned this fact to Raj Gopal Sharma in the

hospital, I do not see any reason why that resident would not have informed

the police also about the fact. It is significant that PW-13 also deposed that

there was no complaint against Atul Sharma or Shashi Sharma prior to this

incident either in his P.S. or in any other P.S. of Delhi, that no complaint had

ever been made from the side of Renu Sharma or her parental side relatives

during the investigation and that no information or statement had ever been

made during the investigation that there was any threat to Renu Sharma. He

also deposed that no complaint was ever made to his P.S. and to his

knowledge about the taking of liquor by Atul Sharma.

23. In my opinion, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 i.e. Veena Sharma and

Raj Gopal Sharma, the sister and brother respectively of the deceased, does

not inspire any confidence. It reveals an anxiety on their part to implicate the

appellants on the basis of hearsay evidence. There are no public witnesses

who testified about the existence of any quarrel regarding dowry between

Atul Sharma and Shashi Sharma on the one hand and Renu Sharma on the

other. None of the neighbours was examined; none came forward with any

evidence against the appellants. The brothers and sisters of Renu Sharma

other than Veena Sharma and Raj Gopal Sharma were not examined nor did

they come forward, which would have been the natural thing for them to do,

with any evidence of any dowry demands by Atul Sharma/ Shashi Sharma or

ill-treatment of Renu Sharma by them. No specific dates or occasions at

which the dowry demands for dining table, scooter or VCR were made were

mentioned. All that we know is that Atul Sharma made a demand of scooter

from Raj Gopal Sharma in the presence of Veena Sharma. This evidence is,

however, belied by the fact that Atul Sharma did lead evidence to show that

he acquired the scooter in August, 1990 with the help of his mother's funds.

In fact, he replaced his old scooter by the new scooter. Moreover, Shashi

Sharma was residing separately from Atul Sharma and Renu Sharma from

May, 1995 to January, 1996 in Minto Road, New Delhi. This has been stated

by Veena Sharma herself. The only allegation against Shashi Sharma was

that she complained that the brothers of Renu Sharma were not showing any

respect to her. Moreover, it was Atul Sharma who called the PCR at No.100

and it was he who had taken Renu Sharma in a taxi to Noida Medical Hospital

for treatment. He had paid the hospital bills.

24. The trial court has based the conviction on circumstantial evidence. It

is permissible to convict a person on the basis of circumstantial evidence but

it has to be done with great caution. In one of the earliest judgments of the

Supreme Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr v. State of Madhya

Pradesh (AIR 1952 SC 343), it was observed as under:-

"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622),

while dealing with circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court laid down the

following conditions precedent:-

"(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

So far as hearsay evidence is concerned, I may refer to the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri & Anr.(AIR

2011 SC 706) where the Supreme Court cautioned against basing a conviction

on hearsay evidence. The Court noted that the reasons why hearsay evidence

is excluded are:- (a) its tendency to protract investigations to an embarrassing

and dangerous length; (b) its intrinsic weakness and incompetency to satisfy

the judge about the existence of a fact; (c) the fraud which may be practiced

with impunity, under its cover; (d) the total lack of any sense of responsibility

on the part of the person giving hearsay evidence; and (e) the absolute

dilution and diminishment of the truth with every repetition of the hearsay

evidence.

25. In the present case, I find it difficult to sustain the conviction on the

basis of the circumstantial evidence and the hearsay evidence of witnesses

PW-1 and PW-2. The circumstances are not conclusive and do not exclude

the possibility of the innocence of the accused. The chain of evidence is not

so complete as not to leave any reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the

accused. The demand of dowry in the shape of dining table, scooter and the

VCR has not been established beyond doubt. Cruelty or torture of Renu

Sharma has also not been established beyond doubt. The police have not

thought it fit to examine the neighbours of the accused in an attempt to know

the truth about the relationship between Atul Sharma and his mother Shashi

Sharma on the one hand and the deceased Renu Sharma on the other. There is

no evidence to show that Renu Sharma complained about the dowry demands

and ill treatment allegedly meted out to her by Atul Sharma and Shashi

Sharma to her brothers and sisters other than Veena Sharma and Rajgopal

Sharma, which seems unusual and contrary to human conduct and probability.

The other brothers and sisters of Renu Sharma have neither been examined

nor have they come forward to depose against the accused. There are

instances of hearsay evidence in the deposition of Veena Sharma and

Rajgopal Sharma, PW-1 and PW-2 respectively. Thus the conviction in this

case appears to me to be the result of a lethal combination of circumstantial

evidence and hearsay evidence.

26. For the above-said reasons, I hold that the appellants were wrongly

convicted for the offences punishable under section 498A and 306 of the IPC.

I set-aside the conviction and the sentence and allow the appeal. The bonds

executed by the appellants and the sureties stand discharged.

(R.V. EASWAR) JUDGE MAY 23 2013 bisht/hs