Kamlesh Kumar And Others vs State Of Delhi
2015 Latest Caselaw 2904 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 505/1999

                                        Reserved on: 21st January, 2015
%                                  Date of Decision: 13th April, 2015

        KAMLESH KUMAR AND OTHERS                            ....Appellants
                Through Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate.

                                      Versus

        STATE OF DELHI                                 ...Respondent
                 Through Mr. Varun Goswami, APP along with
                 Inspector Ram Niwas, P.S. Roop Nagar.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

By a common judgment dated 10th September, 1999, the appellants-

Kamlesh Kumar, husband of the deceased Neeta; his brother Kishore

Kumar and his sister-in-law Manisha have been convicted for offences

under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for

short). By order on sentence dated 16th September, 1999, the appellants

have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50,000/- each

for the offence under Section 304B IPC. In default of payment of fine,

they have to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three years. For the offence

punishable under Section 498A IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to

undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they would undergo

further Simple Imprisonment for six months each. The sentences, it is

directed, are to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, for short) has been granted.

2. The impugned judgment and order on sentence had also convicted

and sentenced Ujjam Ven, mother of the appellant-Kamlesh Kumar.

However, Ujjam Ven died during the pendency of the present appeal and in

terms of order dated 18th February, 2005, the appeal preferred by her stands

abated.

3. On the question of marriage of the deceased-Neeta with the

appellant-Kamlesh Kumar, we have evidence of Mannu Bhai (PW-1) that

the two had been married in October, 1994. According to Bharat Bhai‟s

(PW-2) deposition, the deceased Neeta had been married to the appellant-

accused Kamlesh since December, 1994. Kamlesh Kumar (PW-10) has

categorically deposed that the appellant-Kamlesh Kumar had got married

to Neeta on 13th December, 1994. He testified that deceased Neeta was the

daughter of his Bua, i.e. father‟s sister. We are inclined to accept the

testimony of PW-10 as to the date of marriage. Appellant-Kamlesh Kumar

in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. has accepted that he

got married to Neeta on 13th December, 1994. Thereafter, she started

residing in her matrimonial home. However, appellant Kamlesh had

claimed that the other three accused, i.e., Ujjam Ven (since deceased),

Kishore Kumar and Manisha were residing in a separate house in Nand

Nagri. We shall examine the veracity of the said claim at a later stage.

4. On the question of unnatural death of Neeta on 6th June, 1995, we

have the testimony of Mannu Bhai (PW-1), to the effect that after about six

months of marriage of his daughter to the appellant Kamlesh (PW-1), he

came to know that Neeta had suffered burn injuries. Thereupon, he came to

Delhi and went to the police station to make enquiries. Retired SI V.P.

Singh (PW-8) has deposed that in the intervening night of 5th/6th June, 1995

he was posted as Incharge of Crime Cell, ISBT, Delhi, and past midnight

he had received a call regarding a burn case. On getting the said

information, he went to House No. 21/39, Shakti Nagar, Delhi and after

inspection he prepared a detailed report, marked Exhibit PW-8/A. At the

situs of the crime, PW-8 found out that the floor had been washed clean

before he had visited the spot. Vinod Kumar Gupta (PW-11), a neighbour,

who was previously residing in House No. 21/39, Shakti Nagar, has

testified that in the month of June, 1995 he was present in the house and at

night he had seen the appellants Kamlesh Kumar, Ujjam Ven (since

deceased) and Manisha sitting on a cot on the terrace. In the meanwhile,

PW-11 heard screams from the portion of the house under occupation of

Kamlesh and immediately rushed downstairs. He saw Neeta burning in the

miyani. Appellant- accused Kishore was not present there and others who

had gathered there, poured water to douse the fire. Neeta was immediately

taken to the hospital in a car. Constable Rajbir Singh (PW-12) has deposed

that around 11.10 P.M. on 5th June, 1995, he had received a call informing

him that a woman in House No. 21/39, Shakti Nagar, Delhi, had suffered

from burn injuries. On reaching the spot, he found that the floor had been

cleaned with water. Some pieces of burnt clothes were found lying there,

which were lifted and sealed. Some burnt rags were also lifted from the

drain near the house and taken into possession vide seizure memo, marked

Exhibit PW-12/A. This statement of PW12 Constable Rajbir Singh

corroborates the statement of PW-8 SI VP Singh. SI Shiv Nath (PW-17)

had deposed that DD No. 34A was marked to him for necessary action and

thereafter he along with a constable had gone to Hindu Rao Hospital and

collected the MLC of Neeta, aged about 22 years. The MLC, marked

Exhibit PW- 15/A, mentions that Neeta was brought to the said hospital at

10.30 P.M. on 5th June, 1995, with alleged history of „burn by self‟. As per

the MLC, Neeta had sustained 75- 80% burns on her body and was

declared medically unfit for statement. The MLC of Neeta was proved by

K.V. Singh (PW-15), Medical Record Clerk, Hindu Rao Hospital, who had

testified that he was working as a Record Clerk for the last ten years and

had seen Dr. Veer Singh signing and writing. He was conversant with the

writing of Dr. Veer Singh and he could identify the same. He further

deposed that Dr. Veer Singh had left the hospital three years back in 1996

(PW- 15‟s testimony was recorded on 13th May, 1999). She was referred

to RML Hospital, but since they refused to admit her, she was subsequently

admitted to Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital. On 7th June, 1995

she succumbed to her injuries in the hospital. All the while, when Neeta

was in the hospital, she was declared medically unfit to make a statement.

Post-mortem of the deceased-Neeta was conducted by Dr. S.B. Singh (PW-

13) on 9th June, 1995 at about 11.30 A.M. The patient had dermo-

epidermal burn injuries all over the body, except front and back of the

outer half of the right thigh and buttock; soles of both feet; both axillae and

perineal area; back of the right side chest; back of the abdomen and upper

2/3rd part of both buttocks. Skin had peeled off at most of the places,

exposing red and white base. Hairs of scalp, eye lashes, eye brows had

been burnt and singed. Blackening of skin was to be seen at most places

due to depositions of soot due to unburnt carbon particles. Burns extended

to 75% to 80% of the total surface area of the body. On internal

examination, it was found that soot was also present in the trachea and all

organs were congested. PW-13, Dr. S. B. Singh opined that the cause of

death was burn shock and toxemia consequent upon burn injuries. In his

opinion, the injuries were ante-mortem and were about two days old. All

injuries were caused due to burns by fire. He proved the detailed post-

mortem report, marked Exhibit PW-13/A, by deposing that it was in his

writing and was duly signed by him.

5. Having thus dealt with the question of the deceased victim‟s

marriage to the appellant Kamlesh and the unnatural death of the victim, it

would now be apposite to deal with the questions of pivotal significance

i.e. whether the deceased Neeta was subjected to harassment and cruelty by

the appellants or some of them and whether the same was in connection

with demand for dowry, so as to bring it under the ambit of Section 304B,

IPC. The offence under Section 498A is broader and wider in its scope and

ambit as it includes cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relatives,

on account of dowry or even otherwise. Two contentions have been raised

by the appellants before us. Firstly, the appellants aver that the deceased-

Neeta was never subjected to any cruelty and harassment on account of

dowry or otherwise. Secondly, they allege that the prosecution has not

been able to adduce concrete evidence to show that any such dowry

demand was made soon before the victim‟s death. The defence counsel

also challenged the prosecution version on the ground that the main

witnesses in the case i.e. Mannu Bhai (PW-1), the father of the deceased

and Bharat Bhai, (PW-2) had turned hostile and had not endorsed the

prosecution‟s story.

6. The trial court has arrived at the conclusion that Mannu Bhai (PW-

1), the father of the deceased, had been won over by the appellants. The

Trial court has arrived at a similar finding in respect of Bharat Bhai (PW-

2), a neighbour, who used to reside in House No. 21/34, Shakti Nagar,

Delhi at the relevant time. It is to be noted that the FIR in the present case

i.e. FIR No. 151/ 1995, marked Exhibit PW-1/ A was registered on the

statement of Mannu Bhai (PW-1), duly signed by him. This was accepted

by PW-1 in his examination-in-chief. Perusal of PW1‟s Court testimony

reflects that he has prevaricated on several material points. At one point,

PW-1 asserted that his statement was recorded at the police station, but

later resiled to state that his statement was recorded by the SDM in Tis

Hazari Courts. On cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor for the

State, Mannu Bhai (PW-1) has voluntarily stated that he was forced to

make the statement to the SDM by his relatives. On cross-examination by

the defence counsel, he endorsed the defence version that the deceased

Neeta was living happily with her in- laws. PW-1 deposed that Neeta had

written letters to him in which she said that she was leading a happy

conjugal life. He accepted the defence version by stating that his daughter

was unhappy on account of her inability to conceive and not on account of

any mal-treatment by her in- laws or for failure to bring dowry. On the

contrary, testimonies of Arvind (PW-3) and Kamlesh Kumar (PW-10) as

noticed below are contrastingly different and implicate the appellants. On

bare perusal of the statement made by PW-1 Mannu Bhai to the SDM,

Exhibit PW-1/A, it can be seen that PW 1 had at that time asserted that his

daughter had complained of harassment meted out to her by her in-laws to

procure dowry. He acknowledged receiving a letter from Neeta, where she

had mentioned that she was fed up on account of such harassment in her

matrimonial house. On appraising the statements of PW1, we realise that

there are glaring contradictions in his statements; Exhibit PW 1/A and the

court deposition. Arvind, PW-3 has deposed that he had been residing in

House No. 21/44, Shakti Nagar, Delhi for six years and had known the

appellants and the deceased Neeta. He was aware of the fact that the

appellant Kamlesh Kumar had married Neeta, the deceased, in 1994.

Arvind was a tailor by profession and the deceased-Neeta used to help him

by stitching blouses. She used to collect cloth from his shop and stitch

blouses at her home. She had on several occasions told him about the

harassment, she suffered at the hands of her mother-in-law Ujjam Ven

(since deceased) and brother-in-law Kishore Kumar. She was tortured and

tormented by her in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry. She was denied

right to visit her parental home. The deceased Neeta had told PW-3 that

her mother-in-law and brother-in-law used to demand money from her and

would forcibly take away the money she earned from stitching. These

facts had been divulged by Neeta on a visit to the house of PW-3, about

two months prior to her death. In the cross-examination, Arvind (PW-3)

was equally assertive. He has stated that his shop was at a short distance

from the house of the appellant and it was barely a five minutes walk. He

was familiar with and knew the appellants. The appellants were three

brothers and were tailors. They were his biradri bhais. He had joined in

the investigation of the case and his statement was recorded by the SDM.

7. Kamlesh Kumar (PW-10) was equally forthright and testified that he

was working as a tailor in Delhi with one Bharat Bhai during the relevant

period, before he shifted to his village. He used to visit the matrimonial

home of Neeta occasionally and he also had opportunities and occasion to

meet her either in the house of Bharat Bhai, his employer, or in the house

of one Arvind, who was also from Gujarat. Neeta used to also stitch

clothes for Bharat Bhai. Neeta would complain about her in-laws, i.e.,

mother-in-law, husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law, who were

harassing her to procure more dowry from her paternal home. PW- 10

Kamlesh has deposed that Neeta had once asked for Rs.5000/- from him to

be paid to her in-laws, but he was unable to arrange the amount. This

request for money was made at about 3-4 P.M. when he was on his way to

his shop, about two months prior to her death. In his examination-in-chief,

PW-10 Kamlesh Kumar had asserted that Neeta after hearing of his

inability to arrange Rs. 5,000, had asked PW-10 to speak to her father. She

had requested PW-10 to arrange and get the money for her father. Neeta

was maltreated in her matrimonial home and was constantly vilified for

dowry. This led to frequent quarrels. PW-10 Kamlesh came to know

about the occurrence on 6th June, 1995 and thereafter he immediately went

to the hospital. Neeta was alive at that time but could not speak because

her condition was very precarious. She had sustained serious and extensive

burn injuries. In his cross-examination, Kamlesh Kumar (PW-10) deposed

that he knew the appellant Kamlesh Kumar even before his marriage to

Neeta, as he used to visit his house. He belonged to their biradri.

8. The counsel for the appellants has tried to assail the testimony of

Kamlesh Kumar (PW-10) and Arvind Kumar (PW-3) as not credible and

trustworthy. According to the defence, their testimonies ought to be

rejected and disbelieved. However, in our considered opinion, there was

no reason or cause for PW-3 and PW-10 to falsely implicate the appellants

and make false allegations against them. They certainly knew the

appellants and also the deceased. The fact that they were tailors is crystal

clear. It is also an accepted position that the appellants Kishore Kumar,

Kamlesh Kumar and the third brother Rajesh were also tailors. PW-3 and

PW-10 were perturbed on coming to know about the burn injuries suffered

by Neeta on 6th June, 1995. PW-10 had visited both the hospital and the

house, i.e., the matrimonial home of the deceased-Neeta. The deposition of

PW- 10 Kamlesh and PW-3 Arvind inspires confidence and is a genuine

narration of the real and true state of affairs in the deceased victim‟s

conjugal home. The contention of the defence on this account therefore

fails and is rejected.

9. The appellants have also placed reliance on the testimony of Vinod

Kumar Gupta (PW-11), who was a neighbour of the appellants and the

deceased at the time of the occurrence to undermine the credibility of PW-

10‟s and Pw-3‟s depositions. PW-11 had deposed that he previously lived

as a tenant in House No. 21/39, Shakti Nagar, Delhi from 14th August,

1994 till October, 1997. On 5th June, 1995, he had come to the roof of his

tenanted premises in order to sleep, when he noticed that appellants-

Kamlesh Kumar, Manisha and Ujjam Ven (since deceased) and a female

child were sitting on a cot. He had exchanged courtesy with them, but

soon thereafter heard a scream and rushed downstairs. Son of the landlord

had also come there by that time and they saw Neeta burning in the attic

(miyani). The appellants except the appellant Kishore Kumar were present

there and they started pouring water to douse the fire. Neeta was then

taken to the Hindu Rao Hospital in the car of a third person. In the cross-

examination, Vinod Kumar Gupta (PW-11) had deposed that Neeta as

observed by him, was happily living with her in-laws. We do not however

think that the aforesaid testimony of Vinod Kumar Gupta (PW11) reflects

or shows that the depositions of Arvind (PW-3) and Kamlesh Kumar (PW-

10) were false and make belief. The deceased got married six months prior

to the date of occurrence and was living in her matrimonial home. Quite

naturally, it would have taken time to adjust in a new setup and to open up

with unknown persons. At the same time, we also have evidence that the

deceased Neeta was doing tailoring work and in that connection she had

interaction with Arvind (PW-3) and Kamlesh Kumar (PW- 10), who were

also tailors by profession and belonged to her native place in Gujarat. We

need to be cognizant of human psychology and realise that commonality of

profession and native place reflect bonds of affinity between the deceased

Neeta and PW-3 and PW-10 and so she had opened up to them and spoken

about her ill-treatment in her matrimonial home. The deceased Neeta

might not have developed the same kind of empathy with Vinod Kumar

Gupta (PW-11) to speak to him. Thus, the factum that the deceased Neeta

had not spoken to Vinod Kumar Gupta (PW-11), who was a neighbour and

a stranger to her, does not in any way dent the prosecution version or even

create an iota of doubt regarding the testimonies of Arvind (PW-3) and

Kamlesh Kumar (PW-10).

10. Another issue or contention raised by the defence relates to the

satisfaction of the condition "soon before" postulated under Section 304B,

IPC. The defence counsel has argued that for Section 304B to apply, the

prosecution has to first show that „soon before the death‟ the deceased was

subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative, for or in

connection with any demand of dowry. The defence submitted that in the

instant case, the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence to show that

soon before the unnatural death of Neeta, she was subjected to harassment

or cruelty on account of or in connection with demand of dowry. We are

however satisfied that in the present case the prosecution has successfully

discharged the preliminary and primary burden placed on it. Indisputably,

the unnatural death had occurred within six months of marriage. Arvind

(PW-3) and Kamlesh Kumar (PW-10) had deposed about the pitiable

condition of the deceased and her tribulations in her matrimonial home on

account of her failure to bring dowry, which ultimately culminated in her

death by way of burning.

11. To articulate and understand the meaning of the expression "soon

before" and whether the said condition is satisfied in the case at hand, we

would like to examine the case law on the said subject. In Sunil Bajaj

versus State of M.P., (2001) 9 SCC 417, referring to the aforesaid

ingredient/condition of Section 304B, it was observed that conviction for

an offence can be on the basis of evidence, which may be either direct or

circumstantial or both. In the facts of the said case, it was held that there

was no evidence of demand of dowry or the deceased being subjected to

cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry. The marriage in that

case had taken place in 1991 and the death had taken place in 1995. The

Court had relied upon written communications and other factors while

ruling out the applicability of Section 304B, IPC.

12. In Hira Lal and Others versus State (Government of NCT), Delhi,

AIR 2003 SC 2865 reference was made to Section 113B of the Evidence

Act, 1872, which reads as under:-

"[113B. Presumption as to dowry death-When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code."

Adverting to the 21st Report of the Law Commission of India on

Dowry Deaths and Law Reforms, it was observed that Section 113B,

Evidence Act, raises a presumption in law when an accused is tried under

Section 304B, IPC. When death occurs otherwise than under natural

circumstances and where the victim had been subjected to cruelty or

harassment prior to her death in connection with demand of dowry, it

would be viewed as a case of dowry death. Referring to the question of

what constitutes "soon before", the Supreme Court elucidated that this was

a relative term and interpretation of the same would depend upon the

factual matrix of each case. No strait jacket formula should be applied or a

ritualistic, mechanical interpretation resorted to while construing the said

aspect. The proximity test, as prescribed by the Supreme Court in a catena

of cases, does not specify a definite period and determination of the said

period is to be left to be determined by the courts depending upon the facts

and circumstances of each case. Suffice, it was indicated that the

expression "soon before" would normally imply that the intervening period

between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question

should not be unduly long so as to break the connect between the two. If

the alleged incident of cruelty is so remote in time and has become stale, so

as to not disturb the mental equilibrium of the victim concerned, it would

be of no consequence. Otherwise, the requirement of "soon before" is

satisfied. A similar view was expressed in Kaliyaperumal and Another

versus State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 9 SCC 157.

13. In Sudhakar versus State of Maharasthra, (2000) 6 SCC 671, the

Supreme Court while referring to a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in

Protima Dutta v. State, [(1977) 81 CWN 713 elucidated that in cases

where there is sustained cruelty, proximity may even extend to a period of

three years. In Harjit Singh versus State of Punjab, (2006) 1 SCC 463,

the Supreme Court emphasised that the idea behind the expression "soon

before" is to emphasize that death should in all probabilities have been the

aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. There should be a perceptible

nexus between the death and the dowry related cruelty or harassment of the

victim. Interval or gap between cruelty and death should not be very wide,

for the court must be in a position to gauge that in all probability the death

was on account of harassment or cruelty for dowry. Recently, the Supreme

Court dealt with this issue in Anjanappa versus State of Karnataka, JT

2013 (14) SC 340 and Surinder Singh versus State of Haryana, AIR 2014

SC 817. In Anjanappa case (supra), parents of the victim had turned

hostile and the Court observed that they were either won over or

pressurized into supporting the accused. It was further held that the trial

court should have seen through the insincerity and dishonesty in the

statements of the victim‟s parents and relied upon evidence of other

witnesses. The Supreme Court relied upon the dying declaration and ruled

out any possibility of accidental death. The aforesaid judgment would be

relevant in the facts of the present case, as we are satisfied that this is not a

case of accidental death. Again, this is a case wherein father of the

deceased Mannu Bhai (PW-1) has taken a diametrically opposite stance

from the version given earlier. It is also to be noted that in the present case

the crime scene or the place of occurrence was washed clean prior to the

arrival of the police team. The photographs placed on record, marked

Exhibit PW-9/ 1 to 5, do indicate presence of burnt rags in a room and the

fact that the floor was clean. The said photographs were taken by

Constable Mahi Lal (PW-9) at about midnight on 6th June, 1995. Neither

the facts indicate, nor is it palpable that this was a case of accidental fire.

In the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants accept that

deceased-Neeta was not very happy with her marriage with Kamlesh

Kumar propounding that she was interested in getting married to someone

else in Gujarat and also because she could not conceive a child. At the

same time, it was stated that it was a case of accidental death. The

statement that deceased-Neeta could not conceive and was unhappy on that

account is rather far-fetched as the marriage had taken place barely six

months back. No such suggestion was given by the father or other public

witnesses including Arvind (PW-3) and Kamlesh Kumar (PW-10).

Similarly, the statement that deceased-Neeta wanted to marry a third

person appears to be concocted and invented. No details or particulars to

corroborate the same have been given. Had the deceased-Neeta liked

someone else, it would have been indicated or so stated specifically and

clearly. As far as the theory of accidental fire is concerned, it has not even

been stated or argued that Neeta was cooking food at the relevant time and,

therefore she accidentally caught fire. As per the post-mortem report and

the MLC Exhibits PW-13/A and PW-15/A, Neeta was badly burnt and was

smelling of kerosene. There was soot all over her body. The question of

accidental fire, therefore, does not arise.

14. In Surinder Singh's case (supra), it was held that the proximity test

is not a rigid one; rather it calls for adopting a pragmatic and sensitive

approach by the courts. In the said case, the death had occurred within

three months and four days of marriage, which was a very short period and,

therefore, the Court observed that the test of "soon before" was satisfied. It

was further observed that the test should be applied in such a manner so as

not to defeat the purport of the provision and without losing sight of reality.

The meaning which ought to be given should be in accord with the

legislative intent. It was observed:-

"25. Before closing, the most commonplace argument must be dealt with. In all cases of bride burning it is submitted that independent witnesses have not been examined. When harassment and cruelty is meted out to a woman within the four walls of the matrimonial home, it is difficult to get independent witnesses to depose about it. Only the inmates of the house and the relatives of the husband, who cause the cruelty, witness it. Their servants, being under their obligation, would never depose against them. Proverbially, neighbours are slippery witnesses. Moreover, witnesses have a tendency to stay away from courts. This is more so with neighbours. In bride burning cases who else will, therefore, depose about the misery of the deceased bride except her parents or her relatives? It is time we accept this reality. We, therefore, reject this submission."

15. One of the pleas taken in the present appeal is that Kishore Kumar

and Manisha, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased were

residing separately. This is not correct and is not borne out from the

record, including the cross-examination of the public witnesses. Presence

of Manisha is clearly deposed to by Vinod Kumar Gupta (PW-11). Arvind

(PW-3) and Kamlesh Kumar (PW-10) have also referred to the acts of

cruelty and dowry demand by three appellants.

16. The appellants had also examined Prakash Chand Gupta (DW-1),

who deposed that Kishore Kumar had a separate house and used to reside

in Nand Nagri with his wife, mother and children and the appellant-

Kamlesh Kumar used to reside separately with his wife Neeta, the

deceased. However, in his cross-examination, DW-1 was not able to point

out the address of the appellants at Nand Nagri or the house number of

appellant-Kamlesh Kumar at Shakti Nagar. In the cross-examination of

Mannu Bhai (PW-1) and Bharat Bhai (PW-2), no such suggestion was

made. In fact, Bharat Bhai (PW-2) in his cross-examination had stated that

the accused persons, i.e., appellants, including Ujjam Ven (since deceased)

were living in Shakti Nagar, though he accepted that the accused persons,

i.e., the appellants and Ujjam Ven (since deceased) were also having

another house in Nand Nagri. No such suggestion was given during the

cross-examination of Arvind (PW-3) or Kamlesh Kumar (PW-10). The

said plea is, therefore, rejected.

17. The last issue relates to the quantum of sentence to be awarded. We

do not see any convincing/ persuasive reason or ground to alter the

sentence awarded to the appellant-Kamlesh Kumar, husband of the

deceased-Neeta. However, we are inclined to reduce the sentence awarded

to Kishore Kumar, brother-in-law and Manisha, sister-in-law of the

deceased. Their sentence is accordingly reduced to a period of seven years

for the offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC. They shall also

undergo a Rigorous Imprisonment for three years for the offence under

Section 498A, IPC imposed. Fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under

Section 304B, IPC and Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 498A, IPC

imposed by the trial court is also maintained. In default of payment of fine

for offence punishable under Section 304B, they shall further undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and in default of payment of

fine for offence punishable under Section 498A, they shall undergo a

Simple Imprisonment three months each instead of Rigorous Imprisonment

for three years and Simple Imprisonment of six months each imposed by

the trial court. The sentences will run concurrently and benefit of Section

428 Cr.P.C. will be granted. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

above. Trial court records will be sent back. The appellants, who are on

bail pursuant to suspension of sentence, shall surrender within a period of

one month from today to undergo the remaining sentence. In case the

appellants do not surrender, the trial court shall take steps to enforce

compliance. Trial court record will be sent back.

-sd-

(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE

-sd-

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR) JUDGE APRIL 13, 2015 VKR