Mehtab Singh & Anr. vs State Of Delhi
2017 Latest Caselaw 3721 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
    +   Crl.Appeal No.884/2001
                                   Date of Decision: July 28th, 2017

        SAVITA                                              ..... Appellants

                        Through          Mr.K.K.Sud, Sr.Adv.
                                         with Ms.Vaishali Soni, Advocate.

                                versus

        STATE OF DELHI                                    .....   Respondent
                        Through          Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP.

    +   Crl.Appeal No.10/2002

        MEHTAB SINGH & ANR.                                 ..... Appellants

                        Through          Mr.K.K.Sud, Sr.Adv.
                                         with Ms.Vaishali Soni, Advocate.

                                versus

        STATE OF DELHI                                    .....   Respondent
                        Through          Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP.

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

        P.S.TEJI, J.

1. By this common order, I shall dispose of the two appeals

- one filed by the mother-in-law of the deceased being

Criminal Appeal No.884/2001 and the other being Criminal

Crl.Appeal Nos.884/01 & 10/02 Page1 of 16 Appeal No.10/2002, filed by the father-in-law and husband of

the deceased. The father-in-law has died during the pendency

of the appeals.

2. Both the abovementioned appeals have been filed

against the judgment dated 30.10.2001 whereby the appellants

were found guilty and convicted for offences punishable under

Section 498A & 304B/34 IPC and order on sentence dated

06.11.2001 whereby they have been sentenced to RI for ten

years each under Section 304B IPC and to undergo RI for three

years under Section 498A IPC.

3. The facts of the cases, as per the case of the prosecution

are that in DD No.6-A dated 19.10.1996, information was

received in the police station from RML hospital at 6.45 AM

whereby duty constable Narender Kumar had reported that one

Sangeeta wife of Jitender of village and PO Khera had been

admitted in the hospital by her father-in-law in a burnt

condition. On this information, ASI Mahender Singh left with

Constable Ravinder Kumar for the house of the deceased.

Deceased Sangeeta died in the hospital of the said burns at

Crl.Appeal Nos.884/01 & 10/02 Page2 of 16 9.10 am on the same day. Crime team had reached the house of

the deceased and had inspected the site from 12.20 P.M. to

1.15 p.m. on 19.10.1996. As per the report of ASI Mahender

Singh, the father of the deceased had arrived by the time he

had returned. The SDM could not be contacted and on being

available, he recorded the statement of father of the deceased

on 22.10.1996 and directed the IO to register a case under

Section 304B IPC. Inquest proceedings were conducted by the

SDM as deceased died within six months of her marriage. The

father of the deceased had alleged that the accused persons

used to harass and torture his daughter for demand of dowry.

The accused persons had demanded Rs.1,00,000/- and Hero

Honda motorcycle through his daughter.

4. The statements of Smt.Phula Devi, mother of the

deceased and Sh.Bhagwan, brother of the deceased were

recorded in which they alleged that accused to demand dowry

from the deceased and deceased was tortured and harassed by

the accused persons. It was also alleged against the accused

persons that in the evening of 18.10.1996, Shri Bhagwan had

Crl.Appeal Nos.884/01 & 10/02 Page3 of 16 gone to the house of the deceased for giving her gifts. Sangeeta

was found crying as the accused persons were taunting her for

bringing insufficient dowry. Brother of the deceased heard the

screams and when he rushed to the roof of the house, he saw

his sister in flames. At that time, accused Mehtab Singh was

standing on the terrace while the other accused were standing

on the staircase. On seeing Shri Bhagwan, accused Mehtab

Singh shouted to other co-accused persons to do the same

thing to Shri Bhagwan which was done to Sangeeta. Shri

Bhagwan being terrified, ran away and narrated the entire

incident to his parents. Father of the deceased reached the

matrimonial house of the deceased where he came to know that

she had died.

5. During investigation, IO had seized the broken bangles,

burnt clothes and bottle containing kerosene oil from the

terrace. A suicide note written by the deceased was also

seized. A note book having writing of the deceased was given

by the father of the deceased of the IO which was seized.

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

Crl.Appeal Nos.884/01 & 10/02 Page4 of 16

6. Charge under Section 498A/304B/34 of IPC was framed

against all the accused persons to which they pleaded not

guilty.

7. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined,

PW-1 Inder Singh, PW-2 Shri Bhagwan, PW-3 Phula Devi,

PW-4 Dr.Deepak Gupta, PW-5 Dr.Ashok Jaiswal, PW-6

Dr.Arun Gupta, PW-7 HC Dhani Ram, PW-8 Const. Narender,

PW-9 Const. Raj Singh, PW-10 SI Nand Ji, PW-11 Sh.

Parkash Chand, PW-12 Ms.Deepa Verma, PW-13 ASI

Mahender Singh and PW-14 SI Jaipal Singh.

8. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of

the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded

in which they claimed innocence and false implication. In

support of defence, they examined DW-1 Shiv Narayan, DW-2

Kapoor Singh and DW-3 Om Parkash.

9. The grounds challenging the judgment and order on

sentence are that there has been a complete misreading of the

material placed on record by the Ld. Trial Court Judge and as

such the findings are not maintainable. The police had held

Crl.Appeal Nos.884/01 & 10/02 Page5 of 16 inquest proceedings on 20.10.1996 wherein the statement of

appellant Mehtab Singh had been recorded for the

identification of the dead body of the deceased, but the other

documents pertaining to these proceedings have been

suppressed dishonestly by the prosecution. Moreover, counsel

for the appellants argued that the Trial Court erred in relying

upon the statement of the parents and the brother of the

deceased as the same were given to the SDM and the police

after much deliberations and consultations after a period of

three days from the date of incident, when the brother of the

deceased narrated the incident to his parents. The father of the

deceased after having reached the spot had refused to make a

statement and told the police that he would do the same only

after consulting his family members.

10. Per contra, arguments advanced by learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the State are that the appellants have been

rightly held guilty under Sections 498A/304B IPC by the trial

court. The father as well as other relatives of the deceased have

duly supported the case of prosecution that the deceased was Crl.Appeal Nos.884/01 & 10/02 Page6 of 16 subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of

dowry by the appellants. There is sufficient evidence against

the appellants to hold them guilty for the offences of harassment

on account of demand of dowry and of dowry death.

11. Arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants as

well as learned APP for the State were heard.

12. PW-1 Sh.Inder Singh, father of the deceased had

deposed that Sangeeta was married to Jitender on 20.04.1996

and after marriage they started living in Village Khera Delhi.

When his daughter went for the second time to her matrimonial

home, her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-

law, started harassing her for dowry. They used to demand

Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and Hero Honda motorcycle. The said

facts were disclosed to him by his daughter. In September,

when Jitender came to take his daughter, they told him that

they would give him motor cycle and gave Rs.10,000/- to him.

On 18.10.1996, his son Shri Bhagwan went to village Khera to

give Dusshera to the deceased. On that day, at about 2.30 or 3

AM, Shri Bhagwan heard the shouts of Sangeeta and he rushed Crl.Appeal Nos.884/01 & 10/02 Page7 of 16 towards the place from where the shouts were coming. His son

had disclosed the incident to PW-1 regarding burning of his

sister. His son also disclosed that when he went to rescue his

sister, accused Mehtab Singh stated to other accused persons to

catch him and do the same to him which had been done to his

sister. His son ran from there and disclosed PW-1 that

Sangeeta had been killed. He had proved his statement as

ExPW1/A made before the SDM. He also deposed that the

letter mark A was not in the hand writing of his daughter

Sangeeta. He had handed over a note book ExPW1/C having

hand writing of Sangeeta.

13. PW-2 Shri Bhagwan, brother of the deceased had

deposed that on 18.10.1996 he had gone to the house of his

sister Sangeeta to give her festival gifts. Sangeeta was crying

and told him that her father-in-law was demanding

Rs.1,00,000/- and was not happy. At about 2/3 AM, he heard

some shouts, got up and saw that accused Mehtab was standing

on the terrace. Sister-in-law, husband and mother-in-law of

the deceased were standing in the staircase. When PW-2 went

Crl.Appeal Nos.884/01 & 10/02 Page8 of 16 towards them, accused Mehtab told to do the same with PW-2

as was done with the deceased Sangeeta. He saw Sangeeta on

fire on terrace. He got scared and ran back to his house and

disclosed the incident to his parents.

14. PW-3 Smt. Phoola Devi, mother of the deceased, had

deposed that Sangeeta was married to Jitender whereas his

daughter Anita was married to Anil, younger brother of

accused Jitender. Sangeeta came to her and told that her in-

laws were harassing her. Accused Jitender used to beat her and

demand one motor cycle and Rs.1,00,000/-. After 2-3 months

of marriage, her son Shri Bhagwan went to the matrimonial

house of Sangeeta. In-laws of Sangeeta started quarrelling

with Shri Bhagwan that they had not given anything in dowry

at the time of marriage. Her son stayed there and in the night

about 3am, he heard the shouts and saw that Sangeeta was

burning on the roof. He heard the accused Mehtab say that

Shri Bhagwan should also be caught and the same be done to

him upon which he ran away from there, came to his house and

Crl.Appeal Nos.884/01 & 10/02 Page9 of 16 narrated the incident to them that Sangeeta had been burnt by

her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law.

15. From the testimony of father (PW1), brother (PW2) and

mother (PW3) of the deceased, it has duly been established

beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had been harassing

the deceased for on account of demand of dowry. They have

consistent in their depositions that the accused persons used to

demand Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and motorcycle from the

deceased and the deceased was harassed on that account. Thus,

it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants

had harassed and meted the deceased with cruelty on account of

demand of dowry. Thus, the conviction of appellants under

Section 498A/34 IPC needs to be upheld.

16. The appellants, apart from treating the deceased with

cruelty on account of demand of dowry, have also been

convicted for commission of dowry death.

17. In the case of Devi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2008

SC 332, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the ingredients

Crl.Appeal Nos.884/01 & 10/02 Page10 of 16 of provisions of section 304 B IPC are (1) that the death of the

woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or in some

circumstances which were not normal; (2) such death occurs

within 7 years from the date of her marriage ; (3) that the victim

was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any

relative of her husband; (4) such cruelty or harassment should

be for or in connection with the demand of dowry ; and (5) it is

established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon

before her death. It was further observed that before an accused

is found guilty for commission of an offence, the Court must

arrive at a finding that the ingredients thereof have been

established. It was held that statement of a witness for the said

purpose must be read in its entirety. It is not necessary for a

witness to make a statement in consonance with the wording of

the section of a statute. What is needed is to find out whether

the evidences brought on record satisfy the ingredients thereof.

18. Necessary ingredients of dowry death as provided under

Section 304B of IPC are :

Crl.Appeal Nos.884/01 & 10/02 Page11 of 16

(i)Deceased was the subject matter of cruelty on account

of dowry and culminates into guilt of accused under

Section 498A IPC;

(ii)The death should have taken place due to bodily

injuries other than in normal circumstances; and

(iii)Such death was the subject matter of cruelty 'soon

before death'.

19. To constitute an offence under Section 304B IPC of

dowry death, the presumption under Section 113B of the

Evidence Act cannot be raised against an accused until

independently the offence under Section 498A IPC is proved by

leading evidence to the specific allegation with regard to time

and date of such demand and cruelty and furthermore

establishing the proximate live link between the effect of cruelty

based on dowry demand and the death of the victim.

20. The factum of marriage of the deceased with the

appellant Jitendar is not under dispute. It is also not in dispute

that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the Crl.Appeal Nos.884/01 & 10/02 Page12 of 16 appellant Jitender on 20.04.1996 and she died on 19.10.1996 i.e.

within a few months of marriage i.e. within seven years of her

marriage with the appellant Jitender.

21. In the present case, as discussed in the former paragraphs

of this judgment, there is sufficient evidence to establish that the

deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry and that

the appellants are guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 498A/34 IPC.

22. Prosecution witness PW5 Dr. Ashok Jaiswal had deposed

that he had conducted the post mortem examination on the body

of the deceased Sangeeta. He has testified that burns were ante-

mortem in nature caused by flames and death was due to

hypovolemic shock consequent to the burns. He has proved on

record his report as Ex.PW5/A and the 11 inquest papers

submitted by the IO as Ex. PW5/B/1-11.

23. From the opinion of the doctor (PW5) and the post

mortem report Ex.PW5/A of the deceased, it has duly been

established that the death of the deceased was caused by burn

Crl.Appeal Nos.884/01 & 10/02 Page13 of 16 injuries and it was not under normal circumstances as it was not

a natural death, which duly proves another essential ingredient

of Section 304B IPC.

24. Now the ingredient to be proved is whether the deceased

was subjected to harassment or cruelty on account of demand of

dowry soon before her death or not. To prove this aspect, the

testimony of brother of the deceased is vital.

25. PW 2, Shri Bhagwan, brother of the deceased has stated

that on 18.10.1996 he had gone to the matrimonial house of his

sister, the deceased, and found her crying and telling him that

her father in law was demanding Rs.1,00,000/- and that they

were not happy. In the evening, Bhagwan slept with Anil and at

about 2/3AM, he heard some shouts and got up and saw that

Mehtab was standing on the terrace of his house. Sister in law,

husband and mother in law of the deceased were standing in the

stairacase and he saw deceased who was on the terrace, on fire.

This statement of the witness (PW2) duly covers the case of

prosecution to bring it under the ambit of cruelty or harassment

Crl.Appeal Nos.884/01 & 10/02 Page14 of 16 meted out to the deceased on account of demand of dowry, soon

before her death.

26. The defence has failed to put any dent to his testimony to

the effect that the deceased was harassed on account of demand

of dowry by the appellants soon before her death. There is no

cross-examination of this witness (PW2) to impeach his

testimony. From the unimpeached testimony of PW2, it has

duly been established that the deceased was subjected to cruelty

and harassment for or on account of demand of dowry soon

before death. Thus, the prosecution has successfully established

another essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC. The

contention of the appellants that the testimony of prosecution

witnesses cannot be relied upon as the same are full of material

contradictions holds no merit. From a careful reading of the

testimony of prosecution witnesses, this Court finds that they

are of material evidence and sufficient to prove the guilt under

Section 304-B IPC.

27. From the totality of the discussion made above, this Court

is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has Crl.Appeal Nos.884/01 & 10/02 Page15 of 16 successfully established its case against the appellants beyond

reasonable doubt, that they had committed the dowry death of

the deceased. All the ingredients of dowry death as provided in

Section 304-B of IPC have duly been established. Thus, the

conviction of appellants under Section 304-B/34 IPC deserves

to be upheld.

28. In view of the discussion made above, this Court does not

find any ground to interfere with in the judgment of conviction

and order on sentence passed by the trial court. Thus, the

judgment of conviction of the appellants under Section 498A

and 304B IPC and order on sentence are accordingly upheld.

29. Appellants are on bail. Their personal bonds and surety

bonds stand cancelled. They are directed to surrender before

the trial court concerned within a period of 15 days to serve the

remainder of sentence.

30. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

                                                   (P.S.TEJI)
                                                    JUDGE
JULY 28, 2017/dm
Crl.Appeal Nos.884/01 & 10/02                         Page16 of 16