Delhi High Court
Sikkan vs State N.C.T. Of Delhi on 1 April, 2019
$~11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 1st April, 2019
+ CRL.A. 738/2002
SIKKAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.T.M. Rangaramanujam,
Sr. Adv. with Ms. Anu Gupta,
Mr. Pratyush Raj & Ms. Gouri
Mohanti, Advs.
versus
STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
1. Mithilesh, daughter of Munesh (PW-10), was married to Rakesh
Kumar @ Bobby (A-1), he being the son of Mange Ram (A-2) and
Sona Devi (A-3), all of them indisputably being residents of Jhuggi no.
244/173, Balmiki Camp, East of Kailash, New Delhi, falling within the
jurisdiction of police station Lajpat Nagar. There is sufficient evidence
available on record to show, and it is not disputed, that Mithilesh gave
birth to a son ten months after the marriage, the said child having later
died. The incident which became the subject-matter of the sessions
case in which the judgment that is impugned herein was rendered,
occurred on 07.11.1999 at about 8.30 p.m. in the aforesaid jhuggi of
A-1, A-2 and A-3. It was the day of the Deepawali festival. There is
evidence available that Mithilesh suffered burn injuries, opined to be
100 %, she being discovered in such state by two neighbours viz. Babu
Lal (PW-1) and Anil (PW-2). The door of the jhuggi required to be
broken open, to put out the fire and take Mithilesh to the hospital.
Mithilesh died in the hospital sometime around 11.30 p.m. on
08.11.1999, she not being able to make any statement before Sub-
Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Mr. Rajesh Kumar (PW-15).
2. Though there was some evidence gathered and presented before
the trial court indicating that a statement (Ex.PW-12/B) had been given
by the victim (Mithilesh) to Head Constable Surender Mohan (PW-12)
in the presence of two doctors attending on her in the hospital, it
indicating the fire incident to be accidental, such theory was rejected
by the trial court.
3. The case against the afore-mentioned three persons (A-1 to A-3)
and two others namely Samay Singh (A-4) and appellant Sikkan (A-5)
was founded essentially on the statement of Munesh (PW-10) and
Sheela (PW-13), the father and mother respectively of the deceased, on
the premise that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty for dowry
in the matrimonial home, the appellant herein also being privy to and
complicit in the said cruelty, he being the mediator through whom the
marriage had been arranged.
4. The death of Mithilesh undoubtedly occurred due to unnatural
circumstances within seven years of her marriage with A-1. The
charge against the afore-mentioned five persons was brought on the
strength of presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, the trial having been held in the court of sessions for
offences under Sections 498A/304 B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC).
5. The additional sessions judge, by his judgment dated
26.08.2002, held all the five persons mentioned earlier guilty as
charged. By order dated 04.09.2002, A-1 was sentenced to ten years
imprisonment on the charge under Section 304 B IPC, the others were
awarded imprisonment for seven years for offence under Section 304
B IPC. Each of them was awarded imprisonment for two years with
fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 498A IPC.
6. The co-convict Samay Singh had filed criminal appeal no.
739/2002. A-3 Sona Devi, on the other hand, filed her own
independent appeal (Crl. Appeal no. 972/2002), while A-1 Rakesh @
Bobby and A-2 Mange Ram filed separate joint appeal (Crl. Appeal
No. 421/2003).
7. A-3 Sona Devi and A-4 Samay Singh died before their appeals
could be heard. The said appeals were, thus, found to have abated and
the proceedings therein were closed by orders dated 18.02.2015 and
12.02.2019 respectively.
8. The criminal appeal no. 421/2003 jointly filed by A-1 Rakesh
Kumar @ Bobby and A-2 Mange Ram was decided by common
judgment dated 08.05.2014. The copy of the said judgment dated
08.05.2014 reflects that the learned single judge dealing with the said
part of the case found substance in the contentions of A-2 Mange Ram
that there was no evidence showing his involvement in cruelty for
dowry. In this view, the conviction in his case was modified, he being
held guilty and convicted on the charge for offence under Section 306
IPC, his sentence having been suitably modified on that account. The
sentence of A-1 Rakesh @ Bobby was reduced by said very judgment,
to the period of detention already undergone, the jail having reported
that he had served the minimum period of incarceration prescribed in
law.
9. Thus, the matter survives only qua appellant Sikkan.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant and the additional public
prosecutor for the State have been heard. It is noted that the original
trial court record has gone missing from the registry, rendered not
traceable. However, the record has been re-constructed and it is fairly
conceded by both sides that the appeal can be decided on its basis.
11. PW-13, mother of the deceased, did not name the appellant
Sikkan in her testimony. Her version is primarily based on what she
would have learnt from her husband (PW-10) as to how her daughter
was being ill-treated in the matrimonial home. Though she would also
state that her daughter during her visit had also confided in her about
ill-treatment, the statement given by her in this regard is attributed
more to the husband (A-1) Rakesh. PW-3, vaguely stated that chacha
and Phoopa also used to make demands. She would not clarify as to
which particular individuals were the said relatives. The vague
statement attributing certain acts of commission collectively to the
persons accused cannot be accepted as good evidence to prove the
complicity of the appellant.
12. On the other hand, PW-10 did speak about the role of the
appellant Sikkan as the mediator. He spoke about his daughter having
told him that the stridhan articles had been kept by the appellant and
the other mediator Samay. This cannot be accepted since if true the
same would have found some echo in the other evidence. He would
not even specify as to which part of stridhan was kept by whom.
General vague statements being attributed to two persons whose inter-
connection is not even brought out cannot be acted upon.
13. PW-10, the father of the deceased, also spoke generally that his
daughter was tortured at the instance of the appellant. It is not clarified
as to how and on what occasion or in what context or, for that matter,
with what objective the appellant would instigate the close relatives in
the matrimonial home to torture the deceased. Reference to certain
exchanges about laddoos (sweets) is too petty to be treated as an
instigation leading to torture of the victim for dowry.
14. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds it unsafe
to confirm the finding of guilty against the appellant on the sole word
of PW-10 to the above affect.
15. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment
and order on sentence to the extent thereby the appellant was held
guilty, convicted and sentenced are hereby set aside.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
APRIL 01, 2019/nk
