SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dilip @ Deepak vs State on 13 November, 2017

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision : November 13th, 2017
+ CRL.A. 1283/2015
DILIP @ DEEPAK ….. Appellant
Through: Mr.Vikas Padora Mr.Dipanshu
Chugh, Advocate.

versus

STATE ….. Respondent
Through: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP along with SI
Jasmer Singh, PS-Jahangir Puri, for
the State.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

JUDGMENT

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under
Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 10.08.2015
whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 498A/304B
/302 IPC and against the order on sentence dated 12.08.2015 whereby
the appellant has been sentenced to undergo two years rigorous
imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to further undergo two months imprisonment under
Section 498A IPC; to undergo life imprisonment with fine of
Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two
months imprisonment under Section 302 IPC; and to undergo ten
years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in

Crl.A. 1283/2015 Page1 of 19
default of payment of fine to further undergo two months
imprisonment under Section 304B IPC.

2. Factual matrix, emerging from the record, is that the
marriage of the appellant was solemnized with deceased Poonam on
07.07.2011 and thereafter the deceased started residing with the
appellant at her matrimonial home. It was alleged that the appellant
was cruel towards his wife and used to beat her up. The appellant
used to taunt his wife that she had brought insufficient dowry and
used to ask her to bring more cash and a car from her father. On
25.12.2011 at about 4.40 a.m., an information was received at the
police station regarding a quarrel in the street where the house of the
appellant was situated. On the same day, at about 5.10 a.m., another
information was received from the hospital to the effect that Poonam
who was admitted in an injured condition by her husband had been
declared as “brought dead”. SI Brij Bhushan and Ct.Sunil rushed to
the spot and found blood lying there. Further investigation of the case
was entrusted to Insp. Dharam Pal Singh. Father of the deceased was
informed about the incident and he made a statement before the
Executive Magistrate to the effect that his deceased daughter used to
be frequently harassed on account of bringing insufficient dowry.

3. On the basis of the statement made by the father of the
deceased, FIR of the instant case was registered. Postmortem on the
dead body of deceased was conducted and as per the opinion of the
doctor, death of the deceased was caused due to cranio-cerebral
damage consequent upon head injuries which were ante-mortem in

Crl.A. 1283/2015 Page2 of 19
nature and caused by a heavy blunt object. Weapon of offence i.e.
wheel paana was recovered from the house of the appellant. After the
completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.

4. Charge under Sections 498A/304B IPC and an alternate
charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its
case, the prosecution had examined 23 witnesses, namely, Om
Prakash (PW1), Vishnu Bhagwan (PW2), HC Devender (PW3),
Ranbir (PW4), Saroj (PW5), Ct.Basheer (PW6), Ct.Ravi Kant (PW7),
Mahendra Prasad Kushwaha (PW8), HC Phool Kumar (PW9), SI Anil
Kumar (PW10), Sumit Sahu (PW11), Rohit (PW12), Ct.Ashok
(PW13), Insp.Manohar Lal (PW14), SI Anil Kumar (PW15), Ct.Rahul
(PW16), HC Jagbir Singh (PW17), Dr.Bhim Singh (PW18), W/Ct.
Sunita (PW19), SI Brij Bhushan (PW20), Insp. Jai Prakash Meena
(PW21), Dr.Deepak Chugh (PW22) and Insp.Dharam Pal Singh
(PW23).

5. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of
the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he
denied the case of the prosecution. He claimed that three persons had
trespassed into their house and he learnt about the same only when
Poonam had fallen upon him. He immediately got up and saw those
three persons. He saw his wife bleeding from her head and tried to
save himself from those persons. He is alleged to have even kicked
those persons and due to a jerk, the TV fell down. Thereafter, he
raised a noise and his brother came upstairs and thereafter all the three

Crl.A. 1283/2015 Page3 of 19
persons fled away. Despite opportunity, the appellant did not lead
any evidence in his defence.

6. Upon appreciation of evidence and material available on
record, the trial court convicted the appellant under Sections
498A/304B/302 IPC and sentenced him for the said offences. Feeling
aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the
present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

7. Argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant was
that, as per the statement given by PW22 Dr.Deepak Chugh, the
deceased was brought to the hospital by the appellant and his
relatives. It was submitted that had the appellant been involved in the
crime, it was not expected of him to take his wife to the hospital. It
was further submitted that as per the testimony of PW8 Sh.Mahender
Prasad Kushwaha, Executive Magistrate, except the father of the
deceased, no other person had disclosed about the harassment and
cruelty meted out to the deceased. It was further argued that the
appellant was a tempo driver and thus did not have the status to
maintain a car which was allegedly demanded by him as dowry. It
was further submitted that statements of PW4 and PW8 are
contradictory to each other, and the theory regarding demand of
dowry is baseless. It was argued that the prosecution had failed to
establish that there was any demand of dowry by the appellant. It was
submitted that the appellant had not committed the murder of his wife.
Rather, on the day of the incident, some trespassers attacked his wife
which caused the death of the deceased. It was further submitted that

Crl.A. 1283/2015 Page4 of 19
no motive of the alleged offence had been proved on record against
the appellant. It was further submitted that the case of the appellant
could not be defended properly and as per Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, he had every right to be properly defended. In
support of this submission, he has relied upon judgments in the case
of Behram Khursheed v. State of Bombay (1955) 1 SCR 613 and
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp. (1985) 3 SCC 545.

He has further referred to a judgment of Allahabad High
Court in the case of Dr.Nupur Talwar v. State of U.P. and Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No.293/2014) to press the contention that the
appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of Section 106 of the
Evidence Act as the prosecution is bound to prove beyond reasonable
doubt all the circumstances against the accused to prove the guilt. It
was further contended that since the prosecution has failed to establish
other circumstances, aid of Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be
taken to base the conviction of the appellant.

8. Per contra, learned APP for the State argued that the
present case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution had
brought on record sufficient evidence to link all the circumstances
which point towards the guilt of the appellant-that he had committed
the murder of his wife. It was further argued that the public
witnesses, as well as police officials, and doctors had duly supported
the case of the prosecution to the effect that the deceased was
subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry
and suffering the injury with Paana Ex.P3 recovered at the instance of

Crl.A. 1283/2015 Page5 of 19
the appellant, thus there was no infirmity in the judgment and order
on sentence passed by the trial court.

9. We have heard the arguments advanced by both the sides
and have gone through the evidence and material available on record,
meticulously.

10. PW4-Ranbir is the father of the deceased. He had
deposed that Poonam was his second issue. She was married with the
accused Deepak @ Dalip as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in July,
2011. He further deposed that two months prior to her death, his
daughter Poonam came to her parental house and informed them that
her husband accused Deepak @ Dalip used to beat her up and was
demanding a car. Thereafter, PW4 had talked with accused Deepak
@ Dalip and his parents and told them that he had given a motorcycle,
one gold ring and one gold chain at the time of the marriage apart
from other articles. PW4 told them that he was not in a position to
give them a car as it was beyond his financial capacity. He further
deposed that on 25.12.2011 at about 7.00 a.m., mediator Khazan
Singh told him that Deepak had murdered Poonam by hitting her with
Pana rod. PW4 along with his neighbours reached the house of
Deepak where he came to know that his daughter had been killed by
accused Deepak @ Dalip. Thereafter, he reached BJRM hospital
where he saw the dead body of his daughter. One Executive
Magistrate met him in the hospital. Statement (Ex.PW4/A) of PW4
was recorded. He had identified the clothes of his deceased daughter
in the Court as Ex.P1.

Crl.A. 1283/2015 Page6 of 19
During cross-examination, PW4 stated that on that day,
Khazan Singh came to his house at about 7.00 a.m. and informed him
about the occurrence. He had inquired from Khazan Singh as to how
he had received the information, to which he stated that he had
received a telephonic information. When they reached Jahangirpuri,
the Pana-rod was lying in the room smeared with blood. He also
stated that he had a talk with his daughter two months prior to her
death. In between those two months, his daughter had a talk with her
elder sister Saroj who had told informed about the said facts to him.
He had informed the police and also the SDM that two months before
her death, when his daughter Poonam complained him about the
demand of car by the accused, he had a talk with the father of the
accused. He denied the suggestion that accused did not treat his
daughter with cruelty, and did not harass her. He further denied that
his daughter sustained injuries during the theft in the house due to
which she died.

11. PW5 Saroj is the elder sister of the deceased. She had
deposed that deceased Poonam was her younger sister. She further
deposed that prior to two months of the death of Poonam, she had
gone to her parental house, wherein her younger sister Poonam was
also present. When Poonam met this witness, she told her that her
husband Deepak @ Dalip used to beat her up and used to compel her
to bring money for his expenses, and tortured her for bringing car
from her father and also to bring money from her father. On
25.12.2011, on receipt of information regarding death of her sister

Crl.A. 1283/2015 Page7 of 19
Poonam, she had reached the matrimonial house of Poonam where
she came to know that Poonam had been murdered by her husband,
accused Deepak @ Dalip.

During cross-examination, PW5 stated that her father
might have asked accused to keep her sister well and properly. She
denied that her sister had not told her on the telephone that accused
was demanding car or money. She stated that she was called by her
sister on telephone and when she met her, she told her about the
demand of car or money made by the accused.

12. PW12 Rohit is the brother of the deceased. PW12 had
deposed that Poonam was married with accused Dalip @ Deepak.
After the marriage, accused Dalip had started torturing his sister
Poonam. He used to hear about the same from Poonam when Poonam
used to complain against accused Dalip to his elder sister. He further
deposed that on 25.12.2011, his sister Poonam was killed by accused
Dalip @ Deepak, as 4-5 days prior to the occurrence, he had gone to
meet his sister Poonam at Jahangirpuri and at that time accused Dalip
@ Deepak had said to him “tere pita ne abhi tak gaadi kee maang
abhee tak poori nahi kee hai, us se jakar keh dena kee agar gaadi
nahi dee to, teri behen ko chod dega” (your father has not fulfilled the
demand of car till now, inform him that if car is not given, his sister
would be left). He further deposed that accused abused him due to
which he started weeping, at which his sister consoled him. After
coming back to his house, he had informed about the same to his
father. He stated that since his father was unable to fulfil the said

Crl.A. 1283/2015 Page8 of 19
demand, accused had killed his sister.

13. From the testimony of PW4, father of the deceased, it has
been established that prior to two months of the death of the deceased,
she had informed PW4 that the appellant used to beat her up, and that
he was demanding a car. Testimony of PW4 has duly been
corroborated by PW5-Saroj, sister of the deceased. PW5 has
categorically stated that when she went to her parental home, she met
with the deceased who informed her that the appellant used to beat her
up and compel her to bring money from her father, for his expenses.
Deceased also told PW5 that the appellant used to torture her for
bringing car and money from her father. PW12-Rohit, brother of the
deceased also corroborated the testimony of his father (PW4) and
sister (PW5). PW12 has specifically stated that when he visited the
matrimonial home of his deceased sister, accused told him that his
father had not fulfilled the demand of car and if the car was not given,
the deceased would be left. Though, the above witnesses were cross-
examined at length by the defence, but the defence failed to dent their
testimonies that the appellant used to torture and harass his deceased
wife Poonam for or in connection with demand of dowry. Thus, the
offence under Section 498A IPC is duly proved against him and his
conviction and sentence are liable to be upheld.

14. Now, coming to the second part of the offence
committed by the appellant. The appellant was charged for offence
under Section 304B IPC for committing the dowry death of the
deceased, and in alternate, under Section 302 IPC for committing the

Crl.A. 1283/2015 Page9 of 19
murder of the deceased. Having examined the record, we are of the
considered view that from the evidence placed on record, the case of
commission of murder of the deceased by the appellant is made out,
and not that of her dowry death which is discussed as under.

15. The present case is based upon circumstantial evidence
and not on direct evidence. There are several circumstances on record
which point to the fact that the appellant committed the murder of his
wife. The first being, he was alone in the house along with his
deceased wife when the incident took place in the dead of the night.
Second being, the weapon of offence was recovered from the house of
the appellant. Third being, a false plea has been taken by the
appellant in his defence, which he has not substantiated or even
probabilized.

16. It is alleged against the appellant that on the night of the
incident, he was alone in the house with his deceased wife and that he
had committed her murder with the use of a wheel paana. On the
other hand, defence taken by the appellant is that some trespassers
entered their house on the night of the incident, attacked his wife due
to which she fell upon him, and he woke up to find his wife bleeding
from the head.

17. PW18-Dr.Bhim Singh had deposed that on 25.12.2011,
he conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of
Poonam. On examination, he found a lacerated wound 3cm x 1cm x
bone deep in the middle of the head; lacerated wound 3cm x 1cm x

Crl.A. 1283/2015 Page10 of 19
bone deep over right parietal region of head and lacerated wound 4cm
x 1.5cm x bone deep over right parietal temporal region of head. On
an internal examination, he found that the head showed an effusion of
blood in the scalp tissues below the injuries with underline depressed
fracture upto middle cranial fossa. The brain showed an extensive sub
dural, sub archanoid, ventricular blood with contusion below the
injuries. As per opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to
cranio-cerebral damage consequent upon head injury. All the injuries
were opined to be antemortem in nature, fresh in duration and were
caused by hard heavy blunt object. It was also opined that the injuries
were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Pertinently, time since death was opined as about 12 hours. He
proved his report as Ex.PW18/A. Subsequently, he examined the
wheel pana Ex.P3 and gave his opinion Ex.PW18/B that the injuries
no.1 to 3 mentioned in post-mortem report Ex.PW18/A were possible
by the said weapon of offence.

18. From the post-mortem report, it is apparent that the death
of the deceased was a homicidal death, and otherwise than in natural
circumstances. As per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, when
any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden
of proving that fact is upon him. When it was pleaded by the
appellant that trespassers had entered their house on the fateful night
and caused head injuries upon his wife which resulted into her death,
the onus to prove the said fact was upon the appellant.

19. Apart from taking the plea of causing injuries on the

Crl.A. 1283/2015 Page11 of 19
head of his wife by some thieves, the appellant had not examined any
witness, including his brother Vinod, to substantiate his plea. The
appellant was given an opportunity to adduce defence evidence but he
deliberately chose not to examine any witness in his defence. It has
come on record that it was the appellant and his wife who were
residing in their house alone. What had happened inside the house on
the fateful night can be explained by the appellant alone, as he was the
lone survivor after the death of his wife in the room. The appellant
was the master of the circumstances which took place within the four
walls where the murder of the deceased had taken place, and he was
the best person to prove the fact of murder by some third parties, as
the said fact was within his special knowledge. There was no evidence
of break-in into the appellant’s residence, or of any theft. The
appellant has not explained as to how is it that his wife was awake, or
she woke up when the so called trespassers came in and he kept
sleeping; why she did not raise an alarm and wake him up
immediately on realising that there had been a trespass in her home in
the dead of the night; how come he woke up only after the victim had
been fatally hit on the head by the so called trespassers, and she fell
on him. The present case is a case based on circumstantial evidence
and not on direct evidence which puts a duty upon the appellant to
explain the circumstances under which his wife sustained head injury,
which was opined to be the cause of her death. Thus, the accused has
failed to discharge the onus put upon him by Section 106 of the
Evidence Act.

Crl.A. 1283/2015 Page12 of 19

20. The plea taken by the appellant appears to be a cooked-
up story. It would be pertinent to mention that PCR officials reached
the spot at about 4.40 a.m. but the appellant was not available at the
spot. The MLC Ex.PW22/A of the deceased shows that the deceased
was taken to the hospital at 5.00 a.m. but was declared “brought
dead”, when as per the postmortem report Ex.PW8/A, death of the
deceased had taken place at around 12.30 a.m. Equally pertinent it is
to note that the appellant had not raised his plea, taken by him in his
defence before the doctor.

21. In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in the case
of Shambu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer AIR 1956 SC 404
held that :

“This lays down the general rule that in a
criminal case the burden of proof is on the
prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not
intended to relieve it of that duty. On the
contrary, it is designed to meet certain
exceptional cases in which it would be
impossible, or at any rate disproportionately
difficult for the prosecution to establish facts
which are ‘especially’ within the knowledge
of the accused and which he could prove
without difficulty or inconvenience. The
word ‘especially’ stresses that. It means facts
that are pre-eminently or exceptionally
within his knowledge. If the section were to
be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the
very startling conclusion that in a murder
case the burden lies on the accused to prove
that he did not commit the murder because
who could know better than he whether he

Crl.A. 1283/2015 Page13 of 19
did or did not. It is evident that that cannot
be the intention and the Privy Council has
twice refused to construe this section, as
reproduced in certain other Acts outside
India, to mean that the burden lies on an
accused person to show that he did not
commit the crime for which he is tried.
These cases are Attygalle v. Emperor A.I.R.
1936 P.C. 169 and Seneviratne v. R. [1936]
3 All E.R. 36, 49”

22. Further in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Mir
Mohammad Omar Ors. etc. AIR 2000 SC 2988, while discussing
section 106 of the Evidence Act, the court observed that:

“The section is not intended to relieve the
prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But
the Section would apply to cases where the
prosecution has succeeded in proving facts
from which a reasonable inference can be
drawn regarding the existence of certain
other facts, unless the accused by virtue of
his special knowledge regarding such facts,
failed to offer any explanation which might
drive the court to draw a different
inference.”

23. In the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of
Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681, scope of Section 106 of the
Evidence Act was further discussed and it was observed as under :

“If an offence takes place inside the privacy
of a house and in such circumstances where
the assailants have all the opportunity to
plan and commit the offence at the time and
in circumstances of their choice, it will be

Crl.A. 1283/2015 Page14 of 19
extremely difficult for the prosecution to
lead evidence to establish the guilt of the
accused if the strict principle of
circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is
insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does
not preside over a criminal trial merely to
see that no innocent man is punished. A
Judge also presides to see that a guilty man
does not escape. Both are public duties. The
law does not enjoin a duty on the
prosecution to lead evidence of such
character which is almost impossible to be
led or at any rate extremely difficult to be
led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead
such evidence which it is capable of leading,
having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case.”

24. The plea taken by the appellant is that some trespassers/
thieves entered their house on the fateful night and caused injury on
the head of his wife which he realised when his wife fell upon him.
As discussed above, the said plea appears to be a false one as the
appellant has not brought on record any evidence-oral or
documentary, to substantiate such a plea which is an additional link in
the chain of circumstances. In similar circumstances, the Supreme
Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 observed that :

“It is well settled that the prosecution, must
stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot
derive any strength from the weakness of the
defence. This is trite law and no decision has
taken a contrary view. What some cases
have held is only this: where various links in
a chain are in themselves complete, then a

Crl.A. 1283/2015 Page15 of 19
false plea or a false defence may be called
into aid only to lend assurance to the Court.
In other words, before using the additional
link it must be proved that all the links in the
chain are complete and do not suffer from
any infirmity. It is not the law that where
there is any infirmity on lacuna in the
prosecution case, the same could be cured or
supplied by a false defence or a plea which
is not accepted by a Court.”

25. Further, in the case of Subhash Chand vs. State of
Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 702 it was observed as under :

“In Dhananjoy Chatterjee’s case (supra), the
decision of this Court in Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 CriLJ
1738, was relied on. In the later case, it was
also held that a false explanation or false
plea taken by the accused can be used as an
additional link in the chain of circumstantial
evidence subject to satisfaction of three
essential conditions, namely (i) various links
in the chain of evidence led by the
prosecution have been satisfactorily proved,

(ii) the said circumstance points to the guilt
of the accused with reasonable definiteness,
and (iii) the circumstance is in proximity to
the time and situation.”

26. Another circumstance in the present case is that the
weapon of offence was recovered from the spot itself. PW4-Ranbir
Singh has categorically stated that when he visited the spot, he had
seen the rod paana lying in the room and the same was smeared with
blood. PW18-Dr.Bhim Singh has stated that on 13.01.2012, he
received an application from Insp. J.P. Meena along with one sealed

Crl.A. 1283/2015 Page16 of 19
pullanda. On opening the pullanda, he found one iron rod (wheel
pana) Ex.P3. PW18 also mentioned the description of the weapon in
his report by preparing its sketch. He examined the said weapon and
gave his report Ex.PW18/B stating that injuries no.1 to 3 mentioned in
the post-mortem report Ex.PW18/A were possible by the said weapon
of offence. There was no cross-examination of PW18 by the defence
to the effect that the wheel paana Ex.P3 was not used in the
commission of the crime. As per the postmortem report Ex.PW18/A,
injuries sustained by the deceased on her head were caused by a hard
heavy blunt object and the said fact has been duly substantiated by
report Ex.PW18/B of PW18 to the effect that the injuries mentioned
in postmortem report were possible by the wheel paana Ex.P3.

27. Another circumstance which links the appellant to the
chain of events is that the first Daily Diary entry was recorded by the
police at about 4.40 a.m. regarding taking place of a quarrel near the
house of the appellant and then the deceased Poonam was brought to
the hospital at about 5.00 a.m. wherein she was declared “brought
dead”. Even at that stage, the appellant did not claim, or raise an
alarm in the neighbourhood, that his wife had been injured by
unknown trespassers. The postmortem on the dead body of the
deceased was conducted at 12.30 p.m. on 25.12.2011, and the time
since death was opined to be about 12 hours. From the opinion
expressed by the doctor, the death of the deceased could have taken
place about 12 hours back, meaning thereby around 12 midnight. On
the other hand, plea of the appellant is that the trespassers entered

Crl.A. 1283/2015 Page17 of 19
their house around 4.30 a.m. and they caused injuries to the deceased.
The time since death of the deceased mentioned in the postmortem
report Ex.PW18/A further falsifies the plea of the appellant that the
death of the deceased had taken place in the manner and at the time
explained by him. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the
appellant in case of Dr.Nupur Talwar (supra) is of no help to him
inasmuch, as, prosecution has successfully established the complete
chain of events, i.e. the appellant was the master of circumstances on
the night of the incident; weapon of offence was recovered at the
instance of the appellant, and, a false plea of defence was taken by the
appellant

28. So far as the contention of the appellant that he was not
given any due and proper opportunity to defend himself is concerned,
the same is without any basis. Perusal of the testimony of prosecution
witnesses shows that they were cross-examined at length from the
side of the defence. Also, an amicus curiae was appointed by the trial
court to give a fair and reasonable opportunity of defence to the
appellant. After the conducting of entire the trial, examination of
prosecution witnesses, recording of statement of the appellant under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and delivering the judgment of conviction and
order on sentence, the appellant, at this stage, cannot be allowed to
raise an entirely new and unsubstantiated plea that he was not given a
fair opportunity of defence during the trial. Even otherwise, the same
is not borne out from the record.

29. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances,

Crl.A. 1283/2015 Page18 of 19
this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to
make out any ground in support of the present appeal. Rather the
prosecution has successfully established all the circumstances which
lead to the only conclusion that the deceased was murdered by the
appellant himself and none else. The entire chain of events have been
duly proved, and the prosecution has successfully established its case
against the appellant. Therefore, conviction of the appellant under
Section 302 IPC is liable to be upheld.

30. So far as the conviction of the appellant under Section
304B is concerned, we are of the view that since he has been
convicted under Section 302 IPC, he cannot be punished for
commission of dowry death as the parameters to hold a person guilty
for both these offences are altogether different. Consequently, the
conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 304B IPC is
hereby set aside.

31. As discussed above, the judgment of conviction of the
appellant under Section 498A and 302 IPC and the sentence awarded
to him are accordingly upheld.

32. With the above modification in the conviction of the
appellant, the appeal is disposed of.

P.S. TEJI, J

VIPIN SANGHI, J
NOVEMBER 13, 2017/dd

Crl.A. 1283/2015 Page19 of 19

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh