Vikas Mehta vs State Govt Of Nct Delhi on 13 April, 2017

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

RESERVED ON : 20th FEBRUARY, 2017
DECIDED ON : 13th APRIL, 2017

+ CRL.A. 1555/2013
VIKAS MEHTA ….. Appellant
Through : Mr.Dinesh Malik, Advocate with
Mr.Manish Malik Mr.Akash Saini,
Advocates.

VERSUS

STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI ….. Respondent
Through : Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 05.10.2013 of
learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.82/2013 arising out of
FIR No.395/2010 PS Shalimar Bagh whereby the appellant – Vikas Mehta
was convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections
498A
/306 IPC. By an order dated 26.10.2013, he was sentenced to undergo
RI for ten years with fine `10,000/- under Section 306 IPC and RI for three
years with fine `5,000/- under Section 498A IPC. Both the sentences were
to operate concurrently.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are that on 15.11.2010 at around 01.00
p.m., the victim Neha married to the appellant Vikas Mehta as per Hindu
rites and customs on 02.11.2009 committed suicide by hanging herself from

Crl.A.1555/2013 Page 1 of 19
the ceiling fan. The intimation was conveyed to the police by the appellant
himself and DD No.20A (Ex.PW-5/A) came into existence at around 03.15
p.m. The investigation was assigned to SI Rajan Pal who along with
Const.Durga Dass went to the spot i.e. 2nd floor of House No.197, Gali No.2,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Crime team visited the spot at around 04.30 – 05.00
p.m. Victim’s parents arrived at the spot. The body was sent to mortuary
BJRN Hospital for post-mortem examination.

3. On 16.11.2010, the Executive Magistrate recorded statements
of the victim’s mother – PW-9 (Neeru) and that of her father – PW-14
(Baldev Raj Bhardwaj). FIR under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC was
registered. During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant
with the facts were recorded. The appellant, his parents and sister were
arrested. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted
against all of them in the court for the commission of the aforesaid offences.
To prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty witnesses. In 313
Cr.P.C. statements, the accused persons denied their involvement in the
crime and pleaded false implication. After considering the rival contentions
of the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court convicted
the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Sections
498A
/306 IPC. It is pertinent to note that other accused persons – Jeet Lal
Mehta and Asha Rani (victim’s in-laws) and Sweety @ Suman Mehta
(victim’s sister-in-law) were acquitted of the charges. The appellant was
also acquitted of the charge under Section 304B IPC. State did not
challenge their acquittal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied for conviction
under Section 498A/306 IPC, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

Crl.A.1555/2013 Page 2 of 19

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. Appellant’s counsel urged that the Trial Court did not
appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. No independent
public witness was associated at any stage of investigation though the victim
had access to her neighbours. The appellant himself had gone to the Police
Station to convey the occurrence; her parents were duly informed. The
injuries found on the victim’s body were not sufficient to cause her death.
Possibility of suffering bruise on her body during struggle at the time of
hanging herself cannot be ruled out. There was no harassment whatsoever
to the deceased on account of any demand of dowry. Learned APP urged
that there are no valid reasons to disbelieve the statements of the victim’s
parents who had no extraneous consideration to implicate the appellant.

5. Admitted position is that victim Neha was married to the
appellant on 02.11.2009. She committed suicide on 15.11.2010 at her
matrimonial home i.e. 2nd floor of House No.197, Gali No.2, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi. It is also not disputed that initially the victim and the appellant were
residing at House No.RZF 38, New Roshanpura, Najafgarh. Subsequently,
they shifted to the house bearing No. 197, Gali No.2, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi,
owned by PW-1 (Jatin Chaudhary). In his testimony before the Court, Jatin
Chaudhary disclosed that the premises in question were let out to the
appellant on a monthly rent of `2,700/- on 10.08.2010. Apparently, the
victim had died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven
years from the date of her marriage at the matrimonial home.

6. The appellant had informed the Investigating Agency (Ex.PW-
19/B) that on 15.11.2010 at around 09.30 a.m., he had gone to his work
place. At about 01.30 -02.00 p.m. on return along with his father Jeet Lal

Crl.A.1555/2013 Page 3 of 19
Mehta, he found the door locked from inside. No evidence has, however,
emerged on record to infer as to when and at what time, the appellant had
left the home on the unfortunate day of occurrence. It was also not
explained in 313 Cr.P.C. statement as to where the appellant had gone after
leaving the house. He did not examine any witness from his place of work
to ascertain if he had reported for duty that day and what was the duration of
his stay there. He did not elaborate as to what were the timings at his work
place and what prompted him to return to the home at around 01.30-02.00
p.m. Jeet Lal Mehta in 313 Cr.P.C. statement disclosed that at around 11.00
a.m., his son Vikas Mehta had made a telephone call informing that the door
of the house was locked from inside and despite his best efforts, he could not
find Neha. On that, he came at Shalimar Bagh; his son Vikas Mehta called
Ravinder Chauhan to break open the door. The appellant in 313 Cr.P.C.
statement did not state if he had called his father Jeet Lal Mehta on phone at
around 11.00 a.m. It was not explained as to what had led the appellant to
call his father Jeet Lal Mehta. Nothing has been explained as to why the
intimation about the occurrence was not conveyed to the police promptly.
No explanation has come forward as to why the victim’s parents were not
informed about it at the earliest. Instead of informing the police and
victim’s parents, the appellant went to call PW-3, a key maker, at BH Block
market, Shalimar Bagh to get open interlock of the main door. As per
Ravinder Chauhan’s testimony as PW-3, the appellant had approached him
at about 02.00 or 02.30 p.m. He accompanied the appellant to the spot and
in the light of candle had prepared key of the interlock. The door, however,
could not open as it was bolted from inside. With the help of a screw driver,
he removed the bolt and opened the door. After opening the door, he saw a

Crl.A.1555/2013 Page 4 of 19
lady hanging from the ceiling fan. Due to fear, he left the spot without
taking the remuneration and informed the police at PS Shalimar Bagh.
Apparently, the appellant had consumed precious time before informing the
police at around 03.15 p.m. As per PW-3’s testimony, it was he who had
gone to report the incident to PS Shalimar Bagh. DD No.20A (Ex.PW-5/A)
records the appellant’s arrival at the Police Station at around 03.15 p.m. The
appellant did not bother to summon any doctor at the spot or to take the
victim to the hospital. The inordinate delay in lodging the report with the
police has remained unexplained. It exhibits abnormal and unnatural
conduct of the appellant and his father Jeet Lal Mehta.

7. Post-mortem examination on the victim’s body was conducted
by PW-18 (Dr.V.K.Jha) on 16.11.2010 at around 03.00 p.m. As per post-
mortem report examination (Ex.PW-18/A); following external injuries were
noted on the body :

“1. Bruise of size 3 cm x 2 cm on
left leg.

2. An obliquely placed ligature
mark present on front and sides of
neck, going upwards and backwards
towards posterior hairline. The
length of the ligature marks is 28 cm
and width is 3.4 cm. There is knot on
right side of the neck in posterior
hairline. Ligature mark was placed 5
cm below chin and 5 cm and 3 cm
below right and left ear lobule
respectively on sides. The skin over
the ligature mark was hard and
parchmentised. On dissection of the

Crl.A.1555/2013 Page 5 of 19
neck tissue underneath the ligature
mark was pale and glistening.”

8. Cause of death was opined asphyxia as a result of ligature
pressure over neck structure produced by ante-mortem ligature hanging.
Injury No.1 mentioned in the post-mortem report was opined to have been
caused by striking with a hard object. The detailed subsequent opinion is
Ex.PW-18/B. The testimony of the witness remained unchallenged in the
absence of cross-examination. Needless to say, before the victim committed
suicide, she was physically tortured and beaten. The victim and the
appellant were the only occupiers of the matrimonial home on the day of
occurrence. The victim was hale and hearty and nothing is on record to infer
if she was suffering from any physical ailment whatsoever. The appellant
did not claim if the victim was depressed before he left at around 09.00 a.m.
None else had access to the matrimonial home to inflict injuries on the
victim’s body. It was for the appellant to explain as to how and in what
circumstances, the victim had sustained injury No.1 described in the post-
mortem examination report and who was its author. No such explanation
whatsoever has come forward.

9. Material document to infer the appellant’s guilt is the complaint
(Ex.PW-8/A) lodged by the victim with the SHO PS Shalimar Bagh against
him for treating her with physical and mental cruelty. PW-13 (HC Sarojini)
deposed that on 02.08.2010 at around 02.00 p.m. Neha Mehta (since
deceased) came and handed over a written application. After recording DD
No.14A, she handed over the complaint to HC Ram Asrey for further
investigation. PW-8 (Ram Asrey) admitted receipt of complaint (Ex.PW-

Crl.A.1555/2013 Page 6 of 19

8/A) on 02.08.2010. Strange enough, he did not take any action on the
complaint on the pretext that it did not contain any telephone number to
contact the complainant and record her statement. Noting his conduct, the
learned Presiding Officer made the following observations.

“Report is submitted after the death,
which clearly shows that it was
manipulated. There is address also of
the complainant on the complaint,
despite that no effort was made by this
witness, who was duty bound to meet
the complainant and record her
statement. He has committed
dereliction of duty. Action be taken
against him”.

10. Complaint (Ex.PW-8/A) speaks volume about the atrocities
committed by the appellant upon the victim. This complaint was lodged
much prior to the victim taking the extreme step to end her life. Even on
02.08.2010, she was fed up with the cruelties and atrocities inflicted upon
her by her husband. She categorically disclosed in the complaint (Ex.PW-
8/A) that since the date of her marriage, she was constantly beaten by the
appellant and was forced to leave the matrimonial home to stay with her
parents. No plausible explanation has been offered by the appellant as to
what had compelled the victim to approach the police to lodge complaint
against him for physical and mental torture. Seemingly, the Investigating
Officer did not take the complaint seriously and no action whatsoever was
taken against the appellant on victim’s complaint. The Trial Court has
rightly noted the slackness and negligence on the part of HC Ram Asrey and

Crl.A.1555/2013 Page 7 of 19
to initiate departmental proceedings against him. His timely intervention
could have saved a precious life. The appellant had made the victim’s life
miserable. There are no valid reasons to disbelieve the version narrated by
the victim in her complaint (Ex.PW-8/A). She was fair enough not to
implicate her in-laws whatsoever. She even did not allege if she was forced
or compelled to bring dowry from her parents.

11. Reliance has been placed by the appellant on a document
(Ex.PW-9/DA) whereby the victim had voluntarily accompanied with her
mother and sister Shivani to her parents’ house and she did not implicate the
appellant or any of his family members for any dowry demand. I have
scrutinised the document (Ex.PW-9/DA). It records that the victim had
accompanied her mother and sister on 31.03.2010 to her parents’ house of
her own. She did not held her in-laws responsible for her departure from the
matrimonial home. It is, however, unclear as to how and in what situation,
the document (Ex.PW-9/DA) came into existence. Generally, at the time of
leaving the matrimonial home, such documents are rarely executed. The
appellant has not given any plausible reason as to what had forced the victim
to accompany her mother and sister on 31.03.2010 to her parents’ house.
Apparently, everything was not normal at matrimonial home and it had
forced her to leave the matrimonial home to stay with her parents. It
falsifies appellant’s claim that everything was normal and the victim was
annoyed with her mother’s adamant conduct whereby she had declined to
send victim’s sister and brother to the matrimonial home on her repeated
asking. It has not been clarified as to why victim’s mother would not send
her son or daughter to the victim’s matrimonial home. Over such a trivial
issue, the young married lady was not expected to commit suicide.

Crl.A.1555/2013 Page 8 of 19

12. PW-9 (Neeru) – victim’s mother and PW-14 (Baldev Raj
Bhardwaj) – victim’s father have deposed about the physical and mental
torture to the victim. They had no extraneous consideration to falsely
implicate the appellant.

13. Undisputedly, the appellant was involved in various criminal
cases before the matrimonial alliance. Nothing is on record to show if the
victim or her parents were informed about the appellant’s involvement in
several criminal cases prior to solemnization of the marriage. Soon after the
marriage, the appellant was arrested in a car theft case; he remained in
judicial custody for sufficient duration. The appellant was informed to be
involved in eighteen criminal cases of theft, snatching, excise and arms, etc.
True, in some cases, he has got acquittal but it does not clear his criminal
background. Status report filed along with the appeal file records his
involvement in fifteen different cases mainly at PS Najafgarh. In case FIR
No.347/2004 under Sections 399/402 IPC at PS Najafgarh and in other case
FIR No.182/2006 under Section 61-1-14 Excise Act, he is shown to have
been convicted. Offence under Section 379 IPC in FIR No.927/2007, PS
Najafgarh has been compounded. Two cases vide FIR Nos.632/2007, PS
Tilak Nagar under Section 379 IPC and 543/2008, PS Dwarka under
Sections 399/402 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act were pending trial.
Needless to say, the victim was not in a position to bear physical and mental
torture considering the criminal background of the appellant.

14. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, no justification whatsoever has been
offered by the appellant as to why the victim, a young lady aged around 19
years was forced to take the extreme step to end her own life after a short
stay in the matrimonial home. Undoubtedly, she was compelled or forced to

Crl.A.1555/2013 Page 9 of 19
commit suicide by the unfortunate situation and circumstances surrounding
her life and untold miseries and hardships faced by her within the confines
of the four walls of her matrimonial home. She had entered such home with
hope of leading a long and blissful married life but this hope, did not last
long, nor her life.

15. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, faint attempt was made by the
appellant to shift the blame upon victim’s mother. The appellant claimed
that Neha was depressed due to her mother’s conduct as she never sent
Shivali and Shivam to her house despite her several requests. He further
alleged that after a gap of 2-3 days, Neeru – victim’s mother used to quarrel
with her husband Baldev Raj Bhardwaj. Due to her family problems, the
victim took the wrong step. This defence deserves outright rejection.
Nothing has surfaced to show if the victim had annoyance with her mother
and she was reluctant to send Shivani and Shivam to her matrimonial home.
Nothing is on record if the victim was suffering from depression or was so
medically treated any time. The allegations of frequent quarrels between
victim’s parents are without any foundation.

16. In ‘Vajresh Venkatray Anvekar vs. State of Karnataka‘, 2013
(3) SCC 462, in somewhat similar circumstances, the Court observed :

“6. Two most vital circumstances which
must be kept in mind while dealing with this
case are that Girija had committed suicide
in the matrimonial home and her death took
place within seven years of her marriage.
Presumption under Section 113A of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 springs into
action which says that when the question is

Crl.A.1555/2013 Page 10 of 19
whether the commission of suicide by a
woman had been abetted by her husband
and it is shown that she had committed
suicide within a period of seven years from
the date of her marriage and that her
husband or such relative of her husband had
subjected her to cruelty, the court may
presume, having regard to all the other
circumstances of the case, that such suicide
had been abetted by her husband or by such
relative of her husband. The question is
whether the Appellant has been able to rebut
this presumption.

7. Medical evidence is of great importance
in this case. PW 7-Dr. Sailaja had done
Girija’s post-mortem. She found the
following injuries on Girija:

1. On right side of head there was little
swelling and wound on the forehead.

2. On the right eye lower eyelid and on the
neck there was weal’s of specific area and
the eye was bleeded.

3. There was swelling on the right side of
neck.

4. On the right hand thumb bottom there
was blue mark having an area 3’x2 1/2′.

5. To the inner side of the arm the blood was
clotted having an area of 2′ x 1′.

6. To the inner side of the wrist the skin was
blackened having an area 1′ x 1/2′.

7. Below the thumb the blood was clotted
covering an area 2′ x 1′.

Crl.A.1555/2013 Page 11 of 19

Dr. Sailaja opined that cyanide poisoning
was the cause of death. She stated that all
the external wounds were caused prior to
post-mortem. According to her, the wounds
on the right side of head can be sustained if
a person is beaten with hands. According to
her report, they could be caused by hard
and blunt object when the deceased was
alive. In the cross-examination, it was
suggested to her that if the dead body falls
on rough surface, the wounds, which she
had seen, could be caused. She denied the
suggestion. Thus, it is clear that Girija was
beaten up prior to the death. In the facts of
this case, it is difficult and absurd to come to
a conclusion that the injuries were self-
inflicted. Pertinently, Girija died in her
matrimonial home. We have no hesitation,
therefore, in concluding that prior to taking
cyanide, Girija was assaulted in her
matrimonial home. PW 6- Laxman Kudani,
the then Tahsildar and Taluka Magistrate
Karwar who drew the inquest panchnama
also referred to blackening of the skin at the
wrist and on the left and right side of the
cheeks of the dead body. He denied the
suggestion that because of the pressure
exerted by PW 1-Suresh, it was so stated in
the inquest panchnama.

(Emphasis Given)
XXXX XXXX XXXX

14. The tenor of the judgment suggests that
wife beating is a normal facet of married
life. Does that mean giving one or two slaps
to a wife by a husband just does not matter?
We do not think that that can be a right
approach. It is one thing to say that every

Crl.A.1555/2013 Page 12 of 19
wear and tear of married life need not lead
to suicide and it is another thing to put it so
crudely and suggest that one or two assaults
on a woman is an accepted social norm.
Judges have to be sensitive to women’s
problems. Perhaps learned Sessions Judge
wanted to convey that the circumstances on
record were not strong enough to drive
Girija to commit suicide. But to make light
of slaps given to Girija which resulted in
loss of her eyesight is to show extreme
insensitivity. Assault on a woman offends
her dignity. What effect it will have on a
woman depends on facts and circumstances
of each case. There cannot be any
generalization on this issue. Our
observation, however, must not be
understood to mean that in all cases of
assault suicide must follow. Our objection is
to the tenor of learned Sessions Judge’s
observations. We do not suggest that where
there is no evidence the court should go out
of its way, ferret out evidence and convict
the accused in such cases. It is of course the
duty of the court to see that an innocent
person is not convicted. But it is equally the
duty of the court to see that perpetrators of
heinous crimes are brought to book. The
above quoted extracts add to the reasons
why learned Sessions Judge’s judgment can
be characterized as perverse. They show a
mindset which needs to change. There is a
phenomenal rise in crime against women
and protection granted to women by the
Constitution of India and other laws can be
meaningful only if those who are entrusted
with the job of doing justice are sensitized
towards women’s problems.

Crl.A.1555/2013 Page 13 of 19

15. In the ultimate analysis we are of the
opinion that the Appellant has not been able
to rebut presumption under Section 113A of
the Evidence Act. Girija committed suicide
within seven years from the date of her
marriage in her matrimonial home. Impact
of this circumstance was clearly missed by
the trial court. The evidence on record
establishes that Girija was subjected to
mental and physical cruelty by the Appellant
in their matrimonial home which drove her
to commit suicide. The Appellant is guilty of
abetment of suicide. The High Court has
rightly reversed the judgment of the trial
court acquitting the Appellant. Appeal is,
therefore, dismissed.”

17. In ‘Satish Shetty vs. State of Karnataka‘, 2016 (12) SCC 759,
the Court held :

“18. On a plain reading of Section 498-A it
transpires that if a married woman is
subjected to cruelty by the husband or his
relative, the offender is liable to be punished
with the sentence indicated in the section.
But cruelty can be of different types and
therefore what kind of cruelty would
constitute offence has been defined under
the Explanation. As per first definition
contained in clause (a) – it means a wilful
conduct of such a nature which is likely to
drive the victim woman to commit suicide or
to cause grave injuries to health and life,
limb or health (mental or physical). The
other definition of cruelty is contained in

Crl.A.1555/2013 Page 14 of 19
clause (b) and is attracted when a woman is
harassed with a view to coercing her or any
of her relation to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is
on account of failure to meet such demand.

19. In the present case after noticing the
injuries on the person of the victim which is
not at all explained by the appellant
husband although in the fateful night he and
the deceased slept together in the same
room before she consumed poison, the High
Court has come to a well-considered finding
in para 42 of the impugned judgment that
the deceased was being harassed both
physically and mentally and in direct as well
as indirect ways for non-compliance with
the demand of the accused for `1,00,000 for
investment in his wine business. The High
Court found that such harassment falls
squarely under clause (b) of the Explanation
of Section 498-A. We find no good reason to
take a different view.”

(Emphasis supplied)

18. It further held :

“16. So far as the second contention is
concerned, the same needs to be noticed
only for rejection. To be fair to the learned
counsel, he has not dealt on this contention
at any length nor has cited any judgment.
The High Court on the other hand dealt with
the issue of conviction under Section 306
IPC in the absence of a charge under that
head in detail in paras 44 and 45. It has

Crl.A.1555/2013 Page 15 of 19
also noticed some judgments of the
Karnataka High Court and this Court in
para 44. The issue is definitely not res
integra in view of the judgment of this Court
in somewhat similar circumstances in
K.Prema S.Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao. In
that case the acquittal of the husband of the
deceased under Section 304-B IPC was not
reversed but this Court while upholding the
conviction of all the three accused under
Section 498-A IPC, further convicted the
husband of the victim under Section 306 IPC
after discussing issues relating to the
absence of a charge under Section 306 IPC
in a case of suicide when the relevant and
material facts are already part of charge
under Sections 468-A and 304-B IPC. That
judgment rendered by a Bench of three
judges in somewhat identical facts, in our
view leaves no scope for accepting the
second contention on behalf of the
appellant.”

19. This Court finds no sound reasons to deviate from the
observations recorded by the Trial Court in para 123 of the impugned
judgment which reads as under :

“The allegations against the accused
Vikas Mehta are of inflicting extreme
mental and physical cruelty upon his
wife Neha (deceased). He is a wife-beater
who from the day of the marriage had been
regularly beating his wife and fed up with
the atrocities, Neha had even previously
gone to the police and made a complaint to

Crl.A.1555/2013 Page 16 of 19
them. Being fed up with the atrocities,
physical torture and harassment inflicted
upon her, she decided to end her life. It is
this torture and harassment inflicted upon
her by the accused which instigated and
enticed Neha to end her life on account of
which she committed suicide by hanging
herself. This fact is confirmed from her
complaint to the Police Ex.PW8/A
where she states that her husband Vikas
Mehta used to harass and beat her almost
regularly and she was fed-up of his
atrocities and could no longer stay with him
on account of the physical torture and
harassment inflicted upon her. In her
complaint to the police the words “….. main
Neha Mehta apne pati ke atyaachaaroon se
dukhi hokar ek jori kaproon mein apni
mataji ke yahan jaa rahi hoo…” and further
when she states “….. Mere pati ka naam
Vikas Mehta / Sanju Mehta hai. Meri
shaadi san 2 November 2009 dinank ko hui
thi. Jab se elkar aaj tak vah mujhe maarta
raha hai. Jiske karan main uske
atyacharoon se bahut dukhi hokar apne
mata-pita ke yahan hamesha ke liye rehne
jaa rahi hoon….” reflects the kind of torture
which the deceased had faced in the hands
of her husband Vikas Mehta from the first
day of her marriage. She has not named
anybody else and has held Vikas Meheta
solely responsible for her condition. It is
writ large that Vikas Mehta had been
battering his wife from the very first day of
his marriage which had become intolerable
for the deceased. I may observe that
Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a

Crl.A.1555/2013 Page 17 of 19
person of doing a thing and in the present
case the positive act attributed to the
accused Vikas Mehta (not of her other in-
laws i.e. father in law Jeet Lal Mehta,
mother in law Asha Rani and Sweety @
Suman sister in law who were residing
separately) is of infliction of physical
violence upon the deceased. The evidence
on record shows that this is not a case
where the deceased Neha could be held to
be hypersensitive. Rather, on the contrary it
is writ large that even after her deceitful
marriage in which the criminal background
of her husband Vikas Mehta was withheld
from her she continued to stay with him.
Within almost month and a half of his
marriage Vikas Mehta back to jail leaving
his newly married wife at the mercy of his
parents. Neha continued to stay with them
without any complaints but Vikas Mehta was
the one who inflicted physical violence on
her right from the date of his marriage and
made life miserable for her compelling her
to return to her mother’s house. Thereafter
again she tried to adjust with him when she
and Vikas Mehta were separated from the
rest of the family and started residing on
rent at Shalimar Bagh. The bruises on her
body as evident from the postmortem report
confirms that even thereafter Vikas Mehta
did not mend his ways and hence being fed
up of being beaten up regularly she decided
to end her life.”

20. The impugned judgment based upon fair reasoning warrants no
intervention. Where, because of the cruelty inflicted on the wife by the

Crl.A.1555/2013 Page 18 of 19
accused continuously, incessantly and over a period of time, she was driven
to the act of suicide; there being a nexus between the acts of the accused that
pushed the wife to suicide, conviction under Section 306 IPC for abetment
of suicide would be justified. Conviction under Sections 498A/306 IPC
stands affirmed.

21. Nominal Roll dated 13.07.2015 reveals that the appellant has
already undergone four years, seven months and twenty-two days
incarceration besides remission for four months and fifteen days as on
10.07.2015. His overall jail conduct is satisfactory. He is aged around 28
years. It is informed that he belongs to a poor strata of the society. He has
done mechanical training of six months in Electricals and Certificate of
Refrigeration and Air Condition during custody (Certificate Annexure ‘A’).
He has also attended the training of volunteer teachers for conducting basic
literacy class for adults conducted by Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi,
during his detention. Certificate (Annexure ‘B’) has been placed on record.

22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
substantive sentence of RI for ten years stands modified to RI for eight
years. Other terms and conditions of the Sentence Order are left
undisturbed.

23. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court
record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order. Intimation be sent
to the Superintendent Jail.

(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
APRIL 13, 2017 / tr

Crl.A.1555/2013 Page 19 of 19

Leave a Comment

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