* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. No.69/2000
Date of Decision : April 25th, 2017
AJAY PAL ORS ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Aditya Vikram, Mr. Harsh
Prabhakar, Mr. Harjeet Singh
Sachdeva, Advocates.
versus
STATE ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Sundershan Joon, Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State
with Sub-Inspector Ramesh, Police
Station Sultanpuri, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
JUDGMENT
P.S.TEJI, J
1. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 12.01.2000
convicting the appellants, namely, Ajay Pal, Yashoda and Deepa
finding them guilty under Sections 498-A/304B IPC and order on
sentence dated 14.01.2000 vide which the appellants were
sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for the
offence under Section 304B IPC and also to undergo three years
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,500/- each for the offence
under Section 498A IPC, in default of payment of fine they were
Crl.A. No.69/2000 Page 1 of 12
ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months,
the present appeal has been preferred.
2. The factual matrix emerging from the record is that the
deceased Vineeta was married with accused Ajay Pal on
16.06.1995 and after marriage she began staying in her
matrimonial home. On 25.06.1996 a wireless message was
received that a lady had been killed at D-Block, Rama Virhar, 15/3
Main Karala Road by a gunshot injury on the basis of which DD
no. 19-A was recorded and investigation handed over to ASI
Dharam Singh, who along with Constable Raj Pal reached the said
spot. At the spot, dead body was found with a gunshot injury and a
double barrel gun was found lying on a white bed sheet with blood
stains on it and spread across the cot. SDM Shri K.K. Dahiya was
informed about incident who ordered to get the dead body
preserved in the Mortuary. Crime team and fingers print expert
were summoned on the spot. The father, uncle and brother of
deceased came to the police station and were produced before the
SDM who recorded the statement of the father of the deceased. The
dead body of the deceased was also identified by the father of the
deceased. Thereafter, on the statement of the complainant (father of
deceased) FIR was recorded and SDM conducted subsequent
inquest proceedings.
Crl.A. No.69/2000 Page 2 of 12
3. In his statement, the complainant, namely, Naresh Pal, father
of the deceased stated that his daughter Vineeta was married to
Ajay Pal on 16.06.1995 and for the purpose of marriage, inlaws of
Vineeta (deceased) had demanded a motorcycle and Rs. 20,000/-
cash, of which cash of Rs. 20,000/- was given by Naresh Pal but
not the motorcycle. After 2-3 months of marriage, the complainant
went to meet his daughter, who informed him that her in-laws were
harassing her with demand of dowry, specifically asking for a
motorcycle. She further informed him that her mother-in-law
Yashoda, sisters-in-law Deepa and Pooja, and her husband would
often beat her for her inability to bring in sufficient dowry. On
26.06.1996, the complainant was informed that his daughter had
died due to a gunshot injury.
4. On the basis of statement of the complainant Naresh Pal,
FIR of the instant case was registered. After completion of
investigation, challan against accused Ajay Pal, Yashoda and
Deepa was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
Since, co-accused Pooja was stated to be a juvenile, it was
submitted in the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C that supplementary challan
shall be filed against her in the Juvenile Court. All the accused
persons/appellants were arrested and after completion of
investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.
Crl.A. No.69/2000 Page 3 of 12
5. Charge under Sections 498A/304B IPC was framed against
all the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty. The
prosecution had examined as many as eleven witnesses namely
PW1 Shri K.K.Dahiya, PW2 ASI Rajinder Singh, PW3 Naresh Pal,
PW4 Shri Dalip Kumar, PW5 Ramesh Pal Singh, PW6 Constable
Geeta, PW7 Constable Bansi Dhar, PW8 Constable Nek Ram,
PW9 ASI Dharam Singh, PW10 HC Suresh Kumar and PW11
Dr.L.T. Ramani.
6. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Accused persons examined four
witnesses in their defence.
7. The appellants were held guilty by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge vide judgment of conviction dated 12.01.2000 and
passed the order on sentence on 14.01.2000.
8. The grounds challenging the judgment of conviction is that
the appellants have been falsely implicated at the instance of the
complainant and his family members who were agitated over the
untimely suicide of their daughter. The complainant has failed to
successfully prove that his daughter was harassed for demand of
dowry or there was any cruelty on part of the appellants towards
the deceased with regard to demand of dowry. That in the absence
of demand of dowry, the presumption under Section113A Evidence
Crl.A. No.69/2000 Page 4 of 12
Act would fail and the prosecution had no grounds of conviction
against the accused person. That the Ld. Court has failed to
appreciate that in order to make out an offence under Section 304-
B IPC, the cruelty or harassment as alleged should be shown to
have been immediately before the death which could have resulted
in the immediate death/suicide.
9. 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 has duly
supported the case of prosecution that the deceased was 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.
10. Arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants as
well as learned APP for the State were heard.
11. In his testimony, PW3 Naresh Pal, the father of the deceased
stated that his daughter Vineeta (deceased) was married with the
accused Ajay Pal on 16.06.1995, and at the time of marriage Ajay
Pal had demanded a motor cycle but the same could not be given
by PW3. The mother-in-law of deceased, accused Yashoda had
Crl.A. No.69/2000 Page 5 of 12
demanded Rs.20,000/- and the same was given to her at the time of
marriage. After 2-3 months of marriage, deceased Vineeta
informed her father (PW3) that she was being harassed and beaten
by her in-laws and husband on account of bringing insufficient
dowry. Further, when this witness came to Delhi for taking his
daughter along with him, all the accused persons pressed for
fulfilling the demand of motor cycle. On 26.06.1996, this witness
was informed by the police that his daughter had died due to a
gunshot.
12. During his cross-examination, PW3 has demolished the case
of the prosecution. He admitted that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was
given in cash at the time of engagement ceremony and it was given
by him out of his own will. He further stated that sum of
Rs.20,000/- was handed over to the father of Ajay Pal. He further
stated that at the time of marriage, Ajay Pal was not doing any
service and since he was not doing any work/job, PW3 wanted him
to do some work/business. PW3 told him that whatever financial
help he could give, he would render that help to accused. He
further stated that relation of Vineeta with Deepa and Gudiya was
cordial. He admitted that mother-in-law of his daughter Vineeta
used to have complete faith and love on her. He further admitted
that he himself offered motor cycle to Ajay Pal for his business
Crl.A. No.69/2000 Page 6 of 12
purpose.
13. PW4 Shri Dalip Kumar, brother of the deceased, stated in his
testimony that he was sent by his father to the house of his sister
and he stayed there with her for 3-4months. He further stated that
during his stay at his sister’s matrimonial home she was beaten by
all the accused persons in his presence 3-4 times on different
occasions for her inability to fulfil the demand of a motor cycle. He
further stated that the accused person had threatened his sister that
they would not allow her to live in peace as long as she did not
bring a motor cycle from her parental home. This witness stated in
his testimony that upon his return, he informed his father about all
the occurrences at his sister’s matrimonial house following which
his father was trying to arrange for money to purchase a motor
cycle but during the meantime he received information that his
daughter had died.
14. PW5 Ramesh Pal Singh, uncle of the deceased, stated in his
testimony that his niece was tortured by her in-laws on regular
occasions and the same was known to him upon informing by the
deceased herself. The deceased had also informed this witness that
the accused persons used to beat her and abuse her for not fulfilling
their demand of bringing a motor cycle. On 26.06.1996, this
witness was informed by a police constable that his niece had died
Crl.A. No.69/2000 Page 7 of 12
due a gunshot injury.
15. PW3, PW4 and PW5 are the father, brother and uncle of the
deceased, respectively. Their testimonies dealt with above do not
give out any specific incidents whereby the deceased was harassed
by the appellants for or on account of demand of dowry. From the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and in particular PW3,PW4
and PW5, it is observed that they have made general allegations of
harassment by the appellants towards the deceased and have not
brought in evidence any specific acts of cruelty or harassment by
the appellants on the deceased. The allegations levelled against the
appellants are not credible in nature as they miserably fall short of
the basic details such as the day, date, time or any definite or
particular incident of any harassment towards demand of dowry
with respect to the deceased and thus fail to attract the scope of
Section 498A IPC.
16. Even otherwise, PW3-father of the deceased has not
supported the case of the prosecution during his cross-examination.
He had demolished the case of prosecution by saying that the sum
of Rs.20,000/- was given in cash at the time of engagement
ceremony and it was given by him out of his own will and that too
to the father of the accused Ajay Pal. He further stated that he
himself offered to help accused Ajay Pal for his work. He stated
Crl.A. No.69/2000 Page 8 of 12
that relations between his deceased daughter Vineeta and accused
persons Deepa and Gudiya were cordial. He admitted that mother-
in-law of his daughter Vineeta used to have complete faith and love
on her. He also admitted that he himself offered motor cycle to
Ajay Pal for his business purpose.
17. From the above testimony of father of the deceased, it is
apparent that he of his own will gave cash of Rs.20,000/- and it
was not demanded by the accused persons. He also admitted that
he offered motor cycle to the accused Ajay Pal for his business
purpose, thus demolishing the case of prosecution that any demand
of Rs.20,000/- was made by the accused persons or that the
deceased was harassed for the demand of motor cycle.
18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand AIR 2010 SC 3363 took note of the fact that some
unscrupulous wives put all family members of the husband to
harassment by way of giving report alleging offence under Section
498-A IPC. The Court pointed out the role of the courts as
follows: “At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is
difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely
careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take
pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial
cases. If allegations are scrutinized with pragmatic approach
Crl.A. No.69/2000 Page 9 of 12
contemplated by the Supreme Court, it is evident that general and
omnibus allegations are made against all the petitioners. Such
indiscriminate activity on the part of the second respondent, cannot be
supported by this Court. Registration of case on report of the second
respondent by the police against the petitioners herein is nothing short of
abuse of process of criminal law”.
19. This court in the matter of Smt.Neera Singh
v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors. I (2007) DMC 542
has observed that “in the absence of any specific allegations
attributing any specific overt acts against any of the appellants
pertaining to the alleged demand for dowry and subjection of the
complainant to harassment and ill-treatment, continuance of
proceedings against them based on the general and omnibus
allegations of sweeping nature, is nothing but abuse of process of
law”
20. In the case of Vipin Jaiswal v State of A.P AIR 2013 SC
1567 it was observed that:
“In our view, onus was on the prosecution to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient of Section
498A, IPC and the essential ingredient of offence
under Section 498A is that the accused, as the husband
of the deceased, has subjected her to cruelty as defined
in the Explanation to Section 498A, IPC. Similarly, for
the Court to draw the presumption under Section
113B of the Evidence Act that the appellant had caused
dowry death as defined in Section 304B, IPC, theCrl.A. No.69/2000 Page 10 of 12
prosecution has to prove besides the demand of dowry,
harassment or cruelty caused by the accused to the
deceased soon before her death. Since the prosecution
has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt
this ingredient of harassment or cruelty, neither of the
offences under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC has been
made out by the prosecution.”
21. As observed above, the prosecution has not been able to
prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt to the
effect that deceased was harassed or meted with cruelty for or in
connection with demand of dowry. Thus, the prosecution has
failed to prove its case under Section 498A IPC against the
appellants and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside.
22. Apart from charging the appellants under Section 498A IPC,
they were also charged for the offence punishable under Section
304-B IPC.
23. Apart from other ingredients of causing dowry death, one of
its essential ingredients is harassment or cruelty meted out to the
deceased for or on account of demand of dowry. As discussed
above, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations of
harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased by the appellants
for or in connection with demand of dowry. By failing to prove
this essential ingredient of dowry death as provided under Section
304-B IPC, the prosecution has also failed to make out its case
Crl.A. No.69/2000 Page 11 of 12
against the appellants for causing the dowry death of the deceased.
Thus, the appellants are also entitled for acquittal for the offence
punishable under Section 304-B IPC.
24. In view of the totality of evidence discussed above and the
facts and circumstances mentioned above, the judgment of
conviction and order on sentence passed against the appellants
under Section 498A/304-B/34 IPC are set aside and the appellants
are acquitted for the said offences.
25. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety
bonds stand discharged.
26. The appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
APRIL 25, 2017
dd
Crl.A. No.69/2000 Page 12 of 12