IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. No.300/2000
Date of Decision : 27th February, 2017
KISHORI LAL ANR. ….. APPELLANTS
Through Mr.M.L. Yadav, Adv.
versus
STATE ….. RESPONDENT
Through Mr.Panna Lal Sharma, APP for
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants
aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 24th February, 2000
convicting the appellants under Sections 498-A 304-B of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) and order on sentence dated 7th March,
2000 vide which the sentence was passed to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of ten years each for the offence of
dowry death of the victim and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for
an offence of cruelty and in default of payment of fine, convicts
were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months
each.
2. The factual matrix emerging from the record is that an FIR
No.509/1995, under Sections 498-A/304B of the Indian Penal
Crl.A. No.300/2000 Page 1 of 14
Code was registered with Police Station Trilok Puri, on the basis of
complaint lodged by the complainant Ishwar Singh. It was stated
by him that marriage of appellant no.2 Durga Dass was solemnized
with her daughter Sangita on 8th April, 1995 and after marriage, she
resided in her matrimonial home at Trilok Puri, Delhi. After about
four months of marriage, on 24th August, 1995, Sangita poured
kerosene oil on herself and set herself ablaze. She was taken to the
Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital where she was declared
brought dead.
3. A report was lodged at the SDM, Shahdara by Mr.Ishwar
Singh, father of the deceased Sangita to the effect that the husband
and father-in-law of his daughter used to harass and beat her for the
demand of dowry. It was further alleged in the report that as per
the information received by him from his daughter, a scooter and
cash to the tune of Rs.20,000/- were demanded by her husband
Durga Dass and her father-in-law and that the same demand was
made by her husband at the time he visited the complainant’s
house on 20th August, 1995 in order to take Sangita to her
matrimonial home. Mr.Ishwar Singh further alleged that on 22nd
August, 1995, Kishori Lal, father-in-law of his daughter, visited his
house and raised the same demand of scooter and Rs.20,000/- in
cash and when the complainant showed his inability to fulfil the
Crl.A. No.300/2000 Page 2 of 14
demand of Kishori Lal, while leaving his house, he remarked that
he would see them. Thus, on the report of the complainant Ishwar
Singh, FIR was registered under Sections 498-A 304B of the
IPC against the husband and father-in-law of the deceased Sangita.
4. Since the appellant no.1 died, the proceedings qua him stood
abated vide order dated 8th February, 2016. So far as the appellant
no.2 is concerned, he has undergone imprisonment for four years
ten months and twenty two days and that the sentence of
imprisonment awarded to him was suspended vide order dated 19th
September, 2000 passed by this court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
judgment of the court below is bad in law inasmuch as no legal
evidence against the appellants justifying their conviction came to
the fore. It was further contended that at the time of marriage,
there was no demand of dowry and that the charge framed against
the appellants is legally defective. It was further stated that no
prior complaint was made either by the deceased Sangita or by her
family members, which clearly establishes that the complaint on
the basis of which the FIR was lodged, was only an afterthought,
just to implicate the appellants. It was further added that medical
evidence in the present case, does not support the prosecution case
at all. Learned counsel for the appellants has thus argued that the
Crl.A. No.300/2000 Page 3 of 14
allegations levelled against the appellants are general in nature. In
the entire FIR, there is no specific allegation. It is stated that
allegations being general in nature, the same cannot be made a
ground to convict the appellants. It was further submitted that
there are inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution
witnesses which make their testimony unworthy of credence.
There is no evidence on record to show that there was any cruelty
or harassment to the deceased on account of demand of dowry soon
before the death of the deceased.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has submitted that the accused were rightly held guilty and
convicted under Sections 498-A 304-B of the IPC inasmuch as
unnatural death of the deceased Sangita took place after four
months of marriage and that she was subjected to cruelty due to
dowry demand soon before death i.e. within a reasonable time
period close in proximity to her death, which is clear from the
testimonies recorded in the case.
7. I have gone through the available records including the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants as well
as by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
8. Upon hearing the rival contentions of the parties at length, a
few important evidence led is being examined. PW 14 Ishwar
Crl.A. No.300/2000 Page 4 of 14
Singh, in his statement stated that the marriage of his daughter
Sangita was solemnized with Durga Dass, son of Kishori Lal took
place in April, 1995 as per Hindu rites and that sufficient dowry
was given in the marriage. He stated that not being satisfied with
the dowry articles given, the accused persons started harassing his
daughter immediately after marriage. He further stated that on the
next day of marriage when his son-in-law along with his parents,
came to his house, they informed that they had expected much
more dowry from him. He stated that his daughter also told him
that family members relatives of her in-laws remarked that she
came from a low standard. This witness stated that three-four days
after marriage, when her daughter came to his house, all the
ornaments given by him were taken away by her husband Durga
Dass. PW 14 further stated that after about a month when he
visited his daughter’s house, he noticed some injury marks on her
face and that her face was swollen. On enquiry, he came to know
that she was not allowed to sleep at night and that she was given
beatings. He further stated that Sangita told him that the accused
persons were demanding a scooter and Rs.20,000/-. This witness
stated that on 20th August, 1995 when his son-in-law visited his
house, he repeated the same demand of Rs.20,000/- cash and
scooter and that on 22nd August, 1995, when Kishori Lal, father-in-
Crl.A. No.300/2000 Page 5 of 14
law of Sangita visited his house, he also repeated the same demand.
This witness stated that he tried to pacify the accused Kishori Lal
and told him that he was not in a position to pay Rs.20,000/- and
give a scooter to which Kishori Lal replied that he had no concern
with his problem. This witness further stated that being
apprehensive of torture towards his daughter, he along with his
wife visited the house of the accused and when after a repeated
request their daughter came, they noticed that she was brutally
beaten and was weeping. Their daughter also apprised them that
she was being beaten daily and on that day, she was tortured since
morning for demand of Rs.20,000/- and scooter. PW 14 further
stated that his daughter also informed him that she was
apprehensive that the accused would kill her. This witness further
stated that on 24th August, 1995 at about 11.30/12.00 p.m., he
received a message in his office that his daughter had sustained
burn injuries at her house in Trilok Puri. PW 14 stated that he first
reached his house and thereafter along with his wife, reached the
house of his daughter where they came to know that Sangita was
alive and was admitted to the hospital. Thereafter, on asking the
constable present at the spot, this witness went to police station and
thereafter, they were taken to SDM office, Shahdara where his
statement was recorded (vide Ex.PW 1/B).
Crl.A. No.300/2000 Page 6 of 14
9. PW 8 Smt.Veer Mati, mother of Sangita in her statement
testified and corroborated the entire testimony of PW 14 Ishwar
Singh with regard to the marriage of her daughter Sangita with
Durga Dass and with regard to the harassment, torture as well as
beatings given on account of less dowry being given as well as
demand of Rs.20,000/- cash and one scooter. She further stated
that on 24th August, 1995, two persons came to her house and
informed her about the burning of her daughter Sangita with a
stove while cooking roti. She stated that she along with her
husband reached the house of her daughter and came to know that
the dead body of her daughter was removed to mortuary.
10. PW 2 Ram Charan in his statement stated that he arranged
the marriage between Sangita and Durga Dass and that Mr.Ishwar
Singh, the father of Sangita, gave sufficient dowry. He further
stated that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage
and that Ishwar Singh told him that when Sangita returned to his
house, she informed him that her in-laws were demanding the
scooter and Rs.20,000/- for the reason that she had brought less
dowry. He further stated that he pacified both the parties but on
22nd August, 1995 when Ishwar Singh and his wife visited
Sangita’s house, her father-in-law threatened them. This witness
further stated that on 24th August, 1995, when he came to his
Crl.A. No.300/2000 Page 7 of 14
house, he was informed that Sangita received burn injury and that
she was admitted to the hospital. PW 2 stated that he along with
Ishwar Singh went to Irwin hospital on the next day and received
the dead body of Sangita.
11. PW 5 Smt.Kamla in her statement stated that she was in
visiting terms in the house of Ishwar Singh and that his daughter
Sangita was married with Durga Dass. She further stated that on
22nd August, 1995, when she visited the house of Ishwar Singh for
the purpose of surety to a loan, Kishori Lal, father-in-law of
Sangita was also there and that he demanded one scooter and
Rs.20,000/- cash from Ishwar Singh. PW 5 Smt.Kamla further
stated that after exchange of present list, Kishori Lal told Ishwar
Singh that he had not given scooter in dowry neither at the time of
marriage nor on the day of Rakhi when his son Durga Dass visited
there. This witness stated that Kishori Lal further demanded
Rs.20,000/- from Ishwar Singh for the purpose of getting his
daughter employed. PW 5 deposed that Ishwar Singh stated to
Kishori Lal that he could not arrange for the demand as he got his
daughter married only four months back. She further deposed that
Kishori Lal angrily left the house of Ishwar Singh and gave threats
that he would see him. Kishori Lal further added that as he had
only one son, he did not receive sufficient dowry. PW 5 stated
Crl.A. No.300/2000 Page 8 of 14
that on 24th August, 1995, she got the information about the death
of Sangita which means that Kishori Lal proved his threat.
12. PW 6 Ram Swaroop in his statement deposed that he resided
near the house of Ishwar Singh and had cardinal relationship with
him. PW 6 stated that he joined the marriage of Sangita with the
son of Kishori Lal and that after the marriage, Sangita told him that
she was being harassed by her husband and in-laws and that her in-
laws demanded scooter and Rs.20,000/- cash. This witness further
stated that Ishwar Singh and his wife Veerwati told him that their
daughter was being harassed and tortured by her husband and in-
laws and that they were unable to meet the demands. PW 6 stated
that after six months of marriage, he received the information about
the death of Sangita by burning.
13. PW 11 Dr.Lalit Kumar in his statement stated that on 25th
August, 1995, while posted at Maulana Azad Medical College,
Delhi, he performed post-mortem on the body of Sangita and that
the cause of death of Sangita was due to burn shock, consequent
upon burn injuries. It was also opined that the burns were ante-
mortem, recent in duration and was caused due to fire. He further
stated that on the direction of SDM and in order to rule out any
unknown poison, viscera of the victim was sealed and preserved in
his presence for the purpose of sending the same for chemical
Crl.A. No.300/2000 Page 9 of 14
analysis. It was also stated that scalp hair sample and partically
burnt clothes were preserved and sealed in his present for the
purpose of sending the same to chemical analysis in order to
confirm the presence of kerosene oil. The detailed post-mortem
report Exh.PW 11/A bore his signature at point ‘A’.
14. In the case of Devi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2008 SC
332, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the ingredients of
provisions of section 304 B IPC are
(A) that the death of the woman was caused by any burns or
bodily injury or in some circumstances which were not normal;
(B) such death occurs within seven years from the date of her
marriage;
(C) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband;
(D) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection
with the demand of dowry ; and
(E) it is established that such cruelty and harassment was made
soon before her death.
15. 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
Crl.A. No.300/2000 Page 10 of 14
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.
16. When the above ingredients are established by reliable and
acceptable evidence, such death shall be called dowry death and
such husband or his relatives shall be deemed to have caused her
death. If the above mentioned ingredients are attracted in view of
the special provision, the court shall presume and it shall record
such fact as proved unless and until it is rebutted.
17. The phrase, “soon before her death”, no doubt, is an elastic
expression and can refer to a period either immediately before the
death of a women or within a few days or even a few weeks before
it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that
expression. The legislative intent in providing such a radius of time
by employing the words “soon before her death” is to emphasise
the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the
aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. There should be a
perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry related
harassment or cruelty inflicted on her.
18. It is clear from the testimonies of Sh.Ishwar Singh and
Smt.Veer Mati, parents of the deceased, that for the purpose of
Crl.A. No.300/2000 Page 11 of 14
demand of dowry, their daughter was treated with cruelty by the
accused persons so as to intimidate and pressurize her to meet their
illegal demands. They have specifically given the dates i.e. 20th
August, 1995, when their son-in-law (Durga Dass) visited their
house and made demand of Rs.20,000/- cash and scooter which
demand was repeated by Mr.Kishoril Lal, father-in-law of the
deceased, when he visited the house of Ishwar Singh on 22nd
August, 1995. The statements of Ram Charan, Kamla Ram
Swaroop corroborated the allegations levelled by Mr.Ishwar Singh,
father of the victim, to the effect that Sangita was ill treated by her
husband and father-in-law and that a demand of Rs.20,000/- cash
and a scooter was made by her husband and in-laws. It is,
therefore, apparent that Sangita was harassed with a view to coerce
her to meet unlawful demands of dowry from her husband
father-in-law. Therefore, necessary ingredients of Section 498-A
of the IPC are clearly established. It is also clearly established
that for the reasons of such cruelty and harassment which was
made soon before her death, Sangita had set herself ablaze by
pouring kerosene oil and that the same was the real cause of her
death which is also evident from the statement of Dr.Lalit Kumar
who opined that the cause of death of Sangita was burn shock,
consequent upon burn injuries. So far as the present case is
Crl.A. No.300/2000 Page 12 of 14
concerned, it is apparent that the hiatus between the concerned
cruelty or harassment and the death of the victim was not much
which led to the effect of cruelty and death of the victim.
Therefore, the proposition of soon before death is clearly
established in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Therefore, necessary ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC are
also made out in the present case.
19. In the light of the above discussion, this court is of the
considered opinion that Sangita suffered death at her matrimonial
home, otherwise than under normal circumstances, within five
months of her marriage (i.e. within seven years), and the case
squarely falls within the ambit of dowry death. In the present
case, in view of the specific allegations made as well as from a
bare reading of the evidence of the complainant as well as other
witnesses, this court finds that the harassment of the deceased
Sangita was with a view to coerce her to convince her parents to
meet the demands for dowry which further led to her death. All
the above facts clearly establish the legal requirements for an
offence falling under Sections 304B and 498A IPC against the
appellants and the conviction and sentence imposed, therefore, do
not call for any interference.
20. In view of the above scenario, this Court does not find any
Crl.A. No.300/2000 Page 13 of 14
illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the judgment dated 24th
February, 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
and that the same does not call for any interference.
21. In the light of foregoing discussion, this court does not find
merit in this appeal which thus fails, and is accordingly dismissed.
As a result, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant
no.2 by the court below is upheld.
22. The appellant no.2 is accordingly directed to undergo the
remaining period of his sentence. The bail bonds of the appellant
no.2 stand cancelled to enable him to surrender and undergo the
remaining period of sentence. The appellant no.2 is directed to
surrender before the trial court concerned within fifteen days from
today to serve the remaining sentence.
23. A copy of the order be sent to concerned court for
compliance.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 27, 2017
aa
Crl.A. No.300/2000 Page 14 of 14
