CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

1. CRA-S-1189-SB-2000

Romesh Dutt and another

… Appellants

Versus

State of Punjab

… Respondent

2. CRA-D-514-DBA-2001

State of Punjab

… Appellant

Versus

Romesh Dutt and another

… Respondents

3. CRR-279-2001

Ram Kumar Sagar (since deceased) represented through his legal heir
Smt.Shama Sagar

… Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

… Respondents

Reserved on: 29.11.2018
Decided on : 10.12.2018

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHARMA
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

Present: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Isaan Khetarpal, Advocate and
Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate
for the appellants in CRA-A-1189-SB-2000.

1 of 18
06-01-2019 08:53:26 :::
CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 2

Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRR-279-2001.

Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Sr.DAG, Punjab.

RAJIV SHARMA, J.

Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the

aforesaid two appeals and revision petition, these are taken up together and

disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Criminal Appeal No.CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 has been filed by

the appellants against their conviction and sentence passed vide judgment

and order dated 23.11.2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Jalandhar, in Sessions case no.64 of 1999 whereby they were charged with

and tried for offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 302, 498-A of the

Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) along with one Tilak Bahadur. The

appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 304-

B IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years. The

appellants were acquitted under Section 302 IPC. No separate conviction

was recorded under Section 498-A IPC. Tilak Bahadur was acquitted.

3. Criminal Appeal No.CRA-D-514-DBA-2001 has been filed by

the State of Punjab for enhancement of sentence.

4. The complainant has also filed Criminal Revision No.279 of

2011 for enhancement of sentence.

5. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the marriage of

Neetu, daughter of PW-2 Ram Kumar Sagar, was solemnized with Rajesh

Kumar on 23.01.1998. The complainant was a government contractor. He

gave dowry to the accused as per his capacity. The accused were not happy

with the dowry and after one month, they started harassing the deceased on

2 of 18
06-01-2019 08:53:26 :::
CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 3

account of bringing insufficient dowry. She brought this fact to the notice of

her mother Veena Sagar and her maternal uncle Ashok Soni @ Pappu.

Rajesh Kumar and Romesh Dutt were demanding Rs.50,000/- and Cielo car

in dowry. The complainant along with his wife went to the house of the

accused on 27.05.1998. Romesh Dutt was present in the house. They came

to know about the death of their daughter on 28.05.1998. They went to the

house of the accused. The daughter was lying dead on the bed. The

complaint was filed before the police. The statement of complainant Ex.PC

was recorded. The body was sent for post-mortem examination. The cause

of death was asphyxia due to smothering and was sufficient to cause death

in the ordinary course of nature. The viscera of the deceased was preserved

and sent for FSL examination. The investigation was completed and the

challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

6. The prosecution has examined a number of witnesses.

Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They

denied the case of prosecution. According to them they were falsely

implicated. They also pleaded that they belong to affluent family.

7. The appellants were convicted and sentenced, as noticed

hereinabove. Hence the appeal (CRA-S-1189-SB-2000) filed by the

appellants Romesh Dutt and Rajesh Dutt; and appeal (CRA-D-514-DBA-

2001) and criminal revision (CRR-279-2001) filed by the State of Punjab

and complainant for enhancement of sentence. Ram Kumar Sagar

(complainant) petitioner in CRR-279-2001 died during the pendency of

revision. His legal heirs were permitted to be brought on record vide order

dated July 28, 2014.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in CRA-

3 of 18
06-01-2019 08:53:26 :::
CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 4

S-1189-SB-2000 has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to

prove the case against the appellants.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and

complainant have supported the prosecution case and prayed for

enhancement of sentence.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the judgment and record very carefully.

11. PW-1 Dr. Ranbir Singh testified that he was posted as SMO,

Surgery, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. A Board was constituted comprising of

him, Dr.P.N. Datta and Dr.Kamaljit. The post-mortem examination was

conducted by them. The face was cyanosed. Blood stained froth was coming

out from nostrils. Nails of hands and feet were mildly bluish. Brain

membrane was congested. Right and left lungs were congested. Both

chambers contained blood. Blood from heart was sent for chemical

examination. The post-mortem was conducted at 11.15 AM on 29.05.1998.

The cause of death in his opinion as well as members of the Board was

asphyxia due to smothering which was sufficient to cause death in the

ordinary course of nature. The time that elapsed between death and post-

mortem was within 24 to 26 hours and between injuries and death was

immediate. He proved PMR MB-6/98 dated 29.05.1998. There was no

laceration inside the mouth as a result of teeth bite or any other cause. The

suggestion was put to PW-1 Dr.Ranbir Singh if there was possibility of

signs being of the result of the fall of a patient suffering from epilepsy with

face downward on soft pillow during the epileptic fit and stopping of

breathing. PW-1 stated that there was only remote possibility of the same.

He agreed with the observations made in Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence that

4 of 18
06-01-2019 08:53:26 :::
CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 5

in case of death by smothering the right side chamber of the heart is full of

dark and the left chamber is empty.

12. PW-2 Ram Kumar Sagar is father of the deceased. According to

him, marriage of his daughter Neetu was solemnized with Rajesh Kumar on

23.01.1998. The relationship between the parties were normal though one

month thereafter the appellants demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- and Cielo

car. He went to the house of the appellants on 27.05.1998. He apprised the

appellants that he was poor man. He has four daughters. His daughter had

told him about the demand of dowry by the appellants. He received a

telephonic message on 28.05.1998 about the death of his daughter.

According to him, the appellants had killed his daughter for bringing

insufficient dowry. They started crying when they saw the body of their

daughter. He has admitted in his cross-examination that his daughter and

Rajesh had gone on honeymoon. He denied the suggestion that lodging of

FIR was an afterthought.

13. PW-3 Vijay Chawla has proved the bill nos.2100 dated

27.11.1997 and 2160 dated 27.11.1997 vide which the cloths were sold to

PW-2 Ram Kumar.

14. PW-4 Veena Sagar is the mother of the deceased. She has

corroborated the statement of her husband PW-2 Ram Kumar Sagar.

According to her also, the appellants were demanding Rs.50,000/- and Cielo

car. They were informed about the death of their daughter. They had given

sufficient dowry to their daughter. In cross-examination, she deposed that

when they reached the house of the accused on the day of occurrence, all the

doors of house were opened. Neetu had not written any letter to her when

5 of 18
06-01-2019 08:53:26 :::
CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 6

she was on honeymoon. She did not also see the photographs of

honeymoon. She admitted that no application was moved before the police

against the appellants for demanding dowry.

15. PW-7 Tarsem Lal has produced the bills of jewellery purchased

by family of the deceased.

16. PW-14 Jagir Singh has proved that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was

withdrawn on 05.03.1998 by PW-2 Ram Kumar.

17. PW-15 Darbara Singh deposed that Romesh Dutt was arrested

at about 11.30 PM on 28.05.1998. Recoveries were effected at the instance

of the accused.

18. PW-16 Parmod Kumar has taken the body for post-mortem

examination.

19. PW-17 Swaran Singh testified that Ram Kumar Sagar had come

to him and had made his statement vide Ex.PC. He went to the spot. The

dead body was examined by him. He prepared the inquest report Ex.PU. He

recorded statements of the witnesses. He prepared the site plan. Romesh

Dutt took out the dowry articles from the house on 02.06.1998. He arrested

Rajesh Dutt on 04.06.1998.

20. The appellants examined DW-1 Dr.Manjit Singh. He proved

prescription slip Ex.DF. He has deposed that the deceased came to the OPD

on 11.03.1998 and 19.03.1998. According to him, she was suffering from

grand mal epilepsy. She was not suffering from the disease previously and

had recently developed the same. In cross-examination, he admitted that he

did not remember if he had kept the register with him for one year and three

months. The medicine zen prescribed by him for the patient is also

6 of 18
06-01-2019 08:53:26 :::
CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 7

prescribed for few cases of migraine. He had not advised the patient to go

for CT scan.

21. Appellant Rajesh Dutt has taken the plea of alibi. He has

produced DW-6 Narinder Singh Gill, DW-7 Lalit Kumar Bablani and DW-8

Murari Lal to prove this. According to these witnesses, Rajesh Dutt had

gone to Delhi to make purchases from them.

22. The appellants also produced DW-3 Ashok Mahajan and DW-

10 Kewal Krishan their neighbours to prove that it was a natural death.

According to DW-3 Ashok Mahajan, he knew the appellants. He and

Romesh Dutt used to go for morning walk daily at 5.15 A.M. They returned

by 6.15 A.M. He went to his house and Romesh Dutt went to his house. At

about 8.00 A.M. he went to Bhargo Camp. He came back at 10.00 A.M.

When he was passing in front of the house of the accused, he found number

of people were present there. He was told by his wife that the wife of Rajesh

Dutt had died. He went to the house of the accused. The parents of the girl

were present. Rajesh Kumar had gone to Delhi.

23. DW-10 Kewal Krishan deposed that he was reading a

newspaper at 8.00 A.M. on 28.05.1998. He heard the noise of Romesh Dutt

that son open the door (beta darwaja khol). He was knocking the door. He

did not receive response from inside. In the meanwhile, parents of the girl

came there. The door could not be opened from inside. The door was

opened after lot of knocking and pushes. He himself entered the room along

with Romesh Dutt. The girl was lying on pillow with her face downwards.

24. Mr.R.S. Cheema, learned senior counsel has vehemently argued

that the deceased had died due to epileptic seizures. According to him, she

7 of 18
06-01-2019 08:53:26 :::
CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 8

was suffering from epilepsy and was treated by DW-1 Dr. Manjit Singh

Saini. The appellants never demanded any dowry from the deceased family.

25. According to Modi, a Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and

Toxicology, Twenty Fourth Edition, in homicidal smothering, affected by

the forcible application of the hand over the mouth and the nostrils, bruises

and abrasions are often found on the lips and on the angles of the mouth,

and alongside the nostrils. The face may be pale or suffused. The eyes are

open, the eyeballs are prominent and conjunctivae are congested and some

times there are petechial haemorrhages. The lips are livid, and the tongue

sometimes protruded. Bloody froth comes out of the mouth and the nostrils.

The lungs are normal if death has occurred rapidly. The right side of the

heart is often full of dark fluid blood and the left is empty.

26. In the instant case, lungs were congested and there was blood in

heart as per the post-mortem report. The word used by Modi is “often”.

Thus even if blood was found in heart, it will not suggest that it was not the

case of homicidal smothering.

27. The expression “often” has been defined by the Single Judge of

Karnataka High Court in Arun Kumar Alva vs. The Vijaya Bank, M.G.

Road, Bangalore and other, 2006(3) KantLJ 610, as under:-

“The meaning of the expression ‘often’ as per The Law
Lexicon is, “a word which implies repetition’. As per
Chamber’s 21 Century Dictionary ‘often’ means ‘many
times’, ‘frequently’, ‘in many cases’. As per Oxford
Universal Dictionary Illustrated ‘often’ means, ‘many
times’, ‘frequently’ As per New Websters Dictionary
‘often’ means, ‘frequently’, ‘many times’, ‘repeatedly’.
Therefore, the meaning of the word ‘often’ means many
times. But in the charge against the petitioner the

8 of 18
06-01-2019 08:53:26 :::
CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 9

element of many times is absent. Hence, the charge is
contrary to the instructions of respondent – Bank.”

28. Similarly, in H W V Cox, Medical Jurisprudence and

Toxicology, Seventh edition, it is stated that because of passive venous

congestion in some forms of asphyxia, the skin of the affected parts become

suffused, often cyanosed and purple and sometimes swollen.

29. In Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Law Practice

Procedure) by Dr.K.S.Narayan Reddy, 3rd Edition 2010, it is mentioned that

smothering is a form of asphyxia which is caused by closing the external

respiratory orifices either by the hand or by other means. Blood may ooze

out from the mouth and nose. The tongue may be protruded. The lunges are

congested. It is also stated that obstruction by bed clothing, a pillow, a

cushion etc. applied with skill, may not leave any external signs of violence,

especially in the young and the old. When the face is pressed into a pillow,

the skin around the nose and mouth may appear pale or white due to

pressure.

30. Thus there is no merit in the contention of Mr. Cheema that

there is no injury found around the nose and mouth. In some cases, death is

rapid due to reflex cardiac arrest and asphyxial signs are absent.

31. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Veer Bhan vs. State of

Haryana, 1998 (1) RCR (Criminal) 214, has held that it is immaterial

whether the husband was present or not to prove the case under Section

304-B and 498-A IPC. It has been held as under:-

“6. Mr. Baldev Singh, the learned counsel for the
appellants in support of this appeal has urged that the
case of Veer Bhan was distinguishable from that of his

9 of 18
06-01-2019 08:53:26 :::
CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 10

mother Krishnawanti as he was not present at the place
when the incident took place as per the dying
declaration made by Manju Bala, he stood exonerated.

7. We have considered this argument of the learned
counsel and are of the opinion that this argument has no
merit as in a matter with regard to a dowry death
covered by Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, the
presence of the accused at the time when the death was
caused, is not relevant.

XXX XXX XXX

16. The question now arises as to the correctness of the
sentence that has been imposed. It appears to us from
the dying declarations that Krishnawanti was, in fact,
liable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but
the trial Court framed a charge against both the accused
under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code
only. We are, therefore, of the opinion that as far as
Krishnawanti is concerned, the sentence imposed on her
requires no modification, but are of the opinion that in
the case of Veer Bhan who was admittedly not present at
the spot when the incident took place, some modification
in the sentence is called for. We, therefore, while
dismissing the appeal, reduce the sentence imposed on
Veer Bhan to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for the
offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian
Penal Code; other parts of the sentence remaining as
they are.

Appeal dismissed.”

32. Similarly in Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2009 AIR (SC)

913, the Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the expression soon

before the death is left to be determined by the Court depending on facts

and circumstances of each case. Their Lordships have held as under:-

10 of 18
06-01-2019 08:53:26 :::
CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 11

“6. In order to attract Section 304B Indian Penal Code,
the following ingredients are to be satisfied.

i) The death of a woman must have been caused by burns
or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal
circumstances.

ii) Such death must have occurred within 7 years of the
marriage.

iii) Soon before her death, the woman must have been
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or
any relative of her husband; and

iv) Such cruelty or harassment must be in connection
with the demand of dowry.”

33. In Subramaniam vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, (2009)

14 Supreme Court Cases 415, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have

held that opinion of doctor must be conformed to tests laid down in

authoritative texts on medical jurisprudence.

34. In the instant case, the opinion of doctor qua asphyxia

conforms to the authoritative texts of medical jurisprudence as discussed

herein above.

35. In Amar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 9 Supreme Curt

Cases 64, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that when

prosecution proved that soon before her death deceased had been subjected

by the appellant to taunts in connection with demand for dowry, the Court

has to presume that the appellant had committed offence under Section 304-

B IPC. It is for the appellant to rebut this presumption. Their Lordships have

held as under:-

“21. The prosecution, therefore, has been able to show
that soon before her death the deceased has been
subjected by the appellant to taunt in connection with

11 of 18
06-01-2019 08:53:26 :::
CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 12

demand for dowry. This Court has held in Pawan Kumar
and Others v. State of Haryana (supra) that a girl
dreams of great days ahead with hope and aspiration
when entering into a marriage, and if from the very next
day the husband starts taunting her for not bringing
dowry and calling her ugly, there cannot be greater
mental torture, harassment or cruelty for any bride and
such acts of taunting by the husband would constitute
cruelty both within the meaning of Section 498A and
Section 304B Indian Penal Code.

22. Once it is established by the prosecution that
soon before her death the deceased was subjected by the
appellant to harassment or cruelty in connection with
demand for dowry, the Court has to presume that the
appellant has committed the offence under Section 304B
Indian Penal Code. This will be clear from Section 113B
of the Indian Evidence Act which states that:

“113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.- when the
question is whether a person has committed the
dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon
before her death such woman has been subjected
by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court
shall presume that such person had caused the
dowry death.”

The prosecution in this case had led sufficient evidence
before the Court to raise a presumption that the
appellant had caused the dowry death of the deceased
and it was, therefore, for the appellant to rebut this
presumption.”

36. In Bakshish Ram and another vs. State of Punjab, (2013) 4

Supreme Court Cases, 131, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid

down the following conditions which are precedent for establishing offence

12 of 18
06-01-2019 08:53:26 :::
CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 13

of dowry death under Section 304-B IPC :-

“14. A perusal of Section 304B clearly shows that if a
married woman dies otherwise than under normal
circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it
is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
her husband in connection with any demand for dowry,
such death shall be called “dowry death” and such
husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused the
death. The conditions precedent for establishing an
offence under this section are :

(a) that a married woman had died otherwise than
under normal circumstances;

(b) such death was within seven years of her
marriage; and

(c) the prosecution has established that there was
cruelty and harassment in connection with
demand for dowry soon before her death.

This section will apply whenever the occurrence of death
is preceded by cruelty or harassment by husband or in-
laws for dowry and death occurs in unnatural
circumstances. The intention behind the section is to
fasten guilt on the husband or in-laws though they did
not in fact caused the death.

XXX XXX XXX

18. We have already noted Section 304B Indian Penal
Code and its essential ingredients. Section 113B of the
Evidence Act is also relevant for the case in hand. Both
Sections 304B and 113B of the Evidence Act were
inserted by Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of
1986 with a view to compact the increasing menace of
dowry deaths. Section 113B of the Evidence Act reads as
under:

“113B. Presumption as to dowry death. – When the

13 of 18
06-01-2019 08:53:26 :::
CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 14

question is whether a person has committed the
dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon
before her death such woman has been subjected
by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court
shall presume that such person had caused the
dowry death.”

Explanation. – For the purposes of this
section, “dowry death” shall have the same
meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860)”

As per the definition of “dowry death” in Section 304B
Indian Penal Code and the wording in the presumptive
Section 113B of the Evidence Act, one of the essential
ingredients amongst others, in both the provisions is that
the woman concerned must have been ‘soon before her
death’ subjected to cruelty or harassment “for or in
connection with the demand for dowry”. While
considering these provisions, this Court in M.
Srinivasulu v. State of A.P. has observed thus :
“8. 4. … The presumption shall be raised only on proof
of the following essentials:

(1) The question before the court must be whether
the accused has committed the dowry death of a
woman. (This means that the presumption can be
raised only if the accused is being tried for the
offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code.)
(2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or his relatives.
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in
connection with any demand for dowry.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before
her death.”

19. As discussed above, a perusal of Section 113B of
the Evidence Act and Section 304B Indian Penal Code

14 of 18
06-01-2019 08:53:26 :::
CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 15

shows that there must be material to show that soon
before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or
harassment. In other words, the prosecution has to rule
out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as
to bring it within the purview of the “death occurring
otherwise than in normal circumstances”. The
prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the
occurrence, there was cruelty or harassment and only in
that case presumption operates. As observed earlier, if
the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has
become stale enough not to disturb the mental
equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no
consequence. In the case on hand, admittedly, the
prosecution heavily relied on the only evidence of Sibo
(PW-2) – mother of the deceased which, according to us,
is a hearsay, in any event, a very general and vague
statement which is not sufficient to attract the above
provisions. In such circumstances, as argued by the
learned counsel for the appellants, accidental death
cannot be ruled out.”

37. Learned senior counsel has also argued that there is inordinate

delay in lodging the FIR. The complaint was made by PW-2 Ram Kumar

Sagar vide Ex.PC. On the basis of which FIR was registered. There is delay

of 11 hours in lodging the FIR.

38. PW-2 Ram Kumar Sagar was under tremendous pain and agony

and stressed after loosing his daughter. The FIR was required to be

registered immediately. However even if the FIR is registered belatedly, the

delay can be explained. Moreover the case of the prosecution cannot be

discarded merely on the ground that there is delay in lodging the FIR. In the

instant case, the evidence led by the prosecution is trustworthy and reliable.

In these circumstances, the delay of few hours in lodging the FIR looses its

15 of 18
06-01-2019 08:53:26 :::
CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 16

significance. According to the contents of the FIR, there was demand of

dowry by the appellants. They were demanding Rs.50,000/- and Cielo car.

The averments to this effect were made.

39. Thus PW-2 Ram Kumar Sagar and his wife PW-4 Veena Sagar

have categorically deposed that the appellants were demanding dowry. They

also visited the house of the appellants on 27.05.1998 and tried to convince

them. They were poor people. Neetu had died on 28.05.1998 in the house of

the appellants. Appellant Romesh Dutt was present in the house with his

wife. He had to explain under what circumstances she died. It is fit case

where Section 106 of the Evidence Act would be attracted. The dead body

was sent for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination was

conducted by Board of doctors. The face was cyanosed. Blood stained froth

was coming out from the nostrils. Right and left lungs were congested. The

cause of death was asphyxia due to smothering. PW-1 Dr. Ranbir Singh has

proved the post-mortem report Ex.PB. The appellants have placed strong

reliance upon DW-1 Dr.Manjit Singh Saini. According to him, Neetu visited

to him on 11.03.1998 and 19.03.1998. He proved the prescription slip

Ex.DF. According to DW-1, only room number of doctor is written. Room

no.15 was written on slip Ex.DF. However he used to sit in room no.16. The

patient was not referred to him but was referred to room no.15. Since he

used to sit in room no.16, there was no occasion for sending Neetu to room

no.15.

40. According to DW-1 Dr.Manjit Singh Saini, Neetu had recently

developed epilepsy. He had not recommended CT scan of Neetu. He has

proved entries made in the register. The various entries made in the register

16 of 18
06-01-2019 08:53:26 :::
CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 17

by same ink are not believable. He had kept the official record with him for

a period of one year and three months which he could not explain. The

statement of Dr. Manjit Singh does not inspire confidence. According to

DW-1 Neetu had suffered two fits of epilepsy 10 days back. Neetu had no

history of epilepsy. Suggestion was made to PW-1 Dr.Ranbir Singh that in

case of death by smothering the right side chamber of the heart is often full

of dark blood/fluid and the left chamber is empty.

41. Merely on that basis it cannot be stated that Neetu had not died

from asphyxia by smothering and the word used by Modi is ‘often’. The

doctor has found that the deceased was cyanosed. The blood stained froth

was coming out from nostrils. It was unnatural death.

42. The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with Rajesh

Kumar on 23.01.1998. She died on 28.05.1998 just within six months of

marriage. She was subjected to cruelty and harassment for bringing

insufficient dowry before her death. The family of deceased had given

sufficient dowry to the appellants which they have not denied. PW-2 Ram

Kumar has withdrawn a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the bank which has been

proved by PW-14 Jagir Singh, Senior Manager of the Punjab National Bank,

Jalandhar. Thus there was no occasion of the family of the deceased to

falsely implicate the appellants. The family of the deceased had also visited

the in-laws house of their daughter on 27.05.1998.

43. The prosecution has proved the case against the appellants

under Section 304-B IPC beyond reasonable doubt. They have been

convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

seven years for offence under Section 304-B IPC. The sentence imposed

17 of 18
06-01-2019 08:53:26 :::
CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 18

upon the appellants is sufficient to meet the ends of justice and we do not

see any merit in the contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

State and the complainant to enhance the same.

44. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants also

argued that a lenient view may be taken but in view of the facts and

circumstances discussed hereinabove, no lenient view can be taken the

manner in which Neetu had died.

45. The sentence of the appellant Rajesh Dutt was suspended on

27.09.2001 and Romesh Dutt was granted bail on 19.01.2001. Accordingly

appeal bearing no.CRA-S-1189-SB-2000 is dismissed. The police is

directed to take the appellants Romesh Dutt and Rajesh Dutt into custody to

undergo remaining sentence imposed by the trial Court vide judgment and

order dated 23.11.2000. The appeal and revision preferred by the State and

the complainant bearing nos.CRA-D-514-DBA-2001 and CRR-279-2001

are also dismissed.

(RAJIV SHARMA)
JUDGE

(HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)
JUDGE
December 10, 2018.

Davinder Kumar

Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

18 of 18
06-01-2019 08:53:26 :::