* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl.Appeal No.574/2000
Date of Decision: 30th March, 2017
SATISH KUMAR BHATIA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Bhopal Singh, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Panna Lal Sharma, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374
Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 06.09.2000 whereby the
appellant has been found guilty and convicted for an offence
punishable under Section 498A IPC and order on sentence
dated 08.09.2000 whereby the appellant has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to payment of fine, to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
2. The facts of the case, as per the case of the prosecution,
Crl.Appeal No.574/2000 Page 1 of 13
in a nutshell are that on 08.09.1984 at about 4.55 A.M., an
information was received at police station Subzi Mandi from
one Sh.Vinod Kumar r/o House No.7870, Roshan Ara Road to
the effect that one lady had burnt herself in House no.7872.
The information was recorded at Serial No.22A in DD Register
and copy of the same was handed over to SI Ram Swaroop for
investigation.
3. SI Ram Swaroop reached the spot where Ashok Kumar,
brother of the deceased Anju @ Chanchal Bhatia met him. He alleged
that the deceased was his elder sister who had been married to the
appellant/accused Satish Kumar on 02.10.1976. After marriage,
Satish Kumar used to give beatings to her occasionally. Whenever
she visited his house, she used to complain against her husband,
father-in-law and dewar that they had been harassing her. On the day
of occurrence, he received information on telephone from Krishan
Lal that Anju @ Chanchal had died due to burns injury. He came to
Delhi with his family and went to Anju’s house. He saw dead body
of Anju @Chanchal lying on a cot in a burnt condition.
4. On the statement of Ashok Kumar, SI Ram Swaroop made an
endorsement and got a case under Section 498A IPC registered.
Crl.Appeal No.574/2000 Page 2 of 13
Statements of witnesses were recorded and the post mortem on the
dead body was conducted. During investigation, site plan was
prepared and Section 306/34 IPC also added. On 12.09.1984, the
appellant/accused Satish Kumar, husband and Sh. Baldev Raj, father-
in-law, were arrested.
5. After completion of investigation, challan was filed and later
the M.M. committed the case to the court of sessions.
6. Vide order 13.07.1987, charge under Sections 498A IPC and
Section 306 IPC was framed against Mr.Satish Kumar,
appellant/accused and his father Sh.Baldev Raj. Both the accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During pendency of trial,
Mr.Baldev Raj, father-in-law died and proceedings against him were
dropped vide order dated 16.12.1994 and only the appellant/accused,
stood trial.
7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses
in all. PW-1 SI Manohar Lal, PW-2 HC Satvir Singh, PW-3
Dr.L.T.Ramani, PW-4 Sham Lal, PW-5 Sh.Ashok Kumar, PW-6
Subhash Chand, PW-7 Satish Chand, PW-8 Gulshan Lal, PW-9
Vinod Kumar, PW-10 HC Baljeet Singh, PW-11 SI A.Q.Khan, PW-
12 SI Ram Narain, PW-13, Gopal Nath, PW-14 Durga Prashad, PW-
15 Dr.D.D.Khetrapal, PW-16 Man Mohan, PW-17 ASI Ganga Dhar
Crl.Appeal No.574/2000 Page 3 of 13
Meena, PW-18 Const. Subhash Chand, PW-19 Retd.Constable Magu
Ram, PW-20 Inspector C. Singh, PW-21 SI Ram Niwas, PW-22
Smt.Asha Mishra, PW-23 Smt.Saroj Bala and PW-24 Retired SI Ram
Sawroop.
8. In support of his appeal, the appellant has taken the ground
that he should have been acquitted under Section 498A IPC as the
prosecution witnesses have improved upon their statements made
before the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and under Section 161
Cr.P.C. where there were no specific allegations against the appellant
showing that he used to cause cruelties upon the deceased which are
covered under Section 498A IPC; that there was inconsistency in the
testimony of PW-4 which was also recorded in the order dated
06.09.2000 stating that “PW-4 undoubtedly has made a material
improvement upon his statement and deposed about the complaint of
insufficient dowry and demand of money and taking the money
which was not found recorded in his previous statement”; and also
there was mention in the testimony of PW-4 about holding of
Biradari meeting, but not even a single person from the same had
been produced to corroborate the statement; that there was also
inconsistency in the statements made by PW-5 before the court and
the ones made before the police, which is also acknowledged by the
Crl.Appeal No.574/2000 Page 4 of 13
learned Trial Court, but still has been made the basis for convicting
the appellant; that repeatedly the Trial Court observed that the
prosecution witnesses are guilty of material improvements, yet,
instead of giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant, the appellant
has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A
IPC; that the Trial Court erred in not giving the benefit of Section 4
of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant as even in an
offence under Section 304 IPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2000 I
AD (Criminal) SC 631 was pleased to give the benefit of probation
while in the present offence attracts maximum punishament of three
years.
9. On the contrary contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions
raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the judgment of
conviction and order on sentence as passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge do not suffer from any irregularity or illegalities and
is passed with a reasoned order, therefore, the same is not liable to be
interfered with.
10. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant
as well as learned APP for the State were heard.
11. PW-3 Dr.L.T.Ramani is the Civil Surgeon who had conducted
Crl.Appeal No.574/2000 Page 5 of 13
the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased. He deposed that
the burns sustained by the deceased were ante mortem in nature and
had been caused by fire. The cause of death was shock resulting from
burns and time of death was about 12 hours. He proved the post
mortem report as Ex.PW3/A.
12. PW-4 Sham Lal is the brother of the deceased. He deposed
that two months after marriage, the accused persons including
appellant started harassing his sister for not bringing sufficient dowry
and kept on demanding money, some times scooter and some times
money for purchasing a truck. He further stated that they as per their
potential gave Rs.2,000, Rs.5,000 and Rs.10,000 on different
occasions, but the accused still beat his sister. On 08.09.1984, at 6.45
AM, a call was received that his sister had expired. In cross
examination, he volunteered that he had not stated about the demands
made by the accused to the police as he was not in a fit state of mind.
He also stated that he had not told the police about the money given
by them to the accused nor about harassment being meted out to his
sister despite money being given to the accused.
13. PW-5 Ashok Kumar is brother of the deceased. He deposed
that his sister had been married to the appellant and after marriage,
whenever she met them, she used to say that her husband and in-laws
Crl.Appeal No.574/2000 Page 6 of 13
had been harassing her. He deposed that the cause of harassment as
deposed by his sister to him was that her husband/appellant used to
attribute unchastity to her. He deposed that his sister visited him
regularyly post marriage and would always mention that her husband
and other in-laws used to harass her.
14. PW-6 Subhash Chand is brother of the deceased. He deposed
that his sister had been married to the appellant and out of the
wedlock she had two children. She used to visit them but never
complained to him about anything, but told him that her husband and
father-in-law used to beat her many a time. She also told him that she
was being harassed. On 08.09.1984, he received a phone call that his
sister had died. During cross examination, he deposed that his sister
and brother-in-law used to meet him and inform that the accused and
the deceased had been living well but there used to be some
altercations between them sometimes.
15. PW-7 Satish Chand is the brother of the deceased. He
deposed that his sister was married to the appellat/accused. He also
deposed after 2/4 months of marriage when his sister visited them she
had complained of harassment and demand of dowry by the appellant
and his father. She had also complained that they had also beaten her.
In cross-examination, this witness was confronted with many
Crl.Appeal No.574/2000 Page 7 of 13
improvements made by him in the statement made to the police.
16. PW-8 Gulshan Lal is the brother of the deceased. He also
deposed that his sister had been married to the appellant. At the time
of marriage, dowry articles had been given as per our capacity and
good marriage had been performed. He deposed that whenever his
sister visited them, she complained of the harassment and beatings
received by her at the hands of her husband and in laws. When she
visited them last time in February, 1984, she told them that she did
not want to go her matrimonial home in view of the harassment,
beatings and dowry demands made by her husband and in-laws.
17. In cross-examination, this witness was confronted with many
improvements made by him in the statement made to the police.
18. PW-24 SI Ram Sawroop is the IO of the case. He
deposed that on 08.09.1984 when he was posted at Police
Station: Subzi Mandi he had received DD No.22A for
investigation. On reaching the spot, he found the appellant and
his father present at the spot, the dead body was lying outside
the bath room. He recorded statement of Ashok Kumar, brother
of the deceased and sent the tehrir for registration of case. On
12.09.1984, he had effected arrest of father of the appellant
Crl.Appeal No.574/2000 Page 8 of 13
(since deceased).
19. From the testimony of PW-5 and PW-6, there is nothing
to say that the deceased was harassed or meted with cruelty for
or in connection with demand of dowry. They have stated that
their deceased sister was harassed by the appellant, but they
have not given any reason for any such harassment which does
not connect the appellant with the demand of dowry.
20. So far as the testimony of PW-4, PW-7 and PW-8 is
concerned, they have stated that their deceased sister was
harassed by the appellant for bringing insufficient dowry. PW-4
had deposed that the appellant and his family membes taunted
his sister for bringing insufficient dowry and kept on demanding
money for scooter and truck. He further deposed that
sometimes they gave Rs.2,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/-.
21. Testimony of PW-4 does not inspire confidence and there
are material improvements and inconsistencies in his statement
for the reasons that in his statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. he had not stated to the police about any harassment
meted out to his deceased sister by the appellant. He had even
Crl.Appeal No.574/2000 Page 9 of 13
admitted during his cross examination that he had not stated
about demands of dowry to the police. He had also not stated to
the police about the demand for scooter and money for
purchasing truck. He had also admitted to not having stated to
the police about paying any money to the appellant. The
statement of PW-4 shows that he made material improvements
during his depositions in the court regarding harassment to the
deceased on account of demand of dowry. In his statement
made to the police he had not stated anything about the demand
of any dowry or money by the appellant, but during his
deposition in the court, he changed his version and stated that
his sister was harassed by the appellant on account of demand
of dowry, which creates a doubt about the case of prosecution
and makes his testimony unreliable.
22. Similar is the position with regard to testimony of PW-7
and PW-8. They have also made material improvements and
there are inconsistencies in their statements. In their statement
made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., they have not
stated anything against the appellant that he had ever harassed
Crl.Appeal No.574/2000 Page 10 of 13
or tortured the deceased on account of demand of dowry. But,
during their deposition before the court, they have stated that
deceased was harassed by the appellant on account of demand
of dowry. These material improvements and inconsistencies
made their testimony unreliable and does not inspire confidence
of the court.
23. It is worthwhile to mention that PW-5 Ashok Kumar is
the complainant of the case on whose statement (Ex.PW5/A),
the FIR of the instant case was registered. Neither in his
statement Ex.PW5/A nor during his deposition in the court, he
has stated anything to the effect that the deceased was ever
harassed by the appellant or any of the family members for the
demand of dowry. Even, PW-6 has stated that the deceased
informed him that she was living well with the
appellant/husband.
24. There is no other public witness on the record which
could connect the appellant with the offence of the present case.
The testimony of the brothers of the deceased (PW-4 to PW-8)
is not reliable and trustworthy to connect the appellant with the
Crl.Appeal No.574/2000 Page 11 of 13
demand of dowry. There are several material improvements in
the testimony of PW-5, PW-7 and PW-8 which make the case
of the prosecution doubtful.
25. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Mritunjoy
Biswas Vs. Pranab @ Kuti Biswas and Anr (2013) 12 SCC 796,
where the Apex Court held as under:
“As is evincible, the High Court has also taken
note of certain omissions and discrepancies
treating them to be material omissions and
irreconcilable discrepancies. It is well settled in
law that the minor discrepancies are not to be
given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be
considered from the point of view of
trustworthiness. The test is whether the same
inspires confidence in the mind of the court. If the
evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by
the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in
the prosecution version. If an omission or
discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and
ushers in incongruities, the defence can take
advantage of such inconsistencies. The omission
should create a serious doubt about the
truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is
only the serious contradictions and omissions
which materially affect the case of the prosecution
but not every contradiction or omission (See Leela
Ram vs. State of Haryana and another, Rammi
alias Rameshwar v. State of M.P. and Shyamal
Ghosh v. State of West Bengal).”
26. On similar point, it was also observed in another case of
Crl.Appeal No.574/2000 Page 12 of 13
State of Gujarat vs. Kishanbhai etc (2014) 5 SCC 108 that
glaring inconsistencies and infirmities in statement of witnesses
render their statements unreliable. Hence benefit of doubt must
be given to the accused.
27. In view of above discussion, this court is of the
considered opinion that no case under Section 498A IPC is
made out against the appellant and while extending him benefit
of doubt, he is acquitted of the said offence.
28. As discussed above, the judgment of conviction and order
on sentence are set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond
and surety bond stand discharged.
29. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
MARCH 30, 2017
Crl.Appeal No.574/2000 Page 13 of 13
