Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Shiv Charan, on 31 March, 2011
: 1 :
IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. KAUSHIK
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 02 : DISTRICT COURTS DWARKA
NEW DELHI
S. C. No. 09/10
Date of Institution:16.02.2010
Date on which Judgment Pronounced: 30.03.2011
Decision: Conviction
FIR No. 337/09
P.S. Dabri
U/s. 498A/ 304B read with Section 34 IPC
In the matter of:
STATE Vs. 1. Shiv Charan,
S/o Sh. Dauji Ram.
2. Kuldeep,
S/o Sh. Shiv Charan
Both residents of:
RZ70, Gali no. 8,
Durga Park,
New Delhi.
..... Accused
FIR No.337/09
State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 1 of 37 pages
: 2 :
JUDGMENT
1. The case, set up by the prosecution is that on 12.11.09, DD entries no. 13A and 14A, which were recorded in the Police Station Dabri, were entrusted to SI Suresh Chand, who then, accompanied by Constable Sanjay, proceeded to the spot.
2. On the spot, they found the body of deceased, in burnt condition. That the spot was, thereafter, inspected by the then SHO Police Station Dabri and Additional Commissioner of Police. Crime team was called at the spot. It was revealed that it was the body of a lady named Machla Devi, wife of Kuldeep, who got married only 34 years back. Concerned SDM was apprised and was called.
3. Thereafter, the deceased was sent to Mortuary of DDU Hospital. Case property was seized. SDM recorded the statement of the relatives of the deceased. On his directions, FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 2 of 37 pages : 3 : the case was registered.
4. Further investigation followed, which culminated into final report, under section 173 Cr.P.C. The challan was filed before the Illaqa Magistrate.
5. The case, being exclusively triable by the court of Session, was committed to the court of Sessions. It eventually came before this court for trial.
6. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, accused Kuldeep, being the husband, accused Shiv Charan, being father in law and Smt. Sheela, being mother in law (not yet arrested) of deceased Machla Devi, wife of accused Kuldeep, in furtherance of their common intention, started harassing and subjecting the said Machla Devi to harassment and cruelty on account of dowry demands, soon after her marriage in May, 2006. Accused persons, thus, allegedly FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 3 of 37 pages : 4 : committed an offence punishable under section 498A read with section 34 IPC.
7. Further, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, caused dowry death of Smt. Machla Devi, wife of Kuldeep, who died within seven years of the marriage, under the circumstances other than normal, by burning, having been subjected to dowry harassment soon before death. Accused persons, thus, allegedly committed an offence punishable under section 304B read with section 34 IPC.
8. It is needless to mention that one of the accused namely, Sheela, i.e. mother in law of the deceased, has been absconding, admittedly, till date.
9. Primafacie, offences under section 498A and 304B read with section 34 IPC were made out against both the FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 4 of 37 pages : 5 : accused persons.
10. Charge, accordingly, was framed against both the accused persons, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
11. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its claim and contentions examined fourteen witnesses.
12. Thereafter, the accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. Defence opted not to lead any evidence, in defence.
13. I have carefully gone through the entire relevant material appearing on record and have given considered thoughts to the arguments that have been advanced, at the bar. My findings are as under:
14. PW1, Sh. Munna is the father of the deceased. He has FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 5 of 37 pages : 6 : deposed that the deceased was married to accused Kuldeep about four years back. That after marriage, the accused persons started demanding computer, cash, TV and Refrigerator from him as dowry and used to threaten to leave his daughter in case, their demands were not fulfilled.
15. PW1 has further deposed that four days prior to the death of deceased Machla, she phoned him to take her back as the accused persons gave her beatings because their demands were not fulfilled.
16. This witness further deposed that he received the message from one Om Prakash, who arranged this marriage that his daughter Machla had died of burning. Thereafter, he along with his son Beer Singh and other relatives came to Delhi. They found the body of deceased in the hospital.
17. PW1 has further deposed that his statement, Ex.PW1/A was recorded by the Executive Magistrate. He has has proved the FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 6 of 37 pages : 7 : same. He has also identified his signatures and LTI on the said statement at pts. A and B, respectively. That accused Shiv Charan was arrested, vide memo, Ex.PW1/B and accused Kuldeep was arrested, vide memo, Ex.PW1/C. On both these memos, he has proved his signatures at pt. A.
18. This witness has further deposed that he identified the body of deceased, before the police.
19. This witness was not cross examined on 13.05.2010, on which date, the defence avoided to cross examine this witness. It was much later that this witness was cross examined.
20. In cross examination of this witness, nothing appeared, contradictory or which could create any doubt in the truthfulness of this witness. On the other hand, it was suggested to the witness that the deceased was caught in an FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 7 of 37 pages : 8 : objectionable position on 09.11.09 with one Vinod, who was tenant in the same premises, where the deceased was living and that due to fear that the matter would be brought to the notice of her family members and other relatives, deceased Machla took the drastic step to end her life. The defence has, therefore, developed the defece that the deceased died because of being found in an objectionable pose with one Vinod, which the witness has denied. This, however, could not be substantiated by the defence, anywhere, either in the evidence of the prosecution or otherwise.
21. It is, therefore, very much clear that the defence has tried to side track the whole issue by taking altogether a false defence, just to hide the misdeeds and culpability of accused persons.
22. In any case, PW1 has established, on record, that the deceased was harassed on account of dowry demands soon FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 8 of 37 pages : 9 : after her marriage and was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry harassment till her death due to 100% burn injuries. That, therefore, she was forced to meet unnatural death, other than in normal circumstances, due to torture on account of dowry demands soon before death.
23. PW2, Smt. Maharani is the wife of PW1Munna and is the mother of the deceased. She has also substantiated and corroborated the version of PW1, in as much as, she too has deposed that after marriage, accused persons started demanding computer, cooler and refrigerator etc. as dowry and used to harass the deceased continuously till she died.
24. This witness further deposed that the deceased, one day prior to her death, phoned and told her that the accused Kuldeep used to harass her. That on receipt of information of death of deceased, she along with her family members came to Delhi.
FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 9 of 37 pages : 10 :
25. This witness was also not chosen to be cross examined on the day, she was examined by the prosecution. On subsequent date, on 30.07.2010, i.e. after about more than a period of two months. Her testimony remained unchallenged, in as much as, she was not cross examined at all by the accused persons initially. It was only in the month of January, 2011, that this witness, at the request of defence, was recalled for cross examination.
26. In the cross examination of this witness, nothing material appeared, which could contradict the prosecution version.
27. PW3, Beer Singh is the brother of the deceased. He has corroborated the version given by PW1. He has proved the statement, Ex.PW3/A, bearing his signatures and LTI at points A and B, respectively, and which statement was made by him to the Executive Magistrate. He had also identified FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 10 of 37 pages : 11 : the body of the deceased. This witness, too, was not subjected to cross examination on two occasions i.e. On 13.05.2010 and 30.07.2010. It was only on 24.01.2011 that he was subjected to cross examination. Nothing substantial appeared in cross examination of this witness, which could doubt the prosecution version.
28. PW4, Mukesh Chand is the cousin brother of the deceased.
He has also corroborated the version of other prosecution witnesses, in as much as, he has deposed that after marriage, the accused persons started demanding computer, TV and refrigerator from the parents of Machla as dowry and used to harass her.
29. PW4 has specifically deposed that on 11.11.2009, between 6.00pm to 9.00pm, the father of accused Kuldeep spoke to him over telephone (the father of Kuldeep, namely, Shiv Charan, is another accused, in this case). That father of FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 11 of 37 pages : 12 : accused Kuldeep during the aforesaid span of time, asked him to talk to accused Kuldeep at home as when he left the house, quarrel was going on between him and the deceased.
30. This witness has, therefore, further confirmed about the harassment given to the deceased, as alleged against the accused persons. This witness was also not initially subjected to cross examination. It was only on 24.01.2011 that he was subjected to cross examination. Earlier on two occasions, his testimony remained unchallenged.
31. PW5, Smt. Geeta Devi deposed that she was residing as a tenant for the last one year in the neighbourhood of deceased Machla. That on 12.11.09, Machla expired and her statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, which is Ex.PW5/A.
32. PW6, Constable Jagat Prakash is a formal witness, who has FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 12 of 37 pages : 13 : deposed that on 21.01.2010, he had taken three sealed pulandas, sealed with the seal of 'SC' along with FSL Form to FSL Rohini, vide RC no. 06/21, after receiving the same from MHC(M) in duly sealed condition. That the samples were not tampered with, so long as the same remained in his custody.
33. PW7, HC Kailash Chand is also a formal witness, who has proved that the samples in the present case were transacted through the record of MHC(M), vide Ex.PW7/A. The copy of road certificate, consisting of one page, is Ex.PW7/B. That the copy of letter, vide which, samples were accepted by the FSL, has been proved as Ex.PW7/C. He further deposed that these samples remained intact, so long as the same were in his custody.
34. The prosecution was pleased to drop PW Kalawati from the list of witnesses.
FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 13 of 37 pages : 14 :
35. PW8, Sh. Krishan Kumar deposed that on 12.11.09, he was posted as Executive Magistrate. That on that day, at about 10.00/10.30am, he received a telephonic call from SI Suresh Chand of Police Station Dabri, regarding burn case of a lady. That he reached the spot, at about 4.00pm and inspected the spot. That he found there, broken pieces of bangles, in kitchen, some burnt pieces of clothes, one match box and one spray bottle. That the body of the deceased was already shifted to DDU Hospital by the police. That he directed the police to inform the parents of the deceased, who were residents of Rajasthan.
36. PW8 has further deposed that on 13.11.09, he reached DDU Hospital, where he went with SI Suresh Chand, who then produced the father of the deceased, namely, Munna. He recorded the statement of the father of the deceased, Ex.PW1/A, having his signatures at point A and his LTI at FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 14 of 37 pages : 15 : point B. The said statement was attested by this witness at point C. He also recorded the statement of brother of the deceased namely, Beer Singh, vide Ex.PW3/A. He identified the signatures of Beer Singh on the said statement at pt. A and his LTI at pt. B. The said statement was attested by this witness at pt. C.
37. PW8 has further deposed that he had recorded the statements of Geeta and Kalawati, which are Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW8/A and which bear his signatures at point A. That he filled the application for conducting the postmortem, vide Ex.PW8/B and prepared inquest papers, vide Ex.PW8/C. He has further deposed that he filled form no. 25.35(1)(B), which is Ex.PW8/D. That after postmortem, the body of deceased was handed over to her father, vide receipt, Ex.PW8/E. He prepared his order sheet, which is Ex.PW8/F, having his signatures at pt. A. That he directed the SHO PS Dabri to register the case, as per law and handed over all the inquest FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 15 of 37 pages : 16 : papers to the IO.
38. In cross examination, he deposed that he did not prepare any document on 12.11.09, except recording of the statements of two tenants. That he did not prepare any site plan. That on 13.11.09, he recorded the statements of parents of the deceased, at about 11.00/11.30am. That he prepared a separate official file, regarding present inquiry but he failed to tell the number of the file. He admitted that he had not paginated the papers, prior to starting the inquiry. He denied the suggestion that he did so in order to manipulate the inquiry, later on. He has admitted that he did not mention the number of pages in the final inquiry report.
39. The deposition of this witness indicates that he has failed in discharging his statutory duty in conducting the inquest properly. At the same time, nothing has appeared in his FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 16 of 37 pages : 17 : testimony, which benefits the defence, in as much as allegations against the accused persons are concerned, in any manner, whatsoever.
40. PW9, WHC Harvinder has proved the DD entry no. 13A, copy of which is Ex.PW9/A. She has also proved DD entry no. 14A, copy of which is Ex.PW9/B.
41. PW10, Constable Sushil Kumar deposed that on 14.11.09, he was posted in Police Station Dabri and joined the investigation in the present case along with IO SI Suresh Chand. That the IO prepared site plan and that both the accused persons were arrested, vide memos, Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C and that the disclosure statements of accused Kuldeep was recorded by the IO, which is Ex.PW10/A and bears his signatures at pt. A. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement in this regard. FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 17 of 37 pages : 18 :
42. PW11, Dr. B.N. Mishra conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased, Machla. The postmortem report prepared by him is Ex.PW11/A. According to him, in his opinion, the death was caused due to shock by 100 per cent burn (thermal), in this case. He identified his signatures at point A on the aforementioned postmortem report. He further deposed that he has also mentioned the injury on the said postmortem report.
43. PW12, HC Anil Kumar is a formal witness, who has proved the FIR, copy of which is Ex.PW12/A, having his signatures at point A. He has also proved endorsement on the rukka, which is Ex.PW12/B, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which he has proved.
44. PW13, Constable Sanjay Kumar deposed that on 12.11.09, he was posted in Police Station Dabri. That on that day, on receipt of DD entry no. 13A, at about 9.00am, he along with FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 18 of 37 pages : 19 : SI Suresh Chand went to RZ77, Gali no. 8, Durga Park, Dabri in the house at ground floor, where in the kitchen, dead body of one lady was found lying in burnt condition. That one bottel like jar was also lying there.
45. This witness has further deposed that on inquiry, the name of deceased was revealed as Machla Devi, wife of Kuldeep.
46. This witness has further deposed that the scene of spot was photographed by the crime team, which was called at the spot. The articles at the spot, were taken into possession and were sealed. The seizure memo in this regard has been proved as Ex.PW13/A, which bears his signatures at pt. A. He has further deposed that he took the body of deceased to Mortuary of DDU Hospital.
47. PW13 has further deposed that on 13.11.09, the SDM got conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased. His FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 19 of 37 pages : 20 : statement was recorded by the IO. He has identified the pieces of clothes along with debris, which were recovered in this case as Ex.P1, the empty plastic spray bottle as Ex.P2, the pieces of glass bangles as Ex.P3 and two match boxes, having burnt and unburnt match sticks, collectively, as Ex.P4. Nothing appeared in his cross examination, which could contradict the prosecution version.
48. PW14 SI Suresh Chand deposed that on 12.11.09, he was posted in Police Station Dabri. That on that day, on receipt of DD entries no. 13A and 14A, which are already Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B, he along with Constable Sanjay, reached the spot. That there, they found the body of deceased.
49. PW14 has further deposed that he gave message to Executive Magistrate through telephone and called the crime team. That the spot was inspected by the crime team. That the articles, which were lying at the spot were seized, vide FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 20 of 37 pages : 21 : memo, Ex.PW13/A. He has further deposed that the body of deceased was sent to Mortuary of DDU Hospital.
50. This witness has deposed further that on 13.11.09, parents of the deceased came to Police Station in the morning time and thereafter, reached DDU Hospital. That he accompanied them. That subsequently, Executive Magistrate recorded the statements of the father and brother of the deceased. That inquest papers were prepared and the postmortem was got conducted.
51. This witness has further deposed that after postmortem, the body of the deceased was handed over to Munna, vide receipt, Ex.PW8/E. On this memo, he has identified his signatures at pt. B. He has further deposed that Executive Magistrate prepared the order sheet, Ex.PW8/F. That he recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared site plan, which is Ex.PW14/A. He identified his signatures on the FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 21 of 37 pages : 22 : same at point A.
52. This witness has reiterated the memos Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C, vide which both the accused persons were arrested. After arrest, the accused persons were personally searched, vide memos, Ex.PW14/B and Ex.PW14/C, respectively. He has proved these memos and also his signatures on the same at point A.
53. PW14 has further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Kuldeep, which is Ex.PW10/A.
54. This witness has further deposed that on 24.12.09, after seeking permission, he went outstation for the arrest of the accused Sheela i.e. Mother in law of deceased in Rajasthan but he could not apprehend her. Subsequently, warrants were issued against her.
FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 22 of 37 pages : 23 :
55. PW14 has further deposed that exhibits of the present case were sent to FSL. That after completion of the investigation, he filed the challan in the court. That during the trial, the FSL result was obtained and was filed in the court. Same is Ex.PW14/D. The crime team report, collected by him is Ex.PW14/E. He also collected nine photographs, which are collectively marked as mark PW14/F1 to PW14/F9.
56. This witness has further identified the case property as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4, already proved by other witnesses.
57. This witness was subjected to lengthy cross examination but nothing appeared in his cross examination, which could help the defence in any manner, whatsoever.
58. The prosecution has, thus, proved on record that the accused persons had been continuously causing harassment to the deceased on account of demand of dowry. She was FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 23 of 37 pages : 24 : subjected to harassment soon before death, in as much as, even one day and four days before her unnatural death, she informed her parents about the harassment meted out to her on account of dowry demands. This has been clearly born out from the deposition of father, brother and mother of the deceased.
59. There cannot be any manner of doubt in the deposition made by the parents and brother of the deceased.
60. On behalf of defence, following case law have been cited:
1. Narender Singh Arora vs. State, 2010 (4) JCC 2373,
2. Mahendra Modi vs. State of UP, 2005(3) JCC 1615,
3. Hans Raj Sharma vs. State, 2010(2) JCC 972,
4. Durga Prasad & Anr. vs. State of MP, 2010 Cr.LJ 3419 and
5. Tarsem Singh vs. State of Punjab, Criminal appeal no. 476/2005.
FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 24 of 37 pages : 25 :
61. I have carefully gone through the above case law, cited by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
62. There is no quarrel on the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities. However, in the facts and circumstances, established in this case, the same do not help the accused persons.
63. The apex court has held in the case laws reported as 2003 (1) RCR (Criminal) 104 S.C.; 1993 (3) SCT 422; Kanti Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan 2009 (3) RAJ 438 SC and Prem Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan 2009 (1) RAJ 424 SC, that to prove the offence under section 304B IPC, following ingredients are necessarily required to be proved by the prosecution:
(i) That the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury; or
(ii) that the death occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances; and FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 25 of 37 pages : 26 :
(iii) that the aforesaid two facts spring within seven years of girl's marriage; and
(iv) that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or 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 her death.
64. In the case law reported as Satya Narayan Tiwari & Anr. vs. State of UP, 2011 CRI. LJ, 445, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that :
"Indian Society has become a sick society. This is evident from the large number of cases coming up in this court (and also in almost all courts in the country) in which young women are being killed by their husbands or by their in laws by pouring kerosene on them and setting them on fire or by FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 26 of 37 pages : 27 : hanging/strangulating them. That is the level of civilization of a society in which a large number of women are treated in this horrendous and barbaric manner?"
Further, it has been observed that "Although bride burning or bridge hanging cases have become common in our country, in our opinion, the expression "rarest of rare" as referred to in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 does not mean that the act is uncommon, it means that the act is brutal and barbaric. Bride killing is certainly barbaric."
The Honb'ble apex court further remarked "Crimes against women are not ordinary crimes committed in a fit of FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 27 of 37 pages : 28 : anger or for property. They are social crimes. They disrupt the entire social fabric. Hence, they call for harsh punishment. Unfortunately, what is happening in our society is that out of lust for money, people are often demanding dowry and after extracting as much money as they can, they kill the wife and marry again and then again they commit the murder of their wife for the same purpose. This is because of total commercialization of our society, and lust for money which induces people to commit murder of the wife. The time has come when we have to stamp out this evil from our society, with an iron hand."
65. In the instant case, the postmortem report clearly indicates that the deceased got cent per cent burnt injuries. Even her scalp was deeply burnt, showing the extent of severe injuries caused to her due to burns.
FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 28 of 37 pages : 29 :
66. It appears that the matter was not property investigated by the police and the Executive Magistrate as the postmortem report which is suggestive of severity of injuries found on the person of deceased, could have been intentional to cause murder.
67. In any case, in the absence of clear and cogent evidence having been collected in this regard by the police, no charge, under section 302 IPC was framed.
68. In any case, the overwhelming evidence available on record, clearly, established that the accused persons are guilty of the offences, under section 498A and 304B, read with section 34 IPC as essential ingredients of these offences have been established on record, in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and which cannot be doubted, in any manner, whatsover.
FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 29 of 37 pages : 30 :
69. Under these circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding the accused persons guilty of the offences under section 498A and 304B, read with section 34 IPC. Accused persons are, accordingly, convicted.
70. Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence on 31.03.2011.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30.03.2011 (N. K. KAUSHIK) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 02 DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI/ 30.03.2011 FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 30 of 37 pages : 31 : IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. KAUSHIK ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 02 : DISTRICT COURTS DWARKA NEW DELHI S. C. No. 09/10 Date of Institution:16.02.2010 Date on which order on sentence Pronounced: 31.03.2011 FIR No. 337/09 P.S. Dabri U/s. 498A/ 304B read with Section 34 IPC In the matter of: STATE Vs. 1. Shiv Charan, S/o Sh. Dauji Ram.
2. Kuldeep, S/o Sh. Shiv Charan Both residents of: RZ70, Gali no. 8, Durga Park, New Delhi.
..... Convicts Order on Sentence
1. By this order, I shall dispose off the contentions of the FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 31 of 37 pages : 32 : parties, raised on the point of sentence.
2. On behalf of State, it has been stated that appropriate sentence be awarded to both the convicts. That both the convicts are guilty of having committed offences against a woman. That they have committed dowry death of the deceased. Besides, they had been causing harassment to the deceased on account of demand of dowry since the day of her marriage to Kuldeep, one of the convict in this case.
3. On behalf of convicts, on the other hand, a lenient view has been prayed.
4. It is stated that both the son and father are in judicial custody since the commencement of the trial. That there is nobody to look after their domestic affairs. That the convict Kuldeep is a young person and his future will be jeopardised, if harsh punishment is awarded to him.
FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 32 of 37 pages : 33 :
5. I have carefully gone through the above rival contentions and the material available on record.
6. In the case law reported as Satya Narayan Tiwari & Anr. vs. State of UP, 2011 CRI. LJ, 445, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that :
"Indian Society has become a sick society. This is evident from the large number of cases coming up in this court (and also in almost all courts in the country) in which young women are being killed by their husbands or by their in laws by pouring kerosene on them and setting them on fire or by hanging/strangulating them. That is the level of civilization of a society in which a large number of women are treated in this horrendous and barbaric manner?"
7. The Honb'ble apex court further remarked FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 33 of 37 pages : 34 : "Crimes against women are not ordinary crimes committed in a fit of anger or for property. They are social crimes. They disrupt the entire social fabric. Hence, they call for harsh punishment. Unfortunately, what is happening in our society is that out of lust for money, people are often demanding dowry and after extracting as much money as they can, they kill the wife and marry again and then again they commit the murder of their wife for the same purpose. This is because of total commercialization of our society, and lust for money which induces people to commit murder of the wife. The time has come when we have to stamp out this evil from our society, with an iron hand."
8. The offences committed by the convicts were not only against the victim and her family members but were against the social order. By such instances, a shock wave is FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 34 of 37 pages : 35 : sent in the society. Besides this, the offences, committed by convicts are against a woman, a weaker section of the society.
9. Under the totality of the circumstances operating in this case, I am of the opinion that sentence of 10 years RI to both the convicts will meet ends of justice for the commission of offence under section 304B IPC read with section 34 IPC.
10. Both the convicts are, therefore, sentenced to undergo RI of 10 years for the offence punishable, under section 304B IPC, read with section 34 IPC.
11. For the offence, punishable under section 498 A IPC, read with section 34 IPC, I award sentence of 3 years RI to both the convicts. They are also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/, each, in default, they will undergo 6 FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 35 of 37 pages : 36 : months SI. This would meet the ends of justice.
12. Both the aforesaid sentences, awarded to the convicts, shall run concurrently.
13. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C shall be given to the convicts.
14. A copy of judgment alongwith order on sentence be given to the convicts, free of cost.
15. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT On 31.03.2011 (N. K. KAUSHIK) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 02, DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI/31.03.2011.
FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 36 of 37 pages : 37 : FIR No.337/09 State Vs. Shiv Charan & Anr. page 37 of 37 pages