Delhi High Court
Girajo Devi & Ors. vs State (Delhi Admn.) on 26 March, 2010
Author: Ajit Bharihoke
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ajit Bharihoke
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: October 21, 2009
Judgment delivered on: March 26, 2010
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.242/1995
GIRAJO DEVI & ORS. ....APPELLANTS
Through: Mr. R.M. Tufail, Advocate
Versus
STATE(DELHI ADMN.) ..... RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE
1. Whether Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in Digest ?
AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.
1. The appellants Girajo Devi, Ram Bahadur, Satender @ Satte and Ramesh Chand have preferred this joint appeal against impugned judgment dated 17th October, 1995 in Sessions Case No. 109/90, FIR No. 242/90, P.S. Malviya Nagar in terms of which the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B, both read with Section 34 IPC as also against the consequent Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 1 of 20 order on sentence dated 18th October, 1995 in terms of which all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default of payment of which, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of six months for the offences under Section 304-B/34 IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of which, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of three months respectively under Section 498-A/34 IPC.
2. During the pendency of appeal, the appellant Ram Bahadur expired, as such, the appeal against him abated. The appellant Satender @ Satte absconded during the pendency of appeal and was declared proclaimed offender. The appellant Ramesh Chand is in judicial custody and the appellant Girajo Devi is on bail.
3. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that Ms. Manju (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟) was married to the appellant Ram Bahadur (since expired) on 15th February, 1989. On 12th June, 1990, her dead body was found in burnt condition in the latrine of her matrimonial home i.e. House No. 87/4, Sector 1, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. Someone conveyed this information on 12th June, 1990 at 1:50 pm, which information was conveyed by PCR to the Police Post, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. The information was recorded in the daily diary maintained in the Police Post, Pushp Vihar as Entry No. 12 and a copy Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 2 of 20 thereof was sent to the Police Station Malviya Nagar. On receipt of the copy of DD No. 12, SI Murari Lal proceeded to the place of occurrence where he found the dead body of the deceased lying in the toilet of House No. 87/4, Sector 1, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. The parents of the deceased were also present there. Sh. B. K. Sehgal, PW18, the then SDM, South Delhi also reached at the spot and recorded the statement Ex.PW11/A of Kanti Devi, mother of the deceased (PW11).
4. Kanti Devi, in her statement to the SDM narrated that the deceased was married to Ram Bahadur on 15th February, 1989. Everything was fine with marriage for about four months, thereafter, in- laws of the deceased started harassing her. She was not even provided with proper food and was not permitted to cook food as her father-in-law and brother-in-law did not find the taste of food cooked by her to their liking. Kanti Devi also stated that her daughter told her that her mother-in-law was demanding a colour T.V., her husband had raised a demand for Scooter, her father-in-law had demanded a plot and her brother-in-law Satte asked her to vacate her house of Pushp Vihar and shift to her parents‟ house and take a room there. Her son- in-law Ram Bahadur (since expired) was getting a meagre salary of Rs.1200/- per month and because of that reason, they got the deceased admitted in a training course for Laboratory Assistant run by Safdarjang Hospital. On 11th June, 1990, the deceased came to their home with her brother Anupam and she told that her mother-in-law and brother-in-law had hit her with a bucket and a „bhagona‟, resulting Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 3 of 20 in an injury on her leg. After staying at the parental house for some time, the deceased insisted on going back to her matrimonial home and her father Mool Chand (PW6) dropped her there. She further stated that on the next day, they got a message through two boys that Manju was unwell and they should reach at her matrimonial house immediately. When they reached there, they found that Manju had died due to fire burns. She also stated before the SDM that since her marriage, Manju was being treated badly by the appellants who used to beat her time and again. On the basis of said statement, a case under Section 498-A IPC and Section 304-B IPC was registered at P.S. Malviya Nagar on the directions of the SDM.
5. The Investigating Officer Murari Lal prepared a rough site plan of the place of occurrence. He also got the scene of occurrence photographed. The SDM also recorded the statement of the father of the deceased as well as the appellants. On inspection, a plastic can containing kerosene oil and a half burnt matchbox was found at the spot, which were seized by the Investigating Officer. After completion of the inquest proceedings, the dead body was sent to AIIMS for post- mortem examination. The appellants were arrested at the spot. On completion of the formalities of investigation, all the four appellants were charge-sheeted and sent for trial.
6. The appellants were charged for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B and 406 IPC all read with Section 34 IPC and an Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 4 of 20 additional charge for the offence under Section 342 IPC was also framed against the appellant Girajo Devi. The appellants pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellants, prosecution examined 27 witnesses in all. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with a view to afford them an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. The appellants denied the prosecution case in their respective statements. Appellants Girajo Devi, Satender and Ramesh Chand took the plea that their‟s is a middle class joint family with meagre means. The deceased was an ambitious lady and wanted to lead a comfortable luxurious life, which was beyond their means and perhaps because of that reason, she became frustrated and lost interest in life and had committed suicide. No witness in defence has been examined.
8. The learned Trial Court did not find any merit in the defence set up by the appellants and relying upon the prosecution evidence found the appellants guilty of offences punishable under Section 304B IPC and Section 498A IPC both read with Section 34 IPC and convicted them accordingly. As regards the other charges, appellants were acquitted.
9. Section 304B IPC is an extraordinary provision which was introduced into the Indian Penal Code by the Dowry Prohibition Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 5 of 20 (Amendment) Act 1986 with a view to combat the menace of dowry death. It defines a new concept called dowry death and raises a presumption of culpability against the husband or his relatives if the death of the deceased lady falls within the four corners of the definition of dowry death. It provides that where the death of a married woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or 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 for or in connection with the demand for dowry, such death shall be called dowry death. The Second part of Section 304B(1) IPC provides that once it is established that the woman has died a dowry death, such husband or relative of the husband of the deceased who are seen to have indulged in subjecting the deceased to harassment or cruelty for or in connection with dowry shall be deemed to have caused the death. Thus, in order to establish the guilt of an accused for an offence under Section 304B IPC, the prosecution is required to establish following ingredients for a dowry death:
(i) There was a married lady,
(ii) Her death occurred due to burns or bodily injury or it
was an unnatural death,
(iii) That such death has occurred within seven years of
the marriage,
Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 6 of 20
(iv) That soon before her death, the deceased was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any of his relative.
(v) And if such ingredients are established, then as per the second limb of Section 304B(i) IPC, the husband or such relative of her husband shall be deemed to be guilty of causing dowry death.
10. Thus, it is obvious that before raising the presumption of guilt against the accused, the prosecution is required to establish the above enumerated ingredients.
11. In order to succeed on the charge under Section 498A IPC, the prosecution is required to establish following essential ingredients:
(a) That the victim was a married lady,
(b) That she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or the relatives of her husband,
(c) That such cruelty consisted of either harassment of the woman with a view to coerce a meeting of demand for dowry or a wilful conduct of the husband or the relative of the husband of such a nature as is likely to lead the lady to commit suicide or cause grave injury to her life limb or death.
Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 7 of 20
12. In the light of aforesaid provisions of law, we now proceed to consider the submissions on behalf of the parties.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned judgment, fairly conceded that the deceased was married to the appellant Ram Bahadur and she died of an unnatural death by burning within seven years of her marriage. He also stated that the appellants Girajo Devi, Ramesh Chand and Satender are the parents and the brother of the appellant Ram Bahadur. Learned counsel submitted that the above fact by itself does not establish the guilt of the appellants. In order to succeed on the charge under Section 304B IPC and Section 498A IPC, the prosecution was required to establish beyond doubt that the appellants demanded dowry from the deceased or from her family members and had subjected the deceased to harassment and cruel treatment with a view to coerce her and her relatives to concede to their dowry demands. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has miserably failed on both the counts, i.e., the demand for dowry and the harassment or cruel treatment meted out by the appellants to the deceased.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in order to prove the demand of dowry harassment as well as the cruel treatment meted out to the deceased for or in connection with the dowry demand, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses who can be divided Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 8 of 20 into two categories i.e. neighbours residing in the vicinity of matrimonial home of the deceased and others. So far as the neighbours i.e. PW1-A Ms. Bindu Kharbanda, PW2 Ms. Kamlesh Aggarwal and PW19 Ms. Amrawati are concerned, they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Though they were cross- examined at length by learned APP after seeking permission from the court but nothing incriminating could be elicited from their cross- examination. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the other witnesses are the relatives and the friends of the family of the deceased who are interested in the success of the case and their testimony is not reliable. In support of this contention, learned counsel has made detailed submissions, which are not reproduced for the sake of brevity and we propose to deal with the said submissions later.
15. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has argued that from the testimony of PW1 Ganga Devi, PW3 Ajit Singh Saini, PW4 Kanwar Singh, PW6 Mool Chand, PW7 Alka, PW11 Kanti Devi and PW20 Surender Sharma, it stands established on the record that the appellants, within a few months of the marriage had started demanding for dowry and with a view to coerce the deceased and her parents to meet their demands, they subjected the deceased to harassment and cruelty, which ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased by burning within a period of slightly more than a year of her marriage. Thus, he submitted that the learned Trial Judge has rightly Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 9 of 20 convicted the appellant on two counts i.e. under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC.
16. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record.
17. PW6 Mool Chand Saini, father of the deceased is one of the main witnesses of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though in his examination-in-chief, he has supported the case of the prosecution, his version is not worthy of credence as he has made material improvements over his previous statement Ex.PW6/DB recorded by the SDM on the date of death of the deceased. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the relevant part of the cross-examination of PW6 Mool Chand, which is, inter alia, reproduced as under:
"........In my statement made to the SDM I did not state that accused Ram Bahadur used to demand scooter. In my statement before the SDM I did not talk about any demand of dowry particularly. I had stated about the demand of plot which I consider to be demand of dowry.
I had told the SDM that after Satte came back home, he and his mother Girajo Devi started harassing my daughter. I had told the SDM that accused persons used to harass my daughter for not bringing sufficient dowry. (Confronted with Ex.PW6/DB where this fact is not specifically mentioned.). I did not tell the SDM that in June, 1989 Smt. Girajo Devi accused had demanded a coloured T.V. from me. I did not tell the SDM that father-in-law of my daughter Manju asked in Sept. 1989 for a plot. I also did not tell the SDM that in October, 1989 Ram Bahadur accused made a demand for a scooter, which took I declined. I also did not tell the SDM that during all this period they continued to maltreat my daughter. I also did not tell the SDM that in Jan. 1990 Manju's Devar Satte asked me to spare on a separate room in my house for Manju and her husband or that this demand was made by him after consultation and after the advice of his parents. I also did not tell the SDM that for this reason the harassment of my daughter grew day by day. I had not stated in my Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 10 of 20 statement before the SDM that I implored them not to harass my daughter but no avail.
I had not stated before the SDM that in March, 1990 I got her admitted in S.J.Hospital for training course of Lab. Asstt. despite that her harassment continued, I also had not stated before the SDM that however, I did not think it proper to lodge the report with the police because the things may have flared up. I had also not stated before the SDM in my statement that in May 1990 they again raised the same demands but I flatly declined because I had no source to meet their demand.
In view of the aforesaid improvements made by the witness over his previous statement on material aspects of the case, we do not find it safe to place any reliance upon the testimony of PW6 Mool Chand.
18. The other important witness examined by the prosecution is the mother of the deceased Ms. Kanti Devi (PW11). As regards demand for dowry, she has stated that the brother-in-law of the deceased used to demand colour T.V., father-in-law used to demand a plot and husband used to demand scooter, besides that, the brother-in-law Satte told the deceased to persuade her father to spare one room in his residence for the deceased and her husband. In the cross-examination, the witness changed her stand and stated that it was not the brother-in-law who demanded colour T.V. but the demand for colour T.V. was made by mother-in-law. The above referred version of PW11 Kanti Devi gives an impression of an effort to rope in all the members of the family of the husband of the deceased. Otherwise also, her version regarding demand for dowry is vague and it is bereft of specific instances giving approximate dates and place where the demand was made. Further, had such demand actually been made by the in-laws of the deceased, Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 11 of 20 PW11 Kanti Devi, as also the deceased, under the natural course of circumstances, were expected to discuss such demands with the father of the deceased namely PW6 Mool Chand Saini and he would have come to know about it. The fact that PW6 Mool Chand Saini in his statement before the SDM has not said anything regarding dowry demand raises a strong doubt that PW11 Kanti Devi is not speaking the truth and she is not a reliable witness.
19. PW1 Ganga Devi, who claimed to be a friend of the deceased, is another star witness of the prosecution. She has stated that the deceased had joined the training programme for Laboratory Assistant in Safdarjung Hospital, sometime in April, 1990. She always appeared gloomy and sad and when asked as to why she was always sad, the deceased told her that her mother-in-law and brother-in-law did not allow her to prepare the meals and they always quarrelled with her. She also told her that her mother-in-law demanded a scooter, brother- in-law demanded a T.V., father-in-law demanded a plot and the husband demanded a room in her parents‟ house which was lying vacant. She also deposed that on 10th June, 1990 at about 11:30 am, she visited the house of the deceased to ask for repayment of money owed by her. When she reached near the entrance door of the house, she heard noise of cries and utensils. In response to the door bell, mother-in-law of the deceased opened the door and asked her about the reason for her visit. When she told her that she had come to meet the deceased, the mother-in-law, who was seemingly angry, pointed Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 12 of 20 towards the deceased who was weeping. She stated that at that time, she saw an injury on the leg of the deceased. When she asked the deceased as to how she had sustained the injury, she (deceased) told her that her in-laws, in connection with their demands, had beaten her and that her mother-in-law and brother-in-law had hit her with a "steel bucket" and „bhagona‟ and that her father-in-law abused her and husband slapped her. On careful scrutiny of her evidence, we do not find her testimony worthy of credence because her testimony also gives an impression that she is trying to rope in all the family members of the husband of the deceased. Further it does not appear natural that this witness, having known about the tense relationship between the deceased and her in-laws, would have gone to the house of the deceased on a Sunday to ask for return of so-called money owed to her particularly when the next day was a working day and the deceased would have met the witness in the Hospital on 11.06.90. We may also note that PW6 Mool Chand has admitted in his cross-examination recorded on 27.01.93 that he was an active member of the Employees Union of Safdarjung Hospital and he had held various offices in the executive of the union from time to time. Therefore, a possibility cannot be ruled out that the father of the deceased, using his position as holder of an office in the executive committee of union might have influenced PW1 Ganga Devi to be a witness against the appellant. This suspicion gets compounded by the fact that the statement of Ganga Devi, PW1 was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after a long delay of Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 13 of 20 around 22 days from the date of the incident on 04.07.1990 for which delay no reasonable explanation is forthcoming from the Investigating Officer. Thus, we do not find the testimony of PW1 Ganga Devi reliable.
20. As regards, PW3 Ajit Singh Saini and PW4 Kanwar Singh, maternal uncle of the deceased, they claimed to have gone to the house of the deceased on 11.06.1990 to talk with the in-laws of the deceased. Both of them have stated that during their talks with the father-in-law of the deceased, he told them that he had asked the father of the deceased to arrange for a plot which has not been arranged till then. They also stated that mother-in-law of the deceased demanded a colour T.V., husband of the deceased demanded a scooter and brother-in-law of the deceased said that if the parents of the deceased were unable to meet their demands, they should provide for a side room in their house for the deceased and her husband. The aforesaid version of the witnesses is also a parrot like repetition of the version of PW1 Ganga Devi as also PW11 Kanti Devi, mother of the deceased, which appears to be unnatural. It is unlikely that one day before the occurrence, the in-laws of the deceased might have raised such demand in presence of the witnesses. Further, testimony of these two witnesses is not reliable because of the fact that they admit that they had visited the maternal house of the deceased after her death on 12.06.1990. They have also admitted that police as well as the SDM were also present at the spot, but neither the police nor the SDM recorded their statements nor they Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 14 of 20 offered to give their statements to them. Their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had also been recorded after about 22 days on 04.07.1990. There is no cogent explanation on the record as to why their statements were not recorded at an earlier date despite of the fact that they were available to the police during the intervening period. Therefore, a possibility cannot be ruled out that they have been introduced as witnesses after due deliberations, so we do not find it safe to rely upon their testimony. We may add that PW4 Kanwar Singh is the maternal uncle of the deceased, therefore, under the natural course of circumstances, had his version been true, he would definitely have stated those facts to the SDM as well as the Investigating Officer during the inquest proceedings conducted by the SDM on 12.06.90.
21. We may note that prosecution has relied upon some purported hand-written letters/notes of the deceased namely Exhibits PW6/A, PW6/B, PW6/C and PW6/D. Ex. PW6/A is dated 09.06.1990 wherein it is recorded by the deceased that in her absence, her parents-in-law and brother-in-law had placed the sofa set etc. in her room. This writing of the deceased gives an impression that there was some discord between the deceased and her in-laws and for that reason, her parents-in-law and brother-in-law had removed her sofa set etc. from the drawing room/sitting room and placed the same in the room allotted to her. This document, by no means, suggests that there was any demand for dowry. Ex.PW6/B is an innocuous document, i.e., an Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 15 of 20 application for leave for 23.04.1990 and 24.04.1990. Ex.PW6/C is a sort of diary note written by the deceased on 11.05.89, which is vague and it records "Manju ko hanse hue bhi pata nahi kitne saal ho gaye hain. Ab toh wo bechari hansna, bolna bilkul hee bhool gayi hai. Ab toh sir ek yaad hai toh .......(paper torn) ya fir bahut adhik udaas sa man lekar akele ghanton baithkar sochte rahna. Ab zindagi mein baaki kuch bhi nahi bacha hai. Aur kahin is ladki ko kuch ho gaya toh iske maa baap thatha rishtedar in logon ko kahin ka bhi nahi chodhenge. Ye sab kuch bhool chuke hain. Sochte hain iska toh koi aage peeche hai nahi. Bechari saara din tanao se grast rahti hai. Raat ko niyam ke anusar Ram ka peekar aana, weh toh kisi ke saamne kuch keh bhi nahi sakti hai. Isme iske maa baap ka koi dosh nahi, saara dosh ya toh Manju ka hai ya phir uski kismat ka kyonki shaadi ke liye haan toh kewal Manju ne hee ki thee. Mr. Ram, main toh abhi ghar se jaa rahin hoon. Aur haan, aapke 150 Rs. Diary ke andar rakhe hue hain. Le lena". At the bottom of this writing, she had further written (Ex.PW6/D) that she was taking away the torn agreement with her and they would meet in the High Court. This document gives an impression that there was some dispute between the deceased Manju and her husband for which, perhaps they had arrived at some agreement, which was later on torn and the deceased left in May, 1990 threatening legal proceedings in the High Court. Parents of the deceased in their testimony have not thrown any light about said torn agreement or what happened in May 1990. This writing Ex.PW6/D leads us nowhere. Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 16 of 20 On perusal of Ex.PW6/D, it transpires that it is the product of a disturbed mind and it gives an impression that the deceased was under
some stress and tension. However, said reason has not been spelled out in the note. There was not even a whisper of any dowry demand.
If there actually was dowry demand, in the ordinary course of nature, in all probabilities the deceased was expected to write about it in her written note Ex.PW6/D, which is not the case. This circumstance also makes the prosecution story about the dowry demand suspect.
22. Coming to the issue regarding the cruel treatment meted out to the deceased; in this regard, the material witnesses examined by the prosecution are PW1 Ganga Devi, who stated that she visited the house of the deceased on 10.06.1990. She found her weeping and crying and she noticed that there was injury on her leg and when she asked for the cause, the deceased told that she was beaten by her mother-in-law and brother-in-law and hit by them with a steel bucket and a „bhagona‟. PW6 Mool Chand Saini and PW11 Kanti Devi, parents of the deceased have deposed that in the afternoon of 11.06.1990, the deceased was brought to their home by her brother and they noticed a bandage on her right leg. If the aforesaid version of the witnesses is to be believed, then the deceased had suffered an injury on her leg for which she also got treatment, presumably in Safdarjung Hospital or by some other doctor. No doctor has been examined to substantiate this allegation. The aforesaid version of the witnesses is belied by the medical evidence. PW5 Dr. D.N.Bhardwaj, who conducted the post- Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 17 of 20 mortem on the dead body of the deceased, has categorically stated that there was no evidence of mechanical injury on the person of the deceased. This fact also finds mention in the post-mortem report Ex.PW5/A. Thus, in view of the contradiction between the above- referred oral testimony of witnesses and the medical evidence, we do not find it safe to rely upon the testimony of above three witnesses.
23. We may note that if the version of PW6 Mool Chand Saini and PW11 Kanti Devi is to be believed, then, they sent back their daughter to her matrimonial home to suffer the ire of her in-laws despite of having come to know that she was being ill-treated there and she had been hit with a steel bucket and a „bhagona‟ resulting in an injury on her leg. This conduct on the part of the parents of the deceased appears to be highly unnatural. It is highly improbable that PW6 Mool Chand, father of the deceased, after having come to know about the injuries sustained by the deceased at the hands of her in-laws would have dropped the deceased outside her matrimonial home without even making an effort to talk to the husband and in-laws of the deceased to clarify the situation. Thus, the above referred story of injury caused to the deceased by her mother-in-law and brother-in-law in presence of the other two appellants is highly doubtful. It appears that aforesaid story has been concocted with a view to meet the requirement of Section 304B IPC that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty by her in-laws in relation to their demand for dowry.
Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 18 of 20
24. The doubt against the prosecution story is further compounded by the fact that PW7 Kumari Alka has testified that a day before the occurrence i.e. on 11.06.1990 at about 11:00 a.m., appellant Ram Bahadur visited her office and threatened that in case her parents failed to consider their demands, they will face the dire consequences. If this version is to be believed, then PW7 Kumari Alka was expected to convey this information to her parents and it would have been reflected in their initial versions Ex.PW6/DB and Ex.PW11/A given to the SDM on 12.06.1990, which is not the case. Further, if the appellant Ram Bahadur had actually threatened Kumari Alka and asked her to send her father to their house for settlement, under the natural course of circumstances, the appellants were expected to wait for the meeting with PW6 Mool Chand, which also is not the case. Therefore also, it appears that PW7 Kumari Alka has been introduced as a witness with a view to give strength to the prosecution case against the appellants.
25. In view of the evidence discussed above, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 304B IPC as also under Section 498A IPC, i.e., the appellants had demanded dowry from the deceased or her relatives or they subjected the deceased to cruelty for or in relation of their dowry demand or that they subjected the deceased to such a treatment, which falls within the meaning of cruelty as defined in the Explanation given in Section 498A IPC. A possibility cannot be ruled out that since the deceased has died unnatural death Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 19 of 20 in her matrimonial home, the parents of the deceased held the appellants responsible for her death and, therefore, they went to the extent of accusing them of demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to harassment and cruelty. Thus, we are unable to sustain the impugned judgment and the consequent order on sentence. We accordingly accept the appeal and acquit the appellants, giving them benefit of doubt.
26. The appellant Ramesh Chand is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Bail-cum-surety bonds of other appellants are discharged.
27. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.
MARCH 26, 2010 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
akb/pst
Crl.A.No.242/1995 Page 20 of 20