Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. As per the witnesses, Mr. Sinha, a relative of appellant Anil, was a mediator in settlement of the marriage of the deceased Anjana and appellant Anil and if there was some problem to the deceased Anjana from the side of the appellants, then the matter would have been referred to Mr. Sinha for its resolution, but after considering the evidence of all the witnesses, it is apparent that the matter was never referred to Mr. Sinha. Similarly, the witnesses have accepted that one Denish Pershad, maternal uncle of the deceased was residing in MAC Technical Institute Campus at Bhopal and he was a senior mechanic. If Anjana had some problem from the appellants, then as to why these witnesses did not tell to their close relative Denish Pershad to help the deceased Anjana from time to time. According to the witnesses, Denish Pershad was present at the house of the appellants, when the burial ceremony of the deceased Anjana was to take place and he arranged for scooter etc. for various witnesses for their mobility. Non examination of Denish Pershad clearly indicates that the parents and relatives of the deceased are telling a falsehood, which could not be confirmed from the side of Denish Pershad, maternal uncle of the deceased Anjana. It is not alleged that the parents of the deceased had bad relations with Denish Pershad, on the contrary it is established by their evidence that they went to the house of Denish Pershad when they reached to Bhopal to attend the burial ceremony and thereafter they went to the house of appellant Anil.

13. After considering the statement given by Duglos Pershad and Edgar Lyall that when Duglos Pershad has received the letter Ex.P-1 written by the deceased Anjana, for the first time the parents and relatives of the deceased could know about the problem of the deceased Anjana and thereafter the parents and relatives of the deceased started taking action against the appellants. Hence the entire evidence given by the parents and relatives of the deceased Anjana appears to be falsehood that the deceased Anjana was telling them about the dowry demand etc. Firstly the letter posted by the deceased could not shock the parents if they had the knowledge of such demand and secondly in the letter Ex.P-1 the deceased Anjana had specifically prohibited Mrs.Duglos Pershad (her Mami) not to inform such problems to her father. If she would have already told about the demand etc. to her parents, then there was no need to write down such a caution on the letter Ex.P-1. Looking to the conduct of the parents and relatives of the deceased, it is apparent that they did not know about any demand in the life time of the deceased Anjana. Everything they have stated is nothing but a falsehood, otherwise they would have taken any action against the appellants in the lifetime of the deceased Anjana. They would have at least contacted Mr. Sinha for resolution of the dispute or they would have requested Denish Pershad maternal uncle of the deceased to look after the problem and to give information from time to time. According to Smt. Usha Lyall and Edgar Lyall, they gave a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the deceased in July 1993 and thereafter they gave a sum of Rs.10,000/- in February 1994. If there was a demand of fridge, cooler etc., then instead of giving Rs.10,000/- in cash for two times, a fridge and cooler would have been given to the appellants. Hence by material contradiction in the evidence given by these witnesses, it is apparent that the parents and relatives of the deceased did not know about any demand made by the appellants prior to the death of the deceased and their evidence relating to that fact is nothing, but imagination and a bundle of falsehood.

19. Various defence witnesses including Dr. Ashok Kumar Sehgal (DW-5) have tried to establish that the deceased was suffering from malignancy in the uterus, therefore she was frustrated because she was unable to deliver a child in the family, hence she committed suicide. However, that defence was drained from the evidence of Edgar Lyall and Usha Lyall that in October 1993 a miscarriage was caused to the deceased Anjana and thereafter her treatment papers were prepared by Dr. Sarkar and some direction was given by Dr. Sarkar and according to the direction there was a possibility of malignancy. However, the defence taken by the appellants appears to be not acceptable, because if the malignancy is found in the uterus or breasts of a woman, then to save her life on advice of the doctor, such portion may be removed. It is not proved by the defence that Dr. Sarkar gave an advice for removal of uterus. Dr. Ashok Kumar Sehgal (DW-5) neither examined the deceased internally not he got any further sonography examination of the deceased. He did not refer the deceased to the Cancer Hospital, Mumbai, and therefore it was not proved that the deceased Anjana was suffering from any malignancy. However, Dr. Sarkar had written the treatment for a longer period to the deceased. Also if the deceased was suffering from pain in the uterus and feeling problem on that count, then she would have referred that fact in her letter Ex.P-1 and also she would have written about such problem to her father Edgar Lyall (PW-7) to get further advice from Dr. Sarkar. Hence the story of defence is not acceptable that she committed suicide due to her uterus problem.

24. As discussed above the evidence as laid against the appellant Anil is considered, then it would be apparent that the deceased was not dealt by him with any cruelty or harassment in consequence of any dowry demand. If the appellant Anil was frequently leaving his job and not interested in joining the hotel “Jahanuma” as early as possible, then his conduct does not fall within the purview of Section 107 of IPC and prima facie no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the appellant Anil. Similarly the deceased had committed suicide within one year of her marriage and in that one year she went to the house of her parents and other relatives according to her choice, she could tell her problems to her maternal uncle Denish Pershad at Bhopal. She did not write down about her problem to her father. If the text of the document Ex.P-1 is accepted as it is, then as discussed above, all the points raised by the deceased in that letter do not fall within the purview of cruelty or harassment done by the appellants upon the deceased Anjana, and therefore the appellant Anil cannot be convicted even of offence under Section 498-A of IPC.