Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 18.04.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.53/2008 arising out of FIR No. 236/2005 PS Kanjhawala by which the appellant - Naveen was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B IPC. By an order dated 25.04.2012, he was awarded RI for three years with fine ` 25,000/- under Section 498A IPC and RI for ten years under Section 304B IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet was that Neelam (since deceased) was married to the appellant - Naveen on 26.11.2004. After the marriage, she started residing at her matrimonial home at House No.109, village Qutubgarh in a joint family consisting of her husband - Naveen, Rajender Singh (father-in-law), Krishna Devi (mother-in-law) and Navneeta @ Parvesh (sister-in-law). On 28.09.2005, Neelam committed suicide in the matrimonial home by hanging. Daily Diary (DD) No.47B (Ex.PW-12/A) was recorded at 10.10 P.M. at PS Kanjhawala after getting information from Const.Sri Krishan duty constable at Maharishi Balmiki Hospital where Neelam was brought 'dead'. The investigation was assigned to ASI Dharambir Singh, who with Const.Bhartari went to the hospital. The body was got photographed. At the spot, the Investigating Officer summoned the crime team and informed the Sub Divisional Magistrate about the occurrence. On 29.09.2005, statement of Angoori Devi, mother of the deceased was recorded by SDM - Sh.Kedar Nath. In her statement, she implicated victim's in-laws and Surinder Kumar (brother-in-law / jija) for committing her murder on account of non-fulfilment of dowry demands. She disclosed to the SDM that the in-laws of the deceased and Surinder Kumar used to subject Neelam with cruelty on account of non-fulfilment of their demands for a car and ` 50,000/- cash. They were compelled to give motorcycle make 'Hero Honda' and ` 10,000/- to meet their unreasonable and hefty demands. Allegations against Surinder Kumar were that he used to instigate the in-laws of the victim to demand dowry. On the basis of the statement, a case under Sections 498A/304B IPC was registered. Post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted. Naveen, Rajender Singh and Krishna Devi were arrested. On 03.10.2005, Angoori Devi lodged a written complaint with the SDM levelling more allegations of dowry demands. Section 406 IPC was added. During further investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against Naveen, Rajender Singh, Krishna Devi, Navneeta @ Parvesh and Surinder Kumar. All of them were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses to substantiate the charges. In 313 statements, the accused persons denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. It was stated that the deceased was not happy to live in the matrimonial home due to lack of basic amenities therein. They examined DW-1 (Rajbir Singh), DW-2 (Rekha Kataria) and DW-3 (Balbir Singh) in defence. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, acquitted all the accused persons except Naveen (the appellant) of all the charges. Naveen (the appellant) was acquitted of the charge under Section 406 IPC. It is pertinent to note that the State did not challenge their acquittal.

11. It is true that Neelam's death occurred inside the matrimonial home. Where an offence in secrecy inside a house is committed, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. In the instant case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the guilt under Sections 498A/304B IPC is highly scanty. No attempt was made by the investigating agency to find out the true reasons for the unfortunate death of the victim within a year of her marriage at the matrimonial home. The death under suspicious circumstances occurred during presence of her in-laws at the matrimonial home and the accused persons did not furnish any cogent and plausible explanation as to what forced / prompted the victim to commit suicide suddenly that day. It was incumbent upon the investigating agency to find out and ascertain the surrounding and attending circumstances as to what was the compelling reasons for the victim to put an end to her life or if it was due to instigation / provocation at the hands of the appellant. No such investigation was carried out and it remained mystery / suspense as to how Neelam died. However, the burden remains upon the prosecution to establish a nexus between the demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment, based upon such demand and death. A conjoint reading of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry. Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of a woman are required to be established to bring home the application of Section 498A IPC. The evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the guilt under Sections 498A/304B IPC is lacking in this regard. The Supreme Court in 'Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh', 2010 (1) SCC 750, observed that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. In the instant case, it has come on record that Neelam was MA pass. She was highly educated and had number of diplomas in other fields. She was good looking. She enjoyed all the basic amenities at her parents' house in the city. Admitted position is that the victim was married in a village which did not have basic amenities of life. She was unable to get job. Appellant's plea is that the victim was not happy with her marriage and perhaps that was the reason for her to take the extreme step. Merely that Neelam committed suicide, no such inference can be drawn that it must be an outcome of a cruel or torturous act caused by the appellant.

12. In the light of above discussion, the findings of the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Sections 498A/304B IPC cannot be sustained. The appellant's appeal is accepted and conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court are set aside. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other criminal case. Trial Court record be sent back immediately with the copy of the order. A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent jail for information.