Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
(b) As per Section 498-A IPC, every unlawful demand relating to cruelty is covered under the ambit of this provision. In the present case, the demand of money and consequent cruelty for the purpose of construction of house as well as 'chuchak' make out a duly proved case for offence U/s 498-A IPC.
(c) The cruelty on account of such demand of money is duly proved by the testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-6, PW-26 and others. PW-5 also proved that her mother was tortured by her mother-in-law.
48.Before analyzing the evidence on the record, it would be appropriate to refer to the legal requirements to attract the culpability for offence U/s 498-A IPC and U/s 304-B IPC. Section 498-A IPC has following ingredients :-
Page no. 15 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi
63. However, I would deal with the reliability of such allegations as well because the ambit of Section 498-A IPC is wider than the ambit of Section 304-B IPC in the sense that the demand for dowry is not the exclusive requirement in Section 498-A IPC. This provision includes any other unlawful demand and cruelty or harassment related with such unlawful demand.
64. In this case, prosecution has proved a suicide note left by the deceased as Ex.PW2/C. This suicide note was found by SDM and police immediately after her death and during inspection of her dead body, in the presence of PW-2 (father of deceased). This suicide note was disputed by PW-2 to be in handwriting of deceased. Therefore, IO sent this suicide note to FSL along with admitted handwriting of the deceased. After examination, FSL gave its report i.e. Ex.PW30/DA, according to which the suicide note was written by the deceased. Besides that PW-2/DA is a letter written by deceased to her parents. The handwriting of deceased was identified on this letter by PW-2. From the suicide note Ex.PW2/C and this letter Ex.PW2/DA, I find that there is no whisper of any kind of demand being made by the accused persons from the deceased. These are only two documentary evidence placed on the record, which do not support the case of prosecution that accused persons had been making demand of any money or articles Page no. 22 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi from the deceased. PW-2 deposed that deceased had written one or two letters. However, none of such letters have been proved on the record by the prosecution to show any such allegations made by deceased herself. The rest of the evidence of the prosecution is a kind of second hand evidence, which is known as hearsay evidence. By virtue of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, such evidence is though, admissible in the present proceeding, because this proceeding relates to the question of cause of death of the deceased. However, such evidence has to be carefully analyzed by the Court in order to find their credibility. An argument was made on behalf of complainant that in the suicide note deceased had stated that her father-in-law did not accept water from her and she did not want to live like a servant. However, such contents of suicide note do not reflect that deceased was harassed on account of any unlawful demand. It is apparent that deceased was not happy for some reasons, but these reasons are not well explained and established by this note.
68.In this respect, the testimony of PW-5 (daughter) assumes importance, who deposed that on the day of the unfortunate incident, she was present in the house with her grand father. Her such statement, rebuts the claim of PW-2 and case of prosecution that accused Dinesh and Vimlesh were also present in the house during the death of deceased. PW-5 deposed that her grand mother (Vimlesh) used to snub her mother (deceased). However, she further deposed that there was no dispute as such between her grand father and mother except on the way of working of her mother. She did not witness any quarrel between her parents. She referred to a rebuke to her mother by her uncle. All Page no. 27 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi these statements of PW-5 reflect that there were differences of opinion and consequential tussle between deceased and her parents-in-law, particularly mother-in-law. A tussle between a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, on other grounds than related to dowry or other unlawful demands, is not very uncommon feature of Indian house- holds. However, all such tussles cannot be given colour of an act of cruelty, so as to drive the victim to commit suicide, nor such tussle can be treated to be the cruelty or harassment related with any unlawful demand as covered U/s 498-A IPC. It has been also admitted by even PW-6 that accused Anil was also posted in Air-Force like accused Dinesh and they had different places of postings. PW-2 admitted that accused Dinesh remained posted at different places like Allahabad, Pune and Purnia before coming to Delhi. Even accused and deceased has shifted to Delhi after transfer of Dinesh to Delhi. PW-1 and PW-6 had visited deceased and Dinesh at Pune and had spent time with them. PW-2 admitted that Dinesh did not demand any dowry from his wife or son. He rather admitted that deceased was happy in the company of accused Dinesh, but her complaints started with other in- laws joined them. Now the question is that when accused Anil and Dinesh never remained posted at one station together and when parents in-law of deceased were not residing with Dinesh at his place of postings, how could there be a continuous process of cruelty or harassment, which could have any effect to drive the accused Savita to commit suicide. One or two instances of heated talk or altercation between Savita and one of other members of family of her in-laws Page no. 28 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi cannot constitute example of such cruelty, which can be covered within ambit of Section 498-A IPC. It is a normal phenomena out of human behavior that when some persons reside together, then there happen to some dispute over one or another issue. All such disputes, which are otherwise and part and parcel of a married life cannot be covered within the ambit of Section 498-A IPC, unless it is shown that such dispute took form of such kind of cruelty upon the victim, which left no other option, but to drive the victim to commit suicide. In the present case, I do not find any such evidence from the testimony of family members of deceased or other persons, which could show that the deceased was subjected to such kind of cruelty, which had only one effect i.e. to drive her to commit suicide.