Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In this case of WASIM Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI, receipt of information on 27.10.2015 about a suicide, PW-23 Sub-Inspector Bijender Dahia attached to Police Station Aman Vihar rushed to Nithari village, Delhi. By the time he reached, the body of the deceased i.e. Moniya had already been brought down from hanging position. Ashwani (PW-12), the brother of the deceased was found sitting besides the body of the deceased. The elder brother of the Appellant was also present. A suicide note was seized. PW-23 sent the body of the deceased for postmortem. The statement of Ashwani was recorded by PW-23. Inquest was conducted by the Executive Magistrate on the next day. According to the post-mortem, the cause of death of Moniya was due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem handing.
FIR was registered on the statement of Sunita (PW-11), the mother of the deceased on 04.11.2015. A charge sheet was filed on 05.02.2016. Later, charges were framed against the Appellant under Section 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Having found that the Appellant was guilty of mental cruelty, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 498A, IPC. Though, there was no charge under Section 306 IPC, relying upon the judgments of this Court, the Trial Court was of the opinion that the conviction under Section 306 IPC was permissible. The Trial Court found that the offence under Section 306 IPC was made out against the Appellant and convicted him. The High Court held that such conviction would not amount to failure of justice. However, the High Court found no convincing evidence to hold that the Appellant abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased.
The Appellant was acquitted for the offence under Sectioan 306 IPC on the basis that there was no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to mental or physical cruelty before her death. The High Court affirmed the conviction of the Appellant under Section 498A IPC by holding that there was sufficient evidence on record regarding the demand of dowry. The Supreme Court held “ The High Court ought not to have convicted the Appellant under Section 498A for demand of dowry without a detailed discussion of the evidence on record, especially when the Trial Court found that there is no material on record to show that there was any demand of dowry. The High Court did not refer to such findings of the Trial Court and record reasons for its disapproval. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824