Latest News
Back
Document:
Judgement- Hira Lal & Ors. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi
FACTS OF THE CASE:
One Sarita (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') committed suicide by consuming poison on 14.4.1999. She was married to the accused Surender on 26.11.1995. Other appellants Hiralal and Angoori Devi were her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. Since the death was unnatural, information was lodged with the police, and an investigation was undertaken.
The grievance was made by the family members of the deceased that she was subjected to torture for dowry and that led to her suicide. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was placed for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 304-B and 498A IPC. The trial was conducted by learned Sessions Judge, New Delhi, and the appellants were found guilty under Sections 304-B and 498A read with Section 34 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each with default stipulation of SI for one year, and also one year RI with fine of Rs.5000/- with the stipulation of SI for one month for the two substantive offences respectively.
For the purpose of substantiating the accusations, 12 witnesses were examined which included Bahadur Singh (PW-1), Sobha Rani (PW-5), Ratti Ram (PW-10), Manju (PW-11), the father, brother, cousin brother and sister, respectively of the deceased spoke about the dowry demands. The testimony was accepted to be truthful and cogent by the Trial Court. Later, the matter was carried in appeal before the Delhi High Court. By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge reduced the sentence to 3 years RI instead of 10 years RI in respect of accused-appellants Hiralal and Angoori keeping in view their old age. The fine imposed was maintained but the default sentence was reduced to six months, custodial sentence and fine for offenses punishable under Section 498A were maintained. In the case of appellant-Surender, the sentence was reduced to 7 years in respect of the first offence, while for the second offence the sentence was maintained.
In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that ingredients of Section 304-B and 498A are not made out. There was no evidence regarding any dowry demand. Before the alleged suicide, there were differences between the deceased and her husband for which allegations were made with the police. Finally, the difference was sorted out by settling that they shall stay separately from other members of the family. There was a conciliation made by the officials of Women Crime Cell and the conditions indicated related to separate residence. There was not even inkling about the demand for money or articles. It was therefore argued by the counsel for appellants that both the Trial Court and the High Court fell in grave error by going into surmises to convict the appellants and appellants aren’t guilty of the offence of dowry death. In response learned counsel for the State -Govt. of NCT of Delhi, submitted that the ingredients of the offences have been clearly made out.
Issues before the court:
- Whether the act of appellants was covered by the scope of Section 304-B of IPC and can the death so occurred be presumed to be a dowry death as per Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act?
- Whether if the appellants were guilty of cruelty as per Section 498-A of the IPC?
Court’s view:
The court made a clear interpretation of Section 304-B of IPC and of 113-B of Evidence Act to decide whether if this case falls within the scope of these sections or not. While explaining the ingredients which must be fulfilled to attract any case under provisions of Section 304-B of IPC, the court said that in both the above-mentioned provisions, it is important that the deceased woman should be subjected to cruelty or harassment in demand for dowry and such cruelty/harassment should have been caused to her soon before her death. To attract Section 113-B of Evidence Act, the prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty and it is only in such cases that dowry death is presumed and such presumption is only raised in cases where the accused is being tried for an offence under the Section 304-B of IPC. Moving further to explain the meaning of the terms soon before her death the court explained that is a relative term and it would depend upon facts & circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence.
There must be the existence of a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. The court found that although there were no demands for dowry at the time of marriage of the deceased, subsequently the accused-appellants raised demands for dowry and the court had to make an observation about whether such demands were made soon before her death. The court looked upon the complaints made by Sarita (now deceased) before the Women Crime cell and it found that the complaints had no mention of dowry aspects and the reconciliation brought by the authorities was essentially for separate residence. So there was an absence of cruelty or harassment soon before death to bring the application of Section 304-B in the case due to the reason that the element of dowry was missing in this case.
Held:
- The court convicted the appellants with a custodial sentence of three years for the offence of abetment to suicide punishable under Section 306 IPC.
- The court held that the sentence awarded for offence punishable under Section 498A by Trial Court and upheld by the High Court is maintained.
Document:
