DEVENDER KUMAR MATHUR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 14/98 is directed against the judgment and order dated 9-1-1998 of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Session Case No. 222/90 whereby the learned Judge has held the appellants guilty under Section 498-A/306/34 IPC and further By separate order of the same date sentenced them to undergo RI for five years each under Section 306/34, IPC with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine further SI for two months; further RIT for two years each under Section 498-A/34, IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, as has been made out from the statement of Smt. Madhuri Mathur, the maker of the FIR, is that: On 30-7-1990, on receipt of DD No. 23-A, S.I. Joginder Singh alongwith Constable Subhash went to Safdarjung Hospital and found Madhuri admitted there in the Hospital. The doctor declared Madhuri Mathur fit for making statement on which S.I. Joginder Singh informed Sh. RK. Mishra, SDM, who told S.I. to first inquire if Madhuri was fit for making statement or not and he further told the S.I. that if she was fit for making statement, then inform him (SDM) on telephone at 7 a.m. about the circumstances. S.I. Joginder Singh recorded the statement of Smt. Madhuri Mathur. She stated to the S.I. that she resides at House No. 48/6, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, alongWith her husband, in-laws and-three sisters-in-law. Her husband works as Assistant Manager in Narula Hotel. She was married to Devender Mathur on about four years ago, according to Hindu rites and customs. She has a son aged about 2-1/2 years. Her sister-in-law, Yashi and Suman taunt her for bringing insufficient dowry. She further stated that her husband and sisters-in-law harassed her so much that she took sleeping pills and became all right. For the last 2-3 days, Suman and Yashi were taunting her that she does not do any work and sleeps after taking food. Her husband leaves for his office at about 6 A.M. anti comes to the house at about 10 p.m. She further stated that after being fed up with the taunts and harassment by her sisters-in-law, she went to the toilet and set her a fire after pourihg kerosene oil over her. She raised hue and cry and her husband extinguished the fire after pouring, bucket of water over her and then removed her to the Hospital. S.I. Joginder Singh requested the Doctor to record the statement of the injured and attest her statement, but the doctor refused saying that first the statement, to get recorded through the SDM. SI. Joginder Singh made his endorsement on the this statement and sent the rukka to the Police Station for the registration of the case under section 498A/406. IPC and took up the investigation himself. During investigation S.I. Joginder Singh inspected the spot, recorded the statement of the witnesses. Smt. Madhuri succumbed to the injuries at about 1.40 A.M. night. The dead body of Smt. Madhuri was got postmortem and thereafter the dead body was handed over to her heirs and the sample was sent to CFSL. All the accused persons were arrested in this case. S.1. Joginder Singh collected the marriage documents of Devender Kumar and Madhuri. The inquest, proceedings were conducted by Shri RK. Mishra, SDM. After the death of Madhuri, the offence was converted to 498-A/304-B/406, IPC. After completing the investigation, the challan was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, who in turn committed the case to the court of sessions, it being exclusively, triable as such. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Sections 498-A/304-B/34, IPC and claimed trial.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is under specific instructions to plead the case of Yashi and Suman-appellants only and that appellant No.1 does n6t wish to contest the judgment qua him. He submits that there is no evidence on record to show that Yashi or Suman were responsible for, or could be held guilty for the offence under Section 306, IPC or 498-A, IPC. He submits that Yashi is an unmarried sister-in-law, who was about 23 years of age while Suman is the married sister-in-law and was living alongwith her husband. In the dying declaration Ex. PW13/ Al, the deceased has stated that: for the last 2/3 days my sisters-in-law Yashi and Suman were taunting me that I do not do any work and I simply eat food and sleep. My husband leaves for work at 6.00 A.M. and returns at 10 P.M. I was so fed up from the taunts of Yashi and Suman that today i.e. 30-7- 1990 at about 1.00, A.M. night I went to the latrine of my quarter and took a cane and kerosene oil and match box.'