BRIJ MOHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 29th June, 1995 an information was received at PS Karol Bagh regarding admission of one Sarita, wife of Brij Mohan in Khera Hospital by her husband after consuming something. On reaching Khera Hospital, the Investigating Officer collected the MLC in which the doctor had written � 1/2patient brought dead� 1/2. The body was preserved as the parents of the deceased Sarita were residing in Bombay.

(2.) ON 1st July, 1995 the SDM recorded the statement of Smt. Satyawati, the mother of the deceased. According to the Complainant, her daughter was married to Brij Mohan on 12th July, 1989 in Delhi. The deceased remained upset continuously after her marriage and even complained of being tried to be burnt by her husband and brother-in-law. Due to the misbehaviour meted out to Sarita, the Complainant and her husband lodged a complaint against the husband of Sarita in the police station and took her along with them to Bombay where she stayed for about 1� 1/2 year. Thereafter, the in-laws of Sarita came to Bombay and apologized and took her back. The in-laws of Sarita used to demand dowry but they did not complain to the police regarding the demand of dowry. Thereafter, their daughter resided separately with her husband for three years at Rani Bagh where also the Appellant tried to throw her down from the flat. On 29th June 1999, they received the information regarding the incident on telephone from Brij Mohan, and thereafter, she along with her children came to Delhi. Since her husband was in Merchant Navy and was posted on his duty, he could not come to Delhi. She suspected that her daughter had been killed due to old disputes and demand of dowry and demanded action against the mother-in-law, sister-in-law and the husband of the deceased. On the basis of the statement of the mother, FIR under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC was registered. After completion of investigation a charge sheet was filed. Since the Viscera report of the deceased gave negative test for common poison, PW3 Dr. B.L. Meena, who conducted the postmortem opined that no definite opinion could be given with regard to the cause of death. To the Court question during trial, that the death may be natural, he replied, � 1/2May be� 1/2. Even PW8 Dr. R.K. Sippy in his cross-examination stated that he was not able to deny that in the particular incident, the death could be due to epilepsy seizure.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Appellant submits that there is no allegation of harassment in relation to demand of dowry nor is there any allegation of harassment which would have driven the deceased to commit suicide. As per PW1 the father of the deceased, there is no allegation of any demand except that Rs.38,000.00 were demanded and as per PW1 it was clear that the same was a loan. Out of this, Rs.33,000.00 had been paid back by the Appellant. The present case is not one for harassment for demand of dowry and at best it can be said that there was merely an expectation of receiving dowry. Even in the statement of PW6 the mother of the deceased, there are no specific allegation that there was any demand for dowry and the gifts that were given were customary gifts. It is contended that where there is no demand and the gifts are given of the own free will of the family of the deceased, the same cannot fall within the purview of dowry demand. Moreover, the statement of PW6 before the Court was contrary to the statement made before the SDM and there were substantial improvements thus, discrediting her version. From the evidence of PW5 and PW7, it is evident that there were no witnesses who directly saw any act of cruelty. The defence has confronted the witnesses with number of letters written by PW1 to the Appellant proved as Ex. PW1/D1 to Ex. PW1/D10 in which there is not even a whisper of any cruelty. Rather the letters show love and affection between the parties. Even in the year 1995, PW1 had sent greetings wishing happy birthday to the Appellant. Reliance is placed on Rajbabuand Another vs.State of M.P., AIR 2008 SC 3212, BhaironSingh vs.State of M.P., AIR 2009 SC 2603, Hazarilalvs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 (13) SCC 783 and Vijay vs.State of Mahrashtra, AIR 2009 SC 1217. It is thus prayed that the Appellant be acquitted.