STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. DAULAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) dated 28.09.2010 in S.C. No. 31/10 whereby the accused, arrayed as respondents, were acquitted in respect of the charges under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC. The prosecution case is that Kalpana, the deceased (daughter of PW-1 Mahadev Sharma), married Umesh Kumar, one of the accused, on 21.05.2005. It was alleged that Mahadev Sharma, PW-1 spent beyond his means for the marriage ceremonies and gave sufficient articles commensurate with his status; the accused was not happy and wanted more. It was also alleged that at the time of marriage itself, the accused had expressed unhappiness and stated that they had been "cheated". PW-1 further stated that his daughter was being harassed for bringing inadequate dowry. He alleged that as a result of the persistent demands, he bought a TV set and handed it over to the accused. According to him, they were still dissatisfied and wanted a motorcycle for Umesh Kumar. PW-1, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC to the SubDivisional Magistrate (SDM) dated 22.03.2006 also alleged that few days before Holi, in March 2006, the deceased called him up and expressed apprehension of her death at the hands of the accused on account of dowry harassment. On 21.03.2006, Kalpana was found hanging; the police registered a case against the accused. After conclusion of investigation, charges were framed against the respondents/accused. They denied guilt and claimed trial.

(2.) In order to prove the charges, the prosecution relied on the testimony of several witnesses, including PW-1; her brother PW-14 and PW-3, Ms. Brijesh, the deceased s sister. The prosecution also placed on record several documents, including the Postmortem Report and other exhibits. On an overall consideration of these, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had not proved the respondents guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is urged by Rajesh Mahajan, learned ASC that leave ought to be given in the present case since the two ingredients which make up the offence under Section 304-B IPC were proved. He highlighted that the death occurred in this case barely within one year of the marriage and under unnatural circumstances. Learned counsel argued that so far as the allegations of cruelty were concerned, the testimonies of PWs-1, 3 and 14 were consistent with each other and also consistent with what they had said during the investigation. Each of them had corroborated the fact that at the time of the marriage, all the accused were unhappy and had clearly given vent to such feelings, stating that they had been cheated and had been "looted" on account of insufficient dowry. Each of these witnesses also stated that Kalpana had been harassed and beaten at the time by the accused. PW-1 further deposed about having given a TV to Umesh Kumar, the deceased s husband, sometime after the marriage, but before her death. This was corroborated by PW-3. Learned counsel submitted that having regard to these facts, the most important element in the entire record was the testimony of PW-1 that the deceased had in fact apprehended or feared her death, when she expressed her apprehension a few days before Holi, in the month of March 2006. It was submitted that the reasons given for acquittal cannot be sustained and the Court, therefore, ought to grant leave to appeal.

(3.) We have considered the record which were summoned for the purpose of this case and also the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal.