RAKESH SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of two appeals. Crl. Appeal 167/2011 is a convict s appeal against the judgment and order of a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 14-1-2008 in SC 65/2008, convicting him of offences under Section 498A/306 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine for the offence under Section 306 IPC, and to undergo two years imprisonment with fine, for the offence under Section 498-A. The appellant in the said appeal would hereafter be referred to as the Appellant . The second appeal, Crl. Appeal, 358/2011 has been preferred by the complainant (the appellant being alluded to hereafter as complainant ) under proviso to Section 372 Cr. PC. By this, the complainant is aggrieved by the conviction against the appellant, under Section 306 IPC and urges that the conviction ought to have been recorded under Section 304-B IPC.

(2.) THE brief facts according to the prosecution are that are that on 1.10.2006, police received information about the death of a woman; on being assigned this intimation DD No. 11A, (Ex.PW-14/A), ASI Ved Parkash, with HC Rajinder Singh reached the House No. RZ-2/40A, West Sagar Pur, New Delhi, where they found the body of a woman hanging from the ceiling fan; the body was of Smt. Savita W/o Rakesh Sharma. Information about this was given to the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) and parents of the deceased. THE Crime team was called to the spot and on the directions of the SDM Savita s dead body was sent to the DDU hospital mortuary. Later, the SDM recorded the statement of Sh. Sanjay Sharma (PW-1) brother of the deceased. He said that the deceased had got married to the appellant in 1999. Her married life was not good from the beginning; soon after the marriage, Savita s in-laws started harassing her for more dowry. Her sister-in-law too used to harass her; however since she got married about 3 years ago, she stopped harassment. Six months before the incident, Savita s in-laws had demanded rupees one lakh to construct a house and they paid a sum of ` 50,000/- to them. He mentioned about a time when Savita was seriously ill due to such harrrasment and was admitted to DDU hospital. At that time, the matter was settled by the intervention of police. On 1.10.2006, at about 4.00A.M. the deceased had called him on telephone and told him that her husband had beaten her mercilessly and he will kill her. She also requested him to take her from her matrimonial house. THEreafter, at about 11.00 AM, he received a telephone call from Rakesh, who told him that Savita died. PW-1 suspected that Savita had been killed.

(3.) THE appellant urges that the Trial Court erred fundamentally in concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was urged that no case under Section 302/34 IPC was made out. THEre is no eye witness in the present case. All indications were that the deceased committed suicide. THE allegations of dowry demand were missing in the FIR. In fact, the Court disbelieved the prosecution story about cruelty motivated by dowry harassment. PW14 SI Ved Parkash, (who inspected the spot, after commission of suicide by the deceased) deposed to finding the room locked from inside. This was supported by PW 11 SI Rajender Singh, PW-12 Addl. SHO Inspector Vijay Chandel, PW4 Sh. Surender Singh, the SDM, and PW-2 ASI Rajender. Once it was proved that the place of the incident was locked from inside, there was no possibility that it could be opened from outside. THErefore, the question of unnatural death for which the Appellant could be held responsible or his being involved in murder, could never arise. THE Trial Court recognized this aspect, and did not convict the appellant for those offences. It was further argued that so far as demand for dowry was concerned, the testimonies of PW1 Sanjay Sharma, PW3 Devender Kumar, PW-5 Pradeep Kumar, PW6 Bohri Lal and PW7 Smt. Raj Kali contradicted each other and were inconsistent regarding the date, month or year of such demand or the date, month or year of meeting such demand or the source of money through which the demands were fulfilled by the complainant.