DINESH SETH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.8.2002 and the order of sentence dated 24.8.2002 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under Sections 304B/34, IPC and sentenced them to under go RI for seven years each.

(2.) . Brief narrated facts leading to this case are that Smt. Rama (since deceased) was married to appellant Dinesh Seth on 2.12.84. After marriage, she started living in her matrimonial home with the appellant in house No. GH-14/736, Pashchim Vihar, Delhi. Appellant No. 1 Dinesh Seth is the husband; appellant No. 2 and 3 are brother-in-laws and appellant No. 4 is mother-in-law of the deceased. Rama gave birth to a son in October 1985 from this wedlock. On 22.11.86 an anonymous call/ information was received at the PCR to the effect that son of Kuldeep Seth has committed murder of his wife in his house Gali No. 8, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj. Information was conveyed to P.S. Navi Karim where DD NO. 19A was recorded and was marked to SI C.L. Yadav who reached the spot. The dead body of Rama was found lying in a room on the second floor of the house. One piece of printed clothe (Chunni) was found near the dead body and another piece was found tied with the ceiling fan. Naresh Tandon, brother-in-law of the deceased, was also found their. SI Yadav recorded his statement wherein he stated that harassment and torture was meted out to Rama at the hands of the accused persons for the dowry. The statement of the mother of deceased Rama was recorded by the SDM and on that basis case under Sections 304B/306/498A IPC was registered vide FIR No. 471/1986. On 23.11.86, post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Bharat Singh who noticed a ligature mark around the neck. No other marks of the injury was found on the body. The cause of death was opined to be asphyxia resulting from hanging. The photographs of the dead body were taken from different angles. I.O prepared a site plan. Two pieces of ligature material seized in a sealed parcel. Some other articles namely ceiling fan, aluminum hanger, dari etc. were seized from the room. The two portions of the ligature material chhuni were sent to the CFSL and on physical and microscopic examination it was found that two pieces fomed part of a larger single pieces of the same cloth. Vicera was also sent for analysis but it gave negative test for poison. After completing investigation, the police submitted challan under Sections 498A/306/304B/34 IPC because investigation revealed that Rama committed suicide because of torture, harassment caused to her by the appellants. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for appellants and learned APP, learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 304B IPC only against all the four appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case the prosecution examined Smt. Radha Mehra, PW-1; Naresh Tandon, PW-2; ASI Ram Samp, PW-3; HC Bhim Singh, PW-4; Mahipal Singh, PW-5; Ms. Chita Mehtra, PW-6; Smt. Raj Rani Mehra, PW-7; Const. Mathu Ram, PW-8; Const. Ganga Ram, PW-9; Devinder Singh, PW-10; J.K.Dadoo, PW-11; HC Yogesh, PW-12; Ms.Sudarshan Grover, PW-13; Mr.Rakesh Malhotra, PW-14; ACP Bhagwant Singh, PW-15; ASI Attar Singh, PW-16; SI Bishan Sawroop/ PW-17; Const. Tejbir Singh, PW-18; Rajesh, PW- 19; C.L. Yadav, PW-20; Inspector C.L.Jatav, PW-20; Dr. Bharat Singh, PW-21; Retired ACP Harbans Singh, PW-22; Uma Shanker Retired HC, PW-23; Amit Grover, PW-24; Inspector J.L.Sahani, PW-25; Chaman Mehra, PW-26. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C , the accused persons denied that they caused any harassment and torture to deceased Rama on account of dowry or for any other reason. They took the stand that Naresh Tandon who is husband of elder sister of Rama used to harass her and used to frequently visit her which was not liked by any one. He did not stop his visits despite being asked to do so and out of frustration Rama committed suicide. After considering the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP in the light of material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that Rama committed suicide within seven years of her marriage because of torture, harassment on account of demand of money by the appellants. Thus offence under Section 304B stands proved against all appellants who were convicted and sentenced to go RI for seven years each. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that the evidence led by the prosecution in this case does not make out all the ingredient of section 304B which read as under:- 304B. Dowry death- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall he called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation- for the purpose of this sub-section, 'dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ( 28 of 1961). (2) whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

(3.) . Thus in order to prove an offence under Section 304B, the following ingredients must be proved :- ( 1) death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances (2) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage (3) soon before her death, woman must have been subjected to cruelty by her husband (4) such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with the demand of dowry.