SUMAN MITTAL & ANR. Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal has been filed by the parents of deceased, Preeti Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.8.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 70/08, whereby respondents No. 2 to 4 have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) AFTER registration of FIR, further investigation was conducted by PW -6. From the spot, he seized various clothes in torn condition, a cane of kerosene oil, match box, one match stick and some pieces of broken bangles. PW -6 also recorded the statement of witnesses. Thereafter further investigation of this case was marked to D.I.U. Cell East District. Further investigation of this case was conducted by PW -22 Inspector A.S. Dhaka. He recorded statement of witnesses. Accused Raja was arrested on 06.05.00. Accused Rajesh Sharma and Saroj Devi Sharma, parents of accused Raja were formally arrested as they were granted anticipatory bail by Delhi High Court. After investigation police filed chargesheet against three accused persons under sections 498A/304B IPC. Charges under sections 498A/304B/34 IPC were given to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the trial court has failed to appreciate that the incident of demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased has led to the burning of the deceased, which has been deposed by PW -4, mother of the deceased. In her statement the mother had categorically deposed that few hours prior to the incident of burning, respondent No. 2 had come to her house and raised a demand of Rs. 20,000/ -. Since the appellant No. 2, father, was not at home she could not arrange for Rs. 20,000/ - upon which the respondent No. 2 started fighting with Preeti, threatened her with dire consequences and told her that he would not take her till the money was arranged by the appellants. It is further contended that appellant No. 2 had pleaded her daughter to stay back but she insisted on going back with respondent No. 2.