LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-115

DHARAMPAL Vs. STATE OF NCT DELHI

Decided On July 04, 2013
DHARAMPAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF NCT DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal the Appellant lays a challenge to the judgment dated 23rd December, 2002 whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 304B/498A IPC and the order on sentence dated 24th December, 2002 whereby he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for offence under Section 304B IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence under Section 498A IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that on similar evidence the mother of the Appellant was discharged by this Court, however the Appellant has been convicted. The main allegation by the parents of the deceased against the Appellant was that he used to taunt the deceased for having illicit relations with his cousin which does not constitute offence under Section 304B IPC. The other allegation is that on 13th April, 1990 the deceased went to the house of her parents and demanded Rs. 20,000/- for construction of the house. Reliance is placed on Appasaheb and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 9 SCC 721 to contend that demands made from the parents to meet domestic expenses is not demand of dowry. Further there are material discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses regarding these two incidents. It is also alleged that at the time of Thaka ceremony of the younger daughter of the complainant, the Appellant demanded a refrigerator. Even on this allegation there are material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. PW1 and PW2 stated that on 13th April, 1990 the deceased came and demanded Rs. 20,000/- for construction of the house whereas PW9 the uncle of the deceased stated that the deceased, Appellant along with their child came to their house and demanded Rs. 20,000/-. Each witness has given his own version; one states that there was demand of fridge, the other says about the steam press and radio. Further no bill of the alleged gift of fridge has been proved. The brother of the deceased who was a material witness has not been examined. The Appellant appeared as a defence witness and proved on record that even before the alleged demand of a refrigerator in February, 1989 the Appellant had purchased a refrigerator in 1988 from the bonus money he received. The allegations are thus totally exaggerated and unfounded. The son of the Appellant and the deceased who was a natural witness and aged 5 years who could have stated about cruelty was not examined by the prosecution. The Appellant has proved on record that the deceased was suffering from ailments and she was being treated for the same. The doctors had opined that in case she was operated there were chances of paralysis. In view of her medical condition the deceased was depressed and thus took this extreme step of committing suicide. The testimony of PW8 & PW9 the uncle of the deceased is full of exaggeration. PW9 has stated that on 17th April, 1990 a day prior to the death he had met the deceased when the Appellant had beaten her. However in the post-mortem report there is no mark of injury. The Appellant examined his son in defence as DW3 who stated that there was no quarrel in the family. No neighbor was examined. The Appellant is living in a 40 sq. yds. house and there are number of families living adjoining and if there was any quarrel, the neighbours would have known the same definitely. The prosecution witnesses have been duly confronted with their statements made to the SDM which shows that the statements in examination-in-chief are material improvements from the earlier statement made to the SDM. The SDM has not been examined and the investigating officer has identified his signature. The evidence on record does not prove the case of dowry death. Thus the Appellant be acquitted of the charges framed.

(3.) Learned APP on the other hand contends that the FIR was registered on the intervening night of 18th and 19th April, 1990 and on the same date statements were recorded by the SDM. There are specific allegations of demand of Rs. 20,000/- for construction of the house soon before the death on 13th April, 1990. Reliance is placed on Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2009 4 SCC 759 to contend that demand for purchase of a new house would also be a dowry demand in relation to the marriage. On 13th the deceased and the Appellant visited the house of the uncle as well as the parents and demanded Rs. 20,000/-. In view of the specific allegations, no case for acquittal is made out.