VINEET SURI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has assailed the judgment dated 23.12.2006 and the order on sentence dated 02.01.2007 passed by the learned ASJ in SC No.38/2006, holding him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC, while acquitting him of the offences under Sections 302 & 304B read with Section 34 IPC. By the impugned order on sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 498A IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default of payment of fine, undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

(2.) Before proceeding to deal with the arguments advanced by the counsels for the parties, it is necessary to refer to the factual matrix of the present case, as culled out from the narrative in the impugned judgment. The deceased, Madhu Bala and the appellant were both divorcees and had an arranged marriage on 17.11.1993. The family of the appellant comprised of his mother, Smt. Darshana Suri, brother, Shri Sumeet Suri and sister-in-law, Smt. Aarti Suri. As per the prosecution case, the deceased was found dead at her matrimonial home on 19.07.1996, which was within seven years of her marriage and her death had taken place under unnatural circumstances. The present case came to be registered on the statement made by Shri Hari Chand Chhabra (father of the deceased) on 19.07.1996 itself. Initially, charge for the offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the appellant herein, his mother, brother and sister-in-law and charge for the offence under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC was framed against the appellant and his mother. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the deceased's mother had filed a revision petition in the High Court. Vide order dated 09.12.1999, the revision petition was allowed and it was directed that charge for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC should also be framed against the accused. Resultantly, vide order dated 11.09.2000, charge for the offence under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC and in the alternative, charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was framed against all the four accused persons. After they had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, the prosecution had examined twenty two witnesses to prove its case. The material witnesses included Praveen Kumar Chhabra and Dalip Kumar Chhabra, both brothers of the deceased (PW-2 and PW-5), Smt.Anita Chhabra, sister (PW-4), Smt. Sushila Devi, mother of the deceased (PW- 9), Shri S.N. Sethi and Shri Ajay Sethi, neighbours of the accused (PW-7 and PW-10), Dr.Harpreet Singh Cheema (PW-15), who was called to the appellant's house on 19.7.1996 and on examination, had declared Madhu Bala dead, Dr. Ashok Jaiswal and Dr.Rajesh Gupta (PW-12 and PW-17), who had conducted the autopsy of the dead body and SI Dal Chand (PW-21).

(3.) In his testimony, Praveen Kumar Chhabra (PW-2), brother of the deceased had deposed that his sister used to complain that the appellant herein and the other co-accused used to harass her for bringing insufficient dowry and on one occasion, she had been sent back to her parental home on account of insufficient dowry. He had also deposed that about a month before the demise of Madhu Bala, in the month of May 1996, the accused had shifted their residence to premises No.G-17, Vikas Puri and at that time, all of them had made demands of new furniture and a colour television from the deceased. PW-2 had stated that fifteen days prior to the demise of Madhu Bala, his parents had supplied a new double bed as demanded by the accused but had failed to provide a mattress, due to which, his sister was tortured by them.