ARVIND DUBEY AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.07.2001 and order on sentence dated 28.07.2001, passed by the Ld. ADSJ, Delhi, in FIR No. 848/98, PS Malviya Nagar, under Section 498A/304B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, "IPC"). Post trial, appellants No. 1 and 3 were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as, "R.I.") for ten years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default of the payment of fine, the said appellants were directed to undergo a further RI for two months. Appellant No. 2 was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default of the payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo RI for two months. The appellants were given the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, "Cr.P.C.").

(2.) THE necessary facts as noticed by the trial court are: Ms. Sughandi, daughter of PW -1, Sh. Devender, was married to appellant No. 1 (Arvind Dubey) on 20.06.1997. Within fifteen months of her marriage, she is stated to have committed suicide on 06.09.1998, at the residence of her in -laws by hanging herself. As per the case of the prosecution, at the time of her marriage, the appellants had given sufficient dowry, as per their capability, however, her in -laws were not satisfied and they had made a demand for a colour T.V., which demand could not be fulfilled by the father of the girl, although a Black and White T.V. was given to the girl. However, the demand for a colour TV persistent and a further demand for a motor cycle was made. As the demands could not be met, the deceased (Ms. Sughandi) was continuously harassed for the inability of her parents to meet the demands. As per the case set up by the prosecution, the deceased (Ms. Sughandi) was not being allowed to even communicate with her family and write letters to her father and brother and she was only able to write letters in the absence of her husband and in -laws. During the fifteen months period of her marriage, once she had come to stay with her father in February, 1998 and at that time also she had reiterated to her father that her in -laws were demanding a colour TV as well as a motorcycle and as these items were not being provided, her in -laws were harassing her and also used to beat her. She had pleaded to her father to give articles to her in -laws so that she could live peacefully. In turn her father had assured her that he wiykd somehow manage the amount and purchase a colour T.V. for her in -laws. But before the colour T.V. could be bought, the father received the news of suicide by his daughter. Arvind Dubey, husband (appellant No. 1 herein), Dhananjay Dubey, father -in -law (appellant No. 2 herein) and Urmilla Dubey, mother -in -law (appellant No. 3 herein) of the deceased were charged for the offence under Section 498A and 304B, IPC.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record and has based the conviction solely on some letters alleged to have been written by the deceased to the members of her family. It is further contended that the Trial Court Judge has failed to consider the letter alleged to be written by the deceased two days prior to her committing suicide (Exhibit PW -1/6). According to learned Counsel for the appellant, in this letter the deceased has given a complete clean chit to her in -laws. She had written that there is no harassment by her in -laws and on the contrary she had pleaded to all the members of the family not to instigate her against her in -laws and not to interfere in her marital life. It has been vehemently argued by the learned Counsel that in the same letter, the deceased had cautioned her father about making any comments about her father -in -law that "he keeps drinking alcohol" and his remarks against her husband and calling him a "hund" (bull). It is submitted that in fact the Trial Court has erred in not reading this letter of the deceased in favour of the appellants and wrongly came to the conclusion that the said letter may not have been written by the deceased out of her own free will.