CRL.A.--1232/2012. Case: INDERJEET SINGH Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CRL.A.--1232/2012 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | March 05, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 5th March, + Crl.A. 1232/2012 & Crl.M.B.756/2014
INDERJEET SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Kaushal Yadav, Mr.R.K.S.Yadav and Mr.Nandlal Mishra, Advocates
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Ritu Gauba, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
J U D G M E N T : SUNITA GUPTA, J.
-
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 01.10.2012 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, South-East, Saket in Sessions No.318/2009 arising out of FIR No.266/09 registered at Police Sangam Vihar under Section 498A/304B IPC whereby the appellant convicted for offences punishable under Section 304B as well as 498A and order on sentence dated 08.10.2012 vide which he was sentenced undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for offence under Section IPC and 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/ offence under Section 498A IPC in default, to undergo six months imprisonment. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. appellant was granted benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. The gravamen prosecution case is as under:
Vihar from police control room about a lady having died by hanging in Gali No.3, D-Block, Near Sangam Vihar Sani Mandir, DD No.14-A was recorded. The same was assigned to PW14 ASI Pritam Singh alongwith PW10 constable Rajender Singh reached the house. One the name of Smt.Pinki was found hanging on a ceiling fan.
revealed that Pinki has died within four years of her marriage.
was given to PW16 Executive Magistrate Sh Alok Sharma. Magistrate recorded statement of mother of the deceased PW7 Devi wherein she stated inter alia that her daughter Pinki got married Inderjeet alias Rinku on 15.02.2006. Dowry was given as per the made by Inderjeet and his family members. They also promised to payments later. For 2-3 months there was no complaint. Thereafter, victim was ousted from her matrimonial home by her mother-in-law giving beatings. On their persuasion, in-laws of Pinki took her Inderjeet took her to house no. D-3/145, Sangam Vihar. She was by the neighbours that Pinki was beaten by accused Inderjeet and his Udai Veer Singh for 3-4 days. His sister and brother-in-law were involved in the beating. According to her, the victim died due to demand Rs.50,000/- and a vehicle. She prayed for action against them. On recommendation of Executive Magistrate, FIR in question was for offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused.
-
Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. In substantiate its case, prosecution in all examined 16 witnesses. pleaded his innocence and examined one witness DW-1 Bhawar Singh. Vide
Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced, as mentioned above.
-
Feeling aggrieved, present appeal has been preferred. Appearing support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant contended that learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in convicting the appellant basis of evidence on record. It was submitted that in the absence of evidence to prove the charges under Section 304B and 498A IPC, learned Trial Court had erred in merely relying on the presumption under Section 304B regarding the death of a woman by any burns or injury or otherwise then under normal circumstances, within seven her marriage, in coming to a conclusion that there would be a inference in such circumstance under Section 113B of the Evidence 1872 that the accused had caused the death of Pinki by torturing physically and mentally so as to compel the deceased to commit suicide.
-
Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Trial overlooked the fact that in order to prove the case of dowry death, it have to be shown, in addition to the fact that the death took place then in the normal circumstances within seven years of marriage, “ before her death” the wife was subjected to cruelty or harassment husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, demand for dowry. It was further submitted that the provisions of 113A of the Evidence Act were not applicable in this case since no abatement of suicide by the husband or any of the husband‟s relative been alleged. On the other hand, the case sought to be made out is one under Section 113 B relating to presumption as to dowry death. In order to at the presumption of dowry death, it would have to be shown
cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for which would lead to a presumption that such person caused the dowry death. In the instant case, prosecution had not established that prior to the death of victim Pinki she had been either subjected to cruelty or harassment for, connection with any demand for dowry. It was pointed out that the evidence on which reliance has been placed by the learned Trial Court convicting the appellant was the evidence of PW-1 Rinki-sister; Santosh Kumar-Mausa; PW-7 Asha Devi-mother, PW-12 Vimal Tomar-brother in law and PW-13 Indal Singh-brother of deceased.
are close relatives of the deceased and their statements are contradiction and omissions which was fatal to the prosecution case.
case, there was practically no evidence to show that soon before her the deceased was subjected to any cruelty or harassment for, connection with, the demands for dowry. There was also no finding regard. In the absence of proving the essential ingredients of Section 304B, no presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act could have been against the appellant. Under the circumstances, it was urged that judgment and order of the Trial Court deserves to be set aside.
placed on Durga Prasad and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 9 SCC 73; Subhash vs. State of Haryana...
To continue reading
Request your trial