IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE. Judgment reserved on 25th November, 2008

Similar documents
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF Versus STATE OF PUNJAB RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T

Mr. N.Hariharan, Advocate. versus. Through: Mr. Pawan Bahl, APP with ASI Jagat Singh, PS Lahori Gate.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.A.No.798/2005 # ANAND PAL... Appellant Through Mr.Lal Singh Thakur Advocate

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF Murugan.Appellant(s) VERSUS

Through: Mr. Thakur Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Mr. Pushpender Charak, Amicus Curiae. versus. ... Respondent

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE Date of Decision: CRL.A. 27/2010 & CRL.M.A. No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.A. 184/2003 Reserved on: 22nd May, 2013 Decided on: 22nd July, 2013

Through: Mr. Anirudh Yadav and Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Advocates. versus. ... Respondent Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP with SI Ram Pal, PS Uttam Nagar.

Through: Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, Mr. Gautam Awasthi and Mr. Gagan Deep Sharma, Advocates. versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE RESERVED ON : 11th MARCH, 2014 DECIDED ON : 2nd APRIL, 2014 CRL.A.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment Reserved on : Judgment delivered on: versus....

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL No(s). 176 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE. CRL.A. No. 1192/2012. Reserved on: 21st January, 2014

REPORTED * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC APP. NO.109/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 APPEAL NO. 153 OF Date of Decision: 12th March, 2008

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. # PRAN NATH... Appellant! Through: Mr. V.Madhukar, Adv. versus

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.19 OF Versus J U D G M E N T

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of Judgment: 18 th August, Versus. Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP.

IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04 (NORTH) : DELHI

versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Vs Rankothge Devasena Samarakkodi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PANEL CODE. CRL APPEAL No. 52/1993 PARMESH KUMAR. - versus STATE

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.APPEAL NO.73/2010. versus.... Respondent Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja, Advocate

JOSEPH MWAMBA KALENGA. SAKALA, CJ, MUYOVWE and MUSONDA, JJS On the 6 th December, 2011 and 8 th May, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus.... Respondent

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN) CASE NO: CA&R 303/2009 DATE HEARD: 25/08/2010 DATE DELIVERED: 13/9/10 NOT REPORTABLE

ADDIE NKOSINGIPHILE SHABANGU

Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anurag Jain, Adv. versus. ... Respondent Mr. R.V. Sinha, Spl. PP with Mr. A.S. Singh, Adv.

Rajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY RFA 124/2006. Date of Order :

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.... Respondent

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2006

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Advocate. Versus

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.324 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND

FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of Decision:15 th March, CRL. APPEAL NO.5/2008. Versus

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 227 OF COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA- MROSO, J.A., KAJI, J.A. And RUTAKANGWA, J.A.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on: CRL.A.

kenyalawreports.or.ke

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS OF 2009 GIRISH RAGHUNATH MEHTA APPELLANT VERSUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : OCTOBER 16, 2008

REPORTED * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of Decision : December 06, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

H.C.Cr. Appeal No. 621 of 2001) ****************************** JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2288 OF 2005

REPUBLIC OF KENYA High Court at Busia Criminal Appeal 19 of 2009 STEPHEN OUMA ERONI...APPELLANT -VERSUS- REPUBLIC...RESPONDENT J U D G E M E N T

Date of hearing :

REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK APPEAL JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Crl. Appeal No.654/2005. Date of Decision : 22nd of February, 2008

John Ooko Otieno v Republic [2008] eklr REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT KISUMU. Criminal Appeal 137 of 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PROPERTY DISPUTE. Date of Order : RFA 577/2007. versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. Judgment reserved on : December 10, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of decision: 16th December, 2013 RFA No.581/2013.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke Appellant. Versus

JUDGMENT. [1] In the Court a quo the appellant was refused bail by the Port Elizabeth

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.9 OF 2015

$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 12 th January, 2016 % Pronounced on : 22 nd January, MACA 217/2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO 276/2010 Reserved on: Decided on: versus

The appellant was convicted by the District Court of Monduli at. Monduli in absentia for the offence of unlawful possession of government

Ezekiel Wafula v Republic [2005] eklr REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No. 217 of 2002 Date of decision Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) Ludhiana

JAMES DAWSON MEENA Vs. REPUBLIC- Appeal from the Conviction and Sentence of the High Court of Tanzania at Moshi- Criminal Sessions Case No.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO OF 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMPOPO HIGH COURT, THOHOYANDOU HELD AT THOHOYANDOU

LR (Roma-Remedies-Police Brutality) Romania CG [2002] UKIAT. Appeal No. CC IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).9310/2017 (Arising from Special Leave Petition(s)No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL No OF 2009 JANGIR SINGH APPELLANT. Versus J U D G M E N T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 RSA No. 38/2014 & CM No.2339/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 4th February,2014

BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 324 of Friday, this the 09 th day of February, 2018

1/?-l::11 1}~" =,-. In the matter between: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case number: A736/2015.

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: Crl. M. B. 1381/2008 in CRL. A 910/ versus AND

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. Vincent Olebogang Magano and

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. LPA No.101/2010 and LPA No.461/2010 & CM Appl. Nos /2010. Date of Hearing:

d:p,- $: ~,Jo DATE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA MANDLA SIBEKO THE STATE CASE NUMBER: A90/16 DA TE: 16 February 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Mutua Mulundi v Republic [2005] eklr REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS

- 18/7/ /8/2008 JUDGMENT. The Appellant Mwajina Bernard was charged with theft. charged by the Court of the Resident Magistrate at Kisutu in

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT. Decided on : ITA 195/2012, C.M. APPL.5434/2012

JUDGMENTS INTERMEDIATE COURT

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (Constituted under Section 22A of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949) APPEAL NO. 03/ICAI/2017 IN THE MATTER OF:

BENZILE McDONALD ZWANE B A I L A P P E A L J U D G M E N T. 1]The appellant applied for bail before the Magistrate, Port Elizabeth and his

$~23. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7131/2015 % Judgment dated 29 th July, versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus

Cotton, T. (2010) 'Court of appeal: Confession evidence and the circumstances requiring a voir dire', Journal of Criminal Law, 74 (5), pp

Through : Mr.C.Mohan Rao, Advocate with Mr.Trivender Chauhan, Advocate.

JUDGMENT CASE NO: A735/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Ex F.A 7/2011. Reserved on : Date of Decision :

JUDGMENT. [1.] The Appellant, a man presently aged 33, was convicted in the Regional Court at

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN) Case no: CA&R 206/2015 Date heard: 18 August 2015 Date delivered: 20 August 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 Date of Judgment: FAO (OS) Nos.181/2012 & 182/2012

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Transcription:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE Judgment reserved on 25th November, 2008 Judgment pronounced on 16th December, 2008 Crl.Appeal No. 427/1999 Parvati... Appellant Through: Mr.A.K.Singh with Mr.S.R. Raghav, Mr.s.k.Singh, Mr.Vimal Dubey and Mr.K.S.Goswami, Advocates. versus State... Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. SUNIL GAUR, J. 1. Parvati is the mother-in-law of the deceased. In this appeal, she is challenging her conviction and sentence awarded to her for subjecting her daughter-in-law Poonam to cruelty and for abetting her suicide on 2nd day of May, 1996. 2. The facts of this case, as they emerge from the record of this case, are as under:- On 2nd May, 1995, Poonam (since deceased) was married with Budh Ram who happens to be the son of appellant/accused Parvati. Ironically on the first anniversary of her marriage, Poonam was brought in unconscious condition to the SDN Hospital by her mother-in-law i.e. appellant/accused at 7.30 pm with alleged history of consuming some unknown chemical substance. Unfortunately, she never regained her consciousness and had expired on 7th May, 1996 in G.T.B. Hospital. Even after the post-mortem, no opinion regarding the cause of her death was given as her viscera report was awaited and even in the said report, no common poison was detected. However, information regarding this incident was received in Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi vide Daily Diary No.32-A and the law was set into motion. After the death of Poonam, inquest proceedings commenced and thereafter appellant alongwith her son were arrested in this case. The investigation of this case was conducted by ASI Udaivir Singh (PW-18) and SI D.C. Sharma (PW-16) and upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet in this case was filed for commission of offence under Section 304-B/498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Appellant and her son claimed trial in this case as they pleaded not guilty to the charges under Section 304-B/34 of the IPC and under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC. 4. At trial, eighteen witnesses have deposed and the material evidence is of deceaseds mother and brother i.e. Smt. Shakuntala (PW-10) and Sushil (PW-12). Vijay Singh (PW-7) and Rattan Singh (PW-8) are the uncles of the deceased. Subhash Bedi (PW-5) is an acquaintance of the family of the deceased and he claims that in his presence, the uncles of the deceased i.e. Vijay (PW-7) and Rattan Singh (PW-8) had handed over two diaries/note books Ex.PW5/A-1 and A-2 to the police which were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/B. He has deposed that these two diaries were written and maintained by the deceased and were in her handwriting. Dr. Ashikho (PW-1) has proved the MLC Ex.PW1/A of Poonam wherein he had opined that she was unfit for statement and Dr. Anil Kohli (PW-2) has proved the post-mortem report Ex.PW2/A of the deceased. Shri Amar Dass (PW-11) was the Executive Magistrate who had conducted the inquest proceedings wherein he had recorded the statement of the mother of the deceased. The initial investigation of this case was conducted by ASI Udaivir Singh (PW- 18) and SI D.C. Sharma (PW-16) is the subsequent Investigation Officer of this case who had completed the investigation of this case and had filed the charge- sheet. 5. When the appellant was questioned by the trial court, she in her statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had simply stated that she was innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case and she did not lead any evidence in her defence. 6. After the trial, appellant was not found guilty of committing the offence of dowry death but was held guilty for abetting the suicide of Poonam and of subjecting her to cruelty. She was sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of rupees ten thousand for commission of offence under Section 306 and she was also awarded similar sentence for committing the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. Trial court has ordered that the above two sentences would run concurrently. However, benefit of doubt was extended to the son of the appellant who was acquitted by the trial court in this case. 7. The submissions advanced by both the sides in this appeal have been given thoughtful consideration and the evidence on record has been minutely analysed. 8. The major assault by the appellant upon the prosecution case is that the cause of death of the deceased does not stand proved in this case and the existence and production of the two diaries Ex.PW5/A-1 and A-2 is not satisfactorily proved on record and infact these two diaries have not been recovered from the house of the appellant/accused but have been planted by the family of the deceased. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon judgments reported in 2000(1) JCC (SC) 138; 2002 CAR 385 SC and AIR 1974 SC 1871 to contend that the contradictions in the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses rendered their version unreliable. Reliance has been also placed upon judgments reported in AIR 1973

SC 2773 and 2002 CAR 385 to contend that if two views possible, then benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. By relying upon judgment reported in AIR 1979 SC 1382, it is contended that grave suspicion cannot take place or proof. On the strength of judgments reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773 and 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it is urged that before an accused can be convicted, it must be established that he is guilty and on the basis of may be guilty, he cannot be convicted. 10. The above referred citations relied upon by the appellant reiterate the basic propositions of criminal jurisprudence which cannot be and are not being disputed. In the light of the above referred legal position, the evidence on record has been appreciated by this Court. 11. The question posed by the appellant of cause of death of the deceased not being proved on record, can be answered by referring to the MLC Ex.PW1/A of the deceased which records that some chemical smell was coming from the mouth of Poonam and it is a case of unknown chemical poisoning. Aforesaid MLC stands duly proved on record by Dr. Ashikho (PW-1), whose evidence remains unchallenged by the defence. Thus, its stands proved from the aforesaid evidence that the death of the deceased was by an unknown chemical poisoning. Although CFSL report failing to detect any common poison is on record but the same has not been proved on record. But that will not make any difference for the reason that it is of corroborative nature only and since the factum of un- natural death of Poonam being a case of unknown chemical poisoning remains unchallenged, therefore, appellant cannot be heard to say that the cause of death of Poonam in this case is not formally proved. It is pertinent to note that there is no assertion on behalf of the appellant/accused that the present case is of natural death of Poonam. Therefore, in my considered opinion, nothing material hinges on it. 12. According to the appellant, her conviction is primarily based upon the two diaries Ex.PW5/A-1 and A-2 by the trial court. This is true. However, it is required to be seen if there is an infirmity in the evidence regarding the production of these two diaries to the police. Investigating Officer PW-18 clearly states in his evidence that these two diaries were produced before him by Vijay Singh (PW-7) on 9th May, 1996. No doubt, Vijay Singh (PW-7) has resiled and to cover up, Rattan Singh (PW-8) has claimed in evidence that these two diaries were produced by him before the police. Infact Subhash Bedi (PW- 5), an acquaintance of the family of the deceased had deposed that these two diaries were produced by Rattan Singh and Vijay Singh before the police. It is matter of record that the evidence of Subhash Bedi (PW-5) was recorded prior to the recording of the evidence of Vijay Singh (PW-7). A bare perusal of the recovery memo Ex.PW5/B of these two diaries Ex.PW5/A-1 and A-2 reveals that these two diaries were produced by Vijay Singh (PW-7) and Rattan Singh (PW-8) and Subhash Bedi (PW-5) are witnesses to the production of these two diaries before the Investigating Officer. 13. The fact of Vijay Singh (PW-7) resiling, by itself may not have made much difference, but the fact of mother of the deceased changing her stand totally about handing of the diaries in question to Ratan Singh and the fact of Ratan Singh claiming to have handed over the diaries in question to the investigation, clearly shatters, not only the

evidence of the mother of the deceased, but also of Ratan Singh and for that matter, the evidence of the Investigating Officer alone is not sufficient to establish the fact of production of these two diaries from the house of the mother of the deceased. There is contradiction in the prosecution evidence regarding there being one diary or two diaries. If the diaries in question were recovered by the mother of the deceased, then what stopped her from producing these diaries herself before the police. All this creates a reasonable doubt about the production of these two diaries before the police. 14. Regarding the authenticity of these two diaries, there is evidence of Ratan Singh (PW-8) alone, who claims to have identified the handwriting of the deceased. There is no specimen handwriting of the deceased, with which the writing in the diaries could have been compared. It is pertinent to note that the mother of the deceased is silent in her evidence regarding her handing over the two diaries in question to Ratan Singh (PW-8) and even Sushil (PW-12) brother of the deceased has stated in his evidence that her mother had not told him regarding the diaries in question. The brother of the deceased has been confronted with his evidence regarding the diaries and it has been found that he has made improvements on this aspect. Likewise, Subhash Bedi (PW-5) has also made improvements in his evidence regarding identification of the handwriting of the deceased on the diaries and he has been duly confronted with it. Ratan Singh (PW-8) in his evidence has stated that he had seen deceaseds writing and therefore, he can say that diaries in her hand. But he does not state as to on what occasion, he had seen the deceased writing or that he had received any letter from the deceased. The Investigating Officer (PW-18) does not given any reason, as to why he had not made any efforts to obtain the admitted handwriting of the deceased. He has not even stated that the admitted handwriting of the deceased was not available. In any case, it cannot be so inferred from the evidence on record. The vital aspect of these two diaries has been dealt by the trial court by holding as under:- The two diaries are however, tell-tale. Before reading and relying them, I must confess that there are wide range of contradictions with regard to existence, custody, production of these diaries. Firstly as per the seizure memo, the diaries were supposed to have been produced by Vijay Singh. Subhash Bedi also says that. But Shakuntla and Sushil say that Rattan Singh produced them. Secondly, the I.O. says that the diaries were produced before him at 5 P.M. at the Police Post on 9.5.96. The witnesses say that these were produced at 10 A.M. Thirdly, there are also contradictions as to whether there was one diary or two diaries. Fourthly, the diaries were not produced at the earliest opportunity and the explanation of Sushil is that his mother did not know about them. Fifthly, according to one witness, diaries were given at the time of marriage of Subhash on 20.4.96 whereas as per other witness, the diaries were given to the mother by Poonam on the fateful day i.e. 2.5.96. One witness alleges that page 39 of diary Ex.PW-5/A1 is in the hand of accused Parvati. However, the writing on this page is similar to the writing on other pages. Sixthly, only Sushil is able to say that the diaries are in the hand of Poonam deceased whereas Shakuntla was admittedly illiterate and Rattan Singh and Subhash Bedi confess that they had never seen Poonam reading or writing. Despite these contradictions which occur because of the low intellectual and literacy level of the witnesses, the diaries themselves inspire complete confidence. They are dated and are serialwise. The expressions used and statements made are the same as should expected of a student of eighth class. However, the hand-writing is not very intelligible

but I have gone through these diaries with great care and caution bearing in mind the consequence which flow from there. 15. Without there being any satisfactory evidence regarding the production of these two diaries and without establishing the authenticity of these two diaries in question, the trial court has gravely erred in relying upon them to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. However, apart from the aforesaid two diaries, there is evidence of the mother and brother of the deceased as well as of Rattan Singh, uncle of the deceased which clearly proves that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment at the hands of the appellant. There may not any demand for dowry at the time of marriage but on that basis, it cannot be said that there would be no harassment of the deceased on account of bringing inadequate dowry or for bringing more dowry. There is clinching evidence of the mother of the deceased that the deceased used to complaint to her that she was being harassed by the appellant/accused for bringing more dowry. 17. Trial court has also noticed in the impugned judgment that Smt Shakuntala, mother of the deceased and Rattan Singh, uncle of the deceased have generally said in their evidence that Poonam was depressed. Perhaps, she was depressed due to her illness as referred to in the diaries Ex.PW-5/A-1 and A-2. 18. The cumulative effect of the evidence on record, persuades this court to hold that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is well justified. As regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the finding of the trial court as referred to above cannot be sustained. 19. In view of the foregoing narration, I hold that the conviction/sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. 20. However, the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A of the IPC is upheld. As regards the sentence imposed upon her is concerned, it appears to be on higher side as appellant is said to be aged about sixty years and she is a widow and she is said to be suffering from old age illness. There is no minimum sentence prescribed under Section 498-A of the IPC. As per the nominal roll of the appellant, she has already undergone sentence of one year and four days in this case and has faced the trial and the appeal proceedings since the year 1996 and had mostly remained on bail in this case. In these circumstances, the substantive sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced from three years to one year i.e. the period already undergone by her. However, the sentence of fine is correspondingly enhanced to Rs.30,000/- only. She is on bail. Her bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. Appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced fine within three weeks with the trial court, failing which, she is directed to undergo SI for three months only. Trial court to ensure compliance of this order.

21. Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. SUNIL GAUR, J December 16, 2008 n Crl.A. No. 427/19990Page 1 1. Parvati is the mother-inlaw of the deceased. In this appeal, she is challenging her conviction and sentence awarded to her for subjecting her daughter-in-law Poonam to cruelty and for abetting her suicide on 2nd day of May, 1996. 2. The facts of this case, as they emerge from the record of this case, are as under:- On 2nd May, 1995, Poonam (since deceased) was married with Budh Ram who happens to be the son of appellant/accused Parvati. Ironically on the first anniversary of her marriage, Poonam was brought in unconscious condition to the SDN Hospital by her mother-in-law i.e. appellant/accused at 7.30 pm with alleged history of consuming some unknown chemical substance. Unfortunately, she never regained her consciousness and had expired on 7th May, 1996 in G.T.B. Hospital. Even after the post-mortem, no opinion regarding the cause of her death was given as her viscera report was awaited and even in the said report, no common poison was detected. However, information regarding this incident was received in Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi vide Daily Diary No.32-A and the law was set into motion. After the death of Poonam, inquest proceedings commenced and thereafter appellant alongwith her son were arrested in this case. The investigation of this case was conducted by ASI Udaivir Singh (PW-18) and SI D.C. Sharma (PW-16) and upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet in this case was filed for commission of offence under Section 304-B/498- A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Appellant and her son claimed trial in this case as they pleaded not guilty to the charges under Section 304-B/34 of the IPC and under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC. 4. At trial, eighteen witnesses have deposed and the material evidence is of deceaseds mother and brother i.e. Smt. Shakuntala (PW-10) and Sushil (PW-12). Vijay Singh (PW-7) and Rattan Singh (PW-8) are the uncles of the deceased. Subhash Bedi (PW-5) is an acquaintance of the family of the deceased and he claims that in his presence, the uncles of the deceased i.e. Vijay (PW-7) and Rattan Singh (PW-8) had handed over two diaries/note books Ex.PW5/A-1 and A-2 to the police which were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/B. He has deposed that these two diaries were written and maintained by the deceased and were in her handwriting. Dr. Ashikho (PW-1) has proved the MLC Ex.PW1/A of Poonam wherein he had opined that she was unfit for statement and Dr. Anil Kohli (PW-2) has proved the post-mortem report Ex.PW2/A of the deceased. Shri Amar Dass (PW-11) was the Executive Magistrate who had conducted the inquest proceedings wherein he had recorded the statement of the mother of the deceased. The initial investigation of this case was conducted by ASI Udaivir Singh (PW- 18) and SI D.C. Sharma (PW-16) is the subsequent Investigation Officer of this case who had completed the investigation of this case and had filed the charge- sheet. 5. When the appellant was questioned by the trial court, she in her statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had simply stated that she was innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case and she did not lead any evidence in her defence. 6. After the trial, appellant was not found guilty of committing the offence of dowry death but was held guilty for abetting the suicide of Poonam and of subjecting her to cruelty. She was sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of rupees ten thousand for commission of offence under Section 306 and she was also awarded similar sentence for committing the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. Trial court has ordered that the above two sentences would run concurrently. However, benefit of doubt was extended to the son of the appellant who was acquitted by the trial court in this case. 7.

The submissions advanced by both the sides in this appeal have been given thoughtful consideration and the evidence on record has been minutely analysed. 8. The major assault by the appellant upon the prosecution case is that the cause of death of the deceased does not stand proved in this case and the existence and production of the two diaries Ex.PW5/A-1 and A-2 is not satisfactorily proved on record and infact these two diaries have not been recovered from the house of the appellant/accused but have been planted by the family of the deceased. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon judgments reported in 2000(1) JCC (SC) 138; 2002 CAR 385 SC and AIR 1974 SC 1871 to contend that the contradictions in the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses rendered their version unreliable. Reliance has been also placed upon judgments reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773 and 2002 CAR 385 to contend that if two views possible, then benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. By relying upon judgment reported in AIR 1979 SC 1382, it is contended that grave suspicion cannot take place or proof. On the strength of judgments reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773 and 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it is urged that before an accused can be convicted, it must be established that he is guilty and on the basis of may be guilty, he cannot be convicted. 10. The above referred citations relied upon by the appellant reiterate the basic propositions of criminal jurisprudence which cannot be and are not being disputed. In the light of the above referred legal position, the evidence on record has been appreciated by this Court. 11. The question posed by the appellant of cause of death of the deceased not being proved on record, can be answered by referring to the MLC Ex.PW1/A of the deceased which records that some chemical smell was coming from the mouth of Poonam and it is a case of unknown chemical poisoning. Aforesaid MLC stands duly proved on record by Dr. Ashikho (PW-1), whose evidence remains unchallenged by the defence. Thus, its stands proved from the aforesaid evidence that the death of the deceased was by an unknown chemical poisoning. Although CFSL report failing to detect any common poison is on record but the same has not been proved on record. But that will not make any difference for the reason that it is of corroborative nature only and since the factum of un- natural death of Poonam being a case of unknown chemical poisoning remains unchallenged, therefore, appellant cannot be heard to say that the cause of death of Poonam in this case is not formally proved. It is pertinent to note that there is no assertion on behalf of the appellant/accused that the present case is of natural death of Poonam. Therefore, in my considered opinion, nothing material hinges on it. 12. According to the appellant, her conviction is primarily based upon the two diaries Ex.PW5/A-1 and A-2 by the trial court. This is true. However, it is required to be seen if there is an infirmity in the evidence regarding the production of these two diaries to the police. Investigating Officer PW-18 clearly states in his evidence that these two diaries were produced before him by Vijay Singh (PW-7) on 9th May, 1996. No doubt, Vijay Singh (PW-7) has resiled and to cover up, Rattan Singh (PW-8) has claimed in evidence that these two diaries were produced by him before the police. Infact Subhash Bedi (PW-5), an acquaintance of the family of the deceased had deposed that these two diaries were produced by Rattan Singh and Vijay Singh before the police. It is matter of record that the evidence of Subhash Bedi (PW-5) was recorded prior to the recording of the evidence of Vijay Singh (PW-7). A bare perusal of the recovery memo Ex.PW5/B of these two diaries Ex.PW5/A-1 and A- 2 reveals that these two diaries were produced by Vijay Singh (PW-7) and Rattan Singh

(PW-8) and Subhash Bedi (PW-5) are witnesses to the production of these two diaries before the Investigating Officer. 13. The fact of Vijay Singh (PW-7) resiling, by itself may not have made much difference, but the fact of mother of the deceased changing her stand totally about handing of the diaries in question to Ratan Singh and the fact of Ratan Singh claiming to have handed over the diaries in question to the investigation, clearly shatters, not only the evidence of the mother of the deceased, but also of Ratan Singh and for that matter, the evidence of the Investigating Officer alone is not sufficient to establish the fact of production of these two diaries from the house of the mother of the deceased. There is contradiction in the prosecution evidence regarding there being one diary or two diaries. If the diaries in question were recovered by the mother of the deceased, then what stopped her from producing these diaries herself before the police. All this creates a reasonable doubt about the production of these two diaries before the police. 14. Regarding the authenticity of these two diaries, there is evidence of Ratan Singh (PW-8) alone, who claims to have identified the handwriting of the deceased. There is no specimen handwriting of the deceased, with which the writing in the diaries could have been compared. It is pertinent to note that the mother of the deceased is silent in her evidence regarding her handing over the two diaries in question to Ratan Singh (PW-8) and even Sushil (PW-12) brother of the deceased has stated in his evidence that her mother had not told him regarding the diaries in question. The brother of the deceased has been confronted with his evidence regarding the diaries and it has been found that he has made improvements on this aspect. Likewise, Subhash Bedi (PW-5) has also made improvements in his evidence regarding identification of the handwriting of the deceased on the diaries and he has been duly confronted with it. Ratan Singh (PW-8) in his evidence has stated that he had seen deceaseds writing and therefore, he can say that diaries in her hand. But he does not state as to on what occasion, he had seen the deceased writing or that he had received any letter from the deceased. The Investigating Officer (PW-18) does not given any reason, as to why he had not made any efforts to obtain the admitted handwriting of the deceased. He has not even stated that the admitted handwriting of the deceased was not available. In any case, it cannot be so inferred from the evidence on record. The vital aspect of these two diaries has been dealt by the trial court by holding as under:- The two diaries are however, tell-tale. Before reading and relying them, I must confess that there are wide range of contradictions with regard to existence, custody, production of these diaries. Firstly as per the seizure memo, the diaries were supposed to have been produced by Vijay Singh. Subhash Bedi also says that. But Shakuntla and Sushil say that Rattan Singh produced them. Secondly, the I.O. says that the diaries were produced before him at 5 P.M. at the Police Post on 9.5.96. The witnesses say that these were produced at 10 A.M. Thirdly, there are also contradictions as to whether there was one diary or two diaries. Fourthly, the diaries were not produced at the earliest opportunity and the explanation of Sushil is that his mother did not know about them. Fifthly, according to one witness, diaries were given at the time of marriage of Subhash on 20.4.96 whereas as per other witness, the diaries were given to the mother by Poonam on the fateful day i.e. 2.5.96. One witness alleges that page 39 of diary Ex.PW-5/A1 is in the hand of accused Parvati. However, the writing on this page is similar to the writing on other pages. Sixthly, only Sushil is able to say that the diaries are

in the hand of Poonam deceased whereas Shakuntla was admittedly illiterate and Rattan Singh and Subhash Bedi confess that they had never seen Poonam reading or writing. Despite these contradictions which occur because of the low intellectual and literacy level of the witnesses, the diaries themselves inspire complete confidence. They are dated and are serialwise. The expressions used and statements made are the same as should expected of a student of eighth class. However, the hand-writing is not very intelligible but I have gone through these diaries with great care and caution bearing in mind the consequence which flow from there. 15. Without there being any satisfactory evidence regarding the production of these two diaries and without establishing the authenticity of these two diaries in question, the trial court has gravely erred in relying upon them to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. However, apart from the aforesaid two diaries, there is evidence of the mother and brother of the deceased as well as of Rattan Singh, uncle of the deceased which clearly proves that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment at the hands of the appellant. There may not any demand for dowry at the time of marriage but on that basis, it cannot be said that there would be no harassment of the deceased on account of bringing inadequate dowry or for bringing more dowry. There is clinching evidence of the mother of the deceased that the deceased used to complaint to her that she was being harassed by the appellant/accused for bringing more dowry. 17. Trial court has also noticed in the impugned judgment that Smt Shakuntala, mother of the deceased and Rattan Singh, uncle of the deceased have generally said in their evidence that Poonam was depressed. Perhaps, she was depressed due to her illness as referred to in the diaries Ex.PW-5/A-1 and A-2. 18. The cumulative effect of the evidence on record, persuades this court to hold that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is well justified. As regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the finding of the trial court as referred to above cannot be sustained. 19. In view of the foregoing narration, I hold that the conviction/sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. 20. However, the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A of the IPC is upheld. As regards the sentence imposed upon her is concerned, it appears to be on higher side as appellant is said to be aged about sixty years and she is a widow and she is said to be suffering from old age illness. There is no minimum sentence prescribed under Section 498-A of the IPC. As per the nominal roll of the appellant, she has already undergone sentence of one year and four days in this case and has faced the trial and the appeal proceedings since the year 1996 and had mostly remained on bail in this case. In these circumstances, the substantive sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced from three years to one year i.e. the period already undergone by her. However, the sentence of fine is correspondingly enhanced to Rs.30,000/- only. She is on bail. Her bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. Appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced fine within three weeks with the trial court, failing which, she is directed to undergo SI for three months only. Trial court to ensure compliance of this order. 21. Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.

December 16, 2008 Sd./- SUNIL GAUR, J