Kanta & Ors v. State

PRATIBHA RANI, J

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NOVEMBER 14, 2011 dc/st

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON: 02.11.2011 PRONOUNCED ON: 14.11.2011 + CRL.A. 35/2011 KANTA & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. J.S. Kuswaha with Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest? MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI % 1. The appellants in this case i.e. the mother-in-law Smt. Kanta; husband Vicky and brother-in-law (Devar) Bunty have challenged their conviction under Section 498-A/302/34 IPC by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi on 16.12.2010 and also the order on sentence dated 20.12.2010 sentencing them to life imprisonment as well as a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of which to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC and also sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC with benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 4th March, 2004 at about 3 PM, Police Station Mangol Puri was informed about admission of Seema, wife of Vicky in a burnt condition by one Sanju. The said information was recorded by the Police through DD No.38B and ASI Ram Diya was handed over the case for necessary action. He visited the DDU hospital, where the patient was found unfit for statement and was referred to RML Hospital. 3. Since it was a case of burn injuries (the patient had 96% burns) within 7 years of marriage, the SDM Punjabi Bagh was also informed about the admission of Seema in the hospital. He visited the hospital, but found that she was unfit for statement; thereafter so after leaving necessary instructions (i.e. to be informed as and when Seema was declared fit for statement), he left the hospital. The next day, i.e. on 5th March, 2004 on getting information about Seema having been declared fit for statement, he visited the hospital and recorded her statement and made an endorsement thereon, on the basis of which the FIR bearing No.181/2004 under Sections 498-A/307 IPC was registered. After the death of Seema on 11.03.2004, Section 304B IPC was also added in the FIR. 4. During the course of investigation, statements of the parents and other relatives of the deceased-Seema were recorded. They alleged that Seema had given a dying declaration to them, when they visited the Hospital on the night of 4th March, 2004. The place of occurrence was inspected and photographed. The kerosene oil can and burnt clothes of the deceased were also seized from the spot and sent to FSL for examination. 5. After the committal of the case to the Sessions Court, initially charge for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304B read with Section 34 IPC was framed against all the Appellants. On 07.07.2004 to which they pleaded not guilty. The material witnesses were examined during the course of trial. On 25.07.2006, alternatively, they were also charged for committing the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, to which again they entered the plea of not guilty. After amendment of the charge, the material prosecution witnesses were recalled for further examination and later permitted to be cross examined. 6. In order to bring home the Appellants" guilt, the prosecution relied upon the testimonies of 20 witnesses, of these the material witnesses are the parents and relatives of Seema, who deposed about her being harassed repeatedly for not bringing sufficient dowry to her matrimonial home. She was even sent back to her parents" house for non-fulfilling their demands. About two months before the occurrence, it was only at the intervention of Shri Banwari Lal, uncle (Fufa) of the Appellant Vicky (and his assurance that Seema would not be h