Full Judgment
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. Crl.M.A. 8002/2004 (for delay)
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.
Application is allowed and disposed of.
2. Crl.Rev.P. 567/2004 :
This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 25th May, 2004, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 64/2003, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused of all charges, namely, under Section 498-A/304-B IPC.
3. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are as under :
'The case was registered on the complaint of Smt.Bhagwati Kaur, wife of Shri Such Singh. She stated before the SDM that her daughter Anita Kaur performed marriage with accused Pradeep Kumar out of her own will on 9.2.01. No dowry was given in the marriage. After the marriage, the couple started living at Alwar in Rajasthan. The mother told the SDM that after one month of the marriage, she received the telephoned call of her daughter at her neighbour's house. The mother attended the call and the daughter told her to visit her and to bring clothes and money and that she was pregnant. The mother visited the matrimonial house of her daughter and gave Rs. 5000/- and four suits. The daughter was unhappy and told her mother to take her with her. However, the accused Santra, mother-in-law of Anita Kaur told that when Anita would deliver a child, then the complainant should come and bring money as the family of the complainant had not spent anything in the marriage. She further stated that on the delivery of the child, she went and gave Rs.7,000/- and clothes of the newly born child. Then, the accused Santra told the complainant that on the occasion of Kuan Pujan, she should give Rs. 21,000/-. The complainant then gave Rs.21,000/- and clothes.
3. On 16.8.02 at about 6 PM, she received a call from the police and the complainant was informed that her daughter Anita Kaur had received burn injuries. In the month of August, 2002, the victim was living with her husband at B-128, J.J.Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi. The complainant suspected that accused Pradeep, his parents Shish Ram and Santra and accused Kishan (brother of the husband) were involved in the crime against her daughter.
4. The statement of Shri Such Singh, father of the deceased was also recorded by the SDM. The post mortem was conducted on the body of Anita Kaur. The autopsy surgeon opined that death was due to shock, resulting from 100% burn injuries.
5. On the basis of the allegations, the charges were framed on 27.3.03 for the offences punishable under section 498-A/304-B read with section 34 IPC. It has been alleged against all the four accused that between 9.2.01 to 16.8.02, accused Pradeep being husband and other accused being relatives of the husband subjected Anita Kaur to cruelty and harassment with a view to coerce her or her parents to fulfill their unlawful demand of money or article and on failure to meet such demand, their such willful conduct was of a nature which likely to drive Anita to commit suicide. Further, that on 16.8.02, Smt.Anita Kaur died on account of burn injuries, otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused soon before her death on account of demand of dowry. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.'
4. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, has examined 11 witnesses. Out of them, PW1 Smt.Bhagwati Kaur, is the mother of the deceased, PW6 Such Singh is the father of the deceased and PW5 Arveli Kaur, is the sister of the deceased. The SDM was also examined.
5. The Trial Court, while appreciating the evidence on record, has come to a conclusion that from the statements of PW1 Smt.Bhagwati Kaur, PW6 Shri Such Singh and PW5 Arveli Kaur, it cannot be said that there was a demand of dowry by the accused persons or that on account of that demand, the accused persons have caused harassment or tortured the deceased to coerce her parents to meet such demand. The learned Judge has appreciated the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses in detail. The same is not perverse in any manner. I find that after evaluating the statements of witnesses with due care and diligence, the trial court has come to a conclusion that the Prosecution has not been able to substantiate its case. I find no infirmity, perversity, impropriety, illegality or jurisdictional error nor has it occasioned a failure of justice.
6. Crl.Rev.P. 567/2004 is dismissed.