http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 479 of 1999

PETITIONER:

Dalbir Singh

RESPONDENT:

State of U.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/04/2004

BENCH:

S. Rajendra Babu, Dr. AR Lakshmanan & G.P. Mathur.

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

With Crl. Appeal No.480 of 1999

G.P. MATHUR,J.

In view of conflict of opinion in two decisions of this Court rendered

in Lakhjit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 173 and

Sangarabonia Sreenu v. State of A.P. 1997 (5) SCC 348 these appeals have

been directed to be placed for hearing before a three-Judge Bench.

2. The accused Dr. Dalbir Singh was charged under Section 302 IPC for

having committed the murder of his wife Vimla and two daughters Km.

Neha aged 7 years and Km. Shruti aged 1= year on 28.3.1991. He was

further charged under Section 304-B IPC for causing dowry death of his

wife Vimla and also under Section 498-A IPC for subjecting her to cruelty.

The IXth Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra, by his judgment and order dated

20.3.1997 convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to

death. He was also convicted under Section 498-A I.P.C. and was sentenced

to 3 years R.I. but was acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B IPC. In

appeal the High Court came to the conclusion that the charge under Section

302 IPC was not established and accordingly acquitted him for the said

offence. The High Court also came to the conclusion that the accused was

guilty under Section 306 IPC for having abetted commission of suicide by

Vimla by setting herself on fire wherein her two daughters also died. But in

view of the fact that no charge under Section 306 IPC was framed against

the accused, the High Court, relying upon Sangarabonia Sreenu v. State of

A.P. 1997 (5) SCC 348, held that the accused could not be convicted for the

said offence. The High Court noticed that a contrary view had been taken in

an earlier decision in Lakhjit Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 Supp (1) SCC

173 but chose to rely upon the later decision as the settled view of the said

court was that if there was conflict of opinion in two decisions of this Court

rendered by benches of equal strength, it is the later decision which has to

prevail. The conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC and

sentence imposed thereunder was, however, maintained.. The accused Dr.

Dalbir Singh and also the State of U.P. have preferred appeals against the

decision of the High Court.

3. Dalbir Singh, a MBBS Doctor, was at the relevant time posted in a

government hospital in Almora in the hills of U.P. (now in the State of

Uttaranchal). His wife and two daughters were living in a flat bearing No.

9/8 Sanjay Palace, ADA Colony in the city of Agra. The accused used to

come to Agra almost every fortnightly. PW 13 Jagdish Chandra Agrawal,

who carries on business in Delhi, had come to Agra and was staying in flat

No. 1/3 with Shri Narendra Dhar in the same colony. At about 10.30 a.m.

on 28.3.1991, after hearing a commotion, he came out and saw smoke

coming out from a flat situate on the second floor. He went there and found

that the outer door of flat was closed but it got opened after some pressure

had been exerted. He along with others entered the flat and found a badly

burnt girl lying on the sofa. In the inner room there was smoke and a badly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8

burnt body of a lady and her daughter were found on the double bed. He

alongwith another person then went to PS Hari Parwat and gave information

about the incident to the Head Constable who asked him to give the same in

writing which he did. PW1 DK Jain who lived in the adjoining flat also

went inside the flat of the accused alongwith other persons and had seen the

body of the elder daughter on the sofa and the bodies of Vimla and younger

daughter on the double bed in the inner room. PW 8 Raja Ram Pal

Inspector of PS Hari Parwat immediately reached the scene of occurrence

and by that time the fire Brigade had already arrived and efforts were being

made to extinguish the fire. He went inside the flat, saw the bodies of the

three victims and also a cooking gas cylinder at a distance of about one and

half feet from the double bed. In the same room a diary was found on the

dressing table and on three pages thereof bearing the dates 29th to 31st March

a letter had been written by the deceased Vimla by red pen. This letter has

an important bearing in the case and we will refer to it later on. The ceiling

fan, the walls and the roof of the room had become black on account of

smoke. The investigation of the case was done by PW 14 Pramod Kumar

Mishra, Dy. S.P. who took in his possession the gas cylinder with regulator,

diary, a kerosene lamp, burnt portion of some clothes and quilt etc. After

recording statement of witnesses he submitted charge-sheet against the

accused on 21.6.1991. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under

302,304-B and 498-A IPC against the accused who pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried. In the course of trial the prosecution examined 16

witnesses and filed some documentary evidence. The accused also

examined 6 witnesses in his defence.

4. PW 11 RD Chetwal who is the father of deceased Vimla, has deposed

that the marriage had been arranged through the mediation of a distant

relation Piarey Lal who had informed that the accused no doubt came from a

poor family but he was well qualified. He had given 9-10 tolas of gold

ornaments, black and white T.V., refrigerator, double bed, steel almirah and

other articles of domestic use as presents in marriage. Subsequently he had

given a scooter to the accused when he was posted at Pinhat. Vimla had told

him that the accused used to often complain that the articles given in the

marriage were not of his standard. He used to frequently taunt her in this

regard. Thereafter he had given Rs. 25,000/- in cash to the accused for the

purpose of purchasing a flat in Agra and for this purpose he had withdrawn

money from his provident fund. He further deposed that he had taken a

certificate regarding withdrawal of money (which he produced in court) in

order to show to the accused that he would not be in a position to pay any

more amount and he should not cause any further harassment to his daughter

relating to demand of money. His wife, who was an income tax payee, had

given cash money to Vimla on different occasions which she had deposited

in a bank. PW11 further deposed that the mother of the accused Dr. Dalbir

Singh and a person known as Laktakia used to frequently assault Vimla and

the assaults had increased after the birth of the second daughter. PW 12

Maya Devi who is the mother of Vimla has also deposed that according to

their status ornaments, clothes and other items had been given at the time of

marriage. Vimla had come to her parental home 2-3 months after the

marriage and at that time she had become very lean and thin and was not

keeping well. On inquiries she had informed that the accused Dalbir used to

frequently taunt her that the articles given at the time of the marriage were

not of his standard. She has corroborated the version of PW 11 that an

amount of Rs.25,000/- was sent to the accused through PW 9 Inder Pal

Singh for the purpose of buying the flat. She used to give Rs.2,000 to

Rs.5,000 in cash every time Vimla came to her parental home. Vimla had

come to her parental home about two and a half months prior to the incident

and had told her that the accused Dalbir would kill her. The wife of PW 9

Inder Pal Singh is the sister of PW 12 Smt. Maya Devi and he is thus

related to PW 11. He has deposed that the accused was not happy or

satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and used to frequently

harass Vimla in that regard. The father of Vimla had given money to the

accused for the purpose of buying the flat but even thereafter he used to

make demand of various items like scooter etc. The accused had obtained a

Power of Attorney of the flat from Vimla in his favour and used to

frequently assault her. Vimla had also complained to him about one month

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8

before the occurrence that she apprehended threat to her life from Dalbir.

5. The handwriting and the signature of Vimla on the letter recovered

from the diary has been proved by PW 10 Rajender who is the husband of

her younger sister. He has deposed that Vimla used to write letters to his

wife Suman and thus he was familiar with her handwriting. The letter has

been quoted in extenso in the judgment of the High Court. This letter was

written in Hindi by Vimla to her husband whom she has addressed as 'Dear

Dalbir' and expresses the feelings of a wife who is being constantly harassed

by a greedy husband on account of alleged inadequacy of dowry and it is a

pathetic reading. It is difficult to convey the same feelings by translating it

into English. In nutshell what she has written is that he (Dalbir) had

constantly harassed her by taunting her almost everyday on the issue of

dowry. He had been complaining that the double bed was of very cheap

quality; that the steel almirah was of very light quality; that her father had

given a black and white T.V. and not a colour T.V; that the sofaset was of

very inferior type and that the suits given to him were of very cheap

quality. He had also been complaining that no scooter had been given at

the time of marriage and that the ornaments were very cheap and light. She

had been bearing all this for several years in the hope and expectation that he

would improve himself but he had taken undue advantage of her patience.

She had been tolerating the frequent assaults made by him but she cannot

bear the beating caused to Neha (daughter) who was still very young and it

was the time for her to play. Therefore she was taking away Neha and Shruti

as well along with her. In the second paragraph she has written that now he

can marry again wherein he can amass lot of dowry and have several sons

which would make his mother happy. She did not want to say anything

against Pappu (Laktakia) but God will certainly see him for the assaults

made by him upon her. Thereafter she has said that he did not allow her to

wear the ornaments given by her father as he thought that their value will be

reduced if she wore them. If he had even small amount of human values

left in him, the said ornaments be given to Santo Devi widowed daughter of

her Shanti Bua and if she was not prepared to accept the same it may be

donated to any Anathashram. In the last paragraph she has written that she

would pray to God that he may always remain happy and he should not

behave with anybody else in the same manner in which he had behaved with

her.

6. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and also in the written

statement filed by him (in accordance with Section 233(2) Cr.P.C.) the

accused admitted that the aforesaid letter was written by Vimla and it is in

her hand-writing. The contents of the letter are clearly admissible under

Section 32 of the Evidence Act as the statement therein has been made by

the deceased Vimla as to the cause of her death or as to any of the

circumstances or transaction which resulted in her death. The reading of the

letter shows that the same has been written by a person who is completely

fed up with the demands of dowry and the taunting behaviour of the

husband. It appears that the demands, harassment and the cruel treatment

meted out to her, further aggravated after the birth of second daughter. The

testimony of PW 9 Inder Pal Singh, PW 11 RC Chetwal and PW 12 Smt.

Maya Devi shows that the accused had been constantly harassing Vimla as

he was not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and used to

make frequent complaints regarding the same. Their testimony further

shows that on account of constant demands, father of Vimla later on gave

Rs.25,000/- in cash to the accused for the purpose of buying a flat and

thereafter gave a colour T.V. and a scooter. Thus from the evidence on

record it is fully established that Vimla had been virtually compelled to take

the extreme step of committing suicide as accused had subjected her to

cruelty by constant taunts and mal treatment relating to demand of dowry.

7. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and also in

the written statement filed under Section 233(2) Cr. P.C. has stated that

Vimla had developed illicit relationship with someone and for this he had

scolded her and had further said that he would complain about it to her

father and then she had said that if he would speak anything to her father she

would commit suicide. He has led some evidence to show that he had

deposited money in the account of Vimla in two banks when he was posted

at Almora. DW 2 Sh. G.K. Malhotra has proved that there was a credit

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8

balance of Rs.1113/- in the account of Vimla in UCO Bank. Similarly

DW4 A.K. Dubey has deposed that there was a credit balance of Rs.45,000/-

in her name in the District Co-operative bank. The evidence shows that the

accused was posted at remote places after marriage and for the last about one

and half years he was posted at Almora. He was placed under suspension on

10.1.1991 (prior to the incident) and thereafter he came to Agra and started

living there. It appears that on account of his posting to some small and

remote places, he had purchased a flat in Agra where his wife and children

were living. It was, therefore, natural on his part to keep a bank account at

Agra and the same was in the name of Vimla so that she could operate the

same for meeting the household expenses. He has also stated that he used to

remit money out of his salary account from Almora to Agra by bank draft.

The fact that there was an account in the name of Vimla in which there was

a credit balance of Rs.45,000/- does not in any manner discredit the

prosecution case regarding the harassment caused to her relating to the

demand of dowry, taunting behaviour and also frequent assaults to her and

also to his daughter Neha.

8. The High Court has given good reasons for holding that the charge

under section 302 IPC was not established. The accused could not have set

his wife and daughters on fire inside the room and then escaped from there

as in that event he could not have bolted the door of the flat and closed it

from inside. This shows that the death of Vimla and her two daughters took

place due to commission of suicide by Vimla by setting herself on fire.

Probably she opened the knob of the gas cylinder and after some gas had

leaked out and had got collected in the room, it was ignited. The letter

written by Vimla also leads to the inference that it is a case of suicide and

not of murder. Having carefully perused the evidence adduced by the

prosecution and other circumstances of the case, we are in agreement with

the High Court that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the

charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused. The marriage having

taken place on 22.11.1983 i.e. more than seven years earlier to the incident,

the learned Sessions Judge had rightly acquitted the accused for the offence

under section 304-B IPC.

9. Regarding the charge under Section 498-A IPC, the High Court has

recorded the following finding:-

"So far as the charge under section 498-A of the IPC is

concerned, the letter written by Vimla Ex. Ka9 is very specific

and speaks volumes against the appellant to indicate that the

appellant had been teasing his wife on the question of presents

which had been given to him at the time of marriage. It is not

possible to accept the suggestion of the accused and the

evidence in that regard that this letter had been written by

Vimla to avoid her badnami. Consequently, we have no reason

to disbelieve the contents of this letter. It may be noticed that

even R.D. Chetwal PW 11 and Smt. Mayadevi PW 12 had said

that the accused used to complain about the dowry. It is,

therefore, clear that on account of complaints of Dalbir Singh,

Vimla not only committed suicide but she had also put her two

daughters on fire. Accordingly, in our view the charge against

the appellant under Section 498-A has been substantiated on the

evidence on record. The fact that there was considerable

money in the bank account of Smt. Vimla which the accused

used to remit by Bank Drafts does not in any manner affect the

evidence relating to the complaints of the accused amounting to

cruelty which he used to meet out to his wife on the question of

the items which had been given to him at the time of marriage.

Hence, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under

Section 498-A of IPC is to be maintained."

10. The evidence on record, the gist of which has been mentioned above,

conclusively establishes that the accused had been constantly teasing and

harassing his wife Vimla as he was wholly dissatisfied with the dowry given

at the time of marriage and he wanted more money and some other articles

to be given to him by her parents. Thus the charge under Section 498-A is

fully established.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8

11. The High Court was further of the opinion that the evidence on record

clearly established the charge against the accused under Section 306 IPC and

he could be convicted and sentenced for the said offence. However, in view

of the fact that no charge under Section 306 IPC had been framed and there

was conflict of opinion in the two decisions of this Court rendered by

Benches of equal strength and as in such a situation a later decision was to

be followed, the High Court came to a conclusion that the accused cannot

be convicted under Section 306 IPC. On this basis the conviction and

sentence of accused under Section 498-A IPC alone were maintained.

12. The main question which requires consideration is whether in a given

case is it possible to convict the accused under Section 306 IPC if a charge

for the said offence has not been framed against him. In Lakhjit Singh &

Anr. v. State of Punjab (supra) the accused were charged under Section 302

IPC and were convicted and sentenced for the said offence both by the trial

Court and also by the High Court. This Court in appeal came to the

conclusion that the charge under Section 302 IPC was not established. The

Court then examined the question whether the accused could be convicted

under Section 306 IPC and in that connection considered the effect of non-

framing of charge for the said offence. It was held that having regard to the

evidence adduced by the prosecution, the cross-examination of the witnesses

as well as the answers given under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it was established

that the accused had enough notice of the allegations which could form the

basis for conviction under Section 306 IPC. The relevant para of the

observation made in para 9 of the report reads as under:

"The learned counsel, however, submits that since the charge

was for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal

Code, the accused were not put to notice to meet a charge also

made against them under Section 306 IPC and, therefore, they

are prejudiced by not framing a charge under Section 306

Indian Penal Code and; therefore, presumption under Section

113-A of Indian Evidence Act cannot be drawn and

consequently a conviction under Section 306 cannot be

awarded. We are unable to agree. The facts and circumstances

of the case have been put forward against the accused under

Section 313 Cr. P.C. and when there was a demand for dowry

it cannot be said that the accused are prejudiced because the

cross-examination of the witnesses, as well as the answers

given under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. would show that they

had enough of notice of the allegations which attract Section

306 Indian Penal Code also."

13. In Sangaraboina Sreenu v. State of A.P. (supra) the judgment is a very

short one of just two paragraphs. In the first paragraph it is mentioned that

the trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC on the charge

that he poured kerosene on the body of his wife and set her on fire but the

High Court set aside the said conviction and convicted the accused under

Section 306 IPC. Paragraph 2 of the judgment which contains the whole

reasoning for allowing the appeal reads as under :

"This appeal must succeed for the simple reason that having

acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 IPC \026

which was the only charge framed against him \026 the High Court

could not have convicted him of the offence under Section 306

IPC. It is true that Section 222 Cr.P.C. entitles a court to

convict a person of an offence which is minor in comparison to

the one for which he is tried but Section 306 IPC cannot be said

to be a minor offence in relation to an offence under Section

302 IPC within the meaning of Section 222 Cr. P.C. for the two

offences are of distinct and different categories. While the

basic constituent of an offence under Section 302 IPC is

homicidal death, those of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death

and abetment thereof."

14. Here the Court proceeded to examine the question that if the accused

has been charged under Section 302 IPC and the said charge is not

established by evidence, would it be possible to convict him under Section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8

306 IPC having regard to Section 222 Cr.P.C. Sub-section(1) of Section

222 lays down that when a person is charged with an offence consisting of

several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a

complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining

particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though

he was not charged with it. Sub-section (2) of the same Section lays down

that when a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which

reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence,

although he is not charged with it. Section 222 Cr.P.C. is in the nature of a

general provision which empowers the Court to convict for a minor offence

even though charge has been framed for a major offence. Illustrations (a)

and (b) to the said Section also make the position clear. However, there is a

separate chapter in the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely Chapter XXXV

which deals with Irregular Proceedings and their effect. This chapter

enumerates various kinds of irregularities which have the effect of either

vitiating or not vitiating the proceedings. Section 464 of the Code deals

with the effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge. Sub-

section (1) of this Section provides that no finding, sentence or order by a

Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the

ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or

irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the

opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice

has in fact been occasioned thereby. This clearly shows that any error,

omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges

shall not result in invalidating the conviction or order of a competent Court

unless the appellate or revisional Court comes to the conclusion that a failure

of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. In Lakhjit Singh (supra)

though Section 464 Cr.P.C. has not been specifically referred to but the

Court altered the conviction from 302 to 306 IPC having regard to the

principles underlying in the said Section. In Sangaraboina Sreenu (supra)

the Court completely ignored to consider the provisions of Section 464

Cr.P.C. and keeping in view Section 222 Cr.P.C. alone, the conviction of

the appellant therein under Section 306 IPC was set aside.

15. In Willie Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1956 SC 116, a

Constitution Bench examined the question of absence of charge in

considerable detail. The observations made in paras 6 and 7, which are of

general application, are being reproduced below :

"6. Before we proceed to set out our answer and examine the

provisions of the Code, we will pause to observe that the Code

is a code of procedure and, like all procedural laws, is designed

to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by the

introduction of endless technicalities. The object of the Code

is to ensure that an accused person gets a full and fair trial along

with certain well-established and well-understood lines that

accord with our notions of natural justice.

If he does, if he is tried by a competent court, if he is told

and clearly understands the nature of the offence for which he is

being tried, if the case against him is fully and fairly explained

to him and he is afforded a full and fair opportunity of

defending himself, then, provided there is 'substantial'

compliance with the outward forms of the law, mere mistakes

in procedure, mere inconsequential errors and omissions in the

trial are regarded as venal by the Code and the trial is not

vitiated unless the accused can show substantial prejudice.

That, broadly speaking, is the basic principle on which the

Code is based.

7. Now here, as in all procedural laws, certain things are

regarded as vital. Disregard of a provision of that nature is

fatal to the trial and at once invalidates the conviction. Others

are not vital and whatever the irregularity they can be cured;

and in that event the conviction must stand unless the Court is

satisfied that there was prejudice. Some of these matters are

dealt with by the Code and wherever that is the case full effect

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8

must be given to its provisions."

After analysing the provisions of Sections 225, 232, 535 and 537 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 which correspond to Sections 215,

464(2), 464 and 465 of 1973 Code, the Court held as under in para 44 of the

Report :

"Now, as we have said, sections 225, 232, 535 and

537(a) between them, cover every conceivable type of error and

irregularity referable to a charge that can possibly arise, ranging

from cases in which there is a conviction with no charge at all

from start to finish down to cases in which there is a charge but

with errors, irregularities and omissions in it. The Code is

emphatic that 'whatever' the irregularity it is not to be regarded

as fatal unless there is prejudice.

It is the substance that we must seek. Courts have to

administer justice and justice includes the punishment of guilt

just as much as the protection of innocence. Neither can be

done if the shadow is mistaken for the substance and the goal is

lost in a labyrinth of unsubstantial technicalities. Broad vision

is required, a nice balancing of the rights of the State and the

protection of society in general against protection from

harassment to the individual and the risks of unjust conviction.

Every reasonable presumption must be made in favour of

an accused person; he must be given the benefit of every

reasonable doubt. The same broad principles of justice and fair

play must be brought to bear when determining a matter of

prejudice as in adjudging guilt. But when all is said and done

what we are concerned to see is whether the accused had a fair

trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the

main facts sought to be established against him were explained

to him fairly and clearly and whether he was given a full and

fair chance to defend himself.

If all these elements are there and no prejudice is shown

the conviction must stand whatever the irregularities whether

traceable to the charge or to a want of one."

16. This question was again examined by a three Judge Bench in

Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 623 in which it was held

as under :

"In judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, Courts

must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not

to technicalities, and their main concern should be to see

whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he

was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be

established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly

and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend

himself."

17. There are a catena of decisions of this Court on the same lines and it

is not necessary to burden this judgment by making reference to each one of

them. Therefore, in view of Section 464 Cr.P.C., it is possible for the

appellate or revisional Court to convict an accused for an offence for which

no charge was framed unless the Court is of the opinion that a failure of

justice would in fact occasion. In order to judge whether a failure of justice

has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was

aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted

and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were

explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that Sangarabonia Sreenu (supra) was not

correctly decided as it purports to lay down as a principle of law that where

the accused is charged under Section 302 IPC, he cannot be convicted for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8

the offence under Section 306 IPC.

18. The facts and circumstances of the present case may now be examined

in the light of the principle discussed above. The trial Court and also the

High Court have recorded a clear finding and with which we are in complete

agreement, that the accused had started making a demand of dowry soon

after marriage. Even after his father-in-law had given him a colour T.V., a

scooter and money for purchasing the flat, he did not feel satisfied and

continued to harass his wife. He used to frequently taunt her that some of

the items given by way of gift at the time of marriage were of poor quality

and were not of his standard. He had also assaulted his wife and even his

seven year old daughter on several occasions. It was in such circumstances

that Vimla took the extreme step of not only setting herself on fire, but also

her two daughters, one of whom was only one year old. The letter written

by Vimla just before taking such an extreme step speaks volume about the

treatment meted out to her by the accused. Therefore, the basic ingredients

of the offence under Section 306 IPC have been established by the

prosecution. These features of the prosecution case were sought to be

established by the prosecution in order to substantiate the charge under

Section 498-A IPC and also for showing that the accused had a motive to

commit the crime of murder for which he was actually charged. The cross-

examination of the witnesses show that every effort was made to demolish

the aforesaid aspect of the prosecution case, namely, that neither any

demand of dowry was made nor any gifts or presents or money was received

by the accused at a subsequent stage and that Vimla had not been subjected

to any kind of harassment or ill-treatment. The next question to be seen is

whether the accused was confronted with the aforesaid features of the

prosecution case in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. His statement

runs into six pages where every aspect of the prosecution case referred to

above was put to him. He also gave a long written statement in accordance

with Section 233 (2) Cr.P.C. wherein he admitted that Vimla committed

suicide. He also admitted that the scooter and colour T.V. were

subsequently given to him by his in-laws but came out with a plea that he

had paid money and purchased the same from his in-laws. There is no

aspect of the prosecution which may not have been put to him. We are,

therefore, of the opinion that in view of the material on record, the

conviction under Section 306 IPC can safely be recorded and the same

would not result in failure of justice in any manner. The record shows that

the accused was taken into custody on 29.3.1991 and was released from jail

after the decision of the High Court on 20.3.1997 and thus he has undergone

nearly six years of imprisonment. In our opinion, the period already

undergone (as under-trial and after conviction) would meet the ends of

justice.

19. For the reasons mentioned above, Crl. Appeal No.479 of 1999 filed by

Dalbir Singh is dismissed. Criminal Appeal No.480 of 1999 filed by State

of U.P. is partly allowed and he is convicted under Section 306 IPC and is

sentenced to the period already undergone.