Wasim vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 May, 2018

2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant contends
that the appellant was charged for offence punishable under Section 304B
IPC but was convicted for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.
Section 306 IPC cannot be said to be a minor offence in relation to offence
punishable under Section 304B IPC within the meaning of Section 222
Cr.P.C. for the reason that the two offences are of distinct categories.

Crl.A.365/2017 Page 1 of 23
Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court reported as (2016) 232
DLT 318 Smt. Ramo Devi v. State. Secondly, from the suicide note, it is
clear that the deceased had not blamed anyone for her death. She also did
not mention about any harassment including alleged extra marital affair of
the appellant. Furthermore, it cannot be said that the appellant harassed the
deceased soon before her death or instigated her to commit suicide because
the appellant had gone to Nagercoil, Kanyakumari on 24th October, 2015 for
his job and the deceased committed suicide on 27 th October, 2015 when the
appellant was not even present in Delhi. Reliance is placed upon the
decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2006 (1) CAR (SC) 49 Harjit
Singh v. State of Punjab. There are major contradictions in the testimony of
the family members of the deceased. There was no mention of dowry
demand in statements of Ashwani and Sunita recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and before the SDM. However, they improved their version in their
depositions the Court. There is delay of 9 days in lodging the FIR. Poonam
has not been examined as a witness to prove the alleged extra marital affair,
hence, the same cannot be the basis of conviction.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply