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.