Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj Kumar on 22 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI KULDEEP NARAYAN : ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE (PILOT COURT):WEST: TIS HAZARI COURTS:
DELHI.
SC No.57014/2016
FIR No. 191/2013
U/s. 498A/304-B/34 IPC
P.S Vikas Puri
In the matter of
State
versus
1 Manoj Kumar
S/o Sh. Rameshwar Dayal
2 Rameshwar Dayal
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Das
3 Usha Devi
W/o Sh. Rameshwar Dayal
All Resident of:
R/o H.No.20-A, A Block, Shiva Enclave
Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 13-09-2013
Date of reserving Judgment : 30-03-2017
Date of pronouncement : 22-04-2017
Appearances
For the State : Ms. Reeta Sharma, Additional Public
Prosecutor.
For the Accused persons : Mr. B.N. Jha, Advocate.
Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 1/34
JUDGMENT
Accused Manoj Kumar son of Sh. Rameshwar Dayal, aged 23 years, accused Rameshwar Dayal son of Sh. Bhagwan Das, aged 52 years and accused Usha Devi wife of Sh. Rameshwar Dayal, were sent up for trial on the basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Cr.P.C) submitted on 13-09-2013 upon conclusion of investigation into First Information Report (FIR) No.191/2013 of police station Vikas Puri for offences punishable under Section 498A/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2 On the basis of police report, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate-09 (West) took cognizance of the offences vide order dated 16.09.2013 3 As per the prosecution story, on 12.06.2013, on receipt of DD No.12-A, Sub Inspector (SI) Vijay Kumar and Constable Inder Singh, No. 644/W, reached at Jhuggi no. 62/221-A, Shanker Garden, New Delhi, where they came to know that one young woman had hanged herself from the hook of the ceiling fan with a saree of pink colour and she had been removed to the hospital. On enquiries, the name of the deceased came to be known as Kavita who had got married with Manoj Kumar 6/7 months ago. One school diary of Brain International School was found which also contained a suicide note written by the deceased.
SI Vijay Kumar called the crime team at the spot which inspected the scene of crime and took photographs. SI Vijay Kumar went to Deen Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 2/34 Dayal Upadhaya (DDU) hospital and collected MLC of Kavita wherein doctor declared her brought dead. The dead body was sent for postmortem. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Patel Nagar, was also informed. On 13.6.2013, Shri C.L. Meena Executive Magistrate, Patel Nagar, attested the suicide note and recorded the statement of the parents of the deceased.
As per the statement of Smt. Ram Devi, mother of the deceased, her daughter namely Kavita married Manoj Kumar through court marriage on 23.11.2012 against wishes of the parents. At the time of marriage, there was no demand of dowry from Manoj Kumar or the in- laws of Kavita, nor any dowry was given. After the marriage, the couple started living at W/62/221-A, Shanker Garden. She further stated that their house was also situated opposite to the house of Manoj Kumar and Kavita. After the marriage, Manoj Kumar used to beat Kavita for not bringing any dowry under the influence of liquor. Her mother-in-law Usha Devi used to taunt and harass Kavita. Her mother-in-law Usha Devi told her that Kavita does not deserve her son as her son Manoj Kumar used to get marriage proposals with offer of Rs.5 lacs in dowry. Ten days before the death of Kavita, her parents-in-law had shifted to another house in Vikas Nagar, but Manoj and Kavita continued to live at W/62/221-A, Shanker Garden.
Smt. Ram Devi further stated that on 12.6.2013, at about 9.20 a.m., she saw Babu, cousin of Manoj Kumar, knocking at the door of Kavita's house. She also went there, but the door was closed from inside. They broke open the door and saw Kavita was hanging with the hook of ceiling fan with her sari . She removed Kavita from the ceiling fan hook and took her to Shanker Hospital, Shanker Garden, where the doctors referred her to DDU hospital. Smt. Ram Devi further stated that her daughter Kavita was killed by her husband Manoj Kumar, mother-in-law Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 3/34 Smt. Usha and father-in-law Sh. Rameshwar Dayal against whom legal action should be taken.
4 After recording the statement of Smt. Ram Devi, the Executive Magistrate handed over the statement to SHO, Vikas Puri, to take legal action as per law. Thereafter, FIR No. 191/2013 under Section 498A/304-B/34 IPC was registered and investigation was handed over to Inspector Rajeev Gunwant, the Investigating Officer (IO). 5 During the investigation, the I.O prepared the site plan of the spot at the instance of SI Vijay Kumar. He sent the dead body to Deen Dayal Upadhaya (DDU) hospital mortuary for postmortem. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was opined to be asphyxia from ante mortem ligature hanging. I.O also recorded the statement of the witnesses. On 16.6.2013, I.O arrested accused Manoj Kumar. IO also collected marriage certificate of Manoj Kumar and Kavita alongwith their affidavits ( admitted handwriting) and sent suicide note (diary) to FSL, Rohini for comparison. Viscera was also sent to FSL, Rohini. Marriage photographs of Kavita and Manoj Kumar were got developed from the mobile recording of the ceremony. On 7.9.2013, accused Rameshwar Dayal and Usha Devi surrendered before the court. Disclosure statement of both accused Rameshwar Dayal and Usha Devi was recorded.
6 After concluding the investigation, the I.O came to a conclusion that sufficient evidence had come on record against the accused persons namely Manoj Kumar, Rameshwar Dayal and Usha Devi for commission of offences under Section 498A/304-B/34 IPC, however, in the absence of any evidence against Sh. Raj Kumar, brother of accused Manoj Kumar in the suicide note (diary) of Kavita, he was not arrested, and was kept in column no. 12 of the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C (charge-sheet) that was prepared and filed in the Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 4/34 court.
7 On the basis of charge-sheet, the Metropolitan Magistrate (West) after complying with the provisions contained in Section 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to the Court of Session vide order dated 19-9-2013.
8 On 5-10-2013, after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel for the accused persons, charge was framed against the accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A/304-B/34 IPC. The charge so framed was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
9 To bring home the afore-mentioned charges to the accused persons, the prosecution got examined Smt. Shagun (PW-1), Smt. Ram Devi (PW-2), Sh. Desh Raj (PW-3), Dr. Ritu Sharma (PW-4), Constable Inder Singh (PW-5), Constable Purshottam (PW-6), Constable Rajinder (PW-7), ASI Ravinder Kumar (PW-8), Constable Anil Kumar (PW-9), H.C Lehri Ram (PW-10), Sh. Babu Lal (PW-11), Lady constable Babita (PW-12), Constable Yogesh (PW-13), Tehsildar Sh. C.L Meena (PW-14), Inspector Rakesh Tyagi (PW-15), Ms. Sarita Sharma (PW-16), Inspector Rajeev Gunwant (PW-17), SI Vijay (PW-18) and Constable Ravinder Kumar (PW-19).
10 The prosecution also relied on documents tendered into evidence i.e Statement of Smt. Ram Devi recorded by the SDM (Ex.PW-2/B), dead body identification memo (Ex.PW-3/A), receipt of the dead body (Ex.PW-3/B), statement of Sh. Desh Raj recorded by the SDM (Ex.PW3/C), MLC (Ex.PW-4/A), seizure memo of the saree (Ex.PW-5/A), seizure memo of the suicide note (Ex.PW-5/B), seizure memo of ceiling fan hook (Ex.PW.5/C), arrest memo of accused Manoj Kumar (Ex.PW-6/A), his personal search memo (Ex.PW-6/B), his Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 5/34 disclosure statement (Ex.PW-6/C), FIR (Ex.PW-8/A), endorsement of rukka (Ex.PW-8/B), certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act (Ex.PW-8/C), seizure memo of viscera with sample seal (Ex.PW-9/A), photocopy of register no.19 (Ex.PW-10/A), photocopy of RC (Ex.PW- 10/A), photocopy of receipt (Ex.PW-10/C), PCR form ( Ex.PW-12/A), Certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act (Ex.PW-12/B), death report (Ex.PW-14/A), detailed report of exhibits (Ex.PW-16/A), Affidavit of Kavita (deceased) for court marriage (Ex.PW-16/B), Affidavit of Manoj Kumar for court marriage (Ex.PW-16/C), Diary of the deceased (Ex.PW-16/D), suicide note at page no.40 (Ex.PW-16/E), Site plan (Ex.PW-17/A), arrest memo of accused Usha (Ex.PW17/B), arrest memo of accused Rameshwar Dayal (Ex.PW-17/C), DD entry No.12 A dated 12.6.2016 (Ex.PW-18/A), DD entry No.16A dated 12.6.2016 (Ex.PW- 18/B), body identification statement of Sh. Ram Kishan (Ex.PW-18/C), request for postmortem (Ex.PW-18/D), seizure memo of marriage certificate, affidavit and other documents (Ex.PW-18/E), DD entry No.15A dated 12.6.2013 (Ex.PW-18/F), DD entry No.16A dated 12.6.2013 (Ex.PW-18/G), photocopy of marriage certificate (Mark 18/A), control room form (PW-19/A), certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act (Ex.PW-19/B), FSL Report (Ex.X1), Opinion (Ex.X2), postmortem report (Ex.X3), photographs of marriage (Ex.X4 and X5), crime team report (Ex.X6) and photographs of scene of incident (Ex.X7 to X13).
11 On 21.11.2016, separate statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded wherein they denied the correctness of all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Both accused Usha Devi and accused Rameshwar Dayal stated that after the commission of suicide by Kavita, her parents Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 6/34 demanded a sum of Rs. 2 lacs from them and also threatened them that if the aforesaid amount was not paid, they would falsely implicate them in the present case. Accused Manoj Kumar claimed himself to be innocent and stated that Kavita used to remain under depression as her parents used to taunt her for marrying him against their wishes. He also stated that the parents of Kavita used to tell her that she would not get any property from her parents and therefore, due to the taunts of her parents and her insecurity, Kavita committed suicide. The accused persons did not desire to lead evidence in their defence.
12 I heard the arguments advanced by Ms. Reeta Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Shri B.N. Jha, learned Counsel for the accused persons. I have also perused the entire material available on record.
13 During the course of arguments, it was submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that there are no contradiction and improvements recorded in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and there are no exaggeration in the testimony of PW-1. Since it was a love marriage between the deceased and the accused Manoj Kumar, there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage nor any dowry was given. However, because of this fact, subsequently, the accused persons started pressurising the deceased to bring the dowry. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further argued that the delay in registration of FIR was properly explained which occurred due to the official procedure. The accused persons did not lead any evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ( the Evidence Act) and therefore, the prosecution succeeded in establishing its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also relied upon Sher Singh @ Pratapa V. State of Haryana (2015) I SCR 29 to highlight that the use of word Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 7/34 "shown" in Section 304 B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act indicate that the onus placed on the prosecution would be satisfied on mere preponderance of probability,whereas in view of "deemed" culpability, the accused persons were required to dis-prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubts. It was accordingly submitted that the accused persons failed to dislodge the prosecution case by proving their innocence beyond reasonable doubts and accordingly deserve conviction.
14 Per contra, counsel for the accused persons submitted that there was a delay of around 36 hours in registration of FIR which could not be explained by the prosecution which indicate about the possible manipulation and concoction in the prosecution version. Further, the prosecution failed to lead any evidence to establish any cruelty meted out to the deceased by the accused persons soon before her death, in connection with any demand of dowry and therefore, the presumption under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act would not apply in the present case. It was further submitted that there were no complaints ever from the side of parents of the deceased. Both accused Manoj Kumar and the deceased were residing separately and there was no mention in the suicide note about any injuries inflicted upon the person of the deceased to bring dowry articles from her parents. Further, there are material contradiction and major improvements in the testimony of prosecution witnesses which raises doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution story and accordingly, the accused persons are entitled for acquittal. Counsel for the accused persons also filed written arguments and relied upon judgments viz; M.Srinivasulu V. State of A.P, ( Judgment dated 10.9.2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2002, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court), State V. Naresh & Ors, 2014 (4) LRC 316 (Del.) (DB) and Manohar Lal V. State of Haryana, ( Judgment dated 1.7.2014 in Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 8/34 Criminal Appeal No.1188 of 2009, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court) 15 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both the sides.
16 In the present case, all the accused persons have been charged for commission of offence under Section 304B/34 IPC as well as for the offence punishable under Section 498A/34 IPC. The aforesaid provisions of law are reproduced as under:
304B. Dowry death- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation- For the purpose of this section, "Cruelty" means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 9/34 mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
17 As per the settled propositions of law, in order to convict an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC, the following essentials must be proved by the prosecution:
(i) The death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii) Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(iii) Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband; and
(iv) such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, demand for dowry.
18 Section 113B of the Evidence Act stipulates about the presumption as to dowry death which reads as under:
113B. Presumption as to dowry death- when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death, such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation: For the purposes of this Section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) .
19 In view of the Explanation attached to Section 304B IPC, the word "dowry" has to be understood as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which reads as under:
2. Definition of "dowry"- In this Act, "dowry" means Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 10/34 any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
20 To attract the provisions of Section 304B IPC, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that "soon before her death", she was subjected to cruelty or harassment, "for, or in connection with the demand for dowry". The expression "soon before her death" used in Section 304B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. Though the language used is "soon before her death", no definite period has been enacted and the expression "soon before her death" has not been defined in both the enactments. Accordingly, the determination of the period which can come within the terms "soon before her death" is to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the said expression would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or the harassment concerned and the death in question. In other words, there must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence ( reliance placed on Maya Devi and Anr. V. State of Haryana, ( Judgment dated 1.12.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 1263 of 2011, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court) Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 11/34 21 In Ramakant Mishra @ Lallu etc V. State of U.P, Criminal Appeal No. 1279-1281 of 2011, passed on February 27,2015, the Apex Court cited with approval Sher Singh (supra) case wherein it had been held that the use of word "shown" instead of "proved" in Section 304-B IPC indicates that the onus cast on the prosecution would stand satisfied on the anvil of a mere preponderance of probability. In other words, "shown" will have to be read up to mean "proved", but only to the extent of preponderance of probability. Thereafter, the word "deemed" used in that Section is to be read down to require an accused to prove his innocence, but beyond reasonable doubt. The "deemed" culpability of the accused leaving no room for the accused to prove innocence was, accordingly, read down to a strong "presumption" of his culpability. However, the accused is required to dislodge this presumption by proving his innocence beyond reasonable doubts as distinct from preponderance of probability.
22 However, in Sher Singh (supra) case, it was held that it is for the prosecution to prove that a "dowry death" has occurred namely,
(i) that the death of a woman has been caused in abnormal circumstances by her having been burned or having been bodily injured, (ii) within seven years of a marriage, (iii) and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, (iv) in connection with any demand for dowry and (v) that the cruelty or harassment meted out to her continued to have a causal connection or live link with the demand of dowry. It was further held that once the presence of these concomitants are established or shown or proved by the prosecution, even by preponderance of possibility, the initial presumption of innocence is replaced by an assumption of guilt of the accused, thereupon transferring the heavy burden of proof upon him and requiring him to produce evidence dislodging his guilt, beyond Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 12/34 reasonable doubt. (Emphasis supplied) 23 For the purposes of present case qua commission of offence under Section 498A IPC, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Gurcharan Singh V. State of Punjab, Crl Appeal No.1135 of 2016, judgment passed on 2nd December, 2016, is pertinent to be referred wherein it was held that proof of the wilful conduct accentuating the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical, is the sine qua non for entering a finding of cruelty against the person charged.
24 It would not be out of place to mention here that in all cases involving commission of offence under Section 304B IPC, a reference to offence punishable under Section 306 IPC has to be invariably made. Alongside, a reference to presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act and Section 107 IPC is also to be made. Section 306 IPC, Section 107 IPC and Section 113A of the Evidence Act also need to be reproduced which are as under:
306. Abetment of suicide- If any person commits suicide, whoever, abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman- When the question is whether the Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 13/34 commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
25 In the backdrop of above-referred legal principles and provisions of law and in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, following points for determination are arising in the present case:
(a) Whether the deceased was married with the accused Manoj Kumar ?
(b) Whether the deceased died within seven years of her marriage ?
(c) Whether the death of the deceased was an unnatural one in abnormal circumstances ?
(d) Whether soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons ?
(e) Whether the deceased was treated with cruelty or harassed for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the accused persons.
(f) Whether the prosecution succeeded in establishing the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 304B IPC so as to raise the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act against the accused persons ?
(g) If the afore-mentioned presumption under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act is raised against the accused persons, whether the accused persons were able to rebut the said presumption beyond Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 14/34 reasonable doubts ?
(h) Whether the accused persons are responsible for abetting the suicide by the deceased ?
26 The case of the prosecution is predicated upon the testimonies of Smt. Shagun (PW-1), Smt. Ram Devi (PW-2) and Sh. Deshraj (PW-3). Smt. Shagun (PW-1) is the sister of deceased who deposed that after the marriage of the deceased with accused Manoj, he and her parents started harassing the deceased for the demand of dowry. They also used to beat the deceased and ask her to bring dowry and money from her parents. PW-1 deposed that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. However, the accused persons started beating and harassing the deceased after two months of her marriage. The accused persons also pressurised the deceased to break the relation with her parents and accordingly, the deceased had broken the relations with her parents. Further, PW-1 deposed that she used to meet the deceased near the general toilets (Public Lavatory) where the deceased used to tell her that the accused persons would beat and torture her for dowry. One day prior to her death, the deceased had told PW-1 that she was beaten by the accused persons who demanded to bring one lakh rupee from her parents. As per the testimony of PW-1, the deceased had told her that she would be allowed to enter the house only if she brings one lakh rupees. PW-1, therefore, deposed that all the three accused persons had tortured the deceased and compelled her to commit suicide. 27 In her cross-examination, PW-1 stated that the marriage between the deceased and accused Manoj was a love marriage, against the wishes of their parents. PW-1 showed her ignorance if the parents of the deceased had made any complaint in the police station regarding the marriage of the deceased with accused Manoj Kumar. On further cross-
Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 15/34examination, PW-1 stated that the deceased had not told her about the torture and any demand of dowry on their first meeting after her marriage. PW-1 further stated that the deceased had disclosed about harassment and beatings caused to her by the accused persons for about 2/3 times when she used to meet her near the general toilets (Public Lavatory). PW-1 further stated that she did not disclose this fact to anybody as the deceased had requested her not to disclose the same to anyone. On further cross-examination, PW-1 stated that the deceased had met her at about 2/2.30 p.m, one day prior to the day of incident which was also not disclosed to anyone as the deceased had requested her not to disclose the same. PW-1 further stated that the accused persons had not demanded money or dowry articles from the deceased in her presence.
In her cross-examination conducted on 20.2.2014, PW.1 stated that once she had seen that mother-in-law of the deceased had caught hold of her hair and accused Manoj was beating the deceased, but this fact was not told to the police by PW-1 at the time of recording of her statement, nor any complaint was made by her in the police station in this regard. PW-1 had hold her parents about the incident of beatings extended to the deceased by the accused Manoj and accused Usha Devi, but her father also did not lodge any complaint with the police. PW-1 further stated that the afore-mentioned incident of beatings had taken place between 12 p.m to 1 p.m and no one was present at that time. PW- 1 further stated that accused Manoj never bolted the house from outside while leaving, but he used to threaten the deceased and direct her not to come out of the room and therefore, due to fear of accused Manoj, the deceased never talked with her parents about the harassment and torture though they were living across the road. PW-1 has not noticed any injury mark on the face and hands of the deceased when she met her in Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 16/34 the public lavatory one day prior to the incident. As per the testimony of PW-1, the deceased was in love with accused Manoj and her parents were happy with the decision of the deceased to marry with accused Manoj.
28 Smt. Ram Devi (PW-2), mother of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was married with the accused Manoj on 23.11.2012 and after two months of marriage, accused Manoj started beating her after consuming liquor daily. All the accused persons also started harassing the deceased for dowry. The mother-in-law i.e accused Usha Devi used to say to PW-2 "Mere bete ki shadi ke liye panch-panch lakh ke rishte aate the aur teri ladki mere ladke ke layak nahi hai" (There were marriage proposals worth Rs. 5 lacs for my son's marriage and your daughter does not deserve my son). PW-2 further deposed that both accused Rameshwar and Usha Devi used to instigate accused Manoj to ask the deceased to bring money from her parents. She further stated that all the accused persons used to say to the deceased "Tere ma-baap ne dahej mein kuch nahi diya" ( Your parents have not given anything in dowry) and they used to harass the deceased for dowry and money.
PW-2 further deposed that on 12.6.2013, in the morning hours while she was cooking food and her elder daughter Shagun (PW-1) was also present in her house, at about 9 a.m., one Babu (PW-11), son of sister of accused Rameshwar, knocked at the door of the room of the deceased which was not opened. Babu (PW-11) and another lady had seen through the hole on the door that the deceased had committed suicide and they raised alarm, on which PW-2 immediately reached there and neighbourers also gathered. PW-2 saw that the deceased was hanging with the ceiling fan with the help of sari, who brought her down and made her to lie on the bed. Thereafter, PW-2 took her to Shanker hospital and from there to DDU hospital where she was declared brought Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 17/34 dead. PW-2 also proved her statement Ex.PW-2/A recorded by the SDM on 13.6.2013. Further, PW-2 deposed that the deceased used to meet her elder daughter Shagun (PW-1) near the toilets where they used to talk with each other. Deceased used to make complaints about beatings being given to her by the accused persons and she also used to tell Shagun (PW-1) that she was not being provided with food and accused Manoj used to beat her daily, whereas accused Rameshwar and Usha Devi used to instigate accused Manoj for doing the same. Deceased had also told that the accused persons were asking her to bring rupees one lakh from the parents. She further stated that both accused Rameshwar and Usha Devi had left the matrimonial house of the deceased about 3/4 days prior to the incident, but they used to visit daily and remain there for the whole day to taunt the deceased.
29 In her cross-examination, PW-2 stated that though the marriage of the deceased with the accused Manoj was performed against her wishes, she was present in the marriage. PW-2 knew the accused persons for the last 20 years and when asked about the conduct of the accused persons as neighbourers, PW-2 stated that accused Rameshwar was keeping three wives and accused Manoj was having relations with different girls and all the residents of the locality knew about it. When PW-2 was further asked if the accused persons ever demanded dowry in her presence, she stated that accused Usha had told her that her son is educated and many families were approaching for marriage with an offer of Rs. 5 lacs. Accused Usha had also told her that nothing was given in the marriage and "Tumari Beti To Juti Saman Bhi Nahi" ( Your daughter is not worth more than a footwear). On further cross-examination, PW-2 stated that the house of the accused persons is situated opposite her house and there is only road of about 25-30 feet width in between. PW-2 also claimed to have heard many times about quarrel and torture Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 18/34 being given to the deceased by the accused persons and on one such occasion PW-2 had also sent her son Rajesh to the house of the accused persons about one month prior to the death of the deceased who was turned out by the accused Manoj. Police had also arrived on the spot as Rajesh was mercilessly beaten by the accused persons and after the incident, her family stopped talking with the accused persons. PW-2 further stated that she made complaints to the police about demand of dowry only after death of the deceased and not before that. Further, accused Rameshwar had also told her that he was getting marriage proposals worth Rs. 5 lacs, but PW-2 has not paid anything. To the question whether accused Manoj ever demanded dowry from PW-2 or her daughter, PW-2 replied that accused Manoj had said that "Mera tum se koi rishta nahi hai. Kavita Akeli Aaygi Agar Usko Aana Hoga. Tum ne meri besti Kar di, Mai Padha Likha Ladka Tha or Tum ne Kuch Nahi Diya" ( I do not have any relation with you. Kavita would come alone if she wishes to come. You insulted me as I am an educated person and you had given nothing ).
On further cross-examination, PW-2 stated that the deceased had told her many times that she was being harassed by the accused persons on which PW-2 had told her that she herself had chosen her husband. PW-2 also stated that she herself had seen that the deceased was being beaten one day before her death and there were burn marks on the arms of the deceased, but she failed to remember if it was left arm or right arm. PW-2 had also pointed out this fact to the SDM, but she had not informed the police about the incident of beating. 30 Sh. Deshraj (PW-3), father of the deceased, deposed about the marriage of the deceased with accused Manoj on 23.11.2012, there being no dowry demand prior to the marriage, but after the marriage accused persons started demanding dowry. The accused persons also did Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 19/34 not allow the deceased to talk with them. PW-3 further stated that after the marriage, the accused persons started demanding Rs.4/5 lacs and also told that "Manoj Ke liya char panch lakh wale rishte aate the" ( Manoj would get marriage proposals worth rupees four-five lacs). PW-3 further stated that accused Manoj used to beat the deceased for demand of dowry. After one month of marriage, PW-3 had sent his son Rajesh to bring deceased, but the accused persons stated to the deceased that if she goes to her parents house, she would not be accepted as a 'bahu'. The deceased had accepted their terms and stopped coming to the parental home. PW-3 further stated that the accused Rameshwar and Usha Devi also instigated accused Manoj to kill the deceased so that he could be remarried with another girl. The accused persons also caused injuries to the deceased.
Further, PW-3 stated that on 12.6.2013 at about 8.45/9 a.m, he came to know that the deceased had committed suicide. The accused persons had taken the deceased to the hospital and his wife and his younger daughter also visited the hospital. PW-3 also identified the dead body of the deceased vide statement Ex.PW-3/A and received it vide receipt Ex.PW-3/B. He also proved his statement Ex.PW-3/C given to the SDM. PW-3 further stated that the accused persons also used to demand Rs. One lakh from the deceased to bring from his parents and used to harass her for it. PW-3 tried to manage rupees one lakh which could be arranged, but on the next date, he came to know about the death of the deceased. He further stated that his daughter (deceased) could not disclose about harassment by accused persons as she was tense for the illegal demand of dowry. PW-3 also deposed about the beatings extended to the deceased upon which, he had sent his son Rajesh to the house of the accused persons who was also beaten and the matter was also reported to the police. However, PW-3 could not remember the date Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 20/34 of such incident.
31 In his cross-examination, PW-3 was confronted with his statement Ex.PW-3/C and Ex.PW-3/DA, wherein the facts about hearing noises of his daughter (deceased), sending his son Rajesh to the house of the accused persons who was given beatings were not found recorded. The alleged demand of Rs.5 lacs by the accused persons was also not found recorded in the afore-mentioned statements. On further cross- examination,PW-3 stated that he had seen only once when the accused persons had beaten her daughter (deceased). PW-3 also had not seen any burn mark on the body of the deceased. However, he stated that the same was disclosed to him by his elder daughter Shagun (PW-1) in this regard. Shagun (PW-1) had also stated to him about the demand of Rs.1 lakh made by the accused persons to the deceased. He admitted that accused persons had not demanded Rs.1 lakh directly from him. On further cross-examination, PW-3 stated that the fact about beatings to the deceased was disclosed by his daughter Shagun (PW-1) on 11.6.2013, one day prior to the date of incident. He again said that the said fact was told by Shagun (PW-1) to his wife who in turn told him about the same. PW-3 had not made any complaint to the police in this regard. PW-3 further stated that he had stated to the I.O that he had called the police at 100 number by his mobile phone number 9818647493. Accused Manoj had also arrived at the spot. He had also gone to the hospital where his wife and daughter alongwith other locality people had also visited earlier to him. PW-3 admitted that neither he nor his wife ever made any complaint to the police regarding the harassment and dowry demand of the accused persons.
32 The prosecution then got examined the prosecution witnesses to prove the investigation conducted. The testimonies of all such prosecution witnesses is referred hereunder.
Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 21/3433 Dr. Ritu Kathuria (PW-4) had examined the deceased vide MLC No. 14409 Ex.PW-4/A. 34 Constable Inder Singh (PW-5) had reached at the spot i.e Shanker Garden jhuggi on receipt of DD No.12 A. He had also witnessed the seizure memo of one pink colour sari Ex.PW-5/A, seizure memo of school diary of Brain International School containing suicide note Ex.PW-5/B, seizure of ceiling fan hook vide memo Ex.PW-5/C. He identified the ceiling fan hook Ex.P-1, pink colour sari Ex.P-2 and school diary Ex.PW-16/D and suicide note Ex.PW-16/E. 35 Constable Purshotam (PW-6) was present with SI Vijay (PW-18) at the time of arrest of the accused Manoj and also witnessed arrest memo Ex.PW-6/A and personal search memo Ex.PW-6/B. He also got two marriage photographs Ex.X-4 and Ex. X-5 developed as per instructions of the I.O.
36 Constable Rajender (PW-7) had received sealed parcels from the MHC (M) vide R.C No.36/21/13 and deposited the same in the office of FSL, Rohini and thereafter handed over the deposit receipt to the MHC (M).
37 ASI Ravinder Kumar (PW-8) got the FIR Ex.PW-8/A registered and also made his endorsement Ex.PW-8/B on the rukka. After registration of FIR, he had handed over the copy of it and the original rukka to Inspector Rajiv Gunwant for investigation. He also signed on certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act Ex.PW-8/C. 38 Constable Anil Kumar (PW-6) had witnessed the seizure memo Ex.PW-9/A pertaining to viscera and sample seal of the DDU hospital.
39 H.C Lehri Ram (PW-10) who was posted as MHC (M) P.S Vikas Puri, Delhi, had received two sealed parcel sealed with the seal of VKD from IO SI Vijay Kumar and made the entries thereof at serial Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 22/34 no. 1912 and no. 1913 in register no.19. He also received sealed viscera peti and made entry in this regard at serial no. 1918. He had sent the viscera peti alongwith sample seal to FSL Rohini through constable Rajender (PW-7) vide RC No. 36/21/13 and obtained the receipt. PW-10 had received FSL result and handed it over to the IO. He also produced the photocopies of register no.19 Ex.PW-10/A. Photocopy of RC and receipt were exhibited as Ex.PW-10/B and Ex.PW-10/C. 40 Sh. Babu Lal (PW-11) , the cousin brother of accused Manoj, deposed that on 12.6.2013 when he visited the house of accused persons, nobody had opened the door though he knocked at the door many times. Thereafter, through the iron sheet door, PW-11 had seen that his Bhabhi (deceased) was hanging from kunda (hook) of the fan. He raised alarm and the parents of the deceased residing nearby reached at the spot with some other persons. The gate was broken open to enter inside the house and his Bhabhi was made to lie on the floor. A PCR call was also made. PW-11 further deposed that his Bhabhi was taken to nearby hospital from where she was referred to DDU hospital and on the way, she succumbed to her injuries.
41 Lady constable Babita Yadav (PW-12) had filled up the police control room form Ex.PW-12/A on receipt of message from mobile no. 8826217276 regarding commission of suicide by a lady. She also produced certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act issued by Nodal officer CPCR/PHQ Ex.PW-12/B. 42 Constable Yogesh (PW-13) had deposited one sealed parcel in FSL, Rohini, which he received from MHC (M) vide RC No. 53/21/13. After deposition, he handed over the receipt of the same to the MHC (M).
43 Sh. C.L. Meena (PW-14) was working as Teshildar, Patel Nagar, Delhi. He had reached DDU hospital on 13.6.2013 on receipt of Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 23/34 message regarding death of a lady where Smt. Ram Devi and Sh. Desh Raj, parents of the deceased had met with him. PW-14 recorded the statement of Smt. Ram Devi Ex.PW-2/A and statement of Sh. Desh Raj Ex.PW-3/C and thereafter, handed over both the statement to the IO for taking necessary action as per law. He also signed on Form No. 25.35 Ex.PW-14/A. 44 Inspector Rakesh Tyagi (PW-15) was posted as SHO, PS Vikas Puri, Delhi. He deposed about receipt of statements of Smt. Ram Devi and Sh. Desh Raj on 13.6.2013 which were produced by SI Vijay after having been recorded by Sh. C.L. Meena, Tehsildar. PW-15 endorsed the statement of Smt. Ram Devi Ex.PW15/A and directed the duty officer to register the FIR under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC and handed over the investigation to Inspector Rajiv Gunwant. 45 Ms. Sarita Sharma (PW-16) was working as Scientific Assistant in RFSL, Chankaya Puri, Delhi. She deposed that on 23.7.2013, one sealed parcel was received in the office of FSL Rohini, Delhi which was marked to her. On opening the same, one school diary containing suicide note on page number 40 was found which was marked as Q1. The admitted writings of deceased Kavita marked as A1 was also received alongwith admitted handwriting of accused Manoj marked as A2. After examination, PW-16 observed that the person who wrote the red enclosed Hindi writing stamped and marked A1 also wrote the red enclosed Hindi writings similarly stamped and marked Q1. She also proved her detailed report Ex.PW-16/A in this regard and also deposed about the admitted handwriting of deceased Kavita i.e affidavit Ex.PW-16/B, admitted handwriting of accused Manoj i.e affidavit Ex.PW-16/C and diary Ex.PW-16/D containing suicide note at Page 40 Ex.PW-16/E. No cross-examination of afore-mentioned prosecution witnesses Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 24/34 was conducted by learned counsel for the accused persons. 46 Inspector Rajiv Gunwant (PW-17) had conducted part investigation and prepared the site plan Ex.PW-17/A, had taken into possession the memos prepared SI Vijay alongwith diary containing suicide note. He had recorded the statements of the witnesses and thereafter proceeded on leave after handing over the case file to SI Vijay for investigation. Again on 16.7.2013, PW-17 received the case file for investigation and on 27.7.2013, he sent the diary containing the suicide note to FSL, Rohini, alongwith admitted handwritings. He also completed the other formalities. On 7.09.2013, accused Usha Devi and accused Rameshwar had surrendered before the concerned court who were formally arrested and interrogated vide arrest memo Ex.PW-17/B and Ex.PW-17/C. PW-17 also identified the suicide note Ex.PW-16/E which was sent by him to the FSL for expert opinion. After completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and sent the same to the court through SHO.
PW-17 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused persons, wherein he stated that he had not received any complaint regarding dowry harassment or any cruelty caused to the deceased prior to registration of FIR. He further stated to have recorded the statements of Smt. Ram Devi (PW-2), Desh Raj (PW-3) and Shagun (PW-1) at their respective residence.
47 SI Vijay (PW18) deposed about receipt of DD No.12A Ex.PW-18/A on 12.6.2013 regarding commission of suicide by a lady consequent upon which he reached at the spot alongwith constable Inderjeet where he came to know that the Kavita wife of Manoj Kumar had committed suicide by hanging. The dead body was already removed to the hospital by the family members. PW-18 again received DD No. 16A Ex.PW-18/B regarding admission of deceased in the DDU hospital Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 25/34 who was declared brought dead. PW-18 had gone to DDU hospital to collect the MLC of the deceased, he called the crime team and also informed the SDM concerned. He also removed the ceiling fan hook and pink colour sari and seized them through seizure memo Ex.PW-5/C and Ex.PW-5/A. PW-18 also found one diary lying on the fridge in the room of the deceased which was found to contain one suicide note at page no.40. He seized the school diary containing suicide note through memo Ex.PW-5/B. Thereafter, the exhibits were deposited in the police Malkhana.
On the next day, PW-18 had gone to DDU hospital where Executive Magistrate Sh. C.L. Meena met him alongwith parents of the deceased. He had also shown the diary containing suicide note to the Executive Magistrate Sh. C.L Meena who signed the same and also put his seal. The Executive Magistrate then recorded the statements of Smt. Ram Devi Ex.PW-2/A and Sh. Desh Raj Ex.PW-3/C and handed over the same to PW-18 to take action as per law. PW-18 further deposed about registration of FIR and handing over of the investigation to Inspector Rajiv Gunwant. PW-18 also conducted the investigation on 13.6.2013 as per the instructions of the SHO wherein he filled up inquest papers Ex.PW-14/A, recorded statements of Ram Kishan and Desh Raj Ex.PW- 18/C and Ex.PW-3/A. Postmortem of the dead body could not be conducted on 13.6.2013. On the next day, PW-18 again visited mortuary of DDU hospital where he filled up request form Ex.PW-18/D for conducting postmortem upon the dead body of the deceased. After the postmortem, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the father and brother of the deceased vide receipt Ex.PW-3/B. The doctor concerned had also handed over to PW-18 three sealed parcels of jar marked as A,B and C alongwith sample seal of hospital i.e DDU DFMT which was seized by memo Ex.PW-9/A. PW-18 had also collected Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 26/34 photographs of the spot and also recorded statement of photographer. Again on 16.6.2013 as per the instructions of the SHO, PW-18 conducted the investigation and on receipt of information about the accused Manoj, he arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW-6/A. PW-18 also identified the diary Ex.PW-16/D containing the suicide note Ex.PW-16/E, ceiling fan hook Ex.P-1 and one pink colour sari Ex.P-2.
PW-18 was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused persons wherein he stated that a complaint was made earlier to the incident, but he could not tell the particulars of that complaint. PW-18 further stated that he had called the SDM on 12.6.2013 after receiving the MLC of the deceased from the hospital. He failed to remember the time when he informed the SDM. On further cross-examination, PW-18 showed his ignorance if any complaint relating to dowry demand and cruelty was made by the complainant earlier to the incident. He further stated that he had made enquiries from the neighbourers of the accused persons about the dowry dispute, but failed to remember if statement of any such person was recorded by him.
48 Lastly, constable Ravinder Kumar (PW-19) was examined who was posted as Operator in channel no.129, police control room, ITO, Delhi. PW-19 stated about recording message about commission of suicide by one lady at jhuggi no.101, Shanker Garden, Vikas Puri, Delhi, on the basis of message received from mobile no. 9818647493. He also filled up the Delhi Police Control Room form Ex.PW-19/A. PW-19 also produced the certificate Ex.PW-19/B under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act issued by Nodal Officer SI Devender Kumar.
49 On analysis of the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses as well as the documents tendered into evidence, it is clear that Kavita (since deceased) daughter of PW-2 and PW-3 got married with accused Manoj on 23.11.2012 against the wishes of her parents. The Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 27/34 marriage was solemnised at Arya Samaj Mandir. On 12.6.2013, Kavita committed suicide by hanging from a ceiling fan hook with the assistance of one pink coloured sari in her matrimonial home. The death of Kavita occurred within seven years of her marriage with the accused Manoj Kumar. The death of Kavita was an un-natural one, in abnormal circumstances. The points for determination no. (a), (b) & (c) are decided accordingly.
50 Next, as observed earlier, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to show or prove that soon before her death, Kavita was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with any demand for dowry so as to raise the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act against the accused persons.
51 To discharge the said burden, the prosecution got examined Smt. Shagun (PW-1), Smt. Ram Devi (PW-2) and Sh. Desh Raj (PW-3). All the three prosecution witnesses deposed that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage as it was a love marriage. As per the testimony of PW-1, the accused persons had pressurised the deceased to break the relations with her parents and accordingly the deceased had broken the relations with her parents. PW-1 also claimed that the deceased used to tell her about the torture and beatings by the accused persons whenever she used to meet her in the public lavatory. Though PW-1 stated about extension of beatings to the deceased by the accused persons for bringing dowry, PW-1 could not furnish particular details of any such alleged beatings or demand of dowry. PW-1 though stated that she had seen once that the deceased was being given beatings by accused Usha Devi and Manoj Kumar, however, she could not explain when such alleged beatings were being extended to the deceased and how she happened to witness the said incident. PW-1 admittedly was not residing Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 28/34 with her parents whose house was situated across the road where the matrimonial house of the deceased was situated. PW-1 has not made any complaint to any authorities regarding any such extension of beatings to the deceased by the accused persons. PW-1 also admitted that accused persons never demanded any dowry from the deceased in her presence. Moreover, PW-1 deposed in a contradictory manner as on the one hand, she stated that the deceased had broken all relations with her parents under pressure from the accused persons, on the other, she stated that the accused persons asked the deceased to bring money from her parents. It has not been explained by PW-1 how the accused persons could have pressurized the deceased to bring money from her parents when, on their insistence, the deceased had broken all her relations with her parents.
Further, as per the testimony of PW-1, one day prior to her death when the deceased met her near public lavatory, she had told her that she (deceased) was beaten by the accused persons and was asked to bring one lakh rupee from her parents. Admittedly, the deceased had met her at about 2/2.30 p.m one day prior to the date of incident when both of them had gone for toilets. It is not understandable how both PW-1 and the deceased would feel the urge to go for toilets at the same time and also at 2./2.30 p.m. It has also not come on record why both PW-1 and the deceased would use the public lavatory to address the call of nature. There is nothing on record to indicate that the houses of accused persons and the complainant were not having any toilet compelling them to use the public lavatory. Also, PW-1 did not notice any injury mark on the face and hands of the deceased when she allegedly met her one day prior to the incident which further belie her vague statements about extension of beatings to the deceased. It also goes to indicate that either the beatings extended to the deceased, if there were any, were too Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 29/34 insignificant to be noticed or did not happen at all. 52 As far as the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 are concerned, the same are also full of vague contentions as well as contradictory stand with regard to demand of dowry and extension of beatings by the accused persons. For instance, PW-2 stated that the accused Usha Devi used to taunt her that the family of the deceased was not up to their standard and there were offers worth rupees five lacs for the marriage of accused Manoj Kumar, whereas the parents of the deceased had not given anything in marriage. Neither PW-2 nor PW-3 deposed about any positive demand of dowry which might have been raised by the accused persons. In her cross-examination, PW-2 also levelled absurd and unsubstantiated allegations against the accused persons which may be expected from a disgruntled mother, but in the absence of any corroborative evidence has no legal sanctity. PW-2 also gave evasive answer to the pointed query with regard to the demand of dowry by the accused persons. Further, as per PW-2 version, there was a demand of rupees one lakh raised by the accused persons, whereas PW-3 stated about the demand of rupees four-five lacs raised by the accused persons. PW-3 also tried to cook up another story of instigation by the accused Rameshwar Dayal and Usha Devi which is not in sync with prosecution story. Both PW-2 and PW-3 stated about the torture and beatings extended to the deceased by the accused persons on the basis of statements made to PW-1 by the deceased and accordingly, their testimony in this regard is nothing more than hearsay evidence. As observed earlier, the testimony of PW-1 is also vague and devoid of any material particulars in this regard. Both PW-2 and PW-3 were also confronted with their statements Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW- 3/DA wherein the material facts regarding extension of beatings and demand of dowry were not found recorded. In her cross-examination, Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 30/34 PW-2 also improved upon her testimony when she said to have seen the burn marks on the arms of the deceased which could not be noticed by the either Dr. Ritu Kathuria (PW-4) who proved the MLC Ex.PW-4/A or in postmortem report Ex.X-3. PW-3, on the other hand, had not observed any burn mark on the body of the deceased. The vague and generalised testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are not reliable and trustworthy which was also held so in Manohar Lal (supra) case relied upon by the counsel for the accused persons. Further, both Inspector Rajeev Gunwant (PW-17) and SI Vijay Kumar (PW-18) could not come across single independent person residing in the neighbourhood of the accused persons who could have stated anything about quarrels and extension of beatings to the deceased by the accused persons. Rather, PW-18 seized one school diary Ex.PW-16/D which contained the suicide note Ex.PW-16/E. The suicide note Ex.PW-16/E is worth reproducing which is as under:
"Main apni zindagi se bahut pareshan ho gayi hu. Jeene ki ikchha bilkul nahi hai. Main akele rehna bardhasht nahi kar pa rahi hu. Bahut koshish rehne ki, par nahi achcha lagta. Pehle mere saas-sasur ne ma-baap chhodne ko kha or kha ki, tum aisa karogi, to hum tumhe bahu jaise rakhege, par aisa nahi hua. Saas-sasur aur pura parivar mujhe akela chhodh kar chale gaye. Mujhse saha nahi gaya, isliye main apni zindagi bus yahin khatam kar rahi hu. Ab aur nahi raha jata, apne parivar ke bina. Main apne purey parivar ko ek saath dekhna chahati hu, par parivar wale samajhtey hai ki main ghar tod dungi. Main marte waqt yehi kehna chahti hu ki main aisa nahi chahati hu. Main aap sab se bahut pyar karti hu aur main apne pati yahi kehna chahati hu ki main aap se apne liye thoda sa waqt chahati hu jo aapke paas nahi hai. Par main aapse bahut pyar karti hu aur marne ke baad bhi karti rahungi." I Love you hamesha.
English Translation:Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 31/34
"I am fed up with my life. I have no desire to live at all. I am unable to tolerate living alone. I have tried a lot to live, but I do not like it. First, my mother-in-law and father-in-law asked me to leave my parents and also said that if you do so, they will treat me as their daughter-in-law, but it did not happen. My mother-in-law and father-in-law and whole family left me alone. I could not to bear it. So I am ending my life. I cannot tolerate any more without my family. I want to see my whole family together, but my family members think that I will break up the family. At the time of my death, I want to say that I do not wish so. I love you all very much and I want to tell my husband that I want some time from you which you do not have. Still, I love you very much and will keep on loving afterdeath." I Love you, forever.
53 As is amply clear from the suicide note Ex.PW-16/E that the deceased did not level any allegation regarding extension of beatings or cruelty in any form or the demand of dowry in any manner whatsoever, by the accused persons. The diary Ex.PW-16/D containing the suicide note Ex.PW-16/E was seized from the spot by SI Vijay Kumar (PW-18) and as per the report Ex.PW-16/A furnished by Ms. Sarita Sharma, Scientific Assistant (PW-16), the suicide note Ex.PW-16/E was written in the handwriting of the deceased which leaves no doubt about author of the suicide note.
54 Further, as per DD No.12A (Ex.PW-18/A), the information regarding commission of suicide was recorded on 12.6.2013 at 9.20 a.m. However, the FIR Ex.PW-8/A was registered on 13.6.2013 at 9.15 p.m after the statement Ex.PW-2/A of Smt. Ram Devi and Ex.PW-3/C of Desh Raj was recorded by Sh. C.L. Meena (PW-14), Executive Magistrate, Patel Nagar, Delhi. As per the testimony of Sh. C.L Meena (PW-14), he received the message regarding death of a lady on 13.6.2013, consequent upon which he reached at the DDU hospital and recorded the statements Ex.PW-2/A of Smt. Ram Devi and Ex.PW-3/C of Desh Raj. Further, as per the testimony of SI Vijay Kumar (PW-18), Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 32/34 both Ram Devi (PW-2) and Desh Raj (PW-3) met him at DDU hospital on 12.6.2013, however, he recorded their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.c on 13.6.2013. PW-18 did not furnish any explanation why the statements of family members of the deceased were not recorded by him immediately so as to rule out the possibility of any tutoring or cooking up of any story so as to falsely implicate the accused persons. The delay in registration of FIR and recording of statements of PW-2 and PW-3 has not been properly explained which raises doubt on the truthfulness of their version. Furthermore, as per the FSL report Ex.X-1 73.4 mg ethyl alcohol per 100 ml of blood of the deceased was found and as per subsequent opinion regarding cause and manner of death of the deceased Ex.X-2, it was inferred that the deceased would have consumed liquor prior to hanging and the manner of death was opined to be accidental in nature.
55 In view of the above-mentioned circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that there is no evidence available on record to indicate that the accused persons treated the deceased with cruelty after the marriage. There is no evidence available on record to establish that soon before her death, the deceased was treated with cruelty or harassment by the accused persons and that is too in connection with any demand of dowry. The suicide note Ex.PW-16/E which is relevant under Section 32 (I) of the Evidence Act being dying declaration, also does not speak about anything about the cruelty or harassment or demand of dowry by the accused persons. There is also no evidence available on record to suggest that the accused persons compelled the deceased in any manner whatsoever to take the extreme step of ending her life. Consequently, the prosecution could not establish or prove or show the essential ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC so as to raise presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 33/34 Act against the accused persons. The prosecution also could not establish that the deceased was treated with cruelty or was harassed in any manner whatsoever, by the accused persons so as to hold them responsible for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. Furthermore, there is not a single evidence available on record to indicate any abetment by the accused persons, in any form, to compel the deceased to commit suicide so as to hold the accused persons responsible for commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. Since the prosecution failed to establish the essentials ingredients of offence under Section 304B IPC so as to raise the presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act, no question arises for rebuttal of such presumption by the accused persons. Consequently, the points for determination no. (d) to (h) are decided against the prosecution. I accordingly acquit all the accused persons namely Manoj Kumar, Rameshwar Dayal and Usha Devi of the offence punishable under Section 498A and 304B IPC.
56 Bail bonds of all the accused persons stand discharged. 57 Bail Bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C were furnished by the accused persons with photo and residential proof of the surety vide order dated 8.3.2017.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Pronounced in the open Court (Kuldeep Narayan)
on 22.04.2017) Additional Sessions Judge (Pilot Court)
West District: Court No.33 THC:
Delhi
Sessions Case No. 57014/16 Page 34/34