Delhi District Court
State vs Raja And Ors on 29 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARVIND BANSAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE -05 (SHAHDARA)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No. 290/2021
FIR No.: 360/2021
Police Station: Farsh Bazar
U/s 498-A/304B/406/34 IPC
State
Versus
(1) Raja S/o Lt. Anokhe Lal,
R/o H. No. 29/105, IInd floor,
Gali No. 10, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
(2) Rekha Devi W/o Lt. Anokhe Lal
R/o H. No. 29/105, IInd floor,
Gali No. 10, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
(3) Vineeta @ Veerbala D/o Lt. Anokhe Lal
R/o H. No. 29/105, IInd floor,
Gali No. 10, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
(4) Suraj S/o Lt. Anokhe Lal
R/o H. No. 29/105, IInd floor,
Gali No. 10, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
........ Accused persons
(a) Date of Institution: 25.09.2021
(b) Date of Offence: 30.06.2021
(c) Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial
(d) Argument heard 29.10.2024
(e) Reserved for order: Not reserved.
State vs. Raja & Ors.
Page 1 of 16 ARVIND Digitally signed by
ARVIND BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2024.10.29
16:43:46 +0530
(f) Final Order: All accused acquitted.
(g) Date of Judgment: 29.10.2024
JUDGMENT
Case of prosecution:
1. All the four accused persons are facing trial having been charged for the offence u/s 498-A/304B/406/34 IPC. The brief facts leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused may be summed up as under:-
Accused Raja got married to one Meera (since deceased) on 04.05.2021. During the period from 04.05.2021 to 30.06.2021, at H. No. 29/105, Second Floor, Gali No. 10, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, Raja (husband of deceased Meera), Rekha (mother-in-law of deceased Meera), Vineeta (sister-in-law of deceased Meera) and Suraj (brother-in-law of deceased Meera) allegedly subjected Meera (since deceased) to regular harassment and cruelty on pretext of demand of dowry.
During the aforementioned period and at the given place, Meera (since deceased) was allegedly subjected to cruelty and harassment by all the accused persons soon before her death on account of dowry. Further, on 04.05.2021 i.e. at the time of marriage, all accused persons were entrusted with one gold chain, one gold ring and Rs.1,20,000/- in lieu of one bullet motorcycle and other articles, and after marriage, Rs.40,000/- (in two installments) were given to all accused to purchase furniture, which they all in furtherance of their common intention dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use and did not return the same to the complainant despite demand and thereby, committed an offence u/s 498-A/304B/406/34 IPC. State vs. Raja & Ors.
Page 2 of 16 ARVIND Digitally signed byARVIND BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2024.10.29 16:43:58 +0530 After completion of the necessary formalities, FIR was registered. During investigation, IO arrested all the four accused persons, collected necessary material concerning the marriage, got postmortem done, investigated role of other accused persons and prepared chargesheet.
2. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed by IO for commission of offence U/s 498A/304B/406/34 IPC against all four accused persons on 25.09.2021. The Court took cognizance of the offence on the facts alleged in the challan and proceeded against the accused persons. Upon hearing arguments on point of charge on 27.11.2021, a charge u/s 498-A/304B/406/34 IPC was framed and explained to the accused persons to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence :
3. In support of its case, prosecution produced and examined ten witnesses.
3.1 PW-1 Smt. Nanhi Devi (mother of deceased) deposed that on 04.05.2021, marriage of her daughter Meera was solemnized with accused Raja as per the Hindu rites and customs at their native village i.e. Fatehpur Kala, PS-Saron District Kasgunj, UP. During marriage ceremony, utensils were given to accused Raja. No other articles were given to the accused persons. Witness deposed that accused persons never demanded any dowry from her at any point of time and had never harassed or tortured her daughter.
She further deposed that on 30.06.2021, at about 4 State vs. Raja & Ors.
Page 3 of 16 ARVIND Digitally signed byARVIND BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2024.10.29 16:44:04 +0530 PM, accused Raja made a call to her husband and asked him to take his daughter. Her husband replied that he would come within 2-4 days. After half an hour, accused Raja made a call to her husband and informed that Meera had expired. Thereafter, she alongwith her husband, her brothers-in-law namely Sanju, Surjan, Sarvesh and other relatives reached at the PS Farsh Bazar. Later on, they received the dead body of her daughter from the hospital. During investigation, IO recorded her statement. All the accused persons were corrected identified by the witness. The witness was cross-examined at length by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. During said cross-examination, PW-1 was confronted with her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dt. 01.07.2021 Ex.PW-1/A and dated 20.08.2021 Ex.PW-1/B. PW-1 denied all the suggestions of Ld. Addl. PP for State regarding the nature of allegtions against the accused persons. She denied the case of prosecution that her daughter was ever harassed or tortured by any of the accused persons for demand of dowry.
3.2 PW-2 Rambir (father of deceased) reiterated the assertions made by PW-1. The witness was declared hostile by prosecution. Ld. Addl. PP for the State cross-examined PW-2 and confronted him with his statement recorded by Executive Magistrate Ex.PW-2/A and his statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dt. 06.07.2021 Mark PW-2/D and dt. 14.07.2021 Mark PW-2/E. PW-2 also denied the case of prosecution as regards the allegations of demand of dowry, harassment of his daughter by the accused persons or the misappropriation of the stridhan of his daughter.
ARVIND Digitally signed by ARVIND BANSAL State vs. Raja & Ors.
Page 4 of 16 BANSAL Date: 2024.10.2916:44:09 +0530 3.3 PW-3 Teetu deposed that deceased Meera was his sister. Her marriage was solemnized with accused Raja, resident of Delhi around two years back as per Hindu rites and customs at their native village i.e. Fethpur Kalan, Distt. Kasganj, UP. When the marriage was solemnized, no demand of dowry was raised by accused Raja or his family members and no such demand was made after the marriage. He deposed that his sister was never harassed by accused Raja and his family members. After the postmortem, dead body of his sister was handed over to them. The last rites of his sister were performed at Delhi. Witness correctly identified all the four accused persons.
PW-3 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State after declaring him hostile. He was confronted with his statement Mark PW3/A, however, he denied all the suggestions regarding demand of dowry or harassment of his sister in this regard.
3.4 PW-4 Guddu also did not support the case of prosecution. He was also declared hostile like PW-1 to PW-3. He denied all the suggestions by Ld. Addl. PP for the State when confronted with his statement Mark PW4/A. 3.5 PW-5 Ram Singh being the mediator of marriage between accused Raja and Meera deposed that the marriage was solemnized without any dispute on 04.05.2021. He was present in the marriage on 04.05.2021. The marriage was solemnized peacefully. He deposed that he did not know why Meera committed suicide. IO inquired about the matter from him and State vs. Raja & Ors.
Page 5 of 16 ARVIND Digitally signed by
ARVIND BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2024.10.29
16:44:17 +0530
obtained his signatures on some documents. IO did not record his statement.
Witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State at length and was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dt. 06.07.2021, however, he denied all the suggestions.
3.6 PW-6 Rohan Singh is the neighbour of father of deceased. He did not deposed anything in the favour of prosecution. He was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State and was confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C Mark PW6/A. He denied all the suggestions particularly the one regarding handing over of Rs.1.20 lacs to accused Raja for purchase of Bullet motorcycle, and the regular harassment of Meera at the hands of her in-laws.
3.7 PW-7 Jasvir deposed the similar facts as deposed by PW-6 Rohan. He was also declared hostile and was cross- examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State and was confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C Mark PW7/A. 3.8 PW-8 O.P. Saini, the then Executive Magistrate proved the recording of statement of father of deceased which is Ex.PW2/A. He also proved his request letter Ex.PW8/P-1 for postmortem of the body of deceased. He was duly cross- examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
3.9 PW-9 Sarvesh Kumar being the uncle of deceased Meera stated that he had visited her matrimonial house once as a part of tradition/rituals. He was also declared hostile and was State vs. Raja & Ors.
Page 6 of 16 ARVIND Digitally signed byARVIND BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2024.10.29 16:44:23 +0530 cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State and was confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C Mark PW9/P-1.
3.10 PW-10 Sarjun Singh being the uncle of deceased Meera deposed same facts as deposed by PW-9. He was also declared hostile and was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State and was confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C Mark PW10/P-1.
4. Vide separate joint statement, all the accused persons admitted the genuineness of MLC No. 1804/21 dated 30.06.2021 of deceased Meera, MLC of accused Raja, Postmortem Report No.834/21 of deceased Meera alongiwth opinion and cause of death, FSL Report No.SFSL DLH/7018/CHEM/2332/21 dated 25.08.2021, another FSL Report No. SFSL DLH/7017/BIO/1556/21 dated 07.09.2021, statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of witness Chaman Singh, CAF of Mobile No. ********22 registered in the name of Guddu alongwith other documents and notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C qua certified copy of CAF and CDR of mobile nos. ********31, ********19, ********49, ********35 and 41 of Vodapone/Idea alongwith other documents, Copy of FIR and certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, GD No.0121A dated 30.06.2021, GD No. 0003A dated 02.07.2021, GD No.72A dated 20.08.2021, GD No.0002A dated 02.07.2021, GD No.0091A dated 06.07.2021, GD No.0078A dated 04.08.2021, Emergency Report Support System dated 30.06.2021, SOC report dated 30.06.2021, 23 photographs of scene of crime, Road Certificate No.85/21/2021 and Road Certificate No.86/21/2021 both dated 19.07.2021 and copy of State vs. Raja & Ors.
Page 7 of 16ARVIND Digitally signed by ARVIND BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2024.10.29 16:44:30 +0530 relevant pages of Store Room Register (Part 1) as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-22 (colly) respectively.
Since all the material prosecution witnesses stood examined and the formal witnesses stood dropped pursuant to admission of documents, the Court found no reasonable ground to issue summons and examine the police officials who only investigated the matter and did not bring any material on record beyond the statements of public witnesses. Accordingly, IO/Insp. Girish and IO/ASI Ajeet were dropped from the list of witnesses.
Statement of Accused:
5. The separate statement of each accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C on 29.10.2024 whereby all the incriminating evidence available on record were put to them.
They denied the prosecution case in its entirety and stated that they were innocent and had been falsely and wrongly implicated in this case. All accused submitted that they did not want to lead defence evidence.
Final Arguments :
6. Final arguments advanced by Shri Pradeep Kumar, Ld.Addl. PP for State and Shri Sandeep Mishra, Ld. Defence counsel heard at length.
7. It is the argument of Ld. Defence counsel that all the accused persons were falsely implicated by the family of deceased without any fault on their part. He argued that no allegation of demand of dowry or harassment of deceased on account of such demand was made by any of the prosecution State vs. Raja & Ors.Page 8 of 16 ARVIND Digitally signed by
ARVIND BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2024.10.29 16:44:37 +0530 witnesses during their testimony before the Court. It is submitted that all the independent witnesses of prosecution turned hostile and nothing material could be established against the accused persons. It is stated that prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of cruelty u/s 498A IPC as well as the basic requirements of Section 304B IPC and therefore, accused persons deserved to be acquitted.
8. Ld. Additional PP for the State reiterated the case of prosecution as narrated in the chargesheet. It is argued that all the public witnesses had made specific allegations against the accused persons in their statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C although the said allegations were not repeated in their testimony before the Court. It is submitted that the Court must consider the psychology of the family members of deceased while discarding their hostile testimony. It is stated that the probability of the witnesses having been won over by the accused persons should also not be ruled out. It is the argument that the statement Ex.PW2/A recorded by the then Executive Magistrate makes out a case against the accused persons and they failed to controvert the recording of said statement. It is argued that the prosecution witnesses in their statements u/s 161 C.P.C have given cogent account of the harassment suffered by victim at the hands of accused persons and her consequent suicide. He argued that the regular cruelty meted out to victim left her with no option but to commit suicide and therefore, accused persons must be convicted for commission of offence U/s 498A/304B/406 IPC.
9. Submissions heard at length. Material available on State vs. Raja & Ors.
Page 9 of 16ARVIND Digitally signed by ARVIND BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2024.10.29 16:44:43 +0530 record of judicial file carefully perused.
Appreciation of Evidence :
10. At the outset, it is pertinent to analyze the law on 'dowry death' for which reliance can be placed upon following judgment:
In Major Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015)5 SCC 201, a three judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"10. To sustain the conviction under Section 304B IPC, the following essential ingredients are to be established:
(i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a 'normal circumstance';
(ii) such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(iii) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry;
(v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death."
Further, Section 498A IPC reads as under:-
(a)"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 mental or physical) of the State vs. Raja & Ors.Page 10 of 16
ARVIND Digitally signed by ARVIND BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2024.10.29 16:44:48 +0530 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."
This Court shall examine the available record of the present case in the light of aforesaid statutory position.
11. A bare perusal of the testimony of all the public witnesses examined by prosecution would divulge that none of the said witnesses alleged any harassment of the deceased at the hands of any of the accused persons during the subsistence of her marriage with accused Raja. The parents of the deceased (PW-1 and PW-2) did not make any allegation of demand of dowry against any of the in-laws of their deceased daughter or the constant harassment of their daughter on account of said demand of dowry. Further, nothing has been brought on record to the testimony of the examined witnesses that deceased was harassed in any manner soon before her death on account of any demand of dowry.
12. Although the death of victim Meera has occurred in her matrimonial home, merely on the strength of this fact, the burden of proof cannot be shifted upon the accused persons on the strength either on Sec. 113-B of Indian Evidence Act or Sec. 106 of Indian Evidence Act. For presumption u/s 113-B of the Act to be drawn, it is the statutory obligation of the prosecution to 'show' that soon before death, the victim was subjected by accused to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Unless the prosecution succeeds in showing State vs. Raja & Ors.
Page 11 of 16 ARVIND Digitally signed byARVIND BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2024.10.29 16:44:53 +0530 or bringing on record some material to corroborate such an allegation, no ground to presume the accused persons to have committed dowry death is made out. In order to raise a presumption u/s 113 B Indian Evidence Act, this Court is required to see whether the victim was subjected to cruelty harassment by any of the accused persons soon before her death for, or in connection with any demand of dowry.
In case titled Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207, the three judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"15... "Soon before" is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time limit. ...In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. .... Poximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and th consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be treated as having become stale enough." (emphasis supplied) A similar view was taken by this Court in Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477.
16. When the prosecution shows that 'soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry', a presumption of causation arises against the accused under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. Thereafter, the accused has to rebut this statutory presumption. Section 113B, Evidence Act 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 persons to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry, the Court State vs. Raja & Ors. ARVIND Digitally signed by ARVIND BANSAL Page 12 of 16 BANSAL Date: 2024.10.29 16:44:59 +0530 shall presume that such person had caused th dowry death.
Explanation. For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of th Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)"
In the present factual matrix where all the prosecution witnesses turned hostile to the case and allegations concerning the role of accused persons to have caused any cruelty or harassment towards the victim, the burden of proof remained strictly on the prosecution without any presumption of commission of offence against the accused persons.. Further, in the light of testimony of witnesses, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution failed to discharge the statutory burden to prove the commission of offence u/s 304-B IPC. In the opinion of this Court, prosecution must have established existence of 'proximate and live link' between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives (As reiterated by Hon'be Supreme Court in Satbir Singh V. State of Haryana, 28.05.2021). In the present case, prosecution could not establish existence of any such link between the alleged dowry death of victim Meera and the alleged cruelty or harassment for dowry.
13. In respect of offence u/s 498-A IPC, the prosecution could neither establish the allegation of demand of dowry of money or furniture by the in-laws or of ill-treatment of deceased at the hands of the accused persons during the tenure of her marriage. Even the allegations put forth by prosecution in the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C to prove offence u/s 498- A IPC are general, vague and omnibus and cannot be considered State vs. Raja & Ors.
Page 13 of 16 ARVIND Digitally signed byARVIND BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2024.10.29 16:45:05 +0530 on the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. In this regard, reliance may be placed on in case titled 'Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors' (2022) 6 SCC 599 wherein it is observed that:
"19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution."
Even in the present case, firstly, there is no direct allegation of demand of dowry or causing cruelty to the victim for the purpose of demanding dowry and, secondly, the nature of allegations against the accused persons even in the statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C are similar to the allegations discussed in the aforesaid judgment and therefore, the accused persons cannot be held guilty for offence u/s 498-A IPC. Needless to say, even the allegations in statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C could not be brought on record during trial by the prosecution as none of the public State vs. Raja & Ors.
Page 14 of 16 ARVIND Digitally signed by
ARVIND BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2024.10.29
16:45:10 +0530
witnesses stood by their respective statements before the police. Further, the allegation of entrusting gold jewellery and cash amount of Rs.1,20,000/- to the accused persons does not even find mention or reference in the deposition of any of the witnesses. They repeatedly deposed that no dowry was ever demand by the accused persons. In such circumstances, the question of commission of offence u/s 406 IPC also remains out of question.
14. It is observed that death of a married female within seven years of her marriage is certainly unfortunate. Similarly, the death of Meera , daughter of PW-1 and PW-2 within two months of her marriage is really unfortunate. However, Court cannot get swayed by emotions arising out of the death of a young bride and thereby presume the culpability of the accused. In this regard, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled Rani Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2011 (1) JCC 668, observed as follows :
"12. Every suicide after marriage cannot be presumed to be a suicide due to dowry demand. The tendency of the Court should not be that since a young bride has died after marriage, now somebody must be held culprit and the noose must be made to fit some neck."
15. In the opinion of this Court, the depositions of prosecution witnesses do not fulfill the necessary ingredients of offence punishable u/s 304-B/498-A/406/34 IPC. In such circumstances and in view of the entire discussion in preceding paragraphs, all the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt in the case of prosecution. Accused persons namely Raja, Vineeta, Rekha and Suraj stand acquitted of the charged offence State vs. Raja & Ors.
Page 15 of 16ARVIND Digitally signed by ARVIND BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2024.10.29 16:45:16 +0530 u/s 304-B/498-A/406/34 IPC.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open ARVIND Digitally signed by ARVIND BANSAL Court on 29.10.2024. BANSAL Date: 2024.10.29 16:45:26 +0530 (ARVIND BANSAL) Additional Sessions Judge-05 (Shahdara) Karkardooka Courts, Delhi State vs. Raja & Ors.
Page 16 of 16