Delhi District Court
State vs Sunil on 4 July, 2015
FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. : 112/09
Under Section : 498-A/304-B/34 IPC
Police Station : Jyoti Nagar
Sessions Case No : 104/14
Unique I.D. No. : 02402R0101802010
In the matter of :-
STATE
VERSUS
1. Sunil
S/o. Sh. Radhey Shyam,
R/o.Village Sadarpur, Sector-45,
District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
2. Dharmendar Kumar
S/o. Sh. Radhey Shyam,
R/o. Village Sadarpur, Sector-45,
District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
3. Radhey Shyam
S/o. Sh. Ghamandi Lal Sharma,
R/o. Village Sadarpur, Sector-45,
District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
4. Krishan Kumar
S/o. Sh. Radhey Shyam,
R/o. Village Sadarpur, Sector-45,
District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
5. Smt. Dhanno
W/o. Sh. Radhey Shyam,
R/o. Village Sadarpur, Sector-45,
District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
6. Mamta Devi
W/o. Sh. Krishan Kumar,
R/o. Village Sadarpur, Sector-45,
District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
(Pulastya Pramachala)
Page no. 1 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts / Delhi
FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar
7. Satya Prakash @ Bablu
S/o. Sh. Radhey Shyam,
R/o. Village Sadarpur, Sector-45,
District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
8. Smt. Savita
W/o. Sh. Satya Prakash,
R/o. Village Sadarpur, Sector-45,
District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
............Accused persons
Date of Institution : 12.04.2010
Date of Committal : 27.04.2010
Date of receiving in this Court : 19.02.2014
Date of reserving judgment : 03.06.2015
Date of pronouncement : 04.07.2015
Decision : All accused persons are acquitted.
JUDGMENT
THE CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION :-
1. Accused Sunil was married to deceased Pooja on 27.04.2009.
Deceased was residing at her matrimonial house after marriage i.e. at village Sadarpur, Sector-45, District-Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. Her parents were residing at H.No.B-62, Gali No.3, Harijan Basti, West Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. After marriage, deceased was subjected to cruelty by her husband and other in-laws i.e. all accused persons herein, on account of raising unlawful demand of dowry. She was not treated properly by the accused persons and she had come to her parental house due to such strained situations. On 22.12.2009 she committed suicide at her parental house by hanging herself. On receiving DD No.24-B dated 22.12.2009, ASI Kali Ram along with Ct. Mukesh reached the spot i.e. B-62, Gali No.3, Harijan Basti, West Jyoti Nagar, Delhi and came to know that Pooja was taken to GTB hospital (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 2 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar by her family members and neighbourers. She was finally declared dead and SDM, Shahdara was informed about such death due to the fact that this unnatural death had taken place within seven years of the marriage of the deceased. SDM, Shahdara examined mother of the deceased, who alleged about harassment and cruelty upon the deceased by the accused persons. On the basis of her statement, criminal justice system was set into motion. FIR was registered against accused persons. IO examined all the witnesses including parents of the deceased and thereafter, all the accused persons were chargesheeted for offences under Section 498-A/304-B/34 IPC CHARGE :-
2. On 20.05.2011, charges were framed for offences under Section 498-
A/304-B/34 IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against all accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. All accused persons were charged with allegations that between the period 27.04.2009 to 23.12.2009, in pursuance of their common intention, they all subjected Smt. Pooja (since deceased) to harassment and cruelty on pretext of demand for dowry and other unlawful demands and thereby all accused persons committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC r/w Section 34 IPC.
4. They were also charged with allegations that just before 23.12.2009, at the aforementioned place, in pursuance of their common intention, accused Sunil being husband, Radhey Shyam being father-in-law, Dhanno being mother-in-law, Krishan Kumar Sharma being the brother- in-law, Dharmender Sharma being brother-in-law, Satya Prakash being (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 3 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar brother-in-law, Mamta Devi being sister-in-law and Savita being sister- in-law of deceased Pooja subjected her with cruelty and harassed her physically and mentally, on account of dowry demand and harassed her with a view to coerce and force her to meet their unlawful dowry demand, and caused her unnatural death due to committing of her suicide, otherwise than under the normal circumstances, thereby amounting to 'dowry death' as defined in Section 304-B (1) IPC and thereby they all committed an offence punishable under Section 304-B (2) IPC r/w Section 34 IPC.
5. They were also charged with allegations that on or prior to 27.04.2009 i.e. date of marriage, at the aforementioned place i.e. the parental house of deceased Pooja, in pursuance of their common intention, they all took dowry and after marriage demanded more dowry as consideration for marriage between Pooja and Sunil and thus, they all committed an offence punishable under Section 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act r/w Section 34 IPC.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :-
Prosecution examined 23 witnesses in support of its case.
PW Name of Role of Proved document/article
No. Witness witness
PW-1 Sh. Naveen SDM, Statement of Smt. Sunita Dutt
Kumar Shahdara, Ex.PW-1/A, complaint made by
Delhi Narender Dutt Sharma Ex.PW-1/B,
request of postmortem Ex.PW-1/C,
form 23-35 Ex.PW-1/D, dead body
identification statement of Rakesh Joshi
Ex.PW-1/E, dead body identification
statement of Narender Dutt Sharma
Ex.PW-1/F and DD No.24-B Mark DA.
(Pulastya Pramachala)
Page no. 4 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts / Delhi
FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar
PW-2 Sh. Complainant/ Seizure memo of suicide note
Narender father of the Ex.PW-2/A, receipt of handing over of Dutt deceased dead body of deceased Ex.PW-2/B, Sharma seizure memo of articles at Noida Ex.PW-2/C, marriage card Ex.PW-2/D, three other statements of PW-2 to the police Ex.PW-2/DA, Ex.PW-2/DB and Ex.PW-2/DC, MLC of deceased Pooja Ex.PW-2/DD, treatment documents of Pooja prior to marriage running into 7 pages collectively Mark DF-1, OPD slip from ESI dispensary, Noida Mark DF-2, three marriage photographs Mark X-1 to Mark X-3, suicide note Ex.PW
-2/Article-1 PW-3 Sunita Dutt Mother of Statement given before SDM under deceased Section 161 Cr.P.C Ex.PW-3/DA and statement given to police under Section 161 Cr.P.C Ex.PW-3/DB.
PW-4 Surender Uncle of
Dutt deceased
Sharma Pooja
PW-5 Sanjeev Local resident Statement i.e. Ex.PW-5/A
PW-6 Vikas Cousin of Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C
deceased Ex.PW-6/DA.
Pooja
PW-7 Sonu Neighbour of Statement i.e. Ex.PW-7/A
deceased
Pooja
PW-8 Parmanand Family friend
Sharma of PW-2
PW-9 Dev Dutt Relative of
Sharma deceased
(Pulastya Pramachala)
Page no. 5 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts / Delhi
FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar
PW-10 ASI Joined Arrest memo of Sunil Ex.PW-10/A,
Gurnam investigation personal search memo of Sunil
Singh with Insp. K.K. Ex.PW-10/B and disclosure statement
Upadhyay of Sunil Ex.10/C.
PW-11 Ct. Mukesh Accompanied
Kumar ASI Kali Ram
to the spot
PW-12 Ct. Joined Arrest memo of Radhey Shyam
Devender investigation Ex.PW-12/A, Krishan Kumar
Singh with Insp. K.K. Ex.PW-12/B, Dharmender Ex.PW-12/C,
Upadhyay personal search memo of Radhey
Shyam Ex.PW-12/E, Krishan Kumar
Ex.PW-12/F and Dharmender
Ex.PW-12/D.
PW-13 W/Ct. Recorded DD DD No.24-B i.e. Ex.PW-13/A
Suman No. 24-B
PW-14 ASI Kali Seizure memo of pink colour chuuni of
Ram the deceased Ex.PW-14/A, identified
(Retired) chuuni i.e. Ex.PW-14/Article-1 and
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C
Ex.PW-14/DA
PW-15 HC Duty officer Copy of FIR Ex.PW-15/A and
Dhanraj endorsement on rukka Ex.PW- 15/B
PW-16 W/Ct. Joined Arrest memo of Mamta Ex.PW-16/A
Hardeep investigation of and Dhanno Ex.PW-16/B, personal
Kaur this case with search memo of Mamta Ex.PW-16/C
Insp. Jaipal and Dhanno Ex.PW-16/D, arrest memo
Singh of Savita Ex.PW-16/E and personal
search memo of Ex.PW-16/F
PW-17 Ct. Ali Joined Arrest memo of Satya Prakash
Shabbar investigation of Ex.PW-17/A and personal search
this case with memo Ex.PW-17/B
Insp. Jaipal
Singh
(Pulastya Pramachala)
Page no. 6 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts / Delhi
FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar
PW-18 Dr. Sweta Conducted Postmortem report of deceased Pooja
Gupta postmortem Ex.PW-18/A
examination
PW-19 Sh. Rakesh Private Three photographs of the place of
Kumar photographer incident i.e. Mark PW-19/A-1 to Mark
PW-19/A-3.
PW-20 HC Krishan MHC(M) Photocopies of the relevant entries in
Vir register no.19 are collectively
Ex.PW-20/A.
PW-21 Dr. Identified
Devender handwriting
Kumar and signature
of Dr. Mohd.
Gufran on
MLC of
deceased
PW-22 Insp. Jaipal 2nd IO of the
Singh case
PW-23 Insp. K.K. First IO of the Endorsement on the photocopy of
Upadhyay case statement of Sunita Ex.PW-23/A and
site plan Ex.PW-23/B.
PLEA OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. :-
6. All accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegation of harassing the deceased on account of bringing lesser dowry. It was pleaded by them that they were falsely implicated in this case. The marriage between accused Sunil and Pooja was a dowry less marriage and she was never harassed by any of them.
Deceased Pooja was having skin problem and was residing separately along with her husband Sunil in independent portion of house with separate kitchen. She used to remain upset for not being able to conceive a child because of her ailment.
(Pulastya Pramachala)
Page no. 7 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts / Delhi
FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION :-
7. Ld. Addl. PP for the State relied upon the testimony of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-8 and PW-9 to submit that the allegations against the accused regarding committing cruelty upon the deceased on account of demand of Rs.5 lac as more dowry, is well established. He submitted that the death of deceased took place within eight months of the marriage, due to cruelty committed by accused persons and therefore, the case of prosecution is well proved against all accused persons. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE :-
8. Ld. defence counsel argued that as per case of prosecution, demand of Rs.5 lac. was allegedly made to raise ground level of the house of accused persons, however, prosecution did not prove that the house of accused persons was actually below the ground level. He further submitted that in fact the house is not below the ground level. He further argued that PW-2 claimed to be in office on 22.11.2009, though it was Sunday. Thus, the falsity of allegation being made by PW-2 and PW-3 is well established on the record. He further submitted that PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 deposed about incident of 22.11.2009, which allegedly took place with PW-6, but PW-6 himself did not depose anything about such incident. He further argued that the suicide note Ex.PW-2/Article-1 was not proved to be in the handwriting of the deceased and even otherwise the contents of this note do not point out to any cruelty on account of dowry demand. He also challenged the recovery of suicide note. He further argued that the prosecution did not prove any CDR to establish the allegations of telephonic calls made to parents of the deceased. According to him, the story of 12.12.2009 was an after (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 8 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar thought allegation, which was made by the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the accused persons. He also challenged the case of prosecution on the grounds that the testimony of prosecution witnesses were in the form of improvements from their previous statements and are not reliable. He also submitted that the demand was allegedly made on 12.12.2009 when the deceased was already residing at her parental house. Therefore, there could not be any cruelty upon her relating to any demand of dowry.
9. Sh. Sanjay Gupta, ld. defence counsel for all accused persons referred to following case laws :-
● Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2012 SC 3157 was referred to submit that sterling witness should be of high quality and caliber and whose version should be unassailable. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such witness. ● Sampat Kumar v. State, 2012(2)RCR(Cr.)231SC was referred to submit that there are three categories of witnesses; 1.) wholly reliable,
2.) wholly unreliable and 3.) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the case of first category the Courts have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion either way. It can convict or acquit the accused on the deposition of a single witness if it is found to be fully reliable. In the second category also there is no difficulty in arriving at an appropriate conclusion for there is no question of placing any reliance upon the deposition of a wholly unreliable witness. The third category is only in the case of witnesses who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable that the Courts have to be circumspect and have to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 9 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar direct or circumstantial.
● Tarun @ Gautam Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, 2004Crime260SC, was referred to submit that in case of material omission/improvement by witness duly confronted with statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, such evidence was discarded. ● Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2000(4)Crimes283(SC), was referred to submit that unreliable witnesses are apparent from the omissions in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. ● Vijay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2014(3)LRC88SC, was referred to submit that witness stating various facts for the first time in the court, raises a serious doubt about veracity of the fact and cannot be safe to rely upon.
● Hira Lal v. State, 2000(2)CCC438Delhi, was referred to submit that contents of suicide note nowhere suggesting accused enticing deceased to commit suicide, helps accused in his defence. ● State v. Rupinder Kumar & Ors., 2008(1)RCR(Cr.)493Delhi, was referred to submit that suicide note left by deceased exonerating husband and family members, was fatal for case of prosecution. ● Babu v. State of Kerala,(2010)9SCC189, was referred to submit that CDR of various phone calls were not collected, though opportunity was available, which raises great doubts about the prosecution theory regarding the phone calls made by accused persons to the residence of deceased, being an indication of the anxiety of the accused. Thus, the very genesis of the case stands falsified.
● Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana, 2009(3)RCR(Cr.)418SC, was referred to submit that something must have happened behind suicide (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 10 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar of deceased is indefensible ground and is not available to prosecution and there is no complaint to mediator of the marriage regarding demand and cruelty.
● Anil Sharma & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand, 2004(3)RCR(Crl.)774SC, was referred to submit that defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment like prosecution witnesses.
● Mehraj Singh v. State of U.P, 1994SCC(Cr.)1390, was referred to submit that failure of prosecution to produce eyewitness can be presumed that they were not prepared to support the false case, rather prosecution witness was produced by defence.
● Niamuddin v. State, 2013(4)LRC116(Delhi), was referred to submit that benefit of every doubt in prosecution has to be given to the accused.
● Kailash Gour & Ors. v. State of Assam, 2013(1)LRC81SC, was referred to submit that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he proved guilty beyond reasonable doubts. The benefit of every such faulty investigation ought to go to the accused. ● Manohar Lal v. State of Haryana, 2014(3)RCR(Crl.)787SC, was referred to submit that no specific incidence has been indicated suggesting the cruelty or harassment made by the accused and none of the witnesses stated that the deceased was harassed "soon before her death" for or in connection with demand of dowry. ● Ahmed Sayeed v. State, 2014(1)LRC378Delhi, was referred to submit that allegations regarding demand of dowry are vague, unspecific and uncertain and prior to incident no complaint was ever lodged by deceased or her parents against accused for treating (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 11 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar deceased with cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demands. Nothing has come in evidence that accused had instigated deceased to commit suicide at that moment and on failure of prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of doubt be given to accused.
● Krishna & Anr. v. State of Delhi, 2013(5)LRC203Delhi, was referred to submit that investigation is defective and no attempt was made to find out the true reasons for unfortunate death of deceased within eight months of the marriage of the deceased at her matrimonial home and investigating officer did not investigate surrounding circumstances leading to death of deceased. Therefore, accused deserves benefit of doubt.
● Bhola Ram v. State of Panjab, 2014(1)CCC(SC)100, was referred to submit that mere making demand of dowry is not enough to make out a case under Section 304-B IPC.
● Panchandand Mandal v. State of Jharkhand,(2014)1SCC(Cri)24 was referred to submit that no specific incident of harassment has been stated by parents of the deceased and their locality. Practically, there was no evidence to prove that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased. The deceased has not made any statement in her dying declaration indicating the demand of dowry. Such deficiency in evidence proves fatal for the prosecution case as evidence of cruelty and harassment in general is not sufficient to attract Section 304-B IPC.
● Ramaiah @ Rama v. State of Karnataka, 2014(7)LRC55SC, was
(Pulastya Pramachala)
Page no. 12 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts / Delhi
FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar
referred to submit that there is no evidence of cruelty in connection with demand of dowry soon before death (in the present case allegation of 12.12.2009 are not covered under "soon before death")because such allegations are not followed by any cruelty to deceased. ● Naveen v. State, 2014(7)LRC256Delhi, was referred to submit that mere suicide does not lead to the inference of dowry death. ● Baljinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2015(1)RCR(Crl.)78SC, was referred to submit that IO did not investigate the case properly so as to produce evidences of cruelty on account of demand of dowry. It was also referred to point out ingredients of Section 304-B IPC. ● Kishori Lal v. State of M.P, 2007(3)RCR(Crl.)385SC, was referred to submit that mere treating wife with cruelty is not enough and there is no evidence of abatement. Deceased was tensed because of not giving birth to a child.
FINDINGS :-
10.The prosecution relied upon testimony of PW-2/Sh. Narender Dutt, PW-3/Smt. Sunita, PW-4/Sh. Surender Dutt Sharma, PW-6/Sh. Vikas, PW-8/Sh. Parmanand Sharma and PW-9/Sh. Dev Dutt Sharma to prove the allegations of demand of dowry as well as consequential harassment and cruelty upon deceased Pooja. Therefore, I shall deal with the testimony of these witnesses before looking into other piece of evidence, which relate to investigation and medical/post mortem examination of deceased.
11. According to PW-2/Sh. Narender Dutt, after 15-20 days of marriage, deceased Pooja returned to her parental house and she made complaints against her father-in-law (accused Radhey Shyam), mother-
(Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 13 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar in-law (accused Dhanno), brother-in-law (accused Bablu), sister-in-law (accused Savita), brother-in-law (accused Krishan), sister-in-law (accused Mamta), brother-in-law (accused Dharmender) and husband (accused Sunil) regarding harassment caused to her. She informed the witnesses that her matrimonial house was in depth and accused persons had demanded Rs.5 lac for construction of that house and they had asked her to bring this amount from her parents. This witness counseled her daughter Pooja that he would talk to her in-laws and everything would be alright. PW-2 sent back Pooja to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, about 2-3 days later, Pooja made a call to her mother (PW-3) and told her that her in-laws were not talking to her and her husband (accused Sunil) was depriving her from physical relationship. After another 5-10 days, Pooja again conveyed similar problem telephonically to her mother (PW-3). She further informed her mother that children of her brother-in-laws used to take away her meal and used to pull her hair as well as ear-rings. All such facts were told to PW-2 by PW-3. I find that such part of testimony of PW-2 is based on hearsay and such objection was taken at the time of his examination as well.
12.PW-2 further deposed that on 22.11.2009, he was on duty and Pooja again told her mother on telephone that her mobile phone was snatched by accused Dharmender and she was warned against talking to her parents. Once again such facts were told to PW-2 by PW-3 and hence, once again I find that such evidence is based on hearsay. Furthermore, I do find that 22.11.2009 was a Sunday and PW-2 did not explain that in what circumstances, he was on duty.
(Pulastya Pramachala)
Page no. 14 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts / Delhi
FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar
13. PW-2 further deposed that his wife (PW-3) called his nephew Vikas (PW-6) and sent him to the matrimonial home of Pooja to bring her back. According to PW-2, accused persons misbehaved with Vikas (PW-6) as he was asked to leave the house and was told that unless Rs.5 lac would be paid, Pooja would not be sent. This part of testimony of PW-2 is also based on hearsay because he admittedly was not present, when PW-6 (Vikas) was sent to matrimonial house of Pooja nor did he accompany PW-6 so as to witness misbehavior with him.
14. PW-2 further deposed that amount of Rs. 5 lac was required for construction of house and accused persons used to get the floor cleaned through deceased Pooja as and when water logged there on the ground floor. The ground floor was below the road level. He further alleged that sisters-in-law of Pooja used to instigate their husband to misbehave with deceased Pooja and their husband used to abuse Pooja by consuming liquor. On 22.11.2009 Vikas (PW-6) brought Pooja to her parental house and Vikas disclosed to PW-2 that Pooja was not being treated properly at her matrimonial home. Once again, I find that information regarding maltreatment of Pooja at the hands of her in-laws as given to PW-2 by PW-6 is based on hearsay. This witness did not depose that Pooja herself had informed him about any maltreatment at any particular point of time. Therefore, the allegations made by PW-2 that sisters-in-law of Pooja used to instigate their husband to misbehave with Pooja, cannot be covered under Section 32 of Evidence Act.
15.PW-2 further deposed that after 22.11.2009, he made contact with accused Radhey Shyam on telephone and requested him to take care (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 15 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar of family affairs of his family. He also requested him to provide separate accommodation to his daughter Pooja and her husband in a plot, which was jointly owned by accused Sunil and Dharmender. But accused Radhey Shyam refused to do so. This much part of testimony of PW-2 does not specify any allegation of cruelty or harassment on account of demand of dowry or any other kind of unlawful demand.
16.PW-2 further deposed that on 12.12.2009, he along with his elder brother Sh. S.D. Sharma (PW-4) and his brother-in-law Sh. Dev Dutt Sharma (PW-9) went to the house of accused persons and in the presence of all male accused persons, they disclosed the matter and asked them about the problem, which accused persons were having with him and his daughter Pooja. They also protested as to why accused persons were not talking with accused Pooja. At that time, PW-2 was treated roughly and it was stated to him that the things would go on like this only. Thereafter, PW-2 came back to his house and told his wife (PW-3) about the entire conversation. At that time, Pooja was also present there, who after hearing about the aforesaid conversation became depressed and she became irregular in taking meals. On 21.12.2009 accused Sunil made a telephonic call to PW-2 on his land line phone and he expressed his desire to take back Pooja on 22.12.2009. PW-2 told Sunil that he would not prefer to send her daughter back because of unhealthy atmosphere in his house and because no one preferred to talk to his daughter. Prior to this, on same day his wife (PW-3) told him that she had received a call from accused Dhanno Devi and sister-in-law of Pooja (name was not disclosed) at about 03:00-04:00 PM and they had conveyed PW-3 not to send back (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 16 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar Pooja to her matrimonial home without arranging Rs.5 lac. Accused Sunil assured PW-2 that the atmosphere of his house would be changed and he requested PW-2 to send Pooja to her matrimonial home. On 22.12.2009, PW-2 left his home informing his wife (PW-3) that accused Sunil would come to take back Pooja. He asked PW-3 to bring necessary articles from the market to give it to Pooja and left for his job. At about 12:00 noon, he received telephonic call from his house that some incident had taken place. He reached back his house and came to know that Pooja had committed suicide, who was already removed to GTB hospital by neighbours. Police officials were present at his house. He also went to GTB hospital and in the hospital he found that his daughter was still under treatment and efforts were made by doctor for around 30 minutes, but she was declared dead subsequently. He intimated accused Sunil, Dharmender and Radhey Shyam about this incident. His nephew Vikas (PW-6) gave him one suicide note and he handed over the same to police at GTB hospital. The suicide note was proved as Ex.PW-2/Article-1. PW-2 identified handwriting on the suicide note as pertaining to Pooja. He had produced one diary of Pooja to the police official as evidence of her admitted handwriting. He also furnished role number of 10 th class of Pooja to the police, which was taken into police possession. Later on, he handed over marriage card, photographs of marriage, list of dowry articles to police, which were taken into police possession. On 14.01.2010, he accompanied police officials to the house of accused persons at Noida, where police seized some articles at the instance of accused Sunil, which were later on received by him by the order of the (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 17 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar Court.
17.PW-3/Smt. Sunita was mother of the deceased Pooja. As per her testimony, after marriage all accused persons started harassing Pooja for demand of dowry and they used to ask Pooja to do all the house hold works. The accused persons also used to instigate their children to tease Pooja, who used to snatch food from Pooja and used to pull her cheeks and hair. House of accused persons was on lower level from the road and in the rainy season water used to log on the ground floor of their house. Then accused persons used to ask Pooja to remove the water. All accused persons used to abuse Pooja and used to give her beatings. Accused Sunil along with his brothers used to tell Pooja to obey their parents and all accused persons used to demand Rs.5 lac from Pooja. When Pooja used to make telephone call to her parents, her brother-in-law (name not disclosed) objected for the same. Accused Sunil also abstained from making relation of husband and wife with Pooja. On 22.11.2009 Pooja made telephone call to this witness and told her that she was hungry for last 2-3 days, as accused persons were not providing food to her. Accused persons were demanding Rs.5 lac from her for the construction of their house. PW-3 made a telephonic call to her husband (PW-2). PW-2 made telephonic call to his brother PW-4/Sh. Surender and thereafter, son of Surender namely Vikas (PW-6) came to the house of PW-3. PW-3 sent him to the matrimonial house of Pooja to bring her back. The accused persons misbehaved with Vikas (PW-6) and PW-6 brought Pooja back to her house. At that time, Pooja disclosed to this witness about entire harassment and torture caused to her by the accused persons and this (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 18 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar witness narrated the same to her husband (PW-2). Her husband called father-in-law of Pooja on telephone, but father-in-law of Pooja told that whatever was desired by mother-in-law of Pooja the things would happen like that.
18. From the aforesaid part of testimony, the relevant allegation regarding demand of dowry has appeared in the form of demand of Rs.5 lac for the purpose of construction of the house of the accused persons and that Pooja was not being given food for last 2-3 days from 22.11.2009 on account of putting pressure to meet such demand. The allegations regarding misbehavior with Vikas, is again based on hearsay because admittedly PW-3 was not present there.
19. PW-3 further deposed that on 12.12.2009 her husband (PW-2) with Sh.
Surender (PW-4) and Sh. Dev Dutt (PW-9) went to matrimonial house of Pooja and had conversation regarding the problem with the accused persons, but the accused persons misbehaved with them. They asked PW-2 to send Pooja along with Rs.5 lac only else not to send her back. Such part of evidence is again based on hearsay because PW-3 herself was not present there.
20.PW-3 further deposed that her husband (PW-2) came back to him at about 01:00 PM and disclosed the conversation taken place with accused persons. At that time, Pooja was present there and on hearing this conversation she became more tensed.
21.On 21.12.2009, accused Savita, Mamta and Dhanno talked to this witness on telephone at about 04:00 PM and they asked this witness to send Pooja with Rs.5 lac and threatened her not to treat Pooja well if she was sent without Rs.5 lac. They also threatened that accused Sunil (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 19 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar would not have any relation with Pooja. On same day, at about 07:00-08:00 PM, accused Sunil made call to her husband (PW-2) and desired to bring back Pooja. Her husband told Sunil that if atmosphere of his home was good then only he should take her back otherwise he should simply meet her and go back. At that time, accused Sunil replied that atmosphere of his house was good and he was on the side of Pooja, but thereafter he did not visit the house of this witness to take back Pooja. On next day i.e. 22.12.2009 husband of this witness i.e. PW-2 left home for his office and asked this witness to bring articles like bangles, clothes etc. for Pooja. On same day, at about 11:00 AM accused Sunil made telephone call to Pooja on the land line phone. Thereafter, this witness went to the market and when she came back accused Sunil again made a telephone call to this witness and asked her, if Pooja had done something wrong. Thereafter, this witness went up stairs on the 2nd floor and found that Pooja was hanging with chunni with ceiling fan. She raised alarm and neighbours gathered there. Pooja was taken to GTB hospital. PW-2 was also informed by the neighbours, who also reached GTB hospital. Pooja was having one suicide note in her hand, which was removed by Vikas (PW-6). Vikas handed over the same to PW-2 and PW-2 handed over the same to the police.
22.PW-4/Sh. Surender Dutt Sharma was uncle of deceased Pooja. As per his testimony, after about 20 days of marriage, he visited house of his brother Narender (PW-2) and Pooja met him there. At that time, Pooja told him that her in-laws i.e. all accused persons used to harass and insult for demand of dowry including demand of Rs.5 lac for (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 20 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar construction of house. She further told him that she was not being treated with love and affection. Again on 22.11.2009 Pooja telephonically informed this witness that she was in trouble due to her in-laws and should be brought back. Thereafter, he sent his son Vikas (PW-6) to bring Pooja back. Vikas brought Pooja to the house of his brother i.e. PW-2. Vikas told this witness that accused persons misbehaved with him. On 12.12.2009, he went to the house of accused persons to disclose about this problem and PW-3 and PW-9 accompanied him. During discussions, accused persons repeated their demand of Rs.5 lac as condition to bring back Pooja. Accused Dharmender further told them that unless demand of Rs.5 lac was made, they would not allow Pooja to stay in matrimonial house. Thereafter, they returned back to their house.
23.PW-6/Sh. Vikas was cousin of deceased Pooja. He did not depose about incident of 22.11.2009 as deposed by PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. He simply deposed in respect of a telephonic call received by him on 22.12.2009 from PW-3 about suicide committed by Pooja. He went to GTB hospital where Pooja was declared dead. At that time, Pooja was having a piece of paper in her hand grip and he opened the same and it was found containing a suicide note, which was handed over to PW-2 at the hospital.
24.PW-8/Parmanand Sharma was family friend of PW-2. As per his testimony, he went to the house of PW-2 in the first week of December, 2009 and Pooja was present there. He enquired about her well being and Pooja told him that she was not happy at her matrimonial home. Pooja further told him that she was being harassed by her jeth, jethani (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 21 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar and parents-in-law and she was made to do entire house hold work. Whenever she was about to take meals, the children of that family were sent inside the room, who used to trouble her by pulling her hairs and not allowing her to take food. Pooja further told him that her matrimonial house was below the road level and when she asked her in-laws to get it repaired, they demanded Rs.5 lac for that purpose.
25.PW-9/Sh. Dev. Dutt Sharma was uncle of deceased Pooja being brother-in-law of PW-2. As per his testimony, after about 15-20 days of marriage Pooja had come back to her parental house. At that time, he had visited her parental house and he saw that Pooja was sitting mum. On inquiry, Pooja told him that she was being harassed by her parents- in-law and other members of her family. At the request of PW-2, he had visited the house of accused persons. When they were asked the reasons for not taking back to Pooja, all accused persons demanded Rs.5 lac for uplifting the level of their house. This discussion continued for some time and they went back. When he had met Pooja after her marriage, Pooja had also told him that her in-laws used to harass her and demand Rs.5 lac for taking her back and her in-laws had asked her that if she would not bring Rs.5 lac, she would not be brought back to her matrimonial home.
26.During argument, ld. Addl. PP emphasised that PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-9 deposed about demand of Rs.5 lac, which was made by the accused persons. They also deposed that accused persons had started harassing deceased Pooja immediately after 15-20 days from marriage. Ld. Addl. PP raised a question that if deceased was not harassed by the accused persons, then why did not she want to go (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 22 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar back to her matrimonial house? He also emphasised about contents of suicide note and the fact that none of the accused persons were present at the time of cremation of deceased. According to ld. Addl. PP the regular telephonic talk with PW-2 and PW-3 supports the case of prosecution to raise presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act, as the death had taken place within eight months of marriage. He further clarified that PW-3 did not state complete facts before SDM/PW-1 due to shock of incident and due to the fact that she was not a well literate lady and she could not explain each minute detail before SDM.
27.As far as contentions regarding regular telephonic talk between deceased and PW-2 and PW-3 are concerned, I find merit in the defence argument that prosecution has not proved this fact by proving the CDR's of the respective telephone numbers. Therefore, it remains unproved fact that there had been telephonic talks between deceased and her parents as well as PW-4. It is also unproved fact that accused Sunil had telephonic talk with PW-2 on a date prior to incident or with PW-3 and deceased on the date of incident.
28.Still, if I deal with the contention of PW-2 regarding his telephonic talk with Sunil on 21.12.2009, I find that such contention of PW-2 does not indicate towards a natural and probable situation. As deposed by PW-2 and PW-3, on 21.12.2009 itself PW-3 had received a call at about 04:00 PM from accused Savita, Mamta and Dhanno, when these accused persons had threatened PW-3 to send Pooja with Rs.5 lac else they would not treat her well. PW-2 deposed that he was told about this telephonic conversation by his wife PW-3, before he (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 23 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar received a call from accused Sunil. According to PW-3 accused Sunil had made call to PW-2 at about 07:00-08:00 PM. At that time, accused Sunil allegedly expressed his desire to take back Pooja on next day and PW-2 expressed his reservation about the atmosphere in his house. Had there been a threat given to PW-3 by mother and other family members of accused Sunil, which was within knowledge of PW-2 at the time of having talk with Sunil, in normal course of action PW-2 would have discussed that threat given by accused Savita, Mamta and Dhanno with accused Sunil, rather than simply showing his reluctance to send back Pooja on the ground of unhealthy atmosphere in the house of accused persons. PW-2 did not discuss such threats with Sunil and became ready to send Pooja back. PW-2 asked PW-3 on 22.12.2009 to bring certain materials to be given to Pooja before sending her back with Sunil to her matrimonial house. Such conduct of PW-2 is not consistent with the probable reaction to alleged threats given by accused Savita, Mamta and Dhanno because in case such threats would have been given, then PW-2 would not have become ready to send back Pooja or at least he would have referred to such threats in his talk with accused Sunil, so as to seek assurance about dropping of demand of Rs.5 lac as pre condition to treat Pooja well in her matrimonial house. In these circumstances, the allegations made by PW-2 and PW-3 regarding threats being given by accused Savita, Mamta and Dhanno with demand of Rs.5 lac on 21.12.2009 does not inspire confidence.
29.Another discrepancy appearing in the testimony of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 is in respect of misbehavior with PW-6 (Vikas). All these (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 24 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar witnesses alleged about misbehavior with PW-6 (Vikas), when he allegedly went to matrimonial house of Pooja to take her back. However, PW-6 did not whisper about any such behavior, nor did he depose about any particular conduct of accused persons vis a vis Pooja, which he would have witnessed at the time of his visit to matrimonial house of Pooja on 22.11.2009. In fact, PW-6 did not depose about taking back Pooja from her matrimonial house on 22.11.2009. Therefore, such allegations of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 are liable to be ignored.
30.Furthermore, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-9 alleged that when Pooja came back to her parental house after 15-20 days of her marriage, she informed her parents, PW-4 and PW-9 that her matrimonial house was below the ground level and accused persons had demanded Rs.5 lac for construction of that house. She further allegedly disclosed to them that she was harassed by her in-laws. While appreciating such allegation, one has to take into account the date of marriage, which is 27.04.2009. As per testimony of these witnesses, Pooja came back in 15-20 days, meaning thereby she would have come back to her parental house around middle of the month of May. These witnesses, specially PW-3 took ground that Pooja was asked to remove the water logged on the ground floor of her matrimonial house in the rainy season. PW-8 further alleged that when he visited the house of Pooja in the month of December 2009, Pooja met him and told him that when she asked her in-laws to get their house repaired, which was below the road level, the accused persons demanded Rs.5 lac for that purpose. From such allegations made by all these witnesses, it transpires that (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 25 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar the matrimonial house of Pooja was below the road level and water used to log on the ground floor in the rainy season. Pooja was given task of removing water from the ground floor and when she used to ask her in laws to get the house repaired, meaning thereby to get the level of ground floor at par with the road level, accused persons demanded Rs.5 lac for that purpose. First of all, before the first visit of Pooja to her parental house during middle of the month of May, it is improbable that she would have faced the problem of water logging at her matrimonial house. It is a mater of common knowledge that during the month of May, Delhi as well as NOIDA do not witness arrival of Monsoon. Even if, it is assumed that there could have been 1-2 instances of occasional raining, such fact is no where stated or deposed by any of the witnesses. Therefore, the demand of Rs.5 lac, if made by the accused persons, could not have been made before first visit of Pooja to her matrimonial house. In these circumstances, I do find that the allegations of such demand being made with Pooja and harassment caused to her on this account by these accused persons, before her first visit to parental house after marriage are based on improbable situation.
31. Even otherwise, if accused persons would have been interested and adamant in getting Rs.5 lac as dowry i.e. as consideration for marriage between Pooja and Sunil, then such demand would have been made in advance to the parents of Pooja. They could have insisted for meeting such demand prior to or at the time of this marriage, because the factum of their house being below the road level and the problem of water logging was not a thing to be discovered by accused persons (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 26 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar after arrival of Pooja in her matrimonial house. In that situation, such demand would have been made prior to marriage itself, if this was to be a condition attached with marriage of Pooja with Sunil. Furthermore, there was no sense in making such demand with Pooja so as to ask her to bring such amount from her parents and at the same time not allowing Pooja to make telephonic calls to her parents. Therefore, such allegation made by PW-2 and PW-3 appear to be illogically and artificially connected with death of Pooja. I also did not find any reason for the accused persons, specially parents-in-law of Pooja as well as brothers of accused Sunil, for not making such demand directly from PW-2 or PW-3. As per testimony of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-9, the accused persons made such demand directly to them on 12.12.2009, when Pooja was already residing at her parental house and when allegedly these witnesses visited the house of accused persons, in order to discuss problem of Pooja.
32.The allegations regarding pulling of hairs and teasing by children of brothers-in-law of Pooja cannot be connected either with demand of dowry or with death of Pooja.
33. As far as suicide note relied upon by the prosecution is concerned, I do find that same is not proved to be in the handwriting of Pooja. PW-2 claimed that he had given admitted handwriting in the form of diary of Pooja to the IO, however, IO/PW-23 denied having received any such admitted handwriting or diary from PW-2. According to IO/PW-23, he made efforts to collect admitted handwriting of Pooja from her parents and CBSE, but could not get any handwriting. According to him, CBSE replied that answer sheets of deceased were already destroyed and (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 27 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar parents did not have any document with them. In this situation, contents of this suicide note cannot be read against the accused persons. However, they may be referred to against prosecution while examining the allegations made by the prosecution. As per this suicide note, Pooja allegedly said that she did not want to go back in that house, where nobody talked to her and where nobody loved her. Such note, if actually left behind by Pooja do not indicate to any instance of cruelty on account of demand of dowry or any other kind of demand. There may be different reasons as well for not having good relations with Pooja and for not showing sufficient love and affection to Pooja. All other reasons cannot be covered under ambit of either Section 498-A or 304-B IPC.
34. On behalf of defence, DW-1 and DW-2 were produced to prove prescription regarding medical treatment and skin problem of deceased Pooja. DW-3/Jagdish Prasad Sharma deposed that he was neighbour of accused persons and house of accused persons was at the level of road. His such contention was not rebutted by prosecution by producing any evidence to show that the house of accused persons was actually lower than the road level. Similar facts were deposed by DW-4 without any rebuttal. DW-7 deposed that he was instrumental in finalizing this marriage and none of the family members of Pooja made any complaint to him against the accused persons. This witness was also cited by the prosecution, but was dropped and prosecution did not give any explanation for dropping this witness, though confronted him with his alleged previous statement i.e. Ex.DW-7/PA, which was recorded by IO of the case. This witness denied making such statement (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 28 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar before IO and deposed that it was dowry less marriage.
35. From the over all appreciation of the testimony of aforesaid witnesses specially PW-2 and PW-3, I also find that these witnesses did not allege all facts relating to demand of dowry on the initial stage itself either before SDM or before IO. Illiteracy cannot be a ground for withholding details of facts relating to alleged demands. Shock of death of daughter may be a ground for not being able to give a complete statement and therefore a brief statement given before SDM can be excused on this ground. However, I find that the subsequent statements were given before police after long gap without disclosing any date of the demand or specific instances, when Pooja had told such facts to PW-2 and PW-3. In these circumstances, the allegations made before the Court by PW-2 and PW-3 do appear to be exaggerated and after thought version.
36. Furthermore, allegations of abstaining from physical relations or getting house hold work done from deceased or not talking to deceased do not constitute such cruelty so as to compel her to commit suicide.
37.As regards charge under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, prosecution evidence is totally silent in respect of any demand made by accused persons prior to, at the time of marriage or thereafter, as a condition for this marriage.
38. I am in agreement with defence argument that before raising assumption of guilt of accused persons for any charge, the quality of prosecution evidence must be of such a nature, which leaves no option, but to raise such assumption. In the present case, I do not find quality of prosecution evidence to be of such nature so as to exclude (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 29 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No.112/09 PS : Jyoti Nagar possibility of exaggeration, falsity or artificiality. Hence, I do find that the allegations regarding demand of dowry or any other kind of unlawful demand and the consequential harassment and cruelty caused to Pooja so as to compel her to commit suicide, are not proved beyond reasonable doubts.
39. In these circumstances, all accused persons are acquitted of all the charges.
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA)
today on 04.07.2015 Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara),
(This judgment contains 30 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
(Pulastya Pramachala)
Page no. 30 of 30 ASJ (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts / Delhi