Delhi District Court
State vs . Arun Kumar @ Sonu S/O Upender Kumar on 20 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 : North East / KARKARDOOMA
COURTS: DELHI.
Case ID Number. 02402R0267812010
Sessions Case No. 38/2010
Assigned to Sessions. 13.10.2010
Arguments heard on 12.04.2012
Date of Judgment 20.04.2012
FIR No. 116/2010
State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu s/o Upender Kumar
@ Ujjy, r/o B4/219, Nand Nagri, Delhi.
Police Station Nand Nagri
Under Section 498A/304B IPC
JUDGEMENT
1. Station House Officer of Police Station Nand Nagri had filed a challan vide FIR No. 116/2010 dated 12.06.2010 u/s 498A/304B IPC for the prosecution of accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu in the court of Ld. MM. Accordingly, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate after compliance of section 207 Cr. P.C. committed this case for trial before this court.
2. In brief, facts of the case are that on 11.06.2010 a DD No.24A Ex.PW1/B was recorded at police station Nand Nagri regarding hanging of a lady at House No.B 4/219, in front of Old Papasira Market, Nand Nagri, Delhi. On receipt of DD entry, SI Dhan Singh along with Ct. Raju Saini had reached there, one Upender SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 1/40 Kumar met him and he told him that wife of his son has committed suicide at the roof of first floor of his house by hanging herself. SI Dhan Singh went upstairs and found the door of the room locked from inside, electric bulb was lightening inside the room and he noticed one lady hanging with the hook of ceiling fan peeping from the space of that door. SI Dhan Singh had informed to senior police officials, crime team officials and SDM about the incident.
3. SDM and crime team officials reached at the spot and on the directions of SDM Sh. Vipin Garg, door of the room in question was broken. Crime team incharge had inspected the room and no suicidal note was found there.
4. On the direction of SDM, dead body was got down by cutting the Chunni and SI Dhan Singh had seized one piece of Chunni (matmaili) vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A. Parents of deceased were informed about the incident. S.I. Dhan Singh had also seized wearing jewellery from the dead body of deceased on the direction of SDM vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/B. Thereafter, SI Dhan Singh had got the dead body of Prem Lata preserved in the mortuary of GTB Hospital.
5. On 12.06.2010 SI Dhan Singh reached in Office of SDM, Nand Nagri, Delhi along with parents of deceased where SDM, Vipin Garg recorded their statements Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW3/A respectively and same were delivered to SI Dhan Singh to hand over the same to SHO to take action as per law. SHO Inspector N.S. Rana had made endorsement Ex.PW15/A upon the same to get the FIR registered for SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 2/40 offence u/s 498A/304B IPC. Accordingly, FIR Ex.PW1/D was recorded on the statement of Sh. Ramji Lal, father of deceased and investigation of the case was assigned to Inspector Randhir Singh.
6. SDM conducted inquest proceedings i.e. by filling up inquest form Ex.PW7/C, by recording statement of PW Manoj Ex.PW2/D and of Ramji Lal Ex.PW2/B regarding identification of dead body of deceased and by filling up request for postmortem Ex.PW7/D. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the father of deceased. Accordingly, accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu was arrested for the offences u/s 498A/304B IPC.
CHARGE:
7. On the basis of material available on record ld. predecessor of this court vide order dated 09.11.2010 framed a charge for the offence punishable u/s 498A/304B IPC against accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu to which accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
8. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 18 witnesses namely PW1 HC Dalchand, PW2 Sh. Ramji Lal, (father of deceased), PW3 Smt. Usha - mother of deceased, PW4 Sh. Manohar Lal, PW5 Ct. Phool Chand, PW6 Ct. Raju Saini, PW7 Sh. Vipin Garg - SDM, PW8 Ct. Zile Singh, PW9 Pandit Ravi Kumar Sharma, PW10 Sh. Vashu Dev Sharma, PW11 HC Ashok Kumar, PW12 SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 3/40 Ct. Mahipal, PW13 Dr. Ashok Najan, PW14 SI U. Balashankarm, PW15 SI Dhan Singh, PW16 Inspector Narender Singh Rana, PW17 Inspector Randhir Singh and PW18 Dr. Shabarish Dharampal.
9. PW1 HC Dalchand. This is a formal witness being duty officer. This witness has proved DD No.24A vide Ex.PW1/A and photocopy of FIR vide Ex.PW1/D.
10.PW2 Sh. Ramji Lal, father of deceased is a material witness being complainant. On his statement, present case had been registered. This witness has deposed that his daughter, Premlata was married with accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu on 29.10.2009 at Pratap Nagar and he had given golden ring, pajeb (two pairs), wrist watch, one silver coin, golden chain, one necklace (silver), five brass utensils, 31 pairs of clothes for gents and 31 pairs of clothes for ladies, double bed, sofa set, dressing table, electric iron, washing machine, colour television etc. in the marriage but no list of these articles was prepared at that time. This witness has further deposed that accused used to come along with Premlata from time to time and take her back along with him.
11.This witness has further deposed that on 07.06.2010 his daughter had told to his wife that her husband used to beat her on demand of motorcycle and on the same day, accused took his daughter back to her matrimonial house.
12.This witness has further deposed that on 11.06.2010 one telephone call received SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 4/40 by Manohar Lal at his house and informed him that his daughter is no more.
13.This witness has proved his statement Ex.PW2/A which was recorded by the SDM.
14.This witness has been cross examined by Ld. APP for the State on some material facts. In his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, this witness has supported the case of prosecution.
15.In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness has deposed that firstly police called him at police station to record his statement, thereafter he was taken by the police to SDM Office where SDM recorded his statement. This witness has further deposed that during the days of engagement there was no demand of motorcycle by accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu. This witness has further deposed that his daughter never disclosed to him regarding demand of motorcycle or any dowry articles.
16.PW3 Smt. Usha - mother of deceased is also a material witness. This witness has deposed that her daughter was treated well by her husband for period of two months after the marriage, thereafter, accused started to harass her daughter. This witness has further deposed that accused had demanded motorcycle from her daughter and he used to give beatings for demand of motorcycle and used to threaten her daughter by saying that he would kill he if she would not bring the SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 5/40 motorcycle from her parents.
17.This witness has further deposed that after about four or five months of marriage, she along with mediator Manohar Lal went to the house of accused, her daughter disclosed aforesaid facts to her in the presence of mediator and she tried to make understand the accused not to repeat same thing in future and accused had assured her thereon not to repeat harassment, beating for the demand of motorcycle from her daughter. Thereafter, on the same day after about ½ hour her daughter made call to her on telephone and she narrated same facts that accused is causing harassment for the demand of motorcycle. Thereafter, she sent her son Manoj to recall her daughter from the house of accused and her daughter came to her house on the same day.
18.This witness has further deposed that on 07.06.2010 there was satsang at her house and on this occasion she went to bring back her daughter to her parental house where accused refused to take her back to her parental house. This witness has further deposed that on the day of satsang, accused along with her daughter came at her house and accused took her daughter to his house after satsang while her daughter was not agreed to go with him. Thereafter, after about 3 or 4 days mediator Manohar Lal came at her house and told her that her daughter had been killed at her matrimonial house. This witness has proved her statement Ex.PW3/A recorded by SDM.
SC No.38/2010
State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 6/40
19.In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness has deposed that her daughter was treated well by her husband for a period of two months after the marriage. PW3 has further deposed that after two days accused had come to her house and requested her to accompany of deceased. PW3 has further deposed that on the day of satsang accused along with her daughter came at her house and accused took her daughter back to his house after satsang while her daughter was not agree to go with him. In her cross examination PW3 denied that her daughter Premlata was not happy to marry with accused on the day of marriage or that her daughter Premlata had love affair with some other boy at Pratap Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. between the day of marriage i.e. 29.10.2009 to the day of satsang i.e. 07.06.2010. PW3 has further deposed that he had visited matrimonial house of her daughter three times along with her family members and she used to stay hardly for one hour and whenever she had visited matrimonial house of her daughter, she found behaviour of her inlaws quite well for her. PW3 has further deposed that SDM had recorded her statement in his own handwriting. PW3 has further deposed that she had not made any complaint with police on the complaint of her daughter with them. PW3 denied that the list of dowry articles was not prepared on the day of marriage of her daughter. It was prepared by her brother inlaw (jaith) Chiranji Lal and same is written by him. PW3 admits that she had engaged her private counsel for her assistance and she was tutored by her counsel to depose before the court.
20.PW4 Sh. Manohar Lal is the mediator of the marriage of accused Arun Kumar @ SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 7/40 Sonu with deceased. This witness has been declared hostile by ld. APP for the State. Even in his cross examination this witness has not supported the case of prosecution. This witness has deposed that whenever, he had visited the matrimonial house of Premlata he found her happy there and there was no demand of dowry from the side of husband of Premlata and her inlaws. His statement Ex.PW4/A has been confronted by Ld. APP for the State.
21.PW5 Ct. Phool Chand. This is the witness of arrest of accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu. In his present accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu has been formally arrested by Inspector Randhir Singh vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW5/B.
22.PW6 Ct. Raju Saini. This witness had remained with the SI Dhan Singh during the course of investigation and reached at the spot i.e. roof of first floor of House No.B4/219, Nand Nagri, Delhi. In his presence door of the room was broken by SI Dhan Singh. Dead body was sent to GTB Hospital for postmortem examination in his custody. This witness had taken the same and got preserved in the mortuary of GTB Hospital and remained on duty as guard with dead body till the postmortem of dead body and releasing of the same to the legal heirs for cremation. In his presence Chunni was seized by I.O. vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A and one pair of tops, four bichwas and two plastic bangles after putting off from the dead body were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/B by I.O. After postmortem of dead body hospital staff had delivered one sealed parcel containing SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 8/40 part of chunni which was tied under the neck of deceased along with sample seal which was seized by the I.O. vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/C.
23.PW7 Sh. Vipin Garg is the SDM who had recorded statements of parents of deceased vide Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW3/A respectively and completed inquest proceedings and got the postmortem examination of dead body from GTB Hospital.
24.In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness admits that the door of the room had already been broken before his reaching at the spot. This witness neither admit nor deny whether crime team officials had taken photographs of scene of crime on his direction or not.
25.PW8 Ct. Zile Singh is the photographer who had taken eight photographs of the place of incident at the instance of SI Dhan Singh. This witness has proved the same photographs vide Ex.PW8/A1 to A8 and negatives Ex.PW8/B1 to B8.
26.PW9 Pandit Ravi Kumar Sharma. This is the pandit who had performed marriage of accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu with Premlata deceased.
27.PW10 Sh. Vashu Dev Sharma. This witness has been declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State. Even in his cross examination, this witness has supported the case of prosecution. His statement Ex.PW10/A has been confronted by ld. APP SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 9/40 for the State. This witness has deposed that accused had treated with his wife Premlata properly and no quarrel had taken place between them.
28.In his cross examination, this witness has deposed that no one had made any complaint to him regarding the demand of motorcycle or beatings or cruelty with deceased on the demand of dowry by accused. This witness has further deposed that he had not seen quarrel on 11.06.2010 between accused Arun Kumar and deceased Premlata, however, local public persons had told him about this fact.
29.PW11 HC Ashok Kumar. This is the witness of arrest of accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu. In his presence I.O. Inspector Randhir Singh had formally arrested accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu with the permission of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Link MM vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW5/B.
30.PW12 Ct. Mahipal. This is the witness of recording of disclosure statement of accused. In his presence I.O. had interrogated accused and accused had made is disclosure statement Ex.PW12/A and in pursuance of disclosure statement accused let them to his house i.e. B4/200, Nand Nagri, Delhi and there he pointed out the place of occurrence and I.O. had prepared the point out memo Ex.PW12/B.
31.PW13 Dr. Ashok Najan. This witness has proved external injuries on the dead body at encircled portion 'X' of postmortem report Ex.PW13/A on behalf of Dr. SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 10/40 Vivek Srivastava wherein cause of death was opined asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.
32.PW14 SI U. Balashankarm. This witness has proved the SOC report vide Ex.PW14/A.
33.PW15 SI Dhan Singh, is a material witness being I.O. On 11.06.2010, copy of DD No.24A, Ex.PW1B, was assigned to this witness by D.O. which was in connection of hanging a lady at H. No. B4/219, in front of Old Papasira Market, Nand Nagari, Delhi and this witness along with Ct. Raju Saini reached there in pursuance of aforesaid DD entry. On reaching there, one Upender Kumar met him and he told him that wife of his son has committed suicide at the roof of first floor of his house by hanging herself. This witness went upstairs and found the door of the room locked from inside, electric bulb was lightening inside the room and this witness had noticed that one lady hanging with the hook of ceiling fan peeping from the space of that door. Thereafter, this witness had informed to senior police officials, crime team official and SDM about the incident.
34.This witness has deposed that on the direction of SDM Sh. Vipin Garg, door of the room in question was broken and he along with SDM and crime team officials entered inside the room and dead body was inspected by them. Thereafter, photographer Ct. Jile Singh also took some photographs of hanging female dead body from different angles. Crime team incharge - S.I. U. Balashankaram SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 11/40 searched the room and no suicidal note was found there.
35.This witness has further deposed that on the direction of SDM dead body was got down by cutting the Chunni. Parents of deceased - Sh. Ramji Lal and Smt. Usha came at the spot who were informed about the incident by someone. This witness had seized one piece of Chunni (matmaili), upon which flowers and leaves were printed, after removing from the hook of ceiling fan vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A after converting into a parcel and sealing with the seal of P.S. on the directions of SDM.
36.This witness has further deposed that on the direction of SDM wearing jewellery from the dead body was removed and he had seized one pair of golden colour earrings, one golden colour nose pin (koka), four Chutkis (bichwas), two plastic Kangan and three plastic bangles vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/B after converting into a parcel and sealing with the seal of P.S. This witness had got preserved the dead body in the mortuary of GTB Hospital through Ct. Raju and he was directed to guard the dead body.
37.This witness has further deposed that parents of deceased were not a position to make their statements at that time. SDM, directed him to produce them in his office on the following day.
38.This witness has further deposed that on next day, he along with parents of SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 12/40 deceased reached in the Office of SDM, Nand Nagari, Delhi where SDM had recorded their statements which were delivered to him, upon which SDM had made endorsement to take action as per the law addressing to SHO. This witness had returned to P.S. and presented statement of parents of deceased, Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW3/A, before SHO/Inspector Narender Singh Rana and he had made endorsement Ex.PW15/A to get the FIR registered for offence u/s 498A/304B IPC. This witness has further deposed that rukka was presented before the D.O./HC Dal Chand, who had recorded FIR of present case Ex.PW1/D which was delivered to Inspector Investigation Ranbir Singh. This witness had delivered documents prepared by him to I.O.
39.During the course of investigation, on the direction of I.O., this witness had reached at the mortuary of GTB Hospital to complete the inquest proceeding and on the direction and dictation of SDM, this witness had completed inquest proceeding by filling up inquest form Ex.PW7/C, by recording statement of Manoj Kumar Ex.PW2/D, statement of Sh. Ramji Lal, Ex.PW2/B regarding identification of dead body and by filling up request for postmortem Ex.PW7/D. SDM put his signatures on aforesaid inquest papers and same were sent to the doctor conducting postmortem along with photocopies of other relevant documents for postmortem examination. SDM left the mortuary and directed him to release the dead body after postmortem examination to its legal heirs.
40.This witness has further deposed that postmortem was conducted by two doctors SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 13/40 vide P.M. Report Ex.PW13/A and after postmortem dead body was released to the father of deceased against receipt Ex.PW2/C. This witness had taken into possession one sealed parcel containing one piece of Chunni which was taken out from the neck of deceased by the doctor during the postmortem and one sample seal vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/C. Thereafter, this witness had returned to P.S. and deposited the aforesaid sealed parcel and sample seal to MHC(M).
41.I.O. had prepared site plan on 13.06.2010 on the pointing out of this witness, at the spot vide Ex.PW15/B.
42.This witness had proved 8 photographs available on judicial file, Ex.PW8/A1 to A8 which are depicting the deceased hanging with hook of ceiling fan and room where incident had taken place.
43.This witness has correctly identified part of Chunni as Article1 and one pair of golden colour earrings, one golden colour nose pin (koka), four Chutkis (bichwas), two plastic Kangan and three plastic bangles as Article2 collectively and other part of Chunni as article3 which was in the neck of deceased at the time of sending the dead body for postmortem examination.
44.This witness has been cross examined at length by ld. defence counsel. In his cross examination this witness has deposed that he had been posted at police station Nand Nagri from August'2009 to July'2010 and during this period he had SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 14/40 not received any complaint against accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu either of beatings or committing cruelty against his wife or any person.
45.PW16 Inspector Narender Singh Rana is the part I.O. This witness has deposed that on 12.06.2010, he was posted at P.S. Nand Nagari, Delhi as SHO and on that day, statement of Ramji Lal recorded by Sh. Vipin Garg, SDM, Seema Puri, Delhi was presented before him by S.I. Dhan Singh. This witness had read over the same and made endorsement already Ex.PW15/A, to register a case for offence u/s 498A/304B IPC and investigation of this case was handed over to Inspector Randhir Singh. This witness has further deposed that investigation of this case was completed by S.I. Dhan Singh and Inspector Randhir Singh under his supervision and on the completion of investigation chargesheet was prepared by them which is Ex.PW16/A.
46.In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness has denied that he had made endorsement in a mechanical manner on the statement of complainant.
47.PW17 Inspector Randhir Singh is a material witness being I.O. of the present case. This witness has deposed that on 12.06.2010, he was posted as Inspector investigation at P.S. Nand Nagari, Delhi and on that day, investigation of this case was assigned to him. D.O./HC Dalchand had delivered rukka, Ex.PW1/C, and copy of FIR, Ex.PW1/D and he had reached at the spot at about 11:30pm along with S.I. Dhan Singh, and inspected the place of occurrence i.e. Room of H.No.B SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 15/40 4/219, Nand Nagari, Delhi and prepared site plan at the instance of S.I. Dhan Singh, Ex.PW15/B.
48.During the course of investigation, on 16.06.2010 this witness had recorded the statement of complainant Ramji Lal and delivered a copy of FIR to him.
49.During the course of investigation, on 21.06.2010, this witness had produced mother of deceased before SDM, where, statement, Ex.PW3/A of Smt. Usha was recorded by SDM.
50.During the course of investigation, on 25.06.2010, at about 03:10pm, this witness had formally arrested accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu, present vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A and personal search memo Ex.PW5/B with the permission of court in the presence of Ct. Phool Chand and HC Ashok Kumar.
51.This witness has proved disclosure statement of accused vide Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW17/A. This witness has also proved pointing out memo vide Ex.PW12/B.
52.During the course of investigation this witness had recorded statements of S.I. U. Balashankaram, Ct. Zile Singh (photographer), Ct. Mahipal and HC Ashok time to time and had collected the SOC report Ex.PW11/A, photographs of scene of occurrence Ex.PW8/A1 to Ex.PW8/A8, P.M. Report Ex.PW13/A. SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 16/40
53.In his cross examination, this witness has deposed that during his tenure at police station Nand Nagri he had not received any kind of complaint against accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu and he cannot say about other I.O. whether they had received complaint or not.
54.PW18 Dr. Shabarish Dharampal. This witness has proved postmortem report Ex.PW13/A on behalf of Dr. Vivek Srivastava.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C.:
55.After prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused had denied all the allegations and evidences and circumstances put to him. Accused admits that deceased was not willing to live with him as she had love affair with some other boy. She used to like live with her parents so that she easily could make meeting with her boyfriend. Accused further admits that he had never made any demand of dowry with her at any point of time and had never harassed, tortured her on account of demand of dowry and he had not given beatings to her at any point of time. Accused had preferred to lead defence evidence but he could not produce defence witnesses. Hence, D.E. was closed and matter was listed for arguments.
ARGUMENTS :
SC No.38/2010
State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 17/40
56.Ld. APP for state, Sh. Zenual Abedeen argued that on the statement of PW Ramji Lal, father of deceased Ex.PW2/A before the SDM present FIR Ex.PW1/D u/s 498A/304B IPC was registered at Police Station Nand Nagri. Accordingly, accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu was arrested for the offences u/s 498A/ 304B IPC. Ld. APP for State submits that statements of parents of deceased are sufficient to prove the case of prosecution.
57.Ld. APP for the State further submits that PW Ramji Lal, father of deceased and PW3 Smt. Usha, mother of deceased are the most material witnesses. Ld. APP for the State further submits that both these PWs have supported the case of prosecution.
58.Ld. APP for the State further submits that there is continuous harassment of deceased by accused from the statement of PW2 Sh. Ramji Lal and PW3 Smt. Usha. PW4 Manohar Lal is a hostile witness.
59.PW1 HC Dalchand is duty officer. PW5 Ct. Phool Chand is witness of arrest of accused. PW6 Ct. Raju Saini is the witness of seizing and sealing. PW7 Sh. Vipin Garg is the witness of recording of statement of complainant. PW8 Ct. Zile Singh is photographer. PW9 Pandit Ravi Kumar Sharma is witness who had got performed marriage of accused with the deceased. PW11 HC Ashok Kumar is the witness of arrest of accused. PW14 SI U. Balashankaram had prepared SOC report Ex.PW14/A. PW13 Dr. Ashok Najan and PW18 Dr. Shaharish Dharampal SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 18/40 have proved the postmortem report Ex.PW13/A on behalf of Dr. Vivek Srivastava. PW16 Inspector Narender Singh Rana has sent rukka and made endorsement for registration of FIR.
60.Ld. APP for the State further submits that PW SDM has supported the case of prosecution as he had proved the statement of PW Ramji Lal on which case u/s 498A/304B IPC was registered against the accused persons.
61.Ld. APP for the State further submits that no PWs have given clean chit to accused persons. Ld. APP for the State further submits that no one would like to die.
62.Ld. APP for the State further submits that deceased Prem Lala had died unnaturally within seven years of marriage. Ld. APP for state further submits that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. On these grounds, Ld. APP for the State has submitted that there are sufficient evidence to convict the accused.
Arguments on behalf of accused persons:
63.Ld. counsel for accused has submitted that marriage of deceased Premlata with accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu was solemnized in year 2009 and till her life time no complaint of dowry was made.
SC No.38/2010
State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 19/40
64.Ld. counsel for accused has further submitted that as per version of PW1 rukka had been prepared on 12.06.2010 whereas FIR had been registered on 11.06.2010 at 10:35 p.m.
65.Ld. counsel for accused has further submitted that PW2 states that no list of dowry articles at the time of marriage was prepared whereas list of articles has been placed as Ex.PW3/D. Ld. counsel for accused has further submitted that PW2 is a hearsay witness.
66.Ld. counsel for accused has further submitted that statement of PW2 Sh. Ramji Lal is different from SDM and in the court. In his cross examination, this witness has deposed that firstly police called him at police station to record his statement thereafter he was taken by the police to SDM office where SDM had recorded his statement. In his cross examination PW2 admits that neither he nor his daughter had made any complaint either to police station at Ghaziabad or at police station Nand Nagari or CAW Cell at Delhi or at Ghaziabad, U.P.
67.Ld. counsel for accused has further argued that PW3 Smt. Usha has deposed that her daughter was treated well by her husband for a period of two months after the marriage. PW3 has further deposed that after two days accused had come to her house and requested her to accompany of deceased.
SC No.38/2010
State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 20/40
68.Ld. counsel for accused has further argued that PW3 has deposed that on the day of satsang accused along with her daughter came at her house and accused took her daughter back to his house after satsang while her daughter was not agree to go with him. In her cross examination PW3 denied that her daughter Premlata was not happy to marry with accused on the day of marriage or that her daughter Premlata had love affair with some other boy at Pratap Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. between the day of marriage i.e. 29.10.2009 to the day of satsang i.e. 07.06.2010. PW3 has further deposed that he had visited matrimonial house of her daughter three times along with her family members and she used to stay hardly for one hour and whenever she had visited matrimonial house of her daughter, she found behaviour of her inlaws quite well for her. PW3 has further deposed that SDM had recorded her statement in his own handwriting. PW3 has further deposed that she had not made any complaint with police on the complaint of her daughter with them. PW3 denied that the list of dowry articles was not prepared on the day of marriage of her daughter. It was prepared by her brotherinlaw (jaith) Chiranji Lal and same is written by him. PW3 admits that she had engaged her private counsel for her assistance and she was tutored by her counsel to depose before the court.
69.Ld. counsel for accused has further argued that PW4 Manohar Lal has deposed that whenever he had visited the matrimonial house of Premlata he found her happy there and there was no demand for dowry from the side of husband of Premlata and her inlaws. In his cross examination PW4 has deposed that there SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 21/40 was no demand of dowry from the side of accused on the day of marriage and thereafter. PW4 further admits that he had not visited the matrimonial house of deceased Premlata at the request of her parents.
70.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that PW6 Ct. Raju Saini has deposed that they had seen hanging female dead body peeping through a gap in the door inside the room of abovesaid house which was locked from inside whereas PW7 has deposed that door of the room had already been broken before his reaching at the spot.
71.Ld. counsel for accused has further argued that PW10 Sh. Vashu Dev Sharma has deposed that accused had treated his wife Premlata properly and no quarrel had taken place between them. In his cross examination this witness has deposed that no one had made any complaint to him regarding the demand of motorcycle or beatings or cruelty with deceased on the demand of dowry by accused. PW10 has deposed that he had not seen quarrel on 11.06.2010 between accused Arun Kumar and deceased Premlata, however, local public persons had told him about this fact.
72.Ld. counsel for accused has further argued that PW12 Ct. Mahipal has deposed that in pursuance of disclosure statement, accused led them to his house i.e. B 4/200, Nand Nagri, Delhi whereas house of accused is B4/219, Nand Nagri, Delhi.
SC No.38/2010
State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 22/40
73.Ld. counsel for accused has further argued that PW13 has proved postmortem report of deceased.
74.Ld. counsel for accused has further argued that in his cross examination PW8 Ct. Zile Singh has deposed that their control room 50 had received information of present incident at about 8:45 pm or 9:00 pm whereas PW14 had inspected the spot at about 10:30 p.m.
75.Ld. counsel for accused has further argued that PW15 has deposed that he found the door of the room locked from inside. Electric bulb was lightening inside the room and he notice one lady hanging with the hook of ceiling fan peeping from the space of that door and on direction of SDM, Sh. Vipin Garg, door of the room in question was broken and he along with SDM and crime team officials entered inside the room.
76.Ld. counsel for accused has further submitted that there is contradictions on the fact that door of the room had already been broken before reaching of SDM whereas PW SI Dhan Singh states that he had broken the door in the presence of SDM.
77.Ld. counsel for accused has further submitted that PW17 has deposed that during his tenure at police station Nand Nagri he had not received any kind of complaint against accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu and he cannot say about other I.O. whether SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 23/40 they had received complaint or not.
78.Ld. counsel for accused persons has further submitted that there is no allegation of demand of dowry. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that allegations are general, vague and no specific allegation against any of accused persons.
79.Ld. counsel for accused persons has further submitted that no fact of harassment, cruelty and demand of dowry in relation to soon before death has come on record.
80.Ld. counsel for accused has further submitted that there is no ingredients of 304B and 498A IPC. On these grounds, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has prayed for acquittal of accused from the charges.
PERUSAL OF RECORD/OPINION:
81.Arguments heard. Record perused. On perusal of record it is revealed that on 11.06.2010 a DD No.24A Ex.PW1/B was recorded at police station Nand Nagri regarding hanging of a lady at House No.B4/219, in front of Old Papasira Market, Nand Nagri, Delhi. On receipt of DD entry, SI Dhan Singh along with Ct. Raju Saini had reached there, one Upender Kumar met him and he told him that wife of his son has committed suicide at the roof of first floor of his house by hanging herself. SI Dhan Singh went upstairs and found the door of the room locked from inside, electric bulb was lightening inside the room and he noticed one lady hanging with the hook of ceiling fan peeping from the space of that door. SI Dhan SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 24/40 Singh had informed to senior police officials, crime team officials and SDM about the incident.
82.SDM and crime team officials reached at the spot and on the directions of SDM Sh. Vipin Garg, door of the room in question was broken. On the direction of SDM, dead body was got down by cutting the Chunni and SI Dhan Singh had seized one piece of Chunni (matmaili) vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A. Parents of deceased were informed about the incident. S.I. Dhan Singh had also seized wearing jewellery from the dead body of deceased on the direction of SDM vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/B. Thereafter, SI Dhan Singh had got the dead body of Prem Lata preserved in the mortuary of GTB Hospital.
83.Thereafter, on 12.06.2010 SI Dhan Singh reached in Office of SDM, Nand Nagri, Delhi along with parents of deceased where SDM, Vipin Garg recorded their statements Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW3/A respectively and same were delivered to SI Dhan Singh to hand over the same to SHO to take action as per law. SHO Inspector N.S. Rana had made endorsement Ex.PW15/A upon the same to get the FIR registered for offence u/s 498A/304B IPC. Accordingly, FIR No.116/2010 Ex.PW1/E was recorded on the statement of Sh. Ramji Lal, father of deceased and investigation of the case was assigned to Inspector Randhir Singh. Accordingly, accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu was arrested for the offences u/s 498A/304B IPC.
84.On perusal of record, it is revealed that SDM had conducted inquest proceedings SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 25/40 i.e. by filling up inquest form Ex.PW7/C, by recording statement of PW Manoj Ex.PW2/D and of Ramji Lal Ex.PW2/B regarding identification of dead body of deceased and by filling up request for postmortem Ex.PW7/D. After postmortem the dead body was handed over to the father of deceased.
85.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that SI Dhan Singh had seized one piece of Chunni (matmaili) vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A. Parents of deceased were informed about the incident. S.I. Dhan Singh had also seized wearing jewellery from the dead body of deceased on the direction of SDM vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/B.
86.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that after postmortem the dead body of deceased was handed over to the relatives of deceased against receipt Ex.PW2/C.
87.On further perusal of record it is revealed that IO Inspector Randhir Singh had prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence vide Ex.PW15/B.
88.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that IO had arrested accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu vide arrest memo Ex. as PW5/A and he had also prepared his personal search memo Ex.PW5/B. I.O. had also recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW12/A and PW17/A respectively.
89.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that postmortem report has been proved SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 26/40 vide Ex.PW13/A by PW13 Dr. Ashok Najan and PW18 Dr. Shabarish Dharampal on behalf of Dr. Vivek Srivastava and opined cause of death in this case Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging.
90.Before reaching any conclusion, it will be relevant to discuss section 498A and 304B IPC, section 498A and 304B IPC are being reproduced hereunder:
498A IPC. Husband or relative of husband of 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 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 or any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
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 he called 'dowry death', and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation : For the purpose of this subsection, '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.
Section 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 had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 27/40 demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation. For the purpose of this section "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
91.Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reached a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process the court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct, etc. in relation to the facts of the case.
92.Hon'ble Supreme court in "Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116" has laid down the parameters for arriving at an opinion in regard to proof of a prosecution case on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, stating:
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 28/40 drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made :
'19.....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusion.' (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the Panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."
93.As per the definition of `dowry death' in Section 304 B IPC and the wording in the presumptive Section 113 B of the Evidence Act, one of the essential ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions is that the concerned woman must have been "soon before her death" subjected to cruelty or harassment "for in connection with the demand of dowry". The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials :
(1)The question before the Court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304 B IPC ).SC No.38/2010
State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 29/40 (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.
94.As into the facts of present case, wherein present case was registered on the complaint of PW2 Ramjil Lal, father of deceased who is the hearsay witness. Deceased had never told him any fact of cruelty or harassment on account of demand of dowry by the accused. This witness in his statement before SDM has stated that accused used to demand motorcycle and on that account he used to beat deceased. Further, he has stated that on 07.06.2010 he had organized a Satsang at his house where accused and his daughter had come together and after satsang deceased had told him that accused used to beat her on account of demand of motorcycle. PW3 Smt. Usha in her statement before SDM has stated that her daughter was quite well upto two months after her marriage and thereafter, accused had demanded one motorcycle from deceased. This witness also stated before SDM that on the day of satsang accused had asked her for motorcycle.
95.In their testimony before the court PW Ramji Lal had stated that accused used to come along with his daughter from time to time and take her back along with him. Here PW Ramji Lal submits that on 07.06.2010 his wife had told him that accused used to beat her daughter on demand of motorcycle.
SC No.38/2010
State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 30/40
96.PW3 Smt. Usha in her testimony before the court had stated that her daughter was well treated by her husband for a period of two month after her marriage, thereafter, accused started demand of motorcycle from her. Accused had also threatened her daughter by saying that he would kill her if she would not bring motorcycle from her parents. On this complaint this witness had gone to the house of accused with mediator Manohar Lal. This witness had sent her son Manoj to recall her daughter from the house of accused on receiving a phone call from her daughter wherein she had narrated that accused had causing harassment for demand of motorcycle. This witness further submits that after two days accused had come to her house and requested her to accompany deceased. Accordingly, she had allowed to attend her matrimonial home.
97.The primary requirement of section 304B IPC are that death of deceased was caused by burns or bodily injuries within 7 years of her marriage or that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused for in connection with demand of dowry.
98.Hon'ble Supreme court in 'Shamlal Vs. State of Haryana, (1997) 9 Supreme Court cases 759' has held that :
"Presumption as to dowry death under section of 113 B of Evidence Act when may be invoked. Imperative to prove that soon before her death the wife was subjected to cruelty and harassment for or in connection of demand for dowry."SC No.38/2010
State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 31/40
99.Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled "Hira Lal Vs. State, (2003) 8 SCC 80, wherein Apex Court has observed that :
"The expression 'soon before' is very relevant where Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by the prosecution. 'Soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in that importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence act. The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression 'soon before' is not defined. A reference to the expression 'soon before' used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods 'soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the good knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for their possession'. The determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before' is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate taht the expression 'soon before' would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. 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 woman concerned, it would be of no consequence."
100.In order to prove its case prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses out SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 32/40 of them PW2, PW3, PW4 Manohar Lal and PW10 Sh. Vashu Dev Sharma are material witnesses and other are formal witnesses and I.O.
101.PW4 Manohar Lal in his testimony before this court submits that whenever he had visited matrimonial house of deceased he found her happy there and there was no demand for dowry from accused and his parents. This witness was declared hostile by ld. APP for the State. During his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, this witness has confronted his statement with the police on the facts that he had visited the matrimonial house of deceased after some months of marriage when accused Arun Kumar and his parents were harassing deceased for demand of dowry as it was told him by parents of deceased. In cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness had submitted that there was no demand of dowry from the side of accused on the day of marriage or thereafter and that this witness had not visited matrimonial house of deceased at the request of her parents.
102.Hon'ble Supreme court in case titled as Hans Raj vs. State of Haryana, (2004) 12 SCC 257, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :
"Unlike Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, a statutory presumption does not arise by operation of law merely on proof of the circumstances enumerated in Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. Under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution has first to establish that the woman concerned committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband had subjected her to cruelty. Even if these facts are established the court is not bound to presume that the suicide SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 33/40 had been abetted by her husband. Section 113A gives a discretion to the court to raise such a presumption, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, which means that where the allegation is of cruelty it must consider the nature of cruelty to which the woman was subjected, having regard to the meaning of the word "cruelty" in Section 498A IPC.
103.The mere fact that a woman committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband, does not automatically give rise to the presumption that the suicide had been abetted by her husband. The court is required to look into all the other circumstances of the case.
One of the circumstances which has to be considered by the court is whether the alleged cruelty was of such nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman."
104.From the testimonies of PWs Ramji Lal, Smt. Usha and Manohar Lal no where either in their statement before SDM or police or in their testimony before the court these PWs had alleged that accused had caused harassment or cruelty on account of demand of dowry upon the deceased soon before her death.
105.Moreover, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused in his defence has stated that he is innocent and deceased was not willing to live with him as she had love affair with some other boy and she used to live with her parents.
106.Moreover, from the perusal of record it is also reveals from statement u/s 313 Cr. SC No.38/2010
State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 34/40 P.C. that marriage was dowry less. List of articles has been placed by prosecution was not signed by the accused which bears signature of complainant Ramji Lal which raised presumption that no dowry articles were given at the time of marriage.
107.In order to bring the case in ambit of 304B IPC besides presumption of 113B of Evidence Act, it also be looked into that if soon before death such woman has been subjected to creulty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry then the court shall presume that person has committed the dowry death whereas into the facts of present case from the testimony of PW2 Ramji Lal and PW3 Smt. Usha it has not come on record that soon before death deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection of demand of dowry. Even postmortem report also does not suggest any antemortem injury on the person of deceased by which it may be presumed that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment. Postmortem report only suggest ligature mark on the neck of the deceased and no other injury has been suggested therein. Merely by saying that accused has committed cruelty cannot be presumed to have been caused upon the deceased by accused.
108.To bring home the guilt of accused prosecution must proves its case beyond reasonable doubt. Burden would not shift on accused merely on the basis of prosecution allegations that death had occurred within 7 years of marriage without even proving the requiring preliminary facts.
SC No.38/2010
State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 35/40
109.PW2 Ramji Lal in his testimony has stated that on 11.06.2010 he had received a phone call from Manohar Lal at his house that his daughter is no more. Immediately he had informed his son, people of locality and 3035 people went to matrimonial house of deceased but none of them had been examined by the prosecution for the purpose of proving their case.
110.PW3 has also stated in her statement that when she was coming to her house after making the accused understand to not repeat harassment and beating for demand of dowry from her deceased daughter. On the same day, after half an hour her daughter had made a call to her and narrated that accused was causing harassment for demand of motorcycle. Thereafter, this witness had sent her son Manoj to recall her daughter from the house of accused and her daughter had come to her house on the same but on this fact also Manoj has not been examined by prosecution to prove its case.
111.Now question arise as to what extent testimony of PW2 and PW3 are reliable. If we go through the testimony of PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW10, in totality it reveals that testimony of PW 2 and PW3 are not reliable on the facts of section 304B IPC as no where in their testimony it could come on record that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection of demand of dowry soon before her death.
112.Even, in reference to term 'soon before death' no circumstances have been proved SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 36/40 by the prosecution connecting the accused persons subjected to cruelty or harassment upon deceased on account of demand of dowry. In terms of section 113B Evidence Act the term 'soon before death' lead to presumption that accused had caused dowry death. Since in the present case ingredients of section 304B IPC have not been fulfilled. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "State of Rajasthan Vs. Teg Bahadur, 2004(8) J.T. 116", has held that:
"Prosecution has to prove 1. The death of married woman was within seven years of marriage. 2. a little prior to death, her husband or relative on point of demand of dowry subjected cruelty to her or harassed her. 3. Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of natural or accidental death so as to bring within purview of "death occurring otherwise then in normal circumstances".
"On the careful scrutiny of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, it is seen that witnesses have given different statements regarding demand of dowry. According to him, with respect to dowry, dispute was raised at the time of marriage. According to Om Prakash, when Suman returned to her parents' house, she complained about demand of dowry by the inlaws. There is no corroboration about the statement of Om Prakash by the statement of his wife Smt. Hira Bai. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion, that there is lack of evidence to prove the demand of dowry and that the evidence led by the prosecution bristles with discrepancies and contradictions. On the basis of the evidence, it could not be treated to have been proved that actually the accused had made a demand of dowry and that was made soon before the death and due to this, the deceased was harassed."
113.After taking into consideration, evidence available on record, testimonies of PWs and arguments, this court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has been failed to bring home the guilt of accused under section 304B IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
SC No.38/2010
State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 37/40
114.As far as section 498A IPC is concerned, PW2 Ramji Lal has stated in his cross examination by ld. defence counsel that his daughter never disclosed him regarding demand of motorcycle or any dowry articles and he further deposed that he never enquired this fact from his daughter. He further submits that neither he nor his daughter had made any complaint either to police station at Ghaziabad or Police Station Nand Nagri or at CAW Cell Nand Nagri or Ghaziabad. He further submits that on the day of satsang his daughter was with him whole day and that accused Arun Kumar had taken dinner on the day of satsang at about 9:30 or 10:00 p.m. PW3 Smt. Usha submits that after about 34 days mediator Manohar lal had come at her house and told her that her daughter had been killed at her matrimonial house. She along with her husband and other relatives had reached at the matrimonial house of deceased. There is contradictions between the testimony of PW2 and PW3 on the fact that PW4 Manohar Lal had informed on phone to PW2 that her daughter is no more.
115.Since it had not come on record that accused had repeated the demand of dowry articles. Moreover, no specific date has been mentioned except the date of satsang and date of marriage rest of the allegations are bald which has not been corroborated by PW4 Manohar Lal and PW10 Vasu Dev Sharma wherein PW4 Manohar Lal (mediator) had shown his ignorance that if any motorcycle demanded by accused from deceased or her parents and that he has refused that he had visited the matrimonial house of deceased after some months of marriage when accused Arun and his parents were harassing and demanding dowry from SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 38/40 deceased. On this fact this witness has been confronted with his statement Ex.PW4/A. This witness has further denied the suggestion that accused used to beat Premlata on demand of dowry i.e. motorcycle etc. or that Premlata had made complaint against her husband and her in laws before him saying that she was being harassed for more dowry or motorcycle etc. In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness submits that there was no demand of dowry from the side of accused on the day of marriage and thereafter, he had not visited the matrimonial house of deceased at the request of her parents. PW10 Vashu Dev Sharma who is the landlord of accused and deceased, this witness had submitted that accused had treated her wife Premlata (since deceased) properly and no quarrel had taken place between them. This witness had been declared hostile by ld. APP for the State. In his cross examination by APP this witness denied the suggestion that deceased (Premlata) used to complain against her husband Arun Kumar to him on the fact of demanding of motorcycle from her and used to give beatings to deceased or that on the day of incident a quarrel had taken place between Arun Kumar and Premlata (since deceased) on demand of dowry or motorcycle. In his cross examination by ld. counsel for accused, this witness had stated that no one has made any complaint to him regarding demand of motorcycle or beatings or cruelty with deceased on demand of dowry by accused and that he had not seen quarrel on 11.06.2010 between accused Arun Kumar and deceased Premlata and that Premlata used to leave her matrimonial house to her parental house without any reasons.
SC No.38/2010
State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 39/40
116.Further, none of PWs had stated that complaints were made to any authority regarding demand of dowry against the accused.
117.In totality of facts and circumstances, evidence available on record and arguments of the parties, requirement of section 498A IPC has also not been fulfilled to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
118.On close scrutiny of testimonies of PWs, evidence and circumstances available on record and arguments, at this stage, this court comes to the conclusion that the case of prosecution does not inspire the confidence of this court as prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu u/s 304B/498A IPC beyond the reasonable doubt. Hence, in the absence of sufficient evidence against the accused this court acquit accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu from charges u/s 498A/304B IPC by giving him benefit of doubt.
119.In terms of Section 437 (A) Cr. P.C. accused Arun Kumar @ Sonu is directed to execute bail bond in sum of Rs.20,000/ with one surety in the like amount for the period of six months. File be consigned to record room. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20.04.2012 (RAMESH KUMARII) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE01/NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI SC No.38/2010 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Sonu 40/40