Delhi District Court
State vs Jitender And Others on 12 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR NO. DLST01-009606-2021
IN THE MATTER OF
SESSIONS CASE NO. 431 OF 2021
FIR NO 159/2010
POLICE STATION : SANGAM VIHAR
UNDER SECTION : 498A/304B/34 IPC
State
Versus
1. Jitender Kumar
S/o Maha Ram,
R/o House No. 1128/12, I-Block,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
2. Maha Ram
S/o Sh. Kishan Lal,
R/o House No. I-12/1128,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
3. Laxmi (abated vide Order dated 15.01.2022)
W/o Maha Ram,
R/o House No. I-12/1128,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. ......Accused persons
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 02.08.2010
DATE OF COMMITTAL : 27.08.2010
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 04.11.2023
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.01.2024
Digitally signed by
NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA
BUDHIRAJA 12:47:53
Date: 2024.01.12
+0530
FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 1 of 59
JUDGMENT
The case of the prosecution is that on 10.05.2010 at about 06:00 AM at House No. 1128/12, I-Block, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, deceased Preeti was found dead under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage with accused Jitender. The allegation against accused Jitender (husband of the deceased), Maha Ram (father-in-law of the deceased) and accused Laxmi (mother-in-law) (now deceased) is that they all in furtherance of their common intention subjected the deceased Preeti to cruelty of such a nature which was likely to drive her to commit suicide and harassed her with a view to coerce her and her relatives to meet the unlawful dowry demand. It is further alleged against the accused persons that in furtherance of their common intention, they caused dowry death of deceased Preeti who died under abnormal circumstances within seven years of her marriage.
2. After conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (Ld. MM) on 02.08.2010 against accused Jitender Kumar. Accused Maha Ram and accused Laxmi (now deceased) were kept in Column No. 12 of the charge-sheet. Cognizance was taken. Vide Order dated 17.08.2010, Ld. MM (South) committed the matter to Sessions Court. Case was received in the Sessions Court on 27.08.2010. Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA BUDHIRAJA Date:
2024.01.12 12:48:00 +0530 FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 2 of 59
3. Vide Order dated 23.07.2023, accused persons, namely, Maharam and Laxmi were directed to be summoned under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), Investigating Officer (IO) was also directed to file Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR) against CCL 'AK' (minor brother-in-
law of the deceased) before the Juvenile Justice Board concerned.
CHARGE
4. Charge for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 304B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was framed against accused Jitender Kumar on 21.10.2010. Charge for the offences punishable under Section 498A/34 IPC and 304B/34 IPC was framed against accused Maha Ram on 12.02.2014 and charge for the offences punishable under Section 498A/34 IPC and 304B/34 IPC was framed against accused Laxmi (now expired) on 26.02.2014. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. Prosecution examined twenty-three (23) witnesses in its favour.
Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA
BUDHIRAJA Date: 2024.01.12
12:48:05 +0530
FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 3 of 59
i. PW1 is Dr. Shashank Poonia who deposed that on
10.05.2010, one dead body of deceased Preeti was brought to the department for postmortem examination with the alleged history of found dead on 10.05.2010 at about 07:00 AM. On 13.05.2010, he along with Dr. T. Millo and Dr. Susheel Sharma conducted the postmortem examination of deceased Preeti.
External Examination The deceased was brought by the police for postmortem examination wearing green salwar, yellow white gown, purple bed-sheet, orange bra, and white shawl. The clothes were not torn. Rigor mortis and postmortem staining were passed off. Marbling was present. Body was greenish in colour at multiple areas. Nails were bluish in colour.
Antemortem Injuries
1. A ligature mark 24 x 3 cm in size, brownish black in colour was present at upper 1/3 of neck, directed upward and backward situated 8 cm below to chin, 7 cm above to suprasternal notch, 5 cm below to right mastoid tip and 8 cm below to left mastoid tip. On dissection there was no gross infiltration of blood in neck tissue, thyro-hyoid complex was intact. Deep muscle of neck and tracheal mucosa was congested.
2. An abrasion 1.5 x 5 cm size brownish in colour was present at outer aspect of upper 1/3 of left forearm.
Postmortem Injury NAVJEET
Digitally signed
by NAVJEET
BUDHIRAJA
BUDHIRAJA Date: 2024.01.12
12:48:10 +0530
FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 4 of 59
A roughly triangular shape 4 x 3 cm size, pale colour postmortem abrasion was present at right side of mid abdomen. This injury could be caused in the process of carrying/transportation of dead body.
On Dissection Uterus was containing a male fetus length 26 cm aged about 5 months and weight 428 gm. The weight of uterus along with placenta was 775 gm. There was no external injury over the genital region. The brain was congested weighing 1210 gm.
The time since death was about 3-4 days. Eight plastic and glass bangles and black thread with locket were also present on the body.
Opinion The cause of death in this case was Asphyxia due to hanging. however, viscera was preserved to rule out any intoxication.
He proved the postmortem report as Ex.PW1/A and also identified the signatures of Dr. Susheel Sharma and Dr. T. Millo at Points B and C respectively. He also proved the subsequent opinion prepared by Dr. Susheel Sharma as Ex.PW1/B. It was opined that the ligature mark which was present on the neck of the deceased Preeti could be produced by examined dupatta. NAVJEET Digitally signed by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA BUDHIRAJA Date: 2024.01.12 12:48:15 +0530 FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 5 of 59 ii. PW2 Sh. Shravan is the complainant in the present case. He deposed that marriage of his daughter Preeti aged about 21 years at that time was solemnized with accused Jitender on 27.11.2009 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the time of marriage, he had given dowry articles including household articles, jewellery, clothes and cash amount of Rs 01 Lac to the accused persons. He spent a total amount of Rs 2.5 Lacs on wedding. He has deposed that all was well during the first 15 days of the marriage but thereafter accused Jitender, accused Laxmi Devi, accused Maha Ram and dewar (younger brother-in- law) of the deceased started misbehaving with and beating his daughter on account of dowry. During her visits to her parental home, deceased Preeti appeared sad and told her family members regarding her harassment by the accused persons. About 15 days prior to the incident, deceased Preeti had visited her parental home along with her husband accused Jitender. At that time also, Preeti informed her family that her in-laws were demanding a motorcycle. PW2 has further deposed that one day accused Jitender and his brother Anil came to his home and abused him and asked him why he visited their house. They also asked PW2 to keep his daughter (Preeti) with him.
Regarding the incident in question, PW2 has deposed that on 10.05.2010 at about 06:00 AM, accused Maha Ram gave him a telephonic call and informed him that Preeti had committed suicide by hanging herself and asked PW2 to come Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors.BUDHIRAJA 12.01.202412:48:21 +0530 Pg No. 6 of 59 Date: 2024.01.12 there. PW2 immediately rushed to the matrimonial house of Preeti and saw her lying dead on a hard bed in the verandah. Her in-laws were sitting at some distance. PW2 asked his son Rambir to call the police. Police reached there and after some time, SDM also reached the spot. PW2 has proved his statement recorded by the SDM as Ex. PW2/A. The police also recorded his statement. PW2 also proved the dead body identification statement as Ex. PW2/B and dead body handing over memo as Ex. PW2/C. He has also proved the seizure memo Ex. PW2/D vide which the police had seized marriage card (Ex. PW2/E4) and three photographs of marriage (Ex. PW2/E-1 to Ex. PW2/E-3). He also proved the eight bills of dowry articles (Ex. PW2/G-1 to Ex. PW2/G-8) which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/F. He also deposed that he had saved money at his home for spending on daughter's marriage and he was helped by the maternal aunt (mausi) of deceased Preeti also.
After summoning of accused Maha Ram and accused Laxmi Devi (now deceased) u/s 319 Cr.P.C., PW2 was examined again. He deposed on similar lines as before. He also stated that one week before her death, Preeti had come to his house and looked quite scared. She had also lost weight. She informed him that accused Maha Ram, Laxmi and Jitender were demanding a motorcycle and were harassing her on this account.
iii. PW3 is ASI Krishan Kumar who deposed that on Digitally signed by NAVJEET FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 NAVJEET PgBUDHIRAJA No. 7 of 59 Date:
BUDHIRAJA 2024.01.12 12:48:27 +0530 10.05.2010 upon receipt of rukka (Mark X) (in testimony dated 28.11.2014 mentioned as Ex. PW2/A), he recorded the formal FIR. He proved the computerized printout of FIR as Ex. PW3/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW3/B. After summoning of accused Maha Ram and accused Laxmi Devi (now deceased) u/s 319 Cr.P.C., PW3 ASI Krishan Kumar was examined again. He deposed on similar lines as before.
iv. PW4 Smt. Manju is the mother of the deceased. She deposed that marriage of Preeti was solemnized with Jitender on 27.11.2009. All the dowry articles such as cooler, fridge, fan, double bed, jewellery articles, clothes and cash in sum of Rs 01 Lac were given to the accused persons. The family of the deceased spent an amount of Rs 2.5 Lacs in the marriage. The elder sister of PW4, namely, Maalti also supported them financially in the marriage. PW4 has further deposed that for about a month, her daughter Preeti was treated well at her matrimonial house but, thereafter, the accused persons started harassing her on account of dowry. Accused Jitender used to beat her up. She has further deposed that about one week prior to the incident, accused Jitender had demanded a motorcycle. Preeti also informed her that the accused persons were demanding motorcycle and were taunting her saying that her father had not given anything in the marriage. PW4 has further deposed that on Digitally signed FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 PgbyNo. 8 of 59 NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA BUDHIRAJA Date:
2024.01.12 12:48:39 +0530 10.05.2010, they received a phone call from accused Maha Ram informing them that Preeti had died. When they reached the matrimonial house of Preeti, they found her lying dead on the hard bed in the verandah of the house of accused persons.
Thereafter, her son Rambir made a call to the police. Police and SDM both came there. PW4 proved her statement recorded by the SDM as Ex. PW4/A. The police also recorded her statement.
The testimony of PW4 was again recorded pursuant to summoning of accused Maha Ram and accused Laxmi Devi (now deceased). PW4 deposed on similar lines as before. She also stated that after about 10 to 15 days of the marriage, accused persons started harassing her daughter Preeti on account of insufficient dowry.
v. PW5 Dr. Susheel Sharma also proved the post- mortem report (Ex. PW1/A) and subsequent opinion (Ex. PW1/B).
vi. PW6 Sh. V. P. Singh is the then Ld. Additional District Magistrate who deposed that on 10.05.2010 at about 08:00 AM, SHO PS Sangam Vihar informed him on telephone that one lady, namely, Preeti committed suicide by hanging in premises no. 1128, Gali No. 12, I-Block, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. Accordingly, he reached at the aforesaid place where he saw that the dead body of one lady was lying on the hard bed FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 9 of 59 Digitally signed by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA Date:
2024.01.12 12:48:44 +0530 (takhat) in the veranda of the house. He had a cursory look of the deceased. Froth was oozing from her mouth. He was told that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself from the grill of the window just above the bed in the nearby room, where her dead body was kept. But seeing the distance between the window and the bed, he was not convinced with the version of suicide. PW6 further deposed that in his opinion the distance between the bed and the grill was not that much that one could commit suicide by hanging. There were ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. The house was searched, but no suicide note was found. Some medicines were also lying bed side of the house, which were taken into possession by the police. The parents of the deceased were already present at the house of the accused. The dead body was sent to the AIIMS Hospital for preservation. On the same day, he called up the parents of the deceased to his office where he recorded the statement of Sharwan Kumar, father of the deceased and Ms. Manju, mother of the deceased.
PW6 Sh. V. P. Singh further deposed that he forwarded the statements to the SHO concerned to take appropriate action as per law vide his endorsement and signature (Ex.PW6/B). Since he suspected the foul play in the death of the lady so firstly, he wrote a letter dated 10.05.2010 to the Principal Secretory Health requesting to constitute a Medical Board to conduct the postmortem, but the Administration of Delhi vide its letter dated 11.05.2010 showed its ability as the dead body was FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 10 of 59 preserved in the AIIMS Hospital and the AIIMS Hospital does not fall under jurisdiction of Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi, thereafter, he wrote a letter to the Director AIIMS on 12.05.2010 Ex.PW6/A. Pursuant to which the postmortem was conducted. On 11.05.2010, he also recorded the statement of Sh. Anil Kumar and Ms. Malti Devi and forwarded the same to the SHO. He got completed the inquest proceedings and got the postmortem on the dead body of Preeti conducted. After the postmortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.
vii. PW7 is SI Vijay Pal Singh Kasana who deposed that on 10.05.2010 upon receipt of information from Control Room, he along with the photographer HC Raj Singh reached at the spot i.e. H. No. 1128, Gali No. 12, I-Block, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. He inspected the scene of crime at the instructions of the senior office and HC Raj Singh took five photographs of the spot. He proved the detailed crime report as Ex. PW7/A. viii. PW8 is SI Brahma Dutt who deposed that on 21.06.2010, as per the instructions of the IO, he collected the exhibits of the present i.e. one box containing viscera duly sealed with the seal of hospital along with sample seal, one pullanda of medicines and three plastic containers containing the remaining food i.e. chapati, chawal, sabzi sealed with the seal of 'KS' from the MHC(M) vide RC No. 99/21/10 and vide DD No. 11B in the Digitally signed FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 byPg No. 11 of 59 NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA BUDHIRAJA Date: 2024.01.12 12:48:52 +0530 morning at about 09:30 AM and took the same to FSL, Rohini and deposited there vide FSL Receipt No. FSL 2010/C-2641.
ix. PW9 Sh. Anil Kumar is the brother of the deceased. He deposed that the marriage of his sister Preeti was solemnized with accused Jitender Kumar @ Vicky on 27.11.2009. His family and his mausi gave all the dowry articles in marriage as per their capacity. The in-laws of Preeti started harassing her after solemnization of marriage on account of insufficient dowry. PW9 has further deposed that Preeti told them that her husband was demanding motorcycle in dowry. His sister was always puzzled and scared as his father was not in a position to fulfill the demands. PW9 has deposed that they assured Preeti that as soon as money was arranged, they would fulfill the demands of her in- laws. By the time the financial position of the complainant party improved, the accused persons killed Preeti. On 10.05.2010, accused Maha Rama gave a call on his (PW9) mobile phone number informing him that his sister had committed suicide. They immediately reached the matrimonial house of Preeti and found her dead body lying on the hard bed on the ground floor. Prior to the incident, PW9 had discussion with accused Jitender once or twice on the issue of harassment of his sister but accused Jitender did not pay any heed. PW9 has further deposed that accused Jitender Kumar used to harass and threaten his sister and used to constantly demand the motorcycle. Since they could not fulfil the demand, the accused killed Preeti. PW9 also proved his FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 12 of 59 Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA BUDHIRAJA Date: 2024.01.12 12:48:58 +0530 statement recorded by SDM as Ex. PW9/A. Police also recorded his statement.
The testimony of PW9 was again recorded pursuant to summoning of accused Maha Ram and accused Laxmi Devi (now deceased). PW9 adopted his earlier testimony recorded on 11.08.2011 and deposed that accused Maha Ram and accused Laxmi Devi also harassed his sister Preeti.
x. PW10 is SI Mahesh Kumar who deposed that on 17.06.2010, he along with Inspector J. D. Meena and ASI Karan Singh reached at the spot i.e. Ground Floor, H. No. 1128, Gali No. 12, I-Block, Sangam Vihar where at the instance of ASI Karan Singh he took rough note and measurement of the spot. He proved the scaled site plant as Ex. PW10/A. xi. PW11 is HC Raj Singh who deposed that on 10.05.2010 upon receipt of information from control room, he along with In-charge SI Vijay Pal Singh reached at the spot i.e. House No. I-12/1128, Sangam Vihar at about 09:00 AM where one dead body of a lady was lying. At the instructions of the senior police officer, he took five photographs of the spot. He proved the photographs as Ex. PW11/A-1 to Ex. PW11/A-5 and negatives as Ex. PW11/B-1 to Ex. PW11/B-5.
xii. PW12 Malti Devi is mausi of deceased Preeti. She FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 NAVJEET PgNAVJEET No. 13BUDHIRAJA of 59 Digitally signed by BUDHIRAJA Date: 2024.01.12 12:49:04 +0530 deposed that the marriage of her niece Preeti got solemnized with accused Jitender on 27.11.2009. PW12 and her sister Manju had born the expenditure of the marriage of Preeti and they had given the dowry articles in her marriage. The total expenditure in the marriage was about Rs 2.5 Lacs. PW12 further deposed that after about 4 to 5 months of her marriage, Preeti came to her home to live with them and stayed with her for about one month. During her stay, Preeti told PW12 that accused Jitender used to harass and beat her and that accused Jitender also demanded motorcycle. PW12 further deposed that on 10.05.2010 in the morning at about 07:30 AM, her nephew Rambir informed them about the death of Preeti. They immediately reached the house of Preeti at Sangam Vihar and saw Preeti lying dead on the hard bed in the verandah of the house. PW12 further deposed that she was sure that accused persons killed Preeti as they failed to fulfill the demand of motorcycle and other dowry articles on the part of the accused persons. PW12 has proved her statement recorded by the SDM as Ex. PW12/A. After summoning of accused Maha Ram and accused Laxmi Devi (now deceased) u/s 319 Cr.P.C., PW12 was examined again. She deposed on similar lines as before. She also stated that deceased was being tortured by her father-in-law as well as mother-in-law, however, demand of motorcycle was made by accused Jitender @ Vicky. The said demand was not made by accused Maha Ram and Laxmi. She admitted that she had stated FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 14 of 59 to the SDM that all the in-laws of Preeti used to demand motorcycle from the deceased and PW12 conveyed to her in-laws that she will give motorcycle on the occasion of birth of her child. She also admitted that she had stated to the SDM that deceased had been murdered by her in-laws including father-in- law, mother-in-law and husband.
xiii. PW13 is Sh. Akhilesh Kumar who deposed that her niece Preeti got married with accused Jitender on 27.11.2009 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. In the marriage all the necessary dowry articles were given to accused Jitender. His sisters, namely, Malti Devi and Smt. Manju Devi had spent money in the marriage and they both jointly gave the dowry articles. The total expenditure in the marriage was about Rs 2.5 to Rs 2.7 Lacs. When Preeti came to the house of his sister Malti Devi, she told that accused Jitender had beaten her and harassed her and that he was demanding the motorcycle. His sister failed to meet the demand of motorcycle and for this reason the accused killed Preeti. His nephew informed him that Preeti had died, accordingly, they reached at the matrimonial house of Preeti where they came to know that the dead body had been taken to the hospital. PW13 proved the dead body identification memo as Ex. PW13/A. xiv. PW14 is Ct. M. R. Meena who deposed that on 10.05.2010, he was serving as rider to Inspector J. D. Meena and Digitally signed FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 NAVJEET Pg by No.NAVJEET 15 of 59 BUDHIRAJA BUDHIRAJA Date: 2024.01.12 12:49:14 +0530 at about 09:55 AM, he along with Inspector J. D. Meena left the police station. They reached at the spot i.e. I-12/1128, Sangam Vihar where accused Jitender Kumar met them. He proved the arrest memo of accused Jitender Kumar as Ex. PW14/A, personal search memo of accused Jitender Kumar as Ex. PW14/B and disclosure statement of accused Jitender Kumar as Ex. PW14/C. IO got the accused medically examined at Batra Hospital. He further deposed that on 11.06.2010, complainant Sh. Shravan Kumar came to police station and handed over wedding card and three photographs of the marriage of his daughter Preeti which were seized by the IO vide memo (Ex. PW2/D). The marriage card (Ex. PW2/E-4), photographs (Ex. PW2/E/1 to Ex. PW2/E3) are on record. IO also seized eight bills / slips of dowry articles vide memo (Ex. PW2/F) and bills on record (Ex. PW2/G-1 to PW2/G8).
xv. PW15 is Sh. Raju who deposed that his niece Preeti was married to accused Jitender Kumar on 27.11.2009 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and about Rs 2 to Rs 2.5 Lacs were spent in the marriage. About one month prior to the incident Preeti had come to the house of his mausi i.e. Malti Devi and also came to his house. At that time, Preeti told him that accused Jitender was demanding motorcycle and he also used to harass and beat her for non fulfillment of demand of motorcycle. About one week prior to this incident, his brother-in-law Sharwan Kumar told him that accused Jitender Kumar was asking for FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 16 of 59 motorcycle and for this reason, he was harassing Preeti. PW15 further deposed htat on 09.05.2010, he along with his cousin Munim had gone to the matrimonial house of Preeti and they tried to make them understood but they did not hear them. Accused persons also did not allow them to meet Preeti. Accused Jitender abused them in filthy language. PW15 further deposed that on 10.05.2010 at about 07:00 AM, his brother-in-law Sharwan Kumar informed him on phone that Preeti had been killed by her in-laws. Accordingly, he reached at the house of Preeti. Police also arrived at the spot and recorded his statement.
After summoning of accused Maha Ram and accused Laxmi Devi (now deceased) u/s 319 Cr.P.C., PW15 Raju was examined again. He deposed on similar lines as before. He also stated that on 09.05.2010, he along with his cousin brother Munim went to the matrimonial house of Preeti, they talked to the husband and in-laws of deceased Preeti regarding not providing motorcycle to them as financial status of father of deceased was not good. Accused Maha Ram and Laxmi Devi were also present at that time but they did not stop accused Jitender for making demand of motorcycle. Accused persons Maha Ram and Laxmi Devi along with Jitender did not allow them to talk to deceased. Thereafter, he along with Munim returned to the house of his brother-in-law (Sharvan) and informed him about the aforesaid facts.
FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 17 of 59 xvi. PW16 is Sh. Muneem who deposed that he and his known Sh. Khajanchi Lal got his niece Preeti engaged with accused Jitender Kumar. He and Khajanchi were also the mediator (bicholiya) of the marriage of Preeti and accused Jitender Kumar. Preeti got married to accused Jitender Kumar on 27.11.2009 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. His brother-in-law Sharwan Kumar and the mausi of Preeti, namely, Malti Devi jointly borne the expenditure of marriage of Preeti. About Rs 2 Lacs to Rs 2.5 Lacs were spent in the marriage. All the necessary dowry articles i.e. fridge, TV double bed, cooler and jewellery etc. were given at the time of marriage of Preeti. Initially at the time of marriage, the accused persons used to say that they do not want anything in dowry but after marriage they started harassing Preeti for demand of dowry. About on week prior to incident in question, his brother-in-law Sharwan Kumar told him that accused Jitender Kumar is asking for motorcycle and for this reason he was harassing Preeti. On 09.05.2010 at about 08:00 AM to 09:00 AM, he along with his cousin Raju went to the matrimonial house of Preeti. Accused Jitender Kumar and his family members were present there. They tried to make them understood but they did not hear them. Accused persons also did not allow them to meet Preeti. Accused Jitender also abused them. On 10.05.2010 at about 07:00 AM, Sh. Khajanchi Lal informed him on phone that Preeti had been killed by her in- laws. Accordingly, he reached at the house of Preeti where he saw the dead body of Preeti was lying on the hard bed in the FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 18 of 59 house. Police also arrived at the spot.
xvii. PW17 is Ct. Ziaddin Ahmed who deposed that on 10.05.2010, he accompanied ASI Karan Singh at House no. I- 12/1128 Sangam Vihar after receiving a call in the morning. At the spot, PSI Bharat and Ct. Jaiveer were already present. The call which was received by ASI Karan Singh was to be effect that a lady had hanged herself. A takhat was lying in front of the room of the house on ground floor. A lady was lying on the takhat. The age of the deceased was stated to be 21 years and her name came to be known as Preeti W/o Jitender. On inquiry, they came to know that lady was married on 27.11.2009 with Jitender Kumar. Inside the room a chunni was lying on the bed. There was a knot in the chunni. It was stated that the chunni was the same with which the lady was hanged. After coming to know that Preeti had died within the seven years of her marriage, ASI Karan Singh informed the ACP Mahipal Singh, SHO Satpal Singh and the area SDM Sh. V. P. Singh. All the three officers came at the spot along with their staff. Crime team was also called. The SDM had ordered ASI Karan Singh to seize the chunni, some utensils containing food item and medicines lying in the room. ASI Karan Singh seized all the items after sealing it with the seal of 'KS'. He proved the seizure memos of chunni, food item, medicines and utensils as Ex. PW17/A, Ex. PW17/B, Ex. PW17/C, Ex.PW17/D respectively. The scene of the crime were got photographed by the crime team. He was given the dead Digitally signed by NAVJEET FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 NAVJEET Pg No. 19 of 59 BUDHIRAJA BUDHIRAJA Date:
2024.01.12 12:49:22 +0530 body for taking it to AIIMS mortuary and for getting it preserved. On 13.05.2010, ASI Karan Singh came to mortuary along with father and maternal uncle of deceased Preeti. After postmortem the dead body was handed over to the father of the deceased. During the postmortem the doctor had collected the exhibits and the same were handed over to him by the doctors and he handed over the same to the IO. The exhibits were in sealed condition. All the exhibits were produced by him to ASI Karan Singh and they were seized through seizure memos Ex. PW17/E, Ex. PW17/E, Ex. PW17/G and Ex. PW17/H. From 10.05.2010 to 13.05.2010 i.e. till arrival of ASI Karan Singh, he remained in mortuary to take care the dead body. The witness correctly identified the case properties i.e. chunni/ dupatta (Ex. P1), bowls and two spoons (Ex. P2 Colly), container containing pieces of bread (Ex. P3) and medicines (Ex. P4).
After summoning of accused Maha Ram and accused Laxmi Devi (now deceased) u/s 319 Cr.P.C., PW17 Ct. Ziauddin Ahmed was examined again. He deposed on similar lines as before.
xviii. PW18 is SI Bharat Singh who deposed that on 10.05.2010, he was on emergency duty along with Ct. Jaiveer. He was informed about lodging of DD No. 59 B by the duty officer. He reached at the spot i.e. I-12/1128, Sangam Vihar along with Ct. Jaiveer at about 07.20 AM. At the spot, he found Preeti W/o Digitally signed by NAVJEET FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 NAVJEET Pg No. 20 of 59 BUDHIRAJA BUDHIRAJA Date:
2024.01.12 12:49:26 +0530 Jitender aged about 21 years lying dead. On inquiry, he came to know that the lady Preeti had died due to hanging. ASI Karan Singh alongwith Ct. Zaiuddin had also arrived at the spot. He also came to know that 7 years had not passed since the marriage of the Preeti as her marriage took place on 27.11.2009. ASI Karan Singh had informed the area SDM who came at the spot. ACP and the SHO also came at the spot. The area SDM had inspected the spot and the dead body and ordered for seizure of food item, utensils, duppata / chunni and medicines lying in the room. All these items were seized by Karan Singh by making seizure memo. He proved the seizure memos as Ex. PW18/A to Ex. PW18/D. The dead body was sent to hospital in the custody of Ct. Zaiuddin. Crime team has also visited the spot and inspected it. The spot was also got photographed through the photographer. The crime team had inspected the spot before the dead body was sent to hospital. The witness correctly identified the case properties i.e. chunni/ dupatta (Ex. P1), bowls and two spoons (Ex. P2 Colly), transparent container containing piece of bread (Ex. P3) and medicines (Ex. P4).
xix. PW19 is Inspector J. D. Meena who deposed that on 10.05.2010, he was entrusted with the investigation pursuant to registration of FIR. He along with Ct. Menda Ram went to spot i.e., I-Block Gali No. 12, House No. 1128, Sangam Vihar where accused Jitender was present. He interrogated the accused in which the accused confessed his guilt and arrested him vide Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 BUDHIRAJA Date: Pg No. 21 of 59 2024.01.12 12:49:32 +0530 arrest memo (Ex. PW14/A), conducted his personal search vide personal search memo (Ex. PW14/B). He got the accused medically examined at Batra Hospital. On 11.05.2010, he again interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement (Ex. PW 14/C). He got sent the accused to judicial custody. He proved the site plan as Ex. PW 19/A. ASI Karan Singh handed over to him two statements i.e., statement of brother Anil and mausi Malti Devi which were recorded by the SDM. On 13.05.2010 ASI Karan Singh got the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Preeti conducted and deposited the exhibits in Malkhana. On 11.06.2010, complainant Sh. Shravan Kumar came to police station and handed over the wedding card and three photographs of marriage of his daughter Preeti which were seized by him vide memo (Ex. PW2/D). The Marriage card (Ex.
PW2/E-4), photographs (Ex. PW2/E/1 to Ex.PW2/E3) are on record. The complainant also produced eight bills/slips of the dowry articles which were seized by him vide memo (Ex. PW2/F). The bills (Ex. PW2/G1 to PW2/G8) are on record. On 17.06.2010, he also called SI Mahesh Kumar Draughtsman Crime Branch to the spot who prepared the rough notes and took measurement at the spot at his instance and subsequently he handed over to him the scaled site plan. He sent the exhibits to FSL for examination. He also sought subsequent opinion by producing the case property i.e., chunni before the doctor. The doctor tendered subsequent opinion (Ex. PW1/B).
Digitally signed by NAVJEETBUDHIRAJA NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA Date:
2024.01.12 FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 12:49:38 +0530 Pg No. 22 of 59 xx. PW20 is SI Karan Singh who deposed that on 10.05.2010, the SHO informed him on phone that vide DD no.
59B SI Bharat Singh along with staff had reached at the spot i.e, house no. I-1128 Gali no. 12 Sangam Vihar and that he should take up the further investigation of the case. Accordingly, he had accompanied Ct. Ziauddin Ahmed and reached at House no. I- 12/1128 Sangam Vihar. PSI Bharat and Ct. Jaiveer were already present at the spot. They entered into the house and saw that a takhat was lying in front of the room of the house on ground floor. A dead body of a lady was lying on the takhat. The age of the deceased was stated to be 21 years and her name came to be known as Preeti W/o Jitender. On inquiry from the father of the deceased namely Sh. Swaran Kumar, they came to know that lady was married on 27.11.2009 with Jitender Kumar. Since, the death of the lady was within 7 years of marriage, he informed the SDM and the SHO accordingly and he also called up the crime team. The SDM V. P. Singh, SHO Satpal Singh and ACP Mahipal Singh came at the spot. The crime team In-charge SI Vijay Pal also arrived at the spot. He also inspected the scene of crime. Inside the room a chunni was lying on the bed. There was a knot in the chunni. It was stated that the chunni was the same with which the lady hanged. The SDM had ordered me to seize the chunni, some utensils containing food item and medicines lying in the room. He had kept the bread in a plastic container and gave serial no. 1. He also kept the rice in separate container and gave serial no. 2 and the container of vegetable was given serial no. 3. FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 23 of 59 He prepared separate pullandas of the chunni, food items, medicines and utensils (two bowl and two spoons) and separately sealed the same with the seal of KS and took into possession the same vide seizure memos (Ex. PW17/A. Ex. PW17/B, Ex. PW17/C, Ex. PW 17/D respectively).
PW20 is SI Karan Singh further deposed that the jewellery were removed from the dead body of Preeti and same was handed over to her mother Manju Devi vide handing over memo (Ex. PW20/A). He sent the dead body to the Mortuary through Ct. Ziauddin and got the same preserved. On 10.05.2010 SDM recorded the statement of Sh. Swaran Kumar and Smt. Manju, father and mother of the deceased. The SDM passed direction on the statement of Swaran Kumar to the SHO to take action as per law. Accordingly, he brought the statement of Swaran Kumar and Manju and handed over same to SHO. P.S. Sangam Vihar. He deposited the case property in the Malkhana and the documents/memos and the crime team report were handed over to Inspector J.D. Meena. On 11.05.2010, he accompanied IO/Inspector J.D. Meena to the spot where IO prepared site plan at his instance. On 13.05.2010 as per the directions of the SDM, he got the postmortem conducted on the dead body of Preeti. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the father of the deceased. Durig the postmortem the doctor had collected the viscera, blood in gauze and the clothes of the deceased and separately sealed the same with the Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg2024.01.12 No. 24 of 59 BUDHIRAJA BUDHIRAJA Date:
12:49:46 +0530 seal of hospital and handed over same to him. He separately took into possession the viscera vide memo (Ex. PW17/E), blood in gauze (Ex. PW17/F) and the clothes vide memo (Ex. PW17/G). At the time of postmortem, the doctor had removed the bangles, the nose-pin, the rubber band and the locket and handed over same to PW20 which he took into possession vide memo (Ex. PW17/H). On 17.06.2010, he along with the IO and the draughtsman SI Mahesh Kumar again reached the spot where at my instance the draughtsman took the measurement and rough notes. The witness correctly identified the case properties i.e. chunni/ dupatta (Ex. P1), bowls and two spoons (Ex. P2 Colly), container containing pieces of bread (Ex. P3) and medicines (Ex. P4).
xxi. PW21 is Sh. M. L. Meena who deposed that on 21.06.2010, five sealed parcels were entrusted to him for examination. He carried out the examination from 05.07.2012 to 27.07.2012. He proved the detailed report consisting of two pages as Ex. PW21/A. Upon examination, he found that exhibit E/4A was found to contain Cyproheptadine. Exhibit E/4B was found to contain Calcium Carbonate. Exhibit E/4C was found to contain Nimesulide. Exhibit E/4D was found to contain Diclofenac. Cyproheptadine, Calcium Carbonate, Nimesulide, Diclofenac, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in exhibits 'E/SA", "E/5B, E/SC, E5/D', FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 25 of 59 'E/1", "E/2" & "E/3". After the examination, the remnants of the exhibits have been sealed with the seal impression as per specimen provided.
xxii. PW22 Dr. T. Millo also proved the post-mortem report (Ex. PW1/A) and subsequent opinion (Ex. PW1/B).
xxiii. PW23 Dr. Shashank Punia also proved the post- mortem report (Ex. PW1/A). He further deposed that the cause of death of Preeti was asphyxia due to hanging and viscera was preserved to rule out poisoning.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
6. Statement of Accused Jitender Kumar under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 03.02.2014. Accused stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. He never had any quarrel with his wife. He never demanded any motorcycle from his wife as he did not know how to drive motorcycle. He further stated that the deceased was duly taken care and attended by him since the marriage till her death. Accused preferred to lead defence evidence.
7. Statement of Accused Maha Ram under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 20.05.2022. Accused Maha Ram stated that he had falsely implicated in the present case. He and his son FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 26 of 59 never demanded any dowry articles, cash and motorcycle and never harassed and taunted the deceased. He used to lover his daughter-in-law and used to take care of her till her death. He and his family members took all the steps for necessary medical treatment of deceased whenever so required. Accused preferred to lead defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
8. Testimonies of DW1 Sh. Lallan Yadav and DW2 Sh. Sukhram were recorded initially. After summoning of accused Maharam under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in the present case, evidence including defence evidence was recorded afresh. The testimonies of DW1 Sh. Ashok Kumar and DW2 Sh. Khajanchi Lal were recorded on 16.08.2022.
8.1. DW1 is Sh. Lallan Yadav. In his testimony dated 26.02.2014, he deposed that he knew accused Maharam for past long. He was on visiting terms with Sh. Maharam. Prior to the marriage of Jitender or even thereafter, he never saw any quarrel in their house. Maharam and his family were living happily. He did not know how this unfortunate incident took place. Maharam is a peace loving person.
9. DW1 is Sh. Ashok Kumar is also examined as DW1. In his testimony dated 16.08.2022, he deposed that he brought FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 27 of 59 summoned record i.e. original file of vehicle bearing no. DL 3SAE 9455 Pulsar Motorcycle registered in the name of Maha Ram S/o Late Sh. Krishan Lal. The Chassis No. 66203, PDI No. 5076, Engine No. 65610, Allotment No. 9971 HP to Syndicate Bank. The file consist of receipt no. 39530 dated 27.06.2004 worth Rs 1,380/- received from Sh. Maha Ram against Registration / Road Tax Charges, Form 20 in the name of Maha Ram, the Sale Certificate dated 27.06.2004 issued by Dewan Automobiles, Invoice dated 18.06.2004 of Dewan Automobiles worth Rs 52935/- in the name of Sh. Maha Ram, Letter of Syndicate Bank regarding enclosed PO No. 473316 dated 18.06.2004 for Rs 52835/- towards cost of the Pulsar Motorcycle purchased by Sh. Maha Ram, Initial Certificate of compliance with collusion standards, description of goods, Insurance Policy No. 10730 and photocopies of I-Card and Ration Card of Sh. Maha Ram (all Ex. DW1/A Colly.). The file also has a photocopy of the Registration Certificate of above-mentioned motorcycle in name of Sh. Maha Ram. He proved the Registration Certificate issued by RTA Sheikh Sarai as Ex. DW1/B. He further deposed that RC dated 27.06.2004 of aforesaid vehicle was registered in the name of accused Maha Ram. As per the record, Maha Ram was the first owner of the aforesaid vehicle and no transfer in respect of aforesaid vehicle ever took.
10. DW2 is Sh. Sukhram. In his testimony dated 26.02.2014, he deposed that Maharam was his colleague, being FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 28 of 59 conductor of DTC so he was on visiting terms with him. He never saw any quarrel in his family. Even after marriage of his son, they used to visit the house of Maharam and used to be welcomed by his daughter-in-law.
11. Sh. Khajanchi Lal is also examined as DW2. In his testimony dated 16.08.2022, he deposed that he was the mediator in the marriage of deceased Preeti and accused Jitender. He knew both the families i.e. the family of accused persons and the family of deceased Preeti. There was no demand of dowry in the said marriage. After marriage, he used to visit the house of accused Maha Ram frequently. Whenever he visited the house of accused Maha Ram, he found his wife, namely, Smt. Laxmi Devi unwell. Accused Jitender and deceased Preeti were having cordial relations. He never received any complaint regarding quarrel, beatings, harassment or demand of dowry from either side i.e. from the side of in-laws of deceased Preeti and her parental side. One day prior to the death of deceased Preeti, he had gone to see a doctor owing to his ill-health along with his wife. Since the doctor's clinic was near the house of accused Maha Ram, he and his wife visited the house of accused Maha Ram as well where they met his family. Everything was normal. Deceased Preeti greeted him by touching his feet and had made tea for them. On that day also, no one had made any complaint to him and deceased Preeti was living happily in her matrimonial house. Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA BUDHIRAJA Date:
2024.01.12 FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 12:49:55 29 of 59 +0530
12. On behalf of the State and the complainant, it is argued that the deceased died within the period of six months of her marriage while she was impregnated by the accused Jitender Kumar five months prior to her death. The essential ingredients of section 304B IPC i.e. the death of the deceased within seven years and under abnormal circumstances are satisfied. Though, in the FIR the allegation of murder of the deceased was made as crime had occurred within the four corners of the wall but even if it is presumed that the deceased died by way of suicide, section 304B is attracted and the standard of proof of which is not to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt but on "preponderance of probabilities". It is further argued that mother and father of the deceased have pin-pointedly testified against the accused persons that the deceased was harassed for motorcycle and the onus was on the accused persons to dislodge the presumption operating against them.
13. Ld. Counsel for the complainant also propped up the case with brief written arguments and few case laws which are noted as under:
A. Buddhadeb Saha and Ors Vs. The State of West Bengal, dated 13.09.2023, Supreme Court of India B. Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab, dated 28.05.2021, Supreme Court of India C. V K Mishra and Anr Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr, dated FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 30 of 59 28.07.2015, Supreme Court of India D. Pathan Hussain Basha Vs. State of AP, 2012 CRI. L.J. 4230 E. Kalu @ Laxminarayan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, dated 07.11.2019, Supreme Court of India F. Devender Singh and Ors Vs. The State of Uttarakhand, dated 21.04.2022, Supreme Court of India
14. Per contra, on behalf of the accused persons, it is argued with alacrity that the foundation of the present case is predicated on falsity and concoction as the initial statement given to the SDM by the father and mother of the deceased does not specify any alleged demand of motorcycle by the accused. The said statement also does not specify as to what alleged dowry was given. The demand of motorcycle was at the later stage incorporated in the statement of witnesses which is afterthought and make believe. Prosecution has also dropped some witnesses who were not supporting their case. Evidence of Sh. Shravan Kumar dated 21.04.2011 is an improvised version and cannot be relied upon. Ld. counsel further emphasized that statement of independent witnesses was not recorded by SDM, there are marked improvements in the testimony of witnesses and accused persons have examined witnesses in their defence, therefore, the circumstances brought on record cannot be said to be sufficient enough to handout conviction to the accused persons.
15. Ld. Counsel for accused persons also alluded to the Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 BUDHIRAJA Date:
Pg No. 31 of 592024.01.12 12:50:02 +0530 following case laws:
I. Asha and Anr Vs. State of Uttarakhand, decided on 01.11.2013, Supreme Court of India II. Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw SC 341 III. State of Govt of NCT of Delhi Vs. Ram Gopal, dated 01.11.2017, Delhi High Court IV. Mohd. Aslam and Ors Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), dated 11.09.2017, Delhi High Court
16. I have heard detailed final arguments of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, State and Ld. Counsel for the complainant. I have perused the record carefully.
DISCUSSION
17. The essentials of Section 304B IPC are as follows :
● the death of the woman must be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances. ● the death must occur within seven years of marriage. ● woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
● such cruelty or harassment should be in connection with the demand of dowry and soon before death.Digitally signed by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA
NAVJEET Date: BUDHIRAJA 2024.01.12 12:50:06 +0530 FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 32 of 59
18. Section 304B IPC imposes a statutory obligation on a Court to presume that the accused had committed the dowry death when the prosecution proves that:
(i) the death of his wife had occurred otherwise than normal cir- cumstances within seven years of her marriage; and
(ii) soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty of harass-
ment by her husband or his relatives in connection with a demand for dowry.
19. I shall now embark upon the discussion as per the essential ingredients noted above.
The death of the woman must be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances.
19.1. The expression 'otherwise than under normal cir- cumstances' would mean that the death is due to an unusual cause and under suspicious circumstances, if not caused by burns or bodily injury. In this case, it is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased had died due to burns or bodily injury. The cause of death of the deceased as projected by the prosecution is that the deceased died due to hanging. This fact stands established by the testimony of PW1 Dr. Shashank Puniya, Junior Resident, Depart- ment of Forensic Medicine & Toxicological, AIIMS New Delhi who was one of the doctors who conducted the postmortem ex- amination of the deceased on 13.05.2010 vide the report Ex.
FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 33 of 59 PW1/A and ante-mortem injuries were noted as "A ligature mark 24 x 3 cm in size, brownish black in colour was present at upper 1/3 of neck, directed upward and backward situated 8 cm below to chin, 7 cm above to suprasternal notch, 5 cm below to right mastoid tip and 8 cm below to left mastoid tip. On dissection there was no gross infiltration of blood in neck tissue, thyro-hy- oid complex was intact. Deep muscle of neck and tracheal mu- cosa was congested".
19.2. As per the further testimony of PW1, the cause of death in this case was asphyxia due to hanging. This statement of PW1 was underpinned by the testimony of PW5 Dr. Sushil Sharma, who was also the part of the team which conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased. Accused persons have also not refuted the fact of the death of the deceased by hanging. The death of the deceased in such a manner would fall within the province of the death under unusual circumstances and, thus, the aforesaid first ingredient stands satisfied.
The death must occur within seven years of marriage 20.1 In so far as this ingredient is concerned, the record of the case is crystal clear and on the part of the accused persons also, there is no expostulation. It is an admitted position that the deceased got married to accused Jitender Kumar on 27.11.2009 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and the deceased was found FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 34 of 59 dead on 10.05.2010 which is within seven years of her marriage. Thus, this ingredient also stands proved.
Woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
And Such cruelty or harassment should be in connection with the demand of dowry and soon before death.
21.1. Both these ingredients are concatenated and are dealt with together. In order to fix liability upon the accused per- sons for the death of the deceased, the prime witnesses examined by the prosecution are PW2 Sh. Shravan Kumar, father of the de- ceased, PW4 Smt. Manju, mother of the deceased, PW9 Sh. Anil Kumar, brother of the deceased, PW12 Smt. Malti Devi, aunt of the deceased, PW15 Sh. Raju, uncle of the deceased and PW16 Sh. Munim, also the uncle of the deceased. On meditating through the testimony of these witnesses, the role assigned to ac- cused Jitender Kumar and accused Maharam is found to be dis- tinct on material aspects and thus, I would advert to their role separately.
Digitally signed by Role of accused Maharam NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA BUDHIRAJA Date:
2024.01.12 12:50:12 +0530
22. Accused Maharam is admittedly the father of accused Jitender Kumar and father-in-law of deceased. In the FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 35 of 59 initial statement Ex.PW2/A of the father of the deceased Sh. Shravan Kumar to the SDM Kalkaji, he stated that his daughter remained fine for few days after her marriage. Around 15 days later, rift cropped up and it was being said "tere baap ne kya diya hai". His daughter was being harassed who told him about a week before the statement was recorded that her in laws would beat her. Her mother-in-law and father-in-law would taunt her. On 10.05.20210 at about 06:00am, accused Maharam telephoned him and informed him about the suicide committed by the deceased by hanging. Then, he finally stated that his daughter was killed by her in laws in connection with dowry demand and that she did not commit suicide. This statement constituted the basis for registration of the FIR Ex.PW3/A. 22.1. It can be discerned from the aforesaid statement of Sh. Shravan Kumar that no specific instances or incidents of cruelty by the father-in-law of the deceased accused Maharam has been unraveled. Though, it is postulated that the deceased was killed in connection with dowry demand however, no such demand of dowry is also revealed in the said statement.
22.2. In the statement of Smt. Manju before SDM Ex.PW4/A, she has stated that after the marriage of her daughter, her in laws would harass her, her husband would beat her, her brother-in-law would tease her and all of them would taunt her. Then, she spoke about the information received about the death FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 36 of 59 of her daughter. It is lucid that no specific allegations were leveled against accused Maharam.
23. Let us now dissect the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses as given by them during the trial against the accused Maharam alongside the testimony of other material witnesses namely Malti Devi, Raju, Munim and Anil Kumar.
23.1. PW2 Sh. Shravan Kumar has deposed that after 15 days of marriage of his daughter, her husband, mother in law, father in law, devar started misbehaving and beating his daughter. Accused persons would say to his daughter as to what has been given by her father. Whenever his daughter used to visit his home, she used to appear very sad and would tell them about harassment given by the accused persons. About 15 days prior to the incident, his daughter along with accused Jitender Kumar came to their home and at that time, his daughter told her that accused Jitender and his parents are demanding motorcycle and are saying that she should ask her father to give the motorcycle. In his cross examination, he stated that prior to the wedding of his daughter, accused persons had asked him as to what he would give as dowry articles in the marriage and he gave dowry articles as per their demand. Further, in the re-examination of PW2 under section 319 Cr.P.C, apart from what he had stated in his previous deposition before the court, he also stated that about one week before her death, his daughter came to his home and she was FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 37 of 59 quite scared and had also lost her weight.
23.2. In his subsequent cross examination, his testimony reveals that PW2 visited the matrimonial home of the deceased only on two occasions after her marriage. The first occasion was about three days after her marriage for bringing his daughter home as a custom. When he first visited her home, his daughter was happy. His second visit was about 2-3 months after his first visit and at that time, things had changed. He also admitted that he did not tell the SDM that accused persons were demanding motorcycle. He volunteered that he was under shock on account of death of his daughter and responded only to what was asked by the SDM and did not tell the complete facts.
23.3. PW3 Smt. Manju has deposed that her daughter was treated well till about one month in her matrimonial home and thereafter accused Jitender Kumar, his mother and his father (accused Maharam) started harassing her. Accused Jitender and his parents used to say to her daughter "tere baap ne shaadi me diya kya hai". In her cross examination, she claimed that she was very scared when SDM recorded her statement so she did not tell the SDM that accused Jitender had come to their house about one week prior to the incident and had demanded the motorcycle. In her re-examination, PW3 apart from what she had already deposed stated that all the accused persons demanded motorcycle upon which she stated that they will think over it.
Digitally signed by NAVJEETNAVJEET FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 BUDHIRAJA BUDHIRAJA Pg No. 38 of 59 Date: 2024.01.12 12:50:22 +0530 23.4. PW9 Sh. Anil Kumar, brother of the deceased, deposed that after solemnization of marriage of his sister, her in laws were harassing her for demand of dowry and that her husband is demanding motorcycle and for that reason, his sister remained puzzled and scared. His father was not in a position to fulfill the demand and they assured the deceased that as soon as the money is arranged, they will fulfill the demand. In his re- examination after summoning of accused Maharam and Laxmi Devi, he adopted his earlier statement.
23.5. PW12 Smt. Malti Devi, aunt of deceased has deposed that the deceased used to reside with her since her childhood and for last about 15 years prior to the incident, she used to treat her like her daughter. After about 4-5 months of her marriage, deceased came to her home to live with her and stayed there for about one month. During her stay, deceased told her that accused Jitender Kumar used to harass and beat her and also demand motorcycle. She told that in the event of her being blessed with baby, they will give the motorcycle. In her cross examination, she admitted that accused persons had no demand at the time of marriage and they themselves gave the dowry articles. She also admitted that accused Jitender personally did not make any demand. In her re-examination, she claimed that the demand of motorcycle was made by Jitender but was not made by other accused persons.
FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 39 of 59 23.6. It can be made out from the afore-noted testimony of PW2 mainly that he is the only witness to claim that the deceased told him that the motorcycle was being demanded by accused Jitender Kumar and his parents (accused Maharam and deceased accused Laxmi Devi). But PW4, PW9 and PW12 have deposed about the demand of motorcycle being made by accused Jitender Kumar. It is clear that against accused Maharam, only general allegations of harassment have been made, without any specific instance. One isolated statement like "tere baap ne diya hi kya hai" would not suffice for it to considered as a dowry demand. PW12 Malti Devi in fact categorically stated that the demand of motorcycle did not come from accused Maharam. In this view of the matter, the prosecution case against the accused Maharam does not sustain and accused Maharam deserves to be acquitted of all the charges against him.
Role of accused Jitender Kumar
24. PW2 Sh. Shravan Kumar deposed qua accused Jitender Kumar that his daughter aged about 21 years was married with the accused on 27.11.2009, as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and at the time of marriage, he had given all the dowry articles as per his capacity which consisted of double bed, almirah, fridge, cooler, fan, TV, boxes, mixee machine, five jewellary articles of gold and silver (two gold rings, earrings, FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 40 of 59 pajeb (anklet), bichua (ring of foot finger) and Rs. One Lac in cash along with other dowry articles and clothes/wearing apparel. He further deposed that in total, he had spent about Rs.2.5 lacs on the wedding. After 15 days of marriage of his daughter, her husband, mother in law, father in law, devar started misbehaving and beating his daughter. He further deposed that about 15 days prior to the incident, his daughter along with accused Jitender Kumar came to their home and at that time, his daughter told her that accused Jitender and his parents are demanding motorcycle and are saying that she should ask her father to give the motorcycle. He further deposed that one day accused Jitender and his brother Anil Kumar came to their place, started abusing him and said that why do we visit their place and ask him to keep his daughter with them only.
24.1. PW4 Smt. Manju also deposed on similar lines qua the marriage of her deceased daughter with the accused Jitender Kumar. She also deposed that accused Jitender used to beat her daughter and about one week prior to the incident, accused Jitender demanded the motorcycle.
24.2. In the light of the aforesaid testimony of PW2 and PW4, Ld. counsel for accused assiduously argued that both these witnesses are not credit worthy as in their previous statement to the SDM Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW4/A, both of them did not specify any such demand of motorcycle by the accused Jitender. This Digitally signed by NAVJEET FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 BUDHIRAJA Pg No. 41 of 59 NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA Date: 2024.01.12 12:50:32 +0530 argument of Ld. counsel is certainly meritorious to the limited extent of the fact that in the statement given to the SDM by both these witnesses, generic allegations of cruelty and harassment were leveled but there is no definitive allegation of demand of motorcycle by the accused Jitender.
24.3. Before building further on this aspect, I would deem it apposite to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in V K Mishra and Anr Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 1247/2012 dated 28.07.2015. The relevant extracts of the above-said judgment are as under :
"4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that in the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased or in his earlier statement recorded by the police neither there was mention of any dowry demand made by the appellants nor of any harassment meted out to his daughter. It was contended that PW2-brother of the deceased made a false statement for the first time on 18.08.1997 i.e. five days after the death of Archana stating that the parents-in-laws of the deceased were raising dowry demand of Rs.5,00,000/- and also made allegations regarding cruelty and harassment in connection therewith. It was submitted that PW-2 kept silent for about eight days from the date of the alleged dowry demand and the cruelty and while so, the trial court and the High Court erred in placing reliance upon the FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 42 of 59 evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 to record the verdict of conviction. It was contended that entire investigation was flawed as regards the suicide note and the letter written by the deceased to her brother-in-law and no detailed investigation was carried out viz.
the inland letter dated 10.08.1997 received by the deceased which according to the appellants contained threats from a dejected lover and sample of vomitus taken was either changed or tampered. It was vehemently contended that the courts below were not right in recording the conviction based on the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 which were purely hearsay and full of contradictions and thus lacked credibility apart from being clearly an afterthought.
......
11. Of course, in the FIR, PW-1 had not given the details of the money paid to the accused. But in his complaint PW-1 had categorically stated that the appellants had been torturing Archana with their cruel behaviour and Archana complained the same to him and that he advised her to compromise with the situation and create a healthy atmosphere. In the FIR, though, there is no specific mention about the demand of dowry, cruelty and torture alleged in the FIR could have been only in connection with demand of money or jewels.
Marriage of Archana with accused-
Rahul Mishra was solemnized only on 28.6.1997 and Archana was yet to settle down in the house of her in-laws. Both the families were almost of same social and economic FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 43 of 59 status. It is not the case of the defence that the alleged cruelty could only be the matrimonial skirmishes due to normal wear and tear of the matrimonial house. As noticed earlier, money was given by PW-1 both prior to marriage and after the marriage on 11.07.1997 also. Viewed in that context, the alleged cruelty and torture could have been only in the context of demand of money or jewellery.
......
12. FIR is not meant to be an encyclopedia nor is it expected to contain all the details of the prosecution case. It may be sufficient if the broad facts of the prosecution case are stated in the FIR. Complaint was lodged within few hours after the tragic event.
PW-1 has lost his young daughter just married before six weeks in unnatural circumstances. Death of a daughter within few days of the marriage, the effect on the mind of the father-PW1 cannot be measured by any yardstick. While lodging the report, PW-1 must have been in great shock and mentally disturbed. Because of death of his young daughter being grief stricken, it may not have occurred to PW-1 to narrate all the details of payment of money and the dowry harassment meted out to his daughter. Unless there are indications of fabrication, prosecution version cannot be doubted, merely on the ground that FIR does not contain the details."
24.4. It is manifest from the aforesaid noted judgment that therein also the position was that in the initial statement and FIR, FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 44 of 59 specific allegations of demand of dowry were not leveled but the court after considering the facts and circumstances in a holistic manner came to the conclusion that it may happen that the parents of deceased may be traumatized due to the death of their daughter and in that trauma, some of the facts may left out to be mentioned in the initial statement but the implication of that would not be that any subsequent fact given by the parents and the deceased during the course of the investigation are to be jettisoned altogether as the FIR in itself cannot be said to be an encyclopedia nor it is expected to contain all the details of the prosecution case. It is sufficient if the broad contours of the prosecution case are stated in the FIR.
24.5. PW2 in his cross examination dated 02.08.2014 stated that he did not tell the SDM that accused persons were demanding motorcycle as at that time he was under shock on account of death of his daughter and responded only to what was asked by the SDM. PW4 also stated in his cross examination that at the time of making the statement to the SDM, she had not told about the demand of the motorcycle as she was nervous at that time. The explanation for the said omission furnished by PW2 and PW4 can be countenanced as undoubtedly, both of them were under the profuse grief of the death of their daughter and the line of questioning by the SDM is only preliminary in nature so as to ascertain any doubt or suspicion in regard to the death of the deceased. PW2 and PW4 in their subsequent statement to the FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 45 of 59 investigating officer under section 161 Cr.P.C which was recorded on the very next day i.e. 11.05.2010 had categorically stated that demand of motorcycle was made by accused Jitender Kumar and in order to fulfill the same, he was harassing her as told by her one week prior to the incident. Both these witnesses have spoken on similar lines against accused Jitender Kumar. Though in their deposition, after the specific demand of motorcycle by accused Jitender Kumar is mentioned, statement is not followed by the fact that accused Jitender Kumar had also harassed the deceased in connection with the said demand but statement of these witnesses is to be read holistically and not in isolation and in the statement, they have univocally stated about the harassment and beating of the deceased by accused Jitender Kumar.
24.6. Further, the testimony of PW2 and PW4 finds strength from the testimony of PW9 Anil Kumar who is the brother of the deceased and who also specifically deposed that after solemnization of the marriage, deceased told them that her husband is demanding motorcycle in the dowry and for this reason, his sister used to remain puzzle and scared. He also deposed that accused Jitender Kumar used to constantly demand the motorcycle and used to harass and threaten his sister. The statement of PW9 before the court finds corroboration from his statement given to the SDM Ex.PW9/A except for few minor variations.
FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 46 of 59 24.7. PW12 Smt. Malti Devi also deposed, apart from her deposition already noted above, that during the stay of the deceased with her, she told her that accused Jitender Kumar used to harass her and demand the motorcycle, upon which, she would tell the deceased that in the event of her being blessed with some baby, they will give the motorcycle.
24.8. PW15 Sh. Raju deposed that about one week prior to the incident, deceased came to house of her mausi i.e. Malti Devi and she had also come to his house. At that time, she told him that accused Jitender is demanding motorcycle and that he also harassed and beaten her for the non-fulfillment of the demand of motorcycle. He further deposed that about one week prior to the incident, his brother in law told him that accused Jitender was asking for the motorcycle and for this reason, he is harassing the deceased. On 09.05.2010, he along with his cousin brother Munim went to the matrimonial house of the deceased. They tried to make them understand but they did not hear them. Accused Jitender Kumar and his family members were present there. They did not allow them to meet the deceased. Accused Jitender also abused them in filthy language. In his re- examination, he also stated that during their visit, accused Maharam and Laxmi Devi were also present but they did not stop accused Jitender from making demand of motorcycle. 24.9. PW16 deposed that he and one Khajanchi Lal were Digitally signed by NAVJEET FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. NAVJEET 12.01.2024 BUDHIRAJA BUDHIRAJA Date:
Pg No. 47 of 592024.01.12 12:50:43 +0530 the mediators in the marriage of the deceased with accused Jitender Kumar. Initially at the time of marriage, accused persons used to say that they did not want anything in dowry but after the marriage, they started harassing the deceased for demand of dowry. One week prior to the incident, his brother in law Shravan Kumar told him that accused Jitender Kumar is asking for the motorcycle and for this reason, he is harassing the deceased and on 09.05.2010, he along with his cousin brother Raju went to the matrimonial house of the deceased at about 8-9am, accused Jitender Kumar and his family members were present there. They tried to make them understand but they did not hear them and they also did not allow to meet the deceased. Accused Jitender Kumar also abused them.
24.10. The afore-noted testimonies of material witnesses would unequivocally point towards the demand of motorcycle being made by the accused Jitender Kumar for which he was also harassing the deceased. Though, there are few infirmities in the cross examination of these witnesses, as pointed out during arguments on behalf of the accused, but those are trivial in nature having no bearing on the otherwise steadfast testimony of these witnesses. PW12 Malti Devi in her initial statement to the SDM had stated that the deceased though spoke about the demand of motorcycle by accused Jitender Kumar but she never spoke about any cruelty or harassment meted out to her but before the court 24.11. PW12 mentioned this fact of beating of the deceased FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 48 of 59 Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA BUDHIRAJA Date: 2024.01.12 12:50:48 +0530 by the accused Jitender Kumar. This improvement would not dent the entire case of the prosecution as other witnesses have been consistent in mentioning the fact of cruelty or harassment of the deceased by accused Jitender Kumar in relation to the demand of motorcycle.
24.12. Another significant aspect worth noting in the context of demand of dowry can be culled out from the testimony of PW15 and PW16 and therefore their testimony is also to be seen in the context of the argument on behalf of the accused persons that they had never demanded any dowry from the deceased. PW15 and PW16 have deposed about visiting the matrimonial home of the deceased on 09.05.2010 i.e. one day prior to the death of the deceased and the reason for their visit was that about a week prior to the incident, Sh. Shravan Kumar had told them that accused Jitender Kumar is asking for the motorcycle and for this reason, he is harassing the deceased.
Both of them went to the house of the accused Jitender Kumar where his family members were also present and as per their deposition, they tried to make them understand but they did not pay any heed and even they did not allow them to meet the deceased. Both of them also claimed that accused Jitender Kumar also abused them and then they both returned home. This visit of PW15 and PW16 is not repudiated in their cross examination on behalf of the accused, rather it was suggested to them that on 09.05.2010, they went to the matrimonial home of the deceased FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 49 of 59 after taking liquor and had a squabble with the accused and his family members. However, no further suggestion was posed to them as to what was the cause of quarrel. The inference which can be drawn from the visit of both these witnesses would be that they went to the matrimonial house of the deceased as she was being harassed by accused Jitender Kumar in relation to the demand of the motorcycle as dowry and when they endeavored to make them understand, no heed was paid to their request. This visit of PW15 and PW16 one day prior to the death of the deceased is a crucial and clinching link in the case of the prosecution which further impart strength to its core.
24.13. Another important feature of the offence under sec- tion 304B IPC is that there should be proximate link between the cruelty or harassment meted out to the deceased owing to the dowry demand and her death. In this case, this ingredient stands established from the testimony of the witnesses that the deceased mentioned about the demand of the motorcycle one week prior to the incident to material prosecution witnesses and within a span of seven days, she ended her life by hanging herself. Thus, this ingredient also stands complied with by the prosecution.
24.14. In so far as the defence of the accused is concerned, it was suggested to PW2 in his cross examination that the deceased had committed suicide on her own as she was in love FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 50 of 59 with other boy and complainant had forcibly married her with the accused which suggestion was dis-affirmed. Similar suggestion was posed to PW4 that the deceased wanted to marry with one Raju, resident of Ghaziabad but they forcefully got married with the accused Jitender Kumar and the deceased committed suicide due to depression which suggestion was dis-affirmed. PW12 was also posed the same suggestion of deceased wanting to marry someone else which was disclaimed by her. However, there is nothing to suggest on behalf of the accused that any such fact was brought to the knowledge of the parents of the deceased during the period of matrimony. Accused Jitender Kumar being the husband ought to have taken umbrage on the aspect of the deceased having been involved with some other person either to the parents of the deceased or to some other person who acted as mediator in their marriage which is not the case herein. Further, in the cross examination of PW16, the defence of the accused veered in different direction when suggestion was put to him that the deceased was a hot-tempered lady, she was annoyed that she was married in a low standard family as she wanted to marry in a rich family, she was annoyed that she was married in the family of the accused so that they may not have to spent much amount in the marriage. Clearly, these different lines of suggestions would dent the defence of the accused.
24.15. In so far as the witnesses examined on behalf of the accused in defence, witness Lallan Yadav as DW1, witness FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 51 of 59 Sukhram as DW2 have claimed to be on visiting terms with accused Maharam and they never witnessed any quarrel in their house, however, since the incidents of harassment of cruelty take place within the confines of a house, the person can taken cognizance of the same if he/she is the resident of that particular house or would visit the said house frequently like a relative or neighbor. Both these witnesses have not spoken about any frequent visits to the house of the accused. Both these witnesses are neither neighbors nor the relatives who would have the occasion to make frequent visits to the house of the accused. Therefore, their testimony is not worthy of any credence.
24.16. In so far as witness Khazanchi Lal is concerned, he claimed to have mediated the marriage of deceased and accused Jitender Kumar as he knew both the families. He deposed that after marriage, he used to visit the house of the accused Maharam frequently and he never received any complaint regarding quarrel, harassment, beating and demand of dowry either side. He also deposed that one day prior to the death of the deceased, he went to see a doctor owing to his ill health along with his wife. Since the doctor`s clinic was near the house of the accused Maharam, he and his wife visited his house and met his family and everything seemed to be normal. Deceased greeted him by touching his feet and made tea for them. However, the visit of this witness one day prior to the death of the deceased has not been satisfactorily proved on behalf of the accused. The said FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 DigitallyPg No. signed by 52 of 59 NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA BUDHIRAJA Date: 2024.01.12 12:51:01 +0530 Khazanchi Lal is stated to be working in DTC and his duty hours were 09am to 05:30pm. He failed to disclose the time at which he visited the house of the accused. He also did not produce the prescription of the doctor clinic which was near the house of the accused to substantiate his statement. Thus, this witness being the colleague of the accused Maharam and being unable to furnish the proof of his visit to the house of the accused Maharam one day prior to the death of the deceased, his testimony also cannot be relied upon.
24.17. Another argument advanced on behalf of the accused is that the accused Maharam is already owning one motorcycle and thus there was no occasion for accused Jitender Kumar to have demanded a motorcycle from the deceased. This argument also, in my opinion, is without any force as it is not unusual in the family having more than one male members to own 2-3 vehicles. The motorcycle with the family of the accused is admitted to be in the name of accused Maharam, and the prosecution has successfully proved that demand of motorcycle was made by accused Jitender Kumar.
24.18. As regards the discrepancies/improvements in the testimony of the material witnesses, as argued by Ld. counsel for accused, those are minor in nature which otherwise do not affect the substratum of the case of the prosecution and otherwise reliable and creditable testimony of the witnesses. All the FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 53 of 59 material witnesses as noted above have unequivocally spoken about the demand of motorcycle being made by accused Jitender Kumar and for which he had been harassing the deceased. The minor discrepancies/improvements are a natural feature in the testimony of the witnesses who come to depose in the court after a lapse of reasonable time when their statement was recorded by the police during investigation, therefore, some omissions/additions are bound to occur in the testimony of the witnesses. (Reference to judgment of Patna High Court in Parsuram Pandey Vs. The State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (PAT) 10) 24.19. Another argument advanced on behalf of the accused is that the deceased was pregnant at the time of her death and she was being taken care of by the accused persons and thus, there did not arise any occasion to harass her. The said pregnancy of the deceased is manifest from the postmortem report as well as testimony of PW4 but this circumstance is not sufficient enough to tilt the case in favor of the accused. Rather, it is to be seen from the prism of the fact that the deceased despite being gravid with the child was driven to take the extreme step of exterminating her life and that of her child due to the cruelty at the hands of her husband accused Jitender Kumar. Thus, this argument deserves to be shot down.
24.20. It is also argued that the complainant side never Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar 12.01.2024 BUDHIRAJA State Vs Jitender & Ors. BUDHIRAJA Pg No. 54 of 59 Date: 2024.01.12 12:51:07 +0530 made any complaint to the police or any other authority in regard to the harassment to the deceased despite their claim that the harassment started 15 days or soon after the marriage. This argument also is of no assistance to the accused as every parent would endeavor to settle their child in a matrimonial home without venturing into the criminal cases unless the water has flown under the bridge. The parents would endeavor to douse the fire which may erupt out of the rift between the husband and wife to the maximum extent possible and only in case of complete matrimonial discord between the parties beyond any spoke of repair that the parents think of availing their remedies. Therefore, the initial non filing of the complaint by the complainant against the accused cannot be said to be unnatural.
24.21. The last limb of the argument on behalf of the accused is that admittedly as per the prosecution witnesses, there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage, but this argument also falls face down as the requirement of section 304B IPC is not only the initial demand at the time of marriage but it also caters to cases about the dowry demand made subsequently during the subsistence of marriage.
25. I shall now deal with the judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for accused. The judgment in Asha and Anr Vs. State of Uttarakhand is facts centric and is not applicable to this case, the judgment in Charan Singh @ Charanjeet Vs. The state Digitally signed by FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 NAVJEET NAVJEET Pg No. 55 of 59 BUDHIRAJA BUDHIRAJA Date: 2024.01.12 12:51:13 +0530 also speaks about the general principle that mere death of wife under unnatural circumstances in a matrimonial home within seven years of marriage is not sufficient to convict the husband for dowry death, in regard to which there is no dispute, but in the instant case, all the essential ingredients of the offences invoked have been satisfied. The judgment in State of Delhi Vs. Ram Gopal also is not applicable as section 498A IPC is also made out against the accused Jitender Kumar and the facts of the said case were also distinct in nature. The judgment in Mohd Ashlam Vs. State also pertained to different facts as there the court found from the testimony of witnesses that PW1 to PW4 had nowhere stated that the deceased were tortured or harassed on account of non fulfillment of dowry demand.
26. In so far as other aspects of the investigation, PW3 ASI Kishan Kumar deposed about being duty officer on 10.05.2010 from 05pm to 01am in the midnight who received rukka Mark X and recorded the formal FIR Ex.PW3/A after endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW3/B, PW6 Sh. V P Singh, Additional District Magistrate deposed about being posted as SDM Kalkaji on 10.05.2010 and on that day at about 08am, SHO PS Sangam Vihar informed him through telephone that one lady namely Preeti (deceased herein) had committed suicide by hanging herself upon which he reached at House No. 1128/12, I- Block, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi where he saw the dead body of the deceased and he further deposed about completing the FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 56 of 59 necessary formalities by forwarding the statement of the witnesses to the SHO concerned to take appropriate action as per law vide his endorsement and signatures Ex.PW6/B, PW7 SI Vijay Pal Singh deposed about being posted as In-charge, Crime Mobile Team on 10.05.2010 and upon receipt of the information from the control room, he along with photographer HC Raj Singh reached the spot where he inspected the scene of the crime and took five photographs and also prepared the detailed crime report Ex.PW7/A, PW8 SI Brahm Dutt deposed about depositing the exhibits to FSL from Malkhana PS Sangam Vihar, PW10 SI Mahesh Kumar deposed about the preparation of the scaled site plan Ex.PW10/A, PW11 HC Raj Singh deposed about clicking the photographs of the spot Ex.PW11/A1 to Ex.PW11/A5, PW14 Constable V R Meena deposed about the arrest of the accused Jitender Kumar vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/A, his personal search memo Ex.PW14/B and also deposed about the complainant Sh. Shravan Kumar having brought the wedding card and three photographs of the marriage of his daughter which were seized vide memo already Ex.PW2/D, marriage card as already Ex.PW2/E4, photographs Ex.PW2/E1 to Ex.PW2/E3, the production of eight bills/slips of the dowry articles which were seized by the investigating officer vide memo already Ex.PW2/F, PW17 Ct. Ziauddin Ahmad deposed about seizure memo of Chunni, food items, medicines and utensils as Ex.PW17/A to Ex.PW17/D and who also identified the said chunni and dupatta as Ex.P1, the bowls and two spoons Ex.P2, PW18 SI Bharat FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 57 of 59 Singh and PW19 Inspector J D Meena also deposed about various aspects of the investigation. Some of these witnesses were cross examined on behalf of the accused persons but nothing substantial could come on record which could raise an adverse inference against the prosecution. Even during final arguments also, testimony of none of these witnesses was assailed on behalf of the accused persons.
27. Accused Jitender Kumar is also charged for the offence under section 498A IPC. Having regard to the appreciation of the evidence as noted above, since it is established that accused Jitender Kumar had caused harassment and cruelty to the deceased, accused Jitender Kumar is to be held liable for the offence under section 498A IPC.
28. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the statement of material witnesses, all the essential ingredients of the offence under section 304B IPC stand proved against the accused Jitender Kumar and who is liable to be held guilty for the said offence as he has failed to furnish any material which could displace the presumption operating against him under section 113B of the Evidence Act.
29. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that accused Maharam is not found guilty of the offence under section 304B/34 IPC and section 498A/34 IPC and, thus, he Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 BUDHIRAJA 12:51:22 +0530 Pg No. 58 of 59 Date: 2024.01.12 stands acquitted. Accused Jitender Kumar is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 304B IPC and section 498A IPC for which he stands convicted. Let he be heard on the point of sentence.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12.01.2024 Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA BUDHIRAJA Date: 2024.01.12 12:51:29 +0530 (Navjeet Budhiraja) ASJ-02, South District Saket Courts, New Delhi 12.01.2024 Certified that this judgment contains 59 pages and each page bears my signatures. NAVJEET Digitally signed by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA BUDHIRAJA Date: 2024.01.12 12:51:35 +0530 (Navjeet Budhiraja) ASJ-02, South District Saket Courts, New Delhi 12.01.2024 FIR No. 159/2010 PS Sangam Vihar State Vs Jitender & Ors. 12.01.2024 Pg No. 59 of 59