Delhi District Court
State vs . on 9 December, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - NORTH EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI
State
Vs.
1. Ravinder
S/o Balraj
2. Gendo Devi
W/o Balraj
3. Balraj
S/o Deep Chand (Since Discharged)
All accused Resident of
H.No.143, Gali No.4,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Colony
Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
FIR NO:09/2010
PS: Karawal Nagar
U.Sec: 498-A/304-B/120-B IPC
Sessions Case No. : 20/2010
Date of Institution of case : 05.05.2010
Date on which reserved for Judgment : 04.12.2010
Date of Judgment : 09.12.2010
Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 1 / 27
2
JUDGMENT:
The facts of the case are that on 10.1.2010 a PCR call was received regarding death of a lady by hanging which was recorded vide DD NO. 3-A. in P.S Karawal Nagar. The said call was marked to ASI Habib Ahmed who along with Ct.Kewal Kishan went to the spot i.e H.No. 143, Gali No. 4, Shahid Bhagat Singh Colony, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. There they found dead body of deceased Manju covered with quilt and a chunni of red and blue colour was lying on the double bed. ASI Habib Ahmad saw ligature mark on the neck of deceased, fan was found hanging with the roof. Some blood was seen on the right hand on two fingers next to thumb and on the thumb of right foot. Dead body was recovered from the cealing fan by the neighbours. ASI Habib Ahmad made inquiries at the spot and came to know that deceased was married to Ravinder on 06.02.2003. ASI Habib Ahmed then called Executive Magistrate, Crime Team and parents of the deceased.
Sh.Mahinder Singh father of the deceased arrived at the spot and made a statement before Executive Magistrate that he had married his daughter Manju with Ravinder on 6.2.2003 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies. He further stated that his daughter Manju was unhappy in her matrimonial house and she used to come to his house (Parental house) after every 3-4 months. He further stated that she ( Manju) had just come from her stay at his (parental house). He Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 2 / 27 3 further stated that his daughter Manju used to tell every month about her grievances. He further alleged that Smt.Gendo mother-in-law of his daughter and Ravinder used to reside with his daughter. Ravinder used to harass his daughter Manju for bringing vehicle or jewelery. Mahender Singh further stated that on 10.1.2010 he received information through his relative that his daughter Manju had hanged herself and had died. He further stated that he came to the matrimonial house of his daughter and saw injury and cut marks on her hand and feet and blood was also there. Ravidner was missing from the house and his mobile phone was also switched off. Mahender Singh alleged that he had doubt that his daughter had been killed.
On this statement of the complainant Mahender Singh FIR in this case was registered under section 498-A/304-B/34 IPC. Further investigation was carried out by Insp. N.K. Tyagi. Exhibits were lifted from the spot, inquest proceedings were carried out. Accused Balraj, Smt. Geno Devi and Ravinder were arrested. After completion of investigation, challan was filed in the court for the offences punishable under section's 498-A/304-B/34 IPC against them.
Ld.M.M after supply of copies etc, committed the case to the court of Sessions.
Vide detailed order on charge passed on 13.07.2010, charge for offences punishable under section 498-A/304-B/34 IPC Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 3 / 27 4 was framed against accused Ravinder and Gendo Devi to which they both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Accused Balraj was discharged of the charges against them vide the even orders dated 13.07.2010.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses.
PW-1 Dr.Juthika Debbarama stated that on 11.1.2010 she carried out postmortem proceedings on the dead body of Manju. She stated that cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante- mortem hanging. She further stated that she observed seven ante- mortem injuries on the dead body. She proved the postmortem report No. 39/10 as Ex.PW1/A. She further stated that she handed over the clothes of the deceased, blood on a gauze duly sealed with JD to the police.
Dr. Juthika further stated that she gave subsequent opinion on 15.10.2010 when the case property comprising of chunni was brought before her by Insp.N.K.Tyagi. She further stated that after seeing the chunni she opined that ligature mark present on the neck of the deceased was possible by this chunni and possibility of hanging by this chunni could not be ruled out. She proved her subsequent opinion as Ex.PW1/B. The witness also identified the chunni as Ex.P-1 which was examined by her.
PW-2 Dr.Vivek Srivastava stated that on 11.01.2010 Dr. Juthika has conducted postmortem on the dead body of Manju Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 4 / 27 5 and he had assisted Dr. Juthika in the postmortem.
PW-3 Mahender Singh stated that he was having a daughter named Manju who was married to accused Ravinder on 06/02/03. He further stated that his daughter used to be beaten by accused Ravinder, Gendo and Balraj Bhati. Accused persons used to demand dowry. Sometimes they used to demand vehicle and sometimes jewelery. He further stated that on 10/01/10, he had received a telephonic call in the morning from his son's brother-in- law (Sala) regarding hanging of Manju. He further stated that he had gone to Karawal Nagar to the house of his daughter Manju. There he saw that his daughter Manju was lying dead on the bed and she was having injuries marks on her hands and legs, PW-3 further stated that SDM had recorded his statement Ex. PW-3/A. PW-3 further stated that most of the time, his deceased daughter used to live with him and one month before her death she had lived with him for about 3-4 months. His deceased daughter Manju used to inform him that the accused persons used to assault and beat her. They always used to demand something or the other from her (deceased). He further stated that he had given a dowry list Ex. PW3/B to the police which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/C. He further stated that he had also identified the dead body of his daughter Manju vide identification statement Ex. PW-3/D. He further stated that after the Post Mortem, the dead body of his daughter was handed over to him.
Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 5 / 27 6PW-4 Lakhan Singh stated that on 10th, he was sleeping in his house when his neighbour Rakesh Mishra knocked on his door and told him that daughter-in-law of Balraj Bhati had hanged herself. He came outside his and they both went to the house of Balraj Bhati and climbed on the first floor. Ravinder's mother was crying and told him that Ravinder's wife had hanged herself and they should open the door. He further stated that he and Rakesh Mishra kicked on the door and the door opened. He saw Manju hanging by means of a cloth. They both managed to take down the body of Manju to the bed. Ravinder and his mother were also present and they also assisted them. She (Manju) was made to lie on the bed. Rakesh Mishra opened the chunni which was around the neck of Manju. They realized that she had expired, he became perplexed. Somebody called No. 100 and police arrived at the spot. Police had made inquiries from him on that day and recorded his statement.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld.Addl.P.P on certain points and he admitted it to be correct that the incident had taken place on 10-01-2010 and Rakesh Mishra knocked at his door at about 7:00/7:15 am. He also admitted it to be correct that Manju was found hanging from the cealing fan and when they had kicked on the door and the latch of the door was broken.
PW-5 Pratap Singh stated that on 10.01.2010 a telephone call was received from the brother-in-law of son of Mahender that his daughter had hanged herself. He further stated that Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 6 / 27 7 his Chacha Mahender informed him. He went to Karawal Nagar, Bhagat Singh Colony which was the house of Balraj Bhati. On reaching their they saw door was opened and Manju was lying dead on the bed, he called No.100. Police had taken the dead body for postmortem and on the next day i.e 11.01.2010 the dead body of Manju was received after the postmortem and then she was cremated by them.
PW-5 further stated that they live in a joint family and Manju used to tell him that accused persons namely Balraj Bhati and Ravinder used to demand dowry from her and also used to beat and harass her. He further stated that prior to death of Manju, she had lived with them for three months. He further stated that his statement was recorded on 16.1.2010.
This witness did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. He was cross-examined by Ld.Addl.P.P wherein he admitted it to be correct that Mahender Singh was his real chacha and that they all used to reside together in the same house in the village. He also admitted it to be correct that Manju was married to Ravinder on 06/02/03 and that his chacha Mahender Singh had given dowry articles as per as his capacity. He also admitted it to be correct that the said articles given by Mahender Singh in dowry were not liked by the accused persons and for this reason Manju was harassed by her in-laws. He also admitted it to be correct that in-laws of Manju used to demand more dowry from her and for this reasons Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 7 / 27 8 they used to beat her and that it was due to the harassment and torture, Manju used to come to their house and used to live continuously for months. He also admitted it to be correct that Manju used to tell him and other family members regarding her sufferings and also used to say that her husband Ravinder and mother in law Gendo used to beat her for dowry. He also admitted it to be correct that he also stated to the police that Manju had died due to continuous harassment and torture for demand of dowry by the accused persons.
PW-6 Brijesh stated that on 10.01.10 he had gone to the house of in-laws of his deceased sister Manju where he saw his sister Manju was lying dead in the house.
This witness did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. He was cross-examined by Ld.Addl.P.P wherein he admitted it to be correct that his deceased sister Manju was married to accused Ravinder on 06/02/03 and that he & his father had given adequate dowry as per their capacity. He also admitted it to be correct that the dowry articles were not liked by the accused and that is why they did not treat his sister well. He also admitted that accused persons used to beat Manju and used to tell her to bring her more dowry and due to continuous harassment and torture regarding dowry, his deceased sister Manju used to come to their house and used to continuously live for months. He also admitted it to be correct that Manju used to tell him and other family members what Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 8 / 27 9 she was going through in her in-laws house. He also admitted it to be correct that husband Ravinder and mother in law Gendo used to beat his deceased sister Manju regarding dowry and Manju had also stayed with them for about three months. He also admitted it tobe correct that Manju had died due to continuous beatings and torture inflicted upon her by her in-laws and accused.
He also admitted that on 11.01.10, he had identified the dead body of his sister in GTB mortuary vide identification memo Ex.PW-6/A and that on 16.01.10, he along with his father had come to PS Karawal Nagar where the police had recorded his statement.
PW-7 HC Jitender is Duty Officer. He stated that on 10.1.2010 he was handed over a rukka by ASI Habib Ahmed and on the basis of the same he recorded FIR in this case and proved the copy thereof as Ex.PW 7/A and also proved his endorsement Ex.PW 7/B on the same. He also proved copy of DD entry No.3-A dated 10.1.2010 Ex.PW 7/C recorded by him.
PW-8 Anant Ram stated that on 10.1.2010 he was present at his shop at Pooja Studio at Karawal Nagar, Ct.Hari Om called him and he accordingly went with him to Gali No.4, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Colony, Karawal Nagar. He further stated that there dead body of a female was lying on the bed and he had taken 13 photographs of the dead body from different angels. He stated that he had taken the photographs from a digital camera hence there were no negatives. He proved the 13 photographs taken by him as Ex.PW Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 9 / 27 10 13/A-1 to PW13/A-13.
PW-9 Rakesh Mishra stated that on 10th of a Month, in the year 2010, he opened his shop at about 7.00 a.m. At that time he heard voice which was of mother of Ravinder. He went upstairs i.e on the first floor and saw from the window that daughter-in-law of Mr.Bhatti was hanging from the ceiling fan. He further stated that he came downstairs and took one neighbour Lakhan with him and again went to the first floor. There they kicked on the door as a result of which latch in the room gave way and it was broken. He further stated that with the help of Lakhan, he brought down the body of daughter-in-law of Mr.Bhatti from ceiling fan where she was hanging with a chunni. Public gathered by that time and police arrived. He further stated that police recorded his statement on 23.1.2010 at about 4.00 p.m. PW-10 Lady Ct. Sangeeta deposed that on 10.1.2010 Insp. N.K.Tyagi handed over the custody of accused Gendo Devi to her. She further stated that in the evening at about 6.30 p.m IO Insp.N.K.Tyagi interrogated the accused Gendo Devi in her presence. She further stated that she conducted personal search of accused but nothing was recovered in her personal search. She further stated that accused Gendo Devi was arrested vide memo Ex.PW 10/A and her personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW10/B. The disclosure statement Ex.PW 10/C of accused Gendo Devi was also recorded. Thereafter, accused was put in lock up under her Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 10 / 27 11 supervision. PW-10 further stated that IO recorded her statement.
PW-11 SI Mukesh Jain stated that on 22.1.2010 at the request of IO Insp. N.K.Tyagi, he reached at the PS Karawal Nagar and from there he along with IO went to spot i.e first floor of H.No. 143, Gali No.4, SBS Colony, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. He further stated that he inspected the spot and prepared rough notes and measurement of the spot on the pointing out of Insp. N.K.Tyagi. He further stated that on the basis of those rough notes he prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW11/A and destroyed the rough notes after preparing scaled site plan.
PW-12 Sh. P.K. Sofat, Executive Magistrate stated that on 10.01.09, I was posted as Executive Magistrate Seelampur, Delhi. On that day, he received telephonic information from SHO PS Karawal Nagar that one lady has committed suicide at Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Karawal Nagar. He was also told that the parents of the deceased Manju had arrived and that he (PW-12) should record their statements. He further stated that he went to House No.143, Ist floor, Gali no. 4, SBS Colony, Delhi where he saw a dead body of a female lying on a cot. He further stated that he examined the dead body and observed cut marks on 2-3 fingers of the hand and there was a cut mark on the big toe of the foot. He further stated that he directed the police at the spot to seize the articles belonging to the deceased comprising of a blanket, one kunda and a chunni. The articles were seized by the police and he had signed the same. He further stated Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 11 / 27 12 that the dead body was sent to GTB Hospital for preservation. He had recorded the statement Ex.PW 3/A of Mahender Singh father of deceased Manju and directed the SHO Karawal Nagar to take action as per law. He further stated that 3 pulandas were sealed vide separate seizure memo Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C. PW-12 further stated that on the next day i.e. 11.01.2010 he had requested for postmortem on the dead body of Manju vide application Ex.PW12/D, carried out the inquest proceedings, prepared Form No. 25.35.1.B, recorded the identification statements of Brijesh @ Vijay Ex.PW6/A and that of Mahender Singh Ex.PW3/D. PW-13 SI E.S. Yadav stated that on 10.01.2010, he was posted in Mobile Crime Team, North -East district as Shift Incharge. A call was received from the control room at about 9.30 am to reach House No. 143, Gali No.4, SBS Colony, Karawal Nagar. He along with the team comprising of ASI Rajender and ASI Chet Ram reached the spot. On the first floor of the house in a room one dead body was lying on the double bed. He further stated that he observed ligature mark on the neck. One chunni was lying nearby and IO told him that the deceased had hanged herself by the fan with the help of chunni. He further stated that they did not had a photographer so the IO had called the private photographer. He prepared his report Ex.PW13/A and handed over the same to the IO. IO had also recorded his statement.
Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 12 / 27 13PW-15 ASI Habib Ahmed stated that on 10.01.2010, on receipt of DD no. 3-A, he along with Ct. Kewal Krishan had gone to House No. 143, Gali No.4, SBS Colony, Karawal Nagar. On reaching the first floor of the house he found a dead body of a female lying on the double bed in the house. One blanket was also laid on the dead body and one chunni was also lying nearby. He also observed ligature mark on the neck. He further stated that he also observed blood marks on the two fingers of the right hand and on the big toe of the leg. He further stated that at the spot he came to know that the deceased was married in the year 2003. He called the Crime Team, the area SDM and the private photographer. Sh.P.K.Sofat the Area Executive Magistrate arrived at the spot. The relatives of the deceased had also reached the spot. The Area Executive Magistrate recorded the statement of Mahender Singh the father of deceased. He further stated that when he reached the spot he had also come to know that the neighbors and public persons had already got the deceased removed from the fan who had hanged herself with a chunni. The area SDM ordered for seizure of case property comprising of chunni, kunda, blanket, double bed sheet, pulover and other articles and accordingly he had prepared 3 seizure memos which are Ex.PW12/A, B and C and The case property was sealed with the seal of HAK. He further stated that the dead body of Manju was sent to GTB Mortuary through Ct.Kewal Krishan. The SDM recorded the statement of the mother of the deceased and ordered the Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 13 / 27 14 SHO Karawal Nagar to take necessary action as per law. He further stated that he put his endorsement Ex.PW15/A, prepared a rukka and took the same to PS and handed was over to the Duty Officer, who registered the present case. He further stated that, further investigation of the case was marked to Inspector Narender Kumar Tyagi who had already left for the spot. He further stated that he took the copy of FIR and rukka and reached the spot again and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to IO. He further stated that father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased had also reached the spot, IO inspected the spot and prepared site plan Ex.PW15/B. He further stated that the father in law and mother in law of deceased were brought to the PS and they were arrested vide arrest vide memo Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B. He further stated that disclosure statements of Balraj and accused Gendo were recorded. He further stated that on the next day, the postmortem on the dead body was conducted.
PW-14 Ct. Kewal Krishan deposed on the same lines as deposed by ASI Habib Ahmed regarding the investigation done on 10.01.2010. He stated that he had gone to spot with ASI Habib Ahmed where dead body of a female was lying. He further stated that he had taken the dead body to mortuary. Ct.Kewal Kishan further stated that on 14.1.2010 on the instructions of Insp.Narender Kumar Tyagi he had gone to GTB mortuary and obtained the pullanads and postmortem report and he handed over the same to IO which were Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 14 / 27 15 seized vide memo Ex.PW 14/A. PW-16 Inspector Virender Singh stated that on 26.02.10 the present case was marked to him for further investigation. He prepared the challan and the same was filed in the court. He further stated that he had also obtained the judicial remand of the accused persons.
PW-17 Constable Goldy stated that on 15.01.2010 he was given three pulandas sealed with seal of HAK, by the MHC(M) and the same was taken by him to Forensic Deptt. GTB Hospital and deposited them in the Forensic Deptt, GTB Hospital. He returned back and handed over the receipt of the same to MHC(M).
He further stated that at about 8.30-9.45 p.m, he was present in the police station and accused Ravinder was brought to the police station and his arrest documents Ex.PW-17/A and Ex. PW- 17/A-1 were prepared. He further stated that the accused was got medically examined and was put in lock up.
He further stated that on 22.1.2010 he again joined the investigation of the present case and went to Forensic Deptt. GTB Hospital and obtained a pulanda from GTB Hospital Forensic Deptt. duly sealed with the seal of JD and deposited the same in the malkhana.
He further stated that on 25.1.2010 he had taken four sealed pulandas, out of which three were sealed with the seal of JD and one was sealed with the seal of HAK, along with the forwarding Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 15 / 27 16 letter and deposited the same in FSL Rohini. He handed over the receipt of the same to MHC(M). IO recorded his statement.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld.Addl.P.P and he admitted it to be correct that he had obtained a pullandas containing chunni duly sealed with the seal of HAK vide RC No. 4/21 and till the case property remained in his possession it was not tampered with. He also admitted it to be correct that the accused Ravinder made disclosure statement Ex.PW-17/B and that he had taken a authority letter on 22.1.10 to bring back the case property comprising of chunni. He also admitted it to be correct that he had also obtained subsequent opinion from the doctor and the opinion and the pulandas were handed over by him to the IO in P.S and that till the case property was in his possession was not tampered with. He also admitted it to be correct that on 25.1.2010 he had taken the sealed case property vide RC No. 9/21 along with sample seal of JD and that till the case property remained in his possession it was not tampered with. He also admitted it to be correct that IO had recorded his three statement.
PW-18 Insp.N.K. Tyagi stated that on 10.01.2010 while he was present at house No. 143, Gali No. 4 SBS Colony, he was handed over copy of FIR Ex.PW 7/A and rukka Ex.PW 3/A. He further stated that on the pointing out of ASI Habib Ahmed, he prepared site plan Ex.PW-15/B. He then called Balraj and accused Gendo to the place of occurrence for interrogation and they were Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 16 / 27 17 taken to the Police Station Karawal Nagar. Thereafter they were arrested. Accused Gendo was arrested vide memo Ex.PW-10/A and Ex.PW-10/B and her disclosure statement Ex.PW-10/C was recorded.
He further stated that on the next day, he recorded statement of Ct.Kewal Krishan in the police station. He was informed by ASI Habib Ahmed that the postmortem was got conducted on the body of the deceased on the request of the Executive Magistrate and the body was handed over to her relatives. He further stated that he sent the pullanda of chunni for subsequent opinion to Forensic Deptt. of GTB Hospital through Ct. Goldy.
He further stated that on 15.1.2010 accused Ravinder was arrested vide arrest vide memo Ex.PW-17/A and Ex. PW-17/A1 and his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW-17/B was recorded. Accused Ravinder produced before him photographs of his marriage which are Mark P-18/A (1 to 4). He further stated that on 25.1.2010 he had sent the exhibits to FSL Rohini through Ct.Goldy and on 19.2.10 he handed over the file to MHC(R) on his transfer.
This witness was also cross-examined by Ld.Addl.P.P and he admitted it to be correct that on 14.1.10 Ct.Kewal Krishan produced before him one pulanda duly sealed with the seal of JD allegedly containing the clothes of the deceased, one envelop duly sealed with the seal of JD containing blood on gauze, one sample seal of JD and one Postmortem Report of deceased Manju NO. 39/10 and the same was seized by him vide memo Ex.PW-14/A. He further Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 17 / 27 18 stated that on 22.1.10 the scaled site plan Ex.PW-11/A was got prepared by him from SI Mukesh Jain and he had brought the crime team report from the office of mobile crime team of the district. He also admitted it be correct that 16.1.10 complainant Mahender Singh handed over to him a list of articles Ex.PW 3/B and same were seized by him vide memo Ex.PW-3/C, collected photographs A-1 to A-13 from private photographer Anant Ram and recorded statements of witnesses.
Statement of accused persons was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegation against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Mahender Singh father of the deceased. They preferred to lead defence evidence but however they did not produce any defence witness and therefore the defence evidence was closed.
I have heard Sh. Mukul Kumar Addl.P.P for the State and and Sh.Virender Singh Ld.Counsel for the accused persons. I have also gone through the case file.
It was submitted by Ld.Addl.P.P for the State that prosecution has been fully able to prove its case against the accused persons. As per Ld.Addl.P.P, testimony of PW-2 Mahender Singh and PW-6 Brijesh proves that deceased Manju was being harassed and tortured for demand of dowry. It was further the submission of the Ld. Ld. Addl. P.P. their statements were consistent and corroborative. Hence, the accused persons were liable to be Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 18 / 27 19 convicted.
On the other hand, it was contended by Ld.Counsel for the accused persons that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. It was further contended by Ld.Counsel that accused persons were not responsible for death of Manju. As per Ld.Counsel, no dowry was every demanded by the accused persons and they are in no way responsible for the suicide committed by Manju.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent case reported as 2009 (1) JCC 372 SC titled as Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab, held that:
"the essential ingredients of the said offence i.e under section 304-B IPC are ;
(i) death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii) such death must have been occurred within seven years of marriage;
(iii) soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relative of her husband
(iv) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand of dowry: and
(v) such cruelty is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
To prove a case under section 304-B IPC it is necessary Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 19 / 27 20 for the prosecution to prove all the above referred ingredients as held by The Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Coming to the facts of this case, it is clear that the prosecution has been able to prove the first two ingredients of Section 304-B that death of Manju occurred in otherwise than under normal circumstances and within the seven years of her marriage.
But as held in judgment State Vs. Tarseem Singh (Supra), to seek conviction under section 304-B Cr.P.C, it is essential to prove all its the five ingredients.
Now we come to the evidence that has been brought on record by the prosecution. PW-3 Mahender Singh is father and PW-6 Brijesh is brother of the deceased Manju. PW-5 Pratap Singh is cousin brother of deceased Manju.
First of all we take the testimony of PW-3 Mahender Singh father of the deceased. He stated that his daughter used to be beaten by the accused Ravinder and Gendo Devi for dowry. He further alleged that sometime accused used to demand vehicle and sometimes they used to demand jewelery. He further stated that his daughter used to tell him about these demands and also used to tell him that accused used to beat her for non fulfillment of these demands.
PW-6 Brijesh who is brother of deceased Manju did not state anything at first but when he was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld.Addl.P.P, he admitted that Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 20 / 27 21 his deceased sister was being harassed and tortured for demand of dowry. He also admitted that accused Ravinder and his mother Gendo Devi used to beat his sister Manju regarding dowry and it was due to this continues beatings and torture that Manju died.
The other relative of the deceased Manju that has been examined by the prosecution is PW-5 Pratap Singh. He stated in his testimony that Manju used to tell him that accused persons used to demand dowry from her and also used to beat and harass Manju. This witness was also declared hostile by the prosecution and examined by the Ld.Addl.P.P and cross-examined. During his cross-examination by the Ld.Addl.P.P he admitted that Manju used to come to their house and live their for months as her husband and in-laws used to torture her for demand of dowry.
Thus from the testimonies of these three witnesses, it is revealed that Manju was being harassed on the following counts:
(i) for demand of vehicle
(ii) for demand of jewelery
(iii) for more dowry.
First I take the demand of vehicle which was being made by the accused persons. This demand of vehicle has come only in the testimony of PW-3 Mahender Singh. No mention of any such demand has come in the testimony of PW-6 Brijesh who is brother of deceased or PW-5 who is cousin brother of deceased. This alleged demand has only come in the testimony of PW-3 Mahender Singh.
Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 21 / 27 22He has not mentioned as to which vehicle was demand and when it was demanded and by whom it was demanded.
Now we come to the demand of jewelery by the accused persons. This demand has also come only in the testimony of PW-3 Mahender Singh. No mention of any such demand has come in the testimony of PW-5 Praptap Singh and PW-6 Brijesh. What jewelery was demanded, however much jewelery was demanded and when it was demanded by whom it was demanded is not clear from testimony of PW-3 Mahender Singh.
Now comes the allegations of demand of more dowry. When it was demanded or by whom it was demanded there is no mention of any date or time in testimony of any of these three witnesses.
It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that none of the witnesses have given any specific date or time when the deceased was harassed nor any details of the demand made by accused persons has been given.
In my view, the allegations of demand of dowry are general and vague in nature. In my view, the allegations the accused persons demanded more dowry etc. is baseless. In this regard I find support from Judgment reported as 2009 CRL.L.J. (NOC) 159 (CAL) Mojameel and others Vs. State of West Bengal wherein it was observed that when evidence of the witnesses in general nature and no date is disclosed when the demand was made and there is no Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 22 / 27 23 mention who made the demand, there is no evidence that soon before death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or in-laws- Conviction of of accused persons under Section 304-B IPC not proper.
In a case reported as 2001 CRI.L.J.4700 (Supreme Court) titled as Sunil Bajaj Vs. State of M.P, it was observed that, where the allegation are vague and inconsistent regarding demand of dowry and the same cannot be made basis for conviction of accused.
PW-3 Mahender Singh when cross-examined by the Ld.Counsel for the accused persons admitted that till the marriage of his daughter, there was no demand of dowry from the side of the accused persons.
PW-3 Mahender Singh also leveled another allegations against accused Ravinder that he had performed another marriage. When cross-examined by the Ld.Counsel for the accused on this point he stated that he cannot tell the name of the second wife of Ravinder. He also admitted in his cross-examination that his deceased daughter Manju did not tell her anything in this regard during her life time. It is pertinent to mention here that not mention of second marriage by accused Ravinder has been either by PW-5 Pratap Singh and PW-6 Brijesh in their testimony.
PW-3 Mahender Singh also admitted in his cross- examination by the Ld.Counsel for the accused that Manju used to tell about all the harassment to her mother and mother of Manju used Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 23 / 27 24 to tell him about the same. Mother of Manju has not been examined by the prosecution to prove this fact.
PW-5 Pratap Singh when cross-examined by the Ld.Counsel for the accused persons admitted that Manju had met him after 3-4 days of her marriage but she did not tell him about any harassment. He also admitted that during her stay at matrimonial house, Manju never talked to him on telephone and that Manju never told him personally about anything and he came to know about the same through his wife. His wife has not been examined by the prosecution to ascertain this fact. As per cross examination of PW-5 Pratap Singh he came to know regarding the harassment of deceased Manju from his wife. Therefore, the statement of PW-5 Pratap Singh is hearsay which is not admissible in evidence.
PW-6 Brijesh had stated in his cross-examination by the Ld.Counsel for the accused persons that he had no personal knowledge about the mis-behaviour by the accused persons with his deceased sister Manju and he had heard about the same from his father Mahender and brother Pratap. He also stated that his father did not had any discussion with him at the time of marriage of Manju. He also stated that he had no knowledge about any demand of the accused persons from Manju. He also admitted it to be correct that Manju never told him anything about demand of dowry made by accused persons. Therefore, it is clear that statement of PW-6 Brijesh is hearsay and the same is not admissible in evidence.
Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 24 / 27 25The other ingredient of Section 304-B IPC is that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relative of her husband. PW-6 Brijesh who is brother of Manju stated that till the death of Manju, they used to frequently visit matrimonial house of Manju and vice versa. There is nothing either in examination-in-chief or cross-examination of these witness which could suggest that soon before her death, Manu was subject to cruelty. In this regard, no evidence has come on record that soon before her death deceased Manju was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry.
It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that there was no complaint ever made by the deceased Manju against accused persons regarding her harassment or torture for dowry at the hands of accused persons. It was submitted that it was after the death of Anita that complaint was made by her parents.
PW-3 Mahender Singh admitted in is cross-examination that he had not made any complaint anywhere, either before any court or before the police.
PW-5 Paratp Singh also stated that his uncle Mahender Singh did not call any Panchyat regarding the harassment of Manju PW-6 Brijesh who stated that in his presence accused persons never mis-behaved with Manju. He further admitted that his father never called any panchyat regarding any harassment of Manju. He also admitted that till the death of Manju they used to visit the Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 25 / 27 26 matrimonial house of Manju frequently and vice versa.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Naraini Devi Vs. State 1992 (1) C.C.Cases 524 (HC) observed that when no complaint or protest was made in any corner and no report or complaint was ever filed, it gives the impression that the entire theory of the demand of cash/dowry was an afterthought.
Two other public witnesses have been examined by the Prosecution. PW-4 Lakhan Singh and PW-9 Rakesh Mishra.
Lakhan Singh (PW-4) is neighbouer of accused. He had reached the house of deceased on hearing the cries and had brought down the dead body of Manju with help of one Rakesh Mishra. He stated in his cross-examination that they had not seen any quarrel between the deceased and her in-laws. He stated that all the family members of accused were present at the spot and were crying.
Rakesh Mishra (PW-9) also stated that he had not seen any mis-behaviour of the accused towards deceased Manju. He also stated that all the family members of accused were at the spot and were crying.
In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused persons harassed the deceased Manju for in connection with demand of dowry and they caused the dowry death of Manju beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, both the accused are acquitted of the charges Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 26 / 27 27 against them. Bailbond/surety bond of accused persons stand cancelled.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in an Open Court On this 09.12.2010 (Surinder Kumar Sharma) ASJ/NORTH-EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS,DELHI Sessions Case No. 20/2010 Page 27 / 27