Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Sudhir Kumar Johar on 18 July, 2011
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NW): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 373/06
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0011442006
State Vs. (1) Sudhir Kumar Johar
S/o Sh. Manohar Lal
R/o BQ161B, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi
(Acquitted)
(2) Jitender Johar
S/o Sh. Sudhir Kumar Johar
R/o BQ161B, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi
(Convicted)
(3) Bhupender Singh
S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh
R/o 8631, Feroz Gali,
Kishan Ganj, Delhi
(Acquitted)
(4) Pratibha Chaddha
W/o Sh. Vinod Kumar Chaddha
R/o 90A, LIG Flats,
Rajouri Garden, Delhi
(Discharged on 21.2.2008)
(5) Nanak @ Pankaj
S/o Sh. Mahender Singh
R/o 8618, Gaushala Marg,
Kishan Ganj, Delhi
(Acquitted)
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 1
(6) Swarn Kaur
W/o Sh. Mahender Singh
R/o 8618, Gaushala Marg,
Kishan Ganj, Delhi
(Acquitted)
(7) Mahender Rani Johar
W/o Sh. Sudhir Kumar Johar
R/o BQ161B, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi
(Acquitted)
(8) Sudha Johar
D/o Sh. Sudhir Kumar Johar
R/o BQ161B, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi
(Acquitted)
FIR No.: 06/2004
Under Section: 304B/498A/34 Indian Penal Code
Police Station: Keshav Puram
Date of committal to sessions Court: 14.3.2005
Date on which orders were reserved: 3.6.2011/ 7.7.2011
Date on which judgment pronounced: 11.7.2011
JUDGMENT:
As per the allegations, the accused Jitender Johar being the husband of deceased Divya @ Kuku; accused Sudhir Kumar Johar and Mahender Rani Johar being the parents in law; accused Pratibha St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 2 Chaddha (discharged) and Sudha Johar being the sistersinlaw; accused Bhupender Singh being maternal uncle of accused Jitender Johar; accused Swarn Kaur being maternal aunt (Mausi) of accused Jitender Johar and accused Nanak @ Pankaj being the cousin of accused Jitender Johar had subjected Divya @ Kuku to such cruelty, both mental and physical, for fulfillment of dowry demands of motorcycle/ scooter/ car and money between 19.4.2003 i.e. the date of her marriage to accused Jitender Johar till her death on 4.1.2004. Further, it is alleged that all the above accused acted in furtherance of their common intention to subject the deceased Divya to such cruelty both mental and physical in connection with demand for dowry, led Divya @ Kuku to commit suicide on 4.1.2004 at her father's house at C5/36B, Keshav Puram, Lawrence Road, Delhi.
BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
The case of the prosecution is that on 4.1.2004 on receipt of DD No. 12A was lodged in Police Station Keshva Puram regarding committal to suicide by a lady at C5/36 B, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi pursuant to which SI Ram Kanwar along with Ct. Banarasi and Ct. Chaman Pal reached the spot where SI Ram Kanwar came to know that the injured Divya had been removed by her father Ramesh Kumar to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital. SI Ram Kanwar left Ct. Chaman Pal to guarding the spot while he along with St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 3 Ct. Banarsi reached at Sunder Lal Jain hospital and collected the MLC of Divya who was declared brought dead by the doctor. SI Ram Kanwar recorded the statement of Ramesh Kumar the father of the deceased Divya. In his statement to the police Ramesh Kumar had alleged that his daughter Divya was married with Jitender Johar on 19.4.2003 and soon after the marriage she was subjected to mental or physical cruelty by the accused on account of demand of dowry.
Ramesh Kumar had informed the police that her daughter Divya hanged herself from the ceiling fan with the help of a dupatta at his house. On the basis of the said statement of SI Ramesh Kumar the present case was got registered. SHO Inspector Rajbir Singh also come to the hospital who informed the SDM. Thereafter all the accused were arrested and charge sheeted.
The record reveals that the accused Pratibha Chaddha was discharged by the Hon'ble High Court on 21.2.2008. CHARGE:
The Ld. Predecessor of this court has settled the charges under Sections 498A/ 304B/34 Indian Penal Code against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. EVIDENCE:
In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as Twenty Seven witnesses.
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 4 Public witnesses:
PW4 Sh. Ramesh is the father of the deceased who has deposed that he was having four daughters who all were married. According to her, Divya was his youngest daughter who was married with accused Jitender on 19.04.2003 which marriage was solemnized in accordance with Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. The witness has further deposed that he had spent the money in the marriage of his daughter more than his financial capacity and after about three to four days his daughter came to his house from her matrimonial home and told him that her inlaws were not happy with the dowry and they were demanding motorcycle or car. He has deposed that the husband of his daughter, Jitender told his daughter that he had not been given anything and whatever the dowry was given the same were given to his daughter due to which reason the parents in law of his daughter used to harass his daughter for not bringing sufficient dowry resulting in to quarrel between the parents in law and his daughter and several times telephone call was made on 100 number. According to the witness, the police officials when ever the call was made and at all times, however, the matter was patched up between them. He has alleged that the accused Jitender husband of his daughter; Sudhir Kumar fatherinlaw, Mahender Kaur motherinlaw, Sudha and Pratibha sisters in law, Pankaj who was treated as brother, Mausi Swarn Kaur and maternal uncle Bhupender Singh used to torture his St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 5 daughter at her matrimonial home and used to give physical beatings to her. He has testified that he always persuaded his daughter to patch up the matter so that, she could live in her matrimonial house peacefully but due to the mental torture, his daughter was admitted in the hospital as she was mentally depressed and on one occasion the husband of his daughter namely Jitender had given beatings to his daughter. According to the witness, a complaint was made to the Police/ CAW Cell and the offence was patched up and his daughter was taken by the accused persons to her matrimonial house. He has further deposed that his daughter was under depression because of the harassment by the accused persons and even after compromise in CAW Cell, his daughter joined the matrimonial house but the accused again started to torture his daughter who was given physical beatings. He has also deposed that due to the physical beatings a complaint was made to the police and the accused was arrested by the police of police station Shalimar Bagh but after release from the jail the accused Jitender used to live separately from the company of his daughter at her matrimonial house and some time he stayed at house of his maternal uncle or some other relatives. According to him, all the incidents referred above were told to him by his daughter on telephone or when he used to visit at the matrimonial house of his daughter. The witness has testified that he had also made arrangement of the ration for the matrimonial house of his daughter St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 6 but since his daughter was being tortured by the accused persons, he brought her at his home and provided her proper treatment but accused Jitender visited his house and threatened his daughter and after his last visit his daughter committed suicide by hanging. According to the witness, about two months prior to her death, his daughter had told him that her sisters in law namely accused Pratibha Chadha and Sudha Johar had dragged her by the hairs and beaten her and on a previous occasion accused Pankaj had also been beaten her with a belt. He has testified that about fifteen days thereafter, accused Jatinder and Pankaj came on two wheeler and accused Pankaj had pulled her chain which got entangled in her clothes and though he advised her to file police complaint yet she did not lodge the same. He has further deposed that accused Mahinder Kaur and Swarn Kaur used to quarrel almost daily with her daughter and also gave her physical beatings for demand of dowry. PW4 has further stated that he went to the matrimonial home of his daughter alone on several occasions and on many occasions with other family members when Mahinder Kaur and Swarn Kaur used to tell him that he could make any complaint against them and they were not bothered. He has further deposed that his daughter had hanged herself from the ceiling fan using a blue coloured printed dupatta and his daughter Meghna and son in law Harish removed Divya from the hanging position after which Harish had called up PCR at 100 number. According to him, St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 7 when he reached his house, dead body of his daughter had already been removed. He has further testified that from the spot, one register and one suicide note written by his daughter were also found there which after sealing were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/E and one pair of chappal of his daughter was also seized by the police and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/D. He has proved that the dupata with blue prints was also sealed by the police and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/C and he had also handed over to the police the photographs, the marriage card, got printed by him and another marriage card got printed by the accused persons which were seized vide memo Ex.PW4/A. He has also deposed that on 29.2.2004 he had also handed over the duplicate copy of the booking hall where the marriage was solemnized, copy of which booking form was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/B. PW4 has further deposed that his daughter Divya was shifted to Sunder Lal Hospital where she was declared brought dead after which she was taken to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial hospital Hospital where her postmortem was conducted and he identified her dead body after which the dead body was handed over to him vide handing over memo which is Ex.PW4/E. The witness has also proved his statement which is Ex.PW4/F regarding the identification of dead body of his daughter. He has testified that they used to visit the CAW Cell where all the accused used to taunt St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 8 his daughter and he lodged a complaint which is Ex.PW4/G. According to him, on 04.01.2004 the investigating officer came at the spot and he had shown the room in which his daughter Divya committed suicide after which the investigating officer prepared rough site plan at his instance which is Ex.PW4/H. He has also proved the photographs Ex.P1 to P20 which were seized by the investigating officer; the marriage card got printed by him is Ex.P21; photocopy of the marriage card got printed by the accused which is Ex.P22; the carbon copy of the booking form of banquet hall which is Ex.P23; the register seized by the police which is Ex.P24 containing hand writing of his daughter Divya @ Kaki and he identified her handwriting on the basis of his experience as he had seen his daughter while writing and signing the documents since her childhood and the suicide note of his daughter which is Ex.P25.
The witness has further deposed that his daughter committed suicide because of threats by accused Jatinder that he would get her parents killed and also that she should withdraw the case which was pending in CAW Cell and also in the court of MM of Police Station Jahangirpuri. He has further testified that the accused Jitender was accompanied by accused Pankaj when he extended such threats. He has proved that his statement was also recorded by the SDM which is Ex.PW4/I. According to him, his daughter Divya St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 9 lodged a complaint which is Ex.PW4/J which complaint was in the hand writing of his daughter Divya and the complaint in CAW Cell was compromised vide compromise deeds Ex.PW4/K and Ex.PW4/L. He has further stated that after compromise his daughter Divya had again made a request to ACP Women Cell, Pitam Puri vide application Ex.PW4/M which application was filed with the police by his daughter as she was again illtreated by the accused persons. According to the witness, all the lady accused persons also used to harass his daughter stating that if she would not bring more dowry, in that case she would not be allowed to enter in her matrimonial house. He has further proved that the accused Bhupender and Sudhir Kumar were arrested vide memos Ex.PW4/N and Ex.PW4/O respectively and the personal search of accused persons Bhupender Singh and Sudhir Johar were conducted vide memos Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/A respectively. He has correctly identified all the accused in the court and also identified one pair of chappal which is Ex.P26 as that of his daughter and a blue coloured printed chunni which is Ex.P27 with the help of which his daughter had hanged herself.
In his crossexamination he had deposed that the time of marriage of his daughter Divya, he was employed in Hindustan Aircon and was getting approximately Rs.8,000/ to Rs.9,000/ as salary. According to him, he was not an income tax payee at that time St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 10 and his wife was a housewife and hence there was no other source of income of his family. He is unable to tell as to how much amount was spent in the marriage of his daughter or whether he had spent Rs. 1 lac, 2 lacs or 3 lacs. He has deposed that he had taken some loan from the company and some from his sons in law namely Ravinder Kapoor Harish Sethi and Umesh Mehta but he is unable to tell as to how much amount was taken and from which son in law. According to the witness, he had taken some amount from his other relatives but he did not recollect their names and has deposed that Divya was aware about these loans which he had taken from his sons in law and other relatives. He has admitted that Sudhir Kumar is the owner of the house and at the time of marriage he had a maruti car and Jitender Kumar is the only son of Sudhir Kumar Jauhar but states that at the time of marriage he was told that there were two sons. According to him, there was no middle man and he had directly approached the family of Sudhir Kumar as they had already mentioned their names in Mandir. He has testified that he did not make any enquiry regarding the financial condition of the family prior to the marriage and the marriage was not simple but was solemnized as per the requirement of the family of Sudhir Kumar. He has further deposed that at the time of marriage he had a telephone at his residence and even Sudhir Kumar had a telephone connection and his daughter had a mobile phone but he did not remember her number. PW4 has admitted that St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 11 his son in laws used to visit the house of Sudhir Kumar Jauhar i.e the matrimonial house of his daughter frequently and that his son in law Harish Sethi used to help him in this regard. The witness has further deposed that Harish Sethi was running a factory but he is unable to tell whether the inlaws of Divya did not like the frequent visit of his other son in law at their place and states that his other son in laws were frequently called by them due which reason they used to go there. He has denied that when objection was made on the frequent visit of his son in law Divya used to fight with Jitender and his family or that Sudhir Kumar had raised any objection with him on the question of frequent visit of his son in law to Divya's place. The witness has also denied that his son in law had threatened Jitender and his family with dire consequences in case if his frequent visits were objected or that he used to keep quite since he had taken loan from his son in law. He has also denied that he had demanded money from Jitender through his daughter Divya since he had taken loan for her marriage from his son in law and states that Jitender had demanded Rs. One lacs after the withdrawal of the dowry case the question of making a demand from him does not arise. According to him, he did not mention either to the police or to the SDM regarding this demand of Rs. one lac and has denied that his daughter used to pressurize Jitender to transfer his property in her name and when he refused for any financial assistance or transfer of property in his name she used to St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 12 quarrel with him. PW4 has also denied that his daughter remained in depression because his financial condition was not proper and states that she had no depression but she was being mentally tortured by the family of Jitender. He has denied that Jitender used to treat his daughter properly or that it was for this reason that Jitender had been separated by his family and states that he was given one room in the same house. The witness has also denied that Jitender used to favour his daughter and it is for this reason he was debarred by his family. The witness has denied the suggestion that on 07.06.2003 he along with his son in laws Harish Sethi and Ravi Kapoor had gone to the residence of Jitender and quarreled with him and his family pressurizing them to transfer the property in the name of Divya and had a peshbandi lodged in the Police Station Rani Bagh but has admitted that he did not mention anything regarding dowry harassment in the said peshbandi and states that it was not so mentioned, because they were sitting till about 1:00 PM thinking that they would come and they would settle the entire dispute. He has denied that he along with his other sons in law went to the residence of Jitender on 23/24.07.2003 and quarreled with Jitender and his parents or that he in connivance with the local police got initiated proceedings under Section 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure against Jitender but admits that Divya's statement was recorded in the said proceedings. According to him, in the said statement Divya had St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 13 not made any allegations regarding dowry demand but had only stated that he used to beat her up and states that her detailed statement was recorded before the dowry cell. He has stated that he was not present at the time when her statement was recorded in the case under Section 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure. He is not aware as to who was present along when her statement was recorded but has denied that being unsatisfied with the aforesaid proceedings Ravi Kapoor, Harish Sethi, Usha Kapoor went to the residence of Jitender and states that they were called by them. He has also admitted that the proceedings under Sections 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure were again initiated against both the parties but he is not aware if the statement of Divya was again recorded on the said date wherein she did not make any allegation of dowry demand or harassment for dowry demand. He has denied that he got a false report registered with the CAW Cell in the name of Divya and has denied that neighbours of Jitender who were respected persons had also reported to Senior Officers of the police of the rank of DCP that he and his family in connivance of local police often come to the area and got false cases registered against Jitender and his family. The witness has also denied that he got a false case registered on 24.7.2003 with the CAW Cell only to pressurize Jitender and his family so that he could recover the remaining Stridhan or that after receiving the stridhan he voluntarily compromises the disputes with the family of Jitender on 05.09.2003. St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 14 PW4 Ramesh Kumar has admitted that the compromise bears his signature and also the signature of Ravi Kapoor and Harish Kumar but states that the compromise was affected to give an opportunity to the parties to rehabilitate. He has deposed that apart from his sons in law he had also taken neighbours namely Chander Prakash, Subhash and one Mr. Arora and some relatives so that there could be a compromise but he does not remember any dates. He has admitted that there was no police complaint during the period from 05.09.2003 to 04.12.2003 but states that their intention was to ensure the rehabilitation of their daughter but she was subjected to constant mental torture. He has denied the suggestion that his daughter and Jitender were living in the matrimonial house happily and no dispute had taken place during that period and that is why he or his daughter did not lodge any report. The witness has also denied that he forcibly brought his daughter from her matrimonial home on 04.12.2003 without the permission of her in laws. He has testified that between 04.12.2003 to 11.12.2003 when his daughter was with him he did not lodge any complaint with the police and has denied that he request for reopening the dowry case on 12.12.2003 was pursuant to a conspiracy. The witness has further denied the suggestion that because his sons in law were insisting for return of their money it is for this reason he had lodged a false complaint against Jitender and his family or that his daughter Divya remained under tension because of this reason but states that St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 15 she was being constantly harassed by her in laws. According to him, on the date of death of his daughter, he was in his office and he does not remember the person who had called him but he received a call from his house and Harish, his son in law might have telephoned him. He is unable to tell at what time his son in law Harish reached his house on 04.01.2004 but states that when he reached his house at about 3/3:30 PM his son in law Harish was present there. He has admitted that many neighbour were present at his house at that time and states that at the time when he reached home the body of his daughter had been removed from the fan and brought down. According to PW4, he had himself took his daughter to the hospital along with his son in law Harish Sethi and he had told the doctor that he was the father of Divya. He does not recollect if his name or the name of Harish Sethi was mentioned in the MLC by the doctors or not. He has denied that he had not accompanied Harish Sethi and Divya to the Hospital and she was taken only by Harish Sethi but has admitted that Harish Sethi joined the inquest proceedings. According to him, his statement was recorded on many occasions but he did not recollect exactly how many times. He has deposed that his first statement was recorded by police but he does not recollect if that statement was recorded in the police station or at his house and states that his statement was recorded at about 9.30 or 10.00 PM. PW4 has further testified that SDM recorded his statement in the hospital and St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 16 the other family members were also present when his statement was recorded. He has also deposed that SDM himself did not record his statement but his statement was recorded by somebody else. He does not recollect the name of the person who recorded his statement in the presence of the SDM or the time when his statement was recorded. He also does not recollect if his statement was already recorded and the same was got attested from the SDM. The witness does not recollect at what time the police officials reached his house but states that they came at his house on 04.01.2004. He has admitted that the neighbours had collected at the time of arrival of police and states that register was taken out by him from the drawer of the side table of the bed and the suicide note was kept in the register itself. According to him, no neighbour had signed the seizure memo of the said register and alleged suicide note nor does he recollect if he or the police officials or any neighbour had signed on the said register or on the suicide note. He has further deposed that he had not gone through the said suicide note nor the contents of the said register and is unable to tell what was written in the suicide note. The witness has testified that even thereafter he did not see what was written in the suicide note and till date he was not aware about its contents. According to PW4, his daughter had never written anything in the said register in his presence. After seeing the register in the court the witness has deposed that he cannot not tell on that day what had been written in it. St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 17 He has denied that his daughter had never written any register nor she had written any suicide note or that the same had been written later.
The witness has further deposed that he had told the SDM regarding the fact that his daughter had come to him and told him after three or four days that her in laws were not happy with the dowry. According to him, he had also told the SDM that Jitender had told to his daughter that he had not given him anything and whatever dowry was given, the same was given to her. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW4/1 where it was not so recorded. He has further deposed that he did not mention to the SDM that 100 number call was made to the police with regard to the quarrel between his daughter and her in laws. He also did not tell the SDM that his daughter had been subjected to a mental torture and had remained admitted in the hospital and that on one occasion the accused Jitender had beaten his daughter. He has further deposed that he did not tell the SDM that after his return from Jail, Jitender used to live apart from his daughter at her matrimonial house, when sometimes he used to stay at the house of his maternal uncle and sometimes elsewhere. He does not remember having told the SDM or the police that his daughter used to inform him on telephone or when he used to visit her in her matrimonial house about the aforesaid incidents. He also does not remember having told the SDM that Jitender used to visit his house and threatened his daughter nor does he remember if he had told the St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 18 SDM or the police that Jitender used to come and sit the public park and speak in a loud voice or that his daughter had committed suicide after his last visit. According to PW4, he did not tell the SDM that whenever his daughter used to go to CAW cell, she was subjected to taunts by Jitender and his family but he does not remember if he had told the SDM that his daughter committed suicide because of threats of accused Jitender that he would get her parents killed and also that she should withdraw the case which was pending in CAW cell and also in the court of MM of Police Station Jahangir Puri. He also does not recollect if he stated before the SDM or police that Jitender used to be accompany by accused Pankaj when he extended the threats.
He has denied the suggestion that his daughter had a suicidal tendency even before marriage or that since he was not in a position to repay the loan taken by him from his son in laws, she remain under depression and tense. The witness has also denied that Jitender never demanded any dowry or was given beating for demand of dowry or harass her for the dowry or that family member of Jitender never demanded any dowry nor harassed her in any manner whatsoever. He has further denied that his daughter had no liking for her husband as he did not financially help him to pay up the loans or that he and his daughter along with his other son in laws had eye on the property of Jitender and for that reason they used to quarrel with Jitender and his family members. PW4 has denied that since Jitender St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 19 and his family members were objecting to the occasional visits of his sons in law so his daughter remain in tension and under depression or that his daughter did not like to live with Jitender and they had lodged a false case and other report only to blackmail Jitender and his family members. According to the witness, Bhupender Singh was the Mama of Jitender who stayed at Kishan Ganj and states that whenever he used to visit the house of Jitender he found him there. He has denied that Bhupender Singh had never visited the matrimonial home of his daughter Divya. The witness has further stated that Bhupender was approximately 70 years of age and has denied that Bhupender Singh was a retired ClassI officer and had no concern with the family and the matrimonial life of Divya. He has admitted that Sudha, the sister of Jitender at the time of marriage was a student or that she never demanded anything but states that she used to indulge into beating of Divya. PW4 has also denied that Sudhir Jauhar, Mohinder Rani, Bhupender Singh and Sudha never demanded any dowry or quarreled at any time, they have been simply roped in to extract money and has denied that he had wrongly identified the handwriting of his daughter. He has admitted that the accused Swarn Kaur and Pankaj had been living at Kishan Ganj, New Rohtak Road and still they were occupying the same house. According to him, they both had been always found to be at the place of Sh. Sudhir Jauhar whenever he visited there. He has admitted that the distance of their Kishan Ganj St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 20 residence was about 25 Km. from the house of Sh. Sudhir Jauhar but has denied that accused Pankaj who was working at British High Commission, Chanakya Puri had been falsely implicated in this case and had no concern with the matrimonial dispute between Jitender and Divya. According to him, in his presence there were no incident of beating and only when he went to her house she complained to him. He has denied that Divya used to aggravate small issues being extra sensitive or that the portion of Divya and Jitender was completely separate and other persons of the family had no concern.
PW10 Smt. Meghna has deposed that they were four sisters including Divya (deceased) and she had no brother. According to her, on 19.4.03 her sister Divya was married with Jatinder Kumar Johar according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies when she was present in the marriage. The witness has further deposed that the function was organized at Shagun Banquet Hall on 18.4.03 and 19.4.03, she was very closed to her sister Divya and therefore, she (deceased) used to tell her each and everything on phone happened in her matrimonial house. She has further deposed that she used to tell her that motherinlaw Mahinder Rani, Mausi Swarn Kaur, Nanand Sudha Johar, Mama Bhupinder Singh, Pankaj and husband Jitender Johar, Nanand Pratibha used to taunt her for not bringing sufficient dowry. She has also deposed that her husband used to harass her sister for not bringing car, scooter etc. and in order to fulfill the St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 21 demand of scooter, her father had applied for loan but they could not give the scooter as in between the same they lodged the complaint in Women Cell. According to PW10, during the proceedings at CAW Cell, they had a compromise with the accused persons and thereafter they (accused) had taken her sister back to their house after which the aforesaid persons started beating her sister. She has testified that Pankaj once had beaten her sister and snatched her Mangal Sutra and his sister used to tell her that Mausi Swarn Kaur had also beaten her sister. The witness has also testified that one month before her death that is on 4.12.03, Divya had come back to the house of her mother and when she asked her as to why she had come back from her matrimonial house, on which she (Divya) informed her that her husband used to threated that either she would suicide or kill the deceased. According to the witness, her sister used to tell her that her mother in law, father in law, used to taunt her for not bring sufficient dowry and whatever the articles, they had given in the marriage was not satisfactory to the accused persons, therefore, they started demanding some other articles including ration. She has testified that motherinlaw and sisterinlaw Sudha Johar had demanded the jewellery articles from her sister which were lying in her matrimonial house and since her father was not having sufficient means, therefore, he could not fulfill the demand of the accused persons. She has testified that on the day of incident, she made telephonic call to her St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 22 mother and to have a talk with her sister to which her mother informed her that the deceased Divya was very much depressed and had gone inside her kitchen and she kept the telephone hold and after sometime her mother informed her that Divya had committed suicide by hanging herself and asked her to come at once. The witness has also deposed that she informed her brother in law Harish Kumar Sethi about the incident after which he along with his wife Poonam Sethi directly reached the house of her mother and after sometime she also reached there with her husband when her sister Poonam Sethi had gone to call the doctor and in the meantime her brother in law Harish Sethi got her sister down from the ceiling fan in the room adjacent to the kitchen and people from the locality also came there. She has testified that after sometime PCR reached there and took her sister to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital. According to PW10, when a complaint was lodged to CAW Cell, her sister Divya was beaten by the accused persons and she had seen the marks of injuries on the back of her body caused with a leather belt given by Pankaj and Jatinder Johar.
She has testified that on one occasion there was a function at Karol Bagh when all the family members of her sister Divya attended the function leaving her sister alone in the house which fact was informed by her sister on telephone. She has identified all the accused in the court except Sudha whose identity was not disputed.
In her crossexamination, the witness has deposed that her St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 23 statement was recorded on 29.2.04 at her house at Lawrence Road at about 3.30 P.M. and she had signed that statement after going through the same. According to her, she had stated in her statement before the police that the function was organized at North End Banquet Hall. She was confronted with her statement Ex.PW10/A where this fact regarding the witness being very close to her sister and having frequent telephone conversation had not been recorded. The witness has deposed that she had also told the investigating officer that the in laws of her sister used to taunt her frequently for getting insufficient dowry. She was confronted with her statement Ex.PW10/A where this fact was not so recorded but it has been observed by this court that the allegations of dowry demand have been mentioned in the statement. She does not remember the number of the mobile phone of her sister and has denied that her sister was not having mobile phone. According to PW10 Meghna, she had told the investigating officer that her brother in law namely Jitender used to trouble her sister and insist that she should get a scooter for him and that her father had applied for the scooter loan but on account of the complaint with CAW Cell, they did not give any scooter. She had also stated to the investigating officer that the accused had beaten her sister and snatched her Mangal Sutra and that when she asked her sister why she had come to the home, she told her that her husband had stated that either he would kill her or she would commit suicide. The St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 24 witness had also told the investigating officer that the inlaws also demanded for the ration and that mother in law and sister in law Sudha Johar had demanded the jewellery articles from her sister which were lying in her matrimonial house. According to her, she had also told the investigating officer that her father was not having sufficient means and hence, he could not fulfill the demands of the accused persons. She has also stated to the investigating officer that she had informed her brother in law Harish Kumar Sethi about the incident and he along with his wife Poonam Sethi reached directly to the house of her brother. The witness has also deposed that her sister Poonam Sethi had gone to call the doctor and in the meantime her brother in law Harish Sethi got her sister down from the ceiling fan in the room and that when a complaint was lodged to CAW Cell, her sister was beaten by the accused persons and she had seen the marks of injuries on the back of her body caused by leather belt given by Pankaj and Jitender Johar. She was confronted with her statement Ex.PW10/A where these facts were not recorded.
The witness has testified that at the time of the marriage of her sister, her father was privately employed but she is not aware about his income at that time. She has deposed that in the marriage of Divya about Rs. Five Lacs to Six Lacs were invested and that her father had taken a loan from Ravinder Kapoor but she is unable to tell the amount. According to the witness, her father had not taken the St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 25 loan from any other persons so far as she remembers and she personally did not talk to her sister on this aspect of her father taking loan for her marriage. She has deposed that the alliance between the accused and her sister was not fixed through any acquaintance but states that she and her sister were working in a Beauty Parlour and mother and Mausi of the accused had come to see her sister in the Beauty Parlour, on which she told her father about the same. The witness has also deposed that before the alliance of her sister was fixed, her parents did not make any enquiry about the family of her brother in law but states that even in her marriage, her father did not make any enquiry and there was no problem and therefore, her father did not make any enquiry. She has admitted that Jitender was the only son of his parents and that Sudhir Kumar Johar was Gazetted Officer but she is not aware if the mother of her brother in law was a Principal in a school. PW10 has also admitted that the accused family had a Maruti car before marriage but states that her sister told her that the said car belong to her sister in law (Nanand) which had been sold. She is not aware if there was no vehicle in the name of Nanand of her sister but states that her brother in law had told her sister about it. The witness is also not aware how much jewellery was given to her sister during her marriage and has denied that only simple marriage took place. She does not remember the telephone number of Jitender Johar on account of lapse of time of six years. She has St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 26 denied that her husband used to visit Divya in her matrimonial home after her marriage and voluntarily added that they were never permitted to visit her. According to her, he had only gone there once after the complaint was lodged at CAW Cell and has denied that her other brother in law Harish Sethi used to frequently visit her sister Divya which was objected to by her inlaws. PW10 has denied that Jitender had specifically told Divya that he did not like Harish Sethi, Ravinder Kapoor and Umesh Mehta (brother in laws) frequently visiting her house on which there used to be a dispute or that Divya used to insult her inlaws including her mother and father in law. She has also denied that Harish Sethi had threatened the inlaws of Divya that in case they were prevented from visiting Divya it would not be good for them or that Divya had asked Jitender to help financially her father which had been refused by Jitender. The witness has also denied that her father used to tell Divya to get property of her inlaw in her name but states that there was no reason for saying so, her father himself had a house in Lawrence road or that Jitender used to favour her sister, for which reason he was separated from his parents but states that he used to demand dowry and there was a separation only after the complaint before the CAW Cell. PW10 Smt. Meghna has further deposed that her father, Harish Sethi and Ravinder Kapoor had gone to the residence of Jitender on 7.6.2003 when there was an altercation and Mar Pitai and states that her father was an old man St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 27 and was not capable for doing so. She has denied the suggestion that a false complaint was made in the Police Station as Pesh Bandi or that her father along with Harish Sethi, Ravinder Kapoor, Umesh Mehta had gone to the house of the accused on the intervening night of 23/24.7.03 and did maarpitai with the parents of Jitender and got him implicated in a false case. PW10 has also denied that on 25.7.2003 Ravi Kapoor, Harish and Usha Kapoor went to the house of Jitender and did mar pitai with parents of Jitender and a kalandra under Section 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure was lodged against them. She has admitted that a complaint was lodged at CAW Cell on 24.7.2003 but she has denied that it was on false facts and had been made only to pressurize the inlaws of Divya. PW10 Smt. Meghna has further denied that entire Istridhan of her sister had been returned pursuant to the compromise in the CAW Cell and states that her sister was pushed in the back room and there was no returning of the articles. She has denied that her sister had given in writing about the return of Istridhan and that there was compromise on 5.9.2003 but adds that there was a compromise on 12.12.03. The witness has further deposed that her sister had returned to her father house on 4.12.2003 and has admitted that between 5.9.03 to 4.12.03, no complaint was made to any authorities regarding harassment of her sister. PW10 has admitted that even after 4.12.03 till 11.12.03 and no complaint had been made to any authorities regarding harassment to St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 28 her sister but has denied that no such complaint was made as there was no harassment caused to her sister. She has denied that her sister was unhappy even prior to her marriage or that she had any suicidal tendency. The witness has further denied that there was no demand for dowry or harassment caused to her sister on this account by the accused.
In her further crossexamination, the witness has deposed that she was the eldest sister of Divya and she had great affection for herself and she (deceased) used to tell each and every thing on telephone. According to the witness, whatever she had stated in the court had been told to her by her sister on telephone and she had not personally seen such incidents in her presence. The witness has deposed that before and at the time of marriage, no dowry demand was made by the accused persons. She has testified that no list of dowry articles was prepared by them at the time of marriage and as such there was no handing over and taking over of the articles. She has admitted that whatever she had stated in respect of demand of dowry or any harassment, it was all whatever was told to her by her sister on the telephone. She has testified that nothing had been done in her presence and has denied that nothing was told to her by her sister on telephone. PW10 Smt. Mehgna does not recollect the address of accused Bhupinder Singh and states that her sister had told her about it when she was alive and that she had never visited St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 29 Bhupinder Singh, therefore, she is unable to tell how far he reside from the house of the Jitender. She is not aware that Bhupinder Singh was a Gazetted Officer in Haryana and has admitted that Sudha was a student at the time of marriage and is unable to tell any date or month when the harassment was caused to her sister. PW10 has admitted that her father had brought Divya deceased to the parental house on 4.12.03 and she died in parental house on 4.1.04. She has admitted that Sudhir Johar, Mahender Rani, Bhupinder Singh and Sudha never visited their house but has denied that they had falsely implicated Sudhir Johar, Mahender,Rani, Bhupinder Singh and Sudha being aggrieved by the death of Divya. She is unable to tell any date when Pankaj and Swarn Kaur had caused any harassment to her sister Divya and states that it was an old incident. According to the witness, she had seen Pankaj snatching the Mangal Sutra of her sister Divya which incident had taken place in front of the house of Sudhir Johar but she did not call either her parents or other family members or the public persons nor she or her parents lodged any report with the police in respect of this incident. PW10 has admitted that apart from this solitary incident she did not see Pankaj or Swarn Kaur with her sister but she does not remember the date, month and year when this incident took place and it was soon after her marriage. She is unable to tell whether it was four months, six months or one year after the marriage and has admitted that her sister portion had a separate entry St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 30 from the back side of the house and states that after the complainant in the CAW Cell her sister was given the back side room which was partitioned by putting an almirah but the accused Jitender frequently used to interact with his mother and thereafter used to fight with her sister. According to her, at the time when the Mangal Sutra of her sister was snatched, there were four other boys with him whose faces were covered with mask. She is unable to tell the police if Pankaj had come with the boys with mask covering their faces but did not remember the date or the month when the incident of Pankaj having hit her sister with a belt on her back took place and states that the date was mentioned in the complaint made to the CAW cell. She has denied that Pankaj and Swarn Kaur had never interfered with the matrimonial life of Divya and Jatinder and had nothing to do with the same or that Swarn Kaur and Pankaj had not demanded any dowry or harassed his sister for demand of dowry.
PW15 Ms. Usha Kapoor has deposed that they were four sisters including the deceased Divya and was is the eldest daughter of her parents and the deceased Divya was the youngest and they had no brother. According to her, she had been taking care of her younger sisters and she had helped her parents in searching for good matches for them. She has deposed that her youngest sister Divya was like a daughter to her as she had only one son and she was taking care of her and also arranged for the present alliance for her through the Santoshi St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 31 Mata Mandir, (SwargAshram) Hari Nagar and she had even conducted the Kanya Daan of the deceased. She has testified that on 18.04.2003, one day prior to the marriage of her sister with the accused Jitender Johar, the Shagun Ceremony was held where they had given to the family of accused sufficient gifts as demanded by them and the marriage was thereafter held on 19.04.2003. According to PW15, on 20.04.2003 they delivered the stridhan articles to the house of the accused consisting of double bed, almirah, washing machine, gold articles etc. but the accused had also demanded scooter/ motorcycle which they could not arrange and promised to arrange the same later. She has further deposed that on 20.40.2003 the mother of the accused and his Mausi Mrs. Swarn Kaur raised objection on the quality of the double bed stating that the polish was not good on which they contacted the shopkeeper from where they purchased the double bed at Pitampura who sent his boy at the house of accused for polishing the double bed. According to her, thereafter the aforesaid persons including accused (Mama) Bhupinder, Sudha and Pratibha who used to sit with them almost daily raised the objection regarding quality and insufficient dowry as per their desire and her sister was being harassed by them for the aforesaid reason. She has alleged that one day her sister was left alone in the house while the accused left to attend a marriage after locking the house which incident happened perhaps on 21.04.2003 and her sister Divya used to call her and St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 32 insisted to call her back in their house as the accused persons used to harass her. According to PW15, the accused Jitender Johar, his mother, his sisters Sudha & Pratibha and his Mausi Swarn Kaur used to demand Rs.1,00,000/ and also demanded a Maruti Car and since they had already given sufficient dowry and were having no means for further dowry therefore they did not pay the aforesaid amount and also did not give the Maruti Car. She has also deposed that one day Pankaj who was addressed by the accused Jitender Jauhar as Brother (Mausi's son) and the accused Jitender Jauhar had beaten her sister, as told by her sister on telephone and they used to insist upon her sister to give them a Maruti car as per their desire which they could not give as only a few days had passed after the marriage but she promised her sister that they would consider the demand of Maruti car after about six months as they would see the conduct of the accused persons. The witness has further deposed that her sister was beaten by her husband and Pankaj and therefore, she sustained injuries and she was medically examined. According to her, they made efforts to make the accused persons understand but they did not stop harassing her sister and thereafter her sister Divya made a complaint to the Women Cell also in their presence which matter was adjourned for about two to three dates and efforts were made to settle the matter amicably by the investigating officer and the matter was finally settled there. She has deposed that the accused persons had given "Maafinaama" there St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 33 which are already Ex.PW4/K and Ex.PW4/L. She has proved that her sister Divya had given her complaint in writing which is Ex.PW15/A and that accused Jitender Jauhar had given in writing and had made promise that the she would not be maltreated in future which is Mark X1. According to the witness, her sister informed her on telephone that while she was sleeping, she was pinched by some one and when she woke up she did not find any person and make the complaint to her husband to which he told her that there was nobody was there in the room and therefore her sister got afraid. She has testified that on 04.12.2003 her sister had come to the house of her parents and ultimately on 04.01.2004, her sister committed suicide by hanging and strangulating herself with a chunni and her other sister Meghna informed her about the incident after which she left her office and reached to her parents' house where she found her sister Divya lying on bed. According to PW15, her husband also arrived in the evening and somebody informed the PCR after which the police came there and she and the police took her sister to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital but she was declared brought dead. She has proved that her statement was recorded by the investigating officer and has identified all the accused.
In her crossexamination, the witness has deposed that her father was serving in M/s Hindustan Aircon Private Limited and was drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/ per month and her mother was a St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 34 housewife. According to her, they spent about Rs. 4 to 5 lacs in the marriage of deceased Divya and she also helped her father in this marriage and had given him about Rs.1,50,000/ after borrowing the same from her brother Vijay Gautam who was not his real brother. She has further stated that Harish also helped her father and he might have given Rs.10 to 12 thousand and Umesh Mehta also gave to her father about Rs.11,000/. She has testified that her husband was employed in a private firm but she did not recollect the name of the firm but it may be M/s Enesco. PW15 has admitted that accused Sudhir Jauhar was holding ClassI post as Gazetted Officer but she is not aware whether the wife of Sudhir was a Principal and has admitted that Sudhir Jauhar was having Maruti car before the marriage and states that Jitender Jauhar told her that the said car belong to his sister Sudha. She has deposed that Jitender Jauhar had not talked to her but this fact was told to her by her sister. According to the witness, her statement recorded might have recorded by the police on 29.02.2004 at her house at Lawrence Road but she did not state this fact in her statement before the police. She is unable to tell tell the cost or rate of the jewelery which was given to her deceased sister by her inlaws at the time of marriage and states that her sister used to tell her about the demand of dowry on telephone and also while she was in their parental house. She has admitted that accused Jitender Jauhar is the only son of his parents but states that they were St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 35 told by his parents that they were two brothers and later they came to know that the other brother was cousin by the name of Pankaj and was not the real brother. She does not remember if she told this fact to the investigating officer at the time of recording of his statement. According to PW15, her father had a real brother by the name of Sh. Satpal who had already expired and her uncle had one son namely Kamal and they enjoy cordial relations with their uncle's family and there was no dispute but both their families confined to themselves and there was not much interaction. She has denied the suggestion that she or her husband used to frequently visit the family and in laws of deceased Divya and states that her husband had no time and it was only on two or three occasions when there was a quarrel and they were called by them (in laws of Divya) that they went there. She has denied that her brother in law Harish Sethi used to frequently visit Divya's matrimonial house or interfere in her family affairs in any manner or that the parents of Jitender were not happy with the frequent visit of Harish at their house and they asked him not to come time and again there but he continued to visit there and threatened the parents and accused Jitender with dire consequences if they stopped him from coming there. She does not remember the date but when her sister was beaten on one occasion they had all gone to the house of the accused. PW15 has denied that they had manhandled the family of the accused Jitender or that accused Jitender was got falsely St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 36 implicated by her father and brother in law in a case under Section 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure on intervening night of 23/24.07.2003. She is not aware if the neighbours of the accused had made a complaint against them with the DCP concerned. The witness has denied that pursuant to the aforesaid they got a false complaint lodged at CAW Cell in the name of Divya or that this complaint was lodged only because they wanted to recover the entire stridhan of Divya and states that Divya had filed this case as she was being physically harassed. Smt. Usha Kapoor (PW15) has further denied that they had compromised this complaint after they were handed over the entire stridhan and jewelery but states that the settlement took place because the accused had undertaken that they would not cause any harassment to Divya. She has also denied that they had filed the complaint in the CAW Cell only to blackmail the accused persons or that on 25.07.2003 she along with her husband, brother in law Harish Sethi went to inlaws of Divya and quarreled with them as a result of which proceedings under Section 107/150 Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against both the parties. She also does not recollect if she in her statement given to the investigating officer, had mentioned the details of the stridhan articles as given by her in her statement. She was confronted with her statement Ex.PW15/DX1 wherein such details including that of motorcycle had not been mentioned. According to her, she did not mention in her statement to St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 37 the investigating officer that mother and Mausi of the accused had raised objection on the quality of the double bed and the shopkeeper had sent a boy for polishing the double bed. She did not mention this fact to the investigating officer in her statement that her sister had told her that she did not want to stay with her in laws as she was being harassed and they should call her back and states that she was perplexed on account of her sister. She also did not recollect that if in her statement given to the investigating officer that her sister was beaten by the accused Jitender with the belt nor did she mention to the investigating officer that they had promised to the accused to make up for the deficient dowry articles after sometime. The witness also admits that she did not mention to the investigating officer that her sister had told her that somebody used to pinch her at night and when she woke up there was nobody. She does not recollect whether she told the investigating officer that on the date of death of her sister, Meghna had called her up and when she went home her sister was lying on the diwan (bed). She has denied the suggestion that that accused Jitender used to keep her sister very happily and in a very good and cordial atmosphere and states that he was not even employed and had that been the case, her sister would not expired. The witness has also denied that her sister Divya never liked the accused and used to insult the inlaws or that that the marriage was forced upon her sister and was not with her consent. She has further St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 38 denied that her sister used to pressurize Jitender to ask his family to transfer the house in her name or that her sister used to pressurize Jitender to give financial help to her father was under a debt on account of her marriage. PW15 has denied the suggestion that since Jitender had refused to give any financial help to her father, Divya had gone into depression and committed suicide on this account or that whenever there was a quarrel between Divya and in her laws Jitender used to side with her but states that he used to leave her and go away which fact has also mentioned in her suicide note. She has also denied that it was for this reason Divya and her husband Jitender were separated from her in laws or that Divya was given the back portion of the premises. According to her, Divya continued to reside in the same room where she had come after his marriage and the kitchen was common and has denied that they had an approached to the police and that is why they got false cases registered against the accused persons but states that rather it was the accused who claimed that one Pratibha Chadha who is like an elder sister to him, is employed in Delhi Police. The witness has denied that neither accused Jitender nor his parents nor other family members ever made a demand of dowry from them nor had ever physically or mentally harassed her sister Divya on account of the same or for any other reason. She is not aware where Bhupender Singh was residing and states that she was told by her sister that Bhupender Singh, the Mama St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 39 and Swarn Kaur the Mausi of Jitender and Pankaj were residing somewhere in Karol Bagh near the Gaushala. She is also unable to tell if Bhupender Singh was a Class I Officer in the Irrigation Department of Haryana. PW15 has admitted that no demand of dowry was made by all the accused in her presence but stated that her sister used to tell her. According to her, at the time of marriage Sudha used to stay at home and she is unable to tell if she was a student or not. She has denied that the accused Jitender was running a shop and earning a good livelihood.
PW7 Sh. Hari Kishan Bhardwaj has deposed that he was working as Priest at Sanatan Dharam Mandir situated at C4 Block, Keshav Puram, Delhi and on 19.4.03 he performed the martial rites and ceremonies of the daughter of Sh. Ramesh Kumar son of Sh. Diwan Chand at North End Banquet Hall, GT Karnal Road, Jahangirpuri, Delhi according to the Hindu Customs & Rites. He has testified that the marriage of Divya was solemnized with Jitender and his statement was recorded. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels.
PW8 Sh. Vikram Puri has deposed that he was Manager of the North End Party Hall situated at 18, Rajasthan Udyog Nagar, GT Karnal Road, Delhi upto 2005 and on 18.4.03 the hall was booked for Shagun ceremony of Divya and Jatinder and on the next day i.e. on 19.4.03, there was marriage ceremony of the aforesaid persons. He St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 40 has proved the Booking Form of the aforesaid dates and ceremonies which are Ex.P23 and Ex.PW8/A. According to him, he handed over the same to the investigating officer which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. He has also not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels.
PW9 Smt. Krishna Devi deposed that she had four daughters and had no son. Her daughter Divya was married with Jatinder Johar in the month of April, 2003. This witness appeared to be physically frail and unwell and therefore on the request of Ld. Addl. Prosecutor this witness is dropped as the testimony of her husband had already been recorded on the same aspects. Medical Evidence:
PW16 Dr. Anil Shandilya has deposed that on 05.01.2004 he was working as Autopsy Surgeon at BJRM Hospital and on that day he conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Divya Johar, aged about 25 years, Female, W/o Sh. Jitender Johar send by the then SDM Sh. Bans Raj Ram vide Postmortem Report which is Ex.PW16/A. According to him, the cause of death in this case was deferred till the receipt of blood and visceral chemical analysis report which was preserved and sealed with the seal of hospital and was handed over to the investigating officer. He has deposed that on 30.06.2005 on the request of the investigating officer he had perused St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 41 the viscera chemical analysis report which tested negative for common poison and after perusing the aforesaid reports, he had given his opinion on 30.06.2005 that the death in the present case was due to asphyxia resulting from anti mortem ligature hanging which opinion is Ex.PW16/B. The said witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. defence counsels and the entire evidence has gone unrebutted.
PW17 Dr. Sarfaraz Alam, CMO ftrom Sunder Lal Jain Hospital has deposed on behalf of Dr. Mohd Arshad who was working as CMO in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital and left the services from the said hospital and his whereabouts were not known. He has brought the record of patient Divya Jauhar W/o Sh. Jitender Jauhar and has deposed that as per record Dr. Mohd Arshad examined the patient Divya Jauhar w/o Jitender Jauhar aged about 25 yrs, female brought by Harish on 04.01.2004 vide MLC Ex.PW17/A bearing the signatures of Dr. Mohd. Arshad. He has deposed that the patient was declared brought dead at 4.25 p.m. and the Casualty Slip prepared by Dr. Arshad is Ex.PW17/B. In his cross examination the witness has admitted that the patient Divya was not personally examined by him nor the aforesaid MLC and casualty slip was prepared by him. He has admitted that the aforesaid patient was not examined by Dr. Mohd. Arshad in his St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 42 presence.
Police/ Official witnesses:
PW1 Ct. Chunni Lal has deposed that 04.01.04, on the receipt of information he reached the spot at C5/36 B, First Floor Keshav Puram, with the Crime Team at about 7:00 pm and took photographs. He has proved the negatives which were developed by him and the photographs which are Ex.PW1/A1 to A5 and the negatives are Ex.PW1/B1 to B5.
In his crossexamination, the witness has deposed that SDM was not present when he took the photographs and the photographs were taken at the directions of the investigating officer. He has testified that there were many persons present and they were not known to him so he is unable to tell whether the inlaws of the decreased were present or not. According to him, deceased had already been removed to the hospital by the time he took the photographs.
PW2 Ct. Chaman Pal has deposed that on 04.01.04 he was posted at Police Station Keshav Puram and on that day he along with SI Ram Kunwar and Ct. Banarasi on the receipt of DD No.12A, reached house no. C5/36 B Keshav Puram where it was revealed that injured Divya had already been removed to the Sunder Lal Jain Hospital. The witness has deposed that he left for the preserving the St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 43 spot and SI and Ct. Banarasi went to the Hospital and they returned after two hours along with the complainant Ramesh and at the instance of the complainant Ramesh spot was inspected and the site plan prepared. According to him, from the spot Chunni, Chappal, papers and register were taken into police possession after they were sealed with the seal of RKY which seal after use was handed over to him on which he, Ramesh and investigating officer signed the seizure memos. He has also deposed that SHO also arrived at the spot and Crime Team and Helpline team also came to the spot. He has also deposed that Crime Team inspected the spot and submitted their report after which they proceeded to Shalimar Bagh to arrest Sudhir and Bhupinder the accused and they were arrested and subjected to medical examination. He has further deposed that the accused was sent to lock up and the case property was deposited in the malkhana and Jamatalashi memo of Sudhir Kumar Johar is Ex.PW2/A and jamatalashi memo of Bhupinder Singh which is Ex.PW2/B. According to PW2, the Dupatta was having knot in the ceiling fan and was having another knot at the other end which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C after it was removed from the ceiling fan; Pair of slipper's of blue colour were taken into possession from the room vide memo Ex.PW2/D; Register was taken into possession vide Ex.PW2/E; two sheets of written paper were St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 44 taken into possession vide memo which is Ex.PW2/F but he is not aware what was written in them. The witness has correctly identified the accused persons in the court as well as the case property i.e. Register is which is Ex.P24; suicide note which is Ex.P25; one pair of chappal (slipper) of dark blue colour which are Ex.P26 and one chunni of blue colour which is Ex.P27.
In his crossexamination he has deposed that they left the Police Station at about 4 p.m and they reached at the spot at about 4.10 p.m. and so many persons collected there at the spot. He does not remember as to who told the investigating officer that Divya had been removed to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital but states that it was also not told to the investigating officer in his presence. According to him, the investigating officer came back to the spot alone at about 6.30 p.m but the investigating officer did not join any neighbour in the investigations. He has testified that the chappal were lying on the ground and the register was lying on the rack. The witness has further deposed that he had not gone through the register and he had not signed the suicide note. He is unable to tell whether the investigating officer had signed the same or not and has deposed that the register contained 244 pages but the investigating officer did not encircle any portion of the register. He is also unable to tell what was written in the said register. According to PW2, Crime Team reached at the spot at about 77.30 p.m and the register, chappal and suicide note were St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 45 taken into possession after reaching of the Crime Team and after taking the photographs of the same. He has testified that they remained at the spot till 99.30 p.m. and that SHO also arrived at the spot at about 4.15 p.m He does not remember if the SHO had signed any paper at the spot and states that they left the spot at about 9.30 p.m and reached at the house of accused Sudhir Kumar. The witness has further deposed that five to ten persons collected at the spot after seeing the police and does not recollect if the investigating officer had joined any one of them. He has testified that accused Sudhir Johar and Bhupender did not try to run after seeing the police officials but he does not remember what was recovered in the personal search of accused Sudhir Kumar Johar and Bhupender Kumar. According to him, he had signed the personal search memo but he did not remember who else signed those memos or as to who had taken the accused persons to hospital for medical examination. He has further deposed that the investigating officer deposited the case property in the malkhana after 12 midnight but has denied the suggestions that he had not joined the investigations on that day or that he signed the memos while sitting in the Police Station. He has further denied that the register, chappal, chunni and suicide note were not seized in his presence.
PW3 HC Suraj Bhan has deposed that on 04.01.04 he was posted at Police Station Keshav Puram and working as Duty St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 46 Officer from 5.00 p.m to 1 am night and on that day he received rukka through Ct. Yogender which was sent by SI Ram Kanwar. He has testified that on the basis of the rukka he recorded the formal FIR No. 06/04, which is in his hand writing bearing his signatures, Carbon copy of which is Ex.PW3/A. He has proved having made the endorsement on the rukka, which is Ex.PW3/B and has deposed that after registration of FIR, copy of FIR and rukka was sent to SI Ram Kanwar through Ct. Yogender and the photographer and the Crime Team was also sent to the spot.
In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that he is not aware whether SI Ram Kanwar along with Ct. Yogender together went at the spot. He has denied the suggestions that the Ct. Yogender did not come to the Police Station with rukka or that the rukka was prepared at the Police Station and entire proceedings had carried as desired by the investigating officer.
PW5 HC Gopal Dass has deposed that on 04.01.04 he was posted as Incharge PCR Van Commander 17 and on that day he was on duty from 8 am to 8 pm and after receiving the information from the PCR that one girl had committed suicide in C5/36B Lawrence Road, Delhi he along with staff reached at the spot and they found that one girl was hanging with the fan in a room adjacent to kitchen. According to the witness, he along with the help of relatives of girl put down and he came to know after inquiry Divya D/o St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 47 Ramesh W/o Jitender Johar. Thereafter, he alongwith other relatives of the girl took her to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital and where doctor had declared her dead.
In his crossexamination, he has deposed that he did not remember the time when he had reached the spot but they had reached there within ten to fifteen minutes of receiving the call. He does not remember the name of the Constables who were there along with him in PCR van and deposed that public persons were already present over there but he himself did not call upon anyone to join him in the proceedings. He is not aware the name of any public person who was present over there but states that he along with his Constable and other relatives of the deceased had brought down the dead body. According to him, the Chunni with which deceased had committed suicide was also brought down but he is not aware the name of any of the relatives who were present there. The witness has further deposed that in his presence the investigating officer had reached the hospital and the remained at the hospital for about thirty minutes or so. He does not remember whether he had handed over the said Chunni to the investigating officer or not.
PW6 Sh. Bansh Raj (the then SDM) has deposed that on 4.1.04 he was posted as SDM Model Town, Delhi and on that day an information was received in the office over a telephone at about 4:30 PM regarding hanging by a lady in her parental House at Keshav St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 48 Puram. He was also informed that the lady was shifted to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, Ashok Vihar by her parents and has been declared brought dead in the hospital. He instructed the investigating officer to shift the dead body from Sunder Lal Jain Hospital to mortuary of BJRM hospital and also to call the parents of the deceased at BJRM hospital on the next day i.e. on 5.1.2004. The witness has further deposed that on 5.1.2004 at about 10.00 am he reached at BJRM hospital where the parents of deceased namely Ramesh Kumar and Krishna Devi met him and he recorded their statements which are Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW6/A. According to him, he directed the SHO, Police Station Keshav Puram to register the case as per law and his endorsement was at point C on both the aforesaid statements. He has testified that investigating officer recorded the Brief Facts vide Ex.PW6/B, which was attested by him and thereafter the investigating officer also prepared the death report which is Ex.PW6/C. He has also deposed that the investigating officer recorded the statements of Harish Kumar and Ramesh Kumar which are Ex.PW6/D and Ex.PW4/F regarding identification of the dead body and after conducting the postmortem conduced, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased vide receipt Ex.PW4/E and before that he prepared the inquest documents Ex.PW6/E. St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 49 In his crossexamination the witness has admitted that on 4.1.2004 he did not go to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital and that on 4.1.04 it was Sunday and therefore he did not call the investigating officer at his residence. The witness has also admitted that he did not make efforts to contact the parents of the deceased on 4.1.2004 and states that instructions were given to the investigating officer on phone on 4.1.2004 to shift the lady from Sunder Lal Jain Hospital to BJRM hospital. He has further deposed that on 5.1.2004 he went to BJRM hospital of his own and the Jija of deceased namely Harish Kumar was also present who also identified the dead body in the hospital. He is unable to tell if brother of Ramesh Kumar was also present in the hospital or not but he did not contact him. He has testified that Harish Kumar brotherinlaw of the deceased had admitted her in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital but he does not remember if the presence of any PCR officials was there in the hospital. According to PW6, he recorded the statements of the aforesaid persons while sitting in the doctor's room and first he recorded the statement of Ramesh Kumar in the presence of the investigating officer which statement was recorded by the investigating officer on his dictation but he did not make any endorsement to that effect. He has testified that it was not practice to record the statement of the witnesses by the SDM himself and that he did not accompany any of his subordinate for recording the statement. He does not recollect if any person in his office was St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 50 also present on 5.1.2004. He has denied that he did not take any other official from his office for the purpose of recording the statement of witnesses deliberately. According to him, he took about two hours in recording the statement of the witnesses and other proceedings but he did not make any entry in his office regarding his departure to the hospital and coming back from there. He has admitted that there is no document on the record prepared by him except the endorsement on the statements of the aforesaid statements and his signature on other documents. He has also denied that on 5.1.2004 he did not go to the hospital or that the aforesaid documents were attested by him and made endorsement thereon while sitting in his office later on. The witness has also denied that the statements endorsed by him at point C were prepared by the investigating officer in the Police Station later on and thereafter he attested them at the instance of the investigating officer.
PW11 SI Maan Singh has deposed that on 01.08.2003 he was working as ASI at Women Cell, Pitampura an on that day Smt. Divya Johar made a complaint to ACP CAW Cell, Pitampura which was marked to him for investigations. According to him, he called the accused persons and the complainant party in the cell and made efforts to getting the matter settled amicably. On 05.09.2003 the complainant Divya Johar had given in writing that the compromise had taken place between both the parties and they lived together vide St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 51 Ex.PW11/A attested by him and bearing his signatures at point A. He has deposed that on 12.12.2003 complainant Divya Johar had made again her complaint which is Ex.PW4/M for taking action against accused persons and for reopening her case which complaint was marked to him by then ACP. The witness has deposed that he had given a date to both the parties to attend CAW Cell but before that day the complainant had committed suicide in her parental house and thereafter he handed over the file to MHC(R) as the investigation was handed over to some other IO.
In his crossexamination, the witness has deposed that he does not remember the date and time when the complaint had come in the office and the complaint was given to the reader to ACP so he cannot not tell as to who delivered this complaint in the office. He has admitted that he is not aware as to who was the author of the complaint Ex.PW4/J. The witness has also admitted that on 01.08.2003 when the complaint was marked to him complainant was not present in the cell and states that he issued notice to the complainant and the accused persons but he does not remember the date for which the accused persons and the complainant were summoned by him. According to him, no neighbour had come in the Cell from the accused persons nor did he give any notice to neighbour. He has admitted that before the compromise between the parties dated 05.09.2003, Divya (deceased) was residing with her St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 52 husband and that the original compromise deed are Ex.PW4/K and 4/L. The witness has also deposed that he had verified about Ravi Kumar and Harish Kumar who signed the compromise deed Ex.PW4/L that they were brotherinlaws of Divya. He is unable to tell as to who had written in Ex.PW4/K and Ex.PW4/M but admits that as per Ex.PW4/L the complainant Divya had taken her entire stridhan and did not want any proceedings against the accused persons. The witness has further admitted that in between 05.09.2003 and 12.12.2003 no complaint of any kind was received by him or in the CAW cell against the accused persons. He has also admitted that there was no allegations in the complaint dated 12.12.2003 Ex.PW4/M regarding dowry demand and harassment and states that it was an application for reopening the case. He has testified that on 01.08.2003 one Mahender Rani Johar motherinlaw of the deceased had given her statement which is Ex.PW11/DA and he called the persons mentioned in the statement Ex.PW11/DA for investigation but till then no action could be taken. He has also deposed that accused Jitender had also given in writing vide Ex.PW11/DB which was also attested by him and bearing his signatures at point A and Sudhir Kumar had also given his statement in the same manner which is Ex.PW11/DC. He has denied that he did not take any action against the person against whom the allegations were leveled by the St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 53 accused persons.
PW12 ACP Ms. Meena Naidu has deposed that on 15.01.2004 she was working as Addl. SHO Police Statio Keshav Puram and on that day further investigation of this case was handed over to her. She has deposed that she received the case file from MHC(R) and perused the same and on 25.01.2004 she again started the investigation and reached at BQ161, Shalimar Bagh along with father the deceased and found the said house locked. She has testified that she made inquiries from nearby house and came to know that the aforesaid house was locked for the last many days after which she along with Sh. Ramesh Kumar, father of the deceased went at Flat No. 90A, LIG Flats, Rajouri Garden, Delhi where also she found the said house locked. According to her on 28.01.2004 and 29.01.2004 she along with Sh. Ramesh Kumar reached at both the aforesaid houses and H. No. 8618, Gaushala Road, Kishan Ganj, Delhi and found the said houses locked. She has proved having obtained the NBWs against the accused persons and got the process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C., issued and got the complaint along with the documents collected from CAW Cell. She has further deposed that on 25.02.2004 the investigation of this case was marked to the SHO by the order of the then ACP and hse handed over the case file to the the then SHO for further investigations.
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 54
During crossexamination, she has deposed that she did not give any orders in writing to SI Ram Kanwar and SI Dalbeer to attend the bail matters. She has denied that she never conducted investigations or that the aforesaid police officials.
PW13 Inspector S.P. Vashisth has deposed that on 04.01.2004 he was working as Incharge Crime Team, North West District, Delhi and on that day he was called from the police station Keshav Puram and therefore he along with his Crime Team reached at the house of Ramesh Kumar C5/36B, Lawrence Road, Delhi where Ct. Chunni Lal photographer of his crime team took the photographs of scene of crime. According to him, no finger print was lifted from the spot and he prepared the crime team report which is Ex.PW13/A. In his crossexamination, the witness has deposed that he did not know the officer who called him from the police station nor does he remember whether the information was given to him by phone or through wireless. According to him, he received the information at about 6.30 PM but he does not remember the DD number of their departure from their office however they left after getting the DD lodged in their office. He has denied that he never visited the spot nor any photographs were taken in his presence or that the report was prepared in his office itself at the instance of the investigating officer.
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 55
PW14 ASI Pyare Lal has deposed that on 29.03.2004 he was working as Reader to ACP, CAW Cell, North West, Pitampura and on that day SI Ram Kanwar had come in their office and he handed over the order of DCP (North West) and the documents dated 05.09.2003, 24.07.2003 and 12.12.2003 to SI Ram Kanwar which documents are Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW4/M and Ex.PW4/L. According to him, the aforesaid documents were seized by the investigating officer vide memo Ex.PW14/A. In his crossexamination, he has deposed that the directions to reached the spot was in writing and has admitted that the said directions were not a part of the charge sheet. According to him, he used to maintain a register with regard to the receiving of order from the higher authorities and he obtained the signatures of SI Ram Kanwar on the said register but he did not recollect the entry number of the said register. He is unable to tell the time when SI Ram Kanwar had come to the CAW Cell and states that he was alone when he came to CAW Cell. The witness has further deposed that it was on the verbal directions of the Incharge CAW Cell that the documents were handed over to SI Ram Kanwar and there were no directions in writing.
PW18 SI Manohar Lal has deposed that that on 29.05.2004 he was posted as Draftsman in North West District and on that day he was called by SI Ram Kumar from Police Station St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 56 Keshavpuram. According to the witness, he reached at Police Station Keshavpuram from where he along with the investigating officer reached at the spot i.e. C5/36B, Keshavpuram where complainant Ramesh Kumar and Smt. Krishna Devi were present and on the pointing out of complainant Ramesh Kumar he prepared rough notes and took measurement on the basis of which he prepared scaled site plan which is Ex.PW18/A and the same was handed over to the investigating officer on 09.06.2004. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsels.
PW19 SI Ram Phal has deposed that on 23.07.2003 he was working as ASI at Police Station Shalimar Bagh and on that day, on the receipt of DD No. 55B regarding quarrel he along with Ct. Rajender reached at BQ161B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where they found the crowd gathered. He has testified that the fact of quarrel was brought to the notice of the then SHO and ACP and on the receipt of instructions, he arrested the accused Jitender Jauhar under Section 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure. He has also deposed that on 25.07.2003 he received another call vide DD No.21 regarding quarrel at the same place therefore he along with Ct. Mangli Ram reached at the aforesaid place and prepared Kalandra under Section 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure vide Ex.PW19/B against the accused. He has proved having recorded a DD No.22 to this effect which is Ex.PW19/C and also having recorded the statements of Smt. St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 57 Mahendri Devi and Divya which are Ex.PW19/D and Ex.PW19/E respectively.
In his crossexamination the witness has admitted that the fact of dowry demand or harassment for insufficient dowry was not mentioned in the DD or in kalandara Ex.PW19/A or in the statement of Divya. He has further admitted that no demand of dowry or harassment for demand of dowry was stated by them in their statement Ex.PW19/D and Ex.PW19/E but states that in kalandra Ex.PW19/B the first party was Smt. Divya, Ravi Kapoor, Usha Kapoor and Harish Sethi whereas second party was Jitender Kumar, Mahendri and Sudhir Kumar. The witness has also admitted that he prepared kalandara Ex.PW19/B against both the parties but has denied that no quarrel has taken place on the night of 23/24.07.2003 or that accused Jitender was arrested falsely in the said kalandara at the instance of Harish, Ravi Kapoor and Ramesh Kumar. He has admitted that accused Sudhir Jauhar is a patient of paralysis but has denied that the first party committed the quarrel whereas he implicated the second party as accused falsely deliberately.
PW20 Retd. HC Deep Chand has deposed that on 27.07.2004 he was posted as HC at Police Station Keshavpuram and on that day on the directions of the investigating officer the MHC(M) handed over to him one sealed pullanda containing the viscera of the St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 58 deceased and one pullanda containing clothes of deceased both duly sealed with the seal of the hospital and two sample seals which he took to CFSL Hyderabad vide Road No. 56/21/04. According to him, after depositing the same at CFSL Hyderabad he was handed over the receipt of the same by CFSL Hyderabad which he brought back to the police station and handed over to the MHC(M) PS Keshavpuram on 01.08.2004. He has proved that till the time the pullandas/parcels remained with him they were not tampered. He has not been cross examined by the counsels for the accused.
PW21 Ct. Naushad has deposed that on 13.03.2004 he was posted at Police Station Keshavpuram as Constable and on that day on the directions of the investigating officer SI Ram Kumar the MHC(M) handed over to him two envelopes both duly sealed with the seal of the court which he took to CFSL Kolkatta vide road No. 13/21/04 and deposited the same there. He was handed over the receipt by CFSL Kolkatta which he brought back to the police station and handed over the same to the MHC(M) HC Tej Pal on 22.03.2004. He has proved that during the time envelopes remained in his possession they were not tampered. According to him, even prior to 13.03.2004 he had taken the samples to CFSL Kolkatta on 29.02.2004 but the same were not received by CFSL Kolkatta and the same were sent back through him and were handed over to the MHC(M). He has also not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels. St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 59
PW22 Ct. Yogender Nath has deposed that on 04.01.2004 he was posted as Constable at Police Station Keshavpuram and on that day on the directions of the Duty Officer he went to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital to join the investigations with SI Ram Kumar. He has deposed that when he reached Sunder Lal Jain Hospital he met SI Ram Kumar who handed over a tehrir to him for taking the same to the police station for registration of the case which he took the tehrir to the police station and handed over the same to Duty Officer HC Suraj Bhan. According to the witness, after about thirty minutes the Duty Officer handed over to him original tehrir and copy of the FIR and directed him to hand over the same to SI Ram Kumar and accordingly he took the same to the spot i.e. C5/36B, Keshavpuram, Lawrence Road and handed over the original tehrir and copy of FIR to the investigating officer.
In his crossexamination, the witness has deposed that he had reached Sunder Lal Jain Hospital on the directions of the Duty Officer at about 6 PM on his private motorcycle but he did not make any departure entry. He is not aware when the investigating officer had recorded the tehrir and states that he was only handed over the same. According to him, he did not see any other police official along with SI Ram Kumar nor he notice any other person from the family of the deceased. He does not recollect if he had told the investigating officer the address of the premises. He has denied that he never went St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 60 to the spot nor he was handed over the rukka along with the copy of the FIR to the investigating officer or that he did not go to the Sunder Lal Jain Hospital or collect the tehrir.
PW23 Ct. Banarsi Tiwari has deposed that on 04.01.2004 he was posted at Police Station Keshav Puram and on that day he was on emergency duty in the Police Station Keshav Puram. According to him, he along with SI Ram Kanwar reached at C5/36B, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram to attend the call where they came to know that the injured had already been removed to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital and the Beat Constable Chaman was already present there who was left at the spot for guarding the spot and he along with investigating officer went to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital where investigating officer collected the MLC of the deceased Divya Jauhar. He has further deposed that they took the dead body to Mortuary of BJRM Hospital and got the same preserved and on 05.01.2004 the postmortem on the dead body was got conducted. He has testified that investigating officer conducted the inquest proceeding and prepared the necessary documents and he took the exhibits of the deceased from the concerned doctor duly sealed with the seal of the hospital and handed over the same to the investigating officer who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/A. In his crossexamination, the witness has deposed that he had handed over DD No.12 at the gate of the police station and he St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 61 along with the investigating officer went on the scooter. He has deposed that they reached at the spot at about 2.30 p.m and family members of Divya met them at the spot but he does not recollect their names. The witness has further deposed that they reached the hospital at about 3.00 p.m and he did not see the contents of the MLC. According to him, the investigating officer did not tell him as to who had admitted Divya in Hospital and states that the investigating officer informed the Duty Officer to send Ct. Yogender. He has also deposed that on 05.01.2004 SDM arrived at the mortuary but he does not recollect the time and in the presence of SDM postmortem was conducted only after which the pulandas were handed over to the police and the doctor had signed the seizure memo but he does not recollect the name of the doctor who signed on the seizure memo.
PW24 ASI Tej Pal has deposed that on 04.01.2004 he was posted as MHC(M) at Police Station Keshavpuram and on that day SI Ram Kumar deposited five sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of RKY in the malkhana which he received vide Entry No.1501/04 which entry is Ex.PW24/A. He has further deposed that on 05.01.2004 SI Ram Kumar deposited one sealed viscera peti, one sealed pullanda containing clothes both bearing the seal of MS Babu Jagjeevan Ram hospital Jahangirpuri and one sealed envelope duly sealed with the seal of MD Babu Jagjivan Ram hospital and two sample seals which he received vide the same entry. According to St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 62 him, on 12.01.2004 SI Ram Kumar deposited the Jama Talashi of accused Jitender Johar which he received vide entry No. 1508/04 which is Ex.PW24/B. The witness has further deposed that on 27.07.2004 four pullandas were sent to CFSL, Hyderabad consisting of viscera peti, pullanda containing the clothes and two sample seals as aforesaid through HC Deep Chand vide road No. 56/21/04 which is Ex.PW24/C and HC Deep Chand returned on 30.07.2004 and handed over to him the receipt of CFSL Hyderabad which he pasted on register No. 21. According to PW24, on 13.03.2004 two sealed envelopes were handed over to him; the first envelope contained one suicide note which envelope was duly sealed with the seal of District and Sessions Judge, Delhi and the second sealed envelope duly sealed with the seal of District & Sessions Judge, Delhi containing register. He was also handed over a sample seal of the District & Sessions Judge Delhi which he received vide the same entry Ex.PW24/A. According to him, the above two envelopes were sent to CFSL Kolkatta through Ct. Naushad vide road No.13/21/04 which is Ex.PW24/D and on 15.03.2004 Ct. Naushad handed over the receipt to him which he pasted on register No. 21.
In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that his statement was recorded by the investigating officer on the day when he had cut the road to send the property to CFSL Kolkatta and CFSL Hyderabad but not on the day when it was deposited. He has testified St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 63 that he had told the investigating officer the date on which the said property was deposited in the malkhana and has admitted that for the first time when the envelopes were sent to CFSL Kolkatta they were not deposited and brought back on 23.02.2004 and were returned. According to him, so far as he know the envelopes were returned on account of some clerical mistake in the postmortem report but he is unable to tell the details of the clerical mistake on the postmortem report. He has testified that the investigating officer got the said objections removed from the the said postmortem report and he did not check upon the nature of the clerical mistake.
PW25 Inspector Gajraj Singh has deposed that on 26.02.2004 he was posted at Police Station Keshav Puram as SHO and on that day further investigation of this case was handed over to him by the verbal order of the then ACP. According to him, he received case file from the investigating officer and perused the same and on 27.02.2004 the accused persons namely Jitender and Sudhir were sent to judicial custody. He has testified that on 28.02.2004 he sent SI Ram Kanwar to the BJRM Hospital to collect the chunni already sent and the opinion thereon from the concerned doctor after which SI Ram Kanwar brought the same duly sealed with the seal of the hospital and deposited the same in the Malkhana alongwith the opinion of the doctor. He has further deposed that on 29.02.2004 he examined the witnesses and recorded their statement under Section St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 64 161 Code of Criminal Procedure and also examined Sh. Vikram Puri owner of North End Party Hall, Rajasthan Udyog Nagar, GT Karnal Road, where the ceremony of Shagun and marriage party had taken place on 18.4.2003 and 19.4.2003 respectively and also collected the copy of receipt for above mentioned functions and duly seized the same vide Ex.PW4/B which are Ex.P23 and Ex.PW8/A. He has also proved having recorded the statement of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, father of the deceased Divya under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also collected the twenty photographs of the marriage of the deceased with the accused, the wedding card from the groom side and the wedding card from the bride side vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A which wedding card from the bride side is Ex.P21; the photographs are already Ex.P1 to Ex.P20; the copy of wedding card from the groom side which is Ex.P22. He has also proved having prepared the charge sheet on 30.03.2004 and the supplementary charge sheet in respect of accused Sudha Jauhar and the supplementary charge sheet against accused Mahender Rani on 20.02.2005. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels and his entire evidence has gone unrebutted.
PW26 SI (Retd) Ram Kanwar has deposed that on 04.01.2004 he was posted at Police Station Keshav Puram and on that day on the receipt of DD No. 12A, he along with Ct. Banarasi and Ct. St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 65 Chaman Pal reached at C5/36B, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi where he came to know that the injured Divya had been removed by her father Ramesh Kumar to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital. According to the witness, he left Ct. Chaman Pal at the spot for guarding the spot while he himself along with Ct. Banarasi reached at Sunder Lal Jain Hospital and collected the MLC of injured Divya who was declared brought dead by the doctors. He has proved having recorded the statement of Sh. Ramesh Kumar father of deceased Divya in the hospital which is Ex.PW4/G after which he prepared rukka Ex.PW26/A and sent Ct. Yogender to the police station for getting the case registered. According to the witness, SHO Inspector Rajbir Singh had also come at the hospital who informed the SDM and the dead body was sent to mortuary of BJRM Hospital through Ct. Banarasi and her body was preserved there. He has testified that the crime team/ help line mobile team came to the spot and the crime team prepared its report which is Ex.PW13/A and on the direction of Incharge Crime Team he lifted one pair of chappal of blue colour from the room in which the incident had taken place which he converted into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of RKY and seized vide memo Ex.PW2/D. According to the witness, he removed the chunni tied to the ceiling fan and converted the same into parcel and sealed the same with the same seal and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/C. The witness has further deposed that the crime St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 66 team took out the suicide note (running into two pages) from a drawer of the diwan (bed) and he marked the same with S.No. 1 and 2 and kept the same in an envelop and sealed the same with the same seal and took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/E. He has stated that the father of the deceased namely Ramesh Kumar had produced a rough register for her admitted handwriting and numbered the same from 1 to 244 on the pages of the said register after which he sealed the same with the same seal and took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/E. He recorded the statements of Sh. Kamal Duggal, the Incharge of Helpline Mobile team and statement of SI S. P. Vashisth, Incharge of Mobile crime team under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has also proved that the photographer took the photographs of the place of occurrence vide Ex.PW1/A1 to Ex.PW1/A5 which he seized. According to him, he along with the complainant Ramesh Kumar, Ct. Chaman Pal reached at BQ161B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi for search of the accused persons and accused Bhupender and Sudhir Jauhar met them who were interrogated and after being satisfied they were arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW4/N and Ex.PW4/O and were personally searched vide memos Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/A respectively after which Both the accused persons were sent to the judicial custody. He has proved having prepared the site plan at the place of incident which is Ex.PW4/H. St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 67 The witness has deposed that on 05.01.2004 he reached at BJRM Hospital mortuary where SHO met him and the SDM also came there and he prepared the document Ex.PW6/E, death report Ex.PW6/C, the brief facts which are Ex.PW6/B, statement of Sh. Ramesh Kumar which is Ex.PW4/I, Smt. Krishna Devi which is Ex.PW6/A and made his endorsement at point C there on. He has testified that the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was got conducted and SDM recorded the statement of Sh. Harish Kumar and Sh. Ramesh Kumar vide Ex.PW6/D and Ex.PW4/F after which the dead body was handed over to Sh. Ramesh Kumar vide receipt already Ex.PW4/E and he collected the postmortem report already Ex.PW16/A. He has deposed that on 12.01.2004 he again started the investigations of this case and the accused Jitender Jauhar, husband of the deceased had surrendered before the concerned court on which he along with Ct. Mukesh attended the court and after taking permission from the Hon'ble court he interrogated the accused and arrested him in this case vide memo Ex.PW26/B and was sent to judicial custody. According to him, he made efforts to trace the accused persons and on 05.01.2004 Ct. Banarsi brought the pulanda containing exhibits and clothes of the deceased duly sealed with the seal of BJRM Hospital and handed over the same to him which he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW23/A. He has testified that further investigation of this St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 68 case was handed over to Inspector Meena Naidu on 08.02.2004 and the investigations of this case was remained with her upto 25.02.2004. On 11.02.2004 he took the sealed parcel with the seal of RKY containing chuuni from the MHC(M) on the directions of the Addl. SHO vide DD and produced before the doctor. He has further deposed that he obtained the opinion and the chunni duly sealed with the seal of the hospital and deposited the same with the MHC(M) on 28.02.2004. According to the witness, the investigation of this case remained with Inspector Gajraj Singh from 28.02.2004 to 08.03.2004 and on 28.02.2004 the opinion was given by Dr. Anil Shandilya which is Ex.PW26/C. He has further deposed that on 09.03.2004 the further investigations of this case was marked to him again and he attended the bail matters of accused and also made efforts to trace out the remaining accused persons. According to him, on 13.03.2004 he sent the exhibits i.e. suicide note, register to the Hand writing expert, Hyderabad through Ct Naushad who came on 22.03.2004. He has proved having recorded statement of Naushad and the MHC(M) on 25.03.2004 and having collected the proceedings conducted by CAW Cell regarding complaint of the deceased Divya which are Ex.PW4/J, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW4/K, Ex.PW4/L, Ex.PW4/M and he took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A. According to him, he took the scaled site plan from SI Manohar Lal which is Ex.PW18/A and on 27.07.2004 he sent the exhibits, viscera of the St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 69 deceased through HC Deep Chand to CFSL Hyderabad vide RC NO. 56/21/04 who came back on 01.08.2004. He has also deposed that on 12.03.2004 the remaining accused persons namely Swarn Kaur, Nanak @ Pankaj and Partibha Chadha were arrested formally being on anticipatory bail vide memos Ex.PW26/D, Ex.PW26/E and Ex.PW26/F respectively. The witness has testified that on 08.09.2004 he arrested the accused Sudha Jauhar vide arrest memo Ex.PW26/G and the SHO filed the supplementary charge sheet regarding coaccused Sudha Jauhar. He has proved having collected the result from Hand Writing Expert from Kolkata which is Ex.PW26/H along with the covering letter Ex.PW26/I. He has also deposed that the proceedings against Mahender Rani Jauhar under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. was conducted who had come in the police station on 14.02.2005 along with her bail orders, therefore she was formally arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW26/J. The witness has proved having collected the viscera report from CFSL Hyderabad which is Ex.PW26/K (running into two pages) and deposed that on 20.02.2005 the supplementary charge sheet against accused Mahender Ranu Jauhar was filed by Inspector Garj Raj Singh. He has correctly identified all the accused in the court and the case property i.e. suicide note which is Ex.P25; the register which is Ex.P24, one pair of chappal (slipper) of dark blue color which is Ex.P26 and one chunni St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 70 of blue color which is Ex.P27.
In his crossexamination by Ld defence counsel this witness has deosed that Ct. Banarsi brought DD No. 12A and handed over the same to him at the gate of the police station at about 4 PM. He along with Ct. Banarsi, Ct,. Chaman Pal reached at the spot at about 4:25 PM on their own vehicles. According to him, 3040 persons had gathered at the spot on the ground floor but he did not ask the names of those persons nor did he make any inquiry from the persons. He is unable to tell the name of the person who informed him that Divya had been removed to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital. According to him, he and Ct. Banarsi reached the hospital at around 4:45 PM and he had seen the MLC wherein the name of Harish was mentioned in the column "brought by". He does not recollect if the name of Ramesh Kumar was also mentioned in the MLC and states that Ramesh Kumar was present in the hospital. According to him, he recorded the statement of Ramesh Kumar at about 5:30 PM and did not record the statement of any other witnesses in the hospital. He first recorded the statement of Harish on 04.01.2004 at the house of Ramesh but he does not recollect the time. He has admitted that in the first statement Harish did not mention about the demand of dowry or harassment for want of dowry by the accused persons. The witness has denied that Ramesh Kumar was not present in the hospital and his statement was manipulated later on in the police station of his own. St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 71 According to him, he did not inform the SDM before recording the statement of Ramesh Kumar and states that it was the SHO who was with him who informed the SDM. He has denied that SHO was not present in the hospital. He does not recollect the telephone number of the SDM. The witness has deposed that SHO had told him that the SDM will come on next day though he did not tell whether he was busy on that day or not. According to him, SDM had informed the SHO that since Divya had died he would come on the next day. He has denied that the SHO did not inform the SDM before recording the statement of Ramesh Kumar or that due to this reason he manipulated the statement in the police station. He did not accompany Ct. Banarsi who took the dead body in a private vehicle. He has testified that Crime team was already present at the spot when they reached there from the hospital but he is unable to tell where the register was lying and states that the crime team had already taken into possession the suicide note and from the crime team he had taken the register and suicide note into possession but he did not obtain the signatures of the crime team officials on the seizure memos. He has denied that the crime team officials did not produce the suicide note and the register to him. He did not join any neighbour at the time of seizure of the register and suicide note and he had asked the public persons to join the investigations but none of them agreed to join and they did not tell their names to him. He has denied that on that day he St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 72 did not take into possession the register and the said suicide note and these were got manipulated later on with the connivance of father of the deceased. He has admitted that the suicide note Ex.P25 did not bear the date, signature or thumb impression of any one. According to him, he did not sign the suicide note Ex.P25 nor did he obtain the signatures of the parents or any public witness on the said suicide note. He has admitted that in the suicide note there was no demand of dowry or harassment of insufficient dowry and states that he did not make any inquiry as to who Sumita and Saraswati were. According to the witness the parents of Divya did not tell anything about Sumita or Saraswati and he is unable to tell if contents of page 38 was written by Sumita or Saraswati. He has admitted that page 38 of the register did not bear either the signature, date or thumb impressions of any one and that at page 40 of the register did not find mention any name, signature or any thumb impressions. He has also admitted that there was no mention of demand of dowry or harassment of demand of dowry on page 40 also and states that there was a reference of a threat by fatherinlaw, motherinlaw and sisterinlaw. PW26 has admitted that said threat in not in connection with demand of dowry and states that he had not gone through the contents encircled and marked A at page 45. According to the witness, the statement of the parents of Divya were recorded by the SDM in a room of doctor in the mortuary which statements were written by him on the dictation of SDM but St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 73 SDM did not inform him as to why he was not recording the statement in his own handwriting. He has denied that he had manipulated the statement of Ramesh Kumar and Krishna Kumari the parents of Divya later on and he got attested the same from the SDM at a later stage. He has also denied that SDM did not dictate to him the statements of Ramesh Kumar and Krishna Devi. According to him, he did not obtain the signatures of the doctor or the official of the mortuary on the seizure memos of the pullandas as they were produced by Ct. Banarsi in the police station. He has further deposed that the doctor had issued a receipt to him of the pullanda of chunni but he did not place the said receipt in the Judicial file. He also made DD entry on 28.02.2004 for bringing the opinion of the doctor but he did not recollect its number. He has denied that he did not investigate the case properly or that he recorded the false statements of Ramesh Kumar, Krishna Kumari, Harish, Megha, Usha Kapoor and Ravi Kapoor. He has also denied that those persons had influence him for writing such false statement or that he involved the accused persons in a false case at the instance of the father of Divya and her brotherin laws despite the fact that the accused had told to him that they were innocent and never demanded any dowry or harassed for demand of dowry to Divya. PW26 has also denied that Jitender Johar told him during the investigations that he loved his wife and he always favoured her or that Jitender Johar also told him during the St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 74 investigations that Divya never liked him and she used to fight with his parents. He has testified that he had gone to the house of Sudhir Johar but no one came forward to say anything about the innocence of Sudhir Johar and his family. The witness is not aware whether the the neighbourer of Sudhir Kumar Johar had lodged a report to DCP NW about the harassment by brotherinlaws of Divya and her father but has denied that since he did not take any action on the statement of Sudhir Johar and the other accused persons and the neighbourers so the neighbourers made complaint against the brotherinlaws and her father to DCP (NW). He has also denied that he did not intentionally join the neighbours of Sudhir Kumar Johar who came forward to tell about the truth about the innocence of accused persons. He has further denied that he had falsely recorded the statements of the witnesses at their instance and implicated the accused persons without making proper investigations.
PW27 Sh. A.S. Gupta Retd. Deputy Govt. Examiner has deposed that the questioned handwriting and standard handwriting were received in their office on 15.03.2004 vide letter of the SHO Police Station Keshavpuram No. 317 dated 13.03.2004 along with the requisition of the SHO and he examined the same. According to him, the document mark Q1 was a suicide note and the standard writings mark A1 to A17 were the purported handwriting of one Divya Johar and he examined all these documents with the help of scientific St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 75 instruments in his office laboratory and during the course of examination all these documents were encircled with the red crayon pencil and they were stamped with his office seal. He has testified that the exhibit Number and his office reference number were written with in the seal and after a thorough and scientific examination he had come to the conclusion that the red enclosed writings stamped and marked Q1 and A1 to A17 were all written by one and the same person. He has proved his detailed report to this effect which is Ex.PW26/H running into three pages bearing his signature at point A. According to him, Mr. P. Venugopala Rao the then Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Kolkatta had examined independently the aforesaid documents and had also arrived at the same opinion whose signature also appear on the aforesaid exhibit at point B. He has proved that the forwarding letter along with the aforesaid report sent to Addl. DCP (NW) District, Delhi Police which is Ex.PW26/I bearing signature of Sh. Narender Singh, the then Government Examiner, of Questioned Documents and had since retired. The witness has also identified the aforesaid questioned documents mark Q bearing the official seal at point A which is Ex.P25 and the register which is Ex.P24 where he has pointed out 17 pages mark as A1 to A17 bearing the official seal at point A. St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 76 In his crossexamination he has admitted that the aforesaid exhibit Q1 did not find mention of any signature as "Divya". He has also admitted that the said documents did not have any date, day or year and that he had not given the age of handwriting in his aforesaid report and states that the same had not been asked for. According to him, there was no change of handwriting for the reasons of lapse of time and it can be said variations in the handwriting due to the lapse of time or any other reason. He has also admitted that writing marked as A1 to A17 also did not find any date and time. He has denied that there could be similarities characteristics in the handwriting of two close relations. He has denied that there were similarities in the handwriting of the real sisters and that he was not having the requisite qualification of a handwriting expert. The witness has also admitted that Q1 was a rough paper which finds mention of alphabet in Hindi and that Q1 did not find any name or signature or thumb impression of any person. According to him, on Q1 it was mentioned Muskan and Guriya and not name of Divya Johar was mentioned on the said document. He has denied that his report was not on the latest scientific method and his report with regard to A1 to A17 was also same i.e. there was no mention of any name, date time etc. Statement of accused/ defence evidence:
After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Code of St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 77 Criminal Procedure wherein all incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied. The accused Sudhir Kumar Johar has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. According to him, he never demanded any dowry from the deceased or harassed her for want of dowry and that the brotherin law of the deceased especially Harish Sethi used to visit his house frequently which he and his family did not like and objected to the same. On this the brotherinlaws of Divya and her father became hurious and quarreled with them a number of time and got involved his son in the proceedings under Section 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure and the brotherinlaws and the sisters of Divya were also challaned in the proceedings under Section 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure. He has further stated that Divya requested his son to help financial to her father and on refusal they got a false report lodged in CAW cell. The accused Sudhir Kumar Johar has further deposed that Divya remained under depression as the financial position of her father was not sound and he was not in a position to return the loan taken by him from his soninlaws and relatives. He has also stated that the brotherinlaws and father of the deceased were also having evil eyes on their kothi and they were pressurizing them to get the kothi transferred in the name of Divya. The accused has further stated that in order to take the entire stridhan they lodged a false report in CAW cell in the name of Divya and after receiving the same there St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 78 was a compromise between the parties after which Divya was living in her matrimonial house peacefully but she was taken by her father to her parental house and in order to make pressure on them they again reported the matter to CAW cell to blackmail them and under this depression since Divya was having a suicidal tendency, she committed suicide. He has stated that the family of Divya got this false case registered against him and his family and his son was taken the favour of his wife and he had all love and affection towards Divya and was asking him time and again to financial help to the father of Divya on which he separated his son from the family and they started living separately. According to him, the entire family was involved in this false case.
The accused Mahender Rani Johar has also stated on the similar lines as that of accused accused Sudhir Kumar Johar and in addition to that, she has stated that she was already having a maruti car and hence there was no question of demanding any car.
The accused Jitender Johar has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. According to him, he never demanded any dowry from the deceased or harassed her for want of dowry and the brotherinlaw of the deceased especially Harish Sethi used to visit his house frequently and he and his family did not like the same and objected to it on which the brotherinlaws of Divya and her father became furious and quarreled with them a St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 79 number of time and got involved him in the proceedings under Section 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure and also the brotherin laws and the sisters of Divya were also challaned in the proceedings under Section 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused has further stated that Divya requested him to help financial to her father and on refusal they got a false report lodged in CAW cell. He has also stated that Divya remained under depression as the financial position of her father was not sound and he was not in a position to return the loan taken by him from his soninlaws and relatives. He has alleged that the brotherinlaws and father of the deceased were also having evil eyes on their kothi and were pressurizing them to get the kothi transferred in the name of Divya and in order to take the entire stridhan they lodged a false report in CAW cell in the name of Divya and after receiving the same there was a compromise between the parties after which Divya was living in her matrimonial house peacefully but she was taken by her father to her parental house without his permission and in order to make pressure on them they again reported the matter to CAW cell to blackmail them and under this depression since Divya was having a suicidal tendency, she committed suicide. He has further stated that the family of Divya got this false case registered against him and his family and he was taking the favour of his wife and had all love and affection towards her and she was asking him time and again for financial help to her father on St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 80 which he was separated by his parents from the family and they started living separately. According to the accused Jitender Johar even he was debarred by his parents from the property of his parents and his wife had no liking for him and she used to quarreled with him and his parents and her brotherinlaws had threatened them of dire consequences as he did not help her parents financially due to which reason he was involved in a false case under Section 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure to pressurize him to ask his parents for the financial help and get their kothi transferred in her name. According to him, the brotherinlaws of Divya were influential persons and he was beaten by them and his parents were also manhandled and insulted by them number of times on which their neighbour also made a complaint against his fatherinlaw and the brotherinlaws of Divya to DCP.
The accused Sudha Johar has also stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case for no fault on her part and she never demanded any dowry from the deceased or jewelry articles or harassed her for want of dowry. According to her, she was a student of Nursery training course from SCERT and her parents are well of from the very beginning and they could afford to give her any valuable or jewelry. She has further stated that her mother was already having a maruti car and she is the only daughter of her parents. According to the accused, the brotherinlaw of the St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 81 deceased especially Harish Sethi used to visit their house frequently and they used to harass their family by interfering in their day to day family affairs and she and her family did not like the same and objected to it on which the brotherinlaws of Divya and her father became furious and quarreled with them a number of time and got involved her brother in the proceedings under Section 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure and also also the brotherinlaws and the sisters of Divya were also challaned in the proceedings under Section 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure. She has further stated that the brotherinlaws of Divya and her father were also having evil eyes on their kothi and they were pressurizing them to get the kothi transferred in the name of Divya and in order to take the entire stridhan they lodged a false report in CAW cell in the name of Divya and after receiving the same there was a compromise between the parties after which she living in her matrimonial house peacefully but she was taken by her father to her parental house and in order to put pressure on them they again reported the matter to CAW cell to blackmail them and under this depression Divya who was having a suicidal tendency, committed suicide. According to her, the family of Divya got this false case registered against her and her family members and her brother had been taken the favour of his wife and had all love and affection towards her and was asking the parents time and again to do financial help to the father of Divya on which her St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 82 parents separated her brother from the family and they started living separately.
The accused Bhupender Singh has deposed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case for no fault of mine and he never demanded any dowry from the deceased or ever harassed for want of dowry. He has stated that Divya's family wanted to isolate the family of Jitender Johar and to discourage all the relatives to come to their support they have roped him and all other relatives in this case. According to him, he is am a senior citizen and is living with family at Kishan Ganj at a distance of over 25 Kms from the house of Jitender Johar and is also suffering from various ailments and not keeping good health. He has stated that this is a false case against him.
The accused Swarn Kaur has stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case for no fault of her and she never demanded any dowry or ever harassed for want of dowry. According to her, Divya's family wanted to isolate the family of Jitender Johar and to discourage all the relatives to come to their support they have roped her and all other relatives in this case. She has also stated that she is a senior citizen and is living with her family at Kishan Ganj at a distance of over 25 Kms from the house of Jitender Johar and is suffering from various aliments. According to the accused, her family consists of herself and her son Pankaj @ St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 83 Nanak who at that relevant time was employed in British Embassy at Chankyapuri where he was regularly attended to his duties and she was living alone at her house when he used to go to his office. The accused has further stated that they had no occasion to visit the house of Jitender Johar and his family nor had any time or occasion to interfere in their family life. She has also stated that her daughter Partibha was also attributed the same role as attributed to her son Pankaj @ Nanak on which her daughter filled a petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in the Hon'ble High court for quashing of proceedings and the same was quashed by the hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 07.01.2008.
The accused Pankaj @ Nanak has similarly stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case for no fault and he never demanded any dowry from the deceased or ever harassed for want of dowry. He has stated that Divya's family wanted to isolate the family of Jitender Johar and to discourage all the relatives to come to their support they have roped him and all other relatives in this case. The accused has also stated that he was serving in British Embassy at that relevant time and is living with family at Kishan Ganj at a distance of over 25 Kms from the house of Jitender Johar. He has further stated that they had no occasion to visit the house of Jitender Johar and his family nor had any time or occasion to interfere in their family life. According to him, his sister Partibha was St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 84 also attributed the same role as attributed to him and his sister filled a petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in the Hon'ble High court for quashing of proceedings and the same was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 07.01.2008.
The accused have examined two witnesses in their defence. DW1 HC Kartar Singh has deposed that the complaint made by Sudhir Kumar Johar to the DCP dated 28.7.2003 which was entered vide diary No. 9611; has been destroyed vide order of ACP PG Cell vide diary No. 1745067 dated 27.3.2006 copy of which order is Ex.DW1/A. DW2 Sh. S.S. Parmar is the neighbour of the accused Sudhir Kumar Johar who has deposed that he was retired from Army as Lt. Col. in the year 1989 and is known to the family of Sudhir Kumar Johar who are his immediate neighbours which family comprises of Sudhir Johar, his wife, son and daughter. He has deposed that he had observed the entire family is very gentle. He does not remember the date but states the marriage of the son of Sudhir Kumar Johar namely Jitender Kumar Johar was solemnized in the month of April, 2003 with Divya and he attended the said marriage along with his wife and there was no dowry demand at the time of the marriage to his knowledge and it was a normal and simple marriage. He has further deposed that initially he did not know but later from July, 2003 onwards when there was a dispute in the St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 85 marriage between Jitender and Divya, they came to know that Divya's family members comprising of her father, brothersinlaw namely Harish Sethi, Ravi Kapoor and Umesh used to come to their house and the frequency of the visits of Harish Sethi were more. He has also deposed that Sudhir Johar had mentioned it to him on some occasions that the frequency of the visits of Harish Sethi to their house was too much and they had advised their daughterinlaw Divya to ensure that it is restrained and ever since he had advised his daughterinlaw with regard to the same but she and her brotherin law made a issue of the same and quarrel with them. The witness has also deposed that he had also advised Jitender Johar that he should suitably advised his wife since his father was objecting to the frequent visits of her brotherinlaw on which Jitender had told him that Divya and her family were pressuring him to give financial assistance to her father who had taken loan for the marriage which he had to repay and Divya had asked him to ensure that the house where they were living was transferred in her name. According to DW2 the deceased Divya was kept well and cared by Jitender so much so that the parents of Jitender had partitioned the house and separated their portion and the reasons for partition was that Divya used to alleged that Jitender was under the influence of his parents and did not care for her whereas the things were otherwise. He has testified that in his presence a quarrel had taken place between the family of Jitender and Divya on two St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 86 occasions, once it was on the intervening night of 23/24.07.2003 and second time it was on the very next day and on both the occasions the father and all the three brothersinlaw of Divya had come along with their wives (sisters of Divya) and insisted that Divya be separated and after Jitender and Divya were separated by the Johar family they insisted that a separate portion be constructed on the roof to enable them to stay, on which there was a dispute and they manhandled Jitender. He has further deposed that it was under these circumstances that all the neighbours had gathered on hearing the voices and tried to reason out with Divya's family but the PCR was called by them and Jitender was taken to police station. According to DW2, on 25.07.2003 they again came around 88:30 PM and created a scene by shouting when all the neighbours got together and called the police when both the parties were taken away. He has testified that in fact the police wanted to take Sudha, who was the unmarried daughter of Sudhir Johar along with them to which they objected and on the next day they wrote an application and handed it over to DCP, NW at Ashok Vihar vide Ex.DW2/A. He has also deposed that apart from himself five to six other neighbours namely Dr. H.C. Jain, Mahesh Aggarwal, Mrs. B.M. Kapoor, Mrs Narang, Mrs. Arora had also signed this complaint. The witness has deposed that he had also gone to CAW cell on two occasions and on one occasion he had counseled Divya on the way when he had taken Jitender and Divya in St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 87 his car and at the CAW cell, he had told the police officials that there was no dispute on the aspect of dowry or any demand. He has further stated that Divya had told him at the CAW cell that if stridhan is returned she would compromise the matter with Jitender and there was a compromise effected between the parties at CAW Cell and he had personally handed over the stridhan articles to Divya which had been given to him by the Johar family. The witness has further deposed that thereafter nothing came to their knowledge and everything appeared to be peaceful and it was only in January next year that they came to know that she had committed suicide at her parental house.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP the witness has further deposed that he is living a retired life and not doing any job and his house is adjoining the house of Sudhir Johar with only one house in between of Dr. H.C. Jain. The witness does not remember when the engagement ceremony between Jitender and Divya took place and he never attended the same as he was not called. He has further deposed that the marriage of Divya with Jitender was held at Northern Banquet Hall, near Azadpur and has admitted that he did not know Divya or her parents before the marriage and he met the family members of Divya only at the time of her marriage and thereafter. According to him, he did not go to the parental house of Divya on any occasion after her marriage and has admitted that he knew only father St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 88 of Divya Sh. Ramesh Kumar; Usha who is sister of Divya but he does not know her residence. According to him, he is not related to the Johar family except that they are neighbours since 1989 and has admitted that his wife was serving and did not have much interaction with the Johar family and she is not apart of any kitty group. The witness has testified that he is not aware of the financial condition of Divya's parental family and stated that Divya's father had told him that he has his own kothi at Lawrence Road but states that it is a flat and not a kothi but he is not aware of its details. The witness has further deposed that he has no personal knowledge if Divya's father had taken any loan for her marriage but states that it was only told by Harish Sethi, Divya's brotherinlaw that he had given certain amount to Divya's father for her marriage. According to the witness, he was not told about this either by Divya's father nor he tried to confirm this fact. He has further stated that he did not give any statement at CAW cell but he had gone with the Johar family. He is not aware if his attendance was taken or not or an attendance is taken at CAW cell but has denied that he had never gone to the women cell and it is for this reason that his statement was never recorded nor any of the proceedings showing his presence. According to the witness, he had gone to the CAW cell twice, but he can only tell the last date i.e. 05.09.2003 when he handed over the articles to Divya's family. He has further deposed that initially he was not aware of any differences St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 89 but it was only on 23/24.07.2003 and 25.07.2003 when there was a hue and cry that they came to know that there was some dispute. According to him, the talk of separating Divya and making a portion on the top was a suggestion given by the brothersinlaw of Divya so that Divya and Jitender could stay upstairs. He has admitted that there was no suggestion that Divya's parental family would shift on the top floor and the suggestion was only to shift and separate Divya and Jitender on the top floor. He has testified that in the month of July he had never interacted with Divya to find out what the problem was and why she wanted to separate and he only spoke to her when the case was filed in the CAW cell. The witness has also deposed that most of the time Harish Sethi and Ramesh Kumar the father of Divya used to come together to the house of Sudhir Johar, but on four to five occasions Harish Sethi came alone and on all the occasions when they came to the house of the accused, he did not go to their house to find out the reason. He has testified that father of Divya, Sh. Ramesh Kumar never said that he had taken any loan for Divya's marriage which he wanted to repay and it was only Harish Sethi who used to brag at the CAW cell that he had given the money for her marriage. He has further stated that in the month of July, when the quarrel took place there was no demand of any kind from the family of Divya to the extent that financial assistance should be given to Ramesh Kumar, Divya's father as he had taken a loan and at that time they only wanted St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 90 Divya and Jitender to separate out. The witness has admitted that Harish Sethi never suggested that money or financial assistance should be given to Ramesh Kumar or his family as they had taken loan for Divya's marriage and stated that he only bragged in front of the witness that he had given money for Divya's marriage but made no demand even at the CAW cell. DW2 has admitted that only Jitender was taken to the police station but states that he is not aware what transpired inside the house before the quarrel took place and he only came to know when he heard the abuses. He has also admitted that he was told by Sudhir Johar and his family about the dispute and what happened inside the house to which he has no personal knowledge and stated that he only saw that the family of Divya were abusing her family when they all collected from the neighbourhood and intervened. According to him, he never went to Divya's house to find out what was the dispute and why they wanted to separate and shift Divya and Jitender. He has denied that since he is only known to the Johar family therefore in the complaint to the DCP Ex.DW2/A he along with the other neighbours had given a version so given to them by the Johar family. According to the witness, the complaint was not written by Jitender Johar and it was written by some other person staying in another block, whose name he does not recollect. He has further stated that at the time when the complaint was written no body from the Johar family was present at the spot except Sudhir Johar. St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 91 The witness has further testified that the complaint was written in the house of Sudhir Johar as he was not in a position to move being paralyzed. DW2 has also testified that the family of Sudhir Johar is educated and at the time when the complaint was written the lady i.e. wife of Sudhir Johar was present at that time. He has also stated that the complaint was written in the morning at about 9:30 AM and Sh. D.K. Kakkar is also his neighbour and has now retired from Delhi University as a professor but at the time of the complaint he was in service. He has admitted that Sh. D.K. Kakkar has not signed the complaint since he was in the college at the time when the complaint was written and stated that the complaint only bears his name and not signatures since he was present at the time of the incident. The witness has further admitted that Sh. B.M. Kapoor was not present at the time when the complaint was written and only Mrs Kapoor was present and she had signed the same. He has denied that all the signatories to the complaint were not present at the time when the complaint was written and in fact the complaint was got signed by the neighbours later at the instance of accused. DW2 has deposed that he is not aware about the outcome of their complaint Ex.DW2/A as he did not pursue the same. He is not aware if sisterinlaw of Sudhir Johar namely Swarn Kaur is a frequent visitor to their house nor is he aware of any person by the name of Pankaj in the family of Sudhir Johar but states that he had seen Sh. Bhupender Singh who is mama St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 92 of Jitender in the wedding and also in the CAW Cell. He has also stated that he never seen Bhupender Singh in the house of Sudhir Johar and he is not aware if Divya was physically assaulted by Pankaj at any time. According to the witness, he is not aware if Johar family used to harass Divya and has stated that this aspect has never come to their knowledge as neighbours. He has denied that the complaint Ex.DW2/A was filed at the instance of Johar family only to create evidence or that he has deposed at the instance of Sudhir Johar and his family being a close neighbour.
FINDINGS:
I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence counsels appearing on behalf of the accused. I have also gone through the written synopsis/ memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused and the State and the evidence on record. First I propose to deal with all the allegations/ averments made by the public witness individually in a tabulated form as under and later on comprehensively.
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition No. witness
1. Sh. Ramesh He is the father of the deceased Divya and has Kumar (PW4) deposed on the following aspects:
1. That Divya was his youngest daughter who was married with accused Jitender on 19.04.2003 which marriage was solemnized in accordance with Hindu Rites and Ceremonies.
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 93
2. That he had spent the money in the marriage of his daughter more than his financial capacity and after about three to four days his daughter came to his house from her matrimonial home and told him that her inlaws were not happy with the dowry and they were demanding motorcycle or car.
3. That the husband of his daughter, Jitender told to his daughter that he had not been given anything and whatever the dowry was given the same were given to his daughter due to which reason the parents in law of his daughter used to harass his daughter for not bringing sufficient dowry resulting in to quarrel between the parents in law and his daughter and several times telephone call was made on 100 number.
4. That the police officials came all the times, however, the matter was patched up between them.
5. That the accused Jitender husband of his daughter; Sudhir Kumar fatherinlaw, Mahender Kaur motherinlaw, Sudha unmarried sister in law and Pratibha married cousin sister in law (being sister daughter of Swarn Kaur), Pankaj who was treated as brother, Mausi Swarn Kaur and maternal uncle Bhupender Singh used to torture his daughter at her matrimonial home and used to give physical beatings to her.
6. That he persuaded his daughter to patch up the matter so that, she could live in her matrimonial house peacefully but due to the mental torture, his daughter was admitted in the hospital as she was mentally depressed. On one occasion the husband of his daughter namely Jitender had also given beatings to his daughter.
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 94
7. That a complaint was made to the Police/ CAW Cell and the dispute was patched up and his daughter was taken by the accused persons to her matrimonial house.
8. That his daughter was under depression because of the harassment by the accused persons and even after compromise in CAW Cell and after his daughter joined the matrimonial house the accused again started to torture his daughter and she was given physical beatings.
9. That due to the physical beatings a complaint was made to the police and the accused was arrested by the police of police station Shalimar Bagh but after his release from the jail the accused Jitender used to live separately from the company of his daughter at her matrimonial house and some time he stayed at house of his maternal uncle or some other relatives.
10.That all the incidents referred above were told to him by his daughter on telephone or when he used to visit at the matrimonial house of his daughter.
11.That he had also made arrangement for the rations at for the matrimonial house of his daughter and since his daughter was being tortured by the accused persons, he ultimately brought her at his home and provided her proper treatment.
12.That the accused Jitender used to visit his house after his daughter was brought back by him and also threatened his daughter and it was after his last visit that his daughter committed suicide by hanging.
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 95
13.That about two months prior to her death, his daughter had told him that her sisters in law namely accused Pratibha Chadha and Sudha Chadha had dragged her by the hairs and beaten her and on a previous occasion accused Pankaj had beaten his daughter with belt.
14.That about fifteen days thereafter, accused Jatinder and Pankaj came on two wheeler and accused Pankaj had pulled her chain which got entangled in her clothes and though he advised her to file police complaint but she did not lodge the same.
15.That accused Mahinder Kaur and Swarn Kaur used to quarrel almost daily with her daughter and also gave her physical beatings for demand of dowry.
16.That his daughter had hanged herself from the ceiling fan using a blue coloured printed dupatta and his daughter Meghna and son in law Harish removed Divya from the hanging position after which Harish had called up PCR at 100 number.
17.That when he reached his house, dead body of his daughter was already removed and from the spot, one register and one suicide note written by his daughter were also found there which after sealing was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/E.
18.That his daughter Divya was shifted to Sunder Lal Hospital where she was declared brought dead after which she was taken to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial Hospital where her postmortem was conducted and he identified her dead body after which the dead body was handed over to him.
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 96
19.That his daughter committed suicide because of threats by accused Jatinder that he would get her parents killed and also that she should withdraw the case which was pending in CAW Cell and also in the court of MM of Police Station Jahangirpuri.
20.That the accused Jitender was accompanied by accused Pankaj when he extended such threats.
2. Smt. Meghna She is the sister of the deceased and has deposed on (PW10) the following aspects:
1. That on 19.4.03 her sister Divya was married with Jatinder Kumar Johar according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and she participated in the marriage.
2. The witness has further deposed that the function was organized at Shagun Banquet Hall on 18.4.03 and 19.4.03, she was very closed to her sister Divya and therefore, she used to tell her each and everything on phone happened in her matrimonial house.
3. That she used to tell her that motherinlaw Mahinder Rani, Mausi Swarn Kaur, Nanand Sudha Johar, Mama Bhupinder Singh, Pankaj and husband Jitender Johar, Nanand Pratibha used to taunt her for not bringing sufficient dowry.
4. That her husband used to harass her sister for not bringing car, scooter etc. In order to fulfill the demand of scooter, her father had applied for loan but they could not give the scooter since in between the same they lodged the complaint in the Women Cell.
5. That during the proceedings at CAW Cell, they had compromised with the accused persons and thereafter the accused had taken her sister back to their house after which the aforesaid persons started beating her sister.
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 97
6. That Pankaj once had beaten her sister and snatched her Mangal Sutra and his sister used to tell her that Mausi Swarn Kaur had also beaten her.
7. That one month before her death that is on 4.12.03, Divya had come back to the house of her mother and when she asked her as to why she had come back from her matrimonial house, she (Divya) informed her that her husband used to threaten that either she would commit suicide or he kill her (deceased).
8. That her sister used to tell her that her mother in law, father in law, used to taunt her for not bringing sufficient dowry and whatever the articles, they had given in the marriage was not to the satisfaction of the accused persons, therefore, they started demanding some other articles including ration.
9. That motherinlaw and sisterinlaw Sudha Johar had demanded the jewellery articles from her sister which were lying in her matrimonial house and since her father was not having sufficient means, therefore, he could not fulfill the demand of the accused persons.
10.That on one occasion there was a function at Karol Bagh when all the family members of her sister Divya attended the function leaving her sister alone in the house which fact was informed by her sister on telephone.
11.That on the day of incident, she made telephonic call to her mother and to have a talk with her sister to which her mother informed her that the deceased Divya was very much depressed and had gone inside her kitchen after which she kept the telephone hold and after sometime her mother informed her that Divya had committed suicide by hanging herself and asked her to come at once.
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 98
11.That she informed her brother in law Harish Kumar Sethi about the incident after which he along with her sister Poonam Sethi reached directly to the house of her mother and after sometime she also reached there with her husband when her sister Poonam Sethi had gone to call the doctor and in the meantime her brother in law Harish Sethi got her sister down from the ceiling fan in the room adjacent to the kitchen and people from the locality also came there.
12.That after sometime PCR reached there and took her sister to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital.
13.That when a complaint was lodged to CAW Cell, her sister Divya was beaten by the accused persons and she had seen the marks of injuries on the back of her body caused with a leather belt given by Pankaj and Jatinder Johar.
3. Ms. Usha Kapoor She is also the sister of the deceased and has (PW15) deposed on the following lines:
1. That they were four sisters including the deceased Divya and she was the eldest daughter of her parents and the deceased Divya was the youngest and they had no brother.
2. That she had been taking care of her younger sisters and she had helped her parents in searching out good matches for them.
3. That her youngest sister Divya was like a daughter to her as she had only one son and she was taking care of her and also arranged for the present alliance for her through the Santoshi Mata Mandir, (SwargAshram) Hari Nagar and she had even conducted the Kanya Daan of the deceased.
4. That on 18.04.2003, one day prior to the marriage of her sister with the accused Jitender Johar, the Shagun Ceremony was held where they had given to the family of accused sufficient St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 99 gifts as demanded by them and the marriage was thereafter held on 19.04.2003.
5. That on 20.04.2003 they delivered the stridhan articles to the house of the accused consisting of a double bed, almirah, washing machine, gold articles etc. but the accused had also demanded scooter/ motorcycle which they could not arrange and promised to arrange the same later.
6. That on 20.4.2003 the mother of the accused and his Mausi Mrs. Swarn Kaur raised objections on the quality of the double bed stating that the polish was not good on which they contacted the shopkeeper from where they purchased the double bed at Pitampura who sent his boy at the house of accused for polishing the double bed.
7. That thereafter the aforesaid persons including accused (Mama) Bhupinder, Sudha and Pratibha who used to sit with them almost daily raised the objection regarding quality and of insufficient dowry as per their desire and her sister was being harassed by them for the aforesaid reason.
8. That on one occasion her sister was left alone in the house while the accused left to attend a marriage after locking the house which incident happened perhaps on 21.04.2003 and her sister Divya used to call her and insisted to call her back in their house as the accused persons used to harass her.
9. That the accused Jitender Johar, his mother, his sisters Sudha & Pratibha and his Mausi Swarn Kaur used to demand Rs.1,00,000/ and also demanded a Maruti Car and since they had already given sufficient dowry and were having no means for further dowry therefore they did not pay the aforesaid amount and did not give the Maruti Car.
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 100
10.That on one occasion Pankaj who was addressed by the accused Jitender Jauhar as Brother (Mausi's son) and the accused Jitender Jauhar had beaten her sister, as told by her deceased sister on telephone and her sister asked them to give a Maruti car as per their desire but they could not give them as only a few days had passed after the marriage but she promised her sister that they would consider the demand of Maruti car after about six months as they would see the conduct of the accused persons.
11.That her sister was beaten by her husband and Pankaj and therefore, she sustained injuries and she was medically examined.
12.That they made efforts to make the accused persons understand but the accused did not stop harassing her sister and thereafter her sister Divya made a complaint to the Women Cell also in their presence which matter was adjourned for about two to three dates and efforts were made to settle the matter amicably by the investigating officer and the matter was finally settled there.
13.That her sister informed her on telephone that while she was sleeping, she was pinched by some one and when she woke up she did not find any person and make the complaint to her husband to which he told her that there was nobody was there in the room and therefore her sister got afraid.
14.That on 04.12.2003 her sister had come to the house of her parents and ultimately on
04.01.2004, her sister committed suicide by hanging herself by strangulating with a chunni and her other sister Meghna informed her about the incident after which she left her office and reached to her parents' house where she found her sister Divya lying on bed.
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 101
15.That her husband also arrived in the evening and somebody informed the PCR after which the police came there and she and the police took her sister to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital but she was declared brought dead.
4. Sh. Hari Kishan He is the Priest at Sanatan Dharam Mandir situated Bhardwaj (PW7) at C4 Block, Keshav Puram, Delhi and has proved that on 19.4.03 he performed the martial rites and ceremonies of the daughter of Sh. Ramesh Kumar son of Sh. Diwan Chand at North End Banquet Hall, GT Karnal Road, Jahangirpuri, Delhi according to the Hindu Customs & Rites and the marriage of Divya was solemnized with Jitender.
5. Sh. Vikram Puri This witness has deposed that he was Manager of (PW8) the North End Party Hall situated at 18, Rajasthan Udyog Nagar, GT Karnal Road, Delhi upto 2005 and on 18.4.03 the hall was booked for Shagun ceremony of Divya and Jatinder and on the next day i.e. on 19.4.03, there was marriage ceremony of the aforesaid persons. He has proved the Booking Form of the aforesaid dates and ceremonies which are Ex.P23 and Ex.PW8/A. According to him, he handed over the same to the investigating officer which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. I have gone through the various authorities placed on record by the Ld. Defence counsels which are as under:
1. Gurcharan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2003 SC 992.
2. Chander Pal Vs. State reported in 1997 JCC 425.
3. State Vs. Rupinder Kumar reported in 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 493.
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 102
4. Nagesh Tyagi Vs. State (Delhi) reported in 2000 (4) RCR (Criminal) 617.
5. Suraj Mal Vs. The State (Delhi) reported in AIR 1979 SC 1408.
6. Sonu Arora Vs. State, Crl. A No. 241/1007 decided on 21.7.2010 (Delhi High Court)
7. Harjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2006 (1) Criminal Court Cases 706 (SC).
8. Hira Lal & Ors. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 105 (2003) DLT 705 (SC).
9. Satvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45 (SC).
10. Kailash Vs. State of MP reported in 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal)
634.
11. Tirath Kumar @ Raj Rani Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2005 (4) Crimes 174 (SC).
12. Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2007 Crl. L. L. 2300.
13. Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1981 SC
911. St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 103
14. Vikram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2007 Crl.
L.J. 1622.
15. Jote Ram Vs. State reported in III (1994) CCR 1482 (Delhi High Court).
16. Ms. Anu Gill Vs. State reported in 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 82 (Delhi).
17. Mukesh Rani Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 163.
18. Jasbir Kaur Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1990 (2)RCR
243.
19. Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773.
20. Narayanamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in II (2008) DMC 232 (SC).
21. M. Srinivasulu vs. State of A.P. reported in II (2007) DMC 693 (SC).
22. Raja Lal Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in I (2007) DMC 811 (SC).
23. Neera Singh Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in I (2007) DMC 542.
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 104
Coming now to the microscopic examination of the evidence against all the accused.
Identity of the accused:
In so far as the identity of the accused is concerned, there is no dispute with the same. The accused Sudhir Kumar Johar (retired Gazetted Officer) has been identified as the fatherinlaw of the deceased Divya; accused Mahender Rani Johar is the motherinlaw of the deceased; accused Jitender Johar is the husband of the deceased; Sudha Johar is the unmarried sisterinlaw of the deceased i.e. sister of accused Jitender Johar and daughter of Sudhir Kumar Johar and Mahender Rani Johar; accused Bhupender Johar is the Mama/ maternal uncle (aged about 70 years) being the real brother of Mahender Rani Johar residing at 8631, Firoz Gali, Kishan Ganj, Delhi and a retired government servant being Class - I Officer in Irrigation Department, Government of Haryana; accused Swarn Kaur is the maternal aunt/ Mausi of Jitender Johar being the real sister of Mahender Rani Johar residing at 8618, Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj, Delhi and accused Pankaj @ Nanak is the son of Swarn Kaur the first cousin of Jitender Johar also residing at 8618, Gaushal Marg, Kishan Ganj, Delhi and was stated to be working at British High Commission, Chanakya Puri at the time of the incident. Ms. Pratibha Chaddha is the daughter of Swarn Kaur the real sister of Pankaj @ St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 105 Nanak who has already been discharged by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 21.2.2008.
Allegations against the accused:
The marriage between Jitender Johar and the deceased was solemnized on 19.4.2003 as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies which was an arrange marriage. It is alleged that after just within three to four days of the marriage the accused who were the inlaws of the deceased started harassing the deceased for not bringing sufficient dowry which resulted into quarrel between the parents in law and the deceased and a 100 number call was made and police was called but the matter was amicably settled. It is generally stated that all the other accused used to give physical beatings to the deceased. On one occasion the accused Jitender Johar along with Pankaj had given physical beatings and assaulted the deceased with a belt as a result of which police complaint was made at Police Station Shalimar Bagh resulting into arrest of the accused Jitender. It was alleged that the accused Pratibha Chadha and Sudha had caught hold the deceased by hairs, beaten her and dragged her while accused Mahender Rani Johar and Swarn Kaur used to harass had given physical beatings to her. A complaint was also lodged to the CAW Cell and with the intervention of the family a compromise was effected on 5.9.2003 pursuant to which the deceased withdrew her complaint and started residing with St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 106 her husband. On 4.12.2003 the deceased was again brought back to her parental house by her father and on 12.12.2003 an application was filed before the CAW cell for revival of the previous complaint on the ground that her inlaws had started to harass her again on which a notice had been issued to her husband for 7.1.2004 but during this period on 4.1.2004 she committed suicide at her parental house. In her earlier complaint dated 24.7.2003 which is admitted by both the parties, the deceased had levelled allegations before the CAW Cell against her inlaws regarding the demand of scooter or car and had made allegations that virtually daily the accused Bhupender Singh, Swarn Kaur and Pankaj were called by her inlaws to their house who along with her inlaws used to threat her that they would not allow her to live in the house or otherwise they would kill her. A specific allegation has also been made against the accused Jitender Johar and Pankaj that on one occasion they came on a scooter and snatched the chain and Mangalsutra of the deceased but she could identify the accused Pankaj and report the matter to the police on which Jitender Johar had given her beatings with a belt along with the accused Pankaj. In so far as the accused Sudha the unmarried sisterinlaw of the deceased is concerned, the allegations against her of taunting the deceased and pressurizing the deceased for giving a set of gold ornaments and on one occasion she along with Pratibha Chadha the cousin sister of the accused being daughter of Mausi Swarn Kaur St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 107 pulled the hair of the deceased and gave her a beating. It is, therefore, evident from the aforesaid that the allegations against the accused are of physical and mental harassment with a view to coerce her and her family members to meet the unlawful demands of the accused and of abeting her death (within seven years of marriage) in connection of demands of such a dowry.
Suicide Note by the deceased:
The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Divya had committed suicide by hanging herself and her death was on account of hanging an aspect which is not disputed. It is further alleged that a register belonging to the deceased and was handed over to the police by the father of the deceased containing certain portions written by the deceased in her hand. On one page it has been written "hum sab is ghar bahutbahut tang akar mein apni mummy aur mein do ghar chod kar atmhatya kar raha hai". On another page it is written "Mera pati mujh par jhutha ilzam laga raha hai. Aap mera medical test kara sakte hai." Again on another page it is written "meri kismat bari kharab hai. Bhagwan ne mujhe kyun paida kiya tha. Bhagwan mujhe apne paas bula lo. Mein apni zindgi se bahut bahut tang akar mein tumhe keh rahi hoon."
The said register containing the handwriting of the deceased is Ex.P24 and the suicide note is Ex.P25 which have been St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 108 duly seized by the investigating officer on the same date i.e. 4.1.2004. The said suicide note and register were discovered by the members of the Crime Team i.e. SI S.P. Vashisth (PW13) in the presence of Ct. Chaman Lal (PW2) immediately when they reached the spot on 4.1.2004 and were seized vide memo Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F as evident from the Crime Team report Ex.PW13/A which shows that the register was lying in the drawer of the bed. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has pointed out that there is a contradiction in the testimonies of investigating officer SI Ram Kanwar (PW26), father of the deceased namely Ramesh Kumar (PW4) and Ct. Chaman Lal (PW2) in as much as Ramesh Kumar (PW4) has stated that the register was taken out from the side table of the bed whereas Ct.
Chaman Lal (PW2) has deposed that the register and the suicide notice were lying on the rack by the side of the bed. I do not find any contradiction in the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses. The drawer of the side table of the bed is commonly referred to as rack by many people and I may mention that the entire crossexamination of the witnesses are silent on this aspect. Once the Crime Team report prepared at the spot of incident itself is very specific with regard to the place of recovery, the oral testimonies of theses witnesses to the extent of contradictions can always be excluded. Further, it is evident that the said suicide note and the register duly written by the deceased and given to the investigating officer SI Ram Kanwar (PW26) by the St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 109 father of the deceased duly admitting the handwriting of the deceased, on the same date i.e. date of incident itself, had been sent to FSL for comparison an aspect duly proved by SI Ram Kanwar (PW26) and corroborated by the father of the deceased Sh. Ramesh Kumar (PW4). Sh. A.S. Gupta Dy. Government Examiner (PW27) has proved his report Ex.PW26/H which reveals that the questioned and the admitted handwritings written at the various places in the register was written by the same and one person. PW4 Ramesh Kumar has proved that the register Ex.P24 belonged to the deceased.
The Ld. Defence counsels have vehemently argued that the register in question and the suicide note are fabricated documents and the possibility of the register being written by some other person cannot be ruled out. I have gone through the register Ex.P24 and there is no reason to doubt the same. At one place in the register the number of Women Helpline and CAW Cell is written. Further the last page of the register show that the dates of 4.12.2003, 12.12.2003 and 19.12.2003 have been specifically mentioned and the person writing the same, has written mein apne ghar par 4.12.2003 ko aai thi. Us ke baad mein Shalimar Bagh nahin gai. 6.12.2003 ko phone aya tha and against the same the word Jitender was mentioned meaning thereby that it was the accused Jitender Johar who had called up the deceased. Thereafter the date of 9.12.2003 finds a mention. On page No. 229 of the register the numbers of Women Helpline 1091 St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 110 and 100 and the words SI Kamal Duggal, Women Cell Nanak Pura and Moti Bagh are scribbled. It is further evident that the deceased had been writing down her thoughts at various point of time and on page no. 40 she had specifically stated mein Divya Johar W/o Jitender Johar ke saath nahin rehna chahti thi kyonki wo bhi mere saath nahin rehna chahte hain ki mujhe is ghar se niklo jahan vaa vahan to mere saath rahegi. Meri saas sasur or nanand kehti hai ki is ghar se nikal ja nahin to hum sab tere ko maar dalenge. Hamara kuch nahin bigar sakti hai. Meri shadi 19 April ko hui thi. Tab se aaj tak mein ne aaj tak kabhi sukh nahin dekha hai. Similarly on page 41 she had mentioned hum sab is ghar bahutbahut tang akar mein apni mummy aur mein do ghar chod kar atmhatya kar raha hai". On page no. 42 it has been mentioned Mera pati mujh par jhutha ilzam laga raha hai. Aap mera medical test kara sakte hai. Also on page no. 47 the deceased had mentioned that meri kismat bari kharab hai. Bhagwan ne mujhe kyun paida kiya tha. Bhagwan mujhe apne paas bula lo. Mein apni zindgi se bahutbahut tang akar mein tumhe keh rahi hoon.
In the suicide note Ex.P25 she had written that "Mein apni zindgi se tang akar mein atmhatya kar rahi hoon. Meri mrityu ke baad kisi ko kuch nahin kaha ja. Mein apne pati se bahutbahut tang akar ye kadam utha rahi hoon. Mein apne pati ke saath nahin St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 111 rehna chahti hoon."
In this background to argue that this register was fabricated and manipulated by some one after her death or may not belong to the deceased is improbable and no second view is possible. Given the above background, when the date of marriage, the various dates when the deceased had returned to her father's house and the reasons for the same have been specifically mentioned and also the fact that the said register was recovered just within a few minutes after the discovery of the body of the deceased, the possibility of the same having been fabricated appears remote and I find no merit in the argument raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel calling for rejection of the suicide note.
Death of the deceased by suicidal:
The case of the prosecution is that the deceased had committed suicide on 4.1.2004 at the house of her father situated at C5/36B, Keshav Puram, Lawrence Road, Delhi where her body was found hanging from ceiling fan in the room and it was her brother in law Harish Sethi who got her down and rushed to hospital where she was declared brought 'brought dead'. There is no dispute to the aforesaid aspect. Rather the suicide stands established from the postmortem report of the deceased. PW16 Dr. Anil Shandilya has proved the postmortem report which is Ex.PW16/A and his opinion St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 112 that the cause of death was due to asphyxia resulted from anti mortem ligature hanging which opinion is Ex.PW16/B. Section 498A & 304B IPC (Dowry Death - Proximity Test):
In order to succeed in charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the section. It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health. The use of the expression "willful" in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonably expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative, as the case may be. Everyone is presumed to intend the St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 113 natural consequences of his act and such a presumption must necessarily be drawn even if there is no intention to cause any injury or harm to the woman. Whether the conduct in question is likely to drive the woman to cause injury to her life, limb or health, will depend upon a number of factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of awareness of the aggrieved woman, her temperament, state of her health, physical as well as mental and how she is likely to perceive such a behavior. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, it will also constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
The expression "Cruelty" takes in its ambit mental cruelty as well as physical torture of the woman. If the conduct of the accused with a woman is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life and safety, such a conduct would attract criminal liability, envisaged in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
If the woman has been harassed on account of her failure or the failure of her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, that also constitutes cruelty, within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC. The expression "harassment" has not been St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 114 defined in Section 498A of IPC, but its dictionary meaning is to subject someone to continuous vexatious attacks, questions, demands or other unpleasantness, etc. However, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under section 498A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, by positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand.
Further, in order to establish a charge under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, which deals with what is described as "dowry death", the prosecution must necessarily prove the following ingredients: i. The death of a woman must have been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstance;
ii. Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
iii. Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband;
iv. Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry;
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 115 v. Such cruelty or harassment is when to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
The term "Dowry" has not been defined in Section 304B of IPC, but, since this expression has been defined in Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it is required to be given the same meaning for the purpose of under Section 304B IPC as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satvir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under:
"Definition of 'dowry'. In this Act, "dowry"
means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or (b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before 3 or any time after the marriage 4in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case or persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 116 Dowry would include that property or valuable security which is actually given or which is agreed to be given, in relation to the marriage of person in question. The property or valuable security may be given or may be agreed to be given before marriage or at the time of marriage or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the marriage. However, there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given and the marriage. If at any time before or at the time of or even during marriage, the parents of a woman or any other person related or connected to her agree to give some cash, valuable security or property to her husband or inlaws after marriage, that also would be covered within the definition of dowry as the agreement or promise in such a case would be attributable to the marriage or proposed marriage and if there is demand for any cash property, valuable security etc. which is promised, but not given, it would constitute demand for dowry. If the husband of the girl or any other person related or connected to him, demands something from the girl or her parents or any other person related to or connected with her, saying that the article being demanded by them was expected to be given or ought to have been given in marriage, that would also, to my mind, constitute demand of dowry because even though such an article may not have been agreed or promised to be given by the girl or her family members, it might have been in the contemplation of the boy and/or his family members, St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 117 on account of the expectation that such an article would be given at the time of marriage. Therefore, such demand would be considered to be a demand in connection with the marriage though made after the marriage has been solemnized. Even demand of articles such as T.V., fridge, jewellery, clothes, furniture, etc. which usually are given or expected in marriages in our country, would, considering the objective sought to be achieved by incorporating Section 304B in Indian Penal Code and enacting Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 fall within the purview of Section 304B of Indian Penal Code.
In the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1998 SC 958, the Apex Court has specifically held demand of T.V., Fridge, etc. though not agreed to be given or promised or even demanded prior to or at the time of marriage, to be a demand for dowry for the purpose of Section 304B of IPC. If cash or some property, etc. is demanded by the boy or his family members, after marriage, saying that they were expecting such cash, property, etc. to be given in marriage, and the girl, or her parents or any other person related or connected to her promise to fulfill such a demand, that also may fall within the purview of dowry, as the promise though made after marriage, would nevertheless be referrable to the marriage, having been made with a view to preserve the marriage. In case, if the demand is made after marriage and it is in respect of a property or valuable security, which was not demanded, St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 118 was not expected to be given and also was not in contemplation at any time up to solemnization of marriage, demand of such cash, property or valuable security, etc. cannot be said to be in connection with the marriage and, therefore, would not constitute demand of dowry.
In the case of Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45 while dealing with this issue, the Hon"ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:
"Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties". This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". Hence the St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 119 dowry mentioned in Section 304B should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage."
In the case of Appasaheb and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2007 SC 763, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 120 business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning........ A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure."
The Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act are both remedial and penal statutes. As such Courts are expected to construe the provisions in a way that the purpose is fulfilled through and within the limits of language employed in the statute. If a case is established then the Courts are to be stringent in dealing with the culprits. The Courts while taking a stringent view and despite the obligation of the Legislature enactment a success have also to keep in mind that the charge should be made out.
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 121
The main ingredients to be proved for establishing a case under Section 304B IPC are (i) unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and (ii) she being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with any demand of dowry.
The words "it is shown" occurring in section 304B IPC are of significance for the reason that the initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Section 304B IPC do exist on the prosecution. This being shown or established, the question of presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would arise. In other words, to draw a presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act the necessary ingredient that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry has to be proved. Only when these facts are proved then by virtue of the deeming provision of section 304B IPC, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death. Though cruelty at any time after the marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and harassment envisaged by Section 304B is to be soon before the death of a woman.
The Courts are required to scrutinize the evidence carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is a demand and then the atmosphere become calm and quiet and then St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 122 again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of her husband within a short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as the torture and harassment is confined to the four walls of the house. The Courts are, however, required to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in laws are strained for any reason whatever it might be.
Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological trouble or mental agony or such circumstances that the person committing suicide may think that life he or she is living is more miserable than the pangs and agony of death. The power of tolerance would vary from person to person . Some persons try to make the life easy by tolerance while others even on petty points bring an end to their life. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported as Gurditta Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1992 Crl. L.J. 309).
The importance of proximity test is both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive section 304B IPC and section 113B St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 123 Evidence Act is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" used in section 113B of the Evidence Act, Illustration (a) of the Act is relevant. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be too much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
It is well settled by several judgments that mere suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt. In the case reported as State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 258, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: ''The circumstances of this case undoubtedly create suspicion against the accused. Suspicion, by itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 124 finding of guilt of the accused.'' In another case reported as Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of this innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have benefit of that doubt........
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 125 It needs all the same to be reemphasized that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. The courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because the acquittal might have an impact upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused..
In another case reported as AIR 1973 SC 2622, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under : ''Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before the court can convict and the mental distinction between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 126 consideration.'' Further more, in another case reported as Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under : ''Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this Court in the case of "Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) stated thus:
It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished.
There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 127 between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted.'' It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused.
Applying the above principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that the marriage between the accused Jitender Johar and the deceased Divya was solemnized on 19.4.2003 and soon after the marriage disputes between the two had started and in the month of July 2003 i.e. within three months of the marriage a complaint was lodged at CAW Cell. The case of the prosecution is that soon after the marriage the accused had started making demands for dowry and the deceased was physically beaten on a number of occasions. It is specifically mentioned that a demand of scooter/ car was made by the accused persons and Sudha had made demand for a gold set. It is evident that soon after three to four days of the marriage Jitender had told the deceased that his family was not happy with the dowry and she was subject to regular torture by the accused Jitender Johar, Sudhir Kumar, Mahender Kaur, Sudha and Pratibha, Swarn St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 128 Kaur and the maternal uncle Bhupender Singh. Smt. Meghna (PW10) the sister of the deceased has in her testimony deposed that the accused Jitender used to harass her sister for bringing car, scooter etc. and her father had applied for loan but could not give the scooter since in between they lodged a complaint in Women Cell. PW15 Ms. Usha Kapoor has similarly testified in the court stating that there was a demand of scooter/ motorcycle and the mother i.e. accused Mahender Rani Johar and Mausi i.e. accused Saran Kaur raised objections with regard to the double bed due to which reason they had to ask the shopkeeper for polishing the double bed.
Before proceeding further to examine the evidence on merits at the very outset I wish to bring on record the conduct of the SDM Bans Raj (PW6) who had allegedly conducted the inquest proceedings and recorded the statement of the parents of the deceased. He had been most casual and unprofessional in his approach. The death of the deceased had taken place on 4.1.2004 and it is evident from the testimony of investigating officer SI Ram Kanwar (PW26) that he had informed the SDM about the death of the deceased at 4:30 PM on 4.1.2004. The SDM Sh. Bans Raj instead of immediately rushing to the hospital to conduct the inquest proceedings, directed the Investigating Officer to call the parents of the deceased in the hospital on the next date i.e. 5.1.2004. It is also evident from the testimony of PW26 SI Ram Kanwar that the SDM did not give him St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 129 any reason as to why he was not coming to the hospital on the same day but only stated that since the deceased had already expired so he would carry out the proceedings on the next day meaning thereby that he did not feel the urgency of doing so immediately. Is the SDM so insensitive to the fact that by delaying the inquest proceedings, he would be leaving sufficient scope for manipulation and tutorings.
SDM Bans Raj has been examined as PW6 wherein he has admitted that the statement of the parents of the deceased was recorded by his Reader on his dictation which is doubtful since it is the Investigating Officer SI Ram Kanwar (PW26) who in his testimony has identified his own handwriting and has deposed that the statements were recorded by him on the dictation of the SDM. The Investigating Officer has also admitted that there was no endorsement made by the SDM or certificate given by him on the statement to show that it was written by him (Investigating Officer) on his dictation. I may further observe that the father of the deceased namely Ramesh Kumar (PW4) also in his deposition before this court has deposed that his statement was recorded by the police but he does not recollect if that statement was recorded in the police station or at his house. According to him, SDM recorded his statement in the hospital and other family members were also present when his statement was recorded but he has clarified that the SDM himself did not record his statement and the same was recorded by somebody St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 130 else. He also does not recollect if his statement was already recorded and the same was got attested from the SDM but he admits that his first statement had been recorded by the police.
It is writ large that the entire proceedings have been conducted by the SDM in a routine manner. It is evident that Firstly the proceedings and the statement of the parents of the deceased were not recorded by the SDM at the earliest possible opportunity who was under an obligation to do so. Secondly the statements have been recorded in the most casual manner not by the SDM but by some other person. Thirdly there is no endorsement of SDM on the statement of the parents of the deceased to the effect that the statements have been written by him or he had directed any other officer to record the statement on his dictation. Fourthly it is evident from the testimony of Ramesh Kumar (PW4) that apart from himself the other family members were also present in the hospital when his statement was recorded though his first statement was recorded by the police prior to the recording of the same by the SDM. The details of the said relatives who were present in the hospital does not find a mention in the inquest proceedings and therefore, the aspect of tutoring of the witnesses specifically in the background when previous complaints between the parties were pending, cannot be ruled out. Lastly it is established that the first statement of Sh. Ramesh Kumar the father of the deceased was recorded by the St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 131 Investigating Officer in the Police Station and the SDM had recorded the statement subsequently.
Now coming to the analysis of evidence on merits. The allegations made against the accused are two fold: first that there were specific demands of dowry by the accused soon after three to four days of the marriage as they were not happy with the gift items given by the family of the deceased and were demanding dowry from her on account of which she was being harassed and second that the brother in law of the deceased namely Harish Sethi used to frequently visit the matrimonial home of the deceased which was objected to by the family of the accused.
In so far as the allegations of demand of dowry are concerned, firstly it is evident from the testimony of Meghna (PW10) that the marriage between the parties was an arranged marriage and it is also an admitted case of both the parties that the said marriage was arranged through Santoshi Mata Mandir where the parties got themselves registered and before alliance was fixed the mother and Mausi of the accused namely Mahender Rani Johar and Swarn Kaur had gone to the beauty parlour where the deceased and her sister Meghna were employed in order to see her (the prospective bride) and after they approved of the deceased that Meghna communicated this fact to her parents and the marriage was arranged. St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 132
Secondly it is evident from the testimony of Ramesh Kumar (PW4) that soon after the marriage his deceased daughter had informed him that her inlaws were not happy with the dowry which had been given to her and used to taunt her for insufficient dowry and demanded car/ scooter/ motorcycle for accused Jitender Johar. According to Ramesh Kumar (PW4) the demand of the accused was of either car or scooter. Smt. Meghna (PW10) the sister of the deceased has testified that the accused Jitender Johar had in fact demanded a scooter whereas according to Smt. Usha Kapoor (PW15) he demanded a motorcycle. In this regard, I may observe that it has been admitted by Ramesh Kumar (PW4) and also by the witnesses Smt. Meghna (PW10) and Smt. Usha Kapoor (PW15) that at the time of marriage the accused Jitender and his family already possessed a Maruti car. Accused Sudhir Kumar Johar is a retired Gazetted officer and accused Mahender Rani Johar was a Principal in the school. The family which comprised of only four persons i.e. Sudhir Kumar Johar, Mahender Rani Johar, Sudha Johar and Jitender Johar being financially well off and the accused Jitender Johar being the only son, where was the question of demanding a car more so when the family already possessed a Maruti Car at the time of marriage of the deceased. Therefore, under these circumstances to say that there was a demand of scooter/ car/ motorcycle, does not appear probable [Ref.: Bijoy Uraon @ Phagu Oraon Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2000 St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 133 (3) Crimes 183]. Even otherwise it has been admitted by Smt. Meghna (PW10) herself that on account of the complaint before the CAW Cell, no such scooter was given though she states that her family had raised a loan for the same. There is also nothing on record to show that Ramesh Kumar (PW1) had ever raised a loan for the said purpose as alleged by Smt. Meghna (PW10). It is further admitted by Smt. Meghna (PW10) that at the time of marriage there was no demand of dowry by the accused or by the family of the accused.
Thirdly Smt. Usha Kapoor (PW15) has deposed that they were only four sisters and she was the eldest and the deceased Divya was the youngest. According to her, she treated Divya (deceased) like her daughter so much so that she had even conducted the Kanyadan of the deceased. She has alleged that on 20.4.2003 they delivered the Istridhan articles to the house of the accused consisting of double bed, almirah, washing machine, gold articles etc. but the accused had also demanded scooter/ motorcycle which they could not arrange. She has narrated an incident of the same date i.e. 20.4.2003 when the mother of accused Jitender Johar namely Mahender Rani Johar and his Mausi namely Swarn Kaur raised objection with regard to the quality of the double bed stating that the polish was not good on account of which they contacted the shopkeeper from where they purchased the double bed at Pitampura who had to sent his boy at the house of accused for polishing the double bed. In this regard I may observe that it is for the St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 134 first time in the court that this allegation regarding the double bed not being of a good quality was made whereas no such allegation had been made by her in her statement before the Investigating Officer and hence, this is an improvement to her earlier statement. Further, the owner of the shop at Pitampura from where the double bed was purchased or the boy who was sent by the owner for polishing the double bed have not been cited as witnesses nor examined in the court to prove the aforesaid incident. Even otherwise, assuming that such an incident did take place, I may observe that damage of furniture during transit/ transportation is a common phenomenon and normally the seller is informed of the same so that the defect is rectified. Under no circumstances, the said information given by the inlaws of the deceased can be construed as a demand of dowry.
Fourthly it is further alleged by Ramesh Kumar (PW4) that two months prior to her death, his daughter had told him that her sistersinlaw namely Pratibha and Sudha had dragged her by the hairs and beaten her and on a previous occasion the accused Pankaj (son of the Mausi of accused Jitender Johar) had also beaten her with a belt. He has also alleged that about fifteen days thereafter the accused Jitender Johar and Pankaj came on two wheeler and accused Pankaj pulled the chain of her daughter which got entangled in her clothes, but despite his advise the deceased did not lodge any complaint to the police. Similarly, PW10 Meghna has also alleged that the motherin St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 135 law of her sister namely Mahender Rani Johar and sister in law Sudha Johar had also demanded jewellery articles from the deceased which were lying in her matrimonial house but since her father was not having sufficient means, therefore, he could not meet the demands. I have considered the above testimonies and the allegations made. I may observe that it is an admitted case of the parties and also evidence from the record that even before the death of deceased the parties were involved into disputes and quarrelling with each other. The family of the deceased had on two occasions made a PCR call and on one occasion the accused Jitender had to spend time in jail. Under the given circumstances it is impossible that the family of the deceased would have kept quite if the accused Jitender Johar and Pankaj would have snatched the chain of deceased or beaten her with a belt. In this regard the testimony of the witness Meghna (PW10) is relevant who states that the said assailants who had snatched the chain of her sister were wearing helmets, but she (deceased) could identity Pankaj and Jitender. How under these circumstances identification of Jitender and Pankaj could have been possible and if it was so that why no police complaint was made. Also if that could have been so, at least the deceased should have been got medically examined there being belt marks on her body which was also not done. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that such incidents did happen and was never reported. There is no corroborative evidence on record in the form of St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 136 medical report of the deceased or police complaint to the extent that such an incident of snatching the chain of the deceased and the beatings given by Pankaj to the deceased had taken place more so when allegedly there were marks on her back. In so far as the demand of the jewellery articles lying the house of the father is concerned, the allegations are vague and no date or time has been mentioned. Even otherwise it does not appear probable in view of the fact that there was a hostility between the families within four months of marriage when a complaint was made by the deceased to CAW Cell and pursuant to a compromise the deceased had taken away all her Istridhan.
Fifthly the married cousin sister in law of the deceased namely Pratibha Chaddha being the daughter of Mausi Swarn Kaur is residing separately at her matrimonial house and Sudha Johar the unmarried sister in law of the deceased was a student at the relevant point of time. It is impossible that Pratibha Chaddha who resides separately at her matrimonial home would have come to the house of her first cousin only to give beatings to his wife after conniving with her cousin sister Sudha. It is also impossible that the deceased if beaten would have kept quiet and that too when it is evident from the record that the sisters and brothers in law of the deceased were frequent visitors to her matrimonial house so much so that on one occasion they came to her house after making a Peshbandi in the St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 137 Police Station and ended up quarreling with the family of the accused after which police had to be called and the parties were taken to the police station where a case was registered against them for breach of peace and even the neighbours of the accused had to intervene and report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (NW) regarding the frequent breach of peace in the area by the family of the deceased and also of the police highhandedness when Sudha Johar the unmarried sister in law of the deceased was also being taken to Police Station. In this regard, the written complaint of the neighbours of the accused informing the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police regarding the harassment being meted out to the family of the accused by the family of the deceased who created a breach of peace in the area, has also been placed on record and proved by DW2 which complaint is Ex.DW2/A. The said aspect has not been validly converted or rebutted.
Sixthly it is also alleged by Usha Kapoor (PW15) the sister of the deceased that her deceased sister had told her that on one occasion when she was sleeping she felt someone had pinched her, but when she woke up there was nobody. In this regard, I may observe that the allegations are vague. No date or time when the incident took place is mentioned nor the details of the persons who were present at the house at that time was mentioned. Further, it is for the fist time that the incident has been highlighted in the court and St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 138 it does not find a mention in the earlier complaint to the CAW Cell or in the statement made by the witness to the Investigating Officer.
Seventhly it is further an admitted case of both the parties that the proceedings in the CAW Cell had commenced which proceedings had been duly proved by SI Maan Singh (PW11) who has proved that pursuant to the proceedings at CAW Cell the entire Istridhan articles were returned by the accused and there was a compromise between the parties vide Ex.PW11/A after which Divya went back to her matrimonial house. I have gone through the complaint made by the deceased before CAW Cell where the allegations on the face of it are demand of dowry. If that is correct, then where was the question of sending Divya back to her matrimonial house after return of Istridhar articles and compromise. Unless the Investigating Officer was satisfied that despite specific allegations there was no case of demand of dowry but only a case of incompatibility between the parties that an attempt could have been made to compromise the disputes and send the girl back to her matrimonial house. In case if the deceased was being subjected to regular taunts, torture, harassment and beatings for demand of dowry, then why the parents of the deceased, her sisters and brothers in law immediately agreed to send her back to her matrimonial home with the people who had been inflicted so much of torture and pain upon her. On the face of it, it is evident that things were not so simple. St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 139 Though the complaint made was with regard to the demand of dowry yet the dispute lay otherwise and it is the diary of the deceased Divya which provides an answer to the same establishing that the entire dispute was on account of frequent visits of Harih Sethi to her house because of which her husband suspected her relations with him.
Eighthly coming now to the aspect of causing mental harassment to the deceased. It is evident from the testimony of Ramesh Kumar (PW4), Smt. Meghna (PW10) and Smt. Usha Kapoor (PW15) that a specific suggestion has been given to them by the Ld. Defence Counsel that on account of frequent visit of the brothers in law of the deceased namely Harish Sethi, there was an objection in the family of the accused on which Sudhir Kumar Johar had asked his son Jitender Johar to communicate to the family of the deceased. It is evident that the frequent visits of Harish Sethi were not liked by Jitender Johar which fact also finds due corroboration from the writings of the deceased present in the Register Ex.P24 showing that the accused Jitender Johar had suspected the relations of the deceased with her brother in law Harish Sethi and it is in this background that the deceased in her register written by her which is Ex.P24 had mentioned that her husband had pointed a finger of suspicion on her character and she was ready to undergo medical check. In this regard I may observe that the families of the accused and the deceased are middle class conservative families. In the family of the deceased, St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 140 apart from her parents they were four sisters, the deceased Divya being the youngest and Usha Kapoor being the eldest who took upon herself the task of ensuring her younger sister found a good match. According to Usha Kapoor, Divya being the youngest was like a daughter to her since she herself was blessed with a son and had no daughter and it was under these circumstances that she and her husband had even performed the marriage and Kanyadaan of Divya. Under these circumstances, it is not unusual in a family with no sons or brothers that the sons in law take upon themselves the role of sons to their parents in laws and brothers to their sisters in law as happened in the present case. However, being an arranged marriage the family of the accused being equally conservative did not appreciate this and the frequent visits of the brothers in law of the deceased Divya particularly of Harish Sethi was objected to and Sudhir Kumar Johar asked his son Jitender Johar to accordingly counsel his wife Divya on the said aspect and distance herself from Harish Sethi. The family of the deceased took an offence to this objectionthe dispute being aggravated to such an extent that it reached a breaking point. On the one hand, the inlaws of Divya were objecting to the frequent visits of the other brothers in law of Divya at their houses whereas on the other hand the maternal family of Divya comprising of her parents who were being taken care of their daughter and sons in law objected to such an objection and insinuation and took an offence to this. In this St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 141 process it is none else but Divya who had to suffer the burnt of the adamancy and ego of both the parties.
Ninthly it is not the case of the prosecution nor the case of any of the witness of the prosecution that Sudhir Kumar Johar, Mahender Rani Johar, Swarn Kaur, Bhupender Singh, Sudha Johar and Pankaj had ever subjected the deceased to taunts or made any insinuation on her character. The only allegations in this regard are against the accused Jitender Johar and that too by the deceased when she herself in her diary written by her mentioned that " Mera pati mujh par jhutha ilzam laga raha hai. Aap mera medical test kara sakte hai". If this is not cruelty what else is it? It was the obligation of the accused Jitender Johar to have ensured that the honour of this wife is not compromised. He should have realized that under the given circumstances when Divya was not having any brother, it is her brothers in law (Jija's) who were taking care of their family and were very close to them which is not very unusual in the society today. This being the background, subjecting the deceased to regular taunts and suspecting her character, I hold the accused Jitender Johar guilty of causing mental harassment to his deceased wife Divya as contemplated under Section 498A (Part1) Explanation (a) Indian Penal Code.
Tenthly a comprehensive reading of the suicide note and the register maintained by the deceased which are Ex.P24 & Ex.P25 St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 142 indicates usual problems of the middleclass families and also reveals their mutual differences and disputes of trivial issues about the in laws objecting to the frequent visits of the brothers in law and the husband suspecting the relations of his wife with the brother in law on account of his frequent visits. It is further evident that the deceased in her register mentioned that she does not wish to stay with her husband i.e. the accused Jitender Johar by stating that "mein Divya Johar W/o Jitender Johar ke saath nahin rehna chahti thi kyonki wo bhi mere saath nahin rehna chahte hain ki mujhe is ghar se niklo jahan vaa vahan to mere saath rahegi" and she has gone to mention that under the given circumstances she fed up with the life and wanted to commit suicide. This being the background, there can be no question of demand of dowry.
Eleventhly allegation has also been made by Ramesh Kumar (PW4) that a few days before the death of Divya, the accused Jitender Johar used to come in the area and sit in the park near his house where he used to speak loudly on account of which the deceased felt insulted. He has also alleged that the accused Jitender Johar has made a call to the deceased Divya and she felt depressed and disturbed after his call. In this regard, I may observe that no evidence has been led by the prosecution by examining the witnesses from the locality to prove that the conduct of the accused Jitender Johar as aforesaid. Except for the oral testimony of Ramesh Kumar St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 143 (PW4) which does not find any independent corroboration there is nothing to show that Jitender went near the parental house of the deceased and sat in an adjoining park and talked very loudly about her. Further, no call details have been placed on record to show that any telephone call had been made by the accused Jitender Johar to the deceased Divya before he death. However, assuming that such a call had been made by Jitender Johar to Divya, then what exactly transpired between the two is also unknown. The possibility of accused Jitender Johar having told Divya her to either return to the house or to finalize the dispute cannot be ruled out. What was it that made Divya depressed? Was it the conduct of the accused Jitender Johar or somebody else? This aspect the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Twelfthly it is an admitted case of the prosecution that Harish Sethi the brotherinlaw of the deceased had given a loan to the father of the deceased prior to her marriage for getting conducted the marriage of the deceased an aspect which has not been disputed and is also evident from the testimony of DW2 S.S. Parmar who is the neighbour of the accused. However, it does not stand established that Harish Sethi was pressurizing the father of the deceased for return of the said amount on which the parental family of the deceased seek return of this amount from the accused.
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 144
Lastly the deceased Divya had committed suicide at her father's house on 4.1.2004 i.e. after one month of her stay with her father and apparently there was no contact between her and the accused nor any overt act on the part of the accused has been alleged or proved by the prosecution so as to abetting her to commit suicide. Therefore, I hereby hold that there does not appear to be any proximity between the death of the deceased and act of the accused persons and also there is no proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of the deceased. Rather the incidents alleged do not stand established and proved beyond reasonable doubt and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the deceased and would be of no consequence.
Applying the law enunciated in the above referred judgments and in in view of the aforesaid, I hereby hold that in so far as the accused Jitender Johar is concerned, his case is covered within the provisions of Explanation (a) of Section 498A Indian Penal Code. However, in so far as the accused Sudhir Kumar Johar, Bhupender Singh, Nanak @ Pankaj, Swarn Kaur, Mahender Rani Johar and Sudha Johar are concerned, it is evident that the names of the father in law, mother in law, unmarried sister in law and other distant relatives have been introduced only to spread the net wide as often happened in cases under Section 498A/ 304B Indian Penal Code. Hence, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 145 prove and substantiate the allegations against them regarding harassment to the deceased, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to them.
Further, it is clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased had committed suicide at the house of her father after one month of her coming back to her father's house but it cannot be related to any dowry related harassment by the accused as apparently there is no proximity of link between the death of Divya and the alleged misconduct by the accused. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the role of the accused in the commission of the alleged crime nor there is anything on record to show that the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide on account of conduct of the accused Sudhir Kumar Johar, Jitender Johar, Bhupender Singh, Nanak @ Pankaj, Swarn Kaur, Mahender Rani Johar and Sudha Johar.
Improvements and contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses:
It is necessary to mention the various contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of Ramesh Kumar (PW4), Smt. Meghna (PW10) and Smt. Usha Kapoor (PW15) highlighted by the Ld. Defence Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused. St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 146
The various improvements as observed in the testimony of PW4 Ramesh Kumar are culled out as under:
➔ That his daughter after three to four days had come to him and told him that her in laws were not happy with the dowry. ➔ That Jitender has told to her daughter that he had not given any thing and whatever dowry was given, the same was given to her. ➔ That 100 number call was made to the police with regard to the quarrel between his daughter and accused persons several time. ➔ That his daughter had been subjected to mental torture and had remained admitted in Hospital but there is no medical certificate on record to prove this fact.
➔ That once accused Jitender has beaten his daughter. ➔ That after his return from the Jail, Jitender used to live apart from his daughter at her matrimonial house, when some time he used to stay at the house of his maternal uncle and some time else where.
➔ That his daughter used to inform him on telephone or when he used to visit her in her matrimonial house about the incident. ➔ That Jitender used to visit her house and threaten his daughter. ➔ That Jitender used to come and sit in the public park and speak in a loud voice or that his daughter had committed suicide after his last visit.
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 147 ➔ That whenever his daughter used to go to CAW Cell, she was subjected to taunts by Jitender and his family.
➔ That his daughter committed suicide of threats of accused Jitender that he would get her parents killed and also that she should withdraw the case which was pending with the CAW Cell and also in the court of Ld. MM Police Station Jahangir Puri. ➔ That Jitender used to accompany by accused Pankaj when he extended the threat.
In this regard I may observe that PW4 Ramesh Kumar was confronted with his statement Ex.PW4/1 where these facts were not so recorded but the witness avoided to give a proper reply to many of the questions asked by the defence counsel and has apparently improved upon his earlier statement and changed his version.
The various improvements observed and highlighted in the testimony of PW10 Meghna are as under:
➔ That her brother in law namely Jitender used to trouble her sister and insist that she should get a scooter for him.
➔ That her father had applied for the scooter loan but on account of complaint with CAW Cell they did not give the Scooter. ➔ That the accused had beaten her sister and snatched her Mangal Sutra.
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 148 ➔ That she asked her sister why she had come to the home. She told her that her husband had stated that either she would kill her or would commit suicide.
➔ That in laws also demanded for the ration. ➔ That mother in law and sister in law Sudha Johar had demanded
jewellery articles from her sister which were lying in her matrimonial house.
➔ That she had informed her brother in law Harish Kumar Sethi about the incident and he along with his wife Poonam Sethi reached directly to the house of her father.
➔ That when a complaint was lodged to CAW Cell her sister was beaten by accused persons and she had been the marks of injuries on the back of her body caused by leather belt given by Pankaj and Jitender Johar.
In this regard I may mention that the witness was confronted with her statement Ex.PW10/A where the above facts were not recorded. This witness has deposed that entire istridhan of her sister had not been returned pursuant to the compromise in CAW Cell or that her sister had given in writing about the return of entire istridhan or there was compromise on 05.09.2003 which version is factually incorrect since Divya had given in writing about the return of istridhan and there was compromise on 05.09.2003 which has also St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 149 been duly proved by SI Maan Singh (PW11). It is evident from the version of this witness that compromise was effected on 12.12.2003 is factually incorrect since PW4 and PW15 do not support this fact and actually there was no compromise on 12.12.2003 as alleged by this witness but compromise was effected on 5.9.2003. Meghna (PW10) has also admitted that there was no report from 05.09.2003 to 11.12.2003 to any authority and that before and at the time of marriage no dowry demand was made by the accused. Meghna has further admitted that no incident had taken place in her presence and states that was only told to her by her sister on telephone. Further she is unable to tell any date, month of the harassment to her sister even approximately especially of Pankaj snatching the Mangal Sutra having hit Divya by Belt. Rather she has gone to the extent that at the time of snatching Mangal Sutra there were four other boys who had covered their faces with mask and there was no report of this incident which was an improvement and not mentioned anywhere in her statement. Even otherwise PW4 & PW15 do not support this fact.
She admitted that Jitender Johar was separated from the family. In respect of the loan being applied by Ramesh Kumar (PW4), I may mention that PW4 Ramesh Kumar is silent about these facts and did not testify on this aspect in his deposition.
Various contradictions and improvements have also been observed and highlighted in the testimony of PW15 Smt. Usha St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 150 Kapoor which are as under:
➔ That mother and mausi of accused Jitender raised objection on the quality of double bed or that shopkeeper had sent a boy for polishing the double bed.
➔ That her sister told her that she did not want to stay with her in laws as she was being harassed and they should call her back. ➔ That her sister was beaten by Jitender with belt and that they had promised to accused to make up for the deficient dowry. ➔ That her sister told her that somebody used to pinch her at night and when she woke up nobody admitted to the same. ➔ That on the date of death her sister Meghna had caller her up and she went home and her sister was lying on the bed or that her husband had returned in the evening and she had gone to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital.
It is evident that Usha Kapoor has also improved about the details of articles and on the demand of a Motorcycle. I may mention that she was confronted with her statement Ex.PW15/A where these facts were not mentioned and she avoided to give the reply of above said aspects.
FINAL FINDINGS:
In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 the Apex Court has laid St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 151 down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 152 Applying the above principles of law to the present case, it is evident that the identity of all the accused stands established. The accused Sudhir Kumar Johar is the fatherinlaw of the deceased Divya; accused Mahender Rani Johar is the motherinlaw of the deceased; accused Jitender Johar is the husband of the deceased; Sudha Johar is the unmarried sisterinlaw of the deceased; accused Bhupender Singh is the Mama/ maternal uncle of accused Jitender Johar; accused Swarn Kaur is the maternal aunt/ Mausi of Jitender Johar and accused Pankaj @ Nanak is the son of Swarn Kaur. It stands established that the accused Bhupinder Singh (Mama of Jitender Johar) is a retired Class - I Officer in the Irrigation Department, Haryana residing separately at 8631, Feroz Gali, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. It also stands proved and established that the marriage between the accused Jitender Johar and deceased Divya was an arranged marriage through a local temple (Santoshi Mata Mandir) and was solemnized on 19.4.2003. It stands established that at the time of marriage and even prior to that there was no demand of dowry. It has been established that within three to four months of the marriage disputes had arisen in the matrimonial family of the deceased on account of the frequent visits of Harish Sethi the brother inlaw of the deceased. The prosecution has been able to establish that on 24.7.2003 the deceased Divya had lodged a complaint before the CAW Cell alleging harassment to her. Further, it stands established St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 153 that on 25.7.2003 proceedings under Section 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against both the parties. It also stands established that a compromise was effected between the parties on 5.9.2003 in the CAW Cell after which the accused Jitender Johar and deceased Divya started residing separately from the rest of the family in the room on the backside and even had a separate kitchen and thereafter on 4.12.2003 Ramesh Kumar father of the deceased brought Divya back to his house. It has been established that on 12.12.2003 Divya moved an application before the CAW Cell for revival of her earlier complaint and a notice on the same was issued to the accused Jitender Johar for 7.1.2004. However, the allegations regarding demand of scooter/ car/ motorcycle by the accused is not proved. It has also not been proved that the accused Pratibha and Sudha had dragged the deceased Divya by her hairs and beaten her and the accused Pankaj had also beaten her with a belt. Further the allegations of snatching of the chain of deceased Divya by the accused Jitender Johar and Pankaj have also not been substantiated and proved. Also the allegation of pinching the deceased while she was sleeping has not been proved. The prosecution has also failed to prove that a few days before the death of Divya, the accused Jitender Johar used to come in the area and sit in the park near the parental house of the deceased where he used to speak loudly. It stands established that on 4.1.2004 Divya committed suicide by hanging St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 154 herself on ceiling fan in her parental house.
With regard to the accused Jitender Johar, his case is covered within the provisions of Explanation (a) of Section 498A Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by circumstantial evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link in so far as the aspects of inflicting mental cruelty and harassment to the deceased Divya are concerned. Therefore, I hereby hold the accused Jitender Johar guilty of the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code and convict him accordingly.
In so far as the accused Sudhir Kumar Johar, Bhupender Singh, Nanak @ Pankaj, Swarn Kaur, Mahender Rani Johar and Sudha Johar in respect of offence under Section 498A Indian Penal St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 155 Code and the accused Jitender Johar, Sudhir Kumar Johar, Bhupender Singh, Nanak @ Pankaj, Swarn Kaur, Mahender Rani Johar and Sudha Johar in respect of the offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code are concerned, I hereby hold that the circumstances reflected from the material on record do not stand conclusively established. The facts are also are not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. There is nothing on record to definitely establish which of the accused actually committed the offence and who did not participate in the crime. The chain of evidence is not so much complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused persons and it has not been established that in all human probability the act has been done by the accused. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Sudhir Kumar Johar, Bhupender Singh, Nanak @ Pankaj, Swarn Kaur, Mahender Rani Johar and Sudha Johar, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to them who are acquitted of the charge under Section 498A Indian Penal Code. Further, in so far as the provisions of Section 304B Indian Penal Code is concerned, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Sudhir Kumar Johar, Jitender Johar, Bhupender Singh, Nanak @ Pankaj, Swarn Kaur, Mahender Rani Johar and St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 156 Sudha Johar in respect of the said allegations and all the above accused are acquitted of the same.
Case be listed for arguments on sentence qua the convict Jitender Johar on 15.7.2011.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 11.7.2011 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 157 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NW): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 373/06 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0011442006 State Vs. (1) Sudhir Kumar Johar S/o Sh. Manohar Lal R/o BQ161B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (Acquitted) (2) Jitender Johar S/o Sh. Sudhir Kumar Johar R/o BQ161B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (Convicted) (3) Bhupender Singh S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh R/o 8631, Feroz Gali, Kishan Ganj, Delhi (Acquitted) (4) Pratibha Chaddha W/o Sh. Vinod Kumar Chaddha R/o 90A, LIG Flats, Rajouri Garden, Delhi (Discharged on 21.2.2008) (5) Nanak @ Pankaj S/o Sh. Mahender Singh R/o 8618, Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj, Delhi (Acquitted) St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 158 (6) Swarn Kaur W/o Sh. Mahender Singh R/o 8618, Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj, Delhi (Acquitted) (7) Mahender Rani Johar W/o Sh. Sudhir Kumar Johar R/o BQ161B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (Acquitted) (8) Sudha Johar D/o Sh. Sudhir Kumar Johar R/o BQ161B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (Acquitted) FIR No.: 06/2004 Under Section: 304B/498A/34 Indian Penal Code Police Station: Keshav Puram Date of Conviction: 11.7.2011 Arguments heard on: 15.7.2011 Date of sentence: 18.7.2011 APPEARANCE: Present: Sh. Taufique Ahmed, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 159
Convict Jitender Johar in JC with Sh. R.P. Dhania Advocate.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide my detailed judgment dated 11.7.2011, the accused Jitender Johar has been held guilty of the offence under Section 498 A (Part1) Indian Penal Code. However, he has been acquitted of the charge under Section 304B Indian Penal code. Further, the accused Sudhir Kumar Johar, Jitender Johar, Bhupender Singh, Nanak @ Pankaj, Swarn Kaur, Mahender Rani Johar and Sudha Johar have been acquitted of the charges under Section 498A/304B Indian Penal Code.
The marriage between the accused Jitender Johar and deceased Divya was solemnized on 19.4.2003 which was an arranged marriage through a local temple (Santoshi Mata Mandir) where both the parties had registered themselves. The accused Sudhir Kumar Johar is the fatherinlaw of the deceased Divya; accused Mahender Rani Johar is the motherinlaw of the deceased; accused Jitender Johar is the husband of the deceased; Sudha Johar is the unmarried sisterinlaw of the deceased; accused Bhupender Singh is the Mama/ maternal uncle of accused Jitender Johar; accused Swaran Kaur is the maternal aunt/ Mausi of Jitender Johar and accused Pankaj @ Nanak St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 160 is the son of Swaran Kaur. At the time of marriage and even prior to that there was no demand of dowry. As per the allegations within three to four months of the marriage disputes had arisen in the matrimonial family of the deceased on account of the frequent visits of Harish Sethi the brother inlaw of the deceased. On 24.7.2003 the deceased Divya had lodged a complaint before the CAW Cell alleging harassment to her and on 25.7.2003 proceedings under Section 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against both the parties. However, a compromise was effected between the parties on 5.9.2003 in the CAW Cell after which the accused Jitender Johar and deceased Divya started residing separately from the rest of the family in the room on the backside and even had a separate kitchen.
Thereafter on 4.12.2003 Ramesh Kumar father of the deceased brought Divya back to his house and on 12.12.2003 Divya moved an application before the CAW Cell for revival of her earlier complaint and a notice on the same was issued to the accused Jitender Johar for 7.1.2004 but prior to that on 4.1.2004 Divya committed suicide by hanging herself with a Chunni tiled to a ceiling fan in her parental house.
Charges under Sections 498A/304B Indian Penal Code were framed against all the accused. Allegations of harassment connected with dowry demand were made by the father and sisters of the deceased. On the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 161 examined by the prosecution particularly Ramesh Kumar - father of the deceased, Meghna and Usha Kapoor - sisters of the deceased, this court has held that the allegations regarding demand of scooter/ car/ motorcycle by the accused has not been proved. It has also not been proved that the accused Pratibha and Sudha had dragged the deceased Divya by her hairs and beaten her and the accused Pankaj had also beaten her with a belt. Further the allegations of snatching of the chain of deceased Divya by the accused Jitender Johar and Pankaj have also not been substantiated and proved. Also the allegation of pinching the deceased while she was sleeping has not been proved. The prosecution has also failed to prove that a few days before the death of Divya, the accused Jitender Johar used to come in the area and sit in the park near the parental house of the deceased where he used to speak about the deceased loudly.
This court, however, observed that in so far as the husband of the deceased namely Jitender Johar is concerned, he had suspected her relations with her brother in law Harish Sethi and objected to his frequent visits to the matrimonial house. It was further observed that it is not the case of the prosecution nor the case of any of the witness of the prosecution that Sudhir Kumar Johar, Mahender Rani Johar, Swaran Kaur, Bhupender Singh, Sudha Johar and Pankaj had ever subjected the deceased to taunts or made any insinuation on her character. It was also observed by the court that the deceased Divya St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 162 was the youngest daughter of her father and had no brother. The elder sisters of the deceased namely Meghna and Usha Kapoor who took upon themselves the task of ensuring her younger sister found a good match. Even the brothers in law (Jijas) of the deceased particularly Harish Sethi took upon themselves the role of sons to their parents in laws and brothers to their sisters in law and were frequently visiting the matrimonial house of the deceased which was not liked by the family of the deceased on which a dispute had arisen due to which reason there was a difference between the families. It was further observed that the only allegations in this regard were against the accused Jitender Johar and that too by the deceased when she herself in the diary written by her mentioned that "Mera pati mujh par jhutha ilzam laga raha hai. Aap mera medical test kara sakte hai". It is observed that if this was not cruelty what else was it? It was the obligation of the accused Jitender Johar to have ensured that the honour of this wife is not compromised. He should have realized that under the given circumstances when Divya was not having any brother, it is her brothers in law (Jija's) who were taking care of their family and were very close to them which is not very unusual in the society today. This being the background, subjecting the deceased to regular taunts and suspecting her character, is mental harassment to his deceased wife Divya as contemplated under Section 498A (Part1) Explanation (a) Indian Penal Code and he has been St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 163 convicted for the offence under Section 498A (Part1) Indian Penal Code. He has, however been acquitted of the charge under Section 304B Indian Penal code. Further, the accused Sudhir Kumar Johar, Bhupender Singh, Nanak @ Pankaj, Swarn Kaur, Mahender Rani Johar and Sudha Johar have all been acquitted of the charges under Section 498A/304B Indian Penal Code.
I have heard arguments on the point of sentence qua the convict Jitender Johar. The convict is aged about 34 years having a family comprising of aged father, mother and one married sister. He is a Matriculate and is doing a private job as Field Boy. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the convict has vehemently argued that the convict has clean antecedents and he is not involved in any other case and is a victim of circumstances. It is argued that the father of the convict has suffered a paralytic attack and is totally confined to bed and is not in a position to move without any help and his aged mother is also ailing. It is also submitted that the convict is now the sole bread earner of his family and has unmarried sister and totally dependent upon him. He has also pointed out that the convict has already remained in judicial custody for about one year, eight months and twenty five days. He prays for a lenient view against the convict.
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 164
Ld. Addl. PP on the other hand has prayed for a strict punishment to the convict keeping in view the allegations involved and the fact that it was the convict Jitender Johar who inflicted mental cruelty upon the deceased due to which reason she committed suicide.
I have considered the rival contentions. The convict Jitender Johar is a young man and has clean antecedents. It has even been observed by this court during the trial that his father Sudhir Kumar Johar was paralytic and unable to move without any help and it was the convict Jitender Johar who got him to the court on every date on a wheel chair. His mother Mahender Rani Johar who has now been acquitted is equally frail and ailing having suffered the agony of detention for almost fourteen days and trial since the year 2004. Sudha Johar the unmarried sister of the convict who at the time of the incident was a student is yet to be married and has suffered agony of trial for the last almost six years and is totally dependent upon the convict. Therefore, any harsh view taken against the convict would be detrimental to his future and also to the old ailing parents of the convict who also has the responsibility of an unmarried sister. Under these circumstances, I hereby sentence the convict Jitender Johar to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two years and fine to the tune of Rs.50,000/ for the offence under Section 498A (Part1) Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. The St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 165 entire fine amount of Rs.50,000/ if recovered shall go to the mother of the deceased Divya as compensation under Section 357 Code of Criminal Procedure for the mental pain and agony suffered by her.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by him during the trial, as per rules.
The convict has also been informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Before parting, I wish to highlight that this court has come across a number of cases wherein the complaints have been made by the victims in the CAW Cell and pursuant to a compromise the victims have been asked to go back to to their matrimonial homes. The existing Legal System in India exhibits zero tolerance for dowry related harassment and in cases where the specific allegations against the husband and the in laws are of dowry related harassment, there can be no question of sending the victim back to the matrimonial home in the name of a settlement. This only exposes the victim to further harassment and torture which can be a serious risk to her life and the State under no circumstances be a party to a social system compelling the married girl to adjust with greedy inlaws. It is only St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 166 in case where the allegations of dowry related harassment have been found to be incorrect by the Investigating Officer on inquiry and it is found that the problem lies elsewhere that the Investigating Officer should go ahead with any settlement requiring the complainant to stay with her husband and in laws. This should, however, be done only after the Investigating Officer made a specific observation to this effect regarding there being no case of dowry related harassment or after the complaint has withdrawn such allegations of dowry demand. It is recommended that the Investigating Officer should also as a part of his observations, shortlist the actual problems which exist between the parties before any settlement is given effect to, which is not being done in many cases. I may further observe that it should be ensured that the settlement before the CAW Cell should is not a ploy for either delaying the registration of FIR in cases where the allegations have been found to be genuine or as pressure tactics upon the in laws in cases where the allegations have been found to incorrect.
Further, it has also been observed by this court that the SDM Sh. Bans Raj had not properly conducted the inquest proceedings and was casual and unprofessional in his approach.
In the judgment dated 8.7.2011 this court has specifically observed that it was writ large that the entire proceedings have been conducted by the SDM in a routine manner. It is evident that Firstly the proceedings and the statement of the parents of the deceased were St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 167 not recorded by the SDM at the earliest possible opportunity who was under an obligation to do so. Secondly the statements have been recorded in the most casual manner not by the SDM but by some other person. Thirdly there is no endorsement of SDM on the statement of the parents of the deceased to the effect that the statements have been written by him or he had directed any other officer to record the statement on his dictation. Fourthly it is evident from the testimony of Ramesh Kumar (PW4) that apart from himself the other family members were also present in the hospital when his statement was recorded though his first statement was recorded by the police prior to the recording of the same by the SDM. The details of the said relatives who were present in the hospital does not find a mention in the inquest proceedings and therefore, the aspect of tutoring of the witnesses specifically in the background when previous complaints between the parties were pending, cannot be ruled out. Lastly it is established that the first statement of Sh. Ramesh Kumar the father of the deceased was recorded by the Investigating Officer in the Police Station and the SDM had recorded the statement subsequently. This being the background, I find it necessary to ensure that a copy of the observations made by this court in the Judgment in respect of the then SDM Sh. Bans Raj be placed before his senior officers for information and necessary action. St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 168
Copy of the judgment is directed to be placed before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi for information and necessary action.
Copy of the judgment and order of sentence be given to the convict free of costs and another be attached with his jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 18.7.2011 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Johar Etc., FIR No. 6/04, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 169