Delhi District Court
State vs . Parveen Kumar & Ors. on 6 October, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 47/09)
Unique ID case No. 02404R0206602009
State Vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. : 188/09
U/s : 498A/304B/34 IPC
P.S. : Jahangir Puri
State Vs. 1. Parveen Kumar
S/o Babu Ram Khateek
R/o EE244849, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
2. Babu Ram Khateek
S/o Amar Singh
R/o 444, Lodhi Road Complex,
New Delhi.
3. Smt. Rajeshwari @ Rajesh Devi
W/o Babu Ram Khateek
R/o 444, Lodhi Road Complex,
Near Sai Mandir, New Delhi.
Date of institution of case 31.07.2009
Date on which, judgment has been reserved 22.09.2012
Date of pronouncement of judgment - 06.10.2012
S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 1/ 48
2
JUDGMENT:
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 30.03.2009 on receipt of DD no. 44A, ASI Ram Kishan along with Ct. Amar Singh reached at the spot i.e. House no. 244849, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, where they found that one lady namely Sheetal had hanged herself after tieing one end of chunni on her neck and the other end of chunni from the ceiling fan, after bolting the door from inside, in a room on the ground floor of the said house. ASI Ram Kishan got opened the door and further had crime team inspect the scene of crime. He also got photographs of the body as well as spot taken by the photographer of crime team. SDM Model Town was informed telephonically. Thereafter, the dead body was brought down, after untieing the chunni from ceiling fan, and the body along with chunni was shifted to the mortuary of BJRM Hospital through Ct. Amar Singh. On 31.3.2009, SDM directed ASI Ram Kishan to call the relatives of the deceased and on the same day, Ganga Parasad, Tau of the deceased visited the office of SDM and stated that he was having three sons and as he was not having any daughter, he had adopted Sheetal and Rakhi, daughters of his younger brother Ranbir, since their childhood, in the presence of his relatives and that he got married Sheetal with accused Parveen Khateek son of Babu Ram Khateek on 18.2.2006 according to Hindu Rites and customs and out of the said wedlock, two children were born. He further stated that in the said marriage, he gave dowry beyond his capacity, but from the very second day of marriage, accused Parveen, his mother Rajeshwari and his father Babu Ram stated harassing her daughter and taunting about the quality of the dowry articles S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 2/ 48 3 and this behaviour of accused persons continued with his daughter and that they used to demand a motorcycle and that all the three accused used to beat his daughter and all these facts were told to him via telephone and that on hearing this, he along with his wife and Sumitrareal mother (biological mother) of deceased went to the matrimonial house of deceased, but Parveen and his parents got infuriated and started abusing and manhandling them. He further stated that since his daughter was repeatedly beaten and harassed by the accused persons, at last, on 12.11.2007, his daughter made a complaint to the PS Jahangir Puri and that his daughter often gave him telephone calls and told him to give money to her inlaws and she apprehended that otherwise they would kill her and that inlaws of his daughter used to ask her to bring a motorcycle and money for installments of the TSR and on her refusal to bring money, she was beaten up by all the accused. He further stated that when his daughter tried to make the accused persons understand and expressed her inability to bring money from her parents, she was again beaten up. He suspected that either Parveen and his parents had killed his daughter for the greed of money, otherwise, Sheetal had hanged herself because of torture and harassment meted out to her by the accused Parveen and his parents. He further deposed that on 30.3.2009, at about 8.00 pm, one neighbour of accused Parveen made a call to him and told him that his daughter had hanged herself and that Parveen was also lying in an unconscious condition and that on receiving said information, he along with his family members reached at the matrimonial house of his daughter and found that Addl. SHO had locked the main gate of the house and the body of his daughter had S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 3/ 48 4 already been shifted to BJRM Hospital and on this, he along with his relatives reached BJRM Hospital and found the dead body of his daughter. He prayed that necessary action be taken against accused Pareveen and his parents. After completion of the inquest proceedings and postmortem, the dead body of deceased was handed over to her relatives and thereafter, the Executive Magistrate, vide order dated 31.03.2009, directed that a case u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC be registered against all the three accused persons namely Parveenhusband, Sh. Babu Ram/fatherinlaw and Smt. Rajeshwari Devi @ Rajesh Devi/motherinlaw and accordingly, the FIR no. 188/09 of the present case was registered and investigations were carried out. Accused Praveen was first one to be arrested. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet against accused Parveen was prepared and filed in the court for trial.
2. Subsequently, accused Babu Ram and Rajeshwari Devi were formally arrested on 03.09.2009 as they had already obtained anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble High Court and a supplementary charge sheet against both the accused was prepared and filed in the court for trial.
3. After committal, arguments on the point of charge were heard and on the basis of the material on record, the charge for committing the offences punishable u/s 498A/304B was framed against accused Parveen Kumar on 27.08.2009. Charges for committing the offence punishable u/s 498A/304B IPC S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 4/ 48 5 was also framed against the accused persons Babu Ram and Rajeshwari Devi @ Rajesh by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 04.05.2010. All the three accused pleaded not guilty to the respective charges framed against them and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, prosecution has examined seventeen witnesses i.e PW1 to PW17.
Parents and relatives of deceased :
5. The parents and relative of deceased, who have been put forth by the prosecution as witnesses, were produced for deposition before the court and they include PW1 Matadin, PW2 Ganga Prasad, PW3 Madan and PW7 Sumitra.
6. PW1 Matadin and PW3 Madan are uncles of deceased Sheetal and had identified her dead body vide identification memo Ex. PW1/A and received the same for last rites after its postmortem, vide receipt Ex. PW1/B. They identified their signatures on these memos.
7. PW2 Ganga Prasad is the adoptive father of the deceased, who had adopted deceased Sheetal @ Rajni and her younger sister Rakhi @ Lali, during their childhood. He deposed that he had three sons, but was not having any daughter and thus adopted both the daughters of his younger brother Ranbir, as his said brother S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 5/ 48 6 did not have a good financial capacity. He further deposed that he had married his daughter Sheetal to Praveen Khatik son of Babu Ram Khatik and Rajeshwari on 18.02.2006, according to Hindu rites and customs, and that one son and daughter were born from their wedlock. He then deposed that though at the time of marriage of his daughter Sheetal, he had given sufficient dowry articles to accused persons, beyond his capacity, at the time of departure of doli (Bidai) accused Babu Ram asked PW1, why he had not given a motorcycle in dowry. PW1 expressed his inability to arrange the same due to financial constraints and expenditures which were to be incurred by him in the marriage of his son, which was fixed for 19.2.2006. At that time, matter was settled with the intervention of their relatives and accused agreed to take doli of his daughter Sheetal. The PW2 alleged that he was told by his daughter Sheetal on 19.2.2006, when she came to attend wedding of Raju son of PW1, that as soon as doli reached at matrimonial home, accused Rajeshwari taunted "Is maharani ko doli se utar kar lao, aur uski aarti utarte hai". Thereafter, Sheetal started weeping and when PW2 asked her as to what had happened, she told PW2, when her doli reached at her matrimonial home, her motherinlaw started taunting her by saying "kaya koora kachra lekar aaye ho, motorcycle kahan hai" The PW2 stated that he tried to make his daughter understand, at the time of departure of Barat of his son, but accused Praveen became stubborn and did not agree to attend the marriage barat and that after the departure of Barat, accused persons left house of PW2 along with his daughter Sheetal in a separate vehicle, but did not reach the place, where barat was to arrive, PW2 then S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 6/ 48 7 deposed that after two months of marriage of his daughter accused Praveen, Rajeshwari and Babu Lal started harassing and taunting his daughter on account of insufficient dowry and that he was told about it on every occasion by his daughter on telephone, when she was taunted and given beatings by her inlaws due to insufficient dowry. Thereafter, PW1 along with his wife Krishna and mother of Sheetal namely Sumitra reached matrimonial home of his deceased daughter to make her inlaws understand not to harass her by demanding dowry, however, the accused persons continued to torture and harass his daughter and on 12.11.2007, a complaint was filed at PS Jahangir Puri and an application was also filed before CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar. The PW2 stated that his deceased daughter used to tell him to give money to accused persons as they had to pay installments of TSR, whereupon PW2 expressed his inability to do so and thus, accused continued to harass and beat his daughter. Subsequently, a compromise took place in CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar and the accused persons took daughter of PW2 to their home. PW_2 then stated that in the year 2007 on the occasion of Dhan Teras, when his deceased daughter came to meet PW2, she was pregnant and told him that accused persons were still torturing her and used to beat her and turn her out of the matrimonial home. Again, accused persons were made to understand and requested to keep daughter of PW2 properly and after about 15 days, or a month, accused Praveen took daughter of PW2 back to her matrimonial home and for few days, there was no complaint from the matrimonial home of his daughter. On 30.03.2009, at about 7.45 pm, one of the neighbour of the accused persons gave a telephonic call S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 7/ 48 8 to PW2 and informed him that he had seen his daughter hanging from a ceiling fan. The said neighbour again gave a telephonic call to PW2 that his daughter had died and accused Praveen was lying unconscious. Thereafter, PW2 rushed to the matrimonial home of his daughter and found a large crowd present there. Addl. SHO of PS Jahangir Puri was also present there and informed PW2 that dead body of their daughter had also been sent to BJRM hospital and accordingly, PW2 and his family rushed to said hospital, where they saw the dead body of their daughter. Thereafter, they were sent back to their home by the police with instructions to PW2 to come to BJRM Hospital on 31.03.2009, when executive magistrate was to come. On 31.03.2009, at about 10.00 am, PW2 reached at PS Jahangir puri, where his statement Ex. PW2/A was recorded in a separate room by the Executive Magistrate. The PW2 again expressed suspicion that his daughter had not committed suicide, but she was murdered by the accused persons and thereafter, she was hanged from a ceiling fan. PW2 also identified his signatures on the memo Ex. PW1/A, vide which dead body of Sheetal was handed over to them.
From the crossexamination of PW2, it is brought out that his family members and family members of accused Praveen had met each other before the marriage between his deceased daughter Sheetal and Praveen was fixed and that they were aware that accused Praveen used to drive a TSR and that his father accused Babu Ram was in a Govt. Job and had taken a house at Lodhi Road Complex, when the marriage took place. He termed it correct that facilities were better at the house of accused persons at Lodhi Road complex as compared to their S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 8/ 48 9 house at Nangloi. During his crossexamination, PW2 further stated that he was the first one to receive the information regarding death of his daughter and that he had reached matrimonial house of his deceased daughter at about 9.00 pm and that at that time, he did not make any complaint to the police regarding harassment meted out to his daughter by the accused persons. He also deposed that on the next day, other relatives also reached their house after hearing the news about the death of his daughter and that they had deliberations with those relatives regarding his deceased daughter and her inlaws. PW2 reiterated that his statement was recorded by SDM on 31.03.2009. During his further crossexamination, PW2 stated that his deceased daughter never wrote any letter to them regarding her harassment by the accused persons at the matrimonial home. He volunteered to state that she had studied only upto 4th/5th class. When asked about complaint to the police, PW2 stated that no complaint had been lodged with the police as and when, their daughter told about her harassments and beatings at the hands of the accused persons. He volunteered to state that a complaint had been made at CAW Cell by mother of Sheetal and her badi mummy namely Krishna. Though, PW2 admitted that there was a compromise at CAW Cell, after which, his deceased daughter went to her matrimonial home, he denied that his daughter had given any statement in writing before CAW Cell in his presence to the effect that she wanted to withdraw the complaint against her husband and inlaws. He admitted that no complaint was filed before police or court or any other Governmental authority after Dhan Teras in the year 2007, when deceased told him about torture and harassment, S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 9/ 48 10 she was suffering in the matrimonial home. From further crossexamination of PW2, it is brought out that there were considerable exaggerations in his testimony (examinationinchief) made before the court, over and above his statement Ex. PW2/A made before SDM and that he had not stated in his statement Ex. PW2/A that a demand for motorcycle had been made by accused Ram Babu at the time of departure of doli or that PW2 had expressed in inability to arrange for the same due to financial constraint on account of marriage of his son, which was fixed for 19.2.2006 or that the matter was settled with the intervention of the relatives after which, accused agreed to take doli of Sheetal, daughter of PW2. The PW2 had also not stated in his statement Ex. PW2/A that when the doli reached matrimonial home of his daughter, accused Rajeshwari taunted her ""Is maharani ko doli se utar kar lao, aur uski aarti utarte hai" or that PW2 was told about it by his daughter Sheetal, when she came to his house on 19.2.2006, along with her inlaws to attend marriage of son of PW2. The PW2 further did not state in his statement Ex. PW2/A that he had tried to make his daughter understand at the time of departure of barat of his son, but accused Praveen become stubborn and did not agreed to attend the marriage/barat. The PW2 however, clarified to state that he did not know, if these facts, had been recorded by the SDM or not. The PW2 admitted that he had not stated in his statement to the SDM that after departure of barat, accused persons along with his daughter Sheetal left his house in a separate vehicle and that they did not reach the place, where Barat was to arrive. He could not remember if he had narrated about the visit of his deceased daughter to his house on S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 10/ 48 11 the occasion of Dhan Teras in the year 2007 or the facts narrated by his daughter to him at that time or that fact that accused Praveen had taken his daughter back to the matrimonial home after 15 day or a month.
During his further crossexamination, PW2, was given a suggestion that his daughter Sheetal was short tempered and that she used to quarrel on trivial issues and that on account of her volatile nature, she had lodged complaint against accused persons at CAW Cell and that due to her nature, her fatherinlaw and motherinlaw had disowned/disbarred her and her husband from their house. PW2 denied all these suggestions. He however, stated that he had been informed by one of the relatives of accused Praveen that Praveen had been disowned by his parents from their property and that this fact was also published by them in newspaper. The PW2 expressed his lack of awareness when he was questioned that on the day of incident i.e. 30.3.09, deceased had sold silver bowl and silver glass, which was gifted to her by her matherinlaw on the birth of her first child, and that when the accused got information about it, he slapped the deceased, due to which, she committed suicide. The PW2 denied that deceased was never harassed in any manner, nor was any demand made by any of the accused persons from the deceased. He also denied that he did not have complaint against the accused persons or that due to this reason, he had not made any statement to the police at the spot or that after due deliberation and consultation with several relatives, who visited their house, PW2 chose to make statement against the accused to SDM only on next day. He denied that he had made a false statement before the SDM. S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 11/ 48 12 During his crossexamination on behalf of accused Babu Ram and Rajeshwari, PW2 stated that about four/five days prior to her death, Sheetal had told him that she was being harassed, but he did not lodge any complaint with the police in this regard. He could not remember, if this fact was told by him in his statement made to SDM. PW2 could not state till when accused Praveen and deceased Sheetal resided in Jahangir Puri. He stated that he had visited the house of Praveen and Sheetal at Jahangir puri on 12.11.2007 prior to her death. He could not remember, when his family member visited their house lastly prior to the death of the deceased. From the further crossexamination of PW2, it is brought out that during the period from marriage of Sheetal with Praveen till her death, they never had any occasion to get Sheetal medically examined in any hospital on account of injury sustained by her. He also stated that Sheetal had come to their house for the last time during marriage in their relation, but could not remember, date month and year thereof. As regards the children of the deceased, PW2 stated that they might be in the custody of their grandparents and that he had not moved any application before any court or authority to seek custody of children of Sheetal. PW2 also stated that he did not know the telephone number of Sheetal or if, she had any telephone and that he had not given any call details to the police, regarding telephonic calls received from Sheetal.
8. PW7 Smt. Sumitra is the biological mother of the deceased. She deposed that she used to work as a maid and had two sons and two daughters S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 12/ 48 13 including deceased Sheetal and that Sheetal was adopted by her Jija cum Jeth and that Sheetal got married in the month of February, about five years ago with accused Parveen. She further deposed that at the time of marriage ceremony (fera) of Sheetal at the house of his jeth, accused Babulal, father of accused Praveen, demanded a scooter and quarreled on the issue and that the matter was pacified by her relatives at that time. She also deposed that in the marriage of Sheetal, she and her jeth Ganga Prasad had given sufficient dowry articles like jewellery, almirah, furniture, T.V, Fridge, cooler etc. and that PW7 had arranged for the said article by selling their house. PW7 alleged that accused persons started harassing her daughter Sheetal for not bringing scooter form the very first day of the marriage and that when Sheetal came to her house after two days of her marriage, she told PW7 about this fact and that she also told PW7 that accused Babu Ram had given beatings to his jija, who had intervened and pacified the quarrel/issue at the time of pheras during marriage ceremony and that Sheetal was taken back to her matrimonial home on the same day and was harassed mentally and physically on the issue of bringing insufficient dowry.
The PW7 further deposed that whenever her daughter came to her house, she used to tell PW7 that accused Praveen, Babu Lal and Rajeshwari used to beat her for bringing insufficient dowry and on one occasion, i.e. Karvachouth when, PW7 visited the matrimonial home of her daughter Sheetal, she found her daughter in an injured condition as accused persons had given beatings to her and that on asking by PW7, accused Praveen and his mother Rajeshwari also gave S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 13/ 48 14 beatings to PW7 and that thereafter, PW7 went to police station and narrated all the facts to the police and that two police personnel accompanied her from the PS to the matrimonial home of her daughter Sheetal, but no action was taken by the police officials and that her daughter Sheetal was sent with PW7 to her house and no report was lodged by the police in this regard. The PW7 also deposed that Sheetal stayed with her at her house for about 810 dasys and thereafter accused Rajeshwari and Babu Lal visited house of PW7 and told that accused Praveen had inflicted injuries upon his head and requested PW7 to send back her daughter Sheetal with them and accordingly, PW7 did so and that when after 2/4 days, PW7 visited the matrimonial home of her daughter Sheetal to see accused Praveen, she came to know that no injury had ever been inflicted by him on his head.
The PW7 further deposed that on one occasion, she had given a sum of Rs.20,000/ to accused Praveen, when he visited her house alongwith Sheetal as accused Praveen had demanded the said amount from her to pay the installment of TSR and for delivery charges/Japa.
The PW7 then narrated about the incident, when she was given a telephonic call by accused Parveen and asked her to come to his house and that when PW7 asked him to made her to speak to her daughter Sheetal and spoke to her daughter, she found that her daughter could not speak properly and that she went to the matrimonial home of her daughter and found her in a very bad condition and that her daughter told PW7 that her mother in law had given something to her to eat, after which her condition had deteriorated. The PW7 also S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 14/ 48 15 stated that she had given Rs.10,000/ twice on earlier occasions as and when the demand for the same was raised by accused persons for the payment of installment of TSR. The PW7 could not remember the day or month, when she received the information regarding the death of her daughter Sheetal and stated that at that time, she was admitted at Lady Harding hospital. She also stated that 45 days prior to death of Sheetal, she had gone to the matrimonial house of her daughter and at that time, Sheetal had asked PW7 to give money to her as her husband had to pay the installment of TSR but PW7 had expressed her inability to pay the said amount due to financial constraints.
PW7 then deposed that after receiving information about the death of her daughter, she could not reach her matrimonial house or PS and that on the next day, she went to the police station, along with her relatives and other Mohalla people, where her statement and that of her jeth Ganga Prasad were recorded by the SDM. She proved her thumb impression on her statement Ex. PW6/B. The PW7 alleged that her daughter Sheetal had hanged herself due to harassment meted out to her by the accused persons on account of dowry demands.
Certain leading questions were put to PW7 regarding the complaint filed by the deceased before CAW Cell and on being asked questions in this manner, PW7 termed it correct that her daughter Sheetal had lodged complaint before CAW Cell regarding harassment meted out to her by accused persons on account of dowry demands. She also termed it correct that her daughter was married with accused Praven on 18.2.2006 and that information regarding death of S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 15/ 48 16 her daughter was received on 30.3.2009.
During her crossexamination, PW7 stated that she had received information about the death of her daughter from her sister and had gone to the spot at about 10.00 pm. PW2 denied that she did not have any complaint against the accused persons or that complaint was filed against the accused persons after consultation and legal advice.
From the crossexamination of PW7, it is brought out that she was working as a maid servant while her husband was a daily wage earner. She also stated that her husband and jeth Ganga Prasad were aware of the payment of a sum of Rs. 20,000/ made by her to accused Parveen. She admitted that she had not shown any bank entry or any other proof regarding the said payment to SDM and that she had also not given any written list of articles to the SDM at the time of recording of her statement by him. The PW7 denied that she had not paid any amount of Rs. 10,000/ to the accused on two occasions as stated by her. During her further crossexamination, PW7 stated that she had made a complaint against the accused persons regarding harassment meted out to her daughter. However, she admitted that she had not given the copy of any such complaint to the SDM and stated that she had informed him about it.
As regards factum of harassment of her daughter, PW7 stated that her daughter had not written any letter and that she used to tell PW7 about it on telephone. PW7 however, could not remember the telephone number of Sheetal. She admitted that she had not handed over any call details record to the police in S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 16/ 48 17 respect of telephone calls made to her by her daughter Sheetal. As regards, the complaint before CAW cell, PW7 denied that said complaint was made by deceased Sheetal at the instance of sister of PW7. She denied that said complaint had been withdrawn by her daughter on 08.01.2007, when accused Parveen agreed to live separately with her at Jahangir Puri. PW7 also denied the suggestion that accused Sheetal used to fight on petty issues or that on 07.11.2007, she left her nine months old son in the custody of the neighbours and locked her house after having a fight with accused Parveen. PW7 expressed her lack of awareness about the fact that accused Parveen had lodged a missing report regarding missing of Sheetal at PS Jahangir Puri vide DD no. 81B. She however, termed it correct that Sheetal was later on, recovered from their house. PW7 volunteered to state that her deceased daughter had left her matrimonial home as she was given beatings by accused Parveen. Again suggestion was put to PW7 that on the day of incident, deceased Sheetal had sold a silver bowl and silver glass, which had been gifted to her by her motherinlaw on birth of her first child and that accused Praveen had slapped the deceased, when he came to know about it and due to this reason, she had committed suicide. However, this suggestion was denied by PW7.
From her further crossexamination, it is brought out that she had made considerable improvements over Ex. PW6/B i.e. her statement recorded by SDM, at the time of her deposition in the court, inasmuch as is Ex. PW6/B, she did not state that at the time of marriage ceremony (fera) of Sheetal, accused Babu Lal, father of accused Parveen had demanded scooter or had quarreled over this issue, S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 17/ 48 18 which was later on got pacified by his relatives. PW7 also did not state in her statement Ex. PW6/B that she and her Jeth had given sufficient dowry articles i.e jewellery, almirah, furniture, TV, fridge, cooler etc, after selling of her house by PW7. It is further brought out that in Ex. PW6/B, she did not state that accused persons started harassing her daughter Sheetal for not bringing the scooter from the first day of marriage and when Sheetal came to her house after two days of her marriage, she told these facts to PW7 and that she also disclosed that accused Babu Lal had given beatings to his jija, who intervened and pacified the quarrel/issue at the time of Pheras during the marriage ceremony and that Sheetal was taken back to her matrimonial home on the same day and that accused started harassing her daughter Sheetal mentally and physically on the issue of bringing insufficient dowry. It is then, brought out that PW7 did not state in her statement Ex. PW6/B that whenever Sheetal used to visit the house of PW7, she told her that accused Parveen, her fatherinlaw Babu Lal and her motherinlaw Rajeshwari used to beat her for bringing insufficient dowry and that she had also not narrated the incident of Karva chauth, when during her visit to the matrimonial home of her daughter, she saw her daughter in an injured condition after being beaten by accused persons and on being asked by PW7, she was also given beatings by accused Parveen and his mother Rajeshwari and that PW7 went to the PS to report the matter and on her return back to matrimonial home of her daughter with two police personnel, Sheetal was sent with PW7 to her house without any action having been taken against the accused persons. PW7 also did not state in her statement to SDM that S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 18/ 48 19 Sheetal remained with her in her house for 8/10 day, after which, accused Rajeshwari and Babu Lal visited her house and told her that accused Parveen had inflicted injuries on his head and upon request made by accused, she had sent her daughter with them and that after 2/4 days, when she visited matrimonial home of her daughter to see the accused Parveen, she came to know that no injury had ever been inflicted by accused Parveen on his head.
It is also brought out from the further crossexamination of PW7 that though, she had mentioned the factum of giving Rs. 20,000/ to accused Parveen, she had not mentioned the words for "delivery charges/japa" in her statement Ex. PW6/B. The incident, when accused Parveen is alleged to have made telephonic call to PW7 asking her to come to his house and PW7's visit to the house of accused Parveen to find her daughter in a very bad condition after being given to eat something by her motherinlaw was also not found mentioned in Ex. PW6/B. The incident of 4/5 days prior to the death of deceased, wherein deceased Sheetal is stated to have asked PW7 to give money to her husband to pay installment of TSR also does not find mention in Ex. PW6/B. As regard the sequences of events that had taken place on the day, when information of death of her daughter was received, there was again difference of version given in Ex. PW6/B and deposition made by PW7 in the court as in former statement, she had stated that it was her husband, who was admitted in Lady Harding Hospital. The PW7 denied that her deceased daughter was treated with love and affection by the accused persons or that family of accused was financially very well as compared to their family and as such there S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 19/ 48 20 was never any demand regarding any scooter or other things. The PW7 also denied having made statement before SDM at the instance of her Jeth Ganga Prasad out of vindictiveness and after due deliberation and legal advice. Official Witness :
9. The PW6 Sh. M.Z. Ansari is the Executive Magistrate, who had recorded the statement of the family members of deceased Sheetal, conducted inquest proceedings and directed for registration of the FIR. He deposed that on 30.03.2009, on receipt of information from the PS Jahangir Puri regarding hanging of Sheetal at Jahangir Puri, he gave directions to the SHO, to call crime team at the spot, got removed the dead body of deceased to the mortuary of BJRM Hospital and also sent information to the parents of the deceased. He further deposed that on 31.03.2009, he went to Police Station Jahangir Puri and got recorded the statement Ex. PW2/A of Sh. Ganga Prasad Sarsal, through ASI Ram Kishan, and made endorsement Ex. PW6/A on the same and further attested the said statement. He further deposed that statement Ex. PW6/B of Smt. Sumitra was also recorded by ASI Ram Kishan, on his directions and in his presence, and he attested the thumb impression of Smt. Sumitra and made endorsement Ex. PW6/C on it and directed SHO of PS Jahangir Puri to register a case and proceed for further investigation. PW6 further deposed that thereafter, he went to the mortuary of BJRM Hospital and after filling up inquest papers as Ex. PW6/D, Ex. PW6/E and Ex. PW6/F, the dead body was got identified by the relatives vide identification memos Ex. PW1/A S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 20/ 48 21 and Ex. PW3/A and thereafter postmortem on the dead body of deceased Sheetal was got conducted.
During his crossexamination, PW2 deposed that the statements of Ganga Prasad and Sumitra were recorded at PS by ASI Ram Kishan on his directions prior to conducting of the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and that he never visited the house of accused Praveen at E2448, Jahangir Puri and that he had not mentioned in the brief facts i.e. Ex. PW6/E about the harassment being meted out to the deceased on account of dowry. Police witnesses :
10. PW9 Ct. Amar Singh deposed that on 30.03.2009, when he was patrolling in the area of WEblock, Jahangir Puri, he received an information through telephone that one woman had hanged herself at House no. 244849 and on receipt of said information, he went there and found that PW16 ASI Ram Kishan and PCR officials were already present there. He further stated that on peeping through a window, he saw that one lady was hanging with the ceiling fan with a dupatta and that crime team was called by PW16 and that the crime team inspected the spot and photographed it and that thereafter the dead body was removed and was taken to the Emergency Ward of BJRM Hospital, where doctor declared deceased as 'brought dead' and that after the dead body was got preserved in the mortuary and he i.e. PW9 was deputed there. He further deposed that on the next day, after establishing the identification of the dead body through her relatives, postmortem of S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 21/ 48 22 the same was got conducted and thereafter, body was handed over to its relatives vide handing over memo Ex. PW1/B. He then deposed that after postmortem, doctor handed over one wooden box containing viscera of deceased and one parcel containing piece of dupatta of the deceased and that both the articles were sealed with the seal of FMTBJRM Hospital and that the doctor also handed over two sample seals of FMTBJRM hospital to ASI Ram Kishan, who took the same into possession vide memo Ex. PW9/A. He further deposed that on 31.3.2009, accused Parveen was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo Ex. PW9/B and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW9/C and that after the medical examination of accused Parveen was got conducted, he was put in the lock up.
11. PW16 SI Ram Kishan deposed almost on the lines of PW9 Ct. Amar Singh. He also deposed that on 31.3.2009, he along with SDM M.Z. Ansari went to BJRM Hospital, where SDM prepared the inquest papers and got recorded the statements of the relatives of the deceased i.e. Ganga Parsad Sarsal and Sumitra, which are Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW6/B respectively and made endorsements Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/D over the same.
12. PW17 SI Shree Bhagwan Khatri is the Investigating Officer of this case and he deposed that after registration of the present case, the investigation of the present case was assigned to him and he too deposed almost on the same lines as S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 22/ 48 23 PW9 Ct. Amar Singh and PW16 SI Ram Kishan. He proved the site plan of the spot prepared by him as Ex. PW17/A. He further deposed that he got the exhibits of the case sent to the FSL and also collected the postmortem report Ex. PW5/A. He further deposed that on 03.09.2009, accused Rajeshwari @ Rajesh Devi and Babu Ram were formally arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex. PW17/B and Ex. PW17/C as they had already obtained anticipatory bail and that they were released on personal and surety bonds Ex. PW17/D and Ex. PW17/E. He further stated that as he has already filed charge sheet against accused Parveen, he filed supplementary charge sheet for accused Rajeshwari and Babu Ram. He further deposed that subsequently, he collected the FSL report Ex. PW17/F and the photographs Ex. PW13/A1 to A10. In reply to a leading question, he termed it correct that ASI Ram Kishan had handed over the viscera of deceased contained in a wooden box to him.
Crime team witnesses :
13. PW12 SI MD Meena, Incharge of Mobile Crime Team deposed that on 30.3.2009, on receipt of a call from NorthWest Distt. Control Room, he along with Ct. Dalbirphotographer went to the spot i.e. House no. 244849, ground floor, EE block, Jahangir Puri, where ASI Ram Kishan along with staff were found present and that he saw that a dead body of a lady was hanging from the ceiling fan with a chunni and after getting the photographs taken by Ct. Dalbir Singh, he suggested to the IO to get the postmortem conducted on the dead body of the S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 23/ 48 24 deceased and to take chunni into possession. He proved his Inspection report as Ex. PW12/A.
14. PW13 Ct. Dalbir Singh, photographer of Mobile Crime Team deposed on the same lines as of PW12 and he further deposed that on the instructions of IO, he took photographs Ex. PW13/A1 to A10 from different angles, developed the same and handed them over to the IO. He proved negatives thereof as Ex. PW13/B1 to B10.
Formal witnesses :
15. PW8 W/ASI Geeta Rani deposed that on 31.03.2009, she was working as duty officer at Police Station Jahangir Puri and on that day, at about 2.50 pm, on receipt of rukka, which was prepared on the basis of statement of Ganga Prasad and on the endorsement of SDM, from SHO, PS Jahangir Puri, she recorded the FIR No. 188/09 u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC of this case and she proved the computer generated copy of the FIR as Ex. PW8/B and endorsement made by her on the rukka as Ex.PW8/A.
16. PW10 Ct. Munna Kumar deposed that on 18.6.2009, he took one parcel (wooden box containing viscera) in sealed condition along with sample seal to FSL, Rohini vide RC no. 118/21/09 and deposited the same there and on return, he handed over the receipt to MHCM. He further stated that so long as the exhibits remained in his custody, he did not tamper with the same.
S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 24/ 48 25
17. PW11 HC Anoop Singh deposed that on 30.03.2009, he was working as duty officer at PS Jahangir Puri and that on that day, at about 7.07 pm, he received an information through wireless operator regarding hanging of one lady at H. No. EE2448/49, Jahangir Puri and he reduced the same into writing vide DD no. 44A, copy of which was proved as Ex. PW11/A. He further deposed that thereafter, said DD was handed over to ASI Ram Kishan, who left for the spot along with Ct. Amar Singh.
18. PW14 HC Jitender Kumar deposed that he was working as MHCM at PS Jahangir Puri during the relevant time and that pullandas and articles of personal search of the accused were deposited in the mal khana on different dated i.e. on 31.03.2009 and 18.06.2009 by police officials and that he made relevant entries in register no. 19 in this regard. He proved the copies of different entries made by him in register no. 19 as Ex. PW14/A and Ex. PW14/B. He further deposed that on 18.06.2009, parcels containing viscera and sample seal were sent to FSL through Ct. Munna Kumar vide RC no. 118/21/09 and he made entry in this regard in register no. 19 Ex. PW14/C. He proved the copy of RC as Ex. PW14/D and deposed further that on the same day, Ct. Munna Kumar handed over the acknowledgment receipt Ex. PW14/E to him. He then deposed that as per record, HC Rajesh, the then MHCM received the remnants of viscera and FSL report through Ct. Virender on 29.6.10 and he proved the entry in this regard as Ex. S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 25/ 48 26 PW14/F. He also deposed that so long as the exhibits remained in his possession, he did not tamper with the same.
19. PW15 ASI Rishali Yadav deposed that on 16.11.2006, complainant Sheetal (since deceased) d/o Sh. Rambir Singh made a complaint Ex. PW15/A (running into eight papers) to DCP CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar and that the same was marked to him for purpose of inquiry and that during the said proceedings, both the parties along with their parents appeared on 01.12.2006 and stated that a compromise had taken place between them and they also submitted a compromise in writing. He proved the copy of the said compromise as Ex. PW15/B and stated that on 08.12.2006, Parveen Kumar, husband of deceased, again appeared along with complainant Sheetal (since deceased) before her and informed her that they were spending their married life happily and that complainant also gave in writing that she was residing happily with Praveen. She proved copy of said writing as Ex. PW15/D and stated that thereafter complaint of complainant was disposed of vide Ex. PW15/E. Medical evidence :
20. PW4 Dr. Neeraj Choudhary proved the MLC no. 2472 of patient Sheetal as Ex. PW4/A and deposed that as per local examination, Vshape hanging mark was found present over anterior aspect of neck on the body of the deceased and that patient was examined by Dr. Bhupinder and that her MLC was prepared S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 26/ 48 27 under the supervision of Dr. Seema.
21. PW5 Dr. V.K. Jha, Medical Officer of Babu Jagjeevan Ram Hospital, deposed that on 31.03.2009, he conducted the postmortem on the body of Sheetal, which was sent by Sh. M.Z. Ansari, Executive Magistrate, Model Town, vide PM report Ex. PW5/A, and that on external examination, he found an obliquely placed ligature mark present on front and sides of the neck going upwards and backwards towards posterior hair line and that the ligature mark was placed 4 cm below chin on front and 6 cm and 2 cm below right and left ear lobule respectively on sides and that the skin over the ligature mark was hard and parchmentised and he opined that the cause of death was Asphyxia as a result of ligature pressure over neck structure, produced by ante mortem ligature hanging. PW5 Dr. V.K. Jha further deposed that he also preserved blood and viscera of the deceased to rule out common poisoning and that the ligature material was also sealed and handed over to the IO. The PW was shown viscera report mark X and after seeing the viscera report MarkX, he stated that no common poison had been detected.
During his crossexamination, PW5 stated that except the ligature mark, there was no external injury on the dead body.
22. After examining the prosecution witnesses, learned Addl. PP closed the evidence and the matter was listed for recording statement of accused persons. S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 27/ 48 28
23. Statement of the all the accused persons namely Parveen Kumar, Babu Ram Khateek and Rajeshwari were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein they denied the entire prosecution case. Accused Parveen Kumar stated that no demand of dowry was ever made nor any dowry article was given by the parents of the deceased and that demand of motorcycle was never made by him or any of his family members. He further stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case and that deceased Sheetal was never harassed for or in connection with dowry demand and that she was treated with utmost love and affection by him and his family members. He further stated that on the day of the alleged incident, deceased Sheetal sold away silver bowl and silver glass, which had been gifted to deceased Sheetal by his mother on the birth of their first child, and that when he received the information about the same, he slapped deceased in the morning and went for his work and when he returned back, he found her hanging from ceiling fan after committing suicide. Accused persons Babu Ram and Rajeshwari also stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. They further stated that after the compromise at CAW Cell in November 2006, they had legally debarred/disowned their son Parveen and their daughterin law from all their movable and immovable property and had severed their legal relation with them. Though, accused persons wished to lead evidence in their defence in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C, subsequently on 10.01.2012, they stated that they did not want to examine any witness in their defence and accordingly, opportunity for D.E was closed.
S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 28/ 48 29
24. Final arguments have been addressed by ld. Addl. PP for the State as well learned defence counsel for the accused persons.
25. Ld. Addl. PP has contended that from the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution specially that of PW2 Ganga Prasad and PW7 Sumitra Devi, prosecution has succeeded in proving that demands of dowry were made from the family of deceased at the time of marriage i.e. Phera ceremony and that as soon as deceased reached her matrimonial home, her bitter journey in matrimonial life commenced and she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty to force her and her family members to meet the demand of dowry raised by the accused persons. It is contended that testimony of PW2 and PW7 corroborates each other and minor contradictions and improvements, therein would not make their testimonies untrustworthy and unreliable. It is accordingly, prayed that accused persons be convicted for the charged offence.
26. Ld. Counsel for the accused has put forth two fold argument, Though, the fact that deceased had died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage is not disputed, it is contended that the matrimonial differences between the deceased Sheetal and accused no. 1 were resolved during the course of pendency of complaint before CAW Cell and that thereafter, both of them resided happily in their matrimonial home and that two children were born from their wedlock. It is stated that cruelty, if any, was duly condoned by the deceased and if, at all, deceased S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 29/ 48 30 had been aggrieved by the conduct of accused no. 1 i.e., her husband and accused no. 2 and 3 her parentsinlaw, then she could have easily taken recourse of filing a fresh complaint before CAW Cell instead of committing suicide.
Secondly, it is contended that even assuming that the alleged acts of cruelty did not stand condoned, the last such alleged act took place as far as back on Dhanteras in the year 2007 and thus, the requirement of "soon before her death" as envisaged in Section 304B IPC is not satisfied.
Various contradictions in the testimony of PW2 Ganga Prasad, adoptive father of the deceased and PW7 Smt. Sumitra, biological mother of deceased have also been pointed out to contend that prosecution has failed to prove the charged offences against the accused persons. The conduct of PW2 and PW7 in not bothering about the children of deceased, after her death, has also been highlighted as one of the acts of unnatural conduct on the part of paternal family of the deceased.
Lastly, it is contended that demand of money on account of financial stringency i.e to pay installments of TSR, does not fall within the definition of "dowry". On these grounds, it is contended that accused are entitled to be acquitted of the charges in the present case. Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention.
(i) State vs. Jitender Garg & Ors. 2008 [1] JCC 76
(ii) Appasaheb & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2007 Supreme Court 763 S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 30/ 48 31
(iii) Keshab Chandra Panda v. State 1995 Crl.L.J. 174
(iv) Sunil Bajaj vs. State of M.P. 2001 Crl.L.J 4700
27. I have heard the arguments put forward by Ld. Addl. PP for State as well as Ld. defence counsel for the accused persons and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
28. In order to bring home charge u/s 304B IPC, prosecution is required to proved that :
(i) The death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii) Such death must have occurred within seven years from the date of the marriage
(iii) Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand of dowry.
29. Further, in order to prove charge u/s 498A IPC, the prosecution is required to prove as under :
(a) the accused is the husband or the relative of the husband of the victim woman, and S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 31/ 48 32
(b) he subjected the woman to cruelty by
(i) any wilful conduct which was of such a nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or death (whether mental or physical) of the woman ;
(ii) harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
30. The question which arises before the court is whether deceased died unnatural death within seven years of her marriage with accused Parveen Kumar and if so, whether the same was as a result of harassment and cruelty on account of dowry.
31. In a case of Satvir Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2001) 8 SCC 633], it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that : "It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304B is to be invoked. But it should have happened "soon before her death". The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 32/ 48 33 to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words "soon before her death" is to emphasis the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the death would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept "soon before her death".
32. Further in case of Ram Badan Sharma vs. State of Bihar [(2006) 10 SCC 115] it was again held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that:
35. There are three main ingredients of this offence: (a) that, there is a demand of dowry and harassment by the accused on that count;
(b) that, the deceased died; and (c) that, the death is under unnatural circumstances within seven years of the marriage. When S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 33/ 48 34 these factors were proved by reliable and cogent evidence, then the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Evidence Act clearly arose. The aforementioned ingredients necessarily attract Section 304B IPC. Section 304B is a special provision which was inserted by an amendment of 1986 to deal with a large number of dowry deaths taking place in the country."
33. The nature of evidence required to prove the kind of cruelty was elaborated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hira Lal & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi [(2003) 8 SCC 80 with following observations:
"Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman are required to be established in order to bring home the application of Section 498A IPC. Cruelty has been defined in the Explanation for the purpose of Section 498 A. Substantive Section 498A IPC and presumptive Section 113B of the Evidence Act have been inserted in the respective statutes by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. It is to be noted that Sections 304B and 498A IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a common essential to both the sections and that has to be proved. S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 34/ 48 35 The Explanation to Section 498 A gives the meaning of "cruelty". In Section 304B there is no such explanation about the meaning of "cruelty". But having regard to the common background of these offences it has to be taken that the meaning of "cruelty" or "harassment" is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to Section 498A under which "cruelty" by itself amounts to an offence. Under Section 304 B it is "dowry death"
that is punishable and such death should have occurred within seven years of marriage. No such period is mentioned in Section 498A. A person charged and acquitted under Section 304B can be convicted under Section 498A without that charge being there, if such a case is made out. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections. Section 498A IPC and Section 113A of the Evidence Act include in their amplitude past events of cruelty. Period of operation of Section 113A of the Evidence Act is seven years; presumption arises as to dowry death when a woman committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of marriage."
34. From the above mentioned judgments, it is clearly brought out that for raising presumption u/s 113A of the Evidence Act, it is imperative for the prosecution to establish that a married woman was subjected to cruelty and S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 35/ 48 36 harassment and that such cruelty was on account of nonfulfilment of illegal demands. This necessarily means that the factum of demand is also to be established independently. The harassment on account of nonfulfillment of demand must also be proximate to the time of death. In the present case, on close scrutiny, the testimonies of PW2 Ganga Prasad and PW7 Sumitra are found to be full of contradictions and inconsistencies, not only with each other testimony, but also with their respective statements given before the SDM. Coming to PW Ganga Prasad, in his statement Ex. PW2/A given before the SDM, PW2 Ganga Prasad stated that he had given dowry much beyond his capacity in the marriage of his adopted daughter Sheetal, however, since the very next day of the marriage itself, accused Parveen, his mother Rajeshwari and father Babu Lal started harassing and taunting her by saying why she had brought Garbage in marriage and questioned her about the motorcycle and that this continued for several days. The daughter of PW2 was given beatings by all the three accused persons and she told about it to PW2 on telephone. When, PW2 made a statement PW6 Sh. A.Z. Ansari, ADM, he deposed that : ".......... Shadi me, maine apni hesiyat se badhkar daan dahej diya tha, phir bhi shadi ke dusre din se hi Parveen va Parveen ki maa Rajeshwari va pita Babulal Khateek meri beti ko tang karna shuru kar diya, aur taane dene lage, tum apne dahej me kaya kuda karkat utha kar laye ho, m/cycle kahan hai. Is terah ka silsila kafi din tak chalta raha hai, aur meri beti ko teeno log mil S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 36/ 48 37 kar martepitthe the, kai bar, meri beti ne phone par sari baten batai. Is baat ko sun kar, hum samadhiane gaye, jahan par Parveen va Parveen ke mata pita ne badatmiji kiya va gali galoch karne lage. Main niche tha, meri patni aur ladki ki ma Sumitra unke ghar pahle pahunchi thi, main auto ka kiraya de raha tha. Meri beti Sheetal ko itna pareshan kiya jaha tha aur marapita jata tha, jisse, vo ladki tang aakar 12.11.07 ko Jahangir Puri thane me bhi, usne iski shikayat karai thi. Aye din meri beti Sheetal mere paas phone karke kahti thi, ki bade papa, aap in logo ko paise de do, varna ye log muju jaan se maar dalenge. In logo ko TSR ki kist bharne ki paise nahi diye, isliye vo muje marte hai, kaha ki apne maa baap se paise lao. Jo mein kiste bharu,aur tene maa baap m/cycle de rahe the, vo kahan hai, unse paise lao, jo meri beti ne parveen se kaha ki mere maa baap ne meri shadi karke kafi kharch kiya, jo mazdoor admi hai, jo bar bar apko rupya paisa itna nahi de sakte hai, jo ki mere mata pita logo ke gharo me safai ka kaam karte hai, aur bade mummypapa ne muje pala posa, va Shahi vivah kiya hai. Muje esa maloom hota hai, ke paiso ke lalch me aakar, Parveen ne va uske mata pita ne ya to Sheetal ko jaan se maar kar taang diya hai, ya unke atyacharo se tang aakar usne phansi kha li hai....."
S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 37/ 48 38
35. During his deposition before the court, however, PW2 made considerable improvements over his statement Ex. PW2/A and stated that the demand of motorcycle was made by accused Babu Ram at the time of departure of doli itself and that at that time, matter was settled with the intervention of relatives and that when, Sheetal came on 19.2.2006 to attend the marriage of son of PW2, she told him that as soon as, doli had reached the matrimonial home, her motherin law Rajeshwari started taunting her and demanded motorcycle and that through, he tried to make accused Parveen and his daughter understand, accused Parveen become stubborn and did not agree to attend the barat of son of PW2. He does not mention about any telephonic conversations with his deceased daughter Sheetal. Regarding his visit to the matrimonial house of deceased Sheetal, PW2 does not give details of his visit or the date thereof.
36. From the crossexamination of PW2, it is also brought out that the facilities at the house of accused persons at Lodhi Road Complex, were better as compared to the house of the complainant at Nangloi. PW2 also stated that he had made complaint against the husband and inlaws of his deceased daughter a day after her death after due deliberation with his relatives. PW2 denied that his daughter had compromised her matrimonial disputes with accused/husband before CAW Cell and that after shifting to separate house at Jahangir Puri, with accused/husband, she continued to live happily in her matrimonial home.
S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 38/ 48 39
37. Other material witness examined by the prosecution is PW7 Smt. Sumitra, who is the biological mother of deceased Sheetal. In her statement Ex. PW6/B given before the SDM, PW7 also reiterated that sufficient dowry had been given by her and family of her jeth (PW2 Ganga Prasad) in marriage of her daughter and that after marriage, her deceased daughter was beaten and harassed for bringing dowry and that sometimes, there was a demand of motorcycle and at other times, money was demanded for paying installments of TSR and that PW7 gave a sum of Rs. 20,000/ on one occasion and a sum of Rs. 10,000/ each on two occasion to Sheetal and her husband. She further stated that whenever parentin laws of her daughter visited their son i.e. Accused no. 1 and deceased Sheetal at Jahangir Puri, they all gave beatings to her daughter and that these facts were told to her by her daughter over the telephone. PW2 then stated that : ".........lekin shadi ke baad se hi meri beti ko aur dahej laane ke liye maar pit ki jane lagi, aur tang kiya jaane laga. Aur kabhi M/cycle ki maang, to kabhi TSR ki kist ke paiso ki maang karne lage, aur maine chupke se, parveen va sheetal mere ghar aye the, to maine unko 20,000/ rupye aur do bar 10/10 hazar rupye diye, phir bhi, inki paiso ki bhookh nahi gai, Sheetal ki saans va sasur, jo lodhi road sarkari quarter me rahte hai, aur Jahangir Puri me apne bete Parveen ke pass aatejaate the, aur tino milkar, meri beti Sheetal maarpit karke va tang karte rahte the. Ye sabhi baante meri beti muje phone par batati thi, aur mera pati Ranbir, jo aaj kal apni beti S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 39/ 48 40 Sheetal ki in pareshnio ki vajah se kafi bimar rahne laga hai, unse bhi meri beti sheetal ki baante hoti thi. Main apni beti ko samjati thi, ki koi baat nahi, samaj jayenge aur tumahra bhi samay badlega, lekin esa kuch bhi nahi hua. Aur kal dinak 30/3/09 ko, main Lady Harding Aspatal me thi. To meri behan Krishna jo meri jethani bhi hai, ka phone aaya, ki ghar Nangloi chale aao, bhajan pura, Mummy se milne chalna hai. Jab main Nangloi pahunchi, to pata chala, ke sab log Jahangir Puri chale gaye hai. Aur is Sheetal ki ghatna ke bare me bhi vanhi pata chala, Bimari ke kaaran mein kal na aa saki, jo aaj dinak 31/3/09 ko aai hoon aur mere pati sakat bimar hai....."
38. When PW7 appeared to depose before the court, she too made considerable improvements in her statement Ex. PW6/B. She stated that accused Babu Lal, father of accused Parveen, had demanded a scooter at the time of Phera Ceremony and that at that time, matter was pacified by his relatives. She also stated that the dowry articles i.e. Jewellery, Almirah, furniture, T.V, fridge, cooler etc. were given in the marriage of Sheetal by selling their house. PW7 does not give any particulars of the house alleged to have been sold by her i.e its address or the date of sale, consideration for which it was sold and to whom. No receipt of any dowry article alleged to have been given in marriage has been placed on record. Even the photograph or marriage invitation card have not been placed on record, S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 40/ 48 41 which could give a clue as to the scale (monetary), on which the marriage function was arranged. No list of dowry articles alleged to have been given in marriage has been filed before the SDM or handed over to the IO. Even the independent witnesses, who had attended the marriage function have not been examined to show what kind of marriage ceremony had taken place and if at all, dowry articles etc were given in the marriage. Since, it is alleged that a demand of scooter was made at the time of Phera Ceremony, a natural consequence flowing therefrom is that several relatives, family members and other persons, who were present in the said function would have witnessed the demand raised by the accused Babu Ram. However, neither any of the persons present in the marriage/Phera ceremony have been named, nor have they been put forth as a witness to said demand raised by accused Babu Lal. Moreover, contrary to her statement Ex. PW6/B and in contradiction of statement of PW2, wherein a demand of motorcycle is stated to have been made, the PW7 has stated that Babu Ram had demanded a scooter. Further, neither in her statement Ex. PW6/B, nor her deposition before the court, PW7 corroborates the incidents referred to in the testimony of PW2 Ganga Parsad. It is noteworthy that PW7 Sumitra Devi had a close relationship with PW2 Ganga Prasad as the latter was not only her Jeth (elder brother of her husband), but also her Jija (husband of her elder sister). In these circumstances, the fact that PW7 does not mention about the incident that had taken place at the time, barat of son of PW2 was leaving on 19.02.2006 or the alleged conduct of accused Parveen in not attending/joining the barat, becomes relevant. Similarly, the fact that PW2 Ganga S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 41/ 48 42 Prasad does not mention anything about sale of house by PW7 to make arrangement for finances for giving dowry to deceased Sheetal is very material. Further, whereas in Ex. PW6/B, PW7 states that her deceased daughter used to narrate about instances of harassment, torture and beatings given to her by accused persons on the telephone in her statement as PW7, Smt. Sumitra states that these facts were told to her by her deceased daughter, whenever, she came to her house. In these circumstances, omission to mention specific dates of alleged visits by deceased Sheetal become very relevant. Similarly, the fact that neither PW2 nor PW7 could tell the telephone numbers, from which Sheetal used to call them, become very material. Parents whose daughter is being so tortured and harassed in her matrimonial home are not likely to forget material details of the dates or the telephone number, from which their daughter called them up to share her plight and to seek assistance/help of her paternal family members. The PW7 also mentions of incident of Karvachauth in her deposition, which has not been mentioned in her statement Ex. PW6/B. While narrating the said incident, PW7 claims that she had gone to Police station, narrated all the facts to the police and that two police personals had accompanied her to the house of Sheetal. However, PW7 does not give name of Police Station, where she had gone or the names of the police officials, who had accompanied her. The PW7 then mentions that after 8 to 10 days of the said incident, accused Rajeshwari and Babu Lal visited her house and took back Sheetal with them on pretext that accused Parveen had inflicted injuries on his head, whereas on her visit to matrimonial home of Sheetal after 2 to 4 days, PW7 found S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 42/ 48 43 that accused Parveen did not have any such injury on his head. This incident has also not been mentioned by PW7 in her statement Ex. PW6/B. PW2 Ganga Prasad also does not mention about the visit by Sumitra Devi to the house of deceased Sheetal on Karvachauth, her going to PS or Sheetal being sent with Sumitra Devi by the police officials or accused Rajeshwari and Babu Lal visiting house of PW7 to fetch Sheetal on pretext that accused Parveen had inflicted injuries on his head or subsequent visit of PW7 to the house of accused Parveen, to find that no such self injury was made by accused Praveen.
39. The PW7 also mentions about giving Rs. 20,000/, Rs. 10,000/ and Rs. 10,000/, respectively to accused Parveen and deceased Sheetal on three occasions. Again PW2 does not mention about giving of said sums by PW7 to accused Parveen and deceased Sheetal, even though, PW7 has stated in her cross examination that all her family members, including PW2, were aware that she had given money to accused Parveen. The incident when accused Parveen made telephonic call to PW7 to come to his house and PW7 having gone there subsequently only to find that deceased Sheetal had been given something to eat by her motherinlaw, due to which her condition is deteriorated, does not find mention in Ex. PW6/B. PW7 also mentions about a visit to her deceased daughter's house 4/5 days prior to her death, during which, deceased Sheetal again asked her to give her money to pay installments of TSR of her husband. This incident does not find mention in Ex. PW6/B. PW2 Ganga Prasad on the other hand, does not say S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 43/ 48 44 anything about these facts which were revealed for the first time by PW7 during her testimony before the court. Thus, it is seen that there is considerable discrepancy in the testimony of PW2 Ganga Prasad, adoptive father of deceased Sheetal and PW7 Sumitra Devi, biological mother of deceased Sheetal, not only qua each other's testimony, but also with their previous statement Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW6/B, respectively, which were made before the SDM. This coupled with the fact that there is no independent witness cited or examined to corroborate their respective verrsion of alleged demands of dowry, harassment, beatings and torture of the deceased by the accused persons ; no documentary evidence in the form of photographs, receipt of purchase of articles or sale of the house by PW7 and no specific dates or instances of alleged demand of dowry make the case as put forth by prosecution unbelievable. It is pertinent to note that as per the PM report, no external injury except ligature mark was found on the dead body. In absence of any other evidence to show when and by whom the cruelty or harassment was meted out to the deceased, the nature of such cruelty, i.e. beatings, or incessant taunts, or some other form of mental torture etc., no conclusion/presumptionu/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act can be drawn in the present case. As has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in case of Hira Lal & Ors. (supra), the two offences, i.e. Sections 498A and 304B IPC are distinct. Nevertheless, to get into the net of Section 304B, which is graver, and carries a harsher punishment, as is expected, the prosecution has to prove that the degree of cruelty or intensity was such that it led to unnatural death of course, also concurrently linking it with dowry S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 44/ 48 45 harassment. Apart from bald and vague assertions about "cruelty in connection with demand for installments of the TSR" neither PW2 nor PW7 spell out what kind of demand or cruel behavior did the accused persons indulge in visàvis the deceased.
40. As far as alleged demand for payment of installment for TSR or Japa (delivery charges) are concerned, they do not fall within ambit of Section 498A IPC. In Appasaheb and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra, 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, business or transactions 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 S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 45/ 48 46 "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."
This judgment of Apex Court was discussed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Hans Raj Sharma vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Crl. A. no. 33941/2005, decided on 02.03.2010, wherein it was held that : ".......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.."
It has been further held that : "......... If demand is made after marriage and it is in respect of a property or valuable security, which was not demanded, was not expected to be given and also was not in contemplation of any time up to solemnization of marriage, demand of such cash, property or valuable security, etc. cannot be said to be in connection with marriage and, therefore, would not constitute demand of dowry..."
41. Further in the present case, the proceedings from CAW Cell have been produced by PW15 ASI Rishali Yadav. Perusal of the documents Ex. PW15/A to Ex. PW15/E reveal that thought, the deceased Sheetal had filed complaint dated 16.11.2006 before CAW Cell, the matrimonial disputes between deceased Sheetal S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 46/ 48 47 and accused Parveen were subsequently compromised, pursuant to which, she had withdrawn her complaint vide her request letter/statement dated Ex. PW15/B and Ex. PW15/D. Both PW2 Ganga Prasad and PW7 Sumitra Devi have deposed about the complaint Ex. PW15/A filed by deceased Sheetal before CAW Cell. However, when it came to the question of withdrawal of the said complaint, pursuant to compromise between deceased Sheetal and her husband, both PW2 and PW7 were evasive and expressed their lack of knowledge about it, which does not stand explained satisfactorily, specially in view of testimony of PW15 ASI Rishali Devi, who stated that parents of both Parveen i.e. accused no. 1 and Sheetal (since deceased) were present when the compromise between Parveen and Sheetal took place. Another corollary of these proceedings before CAW Cell is that both the deceased Sheetal as well as her parents, adoptive and biological, knew that there existed a forum (CAW Cell) for redressal of grievance in case demands of dowry are raised by husband/inlaws of a girl or a girl was harassed or treated with cruelty in connection with such demands. Equipped with such a knowledge and having drawn benefit from it earlier, it is highly improbable that deceased would have continued to suffer silently in the hands of her husband and in laws i.e. accused persons. Such subjugation is unlikely from a girl who had courage to raise her voice and protest against persons who allegedly inflicted acts of cruelty upon her.
42. Judgments relied upon by the learned defence counsel except Appa Saheb and Anr. (supra), are not being discussed at lenght, since accused have to be S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 47/ 48 48 acquitted of the charges in the present case based on evidence and other documents placed on record by the prosecution.
43. Ld. Addl. PP has relied upon judgments in Parduman Manjhi vs. State of Jharkhand 2011 Crl.L.J 1604, Yashwant Kumar vs. State 2011 Crl.L.J. 4527 and Rakesh Sharma vs. State 2012 (129) DRJ 450 However, said judgements are relevant to facts of respective case and are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
43 Thus, in view of the above discussion and observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons on record, beyond the reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I acquit all the three accused persons namely Parveen Kumar, Babu Ram Khateek and Rajeshwari of the charged offences, giving them the benefit of doubt.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open Court ) (Illa Rawat)
(Today on 06.10.2012) Addl. Sessions Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi
S.C No. 47/09 State vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page Nos. 48/ 48