Delhi District Court
State vs . Mukesh Mohan Fir No. 965/15, Ps : Vijay ... on 13 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK GARG : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No.52834/16
CNR No. DLNW010023262015
State
Vs
1. Mukesh Mohan
S/o. Sh. Ram Babu
2. Gangashree
S/o. Sh. Ram Babu
3. Manoj
S/o. Sh. Ram Babu
4. Jitender
S/o. Sh. Ram Babu
All R/o E138, Vijay Vihar, New Delhi
FIR No. : 965/15
Police Station : Vijay Vihar
Under Section : 498A/30B/34 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 23.02.2016
Date on which judgment reserved : 07.12.2018
Date on which judgment pronounced : 13.12.2018
State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 1 of 24
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case in brief are that on 16/7/2015 at about 7:20 a.m. HC Suresh Kumar, who was posted in BSA hospital, informed PS Vijay Vihar that a lady namely, Chanderwati w/o Mohan aged 23 years r/o E138, Vijay Vihar, Phase II, Delhi was admitted in BSA hospital by her husband. In pursuance to the said information SI Narender along with Ct. Jai Singh reached at BSA hospital where he collected MLC of Chanderwati who had already been removed to Jaipur Golden Hospital and after reaching Jaipur Golden Hospital they came to know that she was admitted in emergency ward and she was not fit to give the statement. Executive Magistrate Sh. Amit Kumar was called in the hospital who recorded the statement of Sh. Kanwarpal, father of Chanderwati in which he alleged that Mukesh @ Mohan, husband of Chanderwati and his other family members used to harass her and she was subjected to cruelty in her matrimonial house. In view of the said statement, the Executive magistrate directed SHO PS Vijay Vihar to take action as per law and hence this FIR was registered u/s 498A/34 IPC. During treatment the said Chanderwati expired on 18/7/2015 and her post mortem was got conducted at BSA hospital. IO recorded the statement of witnesses and in due course Section 304B IPC was added to the case. In her post mortem the opinion about cause of death was kept pending till the receipt of analysis report of specimen preserved and after receipt of the FSL report regarding viscera State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 2 of 24 etc., the doctor opined that her death was due to aluminum phosphide poisoning. Accused Mukesh @ Mohan was arrested and investigation was carried out against remaining family members namely Gangashree (mother in law), Manoj and Jitender (Brothers in law). Challan was filed without arrest.
2. On compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the chargesheet was committed to this Court by the Court of Ld. MM.
3. Vide order dated 19/4/2016, charge under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons by my Ld. Predecessor court, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined in total 19 witnesses.
PUBLIC WITNESSES
5. PW8 Kumar Pal is the complainant/father of the the deceased, PW9 Smt. Deva Rani, mother of the deceased and PW15 Daropa Devi, elder sister of the deceased. Their testimony shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 3 of 24 POLICE WITNESSES
6. PW2 HC Purushotam is the MHC(M) i.e. Malkhana Moharrar. He has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit ExPW2/I. He proved the entry no. 418 of register no. 19 as ExPW2/A by which the exhibits were deposited by SI Narender, RC no. 139/21/15, 142/21/15 by which exhibits were sent to FSL and acknowledgment receipt of FSL as ExPW2/A, ExPW2/C and ExPW2/D respectively.
7. PW3 Ct. Naveen has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit ExPW3/1. He has proved the site plan ExPW3/A.
8. PW4 Ct. Surender has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit ExPW4/1. He has deposed that on 21.09.2015, he received pullinda/exhibits from MHC (M) and deposited the same in FSL Rohini, Delhi and handed over the acknowledgment of the same to MHC (M).
9. PW5 HC Dhirender has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit ExPW5/1. He has proved FIR, endorsement on rukka and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as ExPW5/A, ExPW5/B and ExPW5/C respectively.
10. PW10 SI Narender is the first IO of the case. He has deposed that on 16.07.2015, on receipt of DD No. 7A, he alongwith Ct. Jai Singh State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 4 of 24 reached at BSA Hospital where he collected the MLC of Chanderwati and came to know that she had already been removed to Jaipur Golden Hospital and thereafter, he alongwith the said constable, reached at Jaipur Golden Hospital where Chanderwati was found unfit for statement and was admitted in the emergency ward. Executive Magistrate Amit Kumar was called and he recorded the statement of Kunwar Pal (father of Chanderwati) and mother of Chanderwati. Thereafter, he went to the house of accused namely Mukesh @ Mohan at A138, Vijay Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi and searched for some substance that she had ingested but could found none. On the statement of father of Chanderwati, he made endorsement Ex.PW10/A and got the FIR registered. On 19.07.2015, on receipt of information about her death he got the dead body preserved in the mortuary of BSA Hospital, Rohini and got the post mortem conducted and the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. The doctor concerned who conducted the postmortem handed over the exhibits duly sealed which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/B and deposited the same in malkhana.
11. PW11 Ct. Jai Singh has deposed in sync with PW10 SI Narender with whom he remained in the investigation.
12. PW12 HC Parvesh has deposed in sync with PW19 Insp. K.L. Meena with whom he remained in the investigation.
State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 5 of 24
13. PW19 Insp. Kanchan Lal has deposed that on 11/9/2015 he arrested accused Mukesh Mohan vide arrest memo ExPW12/B and carried out his personal search vide memo ExPW12/C. He prepared site plan ExPW19/A and got prepared the scaled site plan through Draftsman Naveen ExPw3/A. Thereafter the exhibits were got sent by him to BSA Hospital and collected the photographs and marriage card from the complainant. He also collected summary papers of the deceased from Jaipur Golden Hospital and also collected the photocopy of the RC of motorcycle and on receipt of the reports from BSA hospital he filed the supplementary chargesheet.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
14. PW1 Dr. Sanjay Goyal, MD Radiology, Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini, Delhi had medically examined Chanderwati who was referred by Dr. B.B. Mittal/Dr. Ram Babu for ultrasound of whole abdomen of the patient. He conducted the ultrasound of the patient and after ultrasound he found that there was follicile/functional cyst measuring 25 mm in right ovary with minimal fluid in pelvis. He proved detailed report ExPW1/A.
15. PW6 Dr. Narayan Dabas, Sr. Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine, Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini had conducted postmortem on the dead body of Ms. Chanderwati w/o Mukesh Mohan, aged about 23 years.
State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 6 of 24 He proved her post mortem report as ExPW6/B. The cause of death was kept pending and after receipt of the FSL report regarding her viscera, he opined that her death was due to aluminum phosphide poisoning and he gave his report in this regard which is ExPW6/B.
16. PW7 Dr. Chitranajan Kumar, CMO, Dr. BSA Hospital has deposed on behalf of Dr. Binny Dua, who had examined the patient Chanderwati. He proved MLC is ExPW7/A bearing the signatures of Dr. Binny Dua.
17. PW18 Dr. Ram Babu, Senior Consultant Physician, Jaipur Golden Hospital, has deposed that on 16/7/2015 Smt. Chanderwati, aged about 23 years, female was brought by her husband to Jaipur Golden Hospital in a state of pulse less, BP less and with ambubag respiratory support for further treatment. He proved death summary of Chanderwati as ExPW18/A. FORMAL WITNESSES
18. PW13 Sh. Sachin has deposed that on 20/7/2015 on the instructions of the IO he conducted the videography of the postmortem of the body of the deceased and developed the CD of the same and handed over the said CD to the IO. CD is ExPX.
19. PW14 Sh. Nand Kishore is the brother of the deceased. He has State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 7 of 24 deposed that on 20/7/2015 he identified the dead body of his deceased sister at BSA hospital. He proved his statement and handing over memo as ExPW8/C and ExPW8/F. He has further deposed that on 24/11/2015 he handed over the photo copy of RC of the motor cycle bearing no. DL10SR 1708 which was seized vide memo ExPW14/A and RC of the motor cycle is ExPW14/A1.
20. PW14 Sh. Nand Kishore has been examined twice and he was also examined as PW17 Sh. Dinesh Kumar @ Nand Kishore.
OTHER WITNESS
21. PW16 Sh. Amit Kumar Singh, Executive Magistrate, Rohini Delhi has deposed that on 16/7/2015 he received an information that a lady, namely Chanderwati had been admitted in Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini in dubious circumstances. He visited the hospital where he came to know that the patient was in unconscious state of mind and was in ICU under treatment. There he met the parents and other family members of the patient and recorded statement of Sh. Kumar Pal, father of Chanderwati and Smt. Deva Rani, mother of the deceased. Same are ExPW8A and ExPW9/A respectively. He made endorsement on the statement and directed SHO to take action as per law. On 18/7/2015 on receipt of information that patient Chanderwati had expired, he got the dead body preserved in mortuary and on 20/7/2015 he visited mortuary and made State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 8 of 24 request vide letter ExPW16/A to Incharge Forensic to ascertain the cause of death and filled up form 25.35 (1) (b) as well vide Ex. PW16/B. After post mortem the body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.
DOCUMENTS ADMITTED BY ACCUSED DURING TRIAL
22. It is relevant here to state that on 22/11/2017 Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons admitted the following documents :
(i) FSL report no. 2015/C5207 dated 29/1/2016
(ii) Histopathlogy report of BSA hospital of the patient Chanderwati verified by Dr. Renu Gupta on 1/4/2016 In view of the same, the said documents were exhibited as ExPX1 and ExPX2 respectively.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 CRPC
23. After completing the prosecution evidence, statements of all the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, in which all the incriminatory facts and circumstances appearing in evidence was put to them, which have been denied by them in toto. The accused persons stated that they are innocent and falsely implicated in this case. They further stated that Chanderwati was never harassed or tortured in matrimonial house on account of dowry or otherwise as alleged by witnesses. She was always kept with all love and State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 9 of 24 care and they were living peacefully and happily. In the early morning of the day of incident at about 3:30 a.m., Chanderwati had complained of pain in her abdomen. She was taken to Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini where the oxygen pipe was not available and she was referred to Jaipur golden Hospital where she remained unconscious for 34 days and subsequently she expired.
ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES
24. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defence that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. It is stated that PW8 Sh. Kumar Pal, father of the deceased PW9 Smt. Deva Rani, mother of the deceased and PW15 Daropa Devi, elder sister of the deceased are not reliable witnesses and their testimony is not sufficient to convict the accused persons. It is further argued that there is nothing on record to prove that the deceased was subjected to dowry demand, cruelty and harassment in her matrimonial house by any of the accused persons and hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case.
25. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that PW8 Sh. Kumar Pal, father of the deceased PW9 Smt. Deva Rani, mother of the deceased and PW15 Daropa Devi, elder sister of the deceased fully supported the case of prosecution. It is further stated that having regard to the testimony of the said witnesses, whose testimony is truthful and State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 10 of 24 reliable, coupled with the other evidence on record in the form of investigation conducted by the police, the prosecution has been able to prove its case.
FINDING OF THE COURT
26. After hearing, Ld. Counsels for the defence and Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the court is giving its findings, in the following paragraphs.
27. It has been held in Kaliayaperumal Vs. State of TN (2004) 9SCC 157 that the essential ingredients for constituting an offence u/s 304B IPC are under:
(1) The death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (2) Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(3) Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(4) Such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, demand for dowry.
28. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased got married to accused Mukesh Mohan State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 11 of 24 on 28/5/2015 and she died on 18/07/2015. Thus, the period of marriage between the deceased and Mukesh Mohan was around 1 ½ months ie. less than seven years.
29. As stated above PW6 Dr. Narayan Dabas, Senior Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine, Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi had conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Chanderwati and the PM report has been proved as Ex. PW6/A. In the external examination, he did not find any external injury on her person. Opinion regarding the cause of death was kept pending to be given after the receipt of analysis report of Specimen preserved.
30. Sh. Prem Pal Singh, Sr. Scientific Officer, Chemistry FSL, Rohini had examined the exhibits i.e. viscera etc. On examination stomach and pieces of intestine of the deceased were found to contain aluminum phosphide. Her pieces of liver, spleen, kidney and blood sample were found to contain phosphide. However metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbituraies, transquilizes and pesticides could not be detected in the sample preserved. This report has been admitted by the defence as ExPX1.
31. After seeing the MLC, PM report,FSL report, Histopathological report and copy of ultrasound report of the deceased, PW6 Dr.Naryan Dabas opined that the cause of death was aluminum phosphide poisoning. His State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 12 of 24 report is ExPW6/B.
32. There is nothing on record to controvert the above medical evidence.
33. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Mukesh Mohan (husband of the deceased) and his other family members subjected Chanderwati to cruelty by making illegal demands for dowry from her and harassed her and soon before her death, she was subjected to such cruelty or harassment by them and as a result of which she committed suicide.
34. In view of the above, it is clear that it was a case of consuming poison and hence deceased died an unnatural death.
35. The two ingredients of Section 304B IPC having being satisfied, this court is now required to advert to remaining two ingredients i.e. whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused for or in connection with any demand of dowry and whether soon before her death, she was subjected to such cruelty or harassment by them.
36. It shall be relevant to examine the testimony of PW8 Sh. Kumar Pal, father of the deceased PW9 Smt. Deva Rani, mother of the deceased and PW15 Daropa Devi, elder sister of the deceased because they are only witnesses who could have proved about the factum of cruelty or harassment caused to the deceased, if any, for the demand of dowry soon State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 13 of 24 before her death or otherwise.
37. Since the prosecution is placing its heavy reliance on the testimony of PW8 Sh. Kumar Pal, father of the deceased PW9 Smt. Deva Rani, mother of the deceased and PW15 Daropa Devi, elder sister of the deceased, hence it is necessary for this Court to first determine whether what they have deposed is reliable and truthful. It is settled law that in a case where the testimony of a witness is found to be reliable, the conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of such a truthful and trustworthy witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care. Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court whether the witness should be or should not be believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court. It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 14 of 24 other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witnessbox; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.: Krishnan Vs. State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978).
38. In comparison to PW15 Daropa Devi, the allegations are more precise in the testimony of her parents i.e. PW8 Kumar Pal and PW9 Smt. Deva Rani and hence their testimony be discussed first.
39. PW8 Kumar Pal (father of the deceased) and PW9 Smt. Deva Rani (mother of the deceased)in their testimony before the court have leveled the following allegations against the accused persons:
(i) After marriage, when Chanderwati visited her parental home after 1015 days on Rasham/havan and she informed that Mukesh was pressing her to bring four wheeler/car and he used to taunt that instead of car, motor cycle had been given in the dowry. PW8 told Mukesh that he had already given beyond his capacity but he would try to manage to fulfill his demand and requested him not to harass Chanderwati.
(ii) Gangashree, mother in law of the deceaed used to harass her for demand of a gold necklace for her.
(iii) Manoj and Jitender, brother in laws of deceased, used to harass her for their demand of more dowry and demand of car and gold necklace.
State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 15 of 24
(iv) All the accused persons had started more harassing her even on petty issues and they pointed out fault in the food prepared by her and they continued to harass her till her death.
40. As discussed above, the remaining two ingredients of Section 304 B IPC mandates the prosecution to prove that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband and such cruelty or harassment and such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry. The court has to see whether these ingredients are proved or not in the present case?
41. As far as the accused Gangashree, Manoj and Jitender are concerned, it is relevant here to state that the allegations against them in the testimony of PW8 and PW9 are very vague in nature. No date and time has been mentioned as to when accused Gangashree demanded gold necklace from the deceased and how deceased was harassed for the non fulfillment of the said demand.
42. Against accused Manoj and Jitender it is alleged that they also harassed the deceased as they were also insisting that the demand of car and the gold necklace be met. As per the prosecution witnesses the demand of car was raised by the husband Mukesh Mohan and the necklace was demanded by the mother in law and there is nothing on record to suggest that they had either actively made such a demand or that State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 16 of 24 the demanded articles /goods were to be utilised for their benefit either directly or indirectly. The allegations against them are not specific and very general in nature.
43. After perusing the evidence of prosecution witnesses it appears that an attempt has been made to involve the entire family of the husband by trying to attribute different roles and hence the possibility of naming all the family members by way of exaggeration is not ruled out.
44. It has been held in Kansraj Vs. State of Punjab and ors. 2000 (5) SCC 207 that:
"5..... a tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in laws of the deceased wives in the matter of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case."
45. It has also been recently held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case K. Subba Rao and ors. vs. State of Telangana Crl. Appeal no. 1045/2018 arising out of SLP Crl No. 3286/2016 that the relative of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 17 of 24 specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.
46. The terms 'dowry' was dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case of Appasaheb & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, I (2007) SLT 188 wherein it was held as under.
"9. 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 constructed. 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 transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning.
47. A careful analysis of the abovereferred authority and Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act would show that "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 State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 18 of 24 marriage or at the time of marriage or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the marriage. But there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given at the time of marriage.
48. Understanding the law like that, it is clear that the demand of car made by Mukesh Mohan and the demand of gold necklace made by the motherinlaw would not come within the definition of word "Dowry" within the meaning of Section 304B of IPC as the same were not given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage of the said parties within the meaning of Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The only fact that the parties are related to each other through marriage is not a ground to invoke Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act in the circumstances of the case.
49. It is very relevant here to mention that Sh. Nand Kishore @ Dinesh, brother of the deceased has been examined as PW14 and he is completely silent about any dowry demand, cruelty or harassment meted out on the deceased in her matrimonial house. He is aged about 26 years and it is not possible that if she was not happy in her matrimonial house or she was not treated well, he would not be aware about it.
50. There are also lot of contradictions in the statement of PW8 Sh. Kumar Pal. It is relevant here to state that immediately after the incident in question statement of Sh. Kumar Pal was recorded by the Executive State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 19 of 24 Magistrate Rohini on 16.07.2015 which is Ex. PW8/A but in the said statement he is conspicuously silent about the demand of car by Mukesh Mohan and demand of any gold necklace by the motherinlaw of Chanderwati. In the said statement, he merely alleged that after marriage Mukesh and his family members used to ask Chanderwati as to what ornaments she had brought in marriage; she was not allowed to call her family members in her paternal house and she was scolded for her cooking skills etc. Hence, these contradictions in the statement of PW8 does not make him a reliable witness on all the fronts.
51. When the contradictions are material in nature, it has been held in Tehsildar Singh vs. State of UP AIR 1959 SC 1012 :
Moreover, looking at the ambiguous narration of sequences described by the witnesses, the chain of events in the case cannot be said to have been properly brought on record by the prosecution. It is always the duty of the Court to separate chaff from the husk and to dredge the truth from the pandemonium of Statements. It is but natural for human beings so state variant statements due to time gap but if such statements go to defeat the core of the prosecution then such contradictions are material and the Court has to be mindful of such statements.
52. In the present case, in my view, the contradictions mentioned above, in the testimony of PW8, are vital in nature and it goes to the root of the matter and there is nothing on record to explain about the same.
State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 20 of 24
53. It is not out of place here to mention that the probable reason for the Chanderwati having committed suicide has come in the testimony of the sister of the deceased Smt. Daropa Devi who has been examined as PW15. She has deposed that on 23.06.2015 she had gone with her family to the matrimonial house of Chanderwati and in the evening she took her (Chanderwati) along and came to her parent's house and when she sat with her and enquired about her well being, Chanderwati started weeping and she told her that her husband Mukesh was having illicit relations with Jitender's wife. Although this witness also talked about the harassment and torture on Chanderwati at the hence of the accused persons but as discussed above, the allegations are very general in nature lacking material particulars. This also explains the reasons why the father of the deceased was silent about the allegations in his initial statement Ex.PW8/A and hence the chance of allegations made by PW8 and PW9 in their testimony as after thought, can't be ruled out.
54. Hence, in view of the above discussion, it is proved that the prosecution has failed to prove its case U/s 304B/34 IPC against all the accused persons and hence they are acquitted for the said offence.
55. Further prosecution has failed to prove its case U/s 498 A/34 IPC against accused Gangashree, Manoj and Jitender and hence they are acquitted for the said offence.
State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 21 of 24 ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ACCUSED MUKESH U/s 498 A IPC.
56. Section 498 A IPC is much wider in nature. It makes an offence when the husband or the relatives of the husband of a woman, subject such woman to cruelty. The term "Cruelty" means not only harassment to the woman with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand for any properly or valuable security but it would also include any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injuries herself.
57. It has been held in Monju Roy & Ors. Vs. State of Bengal 2015 V AD (SC) 164 that the court has to adopt pragmatic view and when a girl dies an unnatural death, allegations of demand of dowry or harassment which follows cannot be weighed in golden scales. At the same time, omnibus allegations against all family members particularly against brothers and sisters and other relatives do not stand on same footing as husband and parents.
58. In the present case, both the material witnesses i.e. PW8 and PW9 have stated in one voice that after 1015 days of marriage, when Chanderwati came to her paternal house on rasam/hawan, she informed her family members that Mukesh was asking her to bring a car and he used to taunt that instead of car, motorcycle had been given in the dowry. PW8 told Mukesh that he had already given beyond his capability but he will State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 22 of 24 still try to manage to fulfill the said demand and requested him not to further harass Chanderwati in his regard. As far as the other allegations of harassment of Chanderwati in her matrimonial house is concerned, although the same were found to be deficient with respect to other family members but in my view, Mukesh being the husband has to shoulder the responsibility for the same as well and nothing much could be derived by Ld. Defence counsel from the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, on this front.
59. Hence, it is proved that Mukesh subjected Chanderwati to cruelty during her life time and harassed her by coercing her to bring a car from her parents and taunting her to have brought a motorcycle instead of car in marriage. There is nothing in the crossexamination of the prosecution witnesses to weaken their testimony in this regard and hence accused Mukesh Mohan is convicted for the offence u/s 498A IPC.
60. In nutshell, accused Mukesh Mohan is convicted for the offence u/s 498A IPC and he is acquitted for the offence u/s 304 B IPC. Remaining accused persons i.e. Gangashree, Manoj and Jitender are acquitted for the offence u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.
61. All the accused persons are directed to furnish bond u/s 437A CrPC in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety each of like amount.
State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 23 of 24
62. Ld. Defence counsel seeks time to furnish the same.
63. Put up for hearing of sentence and for furnishing bond u/s 437A Cr.P.C on 17/12/2018.
Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK GARG Date: Announced in the open court GARG 2018.12.13 16:10:56 on this 13th day of December, 2018. +0530 (DEEPAK GARG) ASJ02, NORTHWEST ROHINI, DELHI State Vs. Mukesh Mohan FIR No. 965/15, PS : Vijay Vihar 24 of 24