Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Bal Kumar S/O Sh. Rattan Lal, on 20 January, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. R.K. YADAV : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
S.C. No. 179/06
State Vs. 1. Bal Kumar S/o Sh. Rattan Lal,
R/o C4/19, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.
2. Vikash S/o Sh. Bal Kumar,
R/o C4/19, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.
3. Vivek S/o Sh. Bal Kumar,
R/o C4/19, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.
4. Vipin S/o Sh. Bal Kumar,
R/o C4/19, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.
5. Smt. Krishna Devi W/o Bal
Kumar, R/o C4/19, Yamuna
Vihar, Delhi.
` FIR No. 262/2002
PS Bhajanpura
U/S 498A/304B IPC.
J U D G E M E N T : When death of a woman takes place within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and it is shown that she met an unnatural death either due to burns or bodily injury or in the circumstances other than normal one and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband, for or in connection with any demand of dowry, a presumption may be drawn that her death was dowry death. Whether the prosecution could show that death of Smt. Sanju was a dowry death? For an answer, facts gain importance. As borne out of the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) Sanju was married to Vikas on 03.12.1998. After 2 her marriage, she went to her matrimonial home at C4/19, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. On 15.07.2002, she committed suicide by hanging herself with the help of a ligature. Her parents were informed about her unnatural death. Her father lodged report detailing therein that she was not happy at her matrimonial home, since behaviour of her inlaws was not cordial. Sanju was not willing to go to her matrimonial home. However, she was sent to her matrimonial home with persuations. He used to call her at intervals at her parental home. She told him that he should not make calls to her, since her inlaws used to object it. He gave a call to Vikas, husband of Sanju, to send Sanju at her parental home. But he did not get any reply in this regard. Two days thereafter, he gave call to Bal Kumar, fatherinlaw of Sanju, to send her. He went to matrimonial home of Sanju. There he was not properly attended by Bal Kumar fatherinlaw, Krishna Devi motherinlaw, Vipin and Vivek brothersinlaw of Sanju, besides Vikas, husband of Sanju. When he asked to take his daughter to her parental home, Krishna Devi retorted retorted that he should ask Vikas. Vikas told that Sanju was under
treatment at St. Stephen Hospital, since she was pregnant. After reaching at her parental home, Sanju told that her motherinlaw Krishna Devi, fatherinlaw Bal Kumar and brothersinlaw, namely, Vipin and Vivek used to beat her. Krishna Devi used to burn her with "chimta", while Vivek caused burn injuries to her by pressure cooker. Whenever, he asked Bal Kumar as to why Vivek behaved in that fashion, he told that Vivek might have cut a joke with her. Vikas used to threaten her of dire consequences, in case she would divulge these 3 facts to her parents. After a stay of Sanju at her parental home for a period of 810 days, Vikas came to take her back to matrimonial home. But Sanju refused to go with him. On assurances of Vikas that an opportunity be afforded to him to mend his ways, Sanju was sent to her matrimonial home. At her matrimonial, Sanju's health deteriorated on account pregnancy and work pressure on her. Sanju gave birth to a female child. He along with his wife reached at hospital, where Sanju wept bitterly. Krishna Devi threatened her as to why she was crying so bitterly. Thereafter, he asked Krishna Devi for taking his daughter to her parental home. On this Sanju told that her motherin law and brotherinlaw had made a demand of Rs.50,000/ in "chhoochhak" from her, otherwise they would not allow her to enter their house. He gave Rs.30,000/ in "chhoochhak". Sanju' s health further deteriorated. She was admitted in Ganga Ram Hospital, where Bal Kumar refused to send her to her parental home. Bal Kumar threatened him that he would get Vikas divorced from Sanju. Thereafter, Sanju became very serious. She was taken to Vimhans Hospital for her treatment. On 10/11072002, Sanju gave telephone call and requested that she may be taken away from there otherwise her inlaws would kill her. Thereafter, on 15.07.02 at about 5.50pm, one neighbour of Vikas gave a telephone call to him, requesting him to rush at her matrimonial home immediately. On reaching there, he found Sanju dead. Her sister Neelu noted ligature marks on her neck. Deepak, brother of Sanju, called police. Police reached at the spot. His statement was recorded and endorsed by P.C. Jain, SDM 4 Seelampur. Kanchal Lal SI conducted investigation of the case. On 17.07.02, SDM Seelampur got conducted postmortem on the dead body of Sanju. Accused persons, namely, Bal Kumar, Vikas, Vivek and Vipin were arrested in the case. Accused Krishna Devi surrendered herself before the Court, where she was formally arrested. Accused persons were challaned. Investigation culminated into a chargesheet against the accused persons.
2. Charge for offences punishable under sections 498A and 304B read with section 34 of the Penal Code was framed against the accused persons, to which charge they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To substantiate the charges, prosecution has examined Meera (PW1), Mahesh Chand (PW2), Kumari Neelu (PW3), Sh. Deepak Gupta (PW4), Ashok Kumar (PW5), Sh. Rajiv Ahuja (PW6), Smt. Anita Arora (PW7), Subhash (PW8), Dr. Ajeet Tiwari (PW9), Dr. Shailender Gaur (PW10), Brij Bala (PW11), Vijay Singh, Head Constable (PW12), Sumer Singh, Constable (PW13), Lakhan Singh, Head Constable (PW14), Dr. Vikas Mohan Sharma (PW15), Sh. P.C. Jain, SDM (PW16), Amar Singh ASI (PW17), Vijay, Constable (PW18), Ratan Singh, Constable (PW19), Virender SI (PW20), Subhash Chand Bansal (PW21), Tej Vir, Constable (PW22), Dr. Gaurav Vinod Jain (PW23) and Kanchal Lal, SI (PW24) in the case.
4. On 15.07.02, Lakhan Singh, Head Constable, was working as duty officer, who recorded DD No.21 and proved copy of it as Ex.PW14/A. ASI Amar Singh received rukka, on the basis of which 5 he recorded formal FIR. He proved copy of FIR as Ex.PW17/A. Vijay, Constable detailed facts, which took place in his presence. Ratan Singh, Constable, took photographs of the deceased from different angles and proved it as Ex.P3 to Ex.P9 and negatives thereof as Ex.P9(1) to Ex.P9(9). Vijay Singh, Head Constable, was working as MHCM, who sent exhibits of the case vide RC No. 91/21 to CFSL through Sumer Singh, Constable. He entered receipt of exhibits in register No.19 vide entry No. 2000/02, copy of which is Ex.PW12/A. Constable Sumer Singh deposed that he deposited exhibits of case to CFSL. As long as case property remained in his possession it remained intact. Virender SI detailed all investigative steps which took in his presence. Tej Vir, Constable, detailed investigative steps, which took place in his presence. SI Kanchan Lal conducted investigation of this case and detailed all those very steps, which took place in his presence. He prepared site plan Ex.PW24/A. He arrested the accused persons, namely, Vikas, Vivek, Vipin, Bal Kumar, vide memos Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D respectively. Their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW1/F, PW1/G, PW1/H and PW1/J respectively. He prepared brief facts of the case, which are Ex.PW24/B and recorded statements of Mahesh Chand and Subhash in respect of identification of dead body of Sanju. After postmortem, dead body of Sanju was handed to Mahesh Chand vide receipt Ex.PW8/B. Accused Krishna Devi was formally arrested by him vide memo Ex.PW1/E. Her Personal search was 6 conduced vide memo Ex.PW24/C. Thereafter, investigation of this case was conducted by Virender Singh SI. P.C. Jain, SDM Seelampur, entered the witness box to testify that he reached the spot on 15.07.02, when he received in information about death of Sanju. He conducted inquest proceedings and recorded statement of Mahesh Chand. Request for autopsy examination was done, deposes the witness.
5. Ashok Kumar deposed formal facts only. Sh. Rajiv Ahuja, manager, Punjab National Bank, entered the witness box and deposed facts that cheque bearing No. 520090 dated 02.02.99, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Hari Nagar, in favour of Vikas Rastogi, was cleared by the bank on presentation. He proved true copy of it as Ex.PW6/B. Subhash Chand Bansal, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, deposed facts that account No. 01190026097 of Vikas Rastogi was opened in SBI. He proved statement of said account for the period 15.12.2001 to 31.10.2004 as Ex.PW21/A. He had also proved certificate issued by him in this regard as Ex.PW21/B. Smt. Anita Arora entered the witness box and deposed that Sanju joined her school for a short period of about 15 days, w.e.f 03.07.2002. She further detailed the Sanju was hardworking, active and affectionate to children. On 15.07.02, Sanju had come to school at about 8.30am and attended her duties in cheerful mood. She left the school at about 1pm. On 17.07.2002, Anita came to know, on making inquires about her absence, that Sanju has met her death.
7
6. Dr. Ajeet Tiwari entered the witness box, detailed facts regarding treatment of Meera for asthematic heart disease and proved copy of said treatment papers as Mark X1. Dr. Shailender Gaur entered the witness box and detailed facts about ailment of Mahesh Chand as he was having acute chest pain. He proved the copy of discharge slip of Mahesh Chand as Ex.PW10/A. Dr. Vikas Mohan Sharma detailed facts regarding treatment of Sanju at Vimhans Hospital. He deposed that Sanju was admitted in the hospital with alleged history of headache, shouting, episode of unresponsive behaviour and inability to speak after family quarrels. He proved copy of discharge summary as Ex.PW15/A. Dr. Gaurav Vinod Jain entered the witness box and detailed facts relating to postmortem conducted by him on the dead body of Sanju. He proved his autopsy report as Ex.PW23/A.
7. Mahesh Chand, father of Sanju, deposed that her daughter was illtreated at her matrimonial home by her inlaws and brothersin law, besides her husband Vikas. After two and half months of her marriage, she was not given cordial atmosphere as her inlaws used to demand dowry from her. Her motherinlaw Krishna Devi used to beat her with ""chimta"". Her brotherinlaw Vivek used to burn her with pressure cooker. Whenever, he complained these incidents to Bal Kumar, he used to say that Vivek might have cut a joke on her. When Sanju became pregnant, she was not kept in a cordial atmosphere. She was loaded with work and work only at this crucial stage of her life. When Mahesh Chand visited their house, nobody 8 talked to him. When Sanju gave birth to a female child, a sum of Rs.50,000/ was demanded by Krishna Devi in "chhoochak". Meera, Deepak Gupta, Kumari Neelu, Subhash and Brij Bala deposed facts regarding harassment and illtreatment meted out to Sanju at her matrimonial home for dowry. She was not given a cordial atmosphere at all. They used to beat her. She could not bear ay more and committed suicide.
8. To afford an opportunity to explain circumstances appearing in evidence against them, accused persons were examined under section 313 of the Code. They denied all allegations of dowry demand levelled against them. They admit that Sanju was married to Vikas on 03.12.1998. They pleaded that they never harassed Sanju for demand of dowry. In fact, she was suffering from acute depression, fits and other ailments. Best treatment was provided to her, when she was admitted at Ganga Ram Hospital. A sum of Rs. three lac was spent by them on her treatment. A sum of Rs.25000/ was demanded from parents of Sanju only because Vikas had just started a new business, which amount was returned back to Mahesh Chand immediately. They pleaded that they are innocent and have been implicated in this case falsely. They have examined Sh. Yogender Kumar (DW1), Sh. Satya Pal (DW2), Sh. Mahender Pal (DW3), Sh. Chatar Pal (DW4) and Pramod Tripathi (DW5) in their defence.
9. Arguments were heard at the bar. Sh. R.K. Pandey, Ld. Prosecutor, had presented facts on behalf of the State. Sh. R.K. 9 Kochar, Advocate, had advanced arguments on behalf of the defence. He has filed written submissions too. I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on the issues involved in the controversy are as follows :
10. To have their fingers in pie, defence agitates that no dowry was demanded from Sanju. Sh. Kochar, argued that Sanjau was a known case of depression. She was taken to Vimhans Hospital and adjustment disorder with convulsions symptoms were diagnosed, since she was suffering from depression with convulsion disorder. She found it difficult to make adjustment with prevalent situation. She was hospitalized owing to anxiety and behavioural symptoms. On account of that situation, she tried to commit suicide in the hospital itself. Sh. Kochar argued that Sanju committed suicide on account of her depressive behaviour without any fault of the accused persons. He agitates that allegations of dowry demands were nothing but an afterthought. According to Sh. Kochar, cheuqe of Rs.25,000/ was given to accused Vikas in February,1999, when he started his business in the name and style of M/s Ganpati Enterprises. He explains that a sum of Rs.25,000/ in cash was paid to Sh. Mahesh Chand and in lieu thereof a cheque was obtained, since Vikas was in need of white money. He further presents that a sum of Rs.65,000/ was arranged by Vikas from his maternal uncle and tauji and a sum of Rs.15,000/ was arranged by Bal Kumar. No dowry was demanded by the accused persons from 10 parents of the deceased. Deceased was treated in Vimhans, St. Stephen and Ganga Ram Hospitals for her ailment and a sum of Rs. two to three lacs were spent. He presents that alleged demand of dowry at the time of "chhoochhak" ceremony has no base. When Sanju committed suicide, facts were fabricated by her parents with an intention to frame the accused persons in the case. He claims acquittal of the accused persons on the aforesaid counts. Facts presented by the defence were dispelled by the Ld. Prosecutor. Sh. Pandey argued that Sanju was treated with cruelty at her matrimonial home, since she could not bring dowry as per expectations of the accused persons. Soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons, for or in connection with dowry demands. Since she could not bear any more, she committed suicide by hanging herself. Ld. Prosecutor argued that prosecution has been able to discharge onus resting on it.
11. For appreciation of rival submissions advanced by the parties, it would be expedient to peruse the evidence adduced by prosecution. Testimony of Meera, mother of deceased, is taken first for consideration. She deposed that Sanju was married to accused Vikas on 03.12.98. After her marriage, she went to her matrimonial home. Sanju used to visit her parental home from time to time. She came at their house at intervals. After two months of her marriage, she disclosed that she was unhappy and miserable, since she was harassed by her inlaws for dowry. After 510 days, Vikas came to 11 their house to take Sanju back to her matrimonial home. Her husband was perturbed, who and disclosed that Vikas has demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/, since they had not given sufficient dowry in the marriage. When she tried to verify facts, at that time Sanju told her that she was directed by accused Vikas to bring a sum of Rs.25,000/ as dowry. At that juncture, a sum of Rs.25,000/ were given to accused Vikas on his demand. Sanju went to her matrimonial home. She further unfolds that when Sanju became pregnant, doctor advised her bed rest. She remained admitted in hospital for 24 days and thereafter went to her matrimonial home. She gave birth to a female child. At that time nutritious diet was not given to Sanju, since only bread was given to her in the hospital. She prepared "gond ke laddo" and sent it for Sanju. "Chhoochhak" was sent. At that time, accused Vivek asked Sanju to bring computer in "chhoochhak". Sanju told them on telephone about that demand. Since they could not fulfill that demand of dowry, accused persons started teasing and harassing Sanju. Accused Krishna had burnt Sanju with ""chimta"" and accused Vivek had burnt her with pressure cooker. Sanju used to talk to her on telephone and told that she was being harassed and teased for dowry. On account of her torture, Sanju became ill. She was admitted in Ganga Ram Hospital. When they went to see Sanju, doctors told that she was terrorized by her inlaws. Out of the facts testified by Meera, it came to light that she deposed that after 23 months of marriage of Sanju, a sum of Rs.25,000/ was demanded by Vikas in dowry. She 12 explains that a sum of Rs.25,000/ was given to Vikas on demand.
12. Mahesh Chand confirms facts testified by Smt. Meera. He detailed that Sanju was married to Vikas on 03.12.98. She came to her parental home after two and half months of her marriage and told that she was not happy in the house of her inlaws. She explained that behaviour of her inlaws was not cordial, hence she was not willing to go to her matrimonial home. When he questioned her, she told that her motherinlaw and fatherinlaw used to look down upon her on account of less dowry given by her father. After about 10 days, Vikas came to his house for taking Sanju back. He asked him as to why Sanju was harassed at her matrimonial home on account of dowry. On that query, Vikas told that his father was not happy with dowry articles. He was asked to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/ to Rs.35,000/. He gave a cheque of Rs.25,000/ for happiness of his daughter. Thereafter, Vikas took Sanju to her matrimonial home along with cheque of Rs.25,000/. He used to talk to his daughter on telephone. One day, she told that she could not make telephone call, since her inlaws used to object for such calls. After about one and a half month, he made a telephone call to Vikas and asked him as to when his parents would allow Sanju to talk to them on telephone. Vikas did not reply to this proposition. He asked Vikas to send Sanju to her parental home, to which he replied that he will inform him after having talk with his parents. Vikas did not give a telephone call, hence 23 days thereafter he made a telephone call and asked Vikas as to when he can take 13 Sanju to her parental home. When Vikas Kumar spoke in affirmative, he went to her matrimonial home, 23 days thereafter. At that juncture, accused persons did not talk to him. He asked Vikas to allow Sanju to visit her parental home, who told that she should return back after sometime, since she was pregnant. On reaching to her parental home, Sanju told him that her motherin law, fatherinlaw and both brothersinlaw used to beat her on account of dowry. She told that her motherinlaw used to beat her with "chimta", while she was burnt by her brotherinlaw, namely, Vivek with a hot pressure cooker. When Vikas came to take Sanju back to her matrimonial home, Sanju was not willing to accompany him. Vikas requested him to give an opportunity to mend his ways. On his assurances, Sanju was sent to her matrimonial home. After sometime, she informed on telephone that she was not feeling well at her matrimonial home. She told him that though doctor had advised her rest, yet she was being forced by her inlaws to do menial jobs. After about four months, Sanju gave birth to a female child. He went to hospital along with his wife to see Sanju. At that juncture, Sanju wept bitterly. Her motherinlaw scolded her as to why she was making a hue and cry. After a month thereafter, he gave a telephone call and requested accused Krishna to allow Sanju to visit her parental home. He went there 23 days thereafter, but none of the accused persons talked to him. He brought Sanju to her matrimonial home. Vikas came to their house 810 days thereafter and at that juncture, Sanju disclosed that her brotherin 14 law and motherinlaw had directed her to bring a sum of Rs.50,000/ in "chhoochhak". He gave articles worth Rs.30,000/ to 35,000/ in "chhoochhak". Sanju told them on phone that her motherinlaw, fatherinlaw, brothersinlaw and husband were not happy with her. Health of Sanju was deteriorating on that account. She was admitted in Ganga Ram Hospital. Doctors told him that his daughter was terrorized by her inlaws, as a result she fell ill. Doctor advised him to take his daughter along with him. Mahesh Chand details events beading a chain to the effect that illtreatment of Sanju at her matrimonial home resulted into her hospitalization. After about one month of stay of Sanju at her parental home, Vikas came to take her back. He was not ready to send her to her matrimonial home. Accused Bal Kumar had threatened him that he will get Sanju divorced from Vikas. Accused Vivek and Vipin also criminally intimidated him of dire consequences, saying that they will spoil his life.
13. Kumari Neelu reaffirms facts testified by Mahesh Chand and Meera, detailing that Sanju was married to Vikas on 03.12.98. She presents that two months after her marriage, Sanju came to her parental home, where a cheque of Rs.25,000/ was given to her. She used to tell her that she was illtreated by her husband and in laws. Accused persons used to tease her for demand of dowry. On 15.07.02, a telephone call was received from some unknown person, who informed her father that condition of Sanju was critical. When they reached at premises No. C4/19, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi, 15 they found Sanju dead.
14. Deepak Gupta, brother of deceased, unfolds chain of events as testified by his parents and sister. He announced that after some days of his marriage, Vikas came to their house and asked his father to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/, failing which Sanju will not be taken to her matrimonial home. A cheque of Rs.25,000/ was given to him and thereafter Vikas took Sanju along with him. As and when Sanju visited their house, she used to make complaints against accused persons detailing therein that they were harassing her for bringing more dowry. Accused Bal Kumar used to threaten his sister that in case she will not bring more cash, he will get her divorced from his son. His father spent a sum of Rs.30,000/ to Rs.40,000/ in "chhoochhak".
15. Subhash also narrates incident in the same vein, detailing that within two months of marriage of Sanju, demand of dowry was made and his brother paid a cheque of Rs.25,000/ to accused Vikas. She was terrorized by the accused persons. He usually gave Rs.1,500/ to Rs.2,000/ to Sanju as and when she met him. Once Mahesh suffered from heart attack and Bal Kumar came to hospital to see him. At that time, Bal Kumar demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/ and threatened him of divorce of Sanju with Vikas, in case his demand is not fulfilled. A sum of Rs.20,000/ was paid by him to accused Bal Kumar on 14.05.02.
16. Brij Bala also presents tale of woe of Sanju, when she details that she was illtreated and harassed by her husband and inlaws 16 for dowry. Krishna, Vivek, Vipin used to beat Sanju in presence of Vikas, but Vikas never objected to their cruel behaviour. As and when Sanju visited her, she detailed these facts before her. Since her parents were suffering from heart ailment, she used to conceal facts from them, deposes the witness.
17. To answer depositions of the aforesaid witnesses, Sh. Kochar had argued that a sum of Rs.25,000/ was taken from Sh. Mahesh Chand, since business in the name of M/s Ganpati Enterprises was started by Vivek and Vikas in February, 1999. He presents that a sum of Rs.25,000/ in cash was given to Sh. Mahesh Chand and in lieu of that money cheque for Rs.25,000/ was taken from him. According to him, it was so done due to business necessity, since white money was needed for M/s Ganpati Enterprises. He argued that facts detailed by Yogender Kumar (DW1), Satya Pal (DW2), Mahender Pal (DW3) and Chhattar Pal (DW4) bring that aspect over the record.
18. For appreciation of rival submissions made at the bar, It would be assessed as to whether a sum of Rs.25,000/ was given by Mahesh Chnad to his soninlaw to meet his business necessities. Sh. Yogender Kumar, Manager, Gokalpuri Branch of State Bank of India, presents that account bearing No. 26097/128 was being maintained at the aforesaid branch by Sh. Vikas Kumar Rastogi. A sum of Rs.15,000/ was deposited in the said account by way of draft on 06.02.1999. A sum of Rs.25,000/ was deposited in that account on 09.12.99. A sum of Rs.40,000/ was transferred on 17 13.02.99 to the account of M/s Ganpati Enterprises, which was being maintained at the aforesaid branch. Sh. Kochar argued that entry of Rs.25,000/ in saving bank account of Sh. Vikas Kumar pertains to cheque issued by Mahesh Chand, which amount was transferred to account of Ganpati Enterprises on 13.02.99. Satya Pal, manager, proved that saving bank account No. 32531 was being maintained at Yamuna Vihar branch of Punjab National Bank, by Vivek. A sum of Rs.25,000/ was deposited in the said account by way of cheque No. 787862 on 30.01.99 and draft of Rs.10,000/ was deposited in the account on 05.02.99. Said amount of Rs.25,000/ was transferred to the account of M/s Ganpati Enterprises on 08.02.99, while an amount of Rs.10,000/ was transferred to the account of said firm on 16.02.99. Sh. Mahender Pal entered the witness box and testified that he gave a sum of Rs.15,000/ to Vikas and a sum of Rs.10,000/ to Vivek by way of demand drafts, copies of which are Ex.DW3/A and Ex.DW3/B respectively. They had returned cash in lieu of demand drafts. The amount was obtained by them, since they were in need of white money to run their business under the name and style of M/s Ganpati Enterprises. Mahesh Chand had also given a sum of Rs.25,000/ to Vikas by way of cheque. Chhattar pal speaks that on 29.01.99, he had given a cheque for Rs.25,000/ in the name of Vivek, since they were in need of white money for their firm being run under the name and style of M/s Ganpati Enterprises. These four witnesses bring it over the record that a firm in the name of M/s 18 Ganpati Enterprises was started and accused Vivek and Vikas were in need of money. Yogender Kumar and Satya Pal had proved entries of money received by Vivek and Vikas in their accounts by way of cheques and bank drafts. While Mahender Pal and Chhattar Pal speak that they paid money to them, since Vivek and Vikas were in need of white money to run their business. Facts testified by Mahender Pal and Chhattar Pal get confirmation through documents proved by Sh. Yogender Kumar and Satya Pal. It emerged over the record that Vivek and Vikas received money from their relations to run their business. The money was so received by way of cheques and bank drafts in their respective accounts and thereafter it was transferred to the account of M/s Ganpati Enterprises. Ex.DW1/C is a photocopy of ledger of M/s Ganpati Enterprises being maintained at the aforesaid branch of bank. Ex.DW1/C give confirmation to the facts testified by Sh. Mahender Pal and Chhattar Pal. Therefore, it is evident that money was obtained by Vivek and Vikas from their relations and thereafter it was transferred by them to the account of M/s Ganpati Enterprises. A sum of Rs.25,000/ was received in his bank account on 09.02.99, which amount was paid to him by way of cheque by Sh. Mahesh Chand. This amount, along with amount of bank drafts of Rs.15,000/ obtained by him from Mahender Pal, was transferred to the account of M/s Ganpati Enterprises. Consequently, it emerged that amount of Rs.25,000/ obtained by Vikas from his fatherinlaw was transferred to the account of M/s Ganpati Enterprises. As 19 borne out of the record, Sanju was married to Vikas on 03.12. 98. This cheque of Rs.25,000/ was obtained by Vikas from Mahesh Chand on 02.02.1999 and was encahsed in his bank account No. 26097 on 09.02.99, which amount was transferred to the account of M/s Ganpati Enterprises on 13.02.99. Circumstances detailed above make me to conclude that when Vikas and Vivek started their business under the name and style of M/s Ganpati Enterprises, they were in need of money and at that juncture amount of Rs.25,000/ was obtained by Vikas from his fatherinlaw. Generally, dowry is not paid by way of cheque. Even otherwise, money by way of cheque was needed by Vivek and Vikas for their firm. Attending circumstances deposed by the witnesses make it clear that a sum of Rs.25,000/ was paid to Vikas, since he was in need of money for his business.
19. Question for consideration comes as to why prosecution witnesses depose facts against accused persons. Answer can well be found in proposition of law laid by the Apex Court in Sharad (AIR 1984 S.C. 1622), wherein it has been held that relations and friends of a victim, who had lost her life in an unnatural death, have a natural tendency to exaggerate or add facts, which may not have been perceived by them at all. No that this is done consciously but even unconsciously, the love and affection of the deceased would create a psychological hatred against the supposed murderer. At the time of their deposition before the Court, they are guided by a spirit of revenge and nemesis against the accused and haunted with 20 that feeling, they imagine certain facts even unconsciously, which might have not occurred in their presence and depose before the Court to see that the offender is punished. It seems that on account of psychological hatred against the accused persons, aforesaid witnesses have testified that dowry was demanded by Bal Kumar and Vikas. Since a sum of Rs.25,000/ was paid to Vikas Kumar by way of cheque, copy of which is MarkA, it facilitates them to depose that that amount was paid to meet dowry demand. This amount was paid by Mahesh Chand within two months of marriage of Sanju, when a firm was started by her husband, which facts are suggestive that it was in the form of help of his soninlaw and not paid due to dowry demands.
20. Smt. Meera deposed that Sanju used to make telephone calls and tell her that her husband and inlaws were teasing and harassing her for dowry. When "chhoochak" was sent, at that juncture accused Vivek asked Sanju to bring a computer in "chhoochhak". But they could not give computer and as such accused persons started teasing and harassing Sanju. Mahesh Chand deposed that when Sanju came to his house after delivery of a child, she told that her motherinlaw and brotherinlaw had asked her to bring Rs.50,000/ in "chhoochhak". Deepak Gupta deposed that accused persons demanded gifts worth Rs.50,000/ in "chhoochhak", but his parents could give gifts worth Rs.30,000/ to Rs.40,000/, with which gifts accused persons were not satisfied. Subhash deposed that when his brother suffered heart attack and 21 was hospitalised, accused Bal Kumar came there to see Mahesh Chand and demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/ from him. He unfolds that Bal Kumar threatened him of getting Sanju divorced from Vikas. Brij Bala deposed that accused Krishna, Vivek and Vipin used to beat Sanju for dowry. Accused Vikas had not objected to such behaviour, when Sanju was beaten by them. To appreciate these facts, surrounding circumstances of the case are considered. It is not disputed by Smt. Meera, Mahesh Chand, Deepak Gupta and Subhash that Sanju was treated at Ganga Ram Hospital and Vimhans Hospital for depression. They admit that expenses of her treatment were borne by the accused persons. Mahesh Chand went on to depose that as and when Sanju came to her matrimonial home, her medical expenses were borne by the accused persons. From these facts, it is emerging over record that Sanju was got admitted in hospital by the accused persons and they met expenses for her treatment. Consequently, it is clear that in the matter of defraying medical expenses, accused persons had spent every penny for treatment of Sanju. These circumstances highlight events which are contrary to facts deposed by Smt. Meera, Mahesh Chand, Deepak and Subhash. It is evident that in one breath these witnesses depose that Sanju was treated with cruelty by the accused persons, when dowry demands were not fulfilled by them but in subsequent breath they depose that accused persons had spent every penny towards medical expenses of Sanju. If facts are reconciled, it emerged that accused persons had spent money for 22 treatment of Sanju. Aforesaid witnesses seems to have deposed facts regarding illtreatment of Sanju for dowry, since they were so moved psychologically with supposed hatred against the accused persons. Consequently, I am of the considered opinion that depositions of the aforesaid witnesses, concerning dowry demands by the accused persons, are not correct.
21. Much has been said by Meera, Mahesh Chand, Deepak and Subhash about demand raised by the accused persons at the time of "chhoochhak". Meera deposed that Vivek demanded a computer from Sanju at that time, while other witnesses deposed that accused persons demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/ in "chhoochhak". They assert that gifts worth Rs.30.000/ to Rs.40,000/were given in "chhoochhak", but the accused persons were not satisfied with it.
22. Now it would be considered as to whether demand of computer or a sum of Rs.50,000/ in "chhoochhak" can be termed as dowry demands. "Dowry" has been defined in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the Act) as follows : In this Act "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly - (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage, in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or maher in the case of persons to whom 23 the Muslim Personal Law (shariat) applies.
23. Definition of word "dowry" brings any property or valuable security 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, within the ambit of penal provisions enacted under the Act or section 498A or 304B of the Penal Code, since "dowry" under aforesaid provisions of the Penal Code shall have the same meaning as given in section 2 of the Act. Therefore, any property or valuable security should have been given at or before or any time after the marriage, in connection with marriage of the said parties. Phrase "in connection with marriage of the said parties" would mean that any property or valuable security should have been given or agreed to be given as regard or reason or motive for solemnization of marriage. Anything given after marriage would be dowry, if it was agreed or promised to be given as "consideration of marriage". Anything given as customary gift at the time of wedding or thereafter with a view to smooth sailing or continuance of post marriage relations would not constitute any consideration or regard or motive for marriage. "Chhoochhak" is a custom prevalent in Northern India. When a child is born to a lady, her parents give gifts to her husband, inlaws, her child and to the lady herself. These customary gifts are neither as regard to the marriage nor on account of reason or motive for solemnization of the marriage. Hence, giving or taking gifts in "chhoochhak" would not fall within the ambit of definition of dowry given in section 2 of 24 the Act. If any precedent is needed, reliance can be placed in Appasaheb (Cr.Appeal No. 1613/2005 decided by the Apex Court on 05.01.07). Consequently, it is concluded that demand of computer or a sum of Rs.50,000/ in "chhoochhak" nowhere answers definition of dowry given in section 2 of the Act.
24. Now it would be appreciated as to what were the circumstances, which persuaded Smt. Sanju to take her own life. For an answer to this proposition, facts are to be assessed. At the cost of repetition, it is said that on account of psychological hatred against the supposed murderers, parents, sister, brother and uncle of the deceased had imagined certain facts and detailed it before the Court with their notion of justice of the case. In order to separate grain from chaff, it would be expedient to proceed further, taking into account the admitted facts first. Therefore, report of autopsy surgeon would be appreciated first of all, since contents detailed therein are not in dispute. Dr. Gaurav Vinod Jain unfolds in his autopsy report Ex.PW23/A that external injuries categorized into three categories, were found on the dead body. In first category he found (i) white nonvascular puckered scar with dimension of 7.5cm X 3cm oblong present horizontally over outer middle part of left thigh, (ii) white nonvascular puckered scar with dimension of 3cm X 2cm oblong present horizontally over outer middle part of left arm, (iii) white non vascular puckered scar 3cm X 2cm over out middle part of left shin,
(iv) white nonvascular puckered scar of dimension 2cm X 2cm over outer middle part of right leg, and (v) white nonvascular puckered 25 scar of dimension 2cm X 2cm over lower part of outer side of right leg. Besides the aforesaid puckered scars, he noted bluish green bruises with dimension of 3cm X 2cm over middle right forearm over inner back, and another bluish green bruises with dimension of 2cm X 2cm over middle left forearm over inner back. In third category of injury, he found reddish abraded ligature mark with dimension of 2.5cm X 4cm broad, present completely around the neck, above the level of thyroid cartilage. The mark was deeper, narrower and horizontal on right side of neck, which was going obliquely on left side of neck, where it was forming inverted "v" below left ear and was broader with mark of the knot near left angle of mandible. Scar over neck is pinched up at places. No bruising was noted over neck muscles. However, bruises were present around laryngeal stricture, more prominent on right side. Neck strictures were otherwise intact. He noted base of tongue and epiglottis congested.
25. Dr. Jain opines that white nonvascular puckered scars were about more than one month old, while bruises present over right forearm were about one week old and produced by blunt force impact. During the course of crossexamination, it has been detailed that white nonvascular puckered scars may be two or three years old and definite opinion about its duration could not be given. It seems that due to typographical error "years" was recorded in place of "months". Puckered scar remains white for a period of two or three months only. Thereafter, it starts taking skin colour and within a period of two or three years colour of such puckered scar turn skin 26 type. In case duration of this puckered scar would have been of two or three years than these scars would not have remained white. Dr. Jain was categorical when he noted in his report that there were five puckered scars on the dead body of deceased. Consequently, it is clear that these puckered scars were of two or three months duration only. These injuries were caused to the deceased on account of burns. Assuming that these scars were of two or three years old, even in that situation these injuries were caused to the victim after her marriage at her matrimonial home, since she was married on 03.12.98 and injuries were noted on 15.07.02. Dr. Jain also noted bruises over right arm of the deceased, which were one week old. These facts bring it over the record that deceased was subjected to cruelty within a period of two or three months before her death. When she was burnt by hot objects, resulting thereby her skin was burnt and on being healed it turned into puckered scars. Within a period of one week before the date of her death, she was subjected to cruelty and bruises came over her right arm. These aspects conclusively bring it over the record that Smt. Sanju was tortured in inhumane way at her matrimonial home.
26. With these circumstances in mind, depositions of Smt. Meera, Mahesh Chand, Deepak Gupta, Subhash, Kumari Neelu and Brij Bala would be appreciated in the light of facts detailed by autopsy surgeon. Another aspect, which surfaced over record through deposition of Dr. Vikas Mohan Sharma and record of Vimhans Hospital proved in the form of Mark DW5/A, would throw light on 27 circumstances which led Smt. Sanju to commit suicide. Dr. Vikas Mohan Shara handled Sanju at Vimhans Hospital on 06.05.02, where she was got admitted with alleged history of headache episode, unresponsive behaviour, shouting and inability to speak after family quarrel. He examined the patient. He details that discharge summary of the patient is recorded in Ex.PW15/A. Mark DW5/A are documents, which were prepared at Vimhans Hospital by Dr. V.M. Sharma. Therefore, these documents will demonstrate circumstances, which were surrounding Sanju in month of May,2004. Perusal of Ex.PW15/A makes it clear that Smt. Sanju was admitted in Vimhans Hospital on 05.05.02 and was discharged on 08.05.02. She was a case of adjustment disorder with convlusion symptoms. She was brought in hospital with history of headache episode, unresponsive behaviour and inability to speak after family quarrels, since one month. Out of contents of Ex. PW15/A, it has been highlighted that bouts of family quarrels were going on at matrimonial home of Smt. Sanju since last one month and as a consequence of that quarrel, she showed inability to speak, besides headache, unresponsive behaviour and shouting. Dr. V. M. Sharma explains that during her stay in hospital, Smt. Sanju was unable to take food and her sleep was disturbed. Dr. Sharma announced that issues of independence in family, more attention from her husband and less family intrusion were discussed with the patient Sanju during her OPD follow up, subsequent to her 28 discharge. These aspects are suggestive that her husband was less attentive qua the lady, her independence was surrendered and there were intrusion over her personality from members of her matrimonial home. These aggressions made her to went in reactive depression.
27. Mark DW5/A, which is case sheet of Smt. Sanju recorded by Dr. Anandi Lal and Dr. Vikas Mohan Sharma at Vimhans Hospital, was brought over record by Pramod Tripathi, record clerk. Though defence evidence is to be taken into consideration, when prosecution discharges its onus beyond reasonable doubt, yet appreciation of Mark DW5/A is done at this juncture, since this document gives deeper insight of circumstances, which were surrounding the lady during May, 2002. Further more Mark DW5/A is in hand of Dr. Vikas Mohan Sharma, who was examined by the prosecution to discharge onus resting on it. Therefore, consideration of this document is expedient at this stage, which is not going to prejudice the defence. Appreciation of Mark DW5/A is not done with a view to record facts in favour of the prosecution, but it is done with a view to have clear vision of facts. It has been noted in the document that patient was a known case of depression with convulsion disorder since May,2000, when she complained of headache for the first time. She was diagnosed to be a case of synosis and on treatment she got relief. But after sometime complaint started again. Her condition improved till September, 2001 and thereafter similar complaints were made. She felt guilty for 29 her illness and said that she is spoiling their lives and it would be better that she dies. On her interview, doctor records that she felt scared always. She never had any demand or interest in anything. After marriage, she had difficulty in adjusting with inlaws because of dominating nature of her motherinlaw. It has also been mentioned that there were rampant history of altercation in the family. Contents detailed by Dr. V.M. Sharma in Mark DW5/A highlight that there were serious altercations in matrimonial home of Smt. Sanju. She always looked scared and could not adjust in her matrimonial home on account of dominating nature of her motherin law. The lady felt guilty of her depressions and thought of taking her life. These sequences portrait picture of brain mapping of Smt. Sanju, done by Dr. V.M. Sharma in psychiatric interview.
28. Kumari Neelu, Deepak Gupta, Subhash and Brij Bala deposed facts in the same vein. Neelu speaks that when her father came to know about cruelties being perpetrated on Smt. Sanju, he was not willing to send her to her matrimonial home. Vikas Kumar came to her house, tendered apology and thereafter Sanju was sent along with him. Her testimony erects edifice of prosecution to the effect that on account of torture being permeated to Smt. Sanju, it was decided that she would not be sent to her matrimonial home. When Vikas tendered apology for his behaviour, Sanju was sent to her matrimonial home. Deepak Gupta also recited events as detailed by Kumari Neelu, saying that Sanju was sent to her matrimonial home, when Vikas tendered apology in that regard. Subhash Gupta 30 presents that as and when Sanju met him, she told that she was terrorized by her husband and inlaws. Brij Bala also tells us that Sanju used to complain to her that she was being beaten by Krishna, Vivek and Vipin, but her husband Vikas never said anything in that regard. Name of Vipin as the person, who gave beatings to Sanju, was highlighted by Brij Bala. Her tesimony in that regard nowhere get confirmation through events unfolded by her parents, brother, sister and uncle. Therefore, I find a mist as to whether Vipin ever administered beating to the victim. It seems that name of Vipin was highlighted by Brij Bala only with a view to warm cockles of her heart being persuaded by feelings of hatred against him. Except accountability of accused Vipin for offence of cruelty, events unfolded by Brij Bala, subhash, Deepak Gupta and Neelu give support to the situation narrated by Smt. Meera and Mahesh Chand.
29. Now I would advert to the facts unfolded by prosecution witnesses. Smt. Meera tells us that Sanju used to tell her about her unhappiness in matrimonial home, where she was harassed by her inlaws for dowry demands. When Sanju became pregnant, doctor advised her for bed rest. She remained in hospital for two or three days and thereafter she was taken to her matrimonial home. After delivery of a female child, accused persons did not serve her anything to eat. Only bread was given to her. She prepared "Gond Ke Ladoo" for her and sent it to Sanju. After her discharge from hospital, accused persons started teasing and harassing her.
31 Krishna, her motherinlaw, had burnt her with "chimta". Accused Vivek has burnt her with pressure cooker. As and when, she questioned accused persons about cruelty being perpetrated to her daughter, it was told that Vivek had cut a joke with Sanju. She narrates further that on account of harassment at the hands of accused persons, her daughter became ill. She was got admitted in Ganga Ram Hospital, where doctors told that Sanju was terrorized by her inlaws and she should be taken to her parental home. She was admitted in Vimhans Hospital, where doctors told that Sanju was terrified from her inlaws. She should be taken to her parental home. Events unfolded by Smt. Meera gets reaffirmation from circumstances presented in autopsy report as well as discharge summary and medical record of Vimhans Hospital.
30. Mahesh Chand confirms facts testified by his wife. He detailed that Snaju used to tell him that her motherinlaw used to beat her with "chimta" and her elder brotherinlaw, namely, Vivek had burnt her with pressure cooker. She complained that when she narrated these facts before her fatherinlaw, he told that Vivek might have cut a joke. She made complaint to her husband Vikas, he never took care of her. Sh. Mahesh Chand announces that Sanju told her that Vikas threatened her that in case she would disclose these facts before anyone, then it would not be better for her. When he confronted Vikas with these facts, he pleaded that an opportunity be given to him and in future there would be no complaint. Sh. Mahesh Chand portraited a gimmick picture of condition of Sanju and 32 deposed that when he went to hospital after birth of a female child to Sanju, she wept bitterly. At that juncture, her motherinlaw retorted as to why she was spoiling her eyes. He unfolds that when he went to matrimonial home of Sanju, nobody talked to him. On account of illtreatment, condition of Sanju deteriorated and she was taken to Ganga Ram Hospital by the accused persons. There doctors told him that Sanju was terrorized by her inlaws, which was cause of her ailment. He was advised by the doctor to take Sanju to her parental home. He presents that Sanju again fell ill and was taken to Vimhans Hospital. When he went to hospital along with his wife, doctors told him that since Sanju was terrorized by her inlaws, she fell ill. When she was discharged from the hospital, he took her to his house. After a period of 1520 days, Vikas reached there and took Sanju to her matrimonial home with assurances that she would be kept separately from her inlaws and brothersinlaw. This witness gives every sequence of events, when he deposed that after about five months of her marriage, Sanju met him and told that she was not permitted to give telephone call at her parental home. Tale of woes of Sanju has come over record through events unfolded by her father. It is evident that at her matrimonial home, Sanju was tortured in inhumane ways. She was burnt by her motherinlaw and brotherinlaw Vivek. Dr. Gaurav Vinod Jain noted white nonvascular puckered scar over her body, which were two or three months in duration, besides bruises on her right arm, which were one week old. Smt. Meera and Mahesh Chand detailed 33 that Sanju was treated with cruelty at her matrimonial home in an extreme form. She was not allowed to talk to her parents on phone. Tense atmosphere was created at her matrimonial home on account of dominating nature of her motherinlaw. As and when Sanju tried to ignore dictates of her motherinlaw and brotherinlaw, namely, Vivek, she was burnt by hot object. Evidence of such burns were noted by autopsy surgeon. Beatings were administered to the lady, which evidences were also found in postmortem report Ex.PW23/A. Whenever she made complaints to her husband, she was criminally intimidated of dire consequences by the latter in case she dares to divulge facts before anyone. On account of highhanded behaviour of her motherinlaw, brotherinlaw, namely, Vivek and husband Vikas, she fell ill. She was taken to Ganga Ram Hospital and Vimhans Hospital, where doctors found her scared. It was made clear before her parents that the lady was terrorized by her inlaws and she should be taken to her parental home. On account of bouts of quarrel in her family, she was incapable to express herself as she felt unable to speak. These situations are suggestive that Smt. Sanju was treated in inhumane manner by her husband, motherin law and brotherinlaw, namely, Vivek.
31. Oddities of human behavior in dealing with brides with motive of gratifying lust for dowry or otherwise led the legislature to coin an offence of cruelty to a married woman by her husband and/or her in laws. But, it is not harassment per se or every type of cruelty that would attract the legal sanction. Explanation appended to Sec.
34 498A of the Penal Code defines cruelty thus: "Cruelty mean:
(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, or
(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coerce 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 demands."
32. Clause (a) of the above referred explanation makes willful conduct punishable. The phrase "Willful conduct" is not capable of precise definition. Willful is an act being spontaneous or arising out of free will. The human ingenuity is such that several forms could be devised to drive a married woman to the extremity of putting an end to her precious life. The conjugal society and marital homes are intractable terrain to others and exclusive domain to husband and accessible habitation to his relations. From crude physical injury or harm to subtle devices with intellectual arrogance would be employed in causing cruelty or harassment to a married woman. Clause (b) encompasses harassment if it is with a view to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, on account of failure of any person related to her to meet such demand. Gravity of willful conduct is reflected by wordings of clause (a) and nexus of harassment to coerce the woman or any person related to her with a 35 view to force to meet unlawful demand has been detailed in clause
(b) of the above explanation. No doubt is left that physical or mental harassment to a woman by her husband and/or inlaws would be well covered under the provision of section 498A of the Penal Code. But minor differences between the wife and her husband would not fall within the mischief of this Penal provision.
33. When events unfolded by Smt. Meera and Mahesh Chand are gauzed through definition of cruelty enacted in clause (a) of section 498A of the Penal Code, it emerges that willful conduct of Smt. Krishna, Vikas and Vivek is such that they devised means and modes to illtreat Sanju. Gravity of their conduct is evident, since the lady was burnt with hot objects and roughed up at intervals at her matrimonial home. Haughty behaviour of her motherinlaw and illtreatment in the matrimonial home persuaded the lady to dive deeper in drift of depression. Her reactive depression could not be curred, since there was recurrences of such behaviour at her matrimonial home. Consequently, it is evident that conduct of Smt. Krishna, Vivek and Vikas falls within the mischief of section 498A of the Penal Code. They treated the lady with cruelty and made themselves accountable for the offence.
34. It is not a disputed fact that Sanju committed suicide by hanging herself with a ligature. Accused persons claim that since she was a case of known depression, she committed suicide. According to Sh. Kochar, accused persons are not responsible for her act of committing suicide. Admittedly, Sanju was a case of reactive 36 depression, as detailed by Dr. Vikas Mohan Sharma. Dr. Gaurav Vinod Jain tells that reddish abraded ligature mark was present completely around the neck of deceased (dimension of which has been detailed in preceding sections). He concludes in his autopsy report that cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging. Therefore, postmortem evidence noted by Dr. Jain highlight that Sanju took her life by committing suicide. Why Sanju committed suicide, is the proposition, answer to which is available in ocular facts testified by Smt. Meera, Mahesh Chand, Deepak Gupta, Kumari Neelu, Subhash and Smt. Brij Bala, besides opinion evidence of Dr. V.M. Sharma and documentary evidence available in the form of Ex.PW15/A and mark DW5/A. Sh. Kochar argued that Sanju was having tendency of committing suicide. He presents that in Vimhans Hospital, she locked herself in toilet and attempted to commit suicide. To substantiate his point of view, he argued that a sum of Rs.500/ was paid by the accused persons towards door charges. According to him, depressive habits of Sanju made her to take her life, which tendency has been unfolded in Mark DW5/A, when she admits that she was spoiling their lives and it would be better for her to die. Sh. Kochar agitates that it were depressive habits of the victim, which led her to commit suicide and no fault can be attributed for the same to the accused persons. I am afraid that submission of Sh. Kochar has a base. Smt. Anita Arora tells us about health and behaviour of the deceased. She unfolds that Sanju Rastogi was working as teacher in her playway school, being 37 run in premises No. C63/348, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. She joined her school on 03.07.05 and left it on 15.07.05. During her short stay at her school, she found Sanju hard working, active and was affectionate to children. She was very social and remained happy. On 15.07.02, she came to school around 8.30am and attended her duties. She was cheerful that day. 15.07.02 was last day of Sanju in this world. As projected by Anita Arora, Sanju was cheerful on that day and came to her duties around 8.30am. One cannot attribute motive to Smt. Anita Arora to depose facts against the accused persons. Whatever has been narrated by the lady makes me to conclude that when Sanju went to attend her duties, she was not in a depressive state of affairs. Whatever had transpired at her matrimonial home during evening hours led Sanju to take extreme steps of self destruction. No evidence is available over the record to suggest as to how Sanju was deriven to extreme of self destruction, since conjugal society and nuptial home are intractable terrain to others and exclusive domain to husband and accessible habitation to his relations. Therefore, without even a word or glimpse of circumstances prevalent in the house of accused persons on the night of 15.07.02, I have to take attending circumstances into consideration to ascertain as to how Sanju met her death. Those attending circumstances are projected by Smt. Meera, Mahesh Chand, Deepak Gupta, Kumari Neelu, Subhash and Smt. Brij Bala. Besides their ocular testimony, opinion evidence of Dr. V.M. Sharma and circumstances detailed in discharge slip Ex.PW15/A and Mark 38 DW5/A, provide guide to the Court to take a step ahead in the matter. As projected above, dominating nature of motherinlaw of the deceased made her to find it difficult in adjusting in her matrimonial home. Accused Vivek used to torture her and burn her with hot objects. Same was the situation with accused Krishna. Accused Vikas used to criminally intimidate her of dire consequences, in case she would divulge facts before anyone. On account of their cruel behaviour, she used to come in depression and felt scared of them. It is a matter of common knowledge that nature of an individual would persuade him/her to perceive facts in a particular manner. A sensitive person may react to a trifling matter, while a thickskinned individual may ignore even a crude behaviour meted out to him/her. A rustic fellow will find crude and uncultured behaviour as mundane matters of normal occurrence, while a civilized and sophisticated individual may find a single taunt sufficient to take extreme step of self destruction. It is the limit of his or her sustenance which may make such person believe that the only way out for him or her was to embrace death by committing suicide. Past conduct of an individual would always be relevant and may afford an inference to the victim that the perpetrator by his 'thr ow of a finger' or ' a mere turning of eye' has suggested him or her to act in a particular way. Therefore, mere gestures or words uttered by the perpetrator at a given point of time addressing the victim would have to considered with the sequence of past events. Those gestures or words if taken in isolation, would not give real 39 picture perceived by the victim out of that node or that utterance. The particular mental frame of the victim which was groomed by persistent cruel behaviour of the perpetrator would afford meaning and value to the gesture or utterance which a victim may derive out of it, stimulating or suggesting him or her to act in a particular way. Sanju went in depression in past on account of cruel treatment meted out to her by her motherinlaw, brotherinlaw and her husband. Hospital record gives confirmation to these situations. Her behaviour was groomed by the accused persons by their persistent cruel behaviour. When she was tortured on 15.07.02, she perceived those facts in the light of past conduct of the accused persons and was thrown in valley of depression. She went down to the extent that she could not rise out of it. Brink of depression made her to perceive that only way out for her was to embrace death. She took that decision and lost her life on account of tense atmosphere created at her matrimonial home by her motherinlaw, brotherinlaw, namely, Vivek and husband Vikas. Consequently, it is concluded that by their acts and conducts, accused persons goaded Smt. Sanju to commit suicide.
35. Much has been said against accused Vipin and Bal Kumar, saying that they demanded dowry from Sanju and her parents. Subhash states that Bal Kumar demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/ from him when latter had gone to hospital to inquire about well being of Mahesh Chand. Subhash further deposed that a sum of Rs.20,000/ was with him, which amount was paid by him to 40 accused Bal Kumar. When facts deposed in that regard were assessed on standards of ordinary human behaviour and natural course of events, it came to light that these facts are farther from truth. It is beyond comprehension that a relation would go to inquire about well being of his relation and then would raise a demand of dowry. Further more, testimony of Subhash is not near to veracity when he deposed that there were Rs.20,000/ with him, which amount was paid by him to the accused Bal Kumar. Subhash nowhere speaks that he ever informed Mahesh Chand about that demand and payment of money. These aspects are contrary to behavioural probabilities. I am of the considered opinion that these depositions were made by witnesses with a view to see that supposed murderers go behind bars. Consequently, I do not find any substance in these depositions.
36. To adjudge accountability of offender for offence of dowry death, judge has to see that a woman met her death within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, otherwise than under normal circumstances and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband, for or in connection with dowry demands. Much has been said that dowry was demanded from Sanju. These depositions were discarded as detailed in preceding sections. Except the incident of demand of "chhoochhak", no incident of dowry demand till death of Sanju has been highlighted by the witnesses. Therefore, it cannot be said that there were demands of 41 dowry, that too soon before her death. Consequently, it is evident that death of Sanju was not dowry death.
37. Sanju was treated with cruelty and goaded to commit suicide by accused Krishna, Vikas and Vivek by creation of adverse circumstances against the lady. Evidence brought over the record answers ingredients for offence of abetment to commit suicide, an offence punishable under section 306 of the Penal Code. Accused persons are not charged for the said offence. Whether charge is needed for the said offence, for holding accused Krishna, Vikas and Vivek accountable for the said offence? Answer lies in negative. Provisions of section 464 of the Code contemplates that no finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge, unless a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. Here in the case, accused persons were confronted with facts that dowry was demanded and when it was not paid Sanju was illtreated with cruelty, which made her to drop down and commit suicide. Accused persons took their defence that no dowry was demanded. They further pleaded that on account of depression, Sanju committed suicide, which plea was found to be untenable. It is evident that accused persons were having an opportunity, and in fact made an attempt to defend themselves pleading that Sanju committed suicide on account of any other reason, which defence was not found to be probable. Therefore, absence of charge for an offence punishable 42 under section 306 of the Penal Code nowhere results in failure of justice and accused persons can be held accountable for an offence punishable under section 306 of the Penal Code, since it has been proved against them to the hilt.
38. Yogender Kumar (DW1), Satya Pal (DW2), Mahender Pal (DW3), Chattar Pal (DW4) and Pramod Tripathi (DW5) entered the witness box to detail facts. Yogender Kumar and Satya Pal proved entries in bank account No. 26097/128, 1240/CA and 32531, which facts have been considered in preceding sections. Mahender Pal and Chattar Pal speak that they advanced money to Vikas and Vivek, since they were in need of white money to run their business, under the name and style of M/s Ganpati Enterprises, which evidence has already been appreciated. Pramod Tripathi had proved record of Vimhans Hospital, which has been marked as DW5/A and had already been appreciated. Therefore, facts unfolded by these witnesses nowhere bring out Smt. Krishna, Vikas and Vivek from mischief of provisions of sections 498A and 306 of the Penal Code. Precedents in Ashok Chotelal Shukla (AIR 1997 S.C. 3111), Narsoji Rao (1995 DMC 117), Keshab Chandra Panda (1995 Cr.L.J. 174), Sham Singh (1998 (1) RCR 829), Anil Kumar and Others (2000 DMC 68), Jagroop Singh and Others (1993 Cr.L.J. 2766), Jagbir Singh and Ors. (1992(2) Crimes 746), Asaram Dadrao Giram (1996 CCR 398) and Biren Lal (1996 CCR 427) are relied by the defence. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid there in the precedents relied. But different and distinct 43 facts of the present controversy pull out Smt. Krishna, Vikas and Vivek in an arena where they cannot derive any benefit out of these precedents. Prosecution could prove offence punishable under setion 498A and 306 of the Penal Code against them. However, no evidence viz legal evidence is there against accused Bal Kumar and Vipin to adjudge their accountability. Consequently, accused Bal kumar and Vipin are acquitted of the charges. Accused Krishna, Vikas and Vivek are also acquitted of the charge for an offence of dowry death. However, accused persons, namely, Krishna, Vivek and Vikas are held guilty and covicted for offences punishable under sections 498A and 306 of the Penal Code.
39. Before parting, I am constrained to consider glaring circumstances pleaded and proved by accused Vikas and Vivek. It has been pleaded by Vikas and Vivek that in 1999, they started their business in the name and style of M/s Ganpati Enterprises and for that business white money was needed. A sum of Rs.25,000/ was taken by Vikas through cheque from Mahesh Chand in lieu of cash paid by him. Besides that amount a sum of Rs.65000/ was arranged from their maternal uncle and tauji. A sum of Rs.15000/ was arranged from their father against payment in cash. Mahender Pal deposed that he gave a sum of Rs.15000/ to Vikas and a sum of Rs.10000/ to Vivek through demand draft, copies of which are Ex.DW3/A and Ex.DW3/B respectively in lieu of cash paid to him. Chhatar Pal deposed that he gave a cheque of Rs.20,000/ to Vivek, which is Ex.DW4/A in lieu of cash paid to him. It is a case of Vikas 44 and Vivek that they were in need of white money and for that purpose they paid money to Mahesh Chand, Mahender Pal and Chhatar Pal and got cheques and bank drafts from them. Out of the facts pleaded by them, it emerge that black money was converted into white money by these two accused persons with the help of Mahnder Pal and Chhatar Pal, to defraud the revenue. Income tax authorities were deceived by the accused persons and their relatives, since less income tax was paid. It emerges over the record that with a view to cheat income tax department, forgery was committed and forged documents were used as genuine by the accused persons, knowing or having reasons to believe same to be forged one. Accused persons had cheeks to say that they had committed these offences and made their black money white. SHO police station Bhajanpura is, therefore, directed to register a case against the accused persons and witnesses referred above, cause it to be investigated and proceed further against them under intimation to this Court. Commissioner of income tax would have been called upon to revise their income tax returns, but for period of limitation, as contemplated by the provisions of section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Announced in the Open Court On this 12th day of January,2007.
(Dr R.K. Yadav) Additional Sessions Judge :
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
45 IN THE COURT OF DR. R.K. YADAV : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
S.C. No. 179/06
State Vs. 1. Vikash S/o Sh. Bal Kumar, R/o C4/19, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.
2. Vivek S/o Sh. Bal Kumar, R/o C4/19, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.
3. Smt. Krishna Devi W/o Bal Kumar, R/o C4/19, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.` FIR No. 262/2002
PS Bhajanpura U/S 498A/306 IPC.
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE : Leniency in punishment has been claimed by Sh. R.K. Kochar, Advocate, pleading that convict Krishna Devi is an old lady, aged about 55 years. She is hypertensive. She is only female in the family to lookafter kitchen. Tania, child of the victim, is dependent on this convict, argued Sh. Kochar. According to him, Krishna Devi remained in JC from 31.07.02 to 30.11.02. He presents that convict Vikas is a young man, aged about 34 years, who remained in custody from 15.07.02 till 21.01.04. He is having clean antecedents. Vivek is a young man, aged about 33 years, who also remained in custody from 15.07.02 till 21.01.04. He is unmarried, who has to think for his marriage. Sh. Kochar presents that all the three convict persons are having no criminal history and it is first offence committed by them. He presents that it is a fit case where benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may be extended to them. To substantiate his point of view, 46 Sh. Kochar places reliance on precedents in Bijender (2000(1) C.C. Cases HC 43), Mohd. Hoshan (2002 (4) RCR (Criminal) 155) and Sanjay (2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 635), in which precedents offenders were enlarged on probation, after expiry of certain period of imprisonment awarded to them.
2. Sanju was married to Vikas on 03.12.98. She went to her matrimonial home at C4/19, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. She could not pull well on account of dominating nature of her motherinlaw, namely, Krishna Devi. She was burnt with "chimta" and pressure cooker on various intervals by Krishna Devi and Vivek, her brother inlaw. Whenever, she made complaint to her husband, she was criminally intimidated of dire consequences, in case she would dare to divulge facts before anyone. Family quarrel became rampant. Since Sanju was tortured a lot, her condition deteriorated and she fell ill. She was taken to Ganga Ram, St. Stephen and Vimhans Hospitals, whee doctors found her scared. She told doctors there that she was terrorized by her motherinlaw, brotherinlaw and husband. She went in reactive depression. Her torture continued. Even before one week of her death, she was tortured. When she could not bear any more, she took decision of self destruction. Thus, it is evident that a young bride was harassed and treated with cruelty by her motherinlaw, husband and brotherinlaw, namely Vivek. On account of subjective circumstances created, she was goaded to commit suicide. These days, brides are tortured in inhumane ways for dowry as well as other considerations.
47 Considering all these facts, I do not find it to be a fit case, where convict persons can be enlarged on probation or dealt with leniency in the matter of punishment. Taking into account facts and circumstances of the case and mitigating factors surrounding the convict persons, convict persons are sentenced to undergo RI for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ each for an offence punishable under section 498A of the Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, they would further undergo RI for nine months each. They are also sentenced to undergo RI for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/ each for an offence punishable under section 306 of the Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, they would further undergo RI for one year each.
3. Substantiative sentences shall concurrently. Out of the fine, if recovered, a sum of Rs.50,000/ be paid to the parents of deceased as compensation. Convict persons shall get benefit of period already undergone in detention during trial and investigation of the case.
4. Since convict Vikas and Vivek had cheated the department of revenue, SHO police station Bhajanpura is asked to get a case registered against them, cause it to be investigated and proceed further against them, vide judgment dated 12.01.07. A copy of judgment be sent to SHO police station Bhajanpura for compliance. A copy of judgment and order on sentence be supplied to the convict persons free of cost.
Announced in the Open Court On this 20th day of January,2007.
(Dr. R.K. Yadav) Additional Sessions Judge Karkardooma Courts, Delhi