Delhi District Court
State vs Poonam Etc. (3) on 8 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), NORTH
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 57364/2016) DLNT01-000107-2012
FIR No. 214/2011
Police Station Begumpur
Charge sheet filed 498-A/304-B/34 IPC
Under Section
Charge framed Under 498-A/304-B/302/34 IPC
Section against accused persons.
Durga Prashad s/o Sh. Munni Lal
r/o D-4/248, Sector-20, Rohini,
Delhi (Proceedings abated vide
order dated 27.04.2013)
Poonam d/o Sh. Munni Lal r/o
State Vs. D-4/248, Sector-20, Rohini, Delhi
Usha Devi w/o Sh. Munni Lal r/o
D-4/248, Sector-20, Rohini, Delhi
Munni Lal s/o Late Sh. Pamma
Lal r/o D-4/248, Sector-20,
Rohini, Delhi
Date of institution 04.09.2012
Arguments concluded on 16.12.2024
Judgment Pronounced on 08.01.2025
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:12:16 +0530 SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 1 of 37 FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors.
BRIEF FACTS 1.1 Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion is that on 04.07.2011 an information in the form of DD No. 11A PS Begumpur was received wherein duty Constable informed that Neelam w/o Durga Prasad was admitted in SGM Hospital by his husband and doctor declared her as brought dead. The DD entry was marked to SI Somveer, who went to hospital and obtained MLC No. 10857 of Neelam. During inquiry, SI Somveer came to know that deceased got married on 10.12.2010 and accordingly, he informed SDM Saraswati Vihar about the same. Crime team was also called. Due to late arrival of family members of deceased, further proceedings could not be conducted.
1.2 On 05.07.2011 Sh. Ramphal, Executive Magistrate reached at the SGM Hospital and recorded the statement of mother, father and brother of deceased. Family members of deceased did not disclose any foul play in the demise of deceased and they did not want any legal action. On 06.07.2011 postmortem on the dead body was conducted and dead body was handed over to her family. As per opinion, deceased was died due to inhaling of some poisonous substance.
1.3 Thereafter, father of deceased filed a complaint under section 156(3) CrPC before Ld. CMM and by the order of court, present FIR under section 498A/304-B/328/302/34 IPC was registered and investigation was marked to Inspector Anil Kumar. Accused persons were formally arrested as they were granted anticipatory bail. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC was filed in the court.
CHARGE DHIRENDRA
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
RANA
RANA Date: 2025.01.10
17:12:23 +0530
SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 2 of 37
FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors.
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 02.11.2012 charge u/s 498-A/304-B/302/34 IPC was framed against accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 24 witnesses in all.
FORMAL WITNESSES
4. PW2 W/HC Sarla being the duty officer exhibited FIR as Ex. PW2/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW2/B.
5. PW7 Retd. SI Prem Singh deposed that on receipt of information from Control Room, he alonwith constable, photographer reached D-248, Sector- 20, Rohini where SI Somvir alongwith staff met them. He further deposed that he inspected the scene of crime and prepared his report which is Ex. PW7/A.
6. PW8 Dr. P. C. Prabhakar, exhibited MLC No. 10857/2011 of patient Neelam as Ex. PW8/1 prepared by Dr. Brijesh.
7. PW9 HC Madan Lal exhibited DD No. 11A dated 04.07.2011 PS Begumpur as Ex. PW9/1 recorded by HC Parmod.
8. PW12 Ct. Anil Kumar deposed that on 06.07.2011, he joined the investigation and had accompanied SI Somvir to SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri. He further deposed that on that day, postmortem on the body of deceased Neelam was got conducted and after postmortem, dead body was handed over SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 3 of 37 Digitally signed FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:12:29 +0530 to father and brother of deceased. He further deposed that doctor concerned handed over a sealed pullanda containing viscera of deceased alongwith sample seal to SI Somvir which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW12/1.
9. PW13 Ct. Hansraj, deposed that on 04.07.2011, on receipt of a call, he alongwith crime team headed by SI Prem Singh reached at D-4/248, Sector-20, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that no injured or deceased was found there and it transpired during enquiry that a lady namely Neelam had consumed some poisonous substance. He further deposed that SHO alongwith staff from PS Begumpur was already present there. He further deposed that he took 8 photographs of the spot from different angles, however, same could not be developed as the film roll got damaged.
10. PW14 HC Dhawa Singh deposed that on 04.07.2011 on receipt of DD No. 11A, he alongith SI Somvir had gone to SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri where IO had collected the MLC of one lady Neelam, who had been declared brought dead by the doctors concerned. He further deposed that the body was got preserved in mortuary of SGM Hospital by SI Somvir and he was deputed to take care of the dead body. He further deposed that on 06.07.2011, postmortem on the dead body was got conducted.
11. PW15 Ct. Harish deposed that on 12.12.2011, on the day of instructions of IO Inspector Richhpal Singh, he had collected a sealed wooden box from malkhana PS Begumpur alongwith one sample seal and deposited the same at FSL Rohini vide RC No. 105/21/11. He further deposed that after depositing the exhibits at FSL, he deposited the acknowledgment receipt in SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 4 of 37 Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.01.10 17:12:40 +0530 malkhana.
12. PW16 ASI Parmod Kumar being MHC(M) exhibited entry No. 330 in malkhana register as Ex. PW16/1 vide which on 06.07.2011, one sealed wooden box alongwith sample seal was deposited by SI Somvir. He also exhibited RC No. 105/21/11 as Ex. PW16/2 and acknowledgment receipt from FSL as Ex. PW16/3.
13. PW17 Ct. Vishal deposed that on 04.07.2011 at about 07:00 AM, one lady Smt. Neelam w/o Sh. Durga Prashad was brought to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, who was unconscious at that time. He further deposed that she was admitted in hospital, her MLC was prepared and she had been declared as brought dead by the doctor. He further deposed that he conveyed the information telephonically to PS Begumpur.
14. PW18 M. L. Meena, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry) FSL, Rohini, deposed that on 12.12.2011, one sealed wooden box was received for examination. He further deposed that on opening the wooden box, it was found containing exhibit 1A, 1B and 1C. He examined the exhibits chemically from 07.02.2012 to 06.03.2012 and prepared his report which is Ex. PW18/1.
15.1 PW19 Ramphal Singh Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi deposed that on 04.07.2011, he was instructed by SDM, Saraswati Vihar to reach SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi as a married lady had consumed some intoxicating substance and had been brought to SGM Hospital and had been declared as brought dead. He further deposed that he reached SGM Hospital, where he came to know that one Neelam had been brought to SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 5 of 37 Digitally signed FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:12:46 +0530 hospital and had been declared dead and she died within 7 years of her marriage. He further deposed that SI Somvir Singh met him in the hospital, however, no effective proceedings could be conducted on that day as parents of the deceased could not reach in time and instructed SI Somvir to get the dead body preserved in mortuary.
15.2 He further deposed that on 05.07.2011, he received telephonic call from SI Somvir, who informed him about the arrival of parents of deceased at SGM Hospital and requested him to reach hospital. He further deposed that he reached SGM Hospital where Smt. Shyam Pyari, mother of deceased, Sh. Ramji Lal, father of deceased and Sh. Kanhaiya Lal, brother of deceased met him. He further deposed that he recorded statement of Shyam Pyari, Ramji Lal and Kahaiya Lal. He exhibited statement of Kanhaiya Lal as Ex. PW19/1. 15.3 He further deposed that on his instructions inquest papers were prepared by SI Somvir. He further deposed that postmortem examination could not be conducted on that day as it had become night during the proceedings, so, he authorized SI Somvir Singh to do the needful action on behalf of him to conduct the postmortem of deceased Neelam. He exhibited request to perform autopsy on the body of deceased as Ex. PW19/2, death report {Form No. 25.35(1)(B)} as Ex. PW19/3 and authority letter which is Ex. PW19/4.
16.1 PW24 Dr. Shalini Girdhar, Professor, RML Hospital, deposed that on 06.07.2011, she performed postmortem examination on dead body of female namely Neelam with the history of brought by husband in unconscious state and she was declared brought dead at SGM Hospital on 04.07.2011 at about 06:55 AM. She further deposed that on examination, no external injuries were visible. On internal examination, she found lungs, kidney, spleen, brain, stomach congested. She exhibited her report which is Ex. PW24/A. SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 6 of 37 Digitally signed FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.01.10 17:12:52 +0530 16.2 She exhibited opinion with regard to cause of death as Ex.
PW24/B prepared by Dr. Manoj Dhingra. As per opinion, cause of death was due to organo phosphorus poisoning.
MATERIAL/EYE WITNESSES
17. PW1 Ramji Lal, is father of deceased Neelam.
17.1 His first statement was recorded by SDM on 05.07.2011 wherein he stated that deceased got married with accused Durga Prasad on 10.12.2010. He further stated that after two months of marriage, accused persons started harassing the deceased stating that she had white spots on her lips and used to pressurized them for her treatment. He stated that accused persons also stated that the articles i.e., T. V., bed and mixer given to them were of inferior quality and demanded cash in lieu of the same. He stated that when he went to take the deceased to his house, she did not accompany him. He also stated that he did not want any action against his son in law Durga Prasad and his family.
17.2 His second statement u/s 161 CrPC was recorded by the IO and he levelled the allegations against the accused persons which were supported by him in his examination in chief recorded in the court.
17.3 In his examination-in-chief: He deposed that on 10.12.2010, her daughter deceased Neelam got married with Durga Prasad and he had given the jewellery and other household articles according to their capacity in the marriage. He further deposed that after the marriage, her daughter was kept well in her matrimonial house for one or two months. Thereafter, accused Durga Prashad, Munni Lal and Usha Devi started saying that they had given the articles of inferior quality in the dowry and used to ask money in lieu of SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 7 of 37 FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:12:59 +0530 those articles. He further deposed that accused persons used to ask his daughter to ask him to let the accused persons choose the articles from the shop and he should pay for the same. His daughter used to tell him this fact on telephone. He further deposed that whenever, he visited the matrimonial house of her daughter, her mother in law i.e., accused Usha Devi used to ask him to take all the articles and to give money to them in lieu of the same. 17.4 He further deposed that in the month of May 2011, he brought his daughter Neelam for about 15 days to his house but accused Durga Prasad made several calls to her within the period of those three days and finally he took her back on 3rd day of her stay. He further deposed that thereafter, after 2- 3 days, they received a telephone call of her daughter which was attended by his wife Shyam Pyari and deceased told her that accused persons were insisting her to make call to them and asked to take all dowry articles and to give money to them in lieu of same. Deceased was weeping at that time. 17.5 He further deposed that after 4-5 days of the said incident, accused Usha made a call to him on his mobile at about 08:00 PM and told that there was white spot on the lips of deceased. Accused Usha Devi told him that they had been deceived by them by marrying her daughter with their son Durga Prasad. He further deposed that at that time, accused Usha Devi also told him to take the deceased back and demanded the money in lieu of dowry articles and at that time accused Usha Devi misbehaved with him. He further deposed that accused Durga Prasad also told him at that time that he would not keep deceased with him and told him to take her back and demanded money in lieu of dowry articles.
17.6 He further deposed that there was no white spot on lips of her daughter Neelam and accused persons had seen her daughter before marriage several times and the marriage was solemnized only after the accused persons SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 8 of 37 FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:13:04 +0530 were fully satisfied.
17.7 He further deposed that on 4-5.06.2011, his wife, his younger brother and his wife namely Shyamji and Usha Devi and his elder son Kanhaiya Lal had gone to the house of accused persons to bring deceased to their house but accused persons did not allow them to meet her and send her. They told them that they would call their relatives on 16.06.2011 and would send the deceased thereafter.
17.8 He further deposed that on 16.06.2011, he alongwith his both brothers and their wives had gone to the house of accused Munni Lal at Sultanpuri, however, accused persons did not allow his daughter to accompany them. He further deposed that accused persons Munni Lal and Usha Devi demanded dowry of Rs. 2 lakhs from them. Accused Durga Prasad gave beatings to his wife Shyampyari. He further deposed that thereafter, they came back to their house to arrange the money but same could not be arranged. 17.9 He further deposed that on 25.06.2011, he alongwith his wife Shyampyari, his brothers namely Shyamlal and Shyamji and his son in law Anand Kumar went to the house of accused persons at Sultanpuri where a Panchayat was organized by accused persons. Accused persons called his son in laws namely Jaichand and Munna Soni. He further deposed that a compromise had been made between him and accused Munni Lal vide compromise deed which is Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that he asked the accused persons to send the deceased with them but they did not allow the deceased to go with them. He further deposed that accused persons asked Rs. 2 lakhs and only then they would allow the deceased to go with them. 17.10 He further deposed that on 04.07.2011, he received a call from police station Begumpur and he was informed that his daughter was admitted in SGM Hospital. He further deposed that at about 03:00 PM, one police SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 9 of 37 FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:13:09 +0530 official came to his house and informed him about the demise of his daughter. He alongwith police officials reached at police station Begumpur. He further deposed that on next day, he went to the mortuary of SGM Hospital and identified the dead body of his daughter vide memo which is Ex. PW1/B. He further deposed that after postmortem, dead body was handed over to him vide memo which is Ex. PW1/C and his statement was recorded by Executive Magistrate which is Ex. PW1/D. He further deposed that as police did not register his case, he made a complaint case under section 156(3) CrPC which is Ex. PW1/E and on the directions of Ld. MM, case was registered.
17.11 Cross examination: He stated that in May 2011, they brought deceased to their house. His wife went to their native village when his daughter went back to her matrimonial home. He denied that his daughter did not want to stay at their house as his wife had gone to native village and there was no female adult member at their house. He further denied that he had committed the rape upon the deceased so she did not want to live with them. He denied that his son namely Vijay was having evil eye towards the deceased and he used to harass her sexually. He denied that his son Kanhaiya Lal had given in writing before the Panchayat that he (father of deceased) and Vijay used to harass the deceased sexually and he (father of deceased) committed rape on her. He admitted that deceased Neelam and accused Durga Prasad loved each other and they never intended to have divorce from each other. He denied that before marriage, deceased made a call at number 100 against them. He admitted that on 04.07.2011 at about 07:00 AM, brother of accused Munni Lal called them which was attended by his wife and informed that his daughter is in hospital. He denied that they did not visit the hospital immediately because they were worried and out of fear that Neelam must have given a statement SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 10 of 37 FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors.
Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:13:15 +0530
against them. He admitted that he had not given any separate complaint to the police alleging that accused persons had killed his daughter Neelam. He denied that he, his wife and his son made call to accused persons for demanding Rs. 5 lacs otherwise they would implicate in this case. He denied that accused persons expressed their inability to give Rs. 5 lacs being poor person so that this false case had been filed. He denied that accused persons were falsely implicated in this case and they were harassed in this case due to this reason, accused Durga Prasad committed suicide.
18. PW3 Shyampyari, is mother of deceased.
18.1 Statement recorded by SDM: On 10.12.2010, deceased was married with accused Durga Prasad. She further alleged that deceased told her that her in laws used to harass her on account of dowry demand. She further alleged that accused persons also told that the articles given in the marriage were of inferior quality and demanded money in lieu of the articles as they wanted to purchase the articles of their own. She further alleged that accused persons never made demand of any kind, however, mother of accused demanded Rs. 5 lacs from her. She further alleged that whenever they used to visit the matrimonial house of deceased, deceased was not allowed to meet them. She further alleged that deceased never listened to her family or her in laws. She further alleged that whenever they used to take the deceased to her parental house, she used to refuse for the same and stated that if she will be taken forcefully, she will die. She stated that she did not have any grievance from her son in law and his mother and she did not want any legal action against them.
18.2 Her second statement u/s 161 CrPC was recorded by the IO and she levelled the allegations against the accused persons which were supported SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 11 of 37 Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. RANA RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:13:20 +0530 by her in her examination in chief recorded in the court. 18.3 Examination-in-chief: She deposed on the lines of PW1 Ramji Lal. She exhibited statement recorded by Executive Magistrate as Ex. PW3/A. 18.4 Cross examination: She stated that on 25.06.2011, she had visited the house of accused Munni Lal. She stated that she had gone to her village in month May 2011 and came back to Delhi in month of May itself. She stated that when she went to her village, her husband brought her daughter from her matrimonial house and she stayed with them at Delhi only for two days. She denied that when her daughter came to her house, she was weeping and told that she had to go her matrimonial house so that her father in law came to her house and took her daughter to her matrimonial house. She denied that her husband and her son Vijay used to sexually assault her daughter Neelam and they had committed rape upon her daughter. She could not tell whether her son Kanhaiya gave in writing regarding sexual harassment and rape upon Neelam by her husband and her son Vijay in the presence of many persons including Mr. Anand, Prahand and herself. She admitted that her daughter Neelam asked her and her family members that she would not visit her parental house even if she dies. She denied that her daughter did not stay in her house as her husband and her son Vijay would sexually harass her in her absence. She admitted that accused Durga Prasad and deceased Neelam used to love each other and they did not want to divorce each other. She stated that at about 08:00 AM, they received a call on 04.07.2011 that her daughter was admitted in the hospital. The call was made by the brother of accused Munni Lal. She stated that they did not go to the hospital because they were under the impression that they had called them to demand the money. She admitted that one police official came to her house at about 04:00 PM and thereafter, they SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 12 of 37 FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.01.10 17:13:26 +0530 went to the hospital. She denied that they had not gone to the hospital in the morning out of fear that Neelam must have given a statement against them. She denied that they went to hospital after having the confirmation that Neelam had not made statement against them. She denied that accused persons never demanded any dowry articles from her and her husband. She stated that she did not make any complaint to the police officials on the day of death of Neelam as police officials asked her to come on next day. She stated that her husband and her son did not give any written complaint against the accused persons to police officials of police station Begumpur. She denied that her husband and her son made call to accused persons for demanding Rs. 5 lacs otherwise to falsely implicate them in this case. She further denied that when accused persons expressed their inability to give Rs. 5 lacs, accused persons were falsely implicated in this case. She further denied that accused persons were harassed in this case and due to this reason, accused Durga Prasad had committed suicide.
19.1 PW4 Shyamji Verma, who happens to be uncle of deceased, deposed that his niece was married to accused Durga Prasad and after marriage, she started residing with accused persons at her matrimonial house. He further deposed that sufficient dowry was given by his brother Ramji Verma and his sister in law Shyam. However, accused persons namely Munni Lal, his wife, his daughter and accused Durga Prasad started harassing and torturing the deceased for demand of dowry and they used to taunt/comment that the dowry articles were of inferior quality. 19.2 He further deposed that after 4-5 months of marriage, he alongwith his brother Ramji, his wife Usha Devi, his nephew Kanhaiya Lal and his sister in law went to the house of accused and they tried to make them SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 13 of 37 FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors.
Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.01.10
17:13:30 +0530
understand. He further deposed that accused persons started threatening them that they would not keep his niece in their house as she was having a white spot on her lips and they had given inferior quality dowry articles. Thereafter, they came back to their respective houses. He further deposed that after 4-5 days, he alongwith his wife and brother Ramji Lal and his wife again went to the house of accused persons. He further deposed that accused persons asked him to bring the stamp papers and accused persons got typed the stamp papers on which he alongwith other family members put signature and a compromise was made. He further deposed that they asked accused Durga Prasad to put his signature on the stamp paper but he refused to sign on the same and demanded Rs. 2 lacs for dowry and medical treatment of white spot on the lips of deceased. He further deposed that after 7-8 days, accused persons had committed the murder of his niece by giving her poison and he alongwith his brother reached the police station and thereafter, they went to mortuary and after postmortem, dead body was handed over to them. 19.3 During cross examination done on behalf of accused persons, he stated that he met the deceased Neelam in her matrimonial home on 25 th June and he had a talk with the deceased on that day. He could not tell that deceased Neelam had lodged a complaint earlier against her father and brother from he parental home after her marriage. He denied that deceased did not want to go to her parental house because she was subjected to sexual abuse by Ramji Lal (father) and Kanhaiya Lal (brother). He denied that accused persons never harassed deceased on account of dowry demand. He denied that they had deliberately taken a stamp paper containing conditions with respect to the divorce of deceased Neelam with her on 25 th June and they wanted to get the same signed by accused Durga Prasad and the family members. He further denied that when accused Durga Prasad refused to sign the paper, they SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 14 of 37 FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors.
Digitally signed
DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA
RANA
RANA Date: 2025.01.10
17:13:35 +0530
extended threats to him to falsely implicate them in a case of dowry demand. He admitted that no complaint was made to the police with respect to demands or replacement of dowry to the police before the death of Neelam. He stated that he came to know about the death of Neelam at about 03:00-04:00 PM when police came.
20.1 PW5 Shyam Lal, who happens to be uncle of deceased, deposed on the lines of PW4 Shyamji Verma in his examination in chief. He exhibited his dead body identification statement as Ex. PW5/A. 20.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused persons, he stated that after marriage of Neelam, he had never met deceased. He stated that he signed Ex. PW1/A on the request of his brother Ramji Verma. He stated that when they visited the matrimonial home of Neelam, one neighbour/Pradhan also came to the house of Neelam. He stated that he came to know about the death of Neelam on 04.07.2011 at about 12:00 Noon. He stated that he talked with Durga Prasad only once after the marriage of Neelam. He stated that before the execution of agreement Ex. PW1/A, he never met with the parents of Durga Prasad.
21. PW6 Kanhaiya Lal, who happens to be brother of deceased. 21.1 Statement recorded by SDM: He stated that his sister married with accused Durga Prasad on 10.12.2010 and there was no dispute between both the families. He stated that her sister never made any complaint to him against the accused persons. He further stated that he did not want any legal action against the accused persons.
21.2 Examination in Chief: He deposed on the lines of PW4 Shyamji Verma and PW5 Shyam Lal, during his examination in chief.
SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 15 of 37 Digitally signedFIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors.
DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA
RANA
RANA Date: 2025.01.10
17:13:41 +0530
21.3 In addition, he deposed that on 25.06.2011 at about 01:00 PM, his
brother-in-law (jija) Anand Kumar made a call to him and asked him to purchase a judicial stamp paper and accordingly, he purchased Rs. 10/- judicial stamp paper. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Durga Prasad made a call to him and told the matter to be typed on the stamp paper and on the dictation of Durga Prasad, he got typed the stamp paper. He further deposed that at about 02:30 PM, he reached the house of accused persons and produced the stamp paper on which his father Ramji Verma, uncle Shyamji Verma, uncle Shyam Lal and brother in law Anand Kumar put their signatures. However, accused Durga Prasad refused to sign the stamp paper and demanded Rs. 2 lacs for purchasing the dowry articles and for the expenses of medical treatment of white spot on the lips of deceased.
21.4 Cross Examination: He stated that he got the contents typed on the stamp papers and at that time, he was alone. He stated that he handed over his mobile phone to the typist to type whatever the caller was dictating. However, he had not stated to the police about this fact. He admitted that his late sister Neelam and Durga Prasad refused to sign the documents Ex. PW1/A. He denied that Durga Prasad never dictated the contents of Ex. PW1/A. 21.5 He stated that on 25.06.2011 at about 02:30 PM, when he reached at the matrimonial house of his sister, his parents, jija Anand Kumar, uncle and aunt were already present. He stated that at that time, parents of Durga Prasad alongwith Durga Prasad and one of their son in law were present there and no neighbour was present there. He denied that deceased Neelam told that her father and elder brother committed sexual assault on her and that is why she was not willing to go with them. He admitted that from the date of marriage prior to death of Neelam, they did not lodge any written complaint with the SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 16 of 37 FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:13:47 +0530 police or any authority. He stated that on 04.07.2014 at about 02:30 PM, one police official informed to his father that Neelam was hospitalized and no phone call was made to his house on 04.07.2011 at about 08:00 AM by brother of accused Munni Lal. He denied that brother of accused Munni Lal informed that Neelam was admitted in hospital and he called them to hospital. He denied that accused persons never demanded any dowry at any point of time and Neelam died due to torture and harassment by her father and brother namely Ramji and Vijay.
22.1 PW11 Usha deposed on the lines of PW4 Shyamji Verma and PW5 Shyam Lal, in her examination in chief.
22.2 During her cross examination done on behalf of accused persons, she stated that she met Neelam only once after the marriage at her brother's house. She could not tell whether Kanhaiya Lal brought a stamp paper bearing signatures. She could not tell whether Neelam and Durga Prasad refused to sign on that stamp paper. She denied that Kanhaiya Lal in his own handwriting had given before the Panchayat that due to ill-treatment by her parents, Neelam had refused to go to her parent's house. She stated that she had not made any complaint to the police at the time of demand of Rs. 2 lacs from in-laws of Neelam and no complaint was made by her to the police at the time of death of Neelam. She could not tell whether parents of Neelam had made any complaint to the police at the time of her death. She denied that after the death of Neelam and before filing the complaint in the court, her brother and his family members including his son and she (PW11) demanded Rs. 5 lacs from the father of Durga Prasad for not filing any case against them. She further denied that due to continuous demand of Rs.5 lacs and threat of filing of false case against him and his family members, accused Durga Prasad went into SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 17 of 37 FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:13:52 +0530 depression and committed suicide. She denied that since the family of accused Durga Prasad refused to pay Rs. 5 lacs, a false complaint case was filed iin the court.
23.1 PW23 Anand Kumar deposed that deceased was his sister in law (choti saali), who got married to Durga Prasad in December 2010. He further deposed that there was no issue in the marriage of deceased Neelam and Durga Prasad and she was kept well by the accused persons for a period of 6-7 months. He further deposed that his father in law Ramji Verma called him on his mobile phone and told him that there was some problem as accused persons were harassing the deceased Neelam as she had white patches on her lips. He further deposed that he came to his in law's house from where he alongwith his mother in law, father in law, elder brother and younger brother of his father in law went to house of accused persons to sort out the issue. He further deposed that they had asked the accused persons to send deceased Neelam with them. Initially they had agreed but later on accused Durga Prasad stated that the furniture given in the marriage was of inferior quality and also demanded Rs. 2 lacs before taking the deceased Neelam with them ( Durga Prasad ne kaha ki jo furniture shaadi mein diya hai, wo ghatiya hai, Phele 2 lac de dijiye uske baad Neelam ko le jayo). He further deposed that a compromise deed was also prepared but accused persons refused to sign the same and thereafter, they all came back from there and he went back to his native place i.e., Village Bhelkha.
23.2 He further deposed that after about 15-20 days of his return to his native village, he came to know that Neelam had expired and he again went to Delhi after 1-2 days of her death. He further deposed that when he came to Delhi, he came to know that the police was not registered the case and SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 18 of 37 FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:13:59 +0530 therefore, a complaint was made through Court.
23.3 During cross examination done on behalf of accused persons, he stated that he stated that when he visited the house of accused persons, he had no conversation with deceased Neelam. He stated that he had not seen any white patch on the lips of deceased Neelam. He stated that in the meeting, no person from the vicinity or neighbourhood was present and only family members of both the sides were present. He stated that he was not aware whether deceased Neelam called police at number 100 for lodging complaint against her father and brother prior to her marriage. He was not aware whether deceased Neelam visited her parental home for only one day and thereafter, she went back to her matrimonial home of her own. He stated that there was no dowry demand at the time of marriage of deceased Neelam.
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION
24. PW10 W/Ct. Manju Kumar, deposed that on 19.12.2011, she joined the investigation alongwith IO Inspector Richpal Singh. She further deposed that on that day accused Poonam and Usha Devi came to police station and she conducted the personal search of accused Poonam and Usha Devi. She exhibited arrest memos and personal search memos of accused Poonam and Usha Devi as Ex. PW10/1, Ex. PW10/2, Ex. PW10/3 and Ex. PW10/4.
25.1 PW20 Inspector Anil Yadav, deposed that on 02.09.2011, after registration of FIR, investigation was assigned to him and reached at the place of occurrence i.e., H. No. D-4/248, Sector- 20, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that SI Somvir met him at the spot. He inspected the spot and prepared the site plan at the instance of SI Somvir.
Digitally signedSC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 19 of 37 DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:14:05 +0530 25.2 He further deposed that on 19.09.2011, he attended the bail matter of all accused persons and all accused persons were granted anticipatory bail.
26.1 PW21 Inspector Richh Pal Singh deposed that on 03.12.2011, investigation was assigned to him. He formally arrested accused Durga Prashad and Munni Lal and conducted their personal search vide memos which are Ex. PWPW21/1, Ex. PW21/3, Ex. PW21/2 and Ex. PW21/4. He further deposed that during investigation viscera of deceased was got deposited in FSL, Rohini on 12.12.2011.
26.2 He further deposed that on 19.12.2011 accused Usha Devi and Poonam Soni were formally arrested. He further deposed that during investigation, FSL result was collected and subsequent opinion regarding cause of death was obtained from hospital. He further deposed that after completion of investigation, he prepared charge sheet and filed the same in the court. 26.3 During cross examination done on behalf of accused persons, he stated that parents of deceased met him for the first time on 05.12.2011 at about 11:00 AM. He admitted that parents of deceased never met him before that or never made any complaint to him prior to that.
27.1 PW22 Inspector Somvir Singh, deposed that on 04.07.2011 on receipt of DD No. 11 that one lady namely Neelam was brought to hospital, and she was declared brought dead by the doctor. He alongwith one Constable, went to SGM Hospital, and obtained MLC of deceased. He further deposed that he met husband of deceased, who had got the deceased admitted in hospital. He further deposed that he made enquiries from him, who told that he was married with deceased on 10.02.2010. Accordingly, he informed family of deceased and concerned SDM Saraswati Vihar, who conducted inquest under SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 20 of 37 Digitally signed by FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.01.10 17:14:11 +0530 section 176 CrPC. He further deposed that after getting the dead body identified by relatives of deceased, dead body was handed over to relatives on 06.07.2011. He further deposed that he seized the viscera handed over to him by the doctor and deposited the same in malkhana and submitted his report which is Ex. PW22/A. 27.2 He further deposed that FIR was registered in the present case in compliance court order as complaint was filed by the aggrieved party under section 156(3) CrPC. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, he again joined investigation with IO Inspector Anil Kumar on 02.09.2011, who prepared site plan at his instance.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
28. After closure of PE, the statement of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 29.07.2024, wherein they stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case.
Accused persons opted not to lead defence evidence.
29. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
30. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused persons.
31. It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP that the allegations levelled against the accused persons are of serious in nature. The material witnesses have deposed in unequivocal manner that deceased was tortured and harassed by the accused persons on the pretext of their demand for dowry articles. Prosecution SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 21 of 37 Digitally signed FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:14:17 +0530 has examined PW1 Ramji Lal, PW3 Shyama Pyari, PW4 Shyamji Verma, PW5 Shyam Lal, PW6 Kanhaiya Lal, PW11 Usha and PW23 Anand and all of them have deposed that accused demanded Rs. 2 lakhs as dowry on 25.06.2011. When parents of deceased could not pay the dowry amount, accused persons did not allow the deceased to accompany to her parental house. Soon after the incident, she expired on account of consuming poison on 04.07.2011. There are allegations of harassment and beating by the husband (since deceased) of the deceased but those beatings were given in furtherance of common intention. The death of the deceased occurred within 7 years of her marriage and the presumption under section 113 B Indian Evidence Act is applicable against all the accused persons that unnatural death of the deceased was on account of dowry demand. As per postmortem report the cause of death is due to poisoning and the report has been duly proved during evidence. Prosecution has successfully proved its case against all of them (except accused Durga Prasad) and accused Poonam, Munni Lal and Usha Devi are liable to be convicted under section 304-B/498-A/302/34 IPC.
32. Per contra, Sh. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused persons have argued that this is absolutely a false case foisted upon the accused persons by the family of the deceased. It is argued that after the death of deceased, statement of parents and other family members were recorded by the SDM and no allegation of dowry demand was put forth by them. They did not want any action against the accused persons but subsequently, they demanded Rs. 5 lakhs from the family of accused persons and when they refused to do so, this false FIR was registered against the accused persons through an application under section 156(3) CrPC. It is submitted that there are serious contradictions between the testimonies of material witness and they SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 22 of 37 Digitally signed FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:14:24 +0530 have improvised their statements to such an extent that they are totally unreliable. Moreover, all of them are interested witnesses being family members of the deceased. Prosecution has failed to prove the fact that deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death and resultantly, case under section 304-B/498-A/302/34 IPC remains unproved. Hence, accused persons are not liable by any stretch of imagination for untimely death of Ms. Neelam. It is prayed that accused persons may be acquitted on account of failure of prosecution to prove its case against them.
33. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record.
FINDINGS
34. The accused Usha Devi, Munni Devi and Poonam have been charged for the commission of offences punishable under sections 498-A/304- B/302/34 IPC.
35. The relevant sections are reproduced as under:
SECTION 498 A IPC [498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
(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 SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 23 of 37 Digitally signed FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:14:35 +0530
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.] SECTION 304-B IPC [304B. Dowry death.-- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.] SECTION 300 IPC "Section 300. Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or--
2ndly.--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or--
3rdly.--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or--
4thly.--If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 24 of 37 FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.01.10 17:14:40 +0530 probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
SECTION 302 IPC Punishment for murder.--Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 34 IPC
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
SECTION 113 A INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman:When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
SECTION 113 B INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 113B. Presumption as to dowry death.--When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Digitally signed by SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 25 of 37 DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.01.10 FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. 17:14:49 +0530
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B, of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860).]
36. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
37. In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
STATEMENT BEFORE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE 38.1 Prosecution has examined PW1 Ramji Lal (father), PW3 Shyama Pyari (mother), PW4 Shyamji Verma (uncle), PW5 Shyam Lal (uncle), PW6 Kanhaiya Lal (brother), PW11 Usha {paternal aunt (bua)} and PW23 Anand {brother in law (jija)}. All these witnesses have tried to prove the fact that deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. All of them have deposed that accused Durga Prashad (since deceased) demanded Rs. 2 lakhs at the time of settlement during a meeting which took place on 25.06.2011. It is to be seen whether any such demand was made or not and if so, what was the role of remaining accused persons on that day. Whether they demanded any SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 26 of 37 Digitally signed FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.01.10 17:15:10 +0530 dowry on 25.06.2011 and that was the reason for suicide of the deceased on 04.07.2011.
38.2 Soon after the death of deceased, PW19 Ramphal Singh, Executive Magistrate had recorded the statement of PW1 Ramji Lal which is Ex. PW1/D, statement of PW3 Shyam Pyari which is Ex. PW3/A and statement of PW6 Kanhaiya Lal which is Ex. PW19/1. PW1 Ramji Lal stated before the Executive Magistrate that there was no dispute between two families. After two months of the marriage, family of the accused started pressurizing the girl's family for treatment to a white spot on the lip of the deceased and they also started demanding money in lieu of inferior dowry articles. He further stated that he was not allowed to meet his daughter but he did not opt for any action against the accused persons. 38.3 PW3 Shyam Pyari deposed on the lines of her husband before the Executive Magistrate. She added another allegation that accused Usha Devi demanded Rs. 5 lakhs. She also stated that deceased was not ready to hear anything from them and she used to follow the directions of her in laws. She further stated that deceased used to get angry when they ever visited to take her back to her parental house. She had threatened that she would die, if she is being forcibly taken to her parental house. PW3 further stated that she had no grudge against her son in law and accused Usha Devi and she did not opt for any action against them.
38.4 PW6 Kanhaiya Lal did not allege anything before the Executive magistrate and he simply stated that there was no dispute between the families and they had no complaint against the accused persons. 38.5 These statements were recorded by PW19 on 05.07.2011 wherein there was no grievance against the family of the accused and PW1, PW3 and PW6 opted not to initiate any action against them. All these persons are silent SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 27 of 37 Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.01.10 17:15:20 +0530 whether any meeting took place on 25.06.2011 or not and whether husband of the deceased demanded Rs. 2 lakhs on that day or not. There is no explanation available with these persons for not mentioning the factum of alleged meeting of 25.06.2011 before the Executive Magistrate. On one hand, PW1 stated that there was a dispute between the families due to a white spot on the lip of the deceased on the other hand, PW3 stated that accused Usha Devi demanded Rs. 5 lakhs. She has not clarified any date, time and place when such demand was made by her and therefore, the allegation of demand of Rs. 5 lakhs is vague in nature. Therefore, statements of PW1, PW3 and PW6 before Executive Magistrate, are of no consequence against the accused persons qua the allegation of dowry death.
MEETING OF 25.06.2011
39.1 All the material witnesses have tried to prove the fact that a compromise meeting took place between the families on 25.06.2011. PW1 Ramji Lal has proved a compromise deed as Ex. PW1/A. I have gone through this document and as per point No. 2 the families have agreed for dissolution of marriage due to a white spot on the lip of deceased. It is nowhere mentioned that there was any dowry demand or physical assault by the accused persons. It is nowhere mentioned that any demand of Rs. 2 lakhs was put forth by deceased Durga Prasad. As noted above, this demand of Rs. 2 lakhs is missing from the statements recorded by the Executive Magistrate. Meaning thereby, it would be unsafe to believe this allegation and to appears to be an afterthought on the part of the complainant. Needless to say, complainant filed an application under section 156(3) CrPC after 18 days of the death of the deceased and that is how this case was registered. It is also worth mentioning that Ex. PW1/A was not signed by the deceased and her husband and it cannot SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 28 of 37 Digitally signed FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.01.10 17:15:26 +0530 be presumed that they had agreed for the dissolution of marriage. 39.2 In fact, PW3 Shyama Pyari had admitted in her cross examination that deceased and her husband used to love each other very much and they were not ready for the divorce. If that was the case then there was no scope of dissolution of marriage. After the meeting of 25.06.2011, deceased continued to stay with her husband which reflects that allegation of dowry demand was also not in existence. It is also difficult to comprehend that on one hand accused Durga Prasad and his family were asking for Rs. 2 lakhs for the divorce but on the other hand, deceased was not ready to part her ways from her husband. Generally, if dowry demand is not met then in-laws of the bridegroom expel her from her house but in this case the situation is otherwise.
Accused persons and deceased stayed together even after the alleged dowry demand made on 25.06.2011.
39.3 The contents of Ex. PW1/A also reflects that the bone of contention between the two families was probably the white spot on the lip of the deceased and this is what mentioned at point No. 2. Had it been the case that there was any kind of harassment on the pretext of demand of dowry then it should have been incorporated in the compromise deed. In any case, the relevance of Ex. PW1/A has become insignificant as it was not signed the deceased and her husband and they were happy to stay with each other. 39.4 There are contradictions between the statement of material witnesses qua the alleged demand of Rs. 2 lakhs. PW1 Ramji Lal, PW5 and PW11 Usha have not specified as to by whom the alleged demand was made on 25.06.2011. PW3 Shyama Pyari stated that the demand was made by Durga Prasad (since deceased) and accused Usha Devi. PW4, PW6 Kanhaiya Lal and PW23 Anand stated that demand was made by accused Durga Prasad (since deceased). Therefore, all these persons, who were part of the meeting held on Digitally signed SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 29 of 37 by DHIRENDRA FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.01.10 17:15:31 +0530 25.06.2011 are not sure as to by which accused the alleged demand of Rs. 2 lakhs was made. Even if it is presumed to be true then it was alleged made by accused Durga Prasad, then is no more in this world and proceedings against him stands abated. Needless to say, the allegations of demand of Rs. 2 lakhs should have been mentioned in Ex. PW1/A as well as statements recorded by Executive Magistrate, if any such demand was ever made by any of the accused on 25.06.2011. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the allegation of dowry demand of Rs. 2 lakhs has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution against the accused persons.
PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 113A AND 113B OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 40.1 It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that accused persons were under an obligation to prove their innocence by rebutting the presumption against them by virtue of section 113A and 113B of Indian Evidence Act. It is a presumption against them that they have triggered the suicide of the deceased within seven years of her marriage by subjecting her to cruelty and death of the deceased is squarely covered under the definition of "dowry death". They have failed to disclose the reason of the commission of suicide by the deceased.
40.2 Section 113A is a statutory presumption against an accused in case a woman commit suicide within period of seven years of her marriage and it has to be presumed that suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. Similarly, section 113B lays down that if a woman is subjected to cruelty 'soon before' her death in connection with any demand of dowry then the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry demand. Both these presumptions are to be rebutted by an accused by placing SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 30 of 37 Digitally signed FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.01.10 17:15:37 +0530 on record concrete defence in the form of cross examination and documentary evidence that deceased was not driven to commit suicide by the accused in context with the demand of dowry and she was not subjected to any kind of harassment or cruelty 'soon before' her death.
40.3 In Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana Criminal appeal No. 1735-
1736 of 2010 decided on 28.05.2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the essential ingredients sought to be proved by the prosecution to bring home the charge under section 304-B/498-A IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme court relied upon its own judgment in case titled as Major Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2015) 5 SCC 201 wherein it was held as under:
"10. To sustain the conviction under Section 304−B IPC, the following essential ingredients are to be established:
(i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a 'normal circumstance';
(ii) such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(iii) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry; and
(v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death."
40.4 In Satbir Singh's case (discussed supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court stated as under:
"14. Considering the significance of such a legislation, a strict interpretation would defeat the very object for which it was enacted. Therefore, it is safe to deduce that when the legislature used the words, "soon before" they did not mean "immediately before".
Rather, they left its determination in the hands of the courts. The factum of cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. Even the spectrum of cruelty is quite varied, as it can range from physical, verbal or even emotional. This list is certainly not exhaustive. No straight jacket formulae can therefore be laid down by this Court to define what exacts the phrase "soon before" entails. The aforesaid position was emphasized by this Court, in the case of Kans Raj v.
SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 31 of 37 Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2025.01.10
17:15:42 +0530
State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207, wherein the three−Judge Bench held that:
"15. ... "Soon before" is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time−limit. ... In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. .... Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough."
(emphasis supplied) A similar view was taken by this Court in Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477.
15. Therefore, Courts should use their discretion to determine if the period between the cruelty or harassment and the death of the victim would come within the term "soon before". What is pivotal to the above determination, is the establishment of a "proximate and live link" between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim.
16. When the prosecution shows that 'soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry', a presumption of causation arises against the accused under Section 113−B of the Evidence Act."
40.5 The sine qua non for the applicability of sections 113A and 113 B for raising a presumption against the accused, it must be shown that the victim was subjected to any kind of cruelty or harassment by the accused for or in connection with any demand for dowry. For presumption under section 113B, it must be proved that the victim was subjected to cruelty "soon before" her death. It has been made clear by Hon'ble Supreme Court in many cases that the court has to decide upon the basis of circumstances and evidence as to whether or not deceased was subjected to cruelty "soon before" her death of any kind. Cruelty can be committed physically as well as mentally. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the court to ascertain the mental condition of the deceased Digitally signed SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 32 of 37 DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:15:48 +0530 to ruled out any kind of mental cruelty "soon before" her death. If prosecution is able to prove this fact only then presumption under 113A and 113B of Indian Evidence Act would come into picture and thereafter only, it would be duty of the accused to rebut the presumption raised against him. 40.6 There is no allegation that deceased was beaten or harassed "soon before her death. There were no injury mark on her body when she was examined in hospital by the doctor. As noted above, the demand of Rs. 2 lakhs remains unproved and therefore, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the fact that deceased was subject to cruelty soon before her death. Considering the inability of the prosecution to prove the fact of cruelty soon before her death, presumption of section 113A and 113B of Indian evidence Act never got operational against the accused persons and it cannot be said that accused persons were under an obligation to rebut the presumption against them. 40.7 It is also tried to proved by the material witnesses that deceased was beaten and tortured on the pretext of dowry demand and accused persons used to complaint about inferior dowry articles and they used to ask cash amount in lieu of sub standard articles. None of the material witness has given any date, time and place as to when such allegation were ever made by the accused persons. Therefore, the allegations in this regard are vague and generic in nature. Law is settled that there has to be specific details as to how, when and by whom the dowry demand was made which resulted into torture and harassment to the deceased. In absence of specific details, it would be highly unsafe to rely upon the testimony of PWs to convict the accused persons.
CAUSE OF SUICIDE 41.1 Now the next question come before the court if it is not proved that deceased committed suicide due to dowry demand then what was the SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 33 of 37 Digitally signed FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:15:54 +0530 reason that she took an extreme step to wipe off her life. During the cross examination it has been put to the family members of the deceased that deceased was raped by her father and was also sexually harassed by her brother. This allegation is so grave that every member of the family must be aware of any such incident, if he had happened and if this is a mere allegation then there should have been a clear negative response from the family members.
41.2 PW3 is the mother of the deceased and during her examination she accepted that when she had gone to her native village, her husband had brought her daughter from her matrimonial house and she stayed for two days only. This fact has been admitted by PW1 also that deceased did not want to stay at her parental house. When the aspect of sexual assault was put to PW3, she stated that she does not know whether her son Kanhaiya gave in writing regarding sexually harassing and rape of the deceased by her husband and this acknowledgment/writing was given in the presence of her son Vijay. 41.3 How come a mother is not aware whether her daughter had ever alleged against her father and brother that they were sexually harassing her. It is an incident which ought to have been occurred within closed walls of the parental house of the deceased and every member of the house ought to have been in knowledge of the said incident. If this incident had not happened then answer of PW3 should have been a clear 'NO'. She gave an evasive reply that she was not aware about this fact and it is apparent that there was something which she did not divulge before the court.
41.4 Her evasive reply has become significant in view of the fact that deceased had refused to visit her parental house even she is dead. This is a very strong statement by the deceased and why would a girl, who got recently married would take such a stand against her parents, is beyond contemplation SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 34 of 37 Digitally signed FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:16:00 +0530 of this court. On one hand, family of the deceased are alleging against the accused persons that she was subjected to cruelty, on the other hand they are admitting that deceased wanted to live with her in laws and husband. The allegation of dowry demand and conduct of the deceased are exactly opposite to each other.
41.5 In Narender Singh Arora Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and ors criminal revision petition No. 555/2003 decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 01.09.2010 it was held that whenever a woman dies an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage at in-law's house, whatever be the cause of death, the parents of the woman want that the in-laws must be prosecuted and hanged. It was held that suicide is a known phenomenon which is complex in nature which is being committed for various reasons. Some people are not able to bear the normal stresses which are common in life and some commit suicide because of frustration of not achieving the desired goals. One, who commit suicide is not alive to disclose as to what was going on in her mind at the time of committing suicide. It was held that there is no presumption that every suicide committed by a married woman in her in-law's house or at parent's house because she was suffering harassment at the hands of her in-laws. 41.6 Applying the ratio of Narender Singh Arora's case (discussed supra) to the present case, accused persons have disclosed the reason of the commission of suicide by the deceased. She committed suicide as her parents and other family members were hell bent upon for dissolution of her marriage with her husband but she was not ready for that. She did not want to stay with her parents and this fact has been admitted by her parents before the Executive Magistrate as well as before this court although, they denied the allegation of rape upon her by her father. Therefore, considering the contents of Ex. PW1/A which was not signed by the deceased and her husband, a threat was looming SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 35 of 37 Digitally signed FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:16:06 +0530 large that they would be separated by her family members and this may be a reason that she consumed poison on 04.07.2011. It could be a probable reason of her death, though, there is no proof in this regard. Even, if it is presumed that accused have failed to disclose the precise reason of the suicide even then accused persons cannot be asked by the court or by the prosecution to disclose that unknown reason as it was in her knowledge only and she is no more to state the same. The way PW1 Ramji Lal, PW3 Shyama Pyari, PW4 Shyamji Verma, PW5 Shyam Lal, PW6 Kanhaiya Lal, PW11 Usha and PW23 Anand have improvised their allegations against the accused persons, it seems that their only purpose is to build a strong case against the accused persons of dowry death.
CONCLUSION 42.1 Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, there are material contradictions and improvisations in the testimony of material witnesses i.e., PW1 Ramji Lal, PW3 Shyama Pyari, PW4 Shyamji Verma, PW5 Shyam Lal, PW6 Kanhaiya Lal, PW11 Usha and PW23 Anand, which are fatal to the case of the prosecution. These witnesses have failed to prove the alleged demand of 25.06.2011 and their allegations are also devoid of any merit for want of specific details and have to be discarded being vague in nature. Accused persons have also been charged under section 302/34 IPC but there is no oral allegation or documentary proof to draw an inference that deceased was murdered by the accused persons. It is also matter of record there is not even a single allegations levelled by the material witnesses aginst accused Poonam. Deceased committed suicide by consuming organic phosphorus and there was no physical injury on her body when she was admitted in hospital by her husband. Prosecution has failed to prove that deceased was subjected to any Digitally signed SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 36 of 37 DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors. RANA Date: 2025.01.10 17:16:11 +0530 kind of mental, physical or emotional cruelty which was related to dowry demand allegedly raised by the accused persons. Although, the court has full sympathy with the deceased as she ended her life at a tender age but the court is also conscious of the fact that the sympathy towards the deceased cannot be used as a tool to punish the accused persons. It is also very unfortunate that accused Durga Prasad also committed suicide in the year 2012. Two valuable human lives came to an end abruptly and it is a sad state of affairs. 42.3 Keeping in view the above discussions, there is no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt under section 302/304-B/498-A/34 IPC and accordingly, accused Munni Lal, Usha Devi and Poonam stand acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
43. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.01.10
17:16:19 +0530
Dictated and announced in the open (Dhirendra Rana)
Court on 08.01.2025 ASJ:Special Judge (NDPS)
(running in 37 pages) (North), Rohini Courts/Delhi
SC No. 57364/2016, PS Begumpur Page No. 37 of 37
FIR No. 214/2011 State Vs. Poonam & Ors.