Delhi District Court
State vs . Ashish Verma & Ors on 23 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SANGWAN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-01), SOUTH-EAST
DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI.
STATE VS. ASHISH VERMA & Ors
SC No.1256/2016
FIR No. 113/2012
P.S.: Greater Kailash
U/S 498A/306/34 IPC
Particulars of the case:
a) Date of offence : period between 03.03.2009 to
05.07.2012
b) Offence complained of : U/s 498A/306/34 IPC
c) Name of complainant : Anil Kumar
d) Name of accused no.1 : Ashish Verma
his parentage : s/o Sh. Vidya Sagar Verma,
local & permanent residence R/o: A-25, Krishi Vihar,
GK-1, New Delhi.
Name of accused no.2 : Neelam Verma
his parentage : w/o Sh. Vidya Sagar Verma,
local & permanent residence R/o: H. No.48 near Idgah,
Bilgram Chungi,
Circular Road,
Hardoi, U.P.
e) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f) Final order : Acquitted
Date of institution of case : 10.12.2012
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 09.01.2023
Date of judgment : 23.01.2023
JUDGMENT
1. CHARGESHEET 1.1 As per chargesheet, an information was received vide DD No.35A FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 1/32 dated 05.07.2012 at 7.46 pm regarding a suicide at Krishi Vihar, Masjid Moth gas agency, New Delhi. The police officials reached the spot i.e. A- 25, Krishi Vihar, GK-I, New Delhi where Ashish Verma along with other local persons was present. The main entry door was got broken forcefully and inside the house the dead body of Mrs. Tulika w/o Ashish Verma was found hanging from ceiling fan. On inspection, a suicide note was also found from the bed. On inquiry, it was found that deceased had married Ashish Verma on 03.03.2009 and there was no child out of wedlock. Since it was unnatural death of a married woman within seven years of marriage, the local SDM was informed for proceedings u/s 176 CrPC. The place of occurrence was photographed and inspected by crime team. The parents of deceased were informed at Lucknow telephonically. The SDM visited the spot and the dead body was taken down. The exhibits were seized and body was shifted to the mortuary of AIIMS. Next morning, the parents of deceased arrived and identified the dead body. The post mortem was conducted and the SDM recorded the statements of the parents. Thereafter, on 14.07.2012 Sh. Anil Kumar, father of deceased, submitted a written complaint to Police alleging that his daughter was killed by her in laws in greed of dowry. Said fact was brought to the notice of SDM who endorsed that in view of fresh allegations the SHO shall proceed as per law. Accordingly, on the basis of said complaint the present case FIR was registered u/s 498A/304B/120B IPC.
1.2 Investigation was entrusted to Inspector Sheelwant. Witnesses were examined during investigation and accused Ashish Verma was arrested after interrogation. The site plan was prepared and the CDRs of mobile phones of deceased and others were obtained and analyzed. Viscera of deceased and other exhibits were sent to FSL for analysis. However, the chemical examination results of viscera came out to be negative. Final opinion regarding cause of death was obtained from the autopsy surgeon.
FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 2/32 The suicide note and the admitted handwritings of deceased were sent to FSL for comparison. The list of dowry articles were obtained from the complainant. Independent witnesses were examined but did not support the allegations of the complainant regarding demand of dowry. No sufficient evidence was found against sister-in-law, brother-in-law and father-in-law of deceased for charge sheeting them. It was also found in the investigation that none of alleged persons were present at the place of incident and only husband/accused Ashish Verma and deceased Tulika Verma were residing at the given address i.e. house no.A25, Krishi Vihar, GK1, New Delhi after their marriage. As per IO, the allegations of dowry death u/s 304B IPC and criminal conspiracy u/s 120B IPC could not be substantiated and therefore said offences were dropped from the case. However, there was sufficient evidence against accused Ashish Verma for offences u/s 498A/306 IPC. Further, there was evidence against the mother- in-law of the deceased namely Neelam Verma for the offence u/s 498A IPC. Therefore, both of them were charge sheeted for the said offences and forwarded to the court for trial. Subsequently, supplementary chargesheet was filed with the FSL reports regarding examination of the bed sheets used for hanging and regarding examination of the suicide note. No blood was detected from the hanging material but suicide note was found to be matching with the handwriting of deceased.
2. CHARGE 2.1 On the basis of the chargesheet, charge u/s 498A/34 IPC was framed against both accused persons on the allegations that they both in furtherance of their common intention subjected the deceased to cruelty as defined u/s 498A IPC whereas charge u/s 306 IPC was framed only against accused Ashish Verma on the allegations that he abetted the suicide of his wife Tulika by levelling allegations on her character. Both accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. Accordingly, prosecution was FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 3/32 directed to lead evidence in support of the chargesheet.
3. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 3.1 In support of its case, prosecution has examined 21 witnesses. S. No. Name of the witnesses Nature of the evidence PW-1 HC Baldhari Meena Duty Officer who recorded the FIR and made endorsement on rukka PW-2 Ct. Dharamvir Police official who reached the spot along with ASI Ram Dev on receipt of a suicide call by him where SHO, SI Pankaj Kumar and other staff members were already present there and one lady was found hanging with a ceiling fan in a room, who was brought down, shifted to AIIMS hospital and thereafter autopsy proceedings were conducted and dead body was handed over to its legal heirs PW-3 Ct. Kunwar Pal Police official who deposited case exhibits, two sample seals and one suicide note to FSL, Rohini for expert analysis PW-4 ASI Jagat Singh Police official who brought the PCR Call Form dated 05.07.2012 PW-5 HC Devender Police official who prepared handing over memo of the dead body PW-6 SI Krishan Kumar Crime Team Member who prepared the Crime Scene Inspection report PW-7 Rajeeva Shukla Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hauz Khas who conducted the proceedings u/s 176 CrPC PW-8 HC Yogender Singh Police official who reached at the place of occurrence on receiving information from police control room FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 4/32 PW-9 HC Shamsher Singh Police official who conducted the inquest proceedings PW-10 Inspector Mahesh Kumar Draftsman who prepared the scaled site plan PW-11 Inspector Sheelwant IO of the case Singh PW-12 Anil Kumar Complainant/Father of the deceased Tulika who deposed regarding torture of his daughter for want of dowry and the seizure memos PW-13 Smt. Amrawati Mother of the deceased Tulika who deposed regarding torture of her daughter for want of dowry PW-14 Ct. Amit Singh Mobile Crime Team Photographer who proved photographs and negatives of the place of incident PW-15 Ms. Anshita Singh Sister of the deceased Tulika who deposed regarding torture of her sister for want of dowry PW-16 Dr. Krishna Singh Senior Resident, AIIMS who identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr.Has Raj on post mortem report of Ms.Tulika Verma dated 06.07.2012 prepared by said doctor PW-17 SI Pankaj Kumar 1St IO of the case who proved the inquest proceedings, seizure memos etc. PW-18 Raj Bir Singh Medical Technician, AIIMS who identified the signatures of Dr. Yogesh on the MLC bearing no.66992 dated 05.07.2012 of patient Tulika Verma prepared by said doctor PW-19 Dr. Umar Maqbool Doctor who gave his opinion on the MLC of deceased Tulika that she was brought dead with the hanging mark or ligature mark on her neck FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 5/32 PW-20 Anita Chhari Senior Scientific Officer, Biology, FSL, Rohini who conducted biological examination of ligature material i.e. bed sheet PW-21 Avdesh Kumar Senior Scientific Officer (Documents) who examined the suicide note 3.2. The prosecution has exhibited following documents/objects in support of its case:-
No.of exhibit Nature of exhibit Ex.PW1/A FIR Ex.PW1/B Endorsement on rukka Ex.PW2/A Handing over memo of dead body of Tulika Ex.PW2/B Seizure memo of one sealed parcel of viscera along with sample seal Ex.PW3/A Receipts/acknowledgement regarding deposition of and exhibits to FSL, Rohini for expert analysis Ex.PW3/B Ex.PW3/C Arrest memo of accused Ashish Verma Ex.PW3/D Receipt/acknowledgement regarding deposition of suicide note to FSL, Rohini for expert analysis Ex.PW4/A PCR Call Form dated 05.07.2012 Ex.PW6/A Scene of crime report Ex.PW7/A-1 Death Report Ex.PW7/A Statements of neighbors of the deceased and Ex.PW7/B Ex.PW7/C Statement of father of deceased recorded by SDM Ex.PW7/D Application to the Autopsy Surgeon for conducting post mortem Ex.PW7/E Inquest Report Ex.PW7/F Request of the SHO to ADM South, Office of District Magistrate, M. B. Road, Saket seeking instruction after receiving written complaint of Sh. Anil Kumar, father of the deceased at police station Greater Kailash Ex.PW7/G Endorsement on above mentioned application Ex.PW8/A Log Book Ex.PW9/A DD No.35-A regarding recording of PCR call dated 05.07.2012 FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 6/32 Ex.PW9/B Seizure memo of the articles i.e. one vegetable cutting knife, notebooks, one spectacle, one mobile phone Nokia Ex.PW9/C-1 Photographs of the place of occurrence to Ex.PW9/C-21
Ex.PW10/A Scaled site plan Ex.PW11/A Endorsement dated 26.07.2012 made by SI Pankaj on the complaint of Anil Kumar Ex.PW11/B Complaint of Anil Kumar/father of deceased Ex.PW11/C List of dowry articles given by the complainant Ex.PW11/D Seizure memo of seizing of above-mentioned dowry articles Ex.PW11/E Site plan of the place of incident Ex.PA-1 Handwritten letter of deceased given by her father Ex.PB Notebook containing handwriting of deceased (Mark A-1 to A-13) Ex.PW11/F Seizure memo of handwritten letter of the deceased given by her father Ex.PW11/G Seizure memo of notebook containing handwriting of deceased (Mark A-1 to A-13) Ex.PW11/H Request to the Head of Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS for final opinion regarding cause of death Ex.PW11/J Opinion dated 22nd October, 2012 given by Dr. Hansraj Singh Ex.PW12/A Statement of father of deceased regarding identification of dead body of his daughter Tulika Ex.PW12/B Dead body handing receipt Ex.PW13/A Identification of dead body of deceased by her mother Ex.PW14/C7 Negatives of the six photographs (collectively) Ex.PW16/A Post mortem report of Ms. Tulika Verma Ex.PW17/A Endorsement on the complaint of Sh. Anil Kumar Ex.PW17/P1 Suicide Note Ex.PW17/P2 Note Book recovered from the place of incident (colly) Ex.PW17/P3 Mobile phone with battery and Aircel SIM card (colly) recovered from the place of incident Ex.PW17/P4 Pen with refill recovered from the place of incident (colly) FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 7/32 Ex.PW17/P5 Knife recovered from the place of incident (colly) Ex.PW17/P6 Spectacles recovered from the place of incident Ex.PW18/A MLC bearing no. 66992 dated 05.07.2012 of patient Tulika Verma Ex.PW20/A Detailed report regarding biological examination of and sealed parcel Ex.PW20/B Ex.PD Report of Sh. Avdesh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer (documents), Forensic, Science Laboratory, Rohini, Delhi 3.3 Though 21 witnesses have been examined by prosecution but the main witnesses of the case are:
i. PW12 Anil Kumar, father of the deceased Tulika, ii. PW13 Smt. Amrawati, mother of the deceased Tulika, iii. PW15 Ms. Anshita Singh, sister of deceased Tulika and iii. PW11, Inspector Sheelwant Singh, IO of the case.
3.4 PW12 Anil Kumar, father of the deceased deposed that Tulika was his daughter and she got married with Ashish Verma on 03.03.2009 at Lucknow. He deposed that he had given Rs.7 lakh cash, two set of gold jewellery and some articles of silver to the accused persons and apart from the said istridhan, he had also given Rs.1 lakh for purchasing electronic items i.e. fridge, washing machine etc. He further deposed that at the time of marriage, accused Ashish Verma was posted as Assistant in Indian Council for Agriculturaal Research (ICAR) at Delhi and his parents were residing at Hardoi. He deposed that after 2-3 months of the marriage, Ashish and Tulika started residing at A-25, Second Floor, Krishi Vihar, Delhi but after 5-6 days of the marriage, when Tulika came to her parental home, she informed that Ashish, his parents, her sister-in-law and her husband stated that nothing was given in the marriage. He made her understand and asked her to adjust but Tulika thereafter also used to inform FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 8/32 him that she was being harassed. Tulika informed him that despite having washing machine in her matrimonial house, she was asked to wash clothes manually and despite having a person to clean the toilet, she was compelled to clean the same and despite there being a maid servant, she was asked to clean the floor and when she used to protest the same, all her in laws used to quarrel and beat her. His daughter used to inform them that whenever the parents of her husband or her sister-in-law used to make telephonic call to her husband, her husband used to taunt her and raise hand upon her for bringing insufficient dowry. Relations used to be normalized between them but then after every 15 days/1 month, the said issue used to raise up again.
PW12 as well as his wife and other near relatives had gone to Hardoi several times and made the parents of accused Ashish Verma understand and they used to assure them that same shall not be repeated.
He further deposed that accused Ashish Verma and co-accused persons had made a demand of Honda City Car between 1 and 1 ½ year prior to the incident in which Tulika expired and at that time, Ashish Verma was posted as Section Officer. In the month of January, 2012 Ashish Verma, his parents, sister Chavi Verma and Dipender Verma had come to their house at Lucknow and they asked him to finalize their demand of Honda City Car but he asked the accused persons to wait till his retirement as at that time he was not in a position to fulfill their demand of Honda City Car. On this, the accused persons had said that they could not wait till his retirement and they want assurance for giving Honda City Car or in the alternative they insisted to give Rs.20,000/- per month to the accused and the said amount used to be received at times by Ashish, his father, mother or sister, brother in law (bhenoi). The relation, however, remained strained.
In the month of October or November, 2010, he had gone to Hardoi at the parental house of Ashish in order to resolve the issue regarding harassment of Tulika. At that time, Tulika had no opportunity to talk to FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 9/32 him. Accordingly, she had given him a letter written by her. The witness identified the said letter in the court and stated that the said letter was given to him by the deceased. The said letter is Ex.PA-1. He further deposed that incident occurred on 5th July, 2012 i.e. before he attained the age of superannuation on 31st August, 2012 and lastly her daughter Tulika visited their house when she had come alone one day prior to the Holi festival in March, 2012 and even on that occasion also, she told him that her husband and in-laws were insisting to give lumpsum payment for the car to them and asked him to make arrangements for the same but he told her that he could not do so before his retirement. Even after March and before the incident on 5th July, 2012 she used to talk to him on telephone and asked him to make arrangement for the car and lastly he talked to her daughter in July, 2012, when she was appearing in the B.Ed Exam at Noida and at that time also, she had asked him to make arrangement for the car at the earliest.
On 5th July, 2012 in the morning hours at about 07.42 am, he had received a telephonic call from mobile phone no. 09911960644 of Ashish Verma on his mobile phone number 9415470846, who told him in an indecent way that Tulika was having some relation with someone else as she received SMSs of somebody and she also used to reply to him and, therefore, he will not be able to keep her and asked him to take her away. He told him that he will take her daughter away and asked him to give the phone to her and then he stated on the phone that he will take his within 2-3 days but he do not know whether Tulika was on the phone or not as he had not heard her voice. On Court query he deposed that as Ashish Verma had talked to him in indecent way so at that time he did not felt it proper to talk further but thereafter about one and a half/one hour, he tried to contact her daughter Tulika on phone but he got no response. Thereafter, he tried several times to contact her but found no response and the mobile phone on FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 10/32 which he had tried was 09716301473. He further deposed that in the evening at about 07.00 pm on 5th July, 2012 his niece named Vandana had telephonically informed him about the death of his daughter, Tulika. She had further informed him that police had reached at the residence of her daughter and she was found hanging in her room and on this information, he along with his family came to Delhi in the morning on 6th July, 2012 and reached at the police station GK-I where it was revealed that the dead body of his daughter was in the Mortuary, AIIMS hospital. Thereafter, he reached there and identified the dead body of his daughter Tulika vide his statement Ex.PW12/A. Post mortem upon the dead body of his daughter Tulika was conducted and after post mortem, the dead body was handed over to them vide receipt Ex.PW12/B. He further deposed that one Sub-Inspector of PS GK took him to a officer in a room near Mortuary, who asked him to give his statement and he narrated the entire facts to the said officer but he do not know the name and rank of that officer. He deposed that said officer had asked him to write a complaint and, accordingly, he had written a complaint Ex.PW7/C on his dictation. Thereafter on 14.07.2012 he had given a typed complaint Ex.PW11/B to SHO, GK-I and mentioned the facts therein. He had handed over to the IO, a list Ex.PW11/C of Istridhan given to accused persons at the time of marriage of her daughter and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/D. The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
3.5 PW13 Smt. Amrawati, mother of the deceased deposed that marriage of her daughter was solemnized with accused Ashish Verma on 03.03.2009 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremony. She deposed that after few months from the marriage Ashish Verma started demanding for dowry. He demanded Honda City Car and Rs.20,000/- per month. As per the demand of Ashish FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 11/32 Verma, the car was to be handed over after the retirement of her husband. As the demand could not be fulfilled, therefore, accused used to harass her daughter. Her daughter was forced to work in the house as house maid and she was forced to do cleaning of house, utensils, toilet and dirty clothes and she used to tell her grievances to her on phone. Mother and father of the accused Ashish also used to make demands of dowry and also used to harass her daughter for not fulfilling their demands and due to this constant unlawful demands by the accused and his parents and the harassment by them, her daughter was living under continuous mental tension. Ashish also used to threat her daughter whenever she used to talk to them about their unlawful demands and harassment by accused persons.
She deposed that on 05.07.2012 her daughter had expired and upon her death, her husband Ashish had called the police. She met police officials in the police station, who recorded her statement. She had also gone to mortuary where she had identified the dead body of his daughter vide memo Ex.PW13/A and the belongings of her daughter were handed over to her husband vide memo Ex.PW2/A. She narrated all the incident and facts within her knowledge to the police in her statement.
The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
3.6. PW15 Ms. Anshita Singh, sister of the deceased deposed that marriage of her sister namely Tulika was solemnized on 03.03.2009 at Lucknow and after her marriage, she went to her matrimonial house at Hardoi. After some time, her sister and her husband had shifted to Delhi at Greater Kailash since her husband was working there. She deposed that when her sister visited her matrimonial house at Hardoi near first Diwali after her marriage, her mother-in-law forced her to wash the clothes and clean the toilet with her hand and she was not allowed to use the washing machine and the brush to clean the toilet pot and same was informed to her FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 12/32 by her sister on telephone on which she asked her to keep calm and not to show much anger as it was the festival season and same should not be spoiled. Whenever her sister used to call her, her mother-in-law used to sit beside her to over hear the conversation and the mother-in-law never even allowed her for shopping. Tulika was not allowed to stay for long at her parents house and she used to come to Lucknow of her own and her father used to pick her from the station to their house. Her father also used to drop her at Hardoi as no one from her in laws family used to come to pick her up from their house.
She further deposed that on promotion of Ashish in the year 2011, he had demanded a Honda Car from her father and in the month of January, 2012 two days after the festival of Makar Sakranti accused and his family had arrived at their house on the issue of said demand of Honda Car and she was also called by her mother for making arrangement of food for them. It was settled that her father will pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- every month till his retirement which was due on 31.08.2012. However, her sister committed suicide on 05.07.2012 and on receiving the said information, she along with her father had arrived at Delhi. Police officials had met her and made inquires from her in the month of August and had recorded her statement.
The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
3.7 PW11 IO Inspector Sheelwant Singh deposed as per the chargesheet and the contents of same have been mentioned earlier and hence are not repeated herein.
The IO was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
4. EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CrPC 4.1 After conclusion of prosecution evidence the accused were questioned u/s 313 CrPC regarding incriminating circumstances appearing FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 13/32 against them. Accused persons stated that they have been falsely implicated and the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses. 4.2 Accused Ashish Verma admitted that he was married to deceased Tulika on 03.03.2009 and at that time he was posted as Assistant at ICAR, Delhi. He stated that she was the resident of Lucknow and not Kanpur and was doing B.ED from Noida. He admitted that he is a Section Officer in PUSA. His parents were residing at Hardoi but soon after their marriage, his deceased wife had shifted with him to Delhi at A-25, Krishi Vihar, GK- 1, New Delhi. He admitted that his wife was doing B.ED. from Noida. He further admitted that he talked over phone to his father in law on 05.07.2012 to inform him about the SMSs/messages being exchanged by the deceased and her colleague of B.Ed. Rajesh Kumar. However, he denied that he talked with him in an indecent way. He stated that after informing the father of deceased about SMSs/messages being exchanged between the deceased and her colleagues Rajesh Kumar, he gave the phone to the deceased to talk to her father. He stated that he always accompanied to her deceased wife whenever she went to her parental house or he used to drop and pick her up. He stated that all the witness are the interested witnesses as he caught his wife Tulika red handed while talking and messaging in odd hours with her colleague Rajesh and same was reported to his father-in-law. But in order to save their image in the society, the family of the deceased has made false allegations against him and has deposed against him and rest of the witnesses are police witnesses. The present case is filed due to the false allegations levelled against him by the family members of the deceased. Moreover, this incident had taken place within seven years of his marriage, hence, despite being all the evidence in his favour, police registered case on false allegations levelled by the family of the deceased against him. After marriage, they were having happy married life in Delhi but his wife wanted to do B. Ed so to value her FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 14/32 wishes, he financially and morally supported her for the B.Ed and she got admission in Noida, financed by him. But thereafter she started intimacy with her colleague Rajesh while doing B.Ed. in Noida and when he caught her red handed and informed her father, then to save herself from the anger of her father and the defamation, she had to face from the society, she took such an extreme step of committing suicide. He had nothing to do with act committed by his deceased wife Tulika as it is also painful to him since because of this case his happy married life was also ruined. 4.3 Accused Neelam Verma stated that she is a permanent resident of Hardoi and she came to Delhi only once to take care of the deceased when she suffered from dengue in the year 2010. Her daughter in law Tulika used to come only for 1 to 2 days to Hardoi and there was no occasion to wash the clothes or utensils and toilet over there. As per her son, he had caught his wife Tulika while talking and messaging on phone at odd hours and he informed the same to his father-in-law. It might be possible that to save herself from the anger of her father and defamation in the society, she took the harsh step whereas the family of the deceased in order to save their reputation in the society, made false allegations against her son and her family and as the death of deceased had occurred within seven years of their marriage, so this case has been registered by the police in routine manner despite in inquiry, no evidence have come against her son. Her son was working in a government organization due to which he hardly came to Hardoi except on the occasion of festivals. Her daughter in law was also doing B.Ed. so due to leave she also suffered the classes. Accused stated that she only visited Delhi once since the marriage of her son to look after her deceased daughter in law as she was suffering from dengue and she never interfered in the life of her son and his wife. Prior to that, she was always informed by the deceased that she was happily residing with her son.
FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 15/32
5. DEFENCE EVIDENCE 5.1 Only accused Ashish Verma chose to lead defence evidence in his favour and examined four defence witnesses.
5.2 DW1 Dr. Faheem Khan, Clinic Manager, HR department, East of Kailash, New Delhi deposed that he was working with Dr.Vivek Mehta since January, 2012 and he was appearing on the instruction of said doctor. The witness was shown nine documents i.e. the prescription slips Ex.DW1/A (colly) of different dates and on seeing the same, the witness identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Vivek Mehta. He further deposed that he had seen all the prescriptions pertaining to patient Tulika for the treatment of Acne Vulgaris and same are in the handwriting of said doctor.
5.3 DW2 Sh. Balwant Singh Negi deposed that he was working with Dr. Alka Gujral who had received the summons sent by the Hon'ble Court, however, she had authorized him to depose on her behalf vide authorization letter Ex.DW2/A in this regard dated 14.01.2020 He deposed that he was working with Dr. Alka Gujral for the last 25 years and he can identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Alka Gujral. The witness was shown five documents i.e. the prescription slips Ex.PW2/B (colly) of different dates and after seeing all the prescriptions pertaining to patient Tulika for treatment of TB and infertility, the witness stated that same are in the handwriting of Dr.Alka Gujral. 5.4 DW3 Sh.Vijay Kumar from Union Bank of India, Saket Branch, New Delhi deposed that he had brought the summoned record i.e. statement of account no. 536602010535294 pertaining to Tulika Singh for the period from 07.02.2009 to 04.08.2012 belonging to the branch of Union Bank of India, Rajaji Puram, Lucknow, U.P. The said statement of account is Ex.DW3/A. He also brought the certificate under Bankers Books Evidence FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 16/32 Act, Ex.DW3/B given by the branch head Sh. Hansraj Gupta. 5.5 DW4 Mr. Abhishek Gaho, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Bansi Nagar, Hardoi, UP deposed that he has brought the account statement of account no. 2003000100703972 in the name of Mr. Ashish Verma dated 03.06.2022. The certified copy of account statement started from 18.07.2011 to 19.08.2017 is Ex.DW4/A and the entries from point A to point A1 dated 18.07.2011 and 19.07.2011 are related to money withdrawn by ATM at their Lucknow Daliganj branch.
6. ARGUMENTS 6.1 After examination of four defence witnesses, defence evidence was closed and matter was listed for arguments. Thereafter, arguments of the prosecution, Ld. Counsel for the accused and even Ld. Counsel for complainant were heard.
6.2 Counsel for complainant has also filed written arguments and has relied upon the following citations as under:
1. Kashmira Devi v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. Criminal Appeal No.724 of 2019 (S.C.)
2. Maya Devi v. State of Haryana Criminal Appeal No.1263 of 2011 (S.C.)
3. Satbir Singh & Another v. State of Haryana 2021 Crl J. 2609
4. Rameshwar Dayal and Ors. v. State of U.P. 1978 AIR 15581 (S.C.) 6.3 Counsel for accused has also filed written arguments and has relied upon the following citations as under:
1. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0947/2010
2. Rajbabu & Ors. v. State of M.P., MANU/SC/3185/2008
3. Gurucharan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, MANU/SC/0009/2003 FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 17/32
4. Sandeep & Ors. v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors., MANU/DE/3502/2019
5. Ranbir Singh Tyagi & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi, MANU/DE/2215/2016
6. Vikas & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., MANU/DE/0175/2016
7. Vinita & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi, MANU/DE/7299/2011
8. State v. Girish Kumar Bhasin, MANU/DE/1914/2009
9. Madan Lal & Ors. v. State, MANU/DE/8322/2007
10. State v. Jitender Garg & Ors., MANU/DE/8978/2007. 6.4 I have considered the arguments and the citations filed by the parties and have perused the file.
7. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
7.1 As per section 498A IPC "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 wilful 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 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.
7.2 As per section 306 IPC "if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine", FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 18/32 7.3 Since neither the factum of marriage nor the death of Ms. Tulika by suicide is disputed, the points of determination in the present case are:-
i. Whether both accused subjected the deceased to cruelty as defined in section 498A IPC.
ii. Whether accused Ashish Verma abetted the suicide of his wife.
8. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND APPLICATION OF LAW 8.1 Coming to the evidence of the main witness i.e. the complainant PW12 Anil Kumar, throughout his testimony he has emphasized upon the dowry demand for a Honda Car and payment of Rs.20,000/- to the accused or his family members towards purchase of said car. It is to be noted that the very first statement given by the complainant was the one which was recorded by the SDM on 06.07.2012. Said statement is Ex.PW7/C. However, surprisingly in the said complaint, there is no allegation of any demand regarding any Honda Car or sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards purchase of said car. Though the complainant has tried to explain in his examination in chief that he had written said complaint on the dictation of a police officer, but the SDM Rajesh Shukla has specifically made an endorsement on the said complaint that "statement recorded before me in his own handwriting by father of deceased ". Accordingly, it does not appear that true statement of complainant was not recorded. Moreover, it is not the case of complainant that he was under any pressure or undue influence at the time of making said complaint so as to omit such material fact. Proceeding further, even in the complaint Ex.PW11/B which was given after about nine days i.e. on 14.07.2012, there is no reference at all to any demand made by the accused persons for any Honda Car or for Rs.20,000/- per month towards the purchase of said car. Rather in the complaint Ex.PW11/B it is only mentioned that when the deceased was being harassed by being forced to do house work and by making taunts on her for bringing insufficient dowry, there were conciliation meetings FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 19/32 between the family members and everybody agreed. It is mentioned that some days later the deceased was again harassed and accused Ashish Verma stated to her that since her father had given less dowry she cannot go to Lucknow and if she goes she has to bring Rs.20,000/- on every such visit. Thus, there is an entire different reference regarding demand of Rs.20,000/- in the complaint. Since written complaint was made after a gap of about nine days and without any alleged prompting of police officer, there appears no reason as to why the abovesaid important facts regarding demand of a car were not mentioned therein. Accordingly, the said omission in the initial statement to the SDM and even in the FIR creates doubt regarding credibility of the complainant and even his family members who have also deposed on similar lines regarding demand for Honda car. More so, regarding the alleged payments of Rs.20,000/- per month towards the purchase of car, neither PW12 nor PW13 nor PW15 have been able to give any specific dates when such payments were given. Further, PW13 has deposed that after few months from marriage, Ashish Verma demanded Honda City Car and Rs. 20,000/- per month. Thus, she has implied that accused Ashish Verma had demanded Honda City Car in addition to Rs.20,000/- per month and not in lieu of the Honda City Car or towards its purchase. Even in her cross examination, she has deposed about both demands as simultaneous demands. Moreover, in her cross examination, PW13 has deposed that she did not know from where her husband used to bring or arrange money for making payments. She has deposed that sometimes money used to be at their home and sometimes it was withdrawn from the bank also. However, PW12 has deposed in his cross examination that he used to pay the money for monthly instalments of Rs.20,000/- after arranging the same from his sources including his friends and relatives. He has even stated that he had taken loan from Suraj Verma and Tara Chand for payment of such instalments of Rs.20,000/-. Thus, the FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 20/32 testimonies of PW12 and PW13 are at variance with each other. Moreover, during his cross examination, PW12 has deposed that marriage of Tulika was mediated by Surya Kumar @ Suraj and Tara Chand, who are PW12's cousin and maternal uncles respectively and he had even involved them to resolve the matrimonial issues of Tulika. However, surprisingly, none of said persons had been cited or examined by prosecution as a witness, more so, when complainant has been diligently prosecuting the present case from day one. Further, during his cross examination, PW12 has deposed that personal loan transactions from the friends were not reflected in his ITR. Accordingly, from the given circumstances it appears that no such alleged loans were ever taken for the said purpose and PW12 has cooked up story of giving Rs. 20,000/- per month towards demand of a Honda Car. 8.2 Moreover, in his complaint to SDM as well as subsequent complaint to the Police the complainant has mentioned that when his son in law i.e. accused no.1 called him on the fateful day and informed him that he will not keep Tulika since she is exchanging SMSs with a boy and he shall take her away, he sensed tension and talked to Tulika and told her that he will come in a day or two and will take her with him to Lucknow. However, during his examination he deposed that he did not know whether his daughter was on phone as he did not hear her voice. It is surprising that when such grave allegation is made the father of a married woman will not even hear her version. Thus, PW12's testimony is inconsistent on more grounds than one.
8.3 Further there are other factors also which cast doubts over the credibility of complainant. PW12 has deposed in his examination in chief that her daughter was beaten by her in laws when she used to protest against doing of menial household work. He has also deposed that Tulika informed them that whenever the parents of her husband or her sister-in- law used to make telephonic call to her husband, he used to taunt her and FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 21/32 raise hand upon her for bringing insufficient dowry. However, PW13 has not deposed anything about such beatings in her examination in chief and only in her cross examination she has deposed that initially her daughter was happy in Delhi but later on her husband i.e. accused Ashish started beating her on trivial issues i.e dowry, money, Honda City Car etc. However, she has not deposed a word about her daughter being beaten by her in laws for not doing household work. Further even PW15 has not deposed anything at all regarding alleged beatings by any of the in laws. This is surprising as to why deceased would not share such things with PW15 when she was sharing her other miseries with her. Most importantly, the father of deceased had relied upon one hand written letter of the deceased in which she has mentioned about her frustration/ill treatment at in laws house. The details of said letter are discussed in later part of the judgment but for the present context it is to be noted that in the entire letter it is nowhere mentioned that she was given beatings by any of the in laws. Said letter mentions about various sour experiences of deceased with her in laws over course of more than one year but does not mention a word about physical assault. Likewise, PW12 have deposed that the deceased was compelled to clean the toilet despite having a person to clean the toilet and she was asked to clean the floor despite there being a maid servant. PW15 has also deposed that when her sister visited her matrimonial house at Hardoi near first Diwali after marriage, her mother-in-law forced her to wash the clothes and clean the toilet with hand and she was not allowed to use the washing machine or even the brush to clean the toilet pot. However, in the aforesaid letter written by the deceased during the contemporaneous period, she has mentioned that she was asked to do the house work at Hardoi when the maid was not available and she was asked to clean the toilet but she refused and her mother-in-law made out an issue of the same. Thus, the allegations levelled even regarding the said facts by PW12 and FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 22/32 PW15 appear to be exaggerated.
8.4 It is also to be noted that when PW15 sister of deceased was cross examined regarding her knowledge about deceased receiving infertility treatment, she stated that the deceased had once conceived but the accused and her in laws had aborted the pregnancy in the year 2011. She further deposed that she had not told said fact to her parents. It is surprising that such material fact about abortion by accused and his family was neither told by PW15 to her parents nor to the police as no such fact is mentioned in charge sheet.
8.5 Accordingly, from aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that none of the witnesses amongst PW12,13 & 15 are trustworthy enough so as to rely their testimony vis a vis a hearsay fact stated to them by the deceased about the alleged harassment/cruelty. Though such hearsay statements are admissible u/s 32 of Indian Evidence Act in present case situation but since the narrator of the statement is herself not available, therefore, it is all more required that the person who states such facts should be credit worthy witness. Here, it also to be noted that even the IO has deposed in his cross examination that Ms. Vandana Chaudhary, Satish Kumar and Varsha Chaudhary were examined as independent witnesses but they did not support the complainant's version. As far as Vandana Chaudhary is concerned, she was a local relative of deceased in Delhi and it has come in the testimonies of PW12 and PW15 that she was cousin sister of deceased and was having good and healthy relations with her. PW15 has also deposed that deceased was looked after by said cousin during her illness. Even PW13 has deposed that deceased was on visiting terms with Vandana. Accordingly, Vandana was a near relative of deceased living in her proximity and was in regular touch with deceased. Thus, it can be safely presumed that deceased must have shared with her the instances of cruelty, if any, meted out to her by her husband or in laws. However, the FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 23/32 fact that said cousin of deceased has not supported the complainant's version during investigation further creates doubt about the credibility of complainant's version.
8.6 Nonetheless, despite the serious lapses in the testimonies of aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution has successfully proved the letter Ex.PA-1of the deceased. The said letter was handed over to PW12 in the month of October or November, 2010 by the deceased. Same has been proved to be in the handwriting of the deceased by the handwriting expert and no reasonable doubt has appeared to suspect the genuineness of the same. In the same, the deceased had mentioned about her experiences at her in laws place after her marriage in March, 2009. She has mentioned that she had to wash the clothes despite washing machine and when she reached Delhi, she had to do cleaning work. She has mentioned that she was pressurized to stay at Hardoi (native place of in laws) when the sister-in-law (wife of husband's brother) was pregnant in month of April. When she returned to Delhi from Hardoi, the mother-in-law i.e accused no.2 stated in rude manner that she has seen as to how she has managed the house. When she went to Lucknow (paternal house), she returned on the same day. On Raksha Bandhan when she went for five days to Lucknow and her husband Ashish went to take her back the mother-in-law stated that she has to stay at Hardoi since the house maid was not coming. She has mentioned that she got so much tensed due to same that her health suffered but she did not mention anything to her parents. In the month of October at karva Chauth when she came at Hardoi she stayed alone and she was made to do the cleaning work in the house but she did not clean the toilet and her mother- in-law (accused no.2) made an issue of the same. She further mentioned that on the day of Bhai Dhuj, Chhavi (sister of accused no.1) had come and the Bhabhi was pregnant so she has to do all the complete work due to which she suffered backache but she did not feel bad about it. However FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 24/32 she mentioned that she did not feel appropriate that the work soshan (harassment) was used by you (probably referring to her father since the letter was handed over to the father). She has further mentioned that her programme with Ashish for travelling got cancelled due to fracture suffered by his father and they had to go to Hardoi. Therein she has to attend the housework whereas Ashish even did not once sit along with his father and kept on roaming with his friends. In the month of February, when she desired to visit her parents for her father's birthday, she was allowed by accused Ashish only after she cried for the same. On 03rd March it was their marriage anniversary and her father visited for few hours at Hardoi and left. She expressed her desire to went to Lucknow but nobody allowed her, whereas Ashish had told her in Delhi that they could go to Lucknow. She further mentioned that even when she went for few hours it was made a prestige issue. At the end of the letter, few extra notes are mentioned. Note 1 there is difficulty due to no AC but husband is not earning much. Note 2 no conveyance so they have to take bike to Delhi Note 3 the suits (clothes) which were given by her family to Ashish were deprecated by Ashish and his mother sided with him and same was wrong. Note 4 In the CD of marriage, she was told at the time of Kaleva that her father has not given anything to everyone.
8.7 I have considered the entire letter written by the deceased regarding her experiences at her in laws place. However, most of her experiences shared in said letter reflect only lack of sensitivity on the part of in laws, non-fulfillment of her expectations from married life and the adjustment issues that crop up before a married woman due to different living standards in the two families i.e. the paternal home and the matrimonial home. It is to be noted that 498A IPC does not provide for each and every act of rude behavior or comment as a cruelty. The specific requirement of section 498A IPC provides that:
FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 25/32 "cruelty" means-
(a) any wilful 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 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.
However, none of the acts wherein deceased was asked to do the household work or was not allowed to visit her family cannot be said to be acts of such grave nature which were likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the deceased. Such acts even cannot be termed as harassment for the purpose of meeting any demand for dowry as there is no such allegation in the entire letter. The deceased has stated that she had to do the household work either when the maid was not available or when her bhabhi was pregnant. However, it is a normal practice in any Indian household that if the house maid does not come for work, the house members, generally females do the household work. Likewise, if one female of the house is pregnant, her share of work is also done by the other females. As far as the allegation that clothes brought by the deceased during the marriage were deprecated by her husband/in laws is concerned, in a similar factual matrix in Savitri Devi Versus Ramesh Chand & Ors 2003 SCC OnLine Del 483 it has been observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that:
"Only allegation against the respondents is that they did not like the clothes brought by the petitioner as customary gifts for relatives of the husband. One of the sisters-in-law remarked that had the marriage taken place with her sister, more dowry would have been received. These allegations when tested on the anvil of aforesaid tests, do not make out a case of either 'cruelty' or 'harassment' as contemplated by section 498A IPC. Non- acceptance of gifts might have hurt her feelings and other remarks might FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 26/32 have been unkindly and incisive but by no stretch of imagination, such a conduct involves any of the ingredients of either offence under section 498A IPC or 406 IPC. Neither such an act or conduct has the effect of driving the woman to commit suicide nor of causing grave injury nor is likely to cause danger to life or limb nor did it amount to tormenting her either physically or mentally to compel or force her."
8.8 In regard to dowry, there is only one reference at the end of the letter that deceased was told that her father has not given anything to everyone. However, it is nowhere stated as to which particular accused or anybody else had stated so to the deceased. Moreover, from the contents of letter it appears that deceased had heard or seen such remark in CD recording of her marriage. However, the CD of marriage has neither been proved nor even filed on record. Even otherwise, in view of abovementioned judgment said remarks does not do not qualify as 'cruelty' under section 498A IPC. Thus, even if all the averments of the deceased in the letter regarding her ill treatment are considered to be true, the same fall short of the rigors of the term 'cruelty' defined u/s 498A IPC. Thus, this Court is of the view that the alleged ill treatment of the deceased can be termed as insensitive or even rude but same does not satisfy the test of criminality envisaged u/s 498A IPC 8.9 As far as the offence u/s 306 IPC i.e. abetment of suicide is concerned, the abetment is defined u/s 107 IPC. Same provides that:
" A person abets the doing of a thing, who First: - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly: - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly: - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, doing of that thing."
8.10 There is no element of abetment by conspiracy or even intentional aiding in this case. As far as instigation is concerned, the word "instigate"
FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 27/32 is not defined in the IPC. The meaning of the said word was considered by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 . It has been observed in said judgment that:
"Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation, though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an instigation may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation".
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v State , (2009) 16 SCC 605 summed up the legal position as under:--
"In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and,
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above".
8.11 Coming back to the facts of the present case, the deceased had left behind a suicide note and same have been duly proved by the prosecution. In the suicide note, she has mentioned that she was having some male friends and her husband was suspecting of affairs with said friends. Secondly, she mentioned that she was not able to pursue her further studies. Lastly, she mentioned that she was never happy with the marriage but she never intended that after imputation of allegations of affair she would get divorce.
Two things are to be noted from said suicide letter. Firstly, there is no FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 28/32 reference to any cruelty or harassment in regard to any dowry demand. Secondly, there is no allegation against the husband regarding abetment by instigation or by otherwise for the suicide. Since the husband i.e. accused no.1 has been charged for section 306 IPC on the allegations that he abetted the commission of suicide by levelling allegations of suspicion on deceased's character, we have to see what transpired on the fateful day. PW12 has deposed that he was called by the accused no.1 on phone in the morning of date of incident stating that the deceased Tulika was having relations with someone else as she was receiving SMS from someone and she is also replying to him and therefore the accused no.1 will not be able to keep her and he asked him to take her away. It was an hour or so after said conversation that accused no.1 went to his office and the deceased stopped receiving phone calls from her father and even other persons and committed suicide. Herein, it is important to note that it is not the case of the prosecution that the allegations of accused no.1 were baseless or that the deceased was not communicating at all with any other male. Rather, the IO in his cross examination has deposed that he had inquired the boy Rajesh Kumar s/o Ramdeen regarding the SMSs exchanged between the deceased and him. As per IO, he admitted the fact of exchanging the said SMSs including at odd hours. Even CDRs of mobile numbers have been filed by IO along with chargesheet. Thus, it cannot be said that suspicion of accused no.1 was wholly unjustified. Here, it cannot be ignored that a spouse expects loyalty from his counterpart in a marriage and if the other counterpart is exchanging SMSs with a third person of opposite sex at odd hours without the knowledge of the spouse, such spouse can obviously get offended. His reaction of immediately asking his wife to be taken away by his in laws on gaining such knowledge could be abrupt and shocking for the wife but it is not the case of Prosecution that he caused beatings or otherwise traumatized the deceased on such discovery by him. It is to be FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 29/32 noted that in his statement to the SDM the complainant has mentioned that when accused no. 1 asked him to take away his daughter since she was exchanging SMSs with a boy, he sensed the tension and talked to his daughter and told her that he will come in a day or two and will take her with him to Lucknow. Nowhere he has mentioned that she complained to him about any instigation by accused no.1 for committing suicide. Likewise, there is nothing in his complaint to Police to suggest that when he talked to his daughter, she stated anything about instigation by her husband for suicide. Thus, the only evidence that has surfaced is that the accused asked his wife to be taken away from his home to her paternal house indicating thereby that he did not wish to continue marital relations with her. However, even if the reaction of accused no.1 is taken as abrupt and rash, still the same cannot be equated to the instigation required for abetment of suicide as envisaged by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Kumar and Chitresh Kumar Chopra (Supra).
8.12 Lastly, since present case is a case where there has been unnatural death of a newly married woman the applicability of presumption under Section 113A has also to be considered. Section 113A of Evidence Act provides:
"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 has been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband".
Explanation: For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code."
The law regarding the same has been succinctly stated in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2001 CriLJ 4724 wherein Hon'ble FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 30/32 Supreme Court has observed in para 12 that:
"This provision was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second) Amendment Act, 1983 with effect from 26-12-1983 to meet a social demand to receive difficulty of proof where helpless married women were eliminated by being forced to commit suicide by the husband or in-laws and incriminating evidence was usually available within the four corners of the matrimonial home and hence was not available to anyone outside the occupants of the house. However, still it cannot be lost sight of that the presumption is intended to operate against the accused in the field of criminal law. Before the presumption may be raised, the foundation thereof must exist. A bare reading of Section 113A shows that to attract applicability of Section 113A, it must be shown that (i) the woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, (iii) the husband or his relatives, who are charged had subjected her to cruelty. On existence and availability of the abovesaid circumstances, the court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. Parliament has chosen to sound a note of caution. Firstly, the presumption is not mandatory; it is only permissive as the employment of expression 'may presume' suggests. Secondly, the existence and availability of abovesaid three circumstances shall not, like a formula, enable the presumption being drawn; before the presumption may be drawn the court shall have to have regard to 'all the other circumstances of the case'. A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the court to abstain from drawing the presumption. The expression ---- 'the other circumstances of the case' used in Section 113A suggests the need to reach a cause-and-effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least, the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. In spite of a presumption having been raised the evidence adduced in defence or the facts and circumstances otherwise available on record may destroy the presumption. The phrase 'may presume' used in Section 113A is defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, which says ---'Whenever it is provided by this Act that the court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved or may call for proof of it.' 8.13 As far as "all the other circumstances of the case" are concerned, the preceding discussion show that even circumstances prevailing at the time of death and the facts mentioned in the suicide note also do not provide any ground to raise the presumption provided under section 113A of Indian FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 31/32 Evidence Act. As discussed earlier the prosecution has even failed to prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty as defined u/s 498A of IPC. Thus, present case is a one where such presumption cannot be raised at all.
9. CONCLUSION Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, prosecution has failed to prove the offences under section 498A IPC as well as 306 IPC charged against accused persons. Hence, both accused Ashish Verma and Neelam SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN SANGWAN Verma stand acquitted. SANGWAN Date: 2023.01.23 15:49:51 +0530 (Announced in the Open Court (Sachin Sangwan) on 23rd January, 2023) Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-01): SE:
Delhi District Court: New Delhi.
FIR No. 113/2012 State v. Ashish Verma & Ors. Pages 32/32