Delhi District Court
State vs . Amarjeet Singh on 29 October, 2011
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GURVINDER PAL SINGH
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE(FTC), SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Session Case No. 16/2011
Unique ID No. 02403R0251202010
State Vs. : Amarjeet Singh
S/o Sh Pritam Singh
R/o H. No. 1356/8, Govind Puri,
New Delhi
FIR No. 133/10
P.S. Govind Puri
U/s 498A/304B IPC
Date of Institution : 15/07/2010
Date when arguments
were heard : 20/10/2011
Date of Judgment : 29/10/2011
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS:
Accused in this case has been prosecuted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A IPC and SC No. 16/2011 1/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh
304 B IPC. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 02/02/2008 Mrs. Navjot Kaur (herein after called deceased) was married to accused Amarjeet Singh. At the time of marriage, Mrs. Navjot was of age 20 years and she then started residing at her matrimonial home at 1356A/8, Govind Puri. Out of the wedlock twins were born on 05/12/2008. Accused Amarjeet Singh was bus driver of school bus. The deceased was 12th class fail. At the time of marriage, as per their status the parents of deceased gave dowry including fridge, washing machine, almirah, seven beddings, 100 utensils, golden chain, watch, gold ring for fatherinlaw, golden ear tops for the motherinlaw, gold ring for the accused husband, ear tops of the bride, watch, pajeb, gifts including 8 blankets etc. and double bed, dressing table and center table in the furniture. After the birth of the twins, accused tried to burn his wife and she had shown the burnt shirt and chunni to her parents but when the accused apologised, parents of deceased did not go to police for report and then the parents of deceased, Jasvinder, Tarsem Singh and his wife were present and all of them made the deceased and her parents to believe that this will not happen again. The parents of the deceased went away to their native place at SC No. 16/2011 2/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh Punjab. After that accused started demanded money from the parents of the deceased. Initially accused demanded Rs 10,000/ and then the father of deceased gave Rs 6,000/ for which accused asked them to deposit in the account of Amarpal and they so deposited but lost the deposit slip. On the occasion of Lohri, the mother of deceased went to the home of accused and gave Rs 10,000/ to the accused. Thereafter the father of deceased was asked to deposit the money in the account of Ashish Aggarwal where he deposited Rs 2,000/ and Rs 1,000/ on 11/12/2009 and 24/02/2010. On 15/04/2010, at 9 am deceased made telephone call to her father that she was harassed, asking to send money there, saying she was being beaten. The telephone call was received by mother of deceased.
On 17/04/2010, an information of burn and fall of lady from rooftop of her house was received in police station Govind Puri and recorded in DD No. 8A at 9.35 am. ASI Siri Chand (PW13) with Ct Jagbir proceeded at the spot, came to know that the victim had been taken to Safdarjung Hospital and there was no eye witness. ASI Siri Chand (PW13) left Ct Jagbir at the spot for the preservation of place of occurrence, himself departed for Safdarjung Hospital. Then SC No. 16/2011 3/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh SI Sanjay Bhatt (PW18) was directed to attend the call and he with Ct Munim reached the spot, contacted Ct Jasbir. SI Sanjay Bhatt(PW18) called the Crime Team at the spot and the scene of crime was inspected by the Crime Team and was got photographed. The case property found at the place of incidences were seized by SI Sanjay Bhatt (PW18). Ct Munim was left at the spot for preservation of the spot and SI Sanjay Bhatt (PW18) proceeded to burn ward of Safdarjung Hospital and collected MLC of the then injured Mrs Navjot Kaur (now deceased) with 98% deep burns. ASI Siri Chand (PW13) also met SI Sanjay Bhatt (PW18) at Safdarjung Hospital and explained him the fact. SDM Kalkaji (PW3) was called by SI Sanjay Bhatt (PW18) in the hospital. Said SDM (PW3) recorded the statement of Mrs. Navjot Kaur (now deceased) after she was declared fit for statement by the doctor. The statement of the victim was contradictory and after giving part statement she became incapable of giving further statement and hence the said statement was not relied upon by the investigating agency. In the meantime, the parents of the victim were informed about the incident on telephone. On 17/04/2010, information was received in police station about the death SC No. 16/2011 4/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh of victim Mrs. Navjot Kaur and the SDM (PW3) was informed of the same. On 18/04/2010, SDM Kalkaji (PW3) recorded statement of parents of the deceased, directed SHO police station Govind Puri for necessary action. Said statements were endorsed by SI Sanjay Bhatt (PW18) and case FIR No. 133/2010 was registered at police station Govind Puri, under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC. Further investigation was conducted. Scaled site plan was prepared. Charge sheet for offence under Sections 498A/304B IPC was filed against the accused
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, charge for offence under Sections 498A IPC and 304 B IPC was framed against the accused by my Ld. Predecessor on 11/3/2011 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To connect the accused with the offences charge, prosecution has examined in all 21 witnesses namely Sh. Karnail Singh (PW1); Smt Manjeet Kaur (PW2); Sh V.P Singh (PW3); Sh. Jaswinder Singh (PW4); Smt Satwant Kaur (PW5); Smt Manjeet Kaur SC No. 16/2011 5/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh (PW6); Sh Kailash Chand Sharma (PW7); Sh. Rajender Kumar Meena (PW8); Sh Palwinder Singh (PW9); Sh Ashish Aggarwal (PW10); Sh Amarpal Singh (PW11); Inspector Mahender Singh (PW12); ASI Shri Chand (PW13); Ct Madan Lal (PW14); ASI Girvar Singh (PW15);Minor boy Prashant Meena (PW16); Ct Girdhar Singh (PW17); SI Sanjay Bhatt (PW18); Ct Sanjeev Kumar (PW19); SI Vijay Pal Singh Kasana (PW20) and Dr Shilpi Baranwal (PW21).
4. Thereafter accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating material in evidence was put to the accused . Accused pleaded innocence and false implication.
Accused submitted that he was not present at his house when his wife had put herself on fire; on 17.04.10 in the morning in between 7.30am to 8.00am, he took Sharandeep Kaur, daughter of his friend Mr. Hardit Singh Sokhi and Mrs. Manjeet Kaur (PW6), wife of Sh. Hardit Singh Sokhi in Maruti from Govind Puri, Gali No. 8, their house to North Campus, Delhi University for exam of Sharandeep Kaur. Accused further submitted that they left Sharandeep Kaur there for her exam and he was returning with Mrs. Manjeet Kaur in his SC No. 16/2011 6/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh vehicle and tyre of his vehicle got punctured, he replaced the tyre. Accused submitted that in the university area, he received telephone call of his cousin brother and neighbour Palvinder, asking his whereabouts and he told him that his wife had committed suicide by burning herself. Accused submitted that he reached Safdarjung hospital thereafter.
5. I have heard the arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the defence counsel and have perused the record including the evidence led and given my thoughts to the rival contentions put forth.
Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that in her dying declaration deceased had implicated the accused saying she was put on fire by the accused and prayed for the conviction of the accused.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution witnesses have supported the version of the accused and from evidence it has been proved on record that at the time of occurrence accused was not present at his house but had taken Mrs. Manjeet Kaur (PW6) and her daughter Sharandeep Kaur to Delhi University for examination and while returning, he received the telephone call and SC No. 16/2011 7/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh then had reached hospital alongwith said Smt Manjeet Kaur (PW6). It was also argued that the accused never subjected his wife to cruelty nor demanded any dowry or any sum of money which even parents of the deceased admitted in the course of their evidence. Also was argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the deceased had committed suicide and there was no live link of her act of suicide with any act of the accused as accused never subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment after their marriage and also soon before her death. It was also argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the incomplete dying declaration of the deceased was shaken and she give different version as to who had put her on fire and even gave imaginary names as of her sisterinlaw (Nanad) and the maid. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused and prayed for acquittal of the accused. RELEVANT LAW:
6. Section 498A IPC has two limbs. The first limb of Section 498A provides that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be SC No. 16/2011 8/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh punished. 'Cruelty' has been defined in clause (a) of the Explanation to the said Section as any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive to a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman . When there is harassment of the woman for demand of dowry, any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand then the case comes under clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 498A.
Substantive Section 498A IPC and presumptive Section 113B of the Evidence Act have been inserted in the respective statutes by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. It is to be noted that Sections 304B and 498A, IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a common essential to both the Sections and that has to be proved. The Explanation to Section 498A gives the meaning of 'cruelty'. In Section 304B there is no such explanation about the meaning of 'cruelty'. But having regard to common background to these offences it has to be taken that the meaning of 'cruelty' or 'harassment' is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to Section SC No. 16/2011 9/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh 498A under which 'cruelty' by itself amounts to an offence. Under Section 304B it is 'dowry death' that is punishable and such death should have occurred within seven years of marriage. No such period is mentioned in Section 498A. A person charged and acquitted under Section 304B can be convicted under Section 498A without that charge being there, if such a case is made out. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections. (See Akula Ravinder and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1142). Section 498A IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act include in their amplitude past events of cruelty. Period of operation of Section 113B of the Evidence Act is seven years, presumption arises when a woman committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of marriage. The above position was highlighted in Balwant Singh and Ors. v. State of H.P. [2008(10) JT 589. 2008 AIR SCW 6372].
The Courts cannot ignore one of the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence that a suspect in the Indian law is entitled to the protection of Article 20 of the Constitution of India as well as has a presumption of innocence in his favour. In other words, the rule of SC No. 16/2011 10/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh law requires a person to be innocent till proved guilty. The concept of deeming fiction is hardly applicable to the criminal jurisprudence. In contradistinction to this aspect, the legislature has applied the concept of deeming fiction to the provisions of Section 304B. Where other ingredients of Section 304B are satisfied, in that event, the husband or all relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death. In other words, the offence shall be deemed to have been committed by fiction of law. Once the prosecution proves its case with regard to the basic ingredients of Section 304B, the Court will presume by deemed fiction of law that the husband or the relatives complained of, has caused her death. Such a presumption can be drawn by the Court keeping in view the evidence produced by the prosecution in support of the substantive charge under Sec. 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
Of course, deemed fiction would introduce a rebuttable presumption and the husband and his relatives may, by leading their defence and proving that the ingredients of Section 304B were not satisfied, rebut the same. While referring to raising of presumption under Section 304B of the Code, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu [AIR 2003 SC 3828]: (2003 SC No. 16/2011 11/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh AIR SCW 4387)stated the following ingredients which should be satisfied :
"4..................
1) The question before the Court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304B, IPC).
2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death."
In light of the above essential ingredients, for constituting an offence under Section 304B of the Code, the Court has to attach specific significance to the time of alleged cruelty and harassment to which the victim was subjected to and the time of her death, as well as whether the alleged demand of dowry was in connection with the marriage. Once these ingredients are satisfied, it would be called the SC No. 16/2011 12/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh 'dowry death' and then, by deemed fiction of law, the husband or the relatives would be deemed to have committed that offence.
7. In the case of Gokul vs State, 2009 Cri.L.J (NOC) 979, Hon'ble Mr Justice Pradeep Nandrajog held that "32 The admissibility of a dying declaration as a piece of evidence is an exception to the general rule of exclusion of hearsay evidence. 'A person will not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth' is the philosophy underlying admissibility of dying declaration as a piece of evidence. Apart from an implicit faith in the intrinsic truthfulness of human character at the dying moments of one's life, admissibility of dying declaration is also based on the doctrine of necessity. In many cases victim is the only eye witness to a crime or him/her and in such situations exclusion of the dying declaration, on hearsay principle, would tend to defeat the ends of justice. The judicially evolved rules of caution for acceptance of dying declaration are being enumerated herein under:
(i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration.
(ii) The dying declaration is only a piece of untested evidence and must, like any other evidence, satisfy the court that what is stated therein is the unalloyed truth and that it is absolutely safe to act upon it. If after careful scrutiny, the court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and it it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration.
(iii) The court has to scrutinize the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of SC No. 16/2011 13/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh tutoring, prompting of imagination. The deceased had an opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration.
(iv) Where a dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.
(v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected.
(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction.
(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected.
(viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth.
(ix) Normally, the court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration looks up to the medical opinion. But where the eye witness said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail.
(x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon.
(xi) Where there are are more than one statements in the nature of dying declaration, the one first in point of time must be preferred. Of course, if the plurality of the dying declaration, could be held to be trustworthy and reliable, it has to be accepted.
(xii) The law does not provide that a dying declaration should be made in any prescribed manner or should be in the form of questions and answers. Only because a dying declaration was not recorded by a Magistrate, is no ground to disbelieve a dying declaration."SC No. 16/2011 14/31
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
8. Sh. Karnail Singh (PW1) and Smt Manjeet Kaur (PW2), parents of deceased in their depositions have resiled, not supported the case of prosecution despite having been cross examined at length by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and have denied of having given statements Ex PW1/A and Ex PW2/B respectively to the SDM. Both of them testified that their daughter was married on 2/2/2008 and later was blessed with twins and was living peacefully with their soninlaw i.e accused Amarjeet Singh. Both of them stated that the deceased did not make any complaint to them against accused or her in laws. Both of them also stated that there was no demand of any kind at any point of time by the accused or his family members. Sh. Karnail Singh (PW1) stated that he had never given any money or articles pursuant to any demand; he had no suspicion on the accused or his family members on the death of his daughter while he was not knowing the cause of death of deceased. Smt. Manjeet Kaur (PW2) stated that he had never made any complaint regarding the harassment of deceased by her inlaws.
SC No. 16/2011 15/31
9. Sh. Jaswinder Singh (PW4), Smt. Satwant Kaur (PW5) were the brother and sisterinlaw (Bhabhi) of the accused respectively. Sh. Jaswinder Singh (PW4) heard noise on 17/04/2010 as "aag lagiaag lagi". Thereafter Sh. Jaswinder Singh (PW4) alongwith Smt. Satwant Kaur (PW5) came out from their house, saw Mrs. Navjot Kaur, then injured (now deceased) lying on the street in the burning condition.
10. Sh. Kailash Chand Sharma (PW7) and Sh. Palwinder Singh (PW9), the neighbors had also heard the noise on 17/4/2010 at about 9 am as somebody had fallen down. Sh. Rajender Kumar Meena (PW8) also neighbor of accused was informed by his son of people having gathered in the street. Minor boy Prashant Meena (PW16) stated that he was neighbor of accused and was in his balcony when he had seen the deceased lying on road in burnt condition. PWs 7,8 and 9 came out from their respective houses and came on the street and saw Navjot Kaur, then injured (now deceased) in burnt condition in the lane. The deceased, then injured, was taken by PW4 and PW5 to Safdarjung Hospital, admitted there in the burn SC No. 16/2011 16/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh ward. None of these PWs 4,5,7,8 and 9 had seen deceased herself putting her on fire or anybody else putting her on fire. These PWs testified that they had never heard about any untoward incident between accused and the deceased who were living happily in their family. PW4 and PW5 stated that at the time of incident accused was not present at home and had gone to Delhi University. PW5 stated that accused had arrived in the hospital after admission of the deceased there. PW8 also stated that accused was not present at his house at the time of incident and he had not witnessed the deceased jumping from the second floor. Even PW7 and PW9 stated that accused was not present at his house at the time of incident. PW11 resiled from his previous statement stating he was not knowing anything about the case and nothing happened in his presence and that he had not provided any account number to anybody. Despite cross examination at length by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, no incriminating fact would be extracted from PW11 in the course of his testimony.
11. Smt Manjeet Kaur (PW6) testified that on 17/04/2010 at SC No. 16/2011 17/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh 8 am accused came at his house no. 907/8, Govind Puri, New Delhi and since husband of PW6 was not feeling good so PW6 requested accused to drop her daughter Sharandeep Kaur at North Campus, Delhi University. PW6 testified that she alongwith her daughter Sharandeep Kaur went with accused to Delhi University by their Maruti car No. DL7CB2018 where they reached at 9 am; after dropping Sharandeep Kaur to Delhi University while they were returning back; on the way accused received telephone call of Jaswinder Singh who informed him about the incident and told him to reach hospital. PW6 stated that she went with accused straight away to Safdarjung Hospital. PW6 also stated that accused and his wife were having good relation with each other and were living happily.
12. Ashish Aggarwal (PW10) tenant in the house of accused testified that the deceased in her life time had requested him to tell his account number which she could furnish to her parents for getting transferred some money as her parents wanted to gift her in connection with birthday of her child as her parents were unable to SC No. 16/2011 18/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh come. PW10 gave his account number to the deceased and in the account of PW10, he received initially Rs 1,000/ and later another Rs 2,000/ were transferred by the father of deceased which sums he gave to the deceased. Despite cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW10 did not depose any fact incriminating the accused.
13. ASI Shree Chand (PW13) with Ct Jasbir had reached the scene of crime on receipt of DD No. 8A, came to know that one lady in burnt condition was taken to Safdarjung Hospital and he deployed Ct Jasbir at spot for safety of scene of crime and went to Safdarjung Hospital, found deceased, then injured, admitted in 98% burnt condition. Meanwhile SI Sanjay Bhatt reached there with Ct Munim. Prior to that, PW18 with Ct Munim had reached the scene of crime where he called the Crime Team at the spot. SI Vijay Pal Singh (PW20) Incharge Crime Team with his team including Ct Girdhar Singh (PW17) photographer had reached there. The photographs taken at the spot were Ex PW17/1 to Ex PW17/5 whose negatives were Ex PW17/6 to Ex PW17/10 and positive Ex PW17/11 to Ex PW17/13 were taken from digital camera. PW20 had prepared SC No. 16/2011 19/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh his detailed report Ex PW20/A. PW18 had taken into possession from spot one Fanta cold drink plastic empty bottle of 500 ml capacity, one Pepsi cold drink plastic empty bottle of 500 ml capacity and one match box make cake containing 24 live matchsticks and three burnt matchsticks which were found lying in the bathroom at the IInd Floor of the house bearing no. 1356/8, Govind Puri which were seized vide memo Ex PW12/A. PW18 also lifted partially burnt hair, blood scattered on road, blood stained earth and seized them vide memo Ex PW12/B. PW18 also collected the MLC of injured, Ex PX/A1 (document admitted by the accused and his defence counsel in the course of trial).
14. In Ex PX/A1, there is mention of the deceased, then injured, having sustained thermal burn injury while patient was alone at home; patient not giving history of how she got burnt and her relatives also not able to say about that, smell of kerosene oil coming out from the body of the patient, patient came directly to Safdarjung Hospital and the condition of the patient was found critical with 98% deep thermal burns.
SC No. 16/2011 20/31
15. SI Sanjay Bhatt (PW18) moved application Ex PW18/A before Dr Shilpi Baranwal (PW21) and vide her endorsement Ex PW21/A, PW21 declared deceased, then injured, fit for statement.
16. Dr Shilpi Baranwal (PW21) testified that she had not enquired from the patient Navjot Kaur (now deceased) about her name, parentage or name of her husband or address but had examined her physically and for clinical examination had conversed with the patient like asking her to sit, to move her hands up, to speak as to what she was feeling. PW21 stated that she had not inquired to the patient about the history of the burn injuries or the cause of her burns but stated that though the patient was in critical condition but was in a sound state of mind when she examined her. As per Ex PW21/A, PW21 had examined the patient at 12.30 pm. PW21 stated that she had taken 10 to 15 minutes to examine the said patient and the said patient was not able to give any history as to how she got burnt nor her relatives were able to tell the cause of burns. PW21 had also not enquired at the time of declaring patient fit for statement SC No. 16/2011 21/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh as to what medicines were prescribed by the treating doctor or as to what medicines were consumed by the patient by then. PW21 improved upon her version saying that she enquired about the sedation from the nursing staff as to what sedative medicines were given. PW21 could not recall whether she had seen any chart from the nursing staff. PW21 had not seen the wounds of the patient and she was not knowing the depth of her burn injuries. PW21 stated that the SDM had not come in her presence and she was not present at the time of recording of the statement of the patient by SDM.
17. Sh V.P Singh (PW3), the then SDM, on being called had reached Safdarjung Hospital, recorded statement of Navjot Kaur as Ex PW3/A in question answer form. It was started at 12.20 pm and concluded at 1 pm. The said statement is :
"Aapka NaamNavjot Kaur Aapki Umar22 Varsh Aapke Pati Ka Naam Amarjeet Singh Aapki Shadi Kab Hui 2 February, 2008 Aapke Kitney Bache HaiEk Ladka aur Ek Ladki SC No. 16/2011 22/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh Aapke Sath Yeh Aag Kaise Lagi Mein Apane Bhaiya Ke Saath thi. Mein Apne jeth ko bhaiya bolti hui. Jeth Ka naam Tarsem Singh Hai. Mein Apne Ghar par thi.
Aapke upar teil kisne dala Teil mere yahan kaam karne wali ladki ne daala.
Uska naam kya hai; Shayad Aarti hai.
Aapko Aag kaise lagi Nanad Aggarwal ne aag lagai.
Teil Kahan se aya Kal dukan se mitti ka teil lekar ayi thi.
Aapki Nanad ka naam kya hain Meri Nand Ka naam Ritu Aggarwal hai.
Kya Aapke saassasur tang to nahi karte the.
Uttar Nahi.
Kya aapke sasural wale dahej mangtey the UttarNahi Aapka Pati kya karta hai Machine ka karigar hai.
Aapke paas aur kaun kaun the Do karigar the, Amarjeet tha, bachey the.
Aapki koi aur nanad bhi haiVinder hai.SC No. 16/2011 23/31
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh Aag kisne lagai Amarjeet Singh ne.
Ladka Puneet aaya tha Govind Puri mei rehata hai. Us samai husband subji kaat rahe they. Aap kitni padi likhi ho Plus two pass hui.
Aage bayan dene me asmarth hai.
Upar lika bayan meine apni marji se diya hei. Aur sahi hai. Bayan padkar sunaya va theek paya".
18. Afore elicited statement is self explanatory of the inter se contradictory version of the deceased at the time of making of said statement. She had given four different versions of as to how she caught fire. Initially when she was asked how the fire took place, she said she was with her brother, she says her Jeth as brother, name of her Jeth was Tarsem Singh and she was at her home. For the second time when she was asked who had poured oil upon her then the deceased says oil was poured by girl working at her place whose name perhaps was Aarti. When the third time she was asked how the fire took place, she replied that the fire was put by Nanad Aggarwal. When for the fourth time question was put to her as to who had put her on fire then she replied that Amarjeet Singh (her SC No. 16/2011 24/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh husband), also saying boy Puneet had come, residing in Govind Puri and at that time her husband was cutting vegetable. Since it is the version of the then SDM that thereafter the deceased was unable to make further statement, no further statement was recorded. Afore elicited incomplete version of the deceased being inter se contradictory, in the last portion of her statement, she having become incapable of giving statement, such statement was not relied upon by the investigating agency.
19. PW3 testified that he had not personally enquired from the doctor regarding fitness of the deceased. PW3 further elicited that the deceased was not fully capable to speak, she was able to give answer with difficulty, had named different persons so to clarify he had asked the question again and again as "aag kisne lagai"? As per PW3, the deceased at the time of making of her statement Ex PW3/A was confused and when could not further speak and further was unable to answer further questions, she had become unconscious.
SC No. 16/2011 25/31
20. Per contra, PW18 stated that SDM PW3 had verbally enquired from the doctor about the condition of the injured but no written application was moved by him.
21. After registration of FIR, Ex PW15/B, the investigation was entrusted to PW12 Inspector Mahender Singh. PW12 admitted that there was no previous complaint against the accused from the side of his wife or her relatives and he had not received any burnt chunni or shirt from any relative of the deceased. PW12 also testified that there was no sister of accused Amarjeet Singh with the name of Ruchi Aggarwal or Binder (Vinder). In her incomplete statement Ex PW3/A, deceased had stated to PW3 that Ruchi Aggarwal and Binder (Vinder) were the sisters of the accused Amarjeet. PW12 also testified that in the course of investigation, he had ascertained and it was revealed that the doctor who declared deceased fit for statement was present besides SI Sanjay Bhatt (PW18) when the said dying declaration was recorded by the SDM (PW3). Also PW12 stated that accused did not try to run away when they had arrested the accused from his house. PW12 elicited that the parents of deceased belonged SC No. 16/2011 26/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh to middle class family. PW12 also admitted that in the course of investigation it was revealed that at the time of occurrence of burning of deceased, accused Amarjeet was not present at his house i.e the scene of crime since at that time he had taken the daughter of Hardit and PW6 Smt Manjeet Kaur to University at North Campus.
22. In terms of postmortem report Ex PX/A2 (document admitted by accused and his counsel during course of trial) following were the antemortem external injuries: 'Burns present all over the body except 1) Perinium, 2) anterior upper half of right thigh, 3) patches on b/L breasts.
The state of burn injuries there in was that Erythema and rims of redness present.
Approximate percentage of burn injuries: 93%.' The opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon was that death in this case is due to shock as a result of antemortem flame burns.
23. After careful scrutiny of Ex PW3/A, the incomplete dying declaration of deceased, it is clear that it is inter se SC No. 16/2011 27/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh contradictory, appears to be suspicious, embodied with imaginary names as relatives, even attributing the act of pouring of oil, putting her on fire not only on accused but also on girl working there, Nanad Aggarwal as well. As per version of PW3, the then SDM, deceased was then confused. Aforesaid incomplete dying declaration of deceased suffers from infirmities. Even it differs from prosecution version as the outcome of the investigation had been that the accused was not present at his house when at 9 am on 17/4/2010 deceased got burnt since at that time he had gone to the Unversity with Smt Manjeet Kaur (PW6) and her daughter Sharandeep Kaur which was also ascertained in the course of investigation and has been so testified in court by PW6 and the other prosecution witnesses as herein before elicited. In terms of the law laid in the case of Gokul (Supra), accordingly the said dying declaration cannot be relied nor can be acted upon nor can be made the basis of conviction of the accused.
24. From the entire prosecution evidence on record, elicited herein before, there is no iota of any fact borne out as to at any point SC No. 16/2011 28/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh of time deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused as defined in Clauses (a) or (b) of the explanation of Section 498 A IPC. The prosecution has not been able to prove any willful conduct of the accused which was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Also, there is no material in evidence about the deceased having been subjected to harassment for demand of any dowry, any property or any valuable security or on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. There is no evidence on record that since before her death, deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment. It has not been proved on record that death of deceased took place due to any live link with any cruelty or harassment metted to her.
25. Fact remains that from entire evidence on record there is no fact proved by cogent evidence that before or after marriage any demand of dowry was made from deceased (Navjot Kaur) or her relatives from parental side by her husband accused Amarjeet Singh or relatives of the husband, the accused; nor there was any harassment of deceased (Navjot Kaur) for demand of dowry, any property or SC No. 16/2011 29/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh valuable security from her later to her marriage nor was there any conduct elicited or proved of accused which was of such nature as was likely to drive Navjot Kaur to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of Navjot Kaur. There is also no cogent evidence on record to presume or prove that Navjot Kaur was subjected to any cruelty or harassment, soon before her death. What is proved on record is that deceased Navjot Kaur committed suicide, for the reasons best known to her. From the entire evidence and material on record there is nothing to infer or prove that death of deceased Navjot Kaur was a dowry death nor could a presumption be drawn against accused in terms of Section 113 B of the Evidence Act in terms of law elicited herein above, making incumbent for the accused to rebut such presumption. So far as Section 498A(b) of IPC is concerned, there must be an evidence of demand of dowry. There is no evidence in that regard adduced by the prosecution. Also no evidence has been adduced that there was any willful conduct on the part of accused which was of such nature which could drive Navjot Kaur to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or her health. That being so, as rightly contended by Ld. Counsel for SC No. 16/2011 30/31 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh the accused, Section 498A of IPC has no application in this case.
26. The oral and documentary evidence produced by prosecution does not suggest and satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences charged. Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is held not guilty and acquitted for the offences charged. His bail bond is cancelled and surety is discharged. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court (GURVINDER PAL SINGH)
on date 29/10/2011 ASJ (FTC)/SD/ NEW DELHI
SC No. 16/2011 31/31