Delhi District Court
State vs . Mahender @ Hanuman on 28 May, 2015
FIR No. 1078/14; U/s 498A/304B IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy DOD: 28.05.2015 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 272/14 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0413072014 State Vs. Mahender @ Hanuman S/o Sh. Chander Jeet R/o A513, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi. FIR No. : 1078/14 Police Station : Shahbad Dairy Under Sections : 498A/304B IPC Date of committal to Sessions Court: 19.12.2014 Date on which judgment was reserved: 28.05.2015 Date on which Judgment pronounced: 28.05.2015 JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The above named accused had been sent to face trial in respect of offences punishable U/s 498A/304B IPC on the allegations that he being husband of Pinki ( since deceased) subjected her to cruelty and harassed her with a view to coerce her to meet his unlawful demands and also subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death due to which his wife namely Pinki died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage with him.
2. The case of the prosecution as mentioned in the chargesheet is as State V/s Mahender @ Hanuman ("Acquitted") Page 1 of 18 FIR No. 1078/14; U/s 498A/304B IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy DOD: 28.05.2015 under:
(i). On 17.09.14 at about 7.03 pm, DD No. 70B was recorded in PS S.B Dairy that one girl has hanged herself at A503, S.B Dairy near Bhola Ram Tent. The contents of said DD entry were telephonically informed to ASI Dayanand for appropriate action;
(ii). On receipt of information about the contents of DD no. 70B, ASI Dayanand alongwith Ct. Devanand reached the place of information i.e. Jhuggi no. 328, S.B Dairy, where dead body of one girl namely Pinki was found lying outside said jhuggi. Crime Team was called at the spot. Senior police officer also reached there. Spot was got photographed and crime team also carried out inspection thereof;
(iii). Dead body of deceased was got removed to mortuary of BSA hospital and area SDM was also informed about the incident. Accordingly, area SDM reached the hospital who recorded statements of Ms. Rinki (sister of deceased), Gautam (brother of deceased) and of Smt. Parvati (mother of deceased);
(iv). In her statement, Ms. Rinki claimed that deceased had been married with accused about 2 ½ years ago. The accused was habitual drunker and used to ill treat her sister (deceased) and also used to harass the deceased in connection with demand of dowry. Due to said reason, deceased had started living in her parental house for the last about two months prior to her death. She further State V/s Mahender @ Hanuman ("Acquitted") Page 2 of 18 FIR No. 1078/14; U/s 498A/304B IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy DOD: 28.05.2015 claimed that on 17.09.14 at about 12.00 noon, accused visited their jhuggi. The accused asked her to leave the jhuggi on the pretext that he wanted to have conversation with her sister i.e deceased Pinki. After about half an hour or so, when she went inside jhuggi, she saw that Pinki had committed suicide by hanging herself with the help of chunni and accused had already left the jhuggi by that time. She alongwith neighbourers untied the chunni and got Pinki laid down on the floor. She also informed her brother Gautam and her mother about the said incident. She claimed that since her brotherinlaw i.e accused used to torture her sister under the influence of liquor, Pinki had committed suicide. On specific questions being put to her by concerned SDM, she claimed that she did not inform the police when she saw her sister having committed suicide by explaining that said fact did not come to her mind;
(v). On the basis of statement of Rinki as well as statements of brother and mother of deceased recorded by area SDM, FIR in question was got registered and investigation was entrusted to Inspector Sanjeev Chahar.
(vi). It is further case of prosecution that accused was arrested in this case on 18.09.14 and after getting postmortem examination conducted on the dead body of deceased, her dead body was handed over to her family members. Viscera of deceased was got preserved and same was sent to FSL Rohini for opinion. After compliance of State V/s Mahender @ Hanuman ("Acquitted") Page 3 of 18 FIR No. 1078/14; U/s 498A/304B IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy DOD: 28.05.2015 section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to this Court.
CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS
3. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, this Court framed the charges U/s 498A/304B IPC against accused Mahender @ Hanuman vide order dated 16.01.2015 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined ten witnesses namely PW1 Sh. Jasbir Singh, PW2 Dr. Mukesh Kumar, PW3 SI Randhir Singh, PW4 Sh. Dina Nath Giri, PW5 Sh. Ajay, PW6 Sh. Dashrath, PW7 Ms. Rinki, PW8 Smt. Parwati, PW9 Sh. Gautam and PW10 Ms. Chanda during trial.
5. Considering the fact that none of the star witnesses relied by the prosecution in the present case, had supported the prosecution story on any material point, prosecution evidence has been closed as no useful purpose would have been served in examining remaining prosecution witnesses as none of them was undisputedly present at the time of incident in question. Thus, it would have been an exercise in futility in examining those prosecution witnesses besides wastage of precious time of the Court.
6. Since there was no incriminating evidence against the accused his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. had been dispensed with.
7. I have heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor State V/s Mahender @ Hanuman ("Acquitted") Page 4 of 18 FIR No. 1078/14; U/s 498A/304B IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy DOD: 28.05.2015 on behalf of State and Ld. Counsel Sh. S.K. Verma, Adv. on behalf of accused. I have also gone through the material available on record.
8. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which have come on record. The said testimonies are detailed as under: PUBLIC WITNESSES
9. PW4 Sh. Dina Nath: This witness was residing in the neighbourhood of accused. He deposed that on 17.09.14 when he was returning back to his house from his work place, he saw gathering of public persons in front of jhuggi on which he also stopped there. On enquiry, he came to know that one girl had committed suicide by hanging herself. Accordingly, he made PCR call at 100 number from mobile phone of another public person namely Ajay. He had also noticed that accused was given beatings by his inlaws.
In his cross examination, he deposed that he did not inform the police when he made PCR call that accused was also being beaten up by his in laws.
10. PW5 Ajay: This witness was an employee in Dhaba situated at Shahbad Dairy and was residing in the neighbourhood of the accused. He deposed that on 17.09.14 at about 7.00 pm, he came to know that wife of accused had committed suicide by hanging herself. Lot of public persons had gathered in front of house of accused. He also went there. One of the public State V/s Mahender @ Hanuman ("Acquitted") Page 5 of 18 FIR No. 1078/14; U/s 498A/304B IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy DOD: 28.05.2015 persons namely Dina Nath Giri took his mobile having SIM no. 9540899920 and made PCR call at 100 number.
In his cross examination, he deposed that he had no knowledge as to why wife of accused had committed suicide. He did not see any quarrel between accused and his wife Pinki prior to her death.
11. PW6 Sh. Dashrath: This witness is the real uncle (Chacha) of deceased Pinki. He deposed that Pinki was married with accused about one and half years prior to the incident in question. No child was born out of wed lock of accused and Pinki.
He deposed that on 17.09.14 at about 7.00 pm, he visited parental house of Pinki where he came to know that Pinki had committed suicide. Pinki was residing at her parental house for the last about 34 months.
He deposed that police had reached the spot and removed dead body of Pinki to BSA Hospital. In the hospital, police officials had taken out wearing jewellery articles of deceased and had handed over the same to him vide memo Ex PW6/A. He had handed over those jewellery articles to mother of deceased. After postmortem, clothes of deceased were handed over to him by concerned Tehsildar, vide memo Ex PW6/B. After postmortem, dead body of Pinki was also handed over to him vide receipt Ex. PW1/J. He testified that he had no knowledge as to why Pinki had committed suicide but went on to depose that probably, Pinki had committed suicide as she was under depression for not being able to deliver child even after one and half year of her marriage with the accused. State V/s Mahender @ Hanuman ("Acquitted") Page 6 of 18 FIR No. 1078/14; U/s 498A/304B IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy DOD: 28.05.2015 This witness was subjected to cross examination by Ld. Additional PP as he was not supporting the case of prosecution. During said cross examination, Ld Additional PP put all the relevant suggestions to this witness on the lines of prosecution story but he denied the same. He also denied to have made statement U/s 161 Cr.PC mark PW6/A to the police.
This witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
12. PW7 Ms. Rinki : This witness is the sister of deceased and is also complainant on whose statement FIR in question was registered. However, she has not supported the case of prosecution at all in respect of the charges framed against the accused.
Although, she deposed on the lines of prosecution to the extent that her sister i.e deceased Pinki was married with accused about two and half year prior to the incident in question and Pinki had come to her parental house about two months prior to her death. She also deposed that on 17.09.14 at about 7.00 PM, Pinki had committed suicide at their parental house. However, she testified that no child was born out of wed lock between accused and deceased Pinki due to which deceased was under constant depression and that was the reason for which deceased had started residing in her parental house.
She further deposed that she was not aware about the exact reason as to why deceased committed suicide. She claimed that deceased was possibly under depression as no child was born even after two and half years State V/s Mahender @ Hanuman ("Acquitted") Page 7 of 18 FIR No. 1078/14; U/s 498A/304B IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy DOD: 28.05.2015 of her marriage with accused due to which she had committed suicide. During investigation, she alongwith her mother Parvati and brother Gautam had visited hospital where postmortem was got conducted on the body of deceased. She deposed that one official had met her in the hospital and had made enquiries from her. She had narrated the same facts as deposed by her during trial, to the said official. The said official had obtained her signature on blank paper. He had also obtained signatures of her mother and brother on blank papers and assured that their statements would be recorded on those papers but she had no knowledge as to what was recorded by said official on those papers. Police had also made enquiries from her but did not record her statement.
This witness was subjected to cross examination by Ld. Additional PP as she was not supporting the case of prosecution. During said cross examination, she admitted her signature at point A on statement Ex. PW1/A recorded by Tehsildar but denied to have made said statement to him. Ld Additional PP put all the relevant suggestions to the witness on the lines of prosecution story and also confronted her with the relevant portions of statement Ex. PW7/A but she denied the same. Although, she admitted that accused had visited their house on 17.09.14 but she denied that accused had asked her to go outside jhuggi. Rather, she deposed that after consuming tea, accused had left their jhuggi in her presence and had not stated anything incriminating to her sister i.e. deceased Pinki. She categorically denied the suggestion that she had made statement before the police or that accused had State V/s Mahender @ Hanuman ("Acquitted") Page 8 of 18 FIR No. 1078/14; U/s 498A/304B IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy DOD: 28.05.2015 committed mental and physical cruelty upon deceased Pinki or that accused had demanded dowry from deceased or due to said reason, deceased had committed suicide. She also denied to have told the police that accused was responsible for death of her sister. She also denied to have made supplementary statement U/s 161 Cr.PC mark PW7/A before the police, wherein allegations of cruelty on account of demand of dowry are mentioned by the IO.
This witness has not been cross examined by the accused despite grant of opportunity.
13. PW8 Smt Parvati: This witness is the mother of deceased Pinki. She deposed on the identical lines as deposed by PW7 Rinki during chief examination. She was also subjected to lengthy cross examination by Ld Additional PP during which this witness was also confronted with all the relevant portions of her statement Ex. PW1/C purportedly recorded by Tehsildar but she denied to have made any such statement. She also reiterated the same facts that her thumb impression was obtained on blank paper. She categorically denied the suggestion that accused used to torture deceased during her life time or that he used to demand money in connection with marriage or that accused was responsible for death of her daughter. She also denied to have made police statement mark PW8/A before the IO of case.
This witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
14. PW9 Sh. Gautam: This witness is the brother of deceased State V/s Mahender @ Hanuman ("Acquitted") Page 9 of 18 FIR No. 1078/14; U/s 498A/304B IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy DOD: 28.05.2015 Pinki. However, he has also not supported the case of prosecution at all. He also deposed on identical lines as deposed by PW7 Rinki and PW8 Parvati. He also claimed that one official who met him in BSA hospital, had obtained his signature on blank paper on the pretext that he would record his statement on said paper. He further deposed that said official had also obtained his signature of his sister Rinki and of his mother on blank papers on the same pretext. Nothing could be elicited from the side of prosecution even during cross examination of this witness despite the fact that all the relevant suggestions were put to him on the lines of prosecution.
This witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
15. PW10 Ms. Chanda :This witness was residing in the neighbourhood of parental house of deceased Pinki. She supported the case of prosecution only to the extent that deceased was married with accused and had committed suicide at her parental house on 17.09.14 at about 7.00 pm but deposed that she had no knowledge as to why deceased had committed suicide. She also testified on similar lines as deposed by family members of deceased i.e PW6 to PW9. Ld Additional PP also cross examined the witness but she denied to have made statement U/s 161 Cr.PC mark PW10/A to the police.
This witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
State V/s Mahender @ Hanuman ("Acquitted") Page 10 of 18 FIR No. 1078/14; U/s 498A/304B IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy DOD: 28.05.2015 POLICE WITNESSES
16. PW3 SI Randhir Singh: This witness was incharge of Mobile Crime Team Outer District. On receipt of call from ASI Dayanand of PS S.B Dairy, he alongwith other members of Mobile Team had visited BSA Hospital on 17.09.14. He deposed that Ct. Rajkumar had taken photographs of dead body of one lady Pinki W/o Mahender from different angles. He had carried out inspection of dead body and had prepared his report dt. 17.09.14 Ex. PW3/A. In his cross examination, he could not disclose departure entry made in the roznamcha maintained in the office of Mobile Crime Team. He deposed that he did not meet any public person or family members/relative of deceased in BSA Hospital. He denied the relevant suggestions put to him during cross examination.
OFFICIAL WITNESS
17. PW1 Sh. Jasbir Singh : This witness was posted as Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate in the office of concerned SDM. He deposed that on receipt of call from ASI Dayanand of PS S.B Dairy, he had visited BSA hospital, where he had recorded statements Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/C of Rinki, Gautam and Parvati respectively. Thereafter, he had issued direction to concerned SHO for taking appropriate action. He also carried out inquest proceedings for getting autopsy on the body of deceased to be conducted by the concerned doctor.
In his cross examination, he deposed that when he was recording State V/s Mahender @ Hanuman ("Acquitted") Page 11 of 18 FIR No. 1078/14; U/s 498A/304B IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy DOD: 28.05.2015 statements of aforesaid three family members of deceased, no other person was present there. He had recorded their statements in waiting room of the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he had conducted inquest proceedings in unfair manner or that no such statements were given to him by the aforesaid three family members of deceased or that he had prepared their statements at the instance of IO of the case.
MEDICAL WITNESSES:
18. PW2 Dr. Mukesh Kumar: This witness had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Pinki in BSA hospital Mortuary on 18.09.14. He proved his report as Ex. PW2/A. He deposed that the cause of death of deceased was asphyxia consequent upon antemortem hanging. However, he had preserved viscera to rule out any intoxication at the time of death of deceased. The sealed pullanda containing viscera alongwith blood sample of deceased, were handed over to police.
He further deposed that on 11.12.14, he had received written request for providing subsequent opinion alongwith one sealed parcel which was found containing one chunni. After examining the relevant material, he gave his subsequent opinion Ex. PW2/B that hanging of deceased was possible by chunni examined by him.
In his cross examination, he deposed that he had not noticed any injury present on the body of deceased and in the absence of any such injury, it can be concluded that death was suicidal in nature. State V/s Mahender @ Hanuman ("Acquitted") Page 12 of 18 FIR No. 1078/14; U/s 498A/304B IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy DOD: 28.05.2015 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND CASE LAW CITED
19. As already discussed above, the accused had been sent to face trial for offences punishable U/s 498A/304B IPC on the allegations that he had harassed deceased and subjected her to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and deceased was subjected to cruelty by accused soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry.
20. The term 'dowry' has not been defined in Section 304B of IPC, but since this expression has been defined in Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it is required to be given the same meaning for the purpose of Under Section 304B IPC as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter titled as "
Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab" reported at 2001 (4) Crimes 45.
Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under: "2. Definition of 'dowry': In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or
(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before (or any time after the marriage) in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include) dower or mehar in the case or persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."
21. A careful analysis of the abovereferred definition would show that dowry would include property or valuable security which is actually given or which is agreed to be given, in relation to the marriage of person in question. The property or valuable security may be given or may be agreed to State V/s Mahender @ Hanuman ("Acquitted") Page 13 of 18 FIR No. 1078/14; U/s 498A/304B IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy DOD: 28.05.2015 be given before marriage or at the time of marriage or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the marriage. But, there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given and the marriage. If at any time before or at the time of or even during marriage, the parents of a woman or any other person related or connected to her agreed to give some cash, valuable security or property to her husband or inlaws after marriage, that would also be covered within the definition of dowry as the agreement or promise in such a case would be attributable to the marriage or proposed marriage and if there is demand for any cash property, valuable security etc. which is promised, but not given, it would constitute demand for dowry.
22. If the husband or any other person related or connected to him, demands something from the girl or her parents or any other person related to or connected with her, saying that the article being demanded by them was expected to be given or ought to have been given in marriage, that also, to my mind, would constitute demand of dowry because even though such an article may not have been agreed or promised to be given by the girl or her family members, it might have been in the contemplation of the boy and/or his family members, on account of the expectation that such an article would be given at the time of marriage. Therefore, such demand would be considered to be a demand in connection with the marriage though made after the marriage has been solemnized.
23. The prosecution was enjoined to prove the following ingredients for proving its case in respect of offence punishable U/s 304B IPC: State V/s Mahender @ Hanuman ("Acquitted") Page 14 of 18 FIR No. 1078/14; U/s 498A/304B IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy DOD: 28.05.2015
(i) That death of deceased Pinki had been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under natural circumstances;
(ii) The death of deceased Pinki occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(iii) That deceased Pinki had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by accused in connection with demand of dowry; and
(iv) That such cruelty or harassment was caused by accused to the deceased soon before her death.
24. In "Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar Vs. State of Bihar"
reported at 2005 III AD (S.C.) 261, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under : "xxxxxx
(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance.
(ii) Such a death should have been occurred within seven years of her marriage.
(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.
(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. Xxxxxxx"
25. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in recent decision delivered in the matter titled as "Kanwar Pal Vs. Shakuntala & Ors." reported at 2015 IV AD (DELHI) 450.
26. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as " Kanwar Pal Vs. Shakuntala And Ors." reported at 2015 IV AD (Delhi) 450, has been held that the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the State V/s Mahender @ Hanuman ("Acquitted") Page 15 of 18 FIR No. 1078/14; U/s 498A/304B IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy DOD: 28.05.2015 deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused. It was observed from the evidence of the prosecution witness and in particular PW1 and PW4 that they have made general allegations of harassment by the appellant towards the deceased and have not brought in evidence any specific acts of cruelty or harassment by the appellant on the deceased. The onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient of Section 489A IPC. Relevant portions from the judgment read as under: "xxxxxxxx In any case, to hold an accused guilty of both the offences under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and in particular PW1 and PW4, we find that they have made general allegations of harassment by the appellant towards the deceased and have not brought in evidence any specific appellant on the deceased........
In our considered opinion, the evidence of DW1 (the appellant) and Ext. D19 cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution story that the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. In our view, onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient of Section 498A, IPC and the essential ingredient of offence under Section 498A is that the accused, as the husband of the deceased, has subjected her to cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A IPC. Similarly, for the Court to draw the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act that the appellant had caused dowry death as defined in Section 304B, IPC, the prosecution has to prove besides the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty caused by the accused to the deceased soon before her death. Since the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt this ingredient of harassment of cruelty, neither of the offences under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC has been made out by the prosecution.
xxxxxxx"
State V/s Mahender @ Hanuman ("Acquitted") Page 16 of 18
FIR No. 1078/14; U/s 498A/304B IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy DOD: 28.05.2015
27. In order to establish the aforesaid ingredients, the prosecution in this case, had cited six public witnesses who have been examined as PW5 to PW10 during trial. From the testimonies of said prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, it has been duly established beyond doubt that deceased was married with accused about 2 ½ years before her death. Initially, the deceased was residing in matrimonial house with in laws situated at Shahbad Dairy and subsequently, she alongwith accused shifted to A513, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi. It is also established on record that deceased had started residing in her parental house about two months prior to her death. It is also proved beyond doubt that on 17.09.2014, Pinki had committed suicide by hanging herself and her death was within seven years of her marriage and also that her death was caused otherwise then under natural circumstances.
28. However, it is quite evident from the discussion of testimonies of said six public witnesses that none of them has supported the case of prosecution on material points. Rather, all those six witnesses have testified contrary to the case of prosecution by deposing that deceased was under some sort of depression for not fore bearing a child even after 2 ½ years of her marriage with the accused due to which she had started residing with her parents for the last about two months prior to her death. All the family members of deceased who, as per the case of prosecution, had blamed the accused for compelling deceased to commit suicide, have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. They denied to have made statements either before Tehsildar or before IO of the case. None of those public witnesses deposed State V/s Mahender @ Hanuman ("Acquitted") Page 17 of 18 FIR No. 1078/14; U/s 498A/304B IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy DOD: 28.05.2015 anything against the accused. None of them testified that accused ever demanded dowry from deceased or her family members at any point of time during her life time.
29. Likewise, there is no evidence available on record showing that accused had subjected deceased Pinki to any sort of cruelty or harassment either soon before her death or at any point of time during her life time after entering into marriage with her. The prosecution has also failed to lead any evidence showing or proving that there was any sort of cruelty or harassment directly or indirectly from the side of accused for or in connection with demand of dowry or that there was any act attributable to the accused which led deceased Pinki to commit suicide. In the absence of any cogent evidence being available on record in this regard, Court has no other option but to hold that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused in respect of offences punishable U/s 498A/304B IPC beyond shadow of doubt.
30. In the light of aforesaid discussion, accused namely Mahender @ Hanuman S/o Sh. Chander Jeet is hereby acquitted of the offences charged against him. He is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance of Section 437A Cr.PC.
Announced in open Court today
On 28.05.2015 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State V/s Mahender @ Hanuman ("Acquitted") Page 18 of 18