Delhi District Court
State vs (1) Mohan on 2 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04; SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
SESSIONS CASE No.217/2016
Unique Case ID No. DLSH01-000286-2014
FIR No.520/2014
U/S: 306/498A/34 IPC
P.S: Welcome
State Versus (1) Mohan
S/o. Lt. Kasturi Lal
R/o. D-225, Indra Gali,
Janta Colony, Welcome, Delhi
(2) Suraj
S/o. Sh. Mohan Lal
R/o. D-225, Indra Gali,
Janta Colony, Welcome, Delhi
(3) Ashok@Shoki
S/o. Lt. Kasturi Lal
R/o. D-220, Indra Gali,
Janta Colony, Welcome, Delhi
FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 1 of 42
(4) Sh. Hira Lal
S/o. Lt. Kasturi Lal
R/o. D-225, Indra Gali,
Janta Colony, Welcome, Delhi
(5) Ms. Geeta
S/o. Sh. Mohan Lal
R/o. D-225, Indra Gali,
Janta Colony, Welcome, Delhi
Date of Institution : 16.01.2015
Date of Arguments : 16.02.2023
Date of Judgment : 02.03.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.09.2014 on receiving DD No. 5A, SI Brij Mohan reached at H.No. D-225, Indra Gali, Janta Colony, Welcome, Delhi and came to know that injured Jyoti was shifted to GTB Hospital by PCR. In the room at second floor near kitchen and bathroom some pieces of burnt clothes and matches were found. Ct. Sharvan Dutt stayed at the spot and SI Brij Mohan went to GTB Hospital and collected MLC of injured which revealed 100% burn injuries and victim was unfit for statement. Thereafter, statement of mother of victim Smt. Kamla was recorded before Executive Magistrate, Nand Nagari who stated that she FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 2 of 42 solemnized marriage of her daughter 9 years ago and deceased Jyoti's husband expired after 3 years of the marriage and her deceased daughter had one boy aged 8 years, namely, Anshu. She stated that after the death of her son in law, the inlaws of deceased Jyoti started torturing her as she used to go outside for work. She further stated that when she went to meet her deceased daughter, her father in law did not allow her to meet her deceased daughter. She further stated that when her deceased daughter come at her matrimonial home, her in laws forced her to pay the electricity and water bills and deceased Jyoti paid half amount of bills. She alleged that on 12.09.2014, at around 6 am, Mohan who is father in law of deceased came to her house and disclosed that her deceased daughter had burned herself and on hearing the same she reached her deceased daughter's in laws house where she found that Mohan, Shauki, Geeta and Suraj were present and her deceased daughter was burning on the second floor and no one was trying to save her. The neighborhood boys had helped her to bring her burnt daughter down from the second floor and PCR officials came and took her deceased to hospital. Further investigation was carried out and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court U/s. 306/498A/34 IPC.
2. On appearance, in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, copies were supplied to accused, and as offence punishable u/s. 306 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, present case was committed to Sessions Court.
FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 3 of 42
3. Charge u/s. 306/498A/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution examined 16 witnesses to prove its case. The brief summary of the deposition of prosecution witnesses is as under:
I. POLICE WITNESSES/FORMAL WITNESSES.
5. PW-2 SI Suman deposed that on 12.09.2014 on receiving wireless message from control room, he reached at E-49/D-225, second floor, Indira Gali, Janta Colony, Welcome where he met SI Brij Mohan along with other staff. He inspected place of occurrence i.e. room of second floor and found burnt cloth, burnt match sticks, match box, burnt diary and hankerchief on which 'I love you JS' was written. Diary and handkerchief were lying on slab of kitchen and his Inspection Report is Ex.PW2/A. During cross examination, the witness deposed that there was gas stove in the kitchen however, he could say whether gas cylinder or kerosene stove were there. He admitted that that he did not see any bottle of kerosene oil in the kitchen and he did not open or read the diary found at the spot. He further stated that he could not say whether the door of kitchen was wooden or of iron and could not say exactly how many clothes were there and volunteered that there were 2-3 clothes. He further admitted that he did not notice water outside the kitchen, on the walls, door etc. Further, deposed that he remained at the spot for about one hour.
FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 4 of 42
6. PW-4 HC Shyam Lal is the photographer who had taken 20 photographs of the scene of crime from different angles and the photographs along with negative are Ex.PW4/A-1 and Ex.PW4/A-2 (colly).
7. PW-5 is Ct. Jitender Kumar who had received the case property from MHC(M) vide RC No. 112/21 and deposited the same at FSL Rohini and stated that so far the case property remained in his custody nobody tempered with it.
8. PW-6 is W/Ct. Santosh who along with SI Brij Mohan took the accused Geeta after arrest to GTB Hospital and got her medical examination conducted and thereafter, accused Geeta was produced before Ld. MM. She correctly identified the accused Geeta who was present in the court.
9 PW-8 is ASI Radhey Shyam who on receipt of information from control room that one lady had set ablaze herself rushed at spot and found one lady in burnt condition and took the lady and got her admitted in GTB Hospital by PCR vide MLC No. 3857/14.
10. PW-10 is HC Sanjiv Kumar who joined the investigation along with SI Brij Mohan and correctly identified the accused Ashok Kumar and Hira Lal present in the court to be same persons who were arrested and personally search vide memos Ex.PW10/A to Ex.PW10/D and proved their FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 5 of 42 disclosure statement Ex.PW10/E and Ex.PW10/F.
11. PW-11 is Ct. Rockey Teotia who joined the investigation alongwith SI Brij Mohan in search of accused persons and met a secret informer who informed that accused Mohan along with his son Suraj are standing at Shaitan Chowk and on pointing out towards two persons he along with SI Brij Mohan apprehended both the persons and on interrogation their names were revealed as Mohan and Suraj. He proved the arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/A1 of accused Mohan and arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/B1 of accused Suraj and stated that IO recorded his statement. The witness correctly identified both the accused Mohan and Suraj who were present in the court.
12. PW-14 Sh. Om Prakash is the Retd. Executive Magistrate who had recorded the statement of Smt. Kamla i.e. mother of deceased Jyoti Ex.PW1/A and statement of Smt. Bhagwati Ex.PW9/C and after recording of their statements, he moved an application for postmortem of body of deceased Jyoti Ex.PW14/A. Thereafter, dead body of Jyoti was identified by Sh. Hari Shankar vide memo Ex.PW14/B and Sh. Hans Raj vide memo Ex.PW14/C.
13. PW-15 HC Sharan Dutt deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-10 HC Sanjiv Kumar and PW-11 Ct. Rockey Teotia who also have joined the investigation along with SI Brij Mohan. He further proved the FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 6 of 42 articles which were lying at the spot and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW15/B. PW-15 correctly identified the Diary as Ex.PW15/P1, handkerchief as Ex.PW15/P2 and Match box as Ex.PW15/P3.
14. PW-16 SI Brij Mohan is the IO of the case who have conducted the investigation along with HC Sharan Dutt, HC Sanjiv Kumar and Ct. Rockey and deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-10, PW-11 and PW-15. He prepared the Rukka Ex.PW16/A and taken into possession postmortem of deceased handed over viscera and sample seal as well as sealed envelope of scalp hairs of deceased with sample seal in separate sealed pullanda vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/B and Ex.PW16/C and deposited the same in the malkhana and recorded statement of witnesses. He further recorded the disclosure statement of accused Mohan and Suraj vide memos Ex.PW16/D and Ex.PW16/E. He further deposed that age of accused Suraj was verified through his school record and he was found major on the day of incident.
II. PUBLIC WITNESSES
15. PW-1 is Smt. Kamla/complainant deposed that deceased Jyoti was her grand daughter and marriage of deceased Jyoti was solemnized with Manoj and after about 4-5 years of marriage, Manoj expired and deceased was having one son, namely, Anshu. She further stated that deceased Jyoti stayed at second floor of her matrimonial home and she identified all accused persons present in the court to be residing in the same house but on FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 7 of 42 different floors and when she visited the house of deceased Jyoti all the accused persons quarreled with her by saying that "tu is gali me kyun aati hain aur tu yaha se chali ja, tera yaha koi nahi hai". She further stated that all the accused persons being father in law, elder brother of father in law, younger brother of father in law, brother in law and mother in law of deceased used to harass and beat her. She deposed that on 12.09.2014, at about 6 AM, when she was present at her house, father in law of Jyoti i.e. accused Mohan had come to her house and informed that "tumhari Jyoti jal rahi ha" and she rushed and found that all accused persons were standing in front of their house and Jyoti was burning at second floor and on hearing her alarm, one person of same locality rushed and with the help of ladder, the said boy entered in the room of Jyoti where she was burning. She further stated that accused persons were standing there but they did not provide any help to her or Jyoti and at that time when Jyoti was burning and saying mummy 'mujhe bacha lo'. PW1 further deposed that as mother of deceased Jyoti had expired when she was about 4-5 years, the deceased used to call her mummy. She again requested the accused persons to take Jyoti to Hospital but accused persons did not take her to hospital and all the male accused fled away from the spot and accused Geeta started cleaning the floor where Jyoti was burning. She further deposed that residents of locality helped her to take Jyoti to Hospital but she died before reaching the Hospital. Thereafter, her Statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded by police. She stated that accused persons harassed her deceased daughter as they wanted to get vacated the house where deceased was residing with her son. Relevant cross examination of PW-1 is reproduced hereinbelow:
FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 8 of 42 "......It is correct that the marriage was love marriage between Jyoti (since deceased) and Manoj and I and accused persons got them marriage.....
......My other grand daughter is residing at Trilokpuri alongwith her family. Sharda is my niece and she is residing near Swarn Cinema, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi. Sharda had come to my house on 11.09.2014 and remained there the whole day. In the evening on 11.09.2014 at about 5.00 - 5.30 pm, Sharda visited the house of Jyoti and after about half an hour, she returned back to my house. It is wrong to suggest that Sharda remained with Jyoti at her matrimonial home till 11.00 pm on 11.09.2014......
......She used to work as a maid in various houses. She used to leave house at about 8-9.00 am in the morning and used to returned back in the afternoon for taking lunch and again she used to go back for work and at last she used to come at 5.00 - 6.00 pm in the evening. She was working since the life time of her husband Manoj. The person namely Suresh was resident of same gali where the house of accused is situated. Vol. After selling the house, he left the locality before 5-6 years. It is wrong to suggest that Jyoti used to meet the said person namely Suresh prior to her marriage. It is wrong to suggest that after the death of Manoj, Jyoti was also used to meet Suresh....
FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 9 of 42 .....It is correct that there was date fixed for mediation settlement for 15.09.2014. It takes about 2-3 minutes to reach the house of Jyoti on foot from my house. It is wrong to suggest that the stay was granted on the statement of respondent/defendant in that case. Vol. Stay was granted on the statement of deceased as her in laws wanted to remove her from the premises. All the accused persons were the defendants in the said civil case.....
..... It is wrong to suggest that deceased was in a habit of taking drug and drug injection. It is wrong to suggest that when Mohan came to inform me about the incident, I stated let her die.....
.....I had gone to the room of Jyoti on second floor when I reached the spot. Again said, I did not go to the room of Jyoti at Second Floor but I had gone in the room of accused persons. I had gone to the room of Jyoti situated at the second floor after the death of Manoj to perform some rituals (teeja). Vol. Thereafter, accused persons did not allow me to visit the said room, deceased used to meet me in the gali.....
......It is correct that when I reached the spot, Rani had also come thereafter. Vol. On the day of incident Rani was residing at my home as she was unwell.....
......It is wrong to suggest that the accused Ashok @ Shoki and Suraj were throwing water from the ventilator above FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 10 of 42 the door of the kitchen in order to save deceased (Jyoti). It is wrong to suggest that accused Ashok and Suraj had brought the deceased downstairs alongwith the boy Tahir. It is correct that accused Mohan after giving information to me about the incident went to inform the police. Vol. He knowingly kept on sitting in the PS and came back home after the deceased had died....
............It is correct that Jyoti was alive before she was to be shifted to the hospital. I did not visit the hospital..... ......Neither myself nor my husband keeps any mobile phone. Rani and Sharda are having mobile phones. Jyoti used to have mobile phone. Jyoti had met me one day before the day of incident, in the morning when she was going for her work. Jyoti had stated to my daughter Rani, was present at my home that day that she will meet her in the evening as tomorrow is the birthday of her Anshu. Jyoti had come at my home at about 8.00 - 8.30 pm in the evening and had met Rani.....
.....It is wrong to suggest that myself and Rani were instigating Jyoti to create scene to falsely implicate her in laws if she wants to grab the property bearing no. E-49/D- 225, Janta Mazdoor Colony, New Jafrabad, Delhi..... ..... It is wrong to suggest that accused persons never wanted to get the house vacated where Jyoti was residing with her son.....
FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 11 of 42 ......At the time when accused Mohan had come to my house to inform me, my husband was not present in the house. He was at his work place i.e. Jagat puri. His duty timing was from 7 pm to 7 am as security guard.
On the day of incident, my husband returned back from his duty at about 9 am at our house. He did not visit the house of Jyoti. I was not present at my home as I was in PS. My husband did not visit the PS. As he was unwell. My husband was informed by public persons regarding incident...... ......Sharda is my niece and she is residing near Swarn Cinema, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi. Sharda had come to my house on 11.09.2014 and remained there the whole day. In the evening on 11.09.2014 at about 5.00 - 5.30 pm, Sharda visited the house of Jyoti and after about half an hour, she returned back to my house....
......Jyoti/deceased had made various complaint with the police against the accused persons regarding harassment. Jyoti visited our house occasionally. Vol. Accused persons did not allow her to visit my house....
......Neither I nor my husband made any complaint to the police against the accused persons for non allowing us to visit the house of deceased / Jyoti.....
It is correct that I alongwith Rani lodged in Tihar Jail in a case u/s 107/151 Cr.PC. Vol. First wife of accused Mohan also lodged in a Tihar jail in the same case. It is wrong to FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 12 of 42 suggest that I used to visit the house of accused persons and used to quarrel with first wife of accused Mohan and on the issue that I did not want to let Jyoti and Manoj live there..."
Thereafter, the witness was confronted with her earlier statement where she had not told she used to return to her house from the house of deceased after seeing her and her son and also that she had raised alarm for help to save the deceased and also stated that on hearing her alarm, one person who was also resident of same locality, rushed there and with the help of ladder which was kept outside the house reached at the room of deceased.
16. PW-3 Smt. Sharda is Maami of deceased Jyoti who stated that in the month of February, 2012 Jyoti had come to her house alongwith her son and told that her in laws were harassing her and she had an apprehension that her in laws would kill them and on asking, deceased Jyoti told her that 'mujhe kuch din yahi rakh lo, kyunki mujhe jaan ka khatra hai', thereafter, from February to August she was residing in the house of PW3 alongwith her son and when she was staying there, in laws of deceased spread rumor that Jyoti (deceased) had ran away and sold her house due to which she returned back to her matrimonial home. She further stated that on 12.09.2014, at about 8 am, one person namely Hari Shanker had come to her house and informed that Jyoti has been burnt by her in laws and her sister made a call at 100 number when they were in Auto. She deposed that she has stated before SDM that accused FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 13 of 42 Shokey and Shinde used to harass Jyoti alongwith Babbu as Jyoti had informed her that after releasing from Jail accused Ashok and Babbu were harassing her and accused Suraj and Aslam had misbehaved with her and they used to cook chicken and after taking liquor they used to come at bathroom adjoining to kitchen of Jyoti at second floor for urinating and Babbu used to pressurize Jyoti to marry him. She further deposed that Jyoti demanded Rs.5000/- from her stating that she got stay order from the court and also said 'mera hath tight chal raha hai'. She further deposed that accused persons used to harass Jyoti in order to get the premises (second floor) in their possession by stating that 'jaise tera adami ko mar diya waise tujhe bhi mar denge'. During cross examination, the witness denied the suggestion that Jyoti had relation with Suresh prior to her marriage and even after the death of Manoj, Jyoti was in love relation with said Suresh. She further denied that after taking some pills Manoj had died and volunteered that accused persons had given the pills to Manoj and day was Tuesday and at that time, Jyoti was not present at her matrimonial home. She further deposed that postmortem of dead body of Manoj was conducted, however, neither she nor family members of Jyoti lodged any complaint against the in laws of Jyoti for giving poisonous pills to Manoj. She volunteered that Jyoti had made a complaint to this effect to police in July, 2014, however, no action was taken by the police.
She also deposed that Jyoti had lodged the complaint against her in laws for harassment with the police authorities immediately after the marriage and those complaints were handed over to IO by her.
FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 14 of 42 Relevant cross examination of PW-2 is reproduced hereinbelow:
....It is correct that marriage of Jyoti and Manoj was love marriage. It is correct that at the time of marriage of Jyoti, Kamla made complaint to police and Jyoti and Manoj were in Jail.....
..... It is correct that the family members of Jyoti were not happy with the marriage of Jyoti and Manoj..... .....It is wrong to suggest that Jyoti had love affair with the said Suresh prior to her marriage....
.....Jyoti had lodged the complaint against her in laws for the harassment being caused with the police authorities immediately after the marriage. Those complaint had been handed over to the IO of the present case by myself Kamla and Rani. Kamla is my bua. The abovementioned complaints were given in the year 2014. Manoj was the step son of accused Mohan.....
......Jyoti had disclosed about the harassment by Babbu and Ashok to me in the year 2012 when she had come to reside with me. None of the family members of Jyoti which include myself ever lodged any complaint with any authority.....
......It is wrong to suggest that Jyoti had not come to me in February, 2012 and stayed with me till August, 2012 alongwith her son. It is wrong to suggest that Jyoti was residing at her matrimonial home peacefully and happily FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 15 of 42 at that time. Jyoti used to come to my house occasionally after the death of Manoj.....
......Jyoti used to leave house at about 8.00 am for work and used to return around 4.00 - 5.00 pm in the evening from work. The son namely Anshu is presently studying in class 5th. At the time of incident, he was in 3rd standard. I do not know the school timing of Anshu. Vol. Rani knows about the same. I had gone to the house of Jyoti on 11.09.2014 at about 5.00 pm. Jyoti was not present there. I again went to the house of Jyoti at about 8.00 pm on 11.09.2014. I met Jyoti and I remained with Jyoti for about 1 - 1 ½ hours. Then my husband had come to take me and I went to my home alongwith my husband.....
......No one was residing at the ground floor of the matrimonial home of Jyoti. Vol. Mohan and his wife Geeta were residing at the first floor and Jyoti alongwith her minor child was residing at the second floor.... .....It is wrong to suggest that Jyoti was in an affair/illicit relation with one Mr. Suresh and was having some tips with him and for the same reason, she committed suicide.....
17. PW-7 Master Anshu after ascertaining his competency to understand the meaning of oath and consequences of his deposition he FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 16 of 42 was examined in chief without oath as he was below 12 years. He deposed that his mother was being harassed and threatened to kill by accused Suraj, Geeta, Mohan, Ashok@Shoky and Sindey to get the house vacated. The accused persons also used to quarrel. He further deposed that it was around 5 am, when he woke up at that time, his mother was inside the other room and there was fire in the room of his mother and his mother was asking for water. He stated that he went to his grand parent at first floor and told that there is fire in the room of his mother and she was asking for water, but his grand father went to ground floor instead of taking water at second floor and his maternal grand mother (nani) Smt. Kamla came and put a ladder to the room of his mother and a neighborer who was adjacent to opposite their house climbed the ladder. The witness correctly identified the accused Mohan to be his grand father, accused Geeta to be his step grand mother and accused Suraj to be his chacha, accused Sindey to be brother of Mohan, accused Shoky to be the person who was threatening 'maar ke yahi gaad denge'. PW7, son of deceased further stated that as he did not used to talk to accused Shoki @ Ashok, therefore, he cannot name the relation with him. Relevant cross examination of PW-7 is reproduced hereinbelow:
".....the expenses of my school fees, uniform and other expenses used to borne by my mother. My mother used to work and she was house maid while working in other houses.....
.....A day before demise of my mother, she had not gone FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 17 of 42 for her work as she was not keeping well. I slept with my mother at about 10.00 pm at that night. I slept on bed prior to coming of my mother on bed. On the day before demise of my mother, my mausi Smt. Sharada came to our resident. My mausi Sharada came at about 8.00 pm and she left at around 9.00 pm on the same very day. My mother had not talked to on her mobile phone to anyone prior she went to sleep (Vol. In fact the battery of mobile phone was discharged and it was kept for charging).....
.....I do not know Sh. Suresh to be my uncle..... ....Accused Shoky and Sindey were living three houses next from our house in Janta Colony. I was not told by anyone who had brought the ladder as I myself was standing outside of my house and I saw that my nani had brought the ladder.....
......When the police came there, the said five accused were sitting on the patri nearby our house..... ......I went to the house of my mausi Smt. Rani on the same day my mother was expired (Vol. Shoky and Sindey used to make hole at the bottom of gas cylinder lying at our house). It was May 2014 when hole was made by them at the bottom of gas cylinder......
......I had stated to the police that accused persons were harassing and threatening my mother to get the house FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 18 of 42 evicted. Police had not read over to me my statement..... ......I had not told to the police that the neighborer had brought a blanket (vol. The said neighborer took the blanket from our house). I had seen the said uncle entering the room of my mother. The said neighborer had not used the ladder but entry was made by him in the room of my mother from adjacent house. The said neighborer made entry in the room from chajja and opened the door by unlatching kundi from inside and then entry was made. My mother was brought down from stairs by accused Shoky and Sindey; the said neighborer uncle had unlatched the kundi and he had not carried my mother down stairs. Accused Sindey and Shoky were present outside the room of my mother, when my mother was brought down from stairs.....
.....It is correct that my mother was in room, which is inside from the main room. It is wrong to suggest that the previous night of the demise of my mother, she had been talking Suresh Papa or asking him that in case he does not come to her, she die....."
18. PW-9 is Ms. Bhagwati is another Maami of deceased Jyoti who deposed that 15 days prior to incident, her niece telephonically informed her and stated that she was expelled from her matrimonial home by accused persons and she had advised her to make call at 100 FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 19 of 42 number and also stated that accused persons are selling the house and they are treating her like tenant. She further deposed that Jyoti was frightened and stated that accused persons are threatening to kill her and her child and the call was made by deceased in afternoon and she got the information of her death in the next morning. She further stated that earlier deceased Jyoti had given several complaints against accused persons at PS Welcome. The witness has also produced copy of complaints dated 03.02.2014 Ex.PW9/A and 18.03.2014 Ex.PW9/B and complaint dated 18.07.2014 is Mark A. Nothing material has come in the cross of the witness and only general suggestions are put. PW-9 specifically deposed that her niece Jyoti used to state that Aslam, Mohan and Ashok used to have bad eye on her and clarified that Shinde is also known by the name of Aslam and volunteered that Aslam is Nandoi of her deceased niece. During cross examination she denied the suggestion that deceased had not made call 15 days prior to the incident and has never informed that she was expelled from his matrimonial home by accused persons or that she had never advised deceased to make call at 100 number and also denied that accused persons are selling the house and treating her like tenant.
19. PW-12 is Smt. Rani who stated that deceased Jyoti was her younger sister and on 12.09.2014 at about 6 am in the morning, father in law of Jyoti, namely, Mohan came her paternal house and stated that 'tumhari jyoti jal gayi hai'. She immediately rushed to her matrimonial home and saw that Chachia Sasur Sinde was present there and no other family members were present and PCR took deceased Jyoti to the FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 20 of 42 hospital. She stated that family members of Jyoti who were present in the court used to harass and beat her sister and used to quarrel with her and also threatened her. She also admitted that her sister Jyoti was thrown/expelled out from her matrimonial home regularly. She correctly identified all the accused persons who were present in the court. During her cross examination, she denied the suggestion that Jyoti was not harassed and tortured by the accused persons that is why he had never made any complaint to any police officials or authority. She further denied that Jyoti had never narrated that accused persons used to quarrel with her daily and also threatened her and also denied that Jyoti was never thrown or expel out from her matrimonial home.
20. PW-13 Tahir is the neighbor who stated that he heard the noise of shouting when he was at top floor and when he came outside chajja, he saw that smoke was coming out from 2nd floor of house situated adjacent to his house. He further stated that he woke up his neighbors and entered the house of Laxman from where smoke was coming and went upstairs with the help of chajja entered the top floor and the door of the room on that floor was bolted from inside and smoke was coming out and entered the room with help of space provided for window and saw that Jyoti was burning. He threw water on her and tried to save her and also opened the bolt of room from inside, the fire was extinguished and he with the help of Ashok and Suraj brought Jyoti downstairs. Thereafter, relative of Jyoti had also arrived there and a call at 100 number was made and Jyoti was taken hospital by PCR and at his instance site plan Ex.PW13/A was prepared.
FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 21 of 42
21. Accused was not disputed the genuineness of the FSL result which have been filed in the suppelmentary chargesheet Ex.PX.
22. Thereafter statement of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC wherein they denied the allegations against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case and they have been residing separately and they have never taunted or harassed the deceased Jyoti. They preferred not to lead any DE.
23. Arguments have been advanced by Sh. Anil Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State as also by Sh. Sh. Rajiv Pratap Singh, Ld. Amicus Curiae for all accused.
24 Ld. Amicus Curiae has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1790-1791, decided on 28.11.2019;
(ii) State of Rajasthan Vs. Naresh, Criminal Appeal No. 837/2002, decided on 26.08.2009;
(iii) Arjun Marik Vs. State of Biha, 1994 SCC Supl. (2) 372 JT 1994 (2) 627;
(iv) Mohibur Rahman & Anr. Vs. State of Assam, JT 2002 (6) SC 235, decided on 21.08.2002;
(v) Umesh & Ors. Vs. State, 2021 (1) JCC 169, decided on 13.05.2020;
(vi) Kunwar Pal Vs. State, CRL. A. 25/2022, decided on 07.01.2020;
FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 22 of 42
(vii) Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 (3) JCC 1549, decided on 02.03.2021;
(viii) Anjan Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No. 560/2014, decided on 23.05.2017;
(ix) Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No. 1323 of 2011, decided on 28.05.2013;
(x) Jayamma & Anr. Vs. State of Karnatka, Criminal Appeal No. 758/2010, decided on 07.05.2021;
(xi) Uttam Vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 485/12, decided on 02.06.2022
25. All the accused persons have been charged for the offence under Section 306 IPC and 498A IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
Section 498A of the IPC reads as under:
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"
means--
(a) any 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, FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 23 of 42 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."
26. A person who subjects a woman to cruelty is liable for punishment under section 498A IPC. Cruelty has been defined as any wilful conduct which 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 harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
27. As for offence under Section 498A IPC is concerned, dowry demand is an essential ingreident. None of the wintesses has stated about any demand of dowry by any of the accused persons. PW-1 Kamla, grand mother of the deceased has admitted during her cross that the marriage between deceased and her husband was a love marriage. She has not stated anything about any demand of dowry by the accused persons at the time of marriage or at any point thereafter. The only allegation against the accused persons is that they wanted to get their house vacated from the deceased. The dispute between the deceased and her in laws was thus related to the FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 24 of 42 property in which the deceased and her in laws were residing and was not related to any unlawful demand of dowry from her and from any of her relatives. The offence of Section 498A IPC is not made out as per the facts proved by the prosecution on record.
28. As far as offence of abetment of suicide is concerned, Section 306 IPC reads as under:
"306. Abetment of suicide.--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."
29. On the issue of cruelty, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.V. Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka (2017) 11 SCC 176 has held that mere fact that the husband had developed some intimacy with another woman, during the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital obligations, as such would not amount to 'cruelty', but it must be of such a nature as is likely to drive the spouse to commit suicide. The concept of mental cruelty depends upon the milieu and the strata from which the persons come from and definitely has an individualistic perception regard being had to one's endurance and sensitivity. To explicate, solely because the husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship and there is some suspicion in the mind of wife, that cannot be regarded as mental cruelty which would attract mental cruelty for satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 IPC.
FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 25 of 42
30. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh: (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Supreme Court laid down as to what conduct would amount to incitement or instigation so as to bring a case within the ambit of Section 306 IPC:
"20. 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 been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
31. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 26 of 42 out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
32. PW-1 though had stated that all the accused persons used to beat and harass deceased but no specific incident or dates have been mentioned by her when the accused persons have allegedly beaten the deceased.
33. Ld. Addl. PP for State has argued that it has come in the testimony of PW-1 that none of the accused perons had tried to save the deceased when she was burning and it was only the neighbor who had climbed on the second floor and went to the room through a window and had tried to save her which shows conduct of the accused persons at the time of incident and therefore, the accused persons are liable for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
34. In case titled as Pawan Kumar vs. State of H.P, (2017) 7 SCC 780, the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborated upon the expression abetment as under:-
"34. The word "abetment" has not been explained in Section 306 IPC. In this context,the definition of abetment FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 27 of 42 as provided under Section 107 IPC is pertinent. Section 306 IPC seeks to punish those who abet the commission of suicide of other. Whether the person has abetted the commission of suicide of another or not is to be gathered from facts and circumstances of each case and to be found out by continuous conduct of the accused, involving his mental element. Such a requirement can be perceived from the reading of Section 107 IPC."
35. Analysing the concept of "abetment", as found in Section 107 IPC, a two-Judge Bench in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 has held that "13. As per the section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing a thing, if he, firstly, 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, the doing of that thing. Explanation to Section 107 states that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of "abetment". It is manifest that under all the FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 28 of 42 three situations, direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the commission of offence of suicide is essential to bring home the offence under Section 306 IPC."
"Abetment", thus, means certain amount of active suggestion or support to do the act.
36. Thus, a person can be said to have abetted in doing of a thing, who "instigates" any person to do that thing. The word "instigate" literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another person when he actively suggests or stimulates him to an act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. Instigation may be in (express) words or may be by (implied) conduct Ramesh Kumar v. State (Supra).
37. Merely, because the accused persons were indifferent to the deceased and had not made any efforts to save the accused persons it cannot be said that they had actively supported her to do the said act or had intentionally aided her in committing suicide. It has already come in the evidence that the accused persons and the deceased were not having cordial relations and had differences and there was some dispute between them. The deceased was an adult and living on separate floor. In such circumstance, it cannot be said that it was the lawful duty of the accused persons to have made an effort to save the deceased when they came to FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 29 of 42 know that she had burned herself.
38. The accused persons being in laws of deceased can be said to have moral duty to have made an effort to save the deceased but merely because they failed in their moral duty it cannot be said that they were legally bound to save the deceased or by their omission to save the deceased they have abetted her suicide. Moreover, the abetment of offence has to be before the commission of the offence and not afterwards. Once the deceased had already burned herself, the offence of suicide had already been committed. The abetment of offence cannot be committed after the commission of the offence. The indifferent conduct of the accused persons in not making an effort to save her, is their subsequent conduct after the incident and cannot be made basis of inference of guilt against them.
39. PW-1 has also admitted that Sharda who is PW-3 had come to her on 11.09.2014 i.e. one day prior to the incident and in the evening she has visited the house of the deceased and thereafter again visited the house of PW-1. Whatever had transpired on 11.09.2014 i.e. one day prior to the date of the incident is very crucial and it was important to note what was going in the mind of the deceased due to which she had committed suicide in the morning of 12.09.2014. However, Kamla had not deposed anything about what happened on 11.09.2014 and this fact Sharda had visited the house of the deceased has come on record only in her cross examination.
40. The allegations against the accused persons that they used to harass the deceased are general and vague in nature. No specific incident or quarrel of the deceased with the accused persons immediately prior to the FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 30 of 42 incident or within one week prior to the incident has been reported by the witnesses.
41. Also, PW-1, during her cross-examination has admitted that the deceased met her one day before the incident when she was going for her work and that had told her that she will meet PW1 in the evening as on the next day it was the birthday of Master Anshu. PW-1, however, during her cross examination admitted that at about 8 - 8.30 PM, deceased had come to her house and had met her, but, what conversations took place between PW-1 and the deceased one day prior to the incident had not been disclosed by her in her examination in chief or in the cross examination.
42. There is some contradiction also on this aspect in as much as PW-3 has stated she went to the house of the deceased at about 8 pm on 11.09.2014 to meet her and had met the deceased at her residence and PW- 3 remained with Jyoti (deceased) for about 1 - 1 1/2 hours, whereas, PW-1 has stated Jyoti was at her residence i.e. residence of PW-1 at about 8 - 8.30 pm on 11.09.2014. Be that as it may, the facts remains that PW-1 and PW-3 although had met the deceased one day prior to the incident and both have not disclosed this fact in their chief examination and this fact came on record only during their cross examination.
43. On the day of incident, it was the birthday of son of the deceased as revealed from the cross examination of PW-1 and the reason why deceased committed suicide in the morning of the day when it was her son's birthday and should have been a day of celebration would remain a mystery.
FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 31 of 42
44. In Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed "12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC."
45. In Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 9 SCC 734, it has been ruled "18. In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straitjacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case there has been instigation which forced the person to commit suicide. In a particular case, there may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an inference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances had been such which in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 32 of 42 frustrated and committed suicide. ..."
46. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. (2010) 1 SCC 707, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."
47. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that whether the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 33 of 42 "instigation" may be inferred. 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.
Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation."
48. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again observed in Chitresh Kumar Chopra (Supra) that "20. ... The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 34 of 42 contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self- protection or an escapism from intolerable self."
49. In the present case the deceased had left a suicide note in the diary which was recovered from the spot. Though, this fact was mentioned by the IO that one diary and one handkerchief was recovered but the IO has not mentioned in the chargesheet that in the said diary there was one suicide note also. The said diary was examined by the court after hearing the final arguments and before passing of the judgment as the court felt the examination of the said diary was essential for the proper appreciation of the facts and when the said diary was produced before the court, then it surfaced before the court for first time there was a suicide note in the said diary.
50. On perusal of the diary, on page of 04th April with black sketch pen following words were written :-
"mein Suresh ko pyar karti hu, maine sab kuch chhod mujhe dho."
On the page of 5th April following words are written with pencils :-
"meri jindagi kharab k hai who Suresh hai usne mujhe barbad ki hai, mera saath nahi diya usne mujhe jhooth bola hai, mere saath shadi karunga, usne apni bibi se gali dayi thi, mein Suresh bahut pyar karti hun, mein uske bina FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 35 of 42 nahi jeena. Mein Suresh ko bahu pyar karti hu, mein uske saath barah saal se pyar karta hai, meri maut ka karan hai, Suresh, Mohan or Aslam, sabko pata hai ki Suresh aise nahi chhodega, isliye sabne mujhe Suresh ke najaron mein girane lage the, sabko pata hai ki mein Suresh ke bina mar jaoungi. Jyoti".
51. This suicide note has not been sent to FSL for any handwriting expert opinion. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that the fact that the deceased had left a suicide note has not even been mentioned in the chargesheet by the IO for reasons best known to him. In the said note, the deceased had named Suresh and Aslam apart from Mohan to be the reason and cause for her death. As far as Mohan is concerned, he is the accused no. 1 in the present case. But, no investigation qua Aslam and Suresh has been done. In fact, when the IO was asked as to what investigation he had done qua the said persons, he stated that he did not knew who Suresh and Aslam are. From the evidence of the witnesses, it is clear that Suresh is a person with whom the deceased was allegedly in love with and Aslam was brother in law / Nandoi of the deceased.
52. The court has no hesitation in also observing that the evidence in the present case has also been tempered with in as much as suicide note written on the diary starting from 05.04.2012 continued till 09.04.2012 and in-between page of date 6th and 7th April was torned off/missing. The part of the note which continued on the page date 9 th of April also seems to be re- written after erasing the earlier writing. The case diary of the present case FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 36 of 42 was also called for examination and perusal as to whether the IO has mentioned the fact of suicide note in the case diary. IO SI Brij Mohan was also called for explanation and has furnished written reply in which he has stated that despite sincere efforts no authentic documents on which handwriting of deceased was available could be found and therefore, the recovered diary containing the suicide note was not sent to FSL for expert examination. However, it seems to be an afterthought in as much as no such fact as stated in written explanation is mentioned in the case diary that the suicide note was not sent to the FSL due to non-availability of the admitted hand writing of the deceased. If the suicide note was not sent for examination for want of admitted handwriting then this fact should have been mentioned clearly in the chargesheet as well as in case diary. Nothing is revealed from the case diary as to what efforts IO has made to procure the admitted handwriting of deceased. The entire investigation was carried in a mechanical manner. No sincere efforts was made by the IO to properly investigate the present case. Even if the admitted handwriting was not available still he should have made an effort to investigate the role of the person named in the suicide note i.e. Suresh and Aslam. On this aspect also his plea that he did not knew who Aslam and Suresh reveals that apart from doing paper work he has done nothing in the present case.
53. A two-Judge Bench in Netai Dutta v. State of W.B., (2005) 2 SCC 659, while dwelling on the concept of abetment under Section 107 IPC especially in the context of suicide note, observed "6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 37 of 42 appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag."
"Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation made by the complainant that the appellant herein in any way was harassing his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag. The case registered against the appellant is without any factual foundation. The contents of the alleged suicide note do not in any way make out the offence against the appellant. The prosecution initiated against the appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge seriously erred in holding that the first information report against the appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant herein. We find that this is a fit case where the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked. We quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 38 of 42 appellant and accordingly allow the appeal."
54. In the present case also, the deceased has named three persons in the suicide note, but two of them have not been chargesheeted. The IO has not done any investigation regarding the suicide note and the role of the persons named therein.
55. From the testimony of the witnesses, it is also come on record that the deceased had filed a civil suit for stay against her in laws and she was also granted stay by the concerned court. The copy of the petition in the said civil suit and the order etc. have also not been seized by the IO during the investigation. The said documents were also very essential to understand the dispute between the deceased and the accused persons and to decide as to whether the accused persons have committed cruelty upon the deceased in order to get the possession of her portion of the property or had instigated her or induced her to end her life by committing suicide.
56. PW-3 Smt. Sharda is the mammi of the deceased and is a very relevant witness as during her cross examination she has admitted that she had gone to meet deceased one day prior to the incident and had met the deceased and had remained at the house of the deceased for about 1 - 1 ½ hour. Suprisingly, in her chief examination she has not deposed anything about her visit on 11.09.2014 and this fact had come on record during her cross examination.
57. Master Anshu PW-7, son of the deceased has stated that his Mausi Smt. Sharda had come to their house one day prior to the incident and had left at around 9 pm. Though, PW-7 has described Smt. Sharda as FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 39 of 42 his mausi, however, Smt. Sharda has stated that she is mami of the deceased and not sister of the deceased. Be that as it may. The fact remains that Smt. Sharda had visited the deceased one day prior to the incident and nothing has been stated as to what transpired between her and deceased during that visit by PW-3. PW-3 Smt. Sharda had not deposed a single word as to whether any of the accused persons had instigated the deceased at that time to commit suicide when she had gone to meet her on 11.09.2014. She has also not deposed as to whether any quarel took place between deceased and the accused persons one day prior to the incident.
58. PW-3, though, had also stated that the deceased had even resided with her from February to August but whether the deceased had complained about any conduct of the accused persons to her on 11.09.2014 or not is not disclosed. There is also some contradictions as to whether the deceased had gone to her work on 11.09.2014 or not as PW-3 has stated that when she had gone to visit the deceased on 11.09.2014, the deceased was not present as she had gone for work, however, PW-7 Master Anshu has stated that his mother had not gone for work one day prior to the incident as she was not keeping well.
59. There is no specific incident or word spoken by any of the accused persons attributed by any of the witnesses to establish on record that the accused persons had created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide.
60. Moreover, the non mentioning of the suicide note in the entire chargesheet and the non examination of the suicide note by an expert is fatal to the case of the prosecution. As already observed, the IO FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 40 of 42 has not even cared to investigate as to who Suresh and Aslam were and what was their role in the life of the deceased.
61. None of the witnesses have deposed about any quarrel, dispute or argument between the accused persons and the deceased one day prior to the date of the incident or even within one week prior to the incident so as to establish on record that there was any positive action on the part of the accused persons proximate to the time of the occurence i.e. suicide by the deceased, from which it can be inferred that it is the accused persons who had intentionally aided, instigated or compelled her to commit suicide.
62. If the evidence adduced by the prosecution is of such a nature that room still exists for taking the new that every reasonable possibility of his innocence has not been excluded, the accused persons would be entitled to benefit of doubt. The prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention had subjected the deceased Ms. Jyoti to cruelty by their acts and conducts or had made any dowry demand from her or from her relatives.
63. The prosecution has also failed to establish its case and bring home the guilt of the accused persons that they had intentionally instigaged and aided by their acts and illegal omissions to commit suicide by the deceased Ms. Jyoti due to following reasons:
(i) No allegation of any dowry demand by accused persons being proved and in view of the fact that marriage of the deceased and her husband was love marriage and against the wishes of the family of the deceased;
(ii) The allegations of harassment and torture of deceased by the FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 41 of 42 accused persons as deposed by the witnesses being vague;
(iii) No deposition by PW-1 and PW-3 regarding what conversation took place between them and the deceased one day prior to the incident i.e. 11.09.2014;
(iv) The fact that suicide note was left by the deceased being not disclosed in the chargesheet and being concealed by the IO from the court;
(v) Absolutely no investigation done by the IO on the suicide note left by the deceased in the diary;
(vi) The possibility that the suicide note itself was tempered with (erased and re-written on page of 9 th April and inbetween page of 6 and 7 th April torned off).
(vii) No investigation qua the role of Suresh and Aslam (persons named in suicide note but not chargesheeted) being done by the IO;
(viii) Non seizue of documents related to civil suit dispute between the parties by the IO during investigation.
64. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused for the offences under Section 306/498A/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, so that accused persons are given benefit of doubt and therefore, acquitted of above offence. However, in view of provisions of section 437-A of the Code, accused persons are directed to furnish personals bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-each with one surety each in the like amount within one week. Till then their existing bail bonds shall be retained for the purpose. The bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (KIRAN BANSAL)
on 02.03.2023 ASJ-04/Shahdara/KKD
Courts, Delhi/02.03.2023
FIR No.520/2014 State Vs. Mohan & Ors. Page No. 42 of 42