Delhi District Court
State vs Parvesh Kumar (Husband) . . . Accused ... on 9 June, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. T.S. KASHYAP
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Unique I.D. No. : 02402R0348602009
Sessions Case No. : 62/2011
FIR No. : 221/2009
Under Sections : 498A/304B/34 IPC
Police Station : Karawal Nagar, Delhi
In the matter of :
STATE
Versus
1. Parvesh Kumar (Husband) . . . Accused Persons
S/o Sh. Rajbir
R/o House No. 189, Gali No. 12
Phase-6, Shiv Vihar
Karawal Nagar, Delhi
2. Bhoori Devi (mother-in-law)
W/o Sh. Rajbir
R/o House No. 189, Gali No. 12
Phase-6, Shiv Vihar
Karawal Nagar, Delhi
3. Parveen (Jeth) (Discharged vide order dated 13/04/2010)
S/o Sh. Rajbir
R/o House No. 189, Gali No. 12
Phase-6, Shiv Vihar
Karawal Nagar, Delhi
4. Naveen (Dewar) (Discharged vide order dated 13/04/2010)
S/o Sh. Rajbir
R/o House No. 189, Gali No. 12
Phase-6, Shiv Vihar
Karawal Nagar, Delhi
5. Mamta (Jethani) (Discharged vide order dated 13/04/2010)
FIR No. 221/2009 Page 1 of 22
W/o Sh. Parveen
R/o House No. 189, Gali No. 12
Phase-6, Shiv Vihar
Karawal Nagar, Delhi
6. Naveen Sharma (Nandoi) (Discharged vide order dated 13/04/2010)
S/o Sh. Radha Charan Sharma
R/o RZ-B-34, Somes Vihar
Chhawla Najafgarh, Delhi
7. Vandana @ Kalpana (Nanad) (Discharged vide order dated 13/04/2010)
W/o Sh. Naveen Sharma
R/o RZ-B-34, Somes Vihar
Chhawla Najafgarh, Delhi
Date of Institution : 27/09/2011
Date of committal : 22/12/2009
Date of reserving judgment : 05/06/2014
Date of pronouncement : 09/06/2014
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 02/09/09 a PCR call was received at PS Karawal Nagar regarding suicide of a woman at Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi vide DD No. 51B. The said DD was marked to ASI Jeet Singh for investigation. On receipt of said DD, ASI Jeet Singh alongwith Ct. Narender Singh reached at the spot i.e House No. 189, Gali No. 12, Phase-6, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar where they found one dead body of Jyoti. IO informed Sh. P.K. Sofat, Executive Magistrate, Seelampur and parents of deceased. Crime Team was also called at the spot. On inquiry it was revealed that the deceased has committed suicide. One suicide note was also recovered from the spot. Father of deceased alongwith his family FIR No. 221/2009 Page 2 of 22 members and other persons also reached there. The Executive Magistrate recorded the statement of Sh. Jamuna Upadhyay, father of deceased as under :-
"I got married my daughter Jyoti with Parvesh S/o Sh. Rajbir on 06/07/2007 according to Hindu rites and customs. My daughter is having one child aged 1½ years. My daughter was being harassed by her in-laws for dowry. One month ago my daughter stayed at my house and she was happy. My son-in-law took my daughter against my consent as I did not want to send her. My daughter was mentally harassed by her in-laws. Due to mental harassment, she has committed suicide but according to me she was murdered. The information regarding death of my daughter was received at 5:00 p.m and we became perplexed after hearing the news. I am giving this statement voluntarily without any pressure from anyone".
2. On the basis of statement of father of deceased and facts and circumstances of the case, a case U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC was registered and investigation was assigned to Insp. Narender Tyagi. Accused Parvesh was arrested. Accused Vandna, Naveen Sharma, Naveen, Mamta, Parveen and Bhoori Devi got anticipatory bail.
3. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against accused Parvesh, Parveen, Naveen, Mamta and Bhuri Devi U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act whereas accused Naveen Sharma and Vandana @ Kalpana were put in Col No. 12.
4. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate after supplying the necessary copies to the accused persons committed the case to the court of Sessions vide FIR No. 221/2009 Page 3 of 22 order dated 22/12/2009.
5. Vide order dated 13/04/2010, accused Parveen, Naveen, Mamta, Naveen Sharma and Vandana @ Kalpana were discharged by my Ld. Predecessor. However, vide order dated 20/04/2010 accused Parvesh Kumar and Bhoori Devi were charged for the offences punishable U/s 498A/306/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 16 witnesses.
(a) The prosecution examined following material witnesses :-
i) PW1 Smt. Chanda Upadhyay is the mother of deceased. She, inter alia, deposed that after six months of the marriage, when her daughter came to their house, she started crying and told her that she would not return back to her in-laws house. On inquiry she told that she was being harassed by her mother-in-law, husband and other members of in-laws family, for bringing less dowry. She further told that her husband, mother-in-law and other family members were demanding Rs. 2-3 lacs as dowry. Accused Parvesh and his mother continuously used to demand dowry from her deceased daughter. Thereafter, one male baby was born and she brought her daughter to her house on 07/07/09. Accused Parvesh came to her house on 11/07/09. When she told accused Parvesh regarding weak health of her daughter, he FIR No. 221/2009 Page 4 of 22 became annoyed and stated that 'kya main isme hawa bhar dun'. Her daughter Jyoti told her that Parvesh came there only to get Rs. 2-3 lacs which he had demanded earlier. Two days prior to death of her daughter, she made a call to them and told that accused Bhoori Devi again started quarreling with her on account of demand of dowry. Accused Parvesh also started quarreling with her daughter on the pretext that Sixth Pay Commission has been implemented but her father had not paid the demanded amount and also extended threat to her daughter either to commit suicide or she would be killed by them. On 02/09/09 at about 5:00 p.m, they received a telephone call from accused Parvesh that her daughter has hanged herself and she was no more but after sometime Mamta (Jethani of her daughter) told that her daughter Jyoti was well and being examined by the Doctor. She became perplexed and they reached at the house of accused in a car. On way to house of accused Parvesh they made two calls and Jeth of her daughter informed that her daughter Jyoti was well and they should come on next day. By that time they had reached Yamuna Vihar and found many public persons gathered at the house of accused persons including police officials.
ii) PW10 Jamuna Upadhyay is the complainant and father of the deceased. He, inter alia, deposed that FIR No. 221/2009 Page 5 of 22 after 1½ years of her marriage, accused Bhoori Devi and Parvesh started harassing his deceased daughter for dowry demand. The in-laws of his deceased daughter i.e her mother-in-law Bhoori Devi and her husband Parvesh used to harass her with dowry demand. They used to demand Rs. Two lacs from his deceased daughter. They demanded money for construction of their house and for marriage of his daughter's Devar namely Naveen. Due to this harassment, she committed suicide by hanging herself but according to him, she was killed by her in-laws. On 02/09/09, at about 5:00 p.m, he received an information from accused Parvesh Kumar that his daughter has committed suicide. On receipt of the said information, he alongwith his wife and 2-3 neighbourers reached at the matrimonial house of his daughter at about 10:00 p.m where they found a crowd. At the matrimonial home of his daughter, they found her lying on the bed in her room. His statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate which is Ex. PW10/A. He further deposed that two days prior to death of his daughter, his daughter Jyoti made telephonic call to his wife and stated that her mother-in-law Bhoori Devi and accused Parvesh were harassing her and demanding money from her. On 07/07/09, his daughter had come to their house. On 11/07/09 FIR No. 221/2009 Page 6 of 22 accused Parvesh had come to their house for taking his daughter back. He further deposed that on 03/09/09, he identified the dead body of his deceased daughter at GTB Hospital vide statement Ex. PW10/B.
iii) PW12 Ram Charan deposed that accused Parvesh is his nephew and accused Bhoori Devi is wife of his brother in relation. He used to stay in their house. On 02/09/09, he returned back to his home at about 12:00 noon from his job. At that time, Mamta and deceased Jyoti were available in the house alongwith their children. Praveen and Naveen had gone to Kashmiri Gate for their job.
Accused persons had gone to Mehrauli to see their ailing uncle. At about 1:00 p.m, he had his lunch. Deceased and Mamta also went to their respective rooms. Thereafter, he went to sleep outside the room. At about 2:00 p.m, he woke up and it was raining at that time. He remained seated there and at about 5:00 p.m, he heard the cry of Dipanshu and he immediately went upstairs at the first floor where he found that the room of Jyoti was open and he called Jyoti but she did not respond.
Thereafter, he looked into the room and saw that Jyoti was hanging with the help of chunni. He immediately called Mamta and she immediately came upstairs and he with the help of Mamta removed the body of Jyoti, and laid her on the bed.
FIR No. 221/2009 Page 7 of 22In the meantime, some neighbourers also came there and somebody called the police who reached there.
(b) The prosecution also examined following formal witnesses:-
i) PW2 Ct. Shyam Lal deposed that on 02/09/09, he was posted with Crime Team/NE. On that day, he alongwith Incharge Crime Team SI E.S. Yadav and other member of Crime Team reached at the spot where IO ASI Jeet Singh with other staff and Executive Magistrate met them and as per instruction of the IO, he took nine photographs of the spot and dead body from different angles. The photographs are Ex. PW2/P1 to P9 and negatives are Ex. PW2/P10 to P18.
ii) PW3 SI E.S. Yadav, Incharge Crime Mobile Team deposed that on 02/09/09 on receipt of call, he alongwith Ct. Shyam Lal and other members of Crime Team reached at the spot where IO ASI Jeet Singh with other staff and Executive Magistrate met them. He found dead body of a female lying on the bed. He inspected the spot and prepared the scene of crime report Ex. PW3/A.
iii) PW4 SI Mukesh Kumar Jain deposed that on 16/09/09, he was posted as SI/Draftsman/NE. On that day, he was called at the spot by IO Insp.
Narender Tyagi. Accordingly, he reached there and FIR No. 221/2009 Page 8 of 22 inspected the spot, took measurements and prepared rough notes on the pointing out by Insp. Narender Tyagi. On the basis of rough notes and measurements, he prepared scaled site plan on 18/09/09 which is Ex. PW4/A.
vi) PW5 HC Satish deposed that on 03/09/09, he was posted at PS Karawal Nagar. On that day he was deputed as Duty Officer and on the basis of rukka received from Ct. Narender sent by Insp. Narender Tyagi, he got computerized FIR recorded. Copy of which is Ex. PW5/A. His endorsement on rukka is Ex. PW5/B.
v) PW6 HC Jitender had brought the original record of DD No. 51B which was recorded on 02/09/09 at about 6:24 p.m, regarding commission of suicide by a lady at House No. 189, Gali No. 12, Naveen Bhardwaj, Bhajanpura, near Shiv Mandir, Karawal Nagar, Phase-VI. Copy of DD No. 51B is Ex.
PW6/A.
vi) PW11 Sh. P.K. Sofat, Rtd. Superintendent deposed that on 02/09/09, he was posted as Executive Magistrate, Seelampur, Delhi. On that day, at about 6:30 p.m, he received message from PS Karawal Nagar regarding commission of suicide by a lady at House No. 189, Gali No. 12, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar. Accordingly, he reached there and found dead body of a lady lying on bed. He inspected the spot and a diary was FIR No. 221/2009 Page 9 of 22 found lying in the side drawer of the bed and one chunni with red pink green flowers lying on the bed near the dead body of the deceased. He seized the diary vide memo Ex. PW9/A. He also seized the chunni Ex. PW9/B. He recorded the statement of father of the deceased Ex. PW10/A. He made his endorsement and forwarded the statement of father of the deceased to SHO, Karawal Nagar for further necessary action.
Thereafter, dead body was sent to GTB hospital and the same was got preserved at mortuary.
Dead body was identified by Rajesh Kumar and Jamuna Prasad vide Ex. PW11/A and PW11/B.
vii) PW13 Ct. Ramesh Kumar deposed that on 23/09/09, he was posted at PS Karawal Nagar. On that day he received one sealed parcel vide RC No. 78/21/09 from MHC(M) for depositing the same at Forensic Department, GTB Hospital.
Accordingly, he took the same and deposited the same at Forensic Department, GTB Hospital and handed over the acknowledgment to the MHC(M).
viii) PW14 Ct. Khem Chand deposed that on 30/09/09, he was posted at PS Karawal Nagar. On that day, as per instructions of IO, he went to Forensic Department, GTB Hospital from where he received one sealed parcel alongwith sample seal and subsequent opinion. He handed over the sealed parcel and the sample seal to the MHC(M) and FIR No. 221/2009 Page 10 of 22 subsequent opinion to the IO. On the same day, he received one sealed pullanda and sample seal alongwith forwarding letter from the MHC(M) vide RC No. 85/21/09 for depositing the same in FSL Rohini. Accordingly, he deposited the same in FSL Rohini and thereafter he handed over the receipt of the same to the MHC(M).
ix) PW15 Dr. Atul Gupta deposed that on 03/09/09, he was posted as Sr. Resident in Forensic Medicine Department, UCMS & GTB Hospital. On that day, he received request for conduct of autopsy on the dead body of deceased Jyoti from Executive Magistrate Sh. P.K. Sofat and ASI Jeet Singh. He gave his detailed report vide Ex. PW15/A. He also gave his subsequent opinion vide Ex. PW15/B.
(c) The prosecution has examined the following witnesses of investigation :-
i) PW7 Lady Ct. Shanta Rawat deposed that on 20/11/09, he was posted at PS Karawal Nagar. On that day, he had joined the investigation of this case and IO had interrogated the accused Mamta and Bhoori Devi and arrested them vide their arrest memos Ex. PW7/A and PW7/B respectively.
Their personal search was also conducted.
Accused Mamta had also given disclosure
statement Ex. PW7/C. Thereafter, both the
accused persons were released on bail.
FIR No. 221/2009 Page 11 of 22
ii) PW16 Insp. Narender Tyagi deposed that on 03/09/09, he was posted as Inspector ATO at PS Karawal Nagar, Delhi. On that day, the investigation of the case was assigned to him. On receipt of FIR, he alongwith Ct. Ishwar and ASI Jeet Singh went to the spot. He prepared the rough site plan Ex. PW9/D. Accused Parvesh was called, interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex. PW9/C. His personal search was taken vide arrest memo Ex. PW9/DB. His disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex. PW9/D. In the PS ASI Jeet Singh handed over to him seizure memo of Chunni already Ex. PW9/A alongwith the diary. He perused the diary and found a suicide note on second last page of it. He further deposed that on 20/11/09, he formally arrested accused Bhoori Devi and other accused persons. He correctly recorded the statement of witnesses and also collected the relevant documents and after completion of investigation accused persons were challaned.
7. After closure of the Prosecution Evidence, all the incriminating evidence against both the accused persons namely Parvesh Kumar and Smt. Bhoori Devi was put to them in their statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC on 11/03/14 wherein the accused persons pleaded that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They also took the plea of alibi. Both the accused opted to adduce evidence in their defence.
FIR No. 221/2009 Page 12 of 228. DW1 Smt. Mamta was examined by the accused persons in their defence. She deposed that she was married with Praveen Bhardwaj in the year 2006 and she has two children. Accused Bhoori Devi was her mother-in- law and accused Pravesh her brother-in-law. At the time of marriage of accused Parvesh with deceased Jyoti, the kitchen was common but after about one year of their marriage, kitchen of Jyoti and Pravesh was separated as per desire of parents of deceased Jyoti. They all used to reside happily and cordially with each other. The parents of Jyoti used to interfere in the matrimonial life of Pravesh and Jyoti. Accused Bhoori Devi used to keep all the daughters-in-law like her daughters. Deceased Jyoti was never troubled by any of them during her life time nor any dowry was demanded from her by any of the family members. She further deposed that on 02/09/09, both the accused persons had gone to Mehrauli to see ailing Taauji of accused Pravesh. Her husband and her brother-in-law Praveen were away to their jobs. She and Jyoti were alone at home and one of their distant relatives Ram Charan, who was residing in their house that time, came at about 12:00 noon from his job and was taking rest after having meals. At about 5:15 p.m, she was called by said Ram Charan upstairs and when she went upstairs in the room of Jyoti, she found her hanging with the ceiling fan. She and Ram Charan removed Jyoti and laid her on the floor. Meanwhile, some neighbours came there and one of them informed the police.
9. I have heard the submissions from Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for State and Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Ld. Counsel for both the accused persons. I have also gone through the record.
10. Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for State has submitted that the father of deceased namely Jamuna Upadhyay has made serious allegations FIR No. 221/2009 Page 13 of 22 in his statement made before Executive Magistrate, Seelampur, Delhi on 02/09/09 regarding harassment and torture of his deceased daughter. The deceased has died within a period of two years of her marriage with accused Pravesh Kumar. The father of deceased stated that his daughter (deceased) was having a son aged one and half years and his deceased daughter remained at his house one month prior to the date of incident. The accused Parvesh (husband) took her to his house after quarreling with him as he was not interested in sending his daughter with the accused. His daughter had committed suicide due to mental torture and harassment caused by her in- laws. On the basis of said statement Executive Magistrate directed SHO, PS Seelampur to take necessary action as per law.
The mother of deceased Smt. Chanda also made allegation against accused persons in her statement made to the police U/s 161 Cr.PC. In the said statement she alleged that deceased Jyoti visited her house on 7 th July and she disclosed to her that she was being pressurised by her mother- in-law for bringing Rs. 2-3 lacs for construction of a house and for the marriage of brother-in-law of deceased. On 11th July at about 9:00 p.m, her son-in-law came to her house and when she asked regarding weak health of her daughter, the accused Parvesh uttered "isko hawa bhar doon kya [kya hum isko khana nahi dete]". After 2-3 days she had heard the conversation of deceased with her mother-in-law, who was abusing and saying that she will allow the deceased company of her small son so long as she was feeding milk to him. On 02/09/09 she received a telephonic message from accused Parvesh that her daughter Jyoti had committed suicide.
The deceased left the suicide note and same was sent for comparison to FSL office with the admitted handwriting of deceased. The FSL FIR No. 221/2009 Page 14 of 22 office required some more admitted handwriting of deceased for making comparison and IO of the present case did not comply the said request of FSL office. The suicide note mentions the mental condition of deceased that she was not happy at her matrimonial house though she did not make any allegation against her in-laws.
The postmortem conducted on the body of deceased Jyoti by the Dr. Atul Gupta PW15 proves that the cause of death in the prsent case was asphyxia due to antemortem hanging.
The material witnesses of the prosecution i.e PW1 Chanda Upadhyay, PW10 Jamuna Upadhyay, PW11 Sh. P.K. Sofat Executive Magistrate, Seelampur, PW15 Dr. Atul Gupta and PW16 Insp. Narender Tyagi, IO of the present case proved the case of prosecution by their deposition in the court. The deceased was mentally fit at the time of her death. She was not suffering from any depression. The accused persons forced her to commit suicide due to non-fulfillment of their demand for dowry. The IO of the present case had not collected any call detail record of mobile phone from which deceased used to make calls to her parents. From lacunae in investigation by the IO, the accused persons cannot take benefit of the same. In view of the aforesaid submissions, accused persons be convicted for the offences with which they were charged.
11. Ld. Defence has submitted that the prosecution has charge- sheeted several relatives of accused family and at the stage of charge five of them were discharged by my Ld. Predecessor and only accused Parvesh and Bhoori Devi were charged for offence U/s 498A/306/34 IPC whereas my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 13/04/10 did not frame the charge FIR No. 221/2009 Page 15 of 22 U/s 304B/506/34 IPC. According to Ld. Defence Counsel both the material witnesses PW1 Chanda mother of deceased and PW2 Jamuna Upadhyay, father of deceased have not made any allegation against the accused persons of dowry demand or of treating the deceased with cruelty or harassing her on account of dowry demand in the initial complaint made before Ld. SDM. However, in the court, in examination-in-chief, they have made improvement over their testimony first time which cannot be relied. The expert opinion on the suicide note allegedly recovered from the room of the deceased was received which was inconclusive. However, it was submitted that further attempt could be made if some more admitted writings of contemporary period of the person concerned may be procured and sent for the examination but the IO has not bothered to provide more admitted writings for further analysis and therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that it is the case of abatement to commission of suicide. Ld. Defence Counsel has also submitted that on behalf of the accused one defence witness DW1 Mamta has been examined who is married to Parveen Bhardwaj, brother of accused Parvesh and both accused are brother-in-law and mother-in-law of DW1. She has deposed that after marriage of deceased with accused Parvesh; as per desire of the parents of the deceased, their kitchen was separated. They were living happily and cordially with each other. The deceased was never harassed by any of the family members of accused at any point of time and no dowry demand was made. In the cross-examination, she has denied that accused persons used to harass Jyoti for bringing less dowry. She also denied the suggestion that both accused demanded Rs. 2-3 lacs from Jyoti. She also denied the suggestion that accused Bhoori Devi used to say to Jyoti that she would treat her as wife of her son till the time she was feeding the baby. She also denied the suggestion that Parvesh had quarreled with Jyoti on 11/08/09 or that accused Parvesh brought Jyoti FIR No. 221/2009 Page 16 of 22 forcefully. She also denied the suggestion that two days before the incident Jyoti had called her mother and informed her mother that she was being harassed by accused persons for demand of dowry. She also denied the suggestion that accused Parvesh told Jyoti either to commit suicide else she will be killed by them. She has proved on record photographs Ex. DW1/A to DW1/G which show the deceased cheerful. She also denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely to save the accused persons. She further denied the suggestion that Jyoti committed suicide because of harassment and torture by the accused persons. Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that the testimony of defence witness also deserves to be given same weightage as given to a prosecution witnesses and has relied on authority reported as Anil Sharma and Ors v State of Jharkhand 2004 (3) RCR (Criminal) 774 (SC).
Ld. Defence Counsel also relied on authorities reported as Vipin Jaiswal (A-1) v State of A.P, 2013 CRI.L.J 2095, Rohtash v State of Haryana 2012 III AD (CRI.) (SC) 365, Bhupender @ Kale v State 2012 (7) LRC 24 (Del) (DB), Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and Others v State of Maharashtra 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 57, Dharampal v State of NCT Delhi 2013 (6) LRC 207 (Del), Mahesh Kumar & Ors v State 2013 (6) LRC 213 (Del), Ahmed Sayeed v State 2014 (1) LRC 378 (Del), Krishan & Anr v State of Delhi 2013 (5) LRC 203 (Del), Shiv Kumar v State 2012 [2] JCC 1083, Narender Singh Arora v State (Govt of NCT Delhi) & Ors 2010 (3) LRC 349 (Del), State v Kamlesh Kumar & Anr 222 Matrimonial Law Report 2011 (Delhi High Court) and State v Naresh Chand & Ors 2009 (3) LRC 200 (Del),
12. Sec. 498-A IPC reads as under :-
"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 FIR No. 221/2009 Page 17 of 22 woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"
means --
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand".
13. The argument from Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor is that father of deceased in his statement has alleged that the accused Parvesh forcibly brought the deceased from his house after quarreling with them and he was not interested in sending his daughter with the accused. As per the record, the parents of the deceased are resident of Chhawla, Najafgarh, Delhi which is village area and it cannot be believed that parents of the deceased would have allowed the accused Parvesh to forcibly bring the deceased from her parents house against their wishes.
14. In the complaint Ex.PW10/A, father of the deceased has alleged that in-laws of his deceased daughter used to harass his daughter on account of dowry demand. The deceased was living with her parents for about one month, prior to the incident happily but accused Parvesh son-in-law of the complainant brought her forcibly against their wishes. In-laws of his deceased daughter used to treat her with mental cruelty and she committed suicide on account of mental cruelty committed by the accused persons. According to him, his daughter has been killed. From this complaint, it is apparent that the allegations are vague and general in nature. No specific date regarding FIR No. 221/2009 Page 18 of 22 mental cruelty or harassment caused by in-laws of the deceased, has been mentioned in the complaint, nor any complaint has been made by the complainant or his family members against the accused persons before making the complaint Ex.PW10/A. It is pertinent to note that in the cross- examination, PW-10 has admitted that there was no demand of any sort from the side of accused persons at the time of marriage. No amount of Rs. One Lakh was demanded by the accused persons from him prior to the marriage. PW-10 is unable to tell the date, when for the first time, he came to know about the harassment on account of dowry demand being made from his deceased daughter by the accused persons. This witness admits that the dead body of deceased was given to his in-laws family with his consent. He did not attend the last rites of the deceased. PW1 Smt. Chanda Upadhyay, mother of the decased also admitted in the cross-examination that there was no demand of dowry prior to marriage. She did not lodge any complaint with the police since the day when she was initially told by her deceased daughter about her harassment till her death about the treatment meted out to her by her in-laws. She is also unable to tell the exact date when after six months of her marriage, the deceased daughter of PW1 told her about harassment by the accused persons. She is unable to state as to after how many days of departure of deceased from their house lastly she had telephonic talk with her. She is also unable to state the date when her deceased daughter told her on phone that she was well at her home. She also admitted that there was no direct demand by any of the accused persons from them. The entire testimony of PW1 and PW10 is improvement over the initial statement. No complaint has been made by the complainant or his family members against the accused persons with respect to dowry demand or cruelty/harassment having being committed by the accused persons with the deceased. Hon'ble Supreme Court in authority reported as Rohtash v State of Haryana (Supra) has held FIR No. 221/2009 Page 19 of 22 that accused is entitled for benefit of doubt in case of major improvements/embellishment in the prosecution case. DW1 has denied that the accused persons had ever made dowry demand from the deceased or they have treated the deceased with cruelty or harassed her on account of dowry demand. There is no reason to disbelieve her testimony and as per the authority reported as Anil Sharma and Ors v State of Jharkhand 2004 (Supra) the evidence of defence witness has to be given same weightage as is given to a prosecution witness.
15. As per the prosecution, a suicide note was allegedly recovered by Executive Magistrate from a diary lying near the TV trolley in the room where the deceased committed suicide. It was sent to FSL alongwith admitted handwritings of the deceased but an inconclusive report Ex. PW16/B was received from FSL wherein some more admitted writings were sought but the IO did not provide the same and therefore it could not be conclusively proved that the suicide note was written by the deceased. Complainant and other material witnesses have not challenged the said suicide note. However, in the said suicide note the deceased has not made any allegation against any of the accused.
16. In the FSL report with respect to chunni recovered from the room of deceased the opinion is as under :-
On examination of chunni Ex. 1, physically and using universal testing methods it was found that "chunni" Ex 1 was long and strong enough for hanging a person of normal built and therefore, it is established that the deceased had committed suicide with the said chunni. The postmortem report Ex. PW15/A proved by Dr. Atul Gupta bears the opinion regarding cause of death as asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. The details of FIR No. 221/2009 Page 20 of 22 injuries have been mentioned in the said report which clearly establish that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by her on account of asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. The report Ex. PW15/A is very clear and bears endorsement of the Doctors that no other injury was seen on the body which rules out any foul play or any injury having been caused on the body of deceased by accused persons.
17. Sec. 306 IPC reads as under :-
"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".
18. The contention raised by Ld. Addl. P.P that the deceased was mentally fit at the time of her death. She was not suffering from any depression and therefore it should be presumed that the accused persons forced her to commit suicide on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand. This arguments is not tenable, firstly because the prosecution witnesses have failed to prove on record that any dowry demand was made by the accused persons either at the time of marriage of deceased with accused Parvesh or at any point of time subsequent to said marriage. PWs have also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons had made dowry demand or treated the deceased with cruelty or harassed the deceased for fulfillment of any dowry demand made by the accused persons. In the authority reported as M. Mohan v The State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police AIR 2011 SC 1238, Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order passed by Hon'ble High Court for trial of the accused U/s 306 IPC. In the said judgment authority reported as Gangula Mohan Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) (1) SCC 750 was referred wherein Hon'ble FIR No. 221/2009 Page 21 of 22 Supreme Court while interpreting section 306 IPC held that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, there cannot be any conviction. It was further held that to attract Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. That the present case is squarely covered by the above decision as even if the case of the prosecution is taken to be true and the finding of the High Court that there are no elements of cruelty or dowry related harassment and that the witnesses have improved upon their earlier statements is ignored, then also Section 306 IPC is not attracted in the facts of the present case. The said authority is applicable on the facts of the present case and therefore in my considered view the accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal for the charges U/s 498A/34 IPC as well as U/s 306/34 IPC. Accordingly, both accused Parvesh Kumar and Bhoori Devi are hereby acquitted of the charges framed against them. However, they are directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bond in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each in terms of Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C within a week. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today i.e 9th June 2014 (T.S. Kashyap) ASJ-01/Spl. Judge (NDPS) Shahdara District Karkardooma Court, Delhi FIR No. 221/2009 Page 22 of 22