Delhi District Court
State vs . Pradeep & Anr. on 1 May, 2019
1
FIR No. 458/16
State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK GARG:ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 53605/16
CNR No. DLNW010087572016
State
Vs.
1. Pradeep
S/o Late Sh. Deshraj
R/o H.No. X1/41, Budh Vihar,
PhaseI, Delhi
2. Smt. Hemlata
W/o Late Sh. Desh Raj
R/o O1/42, Budh Vihar,
PhaseI, Delhi
FIR No. : 458/16
Police Station : Vijay Vihar
Under Section : 498A/304B/34 IPC
Date of Institution in Sessions Court : 02.11.2016
Date when judgment reserved : 30.03.2019
Date when judgment pronounced : 01.05.2019
JUDGMENT
1. This is the case under section 498A/304 B/34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Page 1 of 31 2 FIR No. 458/16PS: Vijay Vihar
2. The facts of the case in brief is that on receipt of DD No. 38A dated 16.06.2016, SI Mahabir Singh alongwith Ct. Suresh reached at the spot i.e H.No. X1/41 Budh Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi where they came to know that a lady namely Renu, who had hanged herself, had already been taken to Brahm Shakti hospital. They reached at Brahm Shakti hospital where they came to know that she had been declared brought dead by the doctors. SI Mahabir Singh called crime team at the hospital and got the dead body of Renu photographed. SI Mahabir also got the spot inspected by the crime team i.e house of accused at Budh Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi. SI Mahabir Singh found the piece of chunni of pink color hanging from the hook at the house and the same was taken into possession after being photographed. SI Mahabir Singh got preserved the dead body of Renu and informed the concerned Executive Magistrate. On the next day, Executive Magistrate visited the hospital and recorded the statements of the mother, father and brother of the deceased and after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. The Executive Magistrate made an endorsement on the statement of Smt. Rajkali i.e the mother of the deceased with direction to the SHO concerned for necessary action.
3. On 17.06.2016, SHO gave direction for registration of FIR and further investigation was handed over to Page 2 of 31 3 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar Inspector Kanchan Lal Meena who alongwith SI Mahabir Singh reached at the spot i.e. X1/41, Budh ViharI, Delhi where at the instance of SI Mahabir, he prepared the siteplan and accused persons were arrested. Inspector Kanchan Lal Meena collected the postmortem report and obtained the subsequent opinion with respect to the ligature material, collected the dowry articles, marriage card, two photographs of the marriage, call details of the owner of the house Ombir and the mother of the deceased.
4. Investigation was carried out by the police. Both the accused persons i.e Pradeep (husband) and Hemlata (mother in law) were arrested by the police. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.
5. On compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the charge sheet was committed to this Court by the Court of Ld. MM.
6. Vide order date 09.03.2017, my Ld. Predecessor Court framed charge under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined in total 19 witnesses.
Page 3 of 31 4 FIR No. 458/16PS: Vijay Vihar PUBLIC WITNESSES
8. PW7 Smt. Premwati (neighbour of deceased), PW8 Smt. Rajkali, mother of the deceased, PW13 Sh. Mukesh, brother of deceased and PW14 Sh. Sunder Prakash, father of the deceased are the important public witnesses examined by the prosecution. Their testimony shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
POLICE WITNESSES
9. PW1 ASI Subhash is the duty officer who has deposed that on 16.06.2016 at about 9:06 pm, a calls was received at PS Vijay Vihar through wireless operator informed him that a lady namely Renu W/o Pradeep, aged 30 years, R/o X1/41, Budh Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi, had hanged herself and she was admitted in Braham Shakti hospital, Budh Vihar, PhaseI by her husband and that she has expired. He reduced the said call into writing in the form of DD no. 38A which is Ex.PW1/A and informed SI Mahavir by phone to do the needful in the matter.
10. PW2 SI Ramesh Kumar is the duty officer who has deposed that on 17/6/2016, at about 2:00 pm, he had received tehrir on behalf of SHO for the registration of the FIR and he recorded FIR of the present case and the copy of the same is Ex.PW2/A. He made endorsement on rukka Page 4 of 31 5 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar Ex.PW2/B. He also issued the certificate U/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW2/C.
11. PW3 ASI Ram Kumar is the Incharge Crime Team who has deposed that on 16/6/2016, he had received intimation from Control Room that a lady had hanged herself and she was admitted in Braham Shakti Hospital. He went to the said hospital and saw a lady namely Renu w/o Pradeep on the bed. He saw hanging marks on her neck and she was wearing pink colour printed night suit. He prepared his report Ex.PW3/A.
12. PW4 Ct. Jai Kishan has deposed that on 19/7/2016 at about 10:00 am, MHCM HC Vijender handed over to him one sealed pullanda of white colour to deposit the same in the mortuary of BSA hospital vide RC no. 197/21/16. He deposited the same in the mortuary of BSA hospital and took the acknowledgment/receipt which she deposited in malkhana. The photocopy of the said acknowledgment is mark X.
13. PW5 Inspector Manohar Lal is the Draftsman. He has deposed that on 22/6/2016, he was called by Insp. K.L. Meena at PS Vijay Vihar and from there he along with IO Insp. K.L. Meena went to the spot i.e. H.No. X1/41, Budh Vihar, Phase I Delhi. On the pointing of the IO, he prepared the rough notes and took the measurements. Thereafter, on Page 5 of 31 6 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar the basis of rough notes, he prepared scaled site plan which is ExPW5/A.
14. PW6 HC Satender is the Photographer. He has deposed that on 16.06.2016, he went to Brahm Shakti hospital and then to the spot i.e. X1/41, Budh Vihar alongwith the Crime Team. He took seven photographs of the deceased in the hospital and remaining photographs were taken at the spot and the said photographs are are Ex.PW6/1 to Ex.PW6/13 respectively and the negatives are Ex.PW6/14 (colly).
15. PW9 W/Ct. Renu is the Telecaller at PHQ. She has deposed that on 16.06.2016, a call was received from contact no. 01127537967 and she reduced the said call in writing and passed the said call to the Control Room to be further passed on to concerned PCR. The said PCR form is Ex.PW9/A.
16. PW15 Retd. SI Mahabir Singh, is the first IO of the case. He has deposed that on 16.06.2016, a PCR call was received vide DD No. 38 A Ex.PW1/A from Brahm Shakti Hospital regarding the committing of suicide by one Renu after hanging. He alongwith Ct. Suresh reached at the house of Renu where they came to know that the lady Renu who had hanged herself had already been taken to Brahm Shakti Hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Suresh Page 6 of 31 7 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar reached at Brahm Shakti Hospital, where they came to know that she had been declared brought dead. He called the crime team at the hospital and got the deceased photographed. He got the spot i.e house of the accused at Budh Vihar, PhaseI, inspected by Crime Team. He found the piece of chunni of pink colour hanging from the hook at the house and the same was taken into possession and it was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/A. Thereafter, he got preserved the dead body of Renu for postmortem vide request letter Ex. PW15/B. He informed the concerned Executive Magistrate and the Executive Magistrate visited next day in the hospital and recorded the statements of the mother, father and brother of the deceased. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. He further deposed that on 17.06.2016, the SHO concerned registered the present case FIR and after registration of the FIR further investigation was handed over to Inspector Kanchan Lal Meena and he joined him in the investigation and went to the spot and at my instance, he prepared the site plan and accused Pradeep was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW15/C. His personal search was also carried out vide memo Ex. PW15/D.
17. PW16 Inspector Kanchan Lal (ATO) PS Vijay Vihar.
He has deposed that on 17.06.2016, the present case was marked to him and he alongwith SI Mahabir Singh reached at the spot i.e. X1/41, Budh ViharI, Delhi where at the Page 7 of 31 8 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar instance of SI Mahabir, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW16/A and accused Pradeep was arrested vide arrest memo. His personal search was carried out. During the course of investigation, he collected the postmortem report and obtained the subsequent opinion with respect to the ligature material. He collected the dowry articles list, marriage card and two photographs of the marriage from the mother of the deceased which he seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/B and the documents so seized were Ex. PW8/C, Ex. PW8/D and Ex. PW8/E respectively. He collected the call details of the owner of the house Ombir and the deceased's mother and placed it on record. He got prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PW5/A. I collected the crime scene report Ex.PW3/A. He prepared the chargesheet and filed it in the court against accused. The said chunni is Ex.P1.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
18. PW11 Dr. Afroz is the CMO of Brahm Shakti hospital. He has deposed that on 16.06.2016, one lady namely Ms. Renu W/o Pradeep was brought to the hospital at about 8.30 pm with the alleged history of hanging and she was declared brought dead vide MLC No. 1158. The said MLC is Ex.PW11/A. Page 8 of 31 9 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar NODAL OFFICER
19. PW19 Israr Babu, is the Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile. He had brought CAF, CDR of mobile number 8447045751. He had proved CAF, CDR and Certificate u/s 65 of Evidence Act and Cell ID chart as Ex.PW19/A to Ex.PW19/D respectively.
OFFICIAL WITNESS
20. PW10 Sh. Amit Kumar Singh, is the Executive Magistrate. He has deposed that on 16.06.2015, he received an information through SHO Vijay Vihar regarding the death of one Renu at Brahm Shakti hospital where she was declared brought dead. On 17.06.2016, he visited BSA hospital mortuary where he met the relatives of the deceased. Police staff was also present there. Statement of Smt. Rajkali (mother of deceased) was got recorded by him in the presence of father of the deceased namely Sh. Sunder Prakash which is Ex.PW8/A. As the death had occurred in unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, he made endorsement Ex.PW10/A. He further deposed that he recorded the identification statement of the father and brother of the deceased as Ex.PW10/B and Ex.PW10/C respectively. He filled up Form 25.35 (1)(B) Ex.PW10/D and the request for postmortem is Ex.PW10/E respectively.
Page 9 of 31 10 FIR No. 458/16PS: Vijay Vihar FORMAL WITNESSES
21. PW12 Sh. Uttam Kumar, is the Fufa of the deceased Renu. He has deposed that on receipt of the information regarding the admission of Renu at Brahm Shakti Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, he reached there and found that dead body of Renu was kept in a separate room. After sometime, police arrived and the jewellery of the deceased was handed over to her family members vide handing over/seizure memo Ex. PW12/A.
22. PW13 Sh. Mukesh, is the brother of the deceased Renu. He has deposed that on 16.06.2016, at about 09:00 PM, on receipt of information regarding the death of Renu, he along with his mother and father reached at Brahm Shakti Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and observed that the dead body of Renu was lying in a separate room and nobody was present around. He called at 100 number and after the arrival of the police, the jewellery articles that were worn by Renu were taken over and handed over to them vide seizure/handing over memo Ex. PW12/A. Thereafter, the body of Renu was shifted to BSA Hospital and on the next day, the postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted. He proved the his identification statement regarding the identification of the dead body as Ex. PW10/B. Page 10 of 31 11 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar
23. PW17 Smt. Sheetal is the neighbour of accused Pradeep. She has deposed that on the fateful day, at about 7.008.00 pm, when she returned back from her work, she found that door of the house of Pradeep was closed and no one was responding inspite of her knocking and thereafter she called Pradeep on his mobile number. Within 1015 minutes, Pradeep came there, who opened the door by thrusting his hand from the window and when they went inside, they found Renu hanging with chunni from the ceiling fan and thereafter she returned back to her house.
24. PW18 Sh. Ombir is the landlord of H.No. X1/41, Budh Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi and he has deposed that the said premises was let out to Pradeep where he was residing with his wife. On the fateful day, while he was on his duty, he received a telephone call of his aunt intimating that parents of Renu had come there and there was some commotion and in pursuance of the same, he went there and found that Renu, her mother, her brother and one more relative were there who had come due to some quarrel in the family. He cautioned Renu not to have such quarrels as it was not possible for him to come while doing duty and in the evening, he received call of his aunt intimating that Renu has committed suicide by hanging.
Page 11 of 31 12 FIR No. 458/16PS: Vijay Vihar DOCUMENTS ADMITTED DURING TRIAL
25. It is relevant here to state that on 03.11.2018, both the accused persons admitted the postmortem examination report no. 403/2016 dated 17.06.2016 of Renu W/o Pradeep given by Dr. Sandeep Garg MD Forensic Medicine, BSA Hospital Delhi and subsequent opinion no. 107/2016 dated 19.07.2016 given by him and in view of the same, the said documents were exhibited as Ex.PX1 and Ex.PX2 respectively.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C
26. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C in which all the incriminatory facts and circumstances appearing in evidence against them were put to them which have been denied by them in toto. They have stated that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have taken defence that the deceased was never subjected to cruelty or harassment in the matrimonial house and she had very congenial atmosphere at home. She was kept with all love and affection but Renu not able to conceive and due to same, she was suffering from Amenorrhea and depression and she was under regular treatment from Lady Harding Medical College and Sucheta Kriplani Hospital, New Delhi.
Page 12 of 31 13 FIR No. 458/16PS: Vijay Vihar Her husband and mother in law always counseled her that she should not worry about conceiving and should remain happy. On 16.06.2016, Renu hit Pradeep on his head as a result of which he was taken to hospital by his mother and there was some fiction between them on this issue and in the evening, she committed suicide by hanging herself.
27. The accused persons have not led any evidence in their defence.
ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES
28. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defence that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is stated that there are lot of contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses which shows that they have deposed falsely with respect to the allegations of dowry demand. It is further stated that the entire story of the prosecution about dowry demand by the accused persons is completely fabricated and has no ring of truth and hence the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Reliance is placed on Kanwar Pal Vs. Shakuntala & Ors. Crl. Rev.P. 345/2006, Delhi High Court, S. Anil Kumar alias Anil Kumar Ganna Vs. State of Karnataka (2013) 7 Supreme Court cases (Cri) 289 & Madivallappa V. Marabad & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (2014) 12 Supreme Court cases 448 and certain other Page 13 of 31 14 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar judgments which form part of compilation filed on behalf of the defence.
29. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond any shadow of doubt. It is contended that having regard to the testimony of PW8, PW13 & PW14, whose testimony is truthful and reliable and is of sterling quality coupled with the other evidence on record in the form of investigation conducted by the police, the prosecution has been able to prove its case.
FINDING OF THE COURT
30. After hearing, Ld. Counsel for the defence and Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the court is giving its findings, in the following paragraphs.
31. Section 304B IPC punishes "dowry death" and it provides that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her Page 14 of 31 15 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar death.
32. Section 498 A IPC is much wider in nature. It makes an offence when the husband or the relatives of the husband of a woman, subject such woman to cruelty. The term "Cruelty" means not only harassment to the woman with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand for any properly or valuable security but it would also include any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injuries herself.
33. It shall be relevant to examine the testimony of PW8 Smt. Rajkali, mother of deceased, PW13 Sh. Mukesh, brother of the deceased & PW14 Sh. Sunder Prakash, father of the deceased because they are only witnesses who could have proved about the factum of cruelty or harassment caused to the deceased within the meaning of Section 498A IPC or about cruelty or harassment on account of dowry demand and if so, soon before her death within the meaning of Section 304B IPC.
34. Since the prosecution is placing its heavy reliance on the testimony of the said witnesses, hence it is necessary for this Court to first determine whether what they have deposed is reliable and truthful. It is settled law that in a case where the testimony of a witness is found to be Page 15 of 31 16 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar reliable, the conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of such a truthful and trustworthy witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care. Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court whether the witness should be or should not be believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court. It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witnessbox; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.: Krishnan Vs. State reported in AIR Page 16 of 31 17 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar 2003 SC 2978).
35. It is relevant here to state that 2 accused persons namely, Pradeep (husband) and Hemlata (mother in law) are facing trial in the present case.
36. Here, it would be expedient, if the allegations against the accused Hemlata are considered first.
37. PW8 Smt. Rajkali, mother of deceased has deposed in court that they had married their daughter Renu with Pradeep on 06.12.2014 and at the time of marriage, no demand of dowry was made by Pradeep and his family members but after about 2 months of marriage, Pradeep and his mother Hemlata raised the demand of money from her daughter on the pretext that in the marriage, they had come under debt. She further deposed that Renu was left by Pradeep at her paternal house where she stayed for the next six months but after taking her back, he and his mother raised the demand for money again and she gave her Rs. 50,000/, Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 10,000/ at different times. She has further deposed that after two months of taking her back, Pradeep opened a shop at Sagar Pur for selling mobile recharge cards and SIM and he again started raising the demand of money and Renu used to be beaten by Pradeep, his mother and other family members.
Page 17 of 31 18 FIR No. 458/16PS: Vijay Vihar
38. Hence, as per this witness, Renu was treated with cruelty and harassment on account of demand of money by both Pradeep and his mother Hemlata.
39. However, the father of the deceased namely Sh. Sunder Prakash, who has been examined as PW14 by the prosecution, has not uttered even a single averment against the accused Hemlata. PW14 has deposed that after some days of marriage, Pradeep started harassing his daughter asking her to bring money and that it was Pradeep, who conveyed his wife i.e. Smt. Rajkali that he had come under debt and he asked for Rs. 50,000/ which his wife gave to him. He has further deposed that further amounts were also demanded by Pradeep from time to time but he has not attributed any role upon accused Hemlata as far as the demand of money is concerned.
40. Here it is not out of place to mention that the other family members of the deceased i.e. PW12 Sh. Uttam Kumar, fufa of deceased and PW13 Sh. Mukesh, brother of deceased have also not averred anything against accused Hemlata.
41. It is not possible that if on account of demand of money, Renu was being subjected to cruelty and harassment in her matrimonial house by her mother in law, her brother, father and fufa i.e. PW13, PW14 and PW12 Page 18 of 31 19 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar would not be aware about it, but as stated above, they have not deposed anything against accused Hemlata.
42. In view of the above and in view of the contradiction between the testimony of PW8 and PW14, the role of accused Hemlata in subjecting Renu to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of money becomes very doubtful.
43. When the contradictions are material in nature, it has been held in Tehsildar Singh vs. State of UP AIR 1959 SC 1012 :
Moreover, looking at the ambiguous narration of sequences described by the witnesses, the chain of events in the case cannot be said to have been properly brought on record by the prosecution. It is always the duty of the Court to separate chaff from the husk and to dredge the truth from the pandemonium of Statements. It is but natural for human beings so state variant statements due to time gap but if such statements go to defeat the core of the prosecution then such contradictions are material and the Court has to be mindful of such statements.
44. It argued by Ld. Counsel for the defence that accused Hemlata was not living with her son Pradeep and Renu and that she was living separately. It is important to note that Page 19 of 31 20 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar PW8 Smt. Rajkali has admitted in her crossexamination that in view of the illicit relationship between Hemlata and Banwari Lal, accused Hemlata had turned away her daughter Renu from her house. If Renu was turned out of the house and she was living separately alongwith Pradeep, there is nothing on record what was the frequency of Hemlata visiting the matrimonial house of Renu.
45. After perusing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it appears that an attempt has been made to involve the family of the husband as far as the demand of money is concerned and hence, possibility of naming the mother in law by way of exaggeration is not ruled out.
46. It has been held in Kansraj Vs. State of Punjab and ors. 2000 (5) SCC 207 that:
"5..... a tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in laws of the deceased wives in the matter of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for Page 20 of 31 21 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar
involving other relations which
ultimately weaken the case of the
prosecution even against the real
accused as appears to have happened in the instant case."
47. It has also been recently held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case K. Subba Rao and ors. vs. State of Telangana Crl. Appeal no. 1045/2018 arising out of SLP Crl No. 3286/2016 that the relative of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.
48. It has been held in Monju Roy & Ors. Vs. State of Bengal 2015 V AD (SC) 164 that the court has to adopt pragmatic view and when a girl dies an unnatural death, allegations of demand of dowry or harassment which follows cannot be weighed in golden scales. At the same time, omnibus allegations against all family members particularly against brothers and sisters and other relatives do not stand on same footing as husband and parents.
49. As far as the accused Hemlata is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove that deceased Renu was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her mother in law Hemlata within the meaning of term "cruelty" as defined Page 21 of 31 22 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar under Explanation (a) and (b) of Section 498 A IPC or that she subjected her to cruelty on account of demand of "dowry" within the meaning of Section 304 B IPC and hence, she is acquitted for the offence under Section 498 A & 304 B IPC.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ACCUSED PRADEEP U/S 304 B IPC
50. It has been held in Kaliayaperumal Vs. State of TN (2004) 9SCC 157 that the essential ingredients for constituting an offence u/s 304B IPC are under:
(1) The death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(2) Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(3) Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(4) Such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, demand for dowry.
51. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased got married to accused Pradeep on 06.12.2014 and she died on 16/06/2016. Thus, the period of marriage between the deceased and Pradeep was around one & six months i.e. Page 22 of 31 23 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar less than seven years.
52. As stated above, PW11 Dr. Afroz, CMO Brahm Shakti Hospital, Budh Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi had initially examined Renu when she was brought to the said hospital with alleged history of hanging on 16/06/2016, at about 08:30 PM and he prepared her MLC which is Ex. PW11/A. He found ligature marks present around the neck of Renu.
53. Dr. Mukesh Gupta and Dr. Sandeep Garg, both MD Forensic, Senior Residents, BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Renu vide postmortem no. 403/2016 dated 17.06.2016 and the said postmortem is Ex. PX1, as it was admitted by the defence during trial. The cause of death was opined to be due to combined effect of asphyxia and venous congestion consequent to antemortem ligature hanging. Dr. Sandeep Kumar also gave subsequent opinion about the ligature material i.e. chunni which was found at the spot and he opined that the ligature marks mentioned in the PM report could have been caused by the said ligature material and the said subsequent opinion is Ex. PX2.
54. There is nothing on record to controvert the above medical evidence.
Page 23 of 31 24 FIR No. 458/16PS: Vijay Vihar
55. In view of the above, it is clear that it was a case of hanging and hence deceased died an unnatural death.
56. The two ingredients of Section 304B IPC having being satisfied, this court is now required to advert to remaining two ingredients i.e. (i) whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused for or in connection with any demand of dowry and (ii) whether soon before her death, she was subjected to such cruelty or harassment by him.
57. The court has to see whether these ingredients are proved or not in the present case?
DOWRY
58. It is the essential requirement of Section 304B IPC that the cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with demand for dowry.
59. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines "dowry" as under:
Definition of 'dowry' In this Act, 'dowry' means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or Page 24 of 31 25 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
60. Explanation II. The expression 'valuable security' has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code."
61. The term 'Dowry' has also been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Goptal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, III (1996) CCR 39 (SC)=AIR 1996 SC 2184, wherein it was held that "property or valuable security so as to constitute dowry within the meaning of the Act must, therefore, be given or demanded as consideration for marriage." Therefore, the term 'consideration' assumes importance because if any article is not given as a consideration for marriage, then it would not be covered with definition of dowry.
62. A careful analysis of the abovereferred definitions would show that dowry would include that property or valuable security which is actually given or which is agreed to be given, in connection to the marriage of person in Page 25 of 31 26 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar question. The property or valuable security may be given or may be agreed to be given before marriage or at the time of marriage or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the marriage. But there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given at the time of marriage, which is missing in the present case.
63. The case of the prosecution here is that after marriage, Pradeep specifically raised the demand of Rs. 1 lac by saying that out of Rs. 2 lac agreed upon between the parties, Rs. 1 lac had already come and Rs. 1 lac remained. However, none of the witnesses including PW8 Smt. Rajkali and PW14 Sh. Sunder Prakash have deposed anything in that regard. In fact, PW8 Smt. Rajkali was crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State on this issue and she frankly admitted that she had no idea about the said demand of Rs. 1 lac by Pradeep. As stated above, PW14 Sh. Sunder Prakash has also not deposed anything in that regard and he has not been crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State on this issue. No other evidence has come on record to establish the said case of the prosecution. Hence, prosecution has miserably failed to prove that Rs. 2 lac was agreed between the parties out of which Rs. 1 Lac was paid by the complainant side and the remaining amount of Rs. 1 lac demanded by accused Pradeep. It is importance here to mention that PW8 Smt. Rajkali has specifically deposed in the court that at the time of marriage, no demand of dowry Page 26 of 31 27 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar was made by Pradeep and his family members. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove said dowry demand of Rs. 1 lac.
64. A careful analysis of the abovereferred definitions would show that the demand of money which has been proved in the present case, would not come within the definition of word "Dowry" within the meaning of Section 304B of IPC as it was not given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage of the said parties within the meaning of Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
65. The mere fact that the person demanding the money was husband would not suffice to bring the said demand within the meaning of Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The money for which the demand was made was not "given or agreed to be given" within the meaning of Section 2 of the said Act. The only fact that the parties are related to each other through marriage is not enough to invoke Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in the circumstances of the case.
66. In view of the above, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove charge u/s 304B IPC against accused Pradeep and hence he is acquitted of the said offence.
Page 27 of 31 28 FIR No. 458/16PS: Vijay Vihar ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ACCUSED PRADEEP U/S 498 A IPC
67. Both PW8 Smt. Rajkali and PW14 Sh. Sunder Prakash have deposed about the cruelty and harassment caused to Renu in her matrimonial house by accused Pradeep on account of demand of money. It has come on record that after about two months of marriage, he raised the demand of money from Renu on the pretext that they had come under debt, in the marriage. She was left in her paternal house by Pradeep where she stayed for about six months and after taking her back, Pradeep raised the demand for money again and this was conveyed by Renu to her mother Smt. Rajkali, who gave her Rs. 50,000/, Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 10,000/ at different times.
68. Statement of Smt. Rajkali (PW8) has been corroborated by her husband Sh. Sunder Prakash, who has also deposed on the same lines. Sh. Sunder Praksh in his testimony, while deposing about the demand of money by the Pradeep has stated that Pradeep himself was disturbed. Here this witness is sympathizing with his son in law Pradeep as he was understanding his financial difficulties in life and this makes his testimony very convincing.
69. Due to the above, it is clear that all was not well in the matrimonial life of Renu and Pradeep and hence, Renu used to remain disturbed and unhappy. Even on the fateful Page 28 of 31 29 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar day i.e. 16.06.2016 parents of Renu received a call of Pradeep at about 11:00 AM, wherein Pradeep conveyed to that he would not be keeping Renu any further and that she should be taken back. In pursuance of the same, her mother Smt. Rajkali alongwith her son Sonu reached at the matrimonial house of Renu but Pradeep was not there. Renu was weeping and when her mother asked her to come along, she refused to come with them and told that she would herself sought out the matter. The factum of their visit to the matrimonial house of the Renu on the fateful day has also been proved by PW18 Sh. Ombir, who was the landlord of accused Pradeep.
70. The accused Pradeep has taken a defence that Renu was not subjected to any sought of cruelty or harassment in his matrimonial house and there was no demand of money and that Renu was suffering from amenorrhea and depression as she was not able to conceive and she was under regular treatment for the same from Lady Harding Medical college and Suchita Kriplani Hospital, New Delhi and that she used to be counseled from the time to time that she should not worry about her inability to conceive and that she should remain happy. Pradeep has further taken the stand that on 16.06.2016, Renu hit him with his head and as a result of which he was taken to hospital by his mother and there was some friction between them on this issue and in the evening, she committed suicide by Page 29 of 31 30 FIR No. 458/16 State Vs. Pradeep & Anr.
PS: Vijay Vihar hanging herself.
71. In my view, accused Pradeep has failed to prove his defence. Except bald allegations, no document worth the name has been placed on record to shown that Renu was suffering from depression due to the reason that she was not able to conceive. No evidence has been led in this regard. Hence, accused Pradeep has failed to substantiate his defence.
72. The testimony of PW8 and PW14 has remained intact on all material points. There is no major discrepancy in their statement. They have spoken clearly and cogently about demand of money from Renu by accused Pradeep and they have stood firm in their crossexamination and defence has not been able to impeach their creditability or shake their veracity. Their testimony is reliable, truthful and sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused Pradeep.
73. In view of the above, it is proved that Renu was being subjected to cruelty in her matrimonial house and she was harassed with a view to coerce her and her parents to meet the said unlawful demand of money within the meaning of Explanation (b) of Section 498 A IPC and hence accused Pradeep is convicted for the offence u/s 498 A IPC.
Page 30 of 31 31 FIR No. 458/16PS: Vijay Vihar IN NUTSHELL
74. In nutshell, accused Pradeep is convicted for the offence u/s 498A IPC and he is acquitted for the offence u/s 304B IPC. Accused Hemlata is acquitted for the offence u/s 498A/304B IPC.
75. Accused Hemlata is directed to furnish bond u/s 437A Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety of like amount. Time is sought for furnishing the bonds.
76. Put up for hearing on sentence with respect to accused Pradeep on 04.05.2019.
Digitally
signed by
DEEPAK DEEPAK GARG
Date:
GARG 2019.05.01
16:27:12
+0530
Announced in the open court
on this 01st day of May, 2019. (DEEPAK GARG) ASJ02, NORTHWEST ROHINI, DELHI Page 31 of 31