Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Braj Bhushan Sharma on 17 February, 2024

       IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA: ADDL.
       SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST DISTRICT:
            KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI

SESSIONS CASE NO. 137/16
CNR No. DLNE01-003173-2016
FIR No. 165/16
P.S. Karawal Nagar
U/s : 498A/304B/34 IPC

STATE

                                        Versus

(1) BRAJ BHUSAN SHARMA
S/o Sh. Jai Raghuveer Sharma
R/o H. No. G-353, Gali No. 17,
West Karawal Nagar, Delhi

(2) SEETA DEVI
w/o Sh. Jai Raghuveer Sharma
R/o H. No. 14, Street No. 35,
Radha Krishna Marg,
West Karawal Nagar, Delhi.


Date of Institution :         17-08-2016
Date of Argument :            08-01-2024
Date of Judgment :            17-02-2024


JUDGMENT

1. Brief facts of this case are that on 06-04-2016 at about 1:05 am, an information was received in PS Karawal Nagar that one lady was got admitted by her husband in IHBAS after hanging at H. No. G-353, Gali No. 17, West Karawal Nagar and from there, Dr. Shudhanshu got admitted her in GTB Hospital for treatment. The information was reduced into writing vide DD SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 1 of 41 No. 2A (Ex.PW8/A), the same was assigned to SI Raghunath (hereinafter referred to as first IO/Investigating officer of the present case). Thereafter, SI Raghunath reached at GTB Hospital and obtained MLC No. GTBE 86784 of victim Rita Sharma and met husband of victim, who stated that victim Rita Sharma hanged herself at his residence. He further stated that he got married with Rita on 17-02-2012. SDM concerned and crime team were informed about the incident. Crime team reached at the scene and inspected the scene, photographs were taken. IO seized green colour saree in two pieces lying in the verandah near the gate of room of above-stated house vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/B. Efforts were made to record the statement of victim Rita Sharma but she was stated to be unfit for statement by the treating doctors. DD No. 2A was kept pending as no foul play was suspected by anyone.

On 07-04-2016, an information was received from GTB Hospital regarding death of victim Rita Sharma during treatment which was reduced into writing vide DD No. 16A (Ex.PW15/C). SDM concerned was again intimated. SDM Radha Charan came in the mortuary of GTB Hospital and completed the inquest proceedings. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted and after postmortem examination, the dead body was released to the father of the deceased in accordance with the directions of the concerned SDM, who recorded the statement of father of the deceased namely Satyawan Sharma at GTB Hospital.

On 23-04-2016, statement of Smt. Sheela Devi (mother of deceased Rita Sharma) was presented before Inspector J.S. Mehta, who made an endorsement to get an FIR registered u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. Accordingly, FIR was registered and the SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 2 of 41 investigation was assigned to Inspector A. P. Singh (hereinafter referred to as second IO/Investigating Officer), who visited the place of incident and inspected the same in the presence of one neighbour namely Markendya Tiwari. The site plan was prepared. The statement of Markendya Tiwari was recorded. Accused Braj Bhushan was arrested. In the evening, parents of the deceased came at PS and handed over one photograph of marriage of deceased with accused Braj Bhushan Sharma and one marriage invitation card which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/C. Efforts were made to arrest the accused Sita Devi but she could be traced till 14.06.2016.

On 03.06.2016, further investigation was assigned to Inspector Om Dutt Vats, who obtained NBWs against accused Sita Devi.

On 15.07.2016, sealed parcel containing ligature material was sent to FSL through Ct. Hari Ram to get subsequent opinion. PM report of deceased Rita Sharma was obtained wherein doctor concerned opined the cause of death as hypoxic encephatopathy as a result of antemortem hanging. Initially, charge-sheet was filed only against accused Braj Bhushan Sharma on 20-07-2016. Meanwhile, accused Sita Devi was admitted on anticipatory bail vide order dated 08.09.2016. On 08.09.2016, she was formally arrested and in due course, supplementary chargesheet was filed against her on 05-04-2017.

COMMITTAL

2. After taking cognizance and compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C., the present case was committed to the Courts of Sessions vide order dated 10-08-2016 by the Ld. CMM/KKD. The same was allocated by the then Ld. District and Sessions Judge to the SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 3 of 41 Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Subsequently, supplementary chargesheet qua accused Sita Devi was filed and after compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C., the same was committed to the Courts of Sessions vide order dated 20-04-2017 by the Ld. CMM/KKD.

CHARGE

3. After hearing the arguments and finding that prima facie case is made out against the accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 498A/304B/34 of IPC, charge was framed by ld. Predecessor against accused persons, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution got examined as many as 19 witnesses.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

4. (i) PW1 Sh. Radha Charan, Rtd. SDM deposed that on 07.04.2016, he was on duty as SDM at Karawal Nagar, Delhi. On that day, at about 12 noon, he was informed by police officials of P.S. Karawal Nagar that one lady was admitted in GTB hospital in serious condition she had tried to commit suicide by hanging. He immediately reached at GTB hospital where police officials of PS Karawal Nagar met him. It came into his notice in GTB hospital that admitted injured had been 'declared dead' by the doctor during treatment. Dead body of Rita Sharma had already been shifted in the mortuary for the purpose of postmortem examination. In the mortuary, father of deceased namely Satyawan Sharma met him. He was got introduced by police officials of PS Karawal Nagar. He recorded statement of Satyawan Sharma at about 12.45 p.m. on 07.04.2016 vide Ex.PW1/A. Whatsoever the said witness told to him, same was recorded in his statement Ex. PW1/A. It came into his notice SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 4 of 41 from aforesaid statement that no allegation were made by the aforesaid witness against any person for the incident. The aforesaid statement had been given to him by aforesaid witness voluntarily and without any pressure. He made endorsement Ex. PW1/B addressed to SHO P.S. Karawal Nagar to take action as per law in this matter on the basis of aforesaid statement. Thereafter, he completed inquest proceedings with the help of police officials of PS Karawal Nagar. Relevant documents were filled up by police official on his direction and dictation during inquest proceedings, dead body of Rita Sharma was identified by Satyawan and Braj Bhushan. He got recorded their statements regarding identification of dead body vide Ex. PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D respectively. He got filled up inquest form as Ex.PW1/E. Whatsoever he noticed over the dead body, same was mentioned in the inquest form. He also got filled up request for postmortem vide Ex. PW1/F. Aforesaid inquest papers alongwith copy of other relevant documents prepared by police were sent to autopsy surgeon for postmortem examination. He directed police officials to release the dead body to legal heirs after postmortem examination vide direction Ex.PW1/G. On the same day, postmortem examination was conducted in this case. He left the mortuary and handed over the statement of Satyawan Sharma to police official to deliver the same to SHO for further necessary action.

He further deposed that on 16-04-2016, at about 11.45 a.m., mother of deceased namely Smt. Sheela Devi came in his office at Nand Nagri with some other relatives. She requested to record her statement as she was aware about the incident, then he recorded her statement inside his room and her relatives were SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 5 of 41 outside the room at that time. Whatsoever Smt. Sheela Devi told to him, same was recorded in her statement vide Ex. PW1/H in his own handwriting. She made allegations against husband and in-laws of deceased. He made endorsement Ex. PW1/I to take legal action as per law addressed to SHO on the aforesaid statement. He handed over the aforesaid statement to one police official who was accompanied with Smt. Sheela Devi on the same day i.e. 16.04.2016.

In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had recorded statement of Satyawan correctly on 07-04-2016. He affirmed that Satyawan had given aforesaid statement voluntarily and without any pressure. He affirmed that Satyawan had put his signature at point A under his statement in his presence. He had read over the statement Ex. PW1/A to Satyawan prior to taking his signature on his statement.

(ii) PW2 Markandey Tiwari is the neighbour of the accused. He deposed that accused Braj Bhushan Sharma is known to him being resident of colony. In the year 2016 and before, accused was residing along with his wife and daughter Anushka at his H. No. G-353, Gali no. 17, West Karawal Nagar. The wife of accused used to remain under depression. He was not aware what happened with her. However, on 07-04-2016, he came to know that she died in the hospital and she was admitted in the hospital by her husband.

The witness was cross-examined by ld. Addl. PP for State as he was resiling from his previous statement.

During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he affirmed that police had recorded his statement in this case on SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 6 of 41 23-04-2016. He denied that on 05-04-2016 at about 2 pm, he heard a noise of Kumari Anushka from her house or that she was raising alarm that Mummy Mar Rahi Hai. He denied that he reached at the door of the accused or that he had requested to Anushka to open the door from inside or that it was told to him by her that Mummy put a lock on the door or that she searched key of lock. He denied that many mohalla people gathered at the door of accused at that time when Anushka was raising alarm from the window of her house. He denied that Kumari Anushka could not open the door of her house as she could not trace the key of the lock. He denied that grandparents and uncle Ashish @ Tinni of Anushka also came at the house of Anushka in his presence. He denied that he and aforesaid uncle Ashish reached at the house of accused via house of one neighbour or that they noticed that Rita Sharma was trying to finish herself by hanging with the help of saree at that time. He denied that he with the help of Ashish and other mohalla people got down Rita and saved her. He denied that Smt. Rita was taken to hospital by Ashish in ambulance. He denied that accused used to harass his wife Rita Sharma or that it came into his notice that accused used to quarrel with his wife or that other in-laws of deceased used to visit house of accused and used to harass the deceased for demand of cash and dowry. He denied that mother-in-law of deceased and another in-laws used to quarrel with deceased at her house.

He affirmed that police had visited place of incident in his presence. He volunteered that he had told to police at that time that no one was present inside the house of Rita Sharma except her and her daughter. He denied that he was deposing falsely on SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 7 of 41 the facts that Rita Sharma used to remain under depression. He denied that Rita Sharma committed suicide as she was harassed and tortured by her husband and in-laws.

The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel and he affirmed that relations between deceased Rita Sharma and her husband and her in-laws including mother-in-law were cordial.

(iii) PW3 Dr. Shalney Razdan was the doctor who conducted the postmortem of the body of deceased Rita Sharma. During postmortem, she noticed reddish brown abraded dry hard parchmenitised ligature mark obliquely place, above thyroid cartilage incompletely encircling the neck total neck circumference is 37 cm. After conducting the post-mortem, she opined the cause of death of deceased as hypoxic encephalopathy as a result of antem-mortem hanging. Her report is proved as Ex.PW3/A. Witness was not cross-examined despite having given the opportunity.

(iv) PW4 Dr. Mohd. Sabir Hussain is the doctor who had examined the deceased at GTB Hospital on the date of incident. He deposed that on local examination, strangulation mark was present on the neck of patient. The patient was unfit to make statement. He proved the MLC prepared by him as Ex.PW4/A. Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(v) SI E.S. Yadav was again examined as PW4. He deposed that he was the crime team official, who visited the spot SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 8 of 41 on the date of incident. He proved his scene of crime report as Ex.PW4/A. Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(vi) PW5 Sh. Satyawan Sharma is the father of deceased Rita (deceased). He deposed that they had solemnized marriage of his daughter Rita with accused Braj Bhushan @ Bunty according to Hindu rites and customs on 17.02.2012 and he had given dowry articles as per their capacity. Approximately Rs. 10.5 lakhs had been spent by them in the aforesaid marriage. After marriage, his daughter started to reside at her matrimonial house with her husband and in-laws in Karawal Nagar, Delhi. Two children were born out namely Kumari Anushka and Master Dhruv. Whenever his daughter used to visit her parental home, she used to tell him that her mother-in-law and her husband (accused) used to quarrel with her on account of day to day expenses. Deceased used to tell him that her brother-in-law used to press upon her to touch his feet whenever she used to touch feet of her mother-in-law and father-in-law. Devar of deceased used to keep evil eye on his daughter and he used to force the deceased to make physical relations with him. After about five months from the day of marriage of his daughter, father-in-law of his daughter informed him on phone that a quarrel had taken place at his house. Thereafter, he received phone call of his daughter, then she told him that her husband had given beatings to her and her husband sat on her belly during quarrel, at that time, his daughter had first pregnancy of three months. It was told by his daughter on phone that her husband and mother-in-

law put pressure upon her to get aborted the pregnancy. On the same day, he visited matrimonial house of his daughter and accused Braj Bhushan Sharma had called his relatives. Before them, he had stated to lodge complaint against husband and in- laws of his daughter. The said issue was settled due to intervention of relatives of accused Braj Bhushan. His daughter used to make call on his phone after a gap of 10-15 days and she used to tell him that she was being harassed by her husband and in-laws for demand of cash sometimes Rs. 10,000/-, sometimes Rs. 20,000/- and sometimes Rs.30,000/-. He had delivered the same on different dates but he did not remember the date however, he had mentioned date of delivery of aforesaid cash to his daughter in presence of her husband in his pocket diary. The aforesaid amount was demanded to pay the installment of Nano Car and to purchase the household articles. His daughter had bank account in Union Bank, Burari Branch, Delhi. On his instructions, his sons Kuldeep and Nitish used to deposit cash in the aforesaid account of his daughter. They had deposited cash of Rs.11,900/- on seven different dates in between 25.10.2013 to 02.04.2016. He had tendered on file bank receipts Mark PW5/1 to Mark PW5/7 pertaining to deposit of aforesaid cash in account of his daughter. The ATM card issued from the aforesaid bank in favour of his daughter was in custody of accused Braj Bhushan. Lastly, he received phone call of his daughter on 04.04.2016 at about 11:30 P.M. and she told him that she was very upset and quarrel was going on in her matrimonial house for last 2-3 days on the issue of demand of cash/ money. She had also told to him that her husband and mother-in-law were demanding a sum of Rs.60,000/- from her. She had also told to him that if aforesaid SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 10 of 41 demand was not fulfilled then they would kill him. She further told to him that she wanted to have a talk with her mother. He handed over his phone hand set to his wife. The aforesaid facts were again told by her to her mother as his wife had told to him just on completion of talk with his daughter. He further told that on 05.04.2016 at about 3:15 P.M., he received phone call of accused Braj Bhushan and he told him that his daughter Rita committed suicide and he further told to him that she was taken to hospital at Zero Pushta. He reached Zero Pushta, Usmanpur, Delhi. There, he again received phone call of Braj Bhushan and he told him that he was in IHBAS hospital, then he reached there. His daughter met him there in custody of 4-5 hospital staff but she could not recognize him and she was raising some voice. When his daughter was examined by senior doctor, one mark on the neck of his daughter was noticed and he asked about that mark from brought by person i.e. Braj Bhushan. He was not aware what reply was given by Braj Bhushan to doctor for his query. He had also seen mark on the right side neck of his daughter. He thought on seeing aforesaid mark of his daughter that someone tried to kill his daughter by strangulation. He further deposed that on 07.04.2016, he received phone call of his son Nitish @ Kuldeep that Rita was declared dead in GTB hospital by the doctor at about 10 A.M. He alongwith his wife reached GTB hospital. They had seen the dead body. Then, they lost their consciousness on seeing the dead body. His statement was recorded by SDM in the mortuary. Same is Ex. PW1/A. He had given his statement when he was directed by one person "apko bayan dena hi padega warna beti ki lash nahi le paoge". He was not sure what statement was given by him to the SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 11 of 41 aforesaid official as he was not in his senses. After postmortem examination, dead body was released in favour of Braj Bhushan by the mortuary staff. Thereafter, dead body was cremated by Braj Bhushan. He had identified dead body before Police and his statement regarding identification of dead body was recorded vide Ex.PW1/C. His statement was also recorded by the Police but he did not remember after how many days his statement was recorded by Police. On 24.04.2016, he handed over marriage photograph of his daughter with accused as Ex.PW5/A and marriage invitation card as Ex.PW5/B to Police. Same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/C. He stated that his daughter Rita was killed by her husband and her mother-in-law for demand of dowry and she was also harassed by them for demand of dowry. His daughter did not commit suicide. He did not know the other facts of this case.

In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he denied the suggestion that he had given his statement Ex.PW1/A to SDM on 07.04.2016. He volunteered that mujhe yaad nahi maine yeh bayan diya ya nahi diya, again said: maine yeh bayan majboori mein diya". He affirmed that he had stated to SDM that mother-in-law of deceased was unhappy with his daughter Rita. On seeing the statement dated 06-04-2016 Ex.PW5/D, he admitted his signature at point A. The statement was given by him to Police when his daughter was under medical treatment. He volunteered that this statement was given by him to save the life of his daughter and her children. He affirmed that his statement was recorded by Insp. A.P. Singh on 24.04.2016. He affirmed that his daughter had told to him after some days from marriage that her husband Braj Bhushan and her mother-in-law SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 12 of 41 Seeta Devi used to quarrel with her saying her parents did not give sufficient dowry in her marriage as stated by her to Police at portion A to A in her statement dated 24.04.2016 Ex.PW5/E. He affirmed that his daughter was tortured by aforesaid both accused persons to bring more dowry or that they had also harassed physically and mentally to his daughter on account of demand of dowry. He affirmed that he had fulfilled demand of aforesaid accused persons by giving them sometime Rs.5,000/- and sometime Rs.10,000/- and other household articles like cooler and fan on 01.04.2014 and 10.12.2014. He affirmed that name of mediator of aforesaid marriage is Raju R/o Gokal Puri, Delhi. He affirmed that aforesaid mediator Raju had instigated accused Seeta Devi to take full time work at home from his daughter as his daughter had not brought sufficient dowry from her parents.

In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that he had not told to SDM in his statement that Devar of his daughter used to keep evil eye on her and he used to force his daughter to make physical relations with him. He denied that he has improved his statement before court as per advice of his private counsel. He affirmed that he and his wife have deposed before court in presence of his private counsel. He affirmed that he had not made any complaint against Braj Bhushan during medical treatment of his daughter in the hospital. He had not moved any application before any authority to record his statement again in this case. He had not told to SDM in his statement that after some days from the marriage of his daughter, her husband and mother-in-law used to quarrel with her saying that her parents did not give sufficient dowry in her marriage. He affirmed that he had told to SDM in his statement Ex. PW1/A SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 13 of 41 that his daughter was suffering some ailment from the date of birth of her second child. He denied that his daughter was got medically treated for her mental ailment by her husband in IHBAS hospital and some other hospital between 2012-16. He affirmed that both children of Braj Bhushan are residing with him at present. He denied that he has put pressure upon the accused persons to execute their property document in favour of children of deceased after the date of incident or that they have executed property document on 21-04-2016 in favour of children on his compulsion and after getting the execution of documents on 21-04-2016, he got registered false FIR against them or that they been falsely implicated in this case.

(vii) PW6 HC Sanjay Kumar was the photographer accompanied the crime team visited the spot on the date of incident. He has proved 12 photographs depicting the scene of crime and one saree which was lying therein two pieces as Ex.PW6/A-1 to A-12. He has also proved his certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act with regard to proper care and maintenance of digital camera and SIM card provided to him by the department.

Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(viii) PW7 ASI Himmat Singh was the duty officer at the relevant time. He has proved the endorsement made by him on rukka as Ex.PW7/B; factum of registration of FIR as Ex.PW7/C; certificate regarding proper maintenance of computer system from which FIR was generated as Ex.PW7/D. Witness was not cross-examined despite having given the SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 14 of 41 opportunity.

(ix) PW8 ASI Ramvir Singh was the duty officer posted at PS Karawal Nagar on the intervening night of 05-06.04.2016. He has proved DD No. 2A with regard to information received about admission of deceased Rita Sharma at GTB Hospital by her husband in IHBAS and subsequently at GTB Hospital as Ex.PW8/A. Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(x) PW9 Smt. Sheela Devi is the mother of deceased Rita. They had solemnized marriage of their daughter Rita with Braj Bhushan according to Hindu Rites and Customs on 17.02.2012 and had delivered dowry articles on the day of marriage of her daughter as per their capacity. They had spent a sum of approx. Rs.10 or 10.5 lacs in the aforesaid marriage. After marriage, her daughter started to reside with her husband and in-laws in Karawal Nagar, Delhi. After about one month of marriage of Rita, it came into her notice through her aforesaid daughter that her husband and in-laws had made demand of fan and cooler. Her daughter had also told to her that her husband, mother-in-law and devar used to taunt her saying that "tu shadi mein achha saman nahi layi hai, local saman diya hai". Her daughter used to tell her on phone whenever she visited her parental house that her husband and mother-in-law and other in-laws were giving beatings to her for demand of dowry. Her daughter had also told to her that her husband and her mother-in-law and other in-laws were demanding cash. They had fulfilled demand of accused persons several times by giving them some time a sum of Rs.

10,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/-. His son Nitish @ Kuldeep had deposited some money in the account of her daughter on the direction of her husband to fulfill the demand of accused persons. Once her daughter had told to her that accused Braj Bhushan had quarreled with her daughter and during quarrel Braj Bhushan had sat on the belly of her daughter when she was pregnant. It was also told to her by her daughter that her husband, mother-in-law and other in-laws had put pressure upon her to get terminate the pregnancy as they did not want the child at that time. Her daughter had also told to her that her husband and mother-in-law used to taunt her daughter saying that "tera panch mahine mein bacha kaise aa gaya, mere to aath saal baad bacha hua". Her daughter had told to her that her devar Ashish @ Tinny had evil eye on her and he used to put pressure upon her to make physical relations with him. Husband and mother-in-law of her daughter never objected to the same and always supported him. About two days prior to Holi of year 2016, her daughter alongwith her husband had visited their home and on that day, she had told them that her husband and mother-in-law were demanding a sum of Rs.60,000/-. She had further told to her that if the aforesaid demand could not be fulfilled then "uske saath bahut galat hoga". They had given a sum of Rs.15,000/- to fulfill the aforesaid demand of dowry on that day to her daughter in presence of her husband. At that time, her daughter had also told to her that her husband, mother-in-law and other in-laws were member of one group to make demand of dowry.

She further deposed that on 04-04-2016, at about 11:30 P.M., her husband had received phone call of her daughter. Her daughter had talked with her father thereafter her husband had SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 16 of 41 given the phone set to her and then she talked with her. She had told to her on phone that quarrel was going on at her matrimonial house for last three days and she was given beatings by her husband and in-laws. She had also told to her that her husband, mother-in-law, devar namely Ashish @ Tinny and cousin jeth namely Raju R/o Gokal Puri were demanding dowry and they were saying if their demand of Rs. 60,000/- would not be fulfilled then they would kill her. Aforesaid Raju R/o Gokal Puri used to instigate accused Seeta Devi saying that Rita would not be allowed to go to her parental house. She further deposed that on 05-04-2016 at about 3:30 P.M., her husband had received phone call of Braj Bhushan @ Bunty that Rita was in the hospital. The aforesaid intimation was also given to her then she alongwith her devar namely Ishwar Dayal @ Nanhe and devrani to Delhi in IHBAS hospital and they found her daughter Rita there and at that time, she was not conscious. Thereafter, her daughter was referred to GTB hospital from IHBAS hospital. His son was in GTB hospital when her daughter was declared dead during treatment on 07.04.2016. Police had visited mortuary of GTB hospital. After postmortem examination, signatures of her husband were taken on document and dead body was handed over to Braj Bhushan. Cremation of dead body was done by Braj Bhushan in Delhi. They had not participated in the cremation. Their statements were not recorded by SDM however, signatures of her husband were obtained on document saying that "signature karo tabhi body milegi". Accused Braj Bhushan did not take care of his both children and they were in their custody from the day of death of her daughter. They were maintaining them. He had seen one mark (nishan) on the right side neck of SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 17 of 41 deceased in GTB hospital. On seeing the aforesaid mark, he came to this conclusion that her daughter was killed by strangulation. Her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother- in-law, and one cousin brother-in-law namely Raju R/o Gokal Puri were responsible. Her daughter did not commit suicide. She was killed by aforesaid persons. Statement Ex. PW1/H was shown to witness. On seeing the same, witness admitted her thumb impression at point A on her statement Ex. PW1/A which was recorded by SDM Sh. Radha Charan on 16.04.2016. One police official had given address to her. She alongwith her husband reached in the office as per address given by police official where her aforesaid statement Ex.PW1/H was recorded. They had delivered one pair of gold ear rings, one gold chain, one nose pin, one gold ring, one pair of silver pajeb, silver tagri, etc. to her daughter on the day of her marriage besides other dowry articles. One gold chain and one gold ring had also been delivered to Braj Bhushan on the day of marriage by them.

In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, she deposed that she had stated to SDM in her statement that they had spent Rs. 10-10.5 lakhs in the marriage of their daughter. She had stated in her statement to SDM that 'tu shaadi mein achha saman nahi layi hai local saman layi hai". She stated to SDM in her statement that they had fulfilled the demand of accused persons several times by giving them sometimes Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- and that her son Nitish @ Kuldeep had deposited some money in the account of her daughter on the direction of her husband to fulfill the demand of accused persons. She had stated to SDM in her statement that her daughter had told to her that her Dever Ashish had evil eye SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 18 of 41 on her and he used to put pressure upon her to make physical relations with him and that he had also stated in her statement to SDM that husband and mother-in-law of her daughter never objected to the same and always supported him. She did not remember the date, time and year when accused persons had demanded fan and cooler from her daughter.

She had stated in her statement to SDM that about two days prior to Holi of year 2016, her daughter along with her husband had visited their home and on that day she had told them that her husband and mother-in-law were demanding a sum of Rs.60,000/- and that she had further told to her that if the aforesaid demand could not be fulfilled then "uske saath bahut galat hoga" and that they had given a sum of Rs.15,000/- to fulfill the aforesaid demand of dowry on that day to her daughter in presence of her husband and that at that time, her daughter had also told her that her husband, mother-in-law and other in-laws are member of one group to make demand of dowry.

She had stated to the SDM in her statement that on 04.04.2016, at about 11:30P.M., her husband had received phone call of her daughter and her daughter had talked with her father thereafter, her husband had given the phone set to her and then she talked with her and that she had told to her on phone that quarrel was going on at her matrimonial house for last three days and she was given beatings by her husband and in-laws and that she had also told to her that her husband, mother-in-law, Devar namely Ashish @ Tinny and cousin jeth namely Raju R/o Gokal Puri were demanding dowry and they were saying if their demand of Rs.60,000/- was not fulfilled then they would kill her and that aforesaid Raju R/o Gokal Puri used to instigate accused SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 19 of 41 Sita Devi saying that Rita would not be allowed to go to her parental house. She had stated to the SDM in her statement that she had seen seen one mark (nishan) on the right side neck of deceased in GTB hospital. She had stated to SDM in her statement that it was told to her by her daughter that her husband, mother-in-law, and other in-laws used to put pressure upon her to get terminate the pregnancy as they did not want child at that time. She affirmed that they had engaged their private counsel / advocate for this case and that she and her husband have deposed before court in presence of their private counsel. She denied that she had put pressure upon the accused persons to execute their property documents in favour of children of deceased after the day of incident or that they had executed property documents on 21-04-2016 in favour of children on her compulsion and after getting the execution of documents on 21-04-2016 or that she got registered false FIR against them.

(xi) PW10 Insp. J.S. Mehta was the SHO of PS Karawal Nagar on 23.04.2016. He has proved the endorsement made by him for registration of present FIR as Ex.PW10/A on the basis of statement of one Sheela Devi already Ex.PW1/H. Witness was not cross-examined despite having given the opportunity.

(xii) PW11 ASI Radhey Shyam was the MHC(M) of PS Karawal Nagar. He has proved the entry made by him in register No. 19 as Ex.PW11/A; subsequent opinion vide road certificate No. 58/21/16 as Ex.PW11/B. His endorsement to this effect in register No. 19 against entry 113 is Ex.PW11/C. He has deposited the parcels in malkhana vide Ex.PW11/D. Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 20 of 41 in his cross-examination.

(xiii) PW12 HC Pramod was the investigating police official who accompanied IO during the arrest of accused Braj Bhushan Sharma on 23.04.2016. He has proved the arrest memo of accused as Ex. PW12/A. Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(xiv) PW13 Inspector Ravinder Malik is the third IO. He deposed that main chargesheet against accused Braj Bhushan Sharma was sent to court for trial by then IO Inspector Om Dutt. At that time, search of co-accused Smt. Sita Devi was continued as she was absconding.

On 18-09-2016, he was ATO at PS Karawal Nagar and he formally arrested accused Sita Devi in presence of W/Ct. Shivani vide arrest memo Ex. PW13/A-1 and personal search memo Ex. PW13/A-2. The accused was released on bail as she had produced anticipatory bail order. He interrogated her and whatsoever, she told him about the incident, same was recorded in inner case diary. He recorded statement of W/Ct. Shivani. All the necessary steps had already been taken during course of investigation by previous IO. He completed investigation qua accused Sita Devi and prepared supplementary chargesheet against her in the month of January 2017 which was sent to court for trial through proper channel. He had annexed all the photocopy documents with the supplementary chargesheet.

Witness was not cross-examined despite having given the opportunity.

(xv) PW14 Ct. Hari Ram was the police official who has deposited sealed parcels to get subsequent opinion at FSL vide SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 21 of 41 road certificate No. 58/21/16 Ex. PW11/A. Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(xvi) PW15 Retired SI Raghunath deposed that on 06.04.2016, he was posted as SI at PS Karawal Nagar and he was on night emergency duty on intervening night of 05/06.04.2016. During his duty at about 1.10 am on 06.04.2016, copy of DD no. 2A Ex.PW8/A was assigned to him by DO to take action in matter which was in connection of admission of one Smt. Rita Sharma W/o Braj Bhushan aged about 24 years r/o G-353, Gali no. 17, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi to GTB hospital by Dr. Shadhanshu of IBHAS Hospital. The aforesaid lady was taken to IBHAS hospital by her husband and she was medically treated by Dr. Sudhanshu who had taken the aforesaid injured Rita Sharma to GTB. Alleged history was given in IHBAS hospital that Smt. Rita had committed suicide (phansi lagane ke baad use dakhil karaya gaya). He alongwith one Constable whose name he did not remember reached GTB hospital and collected MLC of Rita Sharma Ex.PW4/A. At that time, she was unfit to make statement. It came into his notice that incident had occurred within seven years of marriage. He informed to concerned SDM about the incident that one lady namely Rita Sharma attempted to commit suicide. He had met to aforesaid injured and had seen one ligature mark on the right side of her neck. Husband of injured Braj Bhushan Sharma and father of injured Satyawan Sharma had met them in GTB hospital. He interrogated them and whatsoever they told to him, same was recorded in their statements which are Ex.PW15/A of Braj Bhushan Sharma, Ex.PW5/D of Satyawan Sharma. He had taken signature of SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 22 of 41 aforesaid witnesses on their statements at point A. It was told to him by Braj Bhushan Sharma that his wife attempted to commit suicide. She was got down by neighbours. Neighbours informed to him saying that injured was being taken by them to Jag Parvesh Hospital. He reached there and took his wife to IHBAS and thereafter, he alongwith doctor of IHBAS hospital took injured to GTB hospital. Father of injured Rita Sharma had told to him in his statement that he reached in GTB hospital on receiving information that his daughter attempted to commit suicide and he had told to him that he had no complaint against his son-in-law i.e. Braj Bhushan Sharma. He had been advised by SDM to inform him about the fitness of injured Rita Sharma. He left the hospital and reached at spot where he called crime team officials. He had seen one green colour saree in two pieces lying in the varandah near the gate of room. He had informed to senior police officials. Crime team officials came at spot at about 2:30 P.M. on 06.04.2016. Crime team In-charge E.S. Yadav inspected the spot where Rita attempted to commit suicide and place where green colour saree in two pieces was lying. He advised him to lift the aforesaid saree and send for expert opinion. He prepared SOC report Ex.PW4/A which was collected later on. Photographer Ct Sanjay had taken 12 photographs of spot and house where incident took place. 12 photographs Ex.PW6/A-1 to A-12 available on file were shown to witness who on seeing the same submitted that these were depicting the spot and house where incident took place. These were also depicting two pieces of saree which was used by injured to commit offence. He had seized saree vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/B. He had prepared cloth parcel for aforesaid saree which was sealed with seal of SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 23 of 41 RN. Crime team officials left the spot at around 3 P.M. He visited hospital and found injured Rita Sharma unfit for statement. Thereafter, he returned to PS and deposited the sealed parcel containing two pieces of saree with MHCM in intact condition. He kept pending aforesaid DD No.2A as nothing incriminating could come on file. He further deposed that on 06.04.2016, he had moved application addressing to CMO to get fitness of injured Rita Sharma. Same was assigned to concerned doctor who had made endorsement on it that injured Rita Sharma was unfit to give statement at about 12:50 PM and 1:50 A.M. on 06.04.2016. The aforesaid application is Ex.PW15/B-1. On 07.04.2016, copy of DD No.16A Ex.PW15/C was assigned to him by Duty Officer which was in connection of death of Rita Sharma during treatment in GTB hospital. In pursuance of aforesaid DD, he reached GTB hospital alongwith one Constable. He deputed Constable whose name he did not remember as a guard for dead body in mortuary of GTB. He informed to SDM about the death of Rita Sharma. On the same day, SDM Radha Charan came in the mortuary and he completed inquest proceedings. He had assisted him and he had prepared inquest papers on his direction and dictation. Dead body was identified by Satyawan Sharma and Braj Bhushan. Their statements Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D respectively were recorded for identification of dead body. Inquest form Ex.PW1/E was filed up Request for postmortem was also filled up. Aforesaid inquest papers alongwith fit for statement certificate Ex.PW15/B-1, copy of DD No.2A Ex.PW15/D, statement of Braj Bhushan Ex.PW15/A, statement of Satyawan Ex.PW5/D, MLC of Rita Sharma Ex.PW4/A, death certificate Ex.PW15/E-01, death SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 24 of 41 summary Ex.PW15/E-2, death note Ex. PW15/E-3, short summary prepared by him Ex.PW15/E-4, were sent to autopsy surgeon for postmortem examination and on the same day, postmortem was done by Dr. Shalney Razdan vide PM report Ex.PW3/A. Dead body after postmortem examination was released to father of deceased / relatives as SDM had made endorsement to this effect on the request of postmortem examination and he did so. On completion of inquest proceedings, SDM recorded statement of Satyawan Sharma in GTB hospital. Same is Ex.PW1/A and it was handed over to him. It came into his notice from aforesaid statement that no offence is made out. He returned to PS and kept pending DD no.2A and 16A as by that time, there was no allegation against anyone in this case till 07.04.2016. It came into his notice on 23.04.2016 that Reader of their PS had received statement of Smt. Sheela Devi (mother of deceased Rita Sharma) by post. Same is Ex.PW1/H which was presented by him before Inspector A.S. Mehta and endorsement to get registered FIR for offence 498A/304B/34 IPC was recorded by aforesaid Inspector on the basis of aforesaid statement of Smt. Sheela Devi recorded by SDM on 16.04.2016. After registration of FIR, investigation was assigned to Insp. A.P. Singh. It came into his notice later on that Smt. Sheela Devi had been appeared before SDM of her own. He had not produced her before SDM. He had visited spot alongwith IO and other police officials many times but site plan was not prepared in his presence. However, he had shown the place of incident and place of lying of saree in two pieces to IO and other police officials. Witness correctly identified one green saree in two pieces (one piece having knot). Saree is Ex.P1.

Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(xvii) PW16 Inspector Om Dutt Vats deposed that on 30.06.2016, he was posted at PS Karawal Nagar as ATO. Further investigation was assigned to him by senior police official. He collected the present case file from MHC(R). By that time, accused Braj Bhushan was in custody and major part of investigation had already been completed by SI Raghunath Singh and Inspector A.P Singh. He made search of absconding accused Sita Devi. He got issued NBWs against her from concerned court to trace her. Till the investigation remained with him, aforesaid accused could not be traced to him despite his best efforts. He further deposed that on 15.07.2016, Ct. Hari Ram was directed to collect the sealed parcel containing ligature material and to deposit the same to Forensic Department of Mortuary to get subsequent opinion. He had handed over written request to this effect to him. Copy of written request is Ex.P.W16/A. He collected sealed parcel containing ligature material from custody of MHC(M) vide R/C No.58/21/16. Copy of R/C is Ex.PW16/B. Ct. Hari Ram took the same and deposited to the official of forensic department of GTB. On return from there, he had recorded his statement as well as statement of MHC(M). He completed investigation and prepared charge-sheet against accused Braj Bhushan for offence u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. Subsequent opinion was awaited by that time. Supplementary charge-sheet against co-accused Sita Devi was submitted before court by Inspector Ravinder Malik which does contain the subsequent opinion.

Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 26 of 41 in his cross-examination.

(xviii) PW17 Dr. Ankit Kumar is the doctor who has once again identified the handwriting of Dr. Shalney Razdan who had already proved her PM report as Ex.PW3/A. Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(xix) PW18 Inspector A.P. Singh is the second IO. He deposed that on 23.04.2016, he was posted at PS Karawal Nagar as Inspector (Investigation). On that day, further investigation of this case was assigned to him by the oral order of senior police officials. He collected present case file from SI Raghuraj to whom DD No. 2A pertaining to incident had been marked and he had got conducted inquest proceeding through SDM in this case. On 23.04.2016, at about 10:00 AM, FIR of the present case was registered on the statement of Smt. Sheela Devi and investigation was assigned to him. Ct. Sanjay delivered rukka Ex. PW10/A and copy of FIR Ex.PW7/C to him for investigation. He also collected inquest papers and DD entry etc. from SI Raghuraj. It came into his notice that dead body of Reeta had already been delivered to legal heirs after postmortem examination and search of accused persons namely, Brij Bhushan Sharma, husband of deceased and Smt. Sita Devi, mother-in-law of deceased was continued as they were absconding. On the same day, i.e. 23.04.2016, he visited place of incident i.e. verandah of house no. G-353, Gali no. 17, West Karawal Nagar and inspected the same in the presence of one neighbour namely, Markandey Tiwari who had joined investigation at that time on his request. He prepared site plan Ex. PW18/A. He recorded statement of Markandey Tiwari u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and he was relieved from the SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 27 of 41 investigation. After about 15 minutes, Brij Bhushan Sharma came at his house. He interrogated him and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW12/A. He had not prepared personal search memo, however, he had mentioned in the CD that nothing was recovered from the personal search of accused Brij Bhushan Sharma. Ct. Pramod was present at the time of arrest and he had identified accused Brij Bhushan being a beat official. Accused was brought at PS and recorded statement of Ct. Pramod under section 161 Cr.P.C. The following day, accused was produced before the court after medical examination and he was sent to JC by Ld. MM on his written request.

In the evening of 24-04-2016, parents of deceased namely, Satya Bhan Sharma and Sheela Devi came at PS. They delivered one photograph Ex. PW5/A of the marriage of deceased with accused Brij Bhushan Sharma and one marriage invitation card Ex. PW18/B of aforesaid marriage which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/C. He recorded statement of parents of deceased one by one u/s 161 Cr.P.C and they were relieved from the investigation. Thereafter, he remained busy for 2-3 days in search of accused Sita Devi as she was absconding, during this period he had also interrogated persons who were residing in the neighbourhood of accused persons. On 28-04-2016, he collected scene of crime report from the In-charge of Mobile Crime team Inspector E. S. Yadav vide Ex. PW4/A and placed the same on file. He also collected photograph of place of incident from the photo sections as Ex. PW6/A-1 to A-7 and same were placed on file. He recorded statement of crime team official Inspector E.S. Yadav and photographer Ct. Sanjay u/s 161 Cr.P.C.

He further deposed that on 29-04-2016, he recorded SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 28 of 41 statement of SI Raghuraj u/s 161 Cr.P.C statement of SDM Shri Radha Charan. He made search of accused Sita Devi here and there and conducted raid to trace her but her presence could not be procured till 14.06.2016. He handed over the case file to MHC(R) on being transferred from there.

During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that in between the day of incident i.e. 06-04-2016 to 23-04-2016, mother of deceased had not met him. He affirmed that between aforesaid period, Sheela Devi had not given any complaint to him pertaining to incident. He affirmed that aforesaid statement of Satyawan Sharma does not connect to anyone with offence.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein incriminating facts were put to the accused, which were denied by them. They stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They stated that deceased Rita was under depression prior to the marriage and this fact was concealed by the parents of deceased. After marriage, the deceased was got treated. After the death of deceased in hospital, father of deceased asked him to transfer the property bearing no. G-353, Gali no. 17, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi in the name of both children of deceased under the guardianship of Dilip, elder brother of accused Braj Bhushan and if the property was not transferred in the name of children, they they would implicate them in present case. On 21-04-2016, the aforesaid property which was in the name of Smt. Sita Devi, was transferred in the name of both children Baby Anushka Sharma and Master Dhruv SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 29 of 41 vide Gift Deed executed on 21-04-2016 and relinquishment deed dated 21-04-2016 and thereafter on 23-04-2016, they were falsely implicated in this case. Both accused opted to lead defence evidence and examined two witnesses. DEFENCE EVIDENCE

6. (i) Smt. Sita Devi, who is an accused got examined as DW1 on an application u/s 315 of Cr.P.C. She deposed that on 05.04.2016, her daughter-in-law had committed suicide. On 07.04.2016, she had expired in the hospital during treatment. Satyavan had given statement before SDM in GTB hospital in her presence. After 2-3 days Satyavan alongwith his two brothers and two sons came at her house and stated that "sari property bachho ke naam kar do nahi to case me fasa dungs". The property was situated at G-353, Gali No. 17, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. After 23 days, they again came and got executed a vasiyatnama from her in favour of child of property bearing no. G-353, Gali No. 17. Karewal Nage, Delhi and Dilip was made caretaker of the said property. The document regarding the said property is Ex. DWI/A (colly). They had taken the children and registry papers of the said property. On 21.04.2016, they registered a false case against them.

During cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for State, she stated that they did not make any complaint to police about the alleged illegal demand of Satyawan, his brothers and two sons as deposed by her in her examination in chief dated 04-04-2022. The gift deed Ex. DW1/A was got signed through her by Satyawan, his brother and two sons under pressure.

(ii) DW-2 Ashish Sharma deposed that on 05-04-2016, his sister-in-law (bhabhi) had committed suicide (fansi lagai). On SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 30 of 41 the next day, police had taken his brother Braj Bhushan to PS Karawal Nagar for enquiry. IO SI Raghunath was present. Father of deceased came to PS and stated that there was no fault of Braj Bhushan or anyone. On 07.04.2016, his bhabhi had expired in the hospital during treatment. Satyavan had given statement before SDM in GTB hospital in his presence. After 2-3 days, they started harassing his family. Two uncles of deceased came at his house and asked, "aage kya karna hai". On which, he replied that, "jo aap bataye". They stated that "sari property bachho ke naam kar do nahi to case me fasa dunga". The address of the property where his bhabhi was residing is G-353, Gali No. 17, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi. Satyavan brought documents and took signatures of his mother and uncle, whose name he did not know. He also signed the said documents which were 5-6 in number. Satyavan and Sheela made complaint against them on 23.04.2016.

During cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for State, he affirmed that he or anybody from his family did not give any complaint to any authority regarding the harassments as deposed by him from the side of deceased family.

FINAL ARGUMENTS

7. It is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. PW-5 Satyavan Sharma, who is father of the deceased and PW-9 Smt. Sheela Devi, who is mother of the deceased have narrated with clarity episodes of cruelty meted out by the accused persons towards the deceased, during her first pregnancy and even thereafter. PW-5 has also produced Bank receipts Mark PW5/1 to 5/7 to establish the fact that dowry demands made by the in-laws SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 31 of 41 have been fulfilled by depositing cash in the Bank account of deceased from time to time. Further, PW-5 and PW-9 have also narrated the incident which has taken place "soon before the death of deceased" i.e. on 04.04.2016 wherein it is alleged that a phone call of deceased daughter was received at about 11:30 p.m. and she told that she was very upset and quarrel was going on in her matrimonial home for the last 2-3 days for the issue of demand of cash/money; she had told that her husband and mother-in-law are demanding a sum of Rs. 60,000/- from her; she had also told that aforesaid demand was not fulfilled then they would kill her.

On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. There are material contradictions and improvements in the testimony of PW-5 and PW-9 with regard to incidents of subjecting the deceased to cruelty narrated by them in their respective examination-in-chief. Both PW-5 and PW-9 have been confronted with their respective statements made by them before the SDM concerned as well as IO during their respective cross- examination. It is further submitted that no allegations have been levelled by PW-5 Satyawan Sharma in his original statement recorded before SDM concerned on the date of incident itself i.e. on 07.04.2016. Later on, after taking legal assistance from PW-5 and PW-9 have concocted false allegations against the accused persons. The parents of the deceased have already obtained custody of children of the deceased. On the insistence of deceased, property baring H.No. G-353, Gali No. 17, West Karawal Nagar, has already been transferred in the name of both children namely Baby Anushka and Master Dhruv vide gift deed SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 32 of 41 dt. 21.04.2016 Ex.DW1/A. The parents of the deceased were not satisfied with the above-stated transfer of immovable property carried out by the accused persons and they wanted to grab the entire wealth of accused persons that is why they have falsely implicated the accused persons and got the FIR registered on 23.04.2016 i.e. after about 18 days of the incident. FINDINGS OF THE COURT

8. Before analyzing the evidence led by the Prosecution in the present case, this court deems it proper to refer to some provisions of law and citations of Superior courts, which are found to be applicable to the facts of the present case.

Sections 304B, 498A, and 113B Indian Evidence Act read as under:-

"304B. Dowry death--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 her 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 death.

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, 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.

113B. Presumption as to dowry death--When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, on in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 33 of 41 presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation--For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

9. It is pertinent to note that the principles governing the cases u/s 304B of IPC have been culled by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a landmark case titled Sudhakar Singh Vs. State on 18-07-2014 in Crl. Appeal No. 240/1998 as follows:

17.1. To attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC the main ingredient of the offence to be established is that soon before the death of the deceased she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. 17.2. The death of the deceased woman was caused by any burn or bodily injury or some other circumstance which was not normal.

17.3. Such death occurs within seven years from the date of her marriage.

17.4. That the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.

17.5. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.

17.6. It should be established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death.

17.7. The expression "soon before" is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. 17.8. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. 17.9. Therefore, the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate or live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. In other words, it should not be remote in point of time and thereby make it a stale one.

17.10. However, the expression "soon before" should not be given a narrow meaning which would otherwise defeat the very purpose of the provisions of the Act and should not lead to absurd results.

17.11. Section 304-B is an exception to the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence that a suspect in the Indian law is entitled to the protection of Article 20 of the Constitution, as well as, a presumption of innocence in his favour. The concept SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 34 of 41 of deeming fiction is hardly applicable to criminal jurisprudence but in contradistinction to this aspect of criminal law, the legislature applied the concept of deeming fiction to the provisions of Section 304-B. 17.12. Such deeming fiction resulting in a presumption is, however, a rebuttable presumption and the husband and his relatives, can, by leading their defence prove that the ingredients of Section 304-B were not satisfied. 17.13. The specific significance to be attached is to the time of the alleged cruelty and harassment to which the victim was subjected, the time of her death and whether the alleged demand of dowry was in connection with the marriage. Once the said ingredients are satisfied it will be called "dowry death" and by deemed fiction of law the husband or the relatives will be deemed to have committed that offence."

10. In Kanwar Pal vs. Shakuntala And Ors. Crl. Rev.P. 345/2006, it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 29-01-2015, that:-

"In our view, onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient of Section 498A, IPC and the essential ingredient of offence under Section 498A is that the accused, as the husband of the deceased, has subjected her to cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A IPC. Similarly, for the Court to draw the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act that the appellant had caused dowry death as defined in Section 304B, IPC, the prosecution has to prove besides the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty caused by the accused to the deceased soon before her death. Since the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt this ingredient of harassment or cruelty, neither of the offences under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC has been made out by the prosecution."

The concluding para read as under:

"40. I am of the considered opinion that to establish the offence under Section 304B IPC of dowry death, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be raised against an accused until independently the offence under Section 498A IPC is proved by leading evidence to the specific allegation with regard to time and date of such demand and cruelty and furthermore establishing the proximity live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand (offence under section 498A IPC) and the death of the victim."

11. Now, let this court apply the above-mentioned principles to the facts of the present case. Indisputably, the alleged incident has taken place within seven years of marriage; the factum of SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 35 of 41 death of deceased Rita was brought to the knowledge of parents of the deceased by accused Braj Bhushan Sharma and it was accused Braj Bhushan Sharma, who had got the deceased treated at IHBAS as well as at GTB hospital, which fact stands proved from DD no. 2A (Ex. PW8/A). It is pertinent to note that the entire police machinery was set into motion by Smt. Sheela Devi, mother of the deceased, who had approached the office of SDM Sh. Radha Charan on 16-04-2016 and got her statement Ex. PW1/H recorded wherein she has levelled allegations of taunting by the in-laws of her deceased daughter for bringing insufficient dowry articles during marriage. It is alleged that she had helped her daughter by giving Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- etc. from time to time; during the first pregnancy of her daughter, the accused Braj Bhushan Sharma had sat on the abdomen of her daughter and beaten her; one cousin of accused Braj Bhushan Sharma used to provoke her in-laws; brother-in-law of accused Braj Bhushan Sharma used to talk about vulgar things; their daughter was forced to touch the feet of her brother-in-law due to which her daughter used to remain disturbed; even during the birth of boy child, she was not given proper treatment. Only on the basis of the above-stated allegations and on the directions of senior police officers, present FIR came to be registered on 23-04-2016. Prior to that, on the date of incident itself i.e. 07-04-2016, the SDM Sh. Radha Charan has recorded the statement of Satyawan Sharma, father of the deceased wherein he has categorically stated that there was no dispute between the families of either side with regard to the demand of dowry. Nor any such incident has taken place after the marriage. Due to this reason, no FIR was registered on the date of incident itself i.e. 07-04-2016.

12. In order to establish the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death for or in connection with demand of dowry, the prosecution has got examined three witnesses i.e. PW2 Markandey Tiwari, PW5 Satyawan Sharma (father of the deceased) and PW9 Sheela Devi (mother of the deceased). Out of these three witnesses, PW2 Markandey Tiwari has failed to support the case of the prosecution and therefore, he was declared hostile. PW5 Satyawan Sharma in his deposition dated 01-08-2017 has levelled allegations against Devar of the deceased of keeping an evil eye upon her; he narrated the incident of quarrel and beatings during her first pregnancy; allegations of demand of cash and deposit of cash vide bank receipts Mark PW5/1 to Mark PW5/7 between 25-10-2013 to 02- 04-2016 pursuant to demands of in-laws; and lastly it is alleged that on 04-04-2016 at about 11:30 pm, the deceased daughter had called him and reported that her husband and her mother-in-law are demanding a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. It is pertinent to note that except the incident dated 04-04-2016, all the allegations levelled by PW5 Satyawan Sharma are general in nature and does not show existence of a proximate or live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death in question as there is no reference to any particular date and time. Even the incident of 04-04-2016 was not revealed by PW5 either before the SDM or before the IO during the investigation of the present case. Had he revealed about the said incident during investigation, the IO would have taken steps to verify the said claim by getting the call details records between the deceased daughter and her father preserved. The witness was confronted with various improvements made by him over his previous SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 37 of 41 statements during his cross-examination but no cogent explanation came from his side. On the other hand, it is claimed by the accused persons that the parents of the deceased were not satisfied with the execution of vasiyatnama in favour of children of deceased regarding property bearing no. G-353, Gali no. 17, Karawal Nagar, Delhi, which was carried out 2-3 days after the date of incident and they wanted to grab the entire wealth of accused persons and they is why they have got the present false FIR registered on 23-04-2016 i.e. after about 18 days from the date of incident. DW1 Smt. Seeta Devi has proved property documents Ex. DW1/A, executed on 21-04-2016, with regard to transfer of above-stated immovable property in favour of Baby Anushka and Master Dhruv, which remained uncontroverted and unimpeached during cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for State. Thus, this court finds force in the arguments of Ld. Defence counsel that the subsequent statement given by the mother of deceased before the SDM concerned on 16-04-2016 was made on the basis of legal advice. As such, possibility of concoction or embellishment in the version of PW5 and PW9 could not be ruled out. In these circumstances, no credence can be given to the incident dated 04-04-2016 narrated by PW5 Satyawan Sharma for the very first time in his deposition dated 01-08-2017.

13. Similarly, PW9 Smt. Sheela Devi has also levelled general allegations of cruelty having been meted out to her daughter during her marriage without any reference to any particular date and time. No cogent explanation came from her side in her cross-examination as to why she had not reported about the incident dated 04-04-2016 to the SDM concerned despite the fact that she had sufficient time to think when she had approached the SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 38 of 41 office of SDM on 16-04-2016 i.e. after nine days from the date of incident. As such, merely on the basis of her deposition, presumption u/s 113B of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be drawn.

14. On careful analysis of evidence, it is evident that there is no evidence of demand of dowry subjecting the deceased to cruelty or harassment 'soon before her death', for or in connection with demand of dowry. Presumption u/s 113B of the Indian Evidence Act can be drawn only when the prosecution first establishes essential ingredients of Section 498A of IPC. In view of judgment of Kanwar Pal Vs. Shakuntala & Ors., (Supra), presumption u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act cannot be raised against an accused until independently the offence under Section 498A of IPC is proved by leading evidence to the specific allegation with regard to time and date of such demand and cruelty and furthermore establishing the proximity live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand (offence under section 498A IPC) and the death of the victim.

15. As already noted above, both PW5 and PW9 have only levelled general and omnibus allegations against both the accused persons of subjecting the deceased to cruelty during her marriage between 17-02-2012 to 05-04-2016.

16. In Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 3363, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India stated that, "the tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. Hence, the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases."

17. In Anju Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., Crl. Rev. P. SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 39 of 41 730/2016 decided on 04-02-2019, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that, "9. Revisional Court has in my view committed no error in coming to the conclusion that apart from general and omnibus allegations roping in all the relations, there is no material on record to justify framing of charge under Section 498A/34 IPC. It may be noted that charge has already been framed against the husband and he is facing trial.

10. For a charge to be framed, the evidence gathered by the prosecution should not only give rise to suspicion but there should be grave suspicion that the accused have committed the offence.

11. In the present case apart from bald, omnibus allegations without their being any specifics about date time or place, there is no incriminating material found by the prosecution even during investigation to give rise to grave suspicion against the respondents."

18. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, Crl. Appeal no. 195/22, Arising out of SLP (Crl.) no. 6545/20 dated 08-02-2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that, "18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general ombibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."

In light of the above-mentioned findings of the Superior Court, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge for the offence punishable u/s 498A of IPC against accused persons.

19. Since the prosecution could not prove the essential ingredients of Section 304B of IPC, the question of drawing SC No. 137/16 State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr. Page 40 of 41 presumption against the accused persons u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act does not arise. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge u/s 498A and 304B of IPC against both accused persons.

DECISION OF THE COURT

20. It is well settled that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, on the basis of the material available on the record, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and the benefit of doubt certainly goes in favor of the accused persons. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused persons. Accordingly, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, accused persons namely Braj Bhushan Sharma and Seeta Devi are hereby acquitted of the charges punishable u/s 498A/34 and 304B/34 of IPC. File be consigned to record room after compliance of section 437A of Cr.P.C.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
 ON 17-02-2024                                    PANKAJ       Digitally signed by PANKAJ
                                                               ARORA

                                                  ARORA        Date: 2024.02.19 16:10:37
                                                               +0530

                              (PANKAJ ARORA)
                  ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/
                           KARKARDOOMA/17­02­2024




SC No. 137/16           State Vs. Braj Bhushan Sharma & Anr.             Page 41 of 41