Delhi District Court
State vs Arjun Singh on 5 December, 2023
:1:
THE COURT OF MS.NEHA PALIWAL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, WEST, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLWT01-001102-2017
Sessions Case No. 76-17
FIR No. 773-16
PS Nihal Vihar
State
v.
Arjun Singh
S/o Sh Kalu Ram,
R/o Village Jaitpur, PS Kulpahad
District Mahoba, UP
Date of Institution : 02.01.2017
Date of committal : 04.02.2017
Date of reserving Judgment : Not reserved
Date of Decision : 05.12.2023
Final Judgment : Accused Arjun Singh is
acquitted from the offences
punishable under sections 498-
A IPC and 304-B IPC.
JUDGMENT
Accused Arjun Singh was arraigned for trial by the prosecution on the ground that his wife Smt. Savitri died on 04.10.2016 under unnatural circumstances, within 07 years of their marriage and he had subjected his wife to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 1 of 26 :2: demand of dowry soon before her death.
Case of the Prosecution in brief :
1. DD no. 28 A dated 04.10.2016 was recorded in PS Nihal Vihar to the effect that one lady had committed suicide. The said information was received in the police station on 04.10.2016 at around 05:46 pm and on receipt of the same, ASI Jai Bhagwan alongwith constable Pankaj went to the spot of occurrence, that is, house no. B-447, Chandan Vihar, Delhi. At the spot, a lady was found hanging from the fan with the aid of a chunni, in the room of the second floor of the house and was visible from the window of the room. The door of the room was latched from inside. ASI Jai Bhagwan alongwith constable Pankaj opened the latch by breaking the wall near the latch of the door, with the aid of hammer. It was found on entering the room that one lady, whose name on inquiry was revealed as Savitri W/o Sh. Arjun, had committed suicide. Crime team was called at the spot and the spot was got inspected and photographed. It was found that deceased Savitri used to reside at the spot alongwith her husband Arjun and child aged 02 years.
2. The body of the deceased was sent to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. A suicide note on a lined page, was also found at the spot wherein it was written ' एस पपपप कक वजहह सस मपरप गई मम ... मस रस बस टप कप धयपन रखनप ... एस I love you बस टप' . ( S, I died because of your father. Take care of my son. S, I Love you son). The said suicide note was seized. Information FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 2 of 26 :3: regarding death of deceased was sent to the parents of deceased. As deceased had expired within 04 years of her marriage, information regarding her suicide/death was given to SDM Punjabi Bagh.
3. On 05.10.2016, tehsildar Sh. Anil Chaudhary came to the police station and recorded the statement of father namely Sh. Sita Ram and mother namely Smt. Rani Bai, of the deceased and marked the said statements to SHO Nihal Vihar for necessary action.
4. Father of deceased namely Sh. Sita Ram, in his statement, stated that he resides at village Dharampura, police station Naugaon, District Chattarpur, Madhya Pradesh and for the past 08 months was doing the work of beldari in Delhi. He had five daughters. Deceased Savitri was his eldest daughter and he had married her with Arjun S/o Sh. Kalicharan on 23.04.2012. Arjun used to do the work of electrician in Delhi. After marriage, his daughter and son-in-law resided at village Belatal in the matrimonial house and thereafter his daughter came alongwith his son-in-law to Delhi. His son-in-law for the past 02 years was residing in Delhi at B-447, Chandan Vihar, Saini Bazar Road, Nihal Vihar. He had spent Rs. 5 Lacs in the marriage of his daughter and had even given dowry in her marriage. A child was born to his daughter Savitri in September, 2013 and he was named as 'S'(एस). On the occasion of Raksha bandhan, his son-in-law Arjun had come to his house and had demanded Rs. 1 Lac from them. They were not having that much money as they earn money by doing labour job and still they FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 3 of 26 :4: gave Rs. 10,000/- to him(Arjun). Arjun however stated that if he will not get Rs. 1 Lac then he will kill their daughter. He used to trouble their daughter and also used to beat her. They had talked to their daughter Savitri on telephone on 02nd October and at that time his daughter was fine. However on 04.10.2016, his younger daughter telephonically informed him that Savitri had committed suicide and his son-in-law (Arjun) also informed his younger daughter Phoolwati on telephone that her sister had committed suicide. Father of deceased stated that his daughter had committed suicide because of his son-in- law Arjun, who had troubled her for money.
5. On the basis of the statement of the father of the deceased and on the basis of the circumstances at the spot, offence under section 498-A and 304 B IPC was found committed. Rukka was prepared and FIR was got registered.
6. Site plan was prepared by IO Insp. Pawan Sharma at the pointing out of ASI Jai Bhagwan. Statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C were recorded. Search was made for the accused. On 06.10.2016, the post-mortem examination was got conducted on the body of deceased and after post-mortem the body of deceased was handed over to her heirs. Cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging by the doctor in the PM Report. The blood and viscera of deceased were preserved to rule out intoxication.
FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 4 of 26 :5:
7. On 06.10.2016, on the pointing out of complainant Sita Ram, accused Arjun was arrested from in front of house no. B-447, Chandan Vihar . The accused was interrogated. His disclosure statement was recorded. Proof of marriage of deceased with accused was asked from the parents of deceased, however they told that they do not possess any marriage card or photograph of marriage, as no videography of marriage was got conducted.
8. From the room of deceased Savitri, a register type notebook was recovered wherein bhajan geet (devotional songs), etc. were written. The sister of deceased namely Phoolwati identified the handwriting in the register as that of her sister Savitri (since deceased). The said register was also seized. PCR form was obtained and photographs were obtained from the crime team. Exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini. On 24.10.2016 scaled site plan was got prepared. Charge sheet was filed before the Court against accused Arjun under section 498A/304-B IPC pending FSL result.
9. Supplementary final report containing FSL results was filed before the Court of Ld. MM on 07.12.2017. It was stated in the supplementary final report that as per result of viscera, on chemical and TLC examination no metallic poison, ethyl or methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers or pesticides were detected. Further, it was opined in the result qua suicide note that the person who had written the admitted writings in the register had also FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 5 of 26 :6: written the questioned writings in suicide note at Mark Q1(which were the words written in Devnagri script) . Opinion was not given qua the words written in Roman script, in the absence of admitted handwriting in Roman script.
Trial Proceedings :
Charge :
10. Vide order dated 31.05.2017, accused Arjun Singh was charged for the commission of offences punishable under sections 498-A IPC and 304-B IPC.
Prosecution evidence :
11. The prosecution in support of its case against the accused had examined 20 witnesses.
12. PW-1 Sh. Sita Ram and PW-2 Smt. Rani Bai are the parents of deceased and their deposition is relevant to the effect that they have deposed qua the factum of marriage of deceased with accused and qua the conduct of deceased towards their daughter. Though they had identified their signatures/thumb impressions, respectively, on their statements Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW2/A, respectively, however had stated that their signatures/thumb impressions were taken on those documents without reading out the contents of those documents to them. They had turned hostile to the case of prosecution qua the allegations of cruelty, beating and demand of dowry. PW-1 had FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 6 of 26 :7: deposed that he had identified the dead body of his daughter in the hospital vide statement Ex. PW1/B. Both of them had admitted that the name of child of deceased and accused was 'S'.
13. PW-3 Sh. Anil Chaudhary is tehsildar and had deposed that he had recorded the statements of parents of deceased, Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW2/A, during inquest proceedings conducted on 05.10.2016 by him on the directions of SDM Punjabi Bagh. He had also directed the IO for getting the post-mortem conducted on the dead body of deceased and had also directed the SHO to take necessary action as per law. He had also signed application Ex.PW3/A addressed to mortuary for conducting post-mortem examination.
14. PW-4 ASI Bhim Singh is the DD writer and had proved the recording of DD no. 28 A Ex. PW4/A and PW-5 ASI Ashok Kumar is the duty officer and had deposed qua recording FIR Ex. PW5/A.
15. PW-6 Dr. Anurag Thakur is the autopsy surgeon and had deposed that he had conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of deceased on 06.10.2016 and had given report Ex. PW6/A. The cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. He further deposed, after seeing the viscera report in the judicial file, that cause of death remains the same as mentioned in the post-mortem report Ex. PW6/A. FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 7 of 26 :8:
16. PW-7 constable Satish Kumar is photographer, mobile crime team and had deposed with respect to clicking 13 photographs of the spot from different angles Ex. PW7/A1 to Ex. PW7/A13 and their negatives being Ex. PW17/B (Colly). He further deposed that he alongwith the crime team reached at the spot at 07:30 pm and the dead body of one female was found hanging with the help of a chunni with ceiling fan.
17. PW-8 SI Kalyan Singh is Incharge, mobile crime team and had deposed regarding preparation of scene of crime report, Ex.PW8/A. He further deposed that when crime team reached at the spot the door of the room was already opened after breaking the wall of one side of the door and the dead body of the deceased was found hanging from the ceiling fan with the aid of chunni and one suicide note written with black marker was also found lying at the spot.
18. PW-9 Dr. Jagjit Singh is the FSL expert who had examined the suicide note. He had deposed qua preparation of FSL report Ex. PW9/A and had deposed that on careful examination he found that the person who wrote the admitted writings marked as A1 to A18 (Ex. PW9/C1 to C18) also wrote the questioned writings marked as Q1. No opinion could be expressed on the questioned writing marked as Q1A in the absence of admitted English writing of the person concerned. The suicide note/questioned document containing questioned writing marked Q1 and Q1A was exhibited as Ex. PW9/B. FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 8 of 26 :9:
19. PW-10 Sh. Santosh Tripathi/FSL expert had prepared report Ex.
PW10/A and had deposed that on the chemical and TLC examination of viscera of deceased, no metallic poison, methyl or ethyl alcohol, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers or pesticides were detected.
20. PW-11 Ms. Phoolwati is the younger sister of deceased and she had deposed qua marriage of deceased with accused. She further deposed that deceased had committed suicide however she was not aware how the suicide was committed. She had never given any statement to the police and had come to Delhi for the first time at the time of her deposition after the death of her sister. She denied giving statement mark PW11/PA to the police. She denied that she had identified the handwriting of her sister on register (Mark PW11/PC) which was seized vide memo (mark PW11/PB). She denied that writings at point A1 to A18 are admitted handwritings of deceased on pages of register, Ex. PW9/C1 to C18.
21. PW-12 SI Harish Chander Pathak is nodal officer CPCR/PHQ, New Delhi and had deposed regarding handing over PCR form Ex. PW12/A dated 04.10.2016 to IO as per which PCR call was recorded at 05:38:23 on 04.10.2016.
22. PW-13 Sh. Vinod Kumar is cousin brother of deceased Savitri FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 9 of 26 : 10 : and had deposed with respect to identifying the dead body of deceased. He had further deposed that he was frequent visitor at the house of deceased and had lastly met her 8-10 days prior to her death and had found that deceased was living properly with the accused in that house and did not notice anything adverse during his visit. He also, though had admitted his signatures on statement of PW-2, Ex. PW2/A, however had deposed that the statement was not recorded in his presence and he was only called inside the room after recording of the statement, to sign on the same. He further deposed that even statement of Sh. Sita Ram was not recorded in his presence and he was standing outside the room when the statement was recorded. He further deposed that he is illiterate however can sign his name. He deposed that Savitri had not informed him that Arjun used to harass her and beat her.
23. PW-14 Sh. Devender is the neighbour of deceased and accused and had deposed that deceased and accused used to reside in front of his house and no quarrel had taken place between deceased and accused prior to the date of incident and nothing was informed by accused to him about deceased. On 04.10.2016 he received call of his wife on his mobile phone that Savitri had committed suicide. By the time he reached home from his work, police had also reached . His signatures were taken on blank papers by the police. He denied that accused Arjun had informed him some days prior to the incident in question that Arjun was having financial problems and therefore, wanted to send his wife to the village however she did not want to go.
FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 10 of 26 : 11 :
24. PW-15 ASI Jai Bhagwan is the initial police officer, who had reached the spot pursuant to the receipt of DD no. 28 A, Ex. PW4/A. He had deposed on the same lines as that of the final report. He had deposed that when he reached at the spot accused Arjun met him at the spot and had pointed out towards his room. The door of the room was bolted from inside. He peeped inside the window and saw deceased hanging from the ceiling fan. He opened the bolt of the door by breaking some portion of the wall near the door with the aid of hammer. He further deposed that suicide note (Ex. PW15/A) was found by him lying beneath the newspaper covering the wooden stool/chowki and was seized by him vide seizure memo(Ex. PW15/B). He deposed qua recording statement of neighbour Devender (Mark P-15/1), statement of Arjun (Ex. PW16/C), statement of Chander Bhan (Ex. PW15/E), filling up form 25.35 for post-mortem (Ex. PW15/F), giving request for getting autopsy conducted (Ex. PW6/B), seizing viscera alongwith sample seal vide memo (Ex. PW15/G), seizing chunni of deceased vide memo (Ex. PW15/H) and handing over dead body of deceased to her father and uncle vide receipt (Ex. PW15/I). He correctly identified chunni Ex. P-1 and accused before the Court.
25. PW-16 ASI Om Prakash is the draftsman and had deposed with respect to preparation of scaled site plan (Ex. PW16/A).
26. PW-17 HC Satish Kumar is the MHC(M) and had deposed qua FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 11 of 26 : 12 : deposit of viscera and chunni in the malkhana on 06.10.2016 vide entry at Sr. no. 1825 Ex. PW17/A, sending viscera to FSL on 18.11.2016 vide RC Ex. PW17/B and acknowledgement of FSL Ex. PW17/C, sending suicide note and admitted handwriting of deceased to FSL on 23.12.2016 vide RC Ex. PW17/D and acknowledgement of FSL Ex. PW17/E. He further deposed that FSL result qua viscera was received on 24.01.2017 and FSL result qua suicide note was received on 06.07.2017.
27. PW-18 constable Rakesh Kumar is the witness of investigation and had deposed on the same lines as that of ASI Jai Bhagwan and final report.
28. PW-19 constable Amit had deposed that he had deposited viscera in FSL Rohini on 18.11.2016.
29. PW-20 Insp. Pawan Kumar is the subsequent IO and had also deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him and various aspects of case covered by him. He had deposed qua getting FIR registered, preparing site plan Ex. PW15/D, preparing inquest file and getting post-mortem conducted, recording statement of witnesses, arrest of accused vide memo Ex. PW20/A pursuant to his personal search vide memo Ex. PW20/B, recording disclosure statement of accused, inquiry from the parents and family members of deceased, procuring admitted handwriting of deceased vide register Ex. PW20/E/Mark 11/C and FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 12 of 26 : 13 : seizing the same vide memo Ex. PW20/D, collecting PCR form Ex. PW12/A, depositing viscera in FSL, getting scaled site plan prepared, sending suicide note alongwith admitted handwriting to FSL for examination and filing charge sheet and thereafter on receipt of viscera and FSL report qua handwriting, filing supplementary final report in the Court.
30. Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 08.11.2023 on submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined.
Statement of accused :
31. Statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 05.12.2023 wherein all the incriminating material available on record was put to the accused. The accused denied that his wife had died within 07 years of marriage and stated that he had got married with Ms Savitri (since deceased) more than 07 years ago from the date of deposition of her father before the Court. He however affirmed that the marriage was performed in the village of parents of deceased, that he used to work as electrician, that after marriage he stayed at his native village with deceased in district Mahoba, UP and as was working in Delhi, used to visit his village almost every month, that after 02 years of marriage with Ms Savitri (since deceased) he started residing with her in Nihal Vihar, Nangloi and that his wife committed suicide by hanging. He further stated that name of his son is Yash and not 'S'. He FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 13 of 26 : 14 : further affirmed that dead body of his wife was brought down by the police from the ceiling fan. He stated that his signatures were obtained on blank papers by the police. His wife used to live under depression because of financial crisis and despite his efforts she was not positive towards her life. The sense of insecurity was with her. He stated that he is innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case.
Final Arguments:
32. I have heard the final arguments as advanced by ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and ld. counsel for the accused and have gone through the entire material available on record.
Appreciation of law & evidence :
33. It is a fundamental doctrine of criminal law that the onus to prove its case lies on the prosecution. The prosecution has to establish before the Court that the accused had committed the offence beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts.
34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nanjundappa and Anr. V. State of Karnataka, decided on 17th May, 2022 has reiterated its view taken in the judgment titled as S.L.Goswami V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Crl.L.J.511 SC that :
'....the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage, does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases, where FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 14 of 26 : 15 : defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false, that burden upon the prosecution does not become any less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if, the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution'.
35. Accused Arjun Singh had been charged for the commission of offences punishable under sections 498-A IPC and 304-B IPC. For the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC, standard burden of proof is upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts against the accused. However, this standard of proof differs with respect to section 304-B IPC. Section 113-B Indian Evidence Act was inserted by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 alongwith section 304-B IPC with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths and it raised rebuttable presumption of law that Court shall presume until and unless it is disproved that the person had committed dowry death if it is shown that soon before the death the woman was subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry.
Section 498-A IPC reads as under :
Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 15 of 26 : 16 : been 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 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.
Section 304-B IPC reads as under:
Dowry Death- (1) 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.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 16 of 26 : 17 : Section 113 B of Indian Evidence Act reads as under:-
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, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
36. In order to establish the offence under section 304-B of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:-
i. The death of the woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances; ii. Such death had occurred within seven years of her marriage;
iii. Soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; iv. Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with demand for dowry.
Once these ingredients are established then, presumption of law is raised under section 113-B Indian Evidence Act that the person had caused dowry death of the woman. Words 'it is shown that' in section 304-B IPC as well as in section 113-B Indian Evidence Act signify that the prosecution has to discharge the initial FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 17 of 26 : 18 : burden of proving the ingredients envisaged by Section 304-B IPC. Only when these facts are proved then by virtue of the deeming provision of section 304-B IPC, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death. Though cruelty at any time after the marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and harassment envisaged by Section 304-B is to be soon before the death of a woman for or in connection with demand of dowry. Thus, proximity of time has to be established between death and the said cruelty and harassment.
37. It is proved from the unrebutted testimonies of PW-4/DD writer and PW-12 Nodal officer, CPCR that call was made at police control room at 05:38:23 on 04.10.2016 and DD no. 28 A Ex. PW4/A was recorded at 5:46 pm on 04.10.2016 in the police station, that a lady had committed suicide.
38. It is further proved from the deposition of PW-5/Duty officer that FIR Ex. PW5/A was registered under section 304 B and section 498A IPC.
39. It is deposed by all the prosecution witnesses that accused was the husband of deceased and the said fact is not even refutted by the accused.
40. The parents of deceased, that is, PW-1 Sh. Sita Ram and PW-2 FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 18 of 26 : 19 : Smt. Rani Bai had deposed before the Court regarding marriage of deceased with accused, regarding their residence and child, however they had turned hostile to the case of prosecution and had denied giving statements Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW2/A respectively to the tehsildar/PW-
3. They, though had admitted their signatures/thumb impressions on those statements however had stated that the said statements were not read over to them. PW-13 Vinod Kumar had also deposed that he was present outside the office of tehsildar and his signatures on statement Ex. PW2/A were taken outside the office. The statements were not recorded by tehsildar in his presence. The parents have not deposed anything qua alleged cruelty conducted by the accused upon the deceased for dowry demand or otherwise.
41. Per contra, it had been deposed both by PW-1 Sh. Sita Ram/father of deceased and PW-2 Smt. Rani Bai/mother of deceased that the relations of deceased and accused were cordial. They further deposed that their daughter used to talk with them on telephone. They denied that accused had threatened to kill their daughter. They further denied that accused had demanded Rs. 1 Lac from them on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan or that they could pay only Rs. 10,000/- to him.
Instead PW-1 deposed that accused used to even monetarily help them.
42. PW-13 Sh. Vinod Kumar, who is the cousin of the deceased, had deposed that he used to visit the house of deceased Savitri once a week and had lastly met her 8-10 days prior to her death. He found that she FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 19 of 26 : 20 : was living properly in her house with the accused and did not notice any adverse thing during his visit. He also deposed that he was never told by Savitri (deceased) that accused used to harass her or beat her or that accused was not a good person.
43. PW-14 Sh. Devender/ neighbour of accused and deceased Savitri, had also deposed that he used to reside in front of the house of accused and deceased and no quarrel had occurred between accused and his wife prior to the date of incident. He deposed that accused had not informed him some days prior to the date of incident that due to financial problems, the accused wanted to send his wife to village, however she did not want to go. He further deposed that he did not ask accused that the accused should not pressurize his wife to go to village.
44. PW-11 Ms Phoolwati is the sister of deceased and she had also deposed that she was not aware why deceased committed suicide and at the time of her death, she was in village.
45. Thus, in the present case, all the public witnesses examined by the prosecution had turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. None of them had deposed that deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused for any reason whatsoever or that dowry was demanded by the accused from the deceased or her family members or that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry or that deceased was subjected to harrassment or FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 20 of 26 : 21 : cruelty for or in connection with dowry or for the failure of her or her family members to meet unlawful demands of property.
46. By post-mortem report Ex. PW6/A, the prosecution has been able to prove that cause of death of deceased was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The FSL report Ex. PW 10/A further proved that no metallic poison, ethyl or methyl alcohol, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers or pesticides could be detected from viscera of deceased Savitri. It was further deposed by PW-6 (autopsy surgeon) after seeing FSL report Ex. PW10/A that the cause of death remained the same, that is, ante-mortem hanging.
47. Further, from the deposition of initial inquiry officer PW-15 ASI Jai Bhagwan and PW-18 Ct. Rakesh Kumar, it has been proved by the prosecution that when they reached at the spot, post receipt of DD no. 28A Ex. PW4/A, they found that deceased was hanging with the aid of a chunni from ceiling fan and was inside the room which was bolted from inside. It was further deposed by them that latch of the door was opened by them by breaking the side wall with the aid of hammer. Thus, it had been established that the room was bolted from inside. The deceased was alone in the room and she was found hanging from the ceiling fan with the aid of chunni. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. Further as per external examination, in PM report Ex. PW6/A, the ligature mark though was present above the thyroid eminence in the mid line of neck running upward and backward FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 21 of 26 : 22 : obliquely on both sides but was absent over the nape of neck. This absence of ligature mark over the nape of neck coupled with the fact that deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging and was found in hanging condition by PW-15 and PW-18, who were the initial police officials who visited the spot, and the door of the room was latched from inside and the latch was opened by the police officials by breaking the wall besides the latch of the door with the aid of hammer, it has been established before the Court that the death of deceased was not homicidal and was suicidal in nature.
48. As per the case of the prosecution, suicide note Ex. PW9/B/Ex.
PW15/A was recovered from the room wherein the deceased was found in hanging condition. It was deposed by PW-15 that the said suicide note was found by him beneath the newspaper which covered the wooden stool/chowki and was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW14/B. Crime team officials PW-8 SI Kalyan Singh and PW-7 Ct. Satish Kumar had also deposed that suicide note was found at the spot.
49. It is deposed by PW-20 Insp. Pawan Kumar that he alongwith parents and sister of deceased had gone to the house of accused and had found one register in which devotional songs (bhajans) were written by deceased Savitri and PW-11 Ms. Phoolwati had identified the handwriting of deceased in the said register Ex. PW20/E and the said register was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/D. He further deposed that the said register alongwith the suicide note was sent by FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 22 of 26 : 23 : him for examination to FSL. PW-9 FSL expert had deposed that he had prepared FSL report Ex. PW9/A and had examined the documents and had found that the person who had written admitted writings marked as A1 to A18 on pages Ex. PW9/C1 to Ex. PW9/C18 had written the questioned writings marked as Q1in Ex. PW9/B. No opinion was expressed on the questioned writing mark Q1A in exhibit PW9/B in the absence of admitted writing of that person in English language/Roman Script.
50. Thus, from the deposition of FSL expert and IO PW-20 Insp.
Pawan Kumar, though the prosecution is able to prove that register Ex. PW20/E was sent to FSL alongwith suicide note Ex. PW9/B and that handwriting in Devnagri script in both those documents matched as belonging to the same person, however as it is deposed by PW-11 that she had not identified the handwriting of her sister in register Ex. PW20/E/Mark PW11/PC, the prosecution is not able to prove that the said register contained the handwriting of the deceased. PW-11 had categorically denied that the said register Ex. PW20/E/Mark PW11/PC was seized by the IO in her presence or that she had identified the handwriting of her sister (deceased Savitri) in that register.
51. Thus, as it is not proved that writings on the pages of register Ex.
PW9/C1 to Ex. PW9/C18 belonged to deceased, it cannot be proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts that the suicide note Ex. PW9/B was written by the deceased.
FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 23 of 26 : 24 :
52. Thus, neither the suicide note Ex. PW9/B is proved before the Court nor it is proved that deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused being her husband, for or in connection with demand of dowry or otherwise. Further it is not proved that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty soon before her death for or in connection with demand of dowry. The death of deceased was unnatural but was suicidal in nature. She died in a room which was latched from inside. There is no evidence on record which can indicate towards the culpability of the accused that he had subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry or otherwise or that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry. Thus, the presumption under section 113 B of Indian Evidence Act does not arise in the present matter.
53. Therefore, the prosecution has not been able to establish the initial essential ingredients in order to attract the deemed provision of dowry death under section 304-B IPC and presumption of section 113- B Indian Evidence Act qua dowry death. Thus, it is held that accused Arjun Singh had not caused dowry death of the deceased.
54. Qua the offence under section 498-A Indian Penal Code as well, from the above discussions and findings, it is held that the prosecution has not been able to establish that accused had harassed the deceased in FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 24 of 26 : 25 : order to coerce her or her family members to fulfill dowry demands or that there was any willful conduct on his part which was of such a nature as to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her life, limb or health. Accordingly, accused Arjun Singh is acquitted from the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC as well.
55. Further, in the present case in hand, no instigation from the part of the accused to the deceased to commit suicide has been proved before the Court. Neither demand of dowry has been proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts nor it has been proved that accused used to beat the deceased or used to beat her for dowry demands. Therefore, no offence under section 306 IPC is made out against the accused.
Conclusion :
56. In view of above discussions & findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts against accused Arjun Singh Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to the accused and he is hereby acquitted from the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. Further, no offence is made out against him under section 306 IPC as well.
57. Accused is directed to furnish bail bonds in compliance of section 437A Cr.P.C.
FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 25 of 26 : 26 :
58. Further it is ordered that the case property of this case, if any, be disposed of/destroyed after expiry of period of filing appeal, if any.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (NEHA PALIWAL SHARMA) COURT ON:05th December, 2023 ASJ-05 (West), THC, Delhi.
It is certified that this Judgment contains 26 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(NEHA PALIWAL SHARMA) ASJ-05 (West), THC, Delhi 05.12.2023 FIR no. 773/16; PS Nihal Vihar State v.Arjun Singh Page 26 of 26