Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Sandeep on 30 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIVAJI ANAND, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-04 (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Session Case No. 58273-16
CNR No. DLNT01-001167-2014
State Vs. 1. Sandeep
S/o Sh. Ramesh Singh
2. Ramesh Singh
S/o Sh. Phool Singh
3. Meenu Devi @ Meena Devi
W/o Sh. Ramesh Singh
4. Ekta Choauhan @ Versha @ Ekta
Chauhan
D/o Sh. Ramesh Singh
All R/o H.No. C-77, Gali No.05, Swaroop
Vihar, Delhi.
FIR No. : 337/2014
Police Station : Swaroop Nagar
Under Sections : 498A/304B/34 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court: 27/10/2014
Date of institution before Magisterial Court: 18/10/2014
Date of institution before Sessions Court: 29/10/2014
Date of Argument: 11/07/2022
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 30/07/2022
JUDGEMENT
1. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on 20.07.2014, at 6.55 p.m, DD no. 26A was recorded at PS Swaroop Nagar to the effect that Rachna, w/o Sandeep aged 22 year, r/o Gali No. 05 C Block S Vihar Delhi, who has consumed unknown poison has been admitted in the hospital by her husband vide MLC No. 81934/14. The said DD entry was marked to SI Madan Mohan, who alongwith Ct. Neeraj reached at BJRM hospital and collected the MLC of Rachna, wherein the concerned doctor has mentioned "brought by husband with alleged history of unknown poison". Concerned doctor has also mentioned that unconscious orients and unfit for statement. SI Madan Mohan has also came to know that husband of Rachna had taken her to Vinayak hospital and SI Madan Mohan reached at Vinayak hospital, where doctor declared Rachna "brought dead". SI Madan Mohan also came to know that marriage of Rachna was performed in the same year in April, 2014 and he informed the concerned SDM through SHO of P.S Swaroop Nagar. SI Madan Mohan got preserved the dead body of Rachna through Ct. Neeraj at the mortuary of BJRM hospital. Thereafter, SI Madan Mohan reached at the spot and called the crime team. Crime team inspected the spot and crime team photographer took the photographs. During inspection it was found that in the inner side room of ground floor in between two iron almirahs in a steel glass kept on the floor was found sticking some substance of gray colour and smell of tablets of "salfas" was coming from the said glass. SI Madan Mohan took the said glass into possession vide seizure memo and got preserved the spot and collected the exhibits. In the morning SDM concerned got recorded the statement of father of deceased namely Sh. Harnam Singh and in his statement given to the SDM concerned, Sh. Harnam Singh had stated that he is residing at Gali No. 6, H.No. A 116 Amrit Vihar Burari Delhi alongwith his family consisting of his wife Munni, one son Shiv Mangal and two daughters namely Rachna and Babita. He has further stated that he got married his elder daughter Rachna with Sandeep, s/o Ramesh Chauhan, r/o Gali No. 5, G-Block, Swaroop Vihar on 19.04.2014. He has further stated that his daughter Rachna was aged about 24 years and he had performed marriage of Rachna with great pomp and show and gave lots of articles, motorcycle and sum of Rs. 3 lakhs, gold ring and gold chain as per the demand of father of Sandeep. He has further submitted that even thereafter accused Sandeep and his family members(his father Ramesh Chauhan, mother and sister Varsha) used to taunt Rachna for demand of dowry. He has further submitted that yesterday in the afternoon time dated 20.07.2014 at about 2.30 p.m, his daughter talked him in mobile. She was weeping at that time and was asking to take her back from the matrimonial home. He had further stated that when his son Shiv Mangal and daughter Babita reached at the matrimonial house of his deceased daughter at about 3-4 O'clock, but Sandeep and his family members refused to send her and they returned back to their house. He has further stated that thereafter at about 7 O'clock Sandeep had telephonically contacted him and informed him that Rachna had done something. He had further stated that thereafter he and his son immediately reached at the matrimonial home of his daughter but the matrimonial house was found locked at that time and the neighbours informed that Rachna had been taken to BJRM hospital. He has further stated that when they reached at BJRM hospital, Sandeep, his father and his mother were taking Rachna to Vinayak hospital, Model Town and at about 8 p.m, they all reached at Vinayak hospital. He had further stated that after checking the concerned doctor declared Rachna dead. He had further stated "Rachna ko uske sasural walo ne zahar khila kar maar diya." He had further stated that he wants legal action against Sandeep, his parents and his sister as they are responsible for the death of his daughter. He had further stated that Sandeep and his family members used to harass Rachna since the day of marriage and they always used to make demands for dowry.
2. The Executive Magistrate made endorsement on the aforesaid statement of Sh. Harnam Singh and directed SHO PS Swaroop Nagar to take necessary action as per law. Accordingly, after making endorsement on the above said statement of Sh. Harnam Singh, FIR of the present case was got registered u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC and investigation was handed over to Inspector Rajesh Kumar.
3. During investigation, the SDM concerned got prepared the inquest papers, postmortem on the dead body of deceased Rachna was got conducted from BJRM Hospital and dead body was handed over to father of the deceased against proper receipt. After the postmortem, the concerned doctor handed over two sealed pullindas, out of which one was containing clothes of the deceased and another was containing viscera of deceased to Inspector Rajesh Kumar, who took the same into possession vide seizure memos and deposited them in the Malkhana. Inspector Rajesh Kumar recorded statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C and site plan was prepared at the instance of SI Madan Mohan. During investigation accused Sandeep, Ramesh and Smt. Meena were called at the P.S for investigation, where they were formally arrested in the present case. Thereafter, their disclosure statements were also recorded. Thereafter, on 07.08.2014, exhibits were sent to FSL for expert opinion, qua which result was awaited. On 19.08.2014, co-accused Ekta Chauhan @ Versha was granted anticipatory bail in the present case and she was released on bail after formal arrest. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of the witnesses were recorded and scaled site plan was got prepared.
4. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC was filed against accused Sandeep, Ramesh, Meena Devi and Ekta Chauhan @ Versha before the concerned Magisterial Court on 18/10/2014 and it was committed to the Court of session on 27/10/2014 and was received on assignment by Sessions Court on 29/10/2014. It is pertinent to mention here that by the time the challan was filed before the concerned Magisterial Court, FSL result was awaited.
5. Viscera result was filed by way of supplementary charge-sheet. It is also mentioned in the supplementary charge-sheet that statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C of Ms. Babita and Sh. Shiv Mangal, siblings of deceased Rachna were also recorded by the investigating officer. Names of SI Naresh, SI Madan Mohan, Dr. R.P Singh Autopsy Surgeon BJRM hospital, Sh. Jitender Kumar SSO(Chemistry), FSL Rohini, Ms. Babita and Sh. Shiv Mangal were added in the list of prosecution witnesses.
6. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 26 witnesses in all. The details of said witnesses are as under:-
S.N Name of prosecution witness Purpose of examination o.
1 PW1 Shiv Mangal, brother of Who came to prove the factum of deceased. marriage of his sister Rachna (since deceased) with accused Sandeep. He proved the statement Ex. PW1/A recorded by Tehsildar, dead body identification statement Ex.PW1/B, list of dowry articles and the expenses incurred in the marriage Ex.PW1/C, 13 photographs of Sagai Ceremony and of marriage Ex.PW1/D. He also came to prove the Photocopy of passbook of saving bank account in the name of Sh.
Harnaam Singh w.e.f 09.02.2011 till 11.10.2014 Ex.PW1/DA, Copy of saving passbook between January 2014 till 19.04.2014 Ex.PW1/DB.
2 PW2 Harnam Singh, father of Who came to prove the statement Ex.
deceased PW2/A recorded by Tehsildar, dead
body identification statement
Ex.PW2/B. He also came to prove
the photocopies of 10 bills Ex.P-1
and Ex.P-10.
3 PW3 Smt. Munni Devi, mother of He came to prove the same facts as deceased. deposed by PW1 and PW2 and statement Ex.PW3/DA.
4 PW4 Sh. Jasbir Singh, Executive He came to prove the application u/s Magistrate/Tehsildar, Alipur, Delhi Ex.PW4/A addressed to Incharge Mortuary BJRM Hospital for conducting postmortem on the body of the deceased. He also came to prove the brief facts prepared by police Ex.PW4/B, form No. 25.35(1)
(b) Ex.PW4/C, form No. 25.35 (1)
(c) Ex.PW4/D 5 PW5 Ms. Babita, sister of She came to prove the CD Ex.PX, deceased. transcript Ex.PW5/A and seizure memo Ex.PW5/B 6 PW6 Ct. Naveen She came to prove his statement in regard that Tehsildar Sh. Jasbir Singh had recorded the statement of family members of deceased regarding the identification of body of Rachna. He also deposed that SI Madan Mohan alongwith Sh. Jasbir Singh had got conducted postmortem on the body of Rachna and after postmortem the body of deceased Rachna was handed over to the relatives of deceased Rachna vide receipt.
7 PW7 Wct. Uma Who came to prove the factum of conducting personal search of accused Meena Devi vide memo Ex.PW7/A, her arrest vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/B and disclosure statement of accused Meena Devi Ex.PW7/C. 8 PW8 Insp. Manohar Lal, Who came to prove the scaled site Draftsman, North-West Distt. plan Ex.PW8/A. Ashok Vihar, Delhi.
9 PW9 HC Surender Singh, Who came to prove the deposition of
MHC(M) case property in malkhana vide entry
at serial no. 823 in register no. 19
Ex.PW9/A, photocopy of Road
certificate No. 21 containing copy of
RC no. 95/21/14 Ex.PW9/B,
photocopy of RC no. 96/21/14 Ex.
PW9/C and copy of acknowledgment
issued by FSL, Rohini Ex.PW9/D.
10 PW10 Ct. Ram Niwas Qua deposition of 04 sealed
pullandas and sample seals received
from HC Surender then MHC(M)
vide Road certificate No. 96/21/14 in
FSL, Rohini, handing over the copy
of acknowledgment issued by
FSL,Rohini alongwith copy of Road
Certificate to MHC(M) on the same
day.
11 PW11 W/HC Maya Who came to prove the computerized
copy of FIR EX. PW11/A, his
endorsement on rukka at point X to
X-1 Ex. PW11/B and certificate u/s
65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.
PW11/C.
12 PW12 Ct. Neeraj Dahiya Who came to prove the seizure memo
Ex.PW12/A
13 PW13 Ct. Deepak. Who came to prove the seizure memo
Ex.PW13/A
14 PW14 Ct. Vikas Who came to prove the factum of
arrest of accused Ramesh Chand
vide memo Ex.PW14/A, conducting
of his personal search Ex.PW14/B,
his disclosure statement Ex.PW14/C,
factum of arrest of accused Sandeep
vide memo Ex.PW14/D, conducting
his personal search Ex.PW14/E and
his disclosure statement Ex.PW14/F.
15 PW15 Dr. Prashant Kumar, posted Who came to prove the case note
at J.R. (Medicine) in Deep Chand prepared by him that he had Bandhu Hospital, Ashok Vihar, examined the Rachna and declared Delhi her brought dead at about 7.50 p.m. Ex.PW15/A. 16 PW16 Dr. Bhim Singh Who came to prove the postmortem report Ex. PW16/A. 17 PW17 Ct. Sandeep, Photographer Who came to prove the 18 negatives of the place of occurrence from different angle Ex.PW17/A(Colly.) and 18 photographs of the place of occurrence from different angle Ex.PW17/B (Colly.) which were taken by him.
18 PW18 Sh. Jitendra Kumar, Senior Who came to prove the report Scientific Officer (Chemistry), Ex.PW18/A. FSL, Rohini, Delhi.
19 PW19 HC Umesh Qua the investigation conducted by him with Inspector Rajesh Kumar, Ct. Vikas and Wct. Uma.
20 PW20 SI (Retd.) Ranbir Singh, Who came to prove the Crime Team Incharge Mobile Crime Team Report Ex.PW20/A. 21 PW21 Insp. Madan Mohan He had received the DD No. 26A. He came to prove the seizure memo Ex.
PW21/A, handing over dead body of Rachna vide handing over memo Ex.PW21/B, case property i.e. one glass Ex.PW21/P. 22 PW22 Dr. Deepak, CMO, BJRM Who came to prove the MLC Hospital, Delhi. Ex.PW22/A. 23 PW23 Inspector Naresh Kumar Who came to prove the factum regarding handing over to him list of dowry articles, 10 photocopies of receipt/bills, one CD, one paper i.e. transcript and 13 photographs by Babita, sister of deceased Rachna and recording of her statement in this regard.
24 PW24 Dr. R.P. Singh, Specialist Who came to prove the opinion No. Forensic Medicine, BJRM 24A/15 dated 23.02.2015 Hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi Ex.PW24/A.
25. PW25 Inspector Rajesh, IO Qua the investigation conducted by him, rough site plan Ex.PW25/A, formal arrest of Ekta Chauhan vide arrest memo Ex.PW25/B. 26 PW26 Inspector Naresh Kumar, Qua the investigation conducted by Second IO him.
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he has admitted the factum of his marriage with Rachna (since deceased) but has denied the case of prosecution and claimed that he is innocent and has been falsely arrested & implicated in this case. However, he chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.
TESTIMONIES OF MAIN WITNESSES
8. PW-1 Sh. Shiv Mangal(brother of deceased) has deposed that Rachna was his sister and marriage of his sister was performed with accused Sandeep on 19.04.2014. He has further deposed that after marriage, his sister Rachna started residing at her matrimonial house at Gali No. 5, C-Block, Swaroop Vihar, Delhi. He has further deposed that in the marriage of his sister Rachna with accused Sandeep, they gave a cash amount of Rs. 3 lacs, one motorcycle make Stunner worth Rs. 62,000/-, gold jewellery consisting of one gold necklace, one pair of gold tops, one gold ring and one pair of silver Bichhwas, one pair of silver anklets to his sister Rachna and one gold ring and one gold chain to accused Sandeep. He has further deposed that they had also gave jewellery articles co-accused namely Meena Devi and Ekta. He has further deposed that so far as he remember, one gold ring was given to accused Meena Devi and one pair of gold tops was given to accused Ekta in the said marriage, but he does not remember the details of other jewellery articles, which were given to other close relatives of accused persons. PW-1 has further deposed that in the marriage they also gave household articles i.e. cooler, fridge, washing machine, LED TV, sewing machine, double bed, sofa set, dressing table, etc, including number of steel and brass utensils to the accused persons and also gave clothes for the accused persons as well as to their relatives.
8.1 PW-1 has further deposed that about 20 days of marriage of his sister Rachna with accused Sandeep, accused Ramesh Singh(father-in-law of his sister) made a telephone call to his father and demanded a cash sum of Rs. 1 lakh as dowry from him. He has further deposed that his father replied to accused Ramesh Singh that he was not in a position to arrange the said amount of Rs. 1 lakh as they had already spent more than their financial capacity in the said marriage. PW-1 has further deposed that accused Sandeep, Ramesh Singh, Meena Devi and Ekta Chouhan @ Varsha used to demand dowry i.e. jewellery and cash from his sister Rachna and they used to taunt her on the pretext that they had to suffer humiliation and insult in the eyes of their relatives and members of society for bringing insufficient dowry in the marriage.
8.2 PW-1 has further deposed that on 09.06.2014 and 10.06.2014, upon the demands of the accused persons, he withdrew a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each from the ATM of the bank account in Syndicate Bank of his father and also took sum of Rs. 10,000/- from his father for the purpose of giving the said amount to accused persons. He has further deposed that thereafter with the said amount, on 10.06.2014, when he went to the matrimonial home of his sister at Swaroop Vihar, he met accused Meena Devi, Ramesh Singh and Ekta Chouhan. He has further deposed that he handed over the said cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- to accused Meena Devi. He has further deposed that when Meena Devi came to know that the cash amount is Rs. 50,000/- she uttered the words "bas Rs. 50,000/- hi laye ho, humne to Rs. 1 lakh mange the". PW-1 has further deposed that he replied that they could arrange only Rs. 50,000/-. He has further deposed that even thereafter, all the accused persons did not stop harassing his sister Rachna and kept on pressurizing her to bring more cash amount as well as jewellery articles from her parental house. PW-1 has further deposed that accused persons also used to threaten his sister Rachna that in case their demands for dowry was not fulfilled by her parents and family members, they would kill her and would also grease the palms of police officials for not taking any action against them. He has further deposed that the said facts were told by his sister Rachna herself to his mother namely Smt. Munni Devi and his mother had told these facts to him.
8.3 PW-1 has further deposed that on 18th or 19th July, 2014, his sister Rachna made a call to his mother and asked to take her from matrimonial house as the accused persons were treating her with cruelty. He has further deposed that upon this, his mother stated to him that he should visit the matrimonial house of his sister and bring her back to their house. He has further deposed that accordingly, on 20.07.2014 at about 2.30 pm, he made a call on the mobile phone which was being used by accused Meena Devi and requested accused Meena Devi for sending his sister Rachna to parental house, but accused Meena Devi refused to send Rachna to their house. He has further deposed that thereafter his father also made a call at the mobile phone used by accused Meena Devi and requested for sending Rachna. He has further deposed that while his father was talking to his sister, she was weeping and requesting his father to take her to parental house. PW-1 has further deposed that thereafter, he and his sister Babita went to the matrimonial house of his sister Rachna and they reached there at about 3.45 pm. He has further deposed that they met all the accused persons and requested them to send his sister Rachna with him, but they refused to send Rachna and stated that they should take Rachna on the next day, due to which they returned to their house at about 4.30 pm. 8.4 PW-1 has further deposed that on the same day at about 7 pm, accused Sandeep made a phone call to their house and stated to them that Rachna had consumed poison. He has further deposed that upon this information, he alongwith his father immediately rushed to the matrimonial house of Rachna, but the matrimonial house was found locked and the neighbours informed them that Rachna had been taken to BJRM Hospital, Jahangirpuri by her in-laws. He has further deposed that they rushed to BJRM Hospital and found Rachna lying in an Ambulance and glucose was given to her through pipe. PW-1 has further deposed that thereafter his sister Rachna was taken to Vinayak Hospital, Model Town. He has further deposed that they also went to the said hospital, where the concerned doctor declared Rachna dead at about 8.30 pm. He has further deposed that when he saw the body of his sister Rachna in Vinayak Hospital, she was wearing glass bangles (kanch ki churia) in her both the hands and artificial necklace around her neck, whereas on the same day when he had visited the matrimonial house of Rachna, she was found wearing gold bangles and gold necklace. He has further deposed that he was sure that his sister Rachna was killed by the accused persons by administering poison to her.
PW-1 has further deposed that on the next day i.e. 21.07.2014, his statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded by Tehsildar in the presence of his sister Babita, which bears his signatures at points-A and same also bears signatures of his sister Babita at points-B. He has further submitted that he also identified the body of his sister Rachna in BJRM Hospital Mortuary and his statement Ex.PW1/B was recorded in this regard, which bears his signature at point-A. He has further deposed that after postmortem, dead body of his sister Rachna was handed over to him and his father.
8.5 PW-1 has further deposed that on 20.07.2014, when he made a call to his sister Rachna, he also talked to accused Sandeep over the said phone call and Sandeep stated to him that he had broken the mobile phone of Rachna. He has further deposed that on the same day when he alongwith his sister Babita had gone to the matrimonial house of his sister Rachna, he met accused Sandeep and Sandeep had told him that he had broken the mobile phone of Rachna in the last month. PW-1 has further deposed that during investigation, IO recorded his statement and he also handed over the list of dowry articles and the expenses incurred in the marriage Ex. PW1/C, to the IO. PW-1 also identified 13 photographs from the judicial file to be of Sagai Ceremony and of marriage and exhibited the said photographs as Ex.PW1/D (colly.).
8.6 During cross examination, PW-1 has deposed that he has been working with Jain Sons India as an Accountant since 2011. He has also deposed that when he joined the service, he was getting monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/- and presently he was getting monthly salary of Rs. 20,000/-. He has further deposed that his salary was increased to Rs. 20,000/- per month in the year 2012. He has further deposed that in the year 2011, his father was working private job and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 7,000/- and besides this his sister Rachna was taking coaching classes and was earning Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/- per month. He has further deposed that they were incurring approximately Rs. 7000/- per month in the year 2011 for their daily needs, including water and electricity bills. The photocopy of saving bank account passbook of his father w.e.f. 09.02.2011 till 11.10.2014 as Ex. PW1/DA. The copies of his saving account passbook of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Branch as Ex.PW1/DB.
8.7 PW-1 has further deposed that his sister was not suffering from any disease like Cancer. He has further deposed that he had no knowledge if Rachna had undergone some medical test at Dr. Lal Path Lab on 19.05.2014 due to which he can not say if the medical report dated 19.05.2014 of Dr. Lal Path Lab, Mark-X, belongs to his sister. PW-1 has denied that his sister Rachna was suffering from breast Cancer prior to her marriage and due to the said reason, she used to remain under depression. He has further denied that accused Sandeep had called him and his family members after coming to know about the aforesaid disease of Rachna. He has further denied that they they refused for the medical treatment of his sister Rachna. PW-1 has further denied that it was within his knowledge that the doctor had advised for the removal of breast of his sister Rachna and the concerned doctor had given date of 24.07.2014 for conducting operation for the said purpose. He has further denied that his sister went to Vaishno Devi for taking blessings for the success of said operation/treatment. PW-1 has also denied that his sister had committed suicide due to the depression as she was suffering from breast Cancer.
9. PW-2 Sh. Harnam Singh(father of deceased) has deposed that he has been doing a private job for the last about 25 years. Apart from the above mentioned testimony of PW-1, PW-2 has further deposed that he was having three children i.e. one son and two daughters. He has further deposed that his Rachna was his second child. PW-2 has further deposed that during investigation, he also handed over photocopy of 10 bills to the IO and he also produced the original of the said bills on the said date and the photocopies of 10 bills containing in the judicial file as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 (OSR).
9.1 During cross examination PW-2 has deposed that he had studied upto 11th standard and had been working with a company namely M/s Serve Enterprises who used to supply medicines, etc. to various hospitals. He has further deposed that he never brought the medicines of their company to his house. PW-2 has denied that he was in the habit of bringing the medicines of their company to his house. He has further denied that he used to tell his family members about the nature of said medicines. He has further denied that he used to keep sulfas tablet at his house. PW-2 has further denied that his family members were aware that he used to keep sulfas tablet at his house. He has further deposed that it was within his knowledge that people often used to keep sulfas tablets in the wheat stored at their houses. He has denied that it was within the knowledge of his daughter Rachna that he used to keep sulfas tablet at his house.
9.2 PW-2 has further deposed that he had visited only once at the matrimonial house of his daughter after her marriage and had gone there after about 15-20 days of the marriage of his daughter Rachna. He has further deposed that his daughter Rachna visited their house two times after her marriage, first time after about 15 days of her marriage and second time after about one month of the marriage. He has further deposed that they had not lodged any complaint before the police till the death of his daughter, on account of harassment and demand of dowry since he does not want to disturb the matrimonial life of his daughter and also because of the fact that his relatives would not come to know about all such facts. He has further deposed that he never disclosed to the mediator the fact that his daughter was being treated with cruelty on account of dowry since after marriage, he was not on talking terms with said mediator. PW-2 has denied that he did not lodge any complaint to the police or did not make any complaint to the mediator as his daughter was never treated with cruelty on account of dowry. He has further deposed that his daughter had completed B.A. Degree Course from Daulat Ram College. He has denied that it was within his knowledge that accused Sandeep had studied only upto 10 th class. He has further denied that it was within his knowledge that accused Sandeep was aged about 20 years at the time of his marriage with his daughter Rachna and his daughter Rachna was four year elder than accused Sandeep at the time of marriage. He has further deposed that he was getting a salary of about Rs. 6500/- p.m. just before the marriage of his daughter Rachna with accused Sandeep. He has further deposed that his daughter Rachna had been taking tuition classes for the last about 3 years prior to her marriage and she was earning about Rs. 4000 - 5000/- p.m. He has further deposed that his son Shiv Mangal was working as Accountant and was earning Rs. 20,000/- p.m. just before the marriage of his daughter Rachna with accused Sandeep. On the specific question of ld defence counsel that can he show any document that he gave a sum of Rs. 3 lacs cash in the marriage of your daughter Rachna, PW-1 has replied that he had already given the photographs of Sagan Ceremony Ex. PW1/D (colly.) showing that cash amount is lying in thaal which was being given to accused Sandeep. PW-2 has admitted that on the basis of aforesaid two photographs, one cannot say that the currency notes reflected in said two photographs, constitute a sum of Rs. 3 lacs and has submitted that there was videography of Sagan Ceremony and this fact is duly recorded in the CD of the said function. He has denied that he never given a cash amount of Rs. 3 lacs in the marriage of his daughter with accused Sandeep. He has denied that they had given a false list of articles to the IO during investigation of the case. He has further deposed that he had stated to the Executive Magistrate about the details of each and every articles which were given during the time of marriage of his daughter to his daughter as well as to the accused persons but the said Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar had not recorded the details of all the articles given and stated to him that he should tell about the details before the Court.
9.3 PW-2 has denied that accused persons had not made any demands from them at the time of marriage and after the marriage of his daughter. He has further deposed that he had stated to the Executive Magistrate as well as to the IO each and every fact which he deposed in his examination in chief but both the said officials stated to him that they were recording the gist of his statement and he should depose in detail before the Court. He has further deposed that on 19.07.2014, he talked to his daughter Rachna over phone in between 8.00 pm to 9.00 pm. He has denied that on 19.07.2014, his daughter had never stated to him that they should take her to their house as she wanted to disclose something to them. He has denied that accused persons never treated his daughter Rachna with cruelty on account of dowry and accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further denied that neither he nor his son Shiv Mangal had talked to accused Meena Devi on 20.07.2014. He has admitted that his daughter had returned to Delhi from Vaishno Devi in the morning hours of 20.07.2014. He has further deposed that he made statement Ex.PW2/A before Executive Magistrate with his full senses and he had been read over the said statement by Executive Magistrate before he signed the same.
9.4 It is pertinent to mention that PW-3 Smt. Munni Devi(mother of the deceased) and PW-5 Ms. Babita(sister of the deceased) have also deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-1 and PW-2, hence the deposition which was repeated by PW-3 and PW-5 have been not discussed here for the shake of brevity and the facts stated by them apart from the above mentioned deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 has been mentioned.
9.5 PW-3 has deposed that after about 15 days of marriage, when his daughter Rachna came to their house and stated that after four days of her stay to matrimonial house all the accused persons stated to her that in the marriage they had not given the dowry to their expectations, as a result of which, they have lost their reputation in between their relatives. PW-3 has further deposed that her daughter told that they had paid only Rs. 3 lacs in the said marriage, whereas their demand was of Rs. 4 lacs. She has further deposed that after about 20 days of marriage of his daughter Rachna with accused Sandeep, accused Ramesh Singh made a telephone call to her husband and over the said phone call, accused Ramesh Singh demanded a cash sum of Rs. one lakh as dowry from him. PW-3 has further deposed that on 20.07.2014 at about 2.30 pm, his son Shiv Mangal made a call on the mobile phone which was being used by accused Meena Devi and he talked to accused Meena Devi over the said phone call and requested accused Meena Devi for sending Rachna to parental house, but accused Meena Devi refused to send Rachna to their house. She has further deposed that on the same day at about 3 pm, she also made a call to his daughter Rachna and over the said phone call, her daughter had stated to her that all the accused persons had been treating her with cruelty and she requested for taking her from there. She further stated to that her daughter also stated to her that accused Sandeep and Ekta @ Varsha had also broken her mobile phone after snatching the same from her. She has further stated that at the time of marriage she was informed that accused Sandeep was pursuing B.A. and was also undergoing some course/diploma.
10. PW-5 Ms. Babita (Sister of deceased) has deposed that she was studying in BA.LLB course from college situate at Gwalior Madhya Pradesh. She has further deposed that the marriage ceremony was performed in a banquet Hall i.e. Ganesh Vatika and the rituals/phera/saptpadi were performed in front of their house at Gali No. 5, C-Block, Swaroop Vihar, Delhi. She has further deposed that on 20.07.2014 at about 2.30 pm, her brother Shiv Mangal made a call on the mobile phone which was being used by accused Meena Devi and he talked to accused Meena Devi over the said phone call and requested accused Meena Devi for sending her sister Rachna to parental house, but accused Meena Devi refused to send Rachna. She has further deposed that her brother Shiv Mangal had also talked to accused Sandeep over telephone and had requested him to send Rachna to her parental house but accused Sandeep also refused to send Rachna. She has further submitted that at that time, accused Sandeep had also told her brother Shiv Mangal that he had broken the mobile phone of Rachna. PW-5 has further deposed that the entire conversation which had taken place between accused Sandeep and her brother Shiv Mangal, was got recorded in the mobile handset of her brother and subsequently, her brother got audio CD thereof prepared and handed over the same to her. She has further stated that said audio CD was handed over by me to IO during investigation.
10.1 It is pertinent to mention that the said audio CD was played with the help of laptop in the Court and the same is Ex.PX. PW-5 has further deposed that she also prepared the transcripts of the said recorded conversation and had handed over the same to IO, which is Ex.PW5/A. She has further deposed that she handed over the said Audio CD, transcripts, list of dowry articles and 13 photographs of marriage of her sister Rachna with accused Sandeep to IO, who had seized them vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B. PW-5 has further deposed that she has brought the Video CD containing Video of Lagan ceremony containing video footage of the articles, cash amount and jewellery given in the said Lagan ceremony/marriage and same is Mark- PW5/X.
11. PW-4 Sh. Jasbir Singh, Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar, Alipur, Delhi has deposed that on 20.07.14, he was posted as Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar Alipur, Delhi. He has further deposed that on that day in the evening hours, he received a telephone call from the then SDM Alipur regarding death of Smt. Rachna w/o Sandeep within seven years of her marriage, within the jurisdiction of PS Swaroop Nagar. He has further deposed that he directed police officials of PS Swaroop Nagar to preserve the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem and produce the parents or relatives of the deceased for their statements and also directed him to preserve the place of occurrence. PW-4 has further deposed that on 21.07.2014, Harnam Singh, Shiv Mangal and Babita were produced before him in the police station of Swaroop Nagar for their statements and he recorded their statements. He has further deposed that he recorded statement of Harnam Singh Ex.PW2/A, bearing his stamp and signature at point B. PW-4 has further deposed that he also recorded the joint statement of Shiv Mangal and Babita Ex.PW1/A bearing his stamp and signature at point C. He has further deposed that thereafter, he directed concerned SHO of PS Swaroop Nagar for taking necessary action as per law. PW-4 has further deposed that on 21.07.14, he directed the police official of P.S Swaroop Nagar to prepare the inquest papers for conducting post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Smt. Rachna. He has further deposed that the application Ex. PW4/A bearing his stamp and signature at point A, was addressed to Incharge of Mortuary BJRM Hospital for conducting postmortem on the body of deceased. He has also deposed that he also directed the police official of P.S Swaroop Nagar to hand over the dead body of deceased to the relatives after postmortem. He has further deposed that police prepared brief facts Ex.PW4/B, form No. 25.35 (1) (b) Ex.PW4/C, form No. 25.35 (1) (c) Ex.PW4/D, all bearing his stamp and signatures at points A. He has further deposed that the concerned police official also recorded dead body identification statements of Shiv Mangal and Harnam Singh, Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW2/B respectively bearing his stamp and signatures at point B.
12. PW-6 Ct. Naveen has deposed that on 21.07.2014, he was posted at P.S Swaroop Nagar. He has further deposed that on that day on the instruction of Inspector Rajesh Kumar, he alongwith SI Madan Kumar went to Mortuary BJRM Hospital Jahangir Puri where they met with the concerned Tehsildar Sh. Jasbir Singh as well as the family members of deceased. He has further deposed that Sh. Jasbir Singh recorded the statements of the family members of deceased regarding the identification of body of Rachna. He has further deposed that thereafter, SI Madan Mohan alongwith Sh. Jasbir Singh got conducted postmortem on the body of Rachna and after postmortem the body of deceased Rachna was handed over to the relatives of deceased Rachna vide receipt and IO recorded his statement in this regard.
13. PW-7 WCt. Uma has deposed that on 22.07.2014, she joined the investigation of the present case with Inspector Rajesh Kumar, HC Ramesh and Ct. Vikas. She has further deposed that on that day, they went to Vijay Chowk, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi for the search of accused persons and came to know that the aforesaid accused persons had gone to P.S Swaroop Nagar. She has further deposed that thereafter they went to PS Swaroop Nagar, where we found the aforesaid accused persons present. She has further deposed that Investigating Officer interrogated accused Sandeep, Ramesh and Meena Devi and effected their arrest. She has further deposed that on the instructions of I.O, she conducted personal search of accused Meena Devi and I.O prepared personal search memo Ex.PW7/A of said accused. The arrest memo of accused Meena Devi is Ex.PW7/B and her disclosure statement is Ex.PW7/C.
14. PW-8 Inspector Manohar Lal, draftsman has deposed that on 09.09.2014, on the request of Investigating officer Inspector Rajesh Kumar he reached at P.S Swaroop Nagar, from where he alongwith Investigating officer Inspector Rajesh Kumar and SI Madan Mohan went to the spot I.e House No. C-77, Gali No. 5, Swaroop Nagar. He has further deposed that at the instance of Investigating officer Inspector Rajesh Kumar and SI Madan Mohan he prepared rough notes and took measurements after inspecting the spot. He has further deposed that he prepared the scaled site plan at his office and the same is Ex. PW8/A.
15. PW-9 HC Surender Singh(MHCM) has deposed that on 20.07.2014, SI Madan Mohan deposited two sealed pullindas containing seal of MS BJRM and one pullinda having seal of FMT BJRM Hospital containing viscera of deceased besides three sample seals of the same specimen in the Malkhana vide entry at serial No. 823 in register No. 19. The photocopy of register No. 19 bearing the relevant entry is Ex. PW9/A. PW-9 has further deposed that on 06.08.2014, he handed over one sealed pullinda containing gastric levage sealed with the seal of MS BJRM and sample seal to Ct. Ajmer Singh vide RC No. 95/21/14 for getting the signatures of concerned doctor and after doing the needful, the said pullinda was redeposited by Ct. Ajmer Singh, qua which endorsement was made by him in Ex. PW9/A at portion X to X1. The photocopy of register No. 21 bearing the relevant entry is Ex. PW9/B. PW-9 has further deposed that on 07.08.2014, all the above mentioned pullindas in sealed condition alongwith sample seal were sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Ram Niwas (PW-10) for expert opinion vide RC No. 96/21/14. He has further submitted that he made necessary endorsement/entry in Ex. PW9/A. The photocopy of register No. 21 bearing the relevant entry is Ex. PW9/C and copy of acknowledgment issued by FSL is Ex. PW9/D.
16. PW-11 W/HC Maya has deposed that on 21.07.2014, she was working as Duty Officer and her duty hours were from 8.00 a.m to 8.00 p.m. She has further deposed that at about 11.35 a.m, Inspector Sanjay Drall the then SHO, P.S Swaroop Nagar had produced rukka before her and on the basis of said rukka she got recorded the FIR of the present case bearing No. 337/14, u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. The computerized copy of FIR is Ex. PW11/A(OSR), endorsement encircled in portion X to X-1 as Ex. PW11/B and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW11/C. She has further deposed that after registration of FIR, she handed over the copy of FIR and original Rukka to Inspector Rajesh Kumar, to whom investigation was entrusted as per order of S.H.O concerned.
17. PW-12, Ct. Neeraj Dahiya has deposed that on 20.07.2014, on receipt of DD No. 26A dated 20.07.14, he alongwith SI Madan Mohan went to BJRM Hospital, where SI Madan Mohan collected MLC of Ms. Rachna W/o Sh. Sandeep. He has further deposed that the concerned doctor of BJRM hospital handed over one sealed pullanda duly sealed with the seal of BJRM hospital alongwith specimen seal of same specimen, to SI Madan Mohan who had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/A which bears my signature at point A. He has also deposed that the concerned doctor had declared said lady Ms. Rachna unfit for statement. He has further submitted that on enquiry, it was revealed that husband of Ms. Rachna had removed her from BJRM hospital to some private hospital. He has further deposed that thereafter, they went to Vinayak Hospital, where they came to know that Rachna had already been declared dead by the concerned doctor. The husband of Rachna met and disclosed that he had got married with Rachna in April 2014. He has further deposed that accordingly SI Madan Mohan informed S.D.M concerned, SHO and senior police officers about the entire facts and called them at the spot. PW-12 has further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith SI Madan Mohan shifted dead body of Rachna to Mortuary of BJRM hospital and got the dead body preserved over there. He has further deposed that on the next day i.e. 21.07.14, postmortem on the dead body of deceased Rachna was got conducted through Autopsy Surgeon and thereafter, dead body was handed over to relatives and his statement was recorded by Inspector Rajesh Kumar in PS on 21.07.14.
18. PW-13 Ct. Deepak has deposed that on 20.07.2014, at about 7.15 pm while he was on patrolling duty, he received telephone call from PS regarding some incident committed at House No. C-77, Gali No. 5, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi and he was asked to reach there. He has further deposed that he accordingly reached there, where he met SI Madan Mohan, Inspector Rajesh Kumar, local staff and ERV Van Staff. He has deposed that they entered inside the room situated on ground floor of the aforesaid house and saw one steel glass lying on the floor near two almirahs. He has further deposed that some powder like substance was found present inside the said glass. He has further deposed that SI Madan Mohan called for one plastic jar, kept the said steel glass inside the said plastic jar, closed its mouth with the help of lid, prepared its cloth pullanda and sealed the said pullanda with the seal of MM and seized the same vide memo Ex. PW13/A bearing his signature at point A. He has further deposed that thereafter, SI Madan Mohan handed over the said sealed pullanda to him and his statement was recorded in this regard.
19. PW-14 Ct. Vikas has deposed that on 22.07.2014 he joined the investigation of the present case with Inspector Rajesh Kumar, HC Umesh(PW-19) and Wct. Uma(PW-7). He has further deposed that on that day, they went to Vijay Chowk, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi for the search of accused persons and came to know that the aforesaid accused persons had gone to P.S Swaroop Nagar. He has further deposed that thereafter they went to PS Swaroop Nagar, where they found the aforesaid accused persons present. He has further deposed that Investigating Officer effected the arrest of accused Ramesh Chand vide memo Ex.PW14/A, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW14/B and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW14/C in his presence. He has further deposed that Investigating Officer also effected the arrest of accused Sandeep vide memo Ex.PW14/D, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW14/E and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW14/F in his presence. He has further deposed that all memos bear his signatures at points-A and thereafter IO recorded his statement in this regard.
20. PW-15 Dr. Prashant Kumar has deposed that on 20.07.2014, he was working as RMO at Vinayak Hospital Model Town, Delhi and on that day patient Ms. Rachna was brought to Vinayak Hospital. He has further deposed that he examined the said patient and conducted her ECG and the said ECG showed straight lines. He has further deposed that after examining the said patient, he declared her brought dead at about 7.50 pm. The case note prepared by him in this regard is Ex.PW15/A.
21. PW-16 Dr. Bhim Singh has deposed that on 21.07.2014, he was posted as In-charge Mortuary, BJRM Hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi and he conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased Smt. Rachna W/o Sandeep with the alleged history of declared brought dead in Vinayak Hospital on 20.07.2014 at about 7.50 pm. He has further deposed that after postmortem he prepared his detailed report dated 21.07.2014 and the same is Ex. PW16/A. He has further deposed that he kept the cause of death pending till the receipt of viscera analysis report and opined the time since death to be about 18-19 hours. He has further deposed that after postmortem examination, he handed over sealed clothes, sealed blood sample and viscera of deceased to the police.
22. PW-17 Ct. Sandeep has deposed that on 20.07.14 he was posted as constable photographer with Mobile Crime Team, North West. He has further deposed that on that day, at about 10.p.m. a wireless message was received from control room, on which he along with SI Randhir Singh, Incharge Crime Team and HC Shrikishan, Finger Print Proficient went to the place of information i.e. house No. C-77, Gali No.5, Swaroop Vihar, Delhi, where they met SI Madan Mohan along with staff. He has further deposed that crime Team Incharge inspected the place of occurrence and on the instructions of SI Madan Mohan and crime team Incharge, he took 18 photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles. The negatives are collectively Ex.PW17/A and 18 photographs are Ex.PW17/B collectively.
23. PW-18 Sh. Jitender Kumar, Senior Scientific officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi has deposed that vide reference no. 4768/SHO/Swaroop Nagar dated 06.08.2014, their laboratory received 4 sealed parcels and the seals were found intact as per the forwarding letter, which were marked to him for examination and opinion purposes. He has further deposed that he checked said 4 parcels, out of which, one was sealed wooden box and three were sealed parcels. He has further deposed that he opened all the said sealed parcels and the parcels were given serial no. 1, 3, 4 & 5 and the material contained inside the said parcels were given Exhibit 1, Exhibit 3, Exhibit 4A, Exhibit 4B, Exhibit 4C, Exhibit 4D and Exhibit 5A, Exhibit 5B and Exhibit 5C respectively. He has further deposed that he examined the said exhibits from chemical side and upon examination, the result was that Exhibit 1, Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 5A were found to contain Aluminium Phosphide. He has further deposed that Exhibit 5B and Exhibit 5C were found to contain Phosphide. The report is Ex.PW18/A. He has further submitted that after examination, the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of JK FSL Delhi and were sent back to the investigating agency.
24. PW-20 Sh. Ranbir Singh(retired SI) has deposed that on 20.07.2014, he was posted as Incharge Mobile Crime Team with Mobile Crime Team, North West District and on that day, at about 10.p.m, on receipt of a wireless message he alongwith Ct. Sandeep and HC Shrikishan, Finger Print Proficient went to the place of information i.e. house No. C-77, Gali No.5, Swaroop Vihar, Delhi, where they met SI Madan Mohan alongwith staff. He has further deposed that he inspected the back room i.e. bedroom of the deceased and noticed one steel glass kept near the almirah of the room, in which some grey colour powder was found present. He has further deposed that smell of sulfas was coming from the said glass. He has further deposed that HC Srikishan made efforts to lift any chance print from the spot, but in vain. He has further deposed that he inspected the place of occurrence and got the same photographed through Ct. Sandeep(PW-17) from different angles and thereafter he prepared Crime Team report Ex.PW20/A.
25. PW-21 Inspector Madan Mohan has deposed about the investigation conducted on 20.07.2021 in the present case as deposed by PW-12 Ct. Neeraj Dahiya above hence same is not reproduced here for the shake of brevity. He has further deposed that on the next date 21.07.2014, he alongwith Ct. Naveen reached at BJRM Hospital and SHO Inspector Sanjay Drall, Sh. Jasbir Singh, Tehsildar Alipur, Sh. Harnam Singh (father of deceased), Sh. Shiv Mangal (brother of deceased) and Babita (sister of deceased) also reached there. He has further deposed that Tehsildar recorded the statement of Sh. Harnam Singh and Shiv Mangal, SHO made endorsement on the statement of Sh. Harnam Singh and thereafter, same was sent to PS for registration of FIR. He has further deposed that Tehsildar prepared the inquest proceedings, dead body was identified by Sh. Harnam Singh and Sh. Shiv Mangal. He has further deposed that thereafter, postmortem on the dead body of deceased was got conducted at the said hospital. He has further deposed that Inspector Rajesh to whom the further investigation was marked also reached at the hospital. He has further deposed that the concerned doctor, who had conducted the postmortem, handed over two pullandas, one containing clothes of deceased Rachna and other was containing viscera of deceased to IO Inspector Rajesh. He has further submitted that both the said pullandas were sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/A. He has further submitted that after the postmortem, dead body of Rachna was handed over to her relatives vide handing over memo Ex.PW21/B. He has further deposed that thereafter he alongwith IO Inspector Rajesh reached at the spot, IO prepared site plan at his instance and recorded his statement. During evidence PW-21 also identified the glass recovered from the place of occurrence and the said glass as Ex.PW21/P.
26. PW-22 Dr. Deepak, C.M.O BJRM has deposed on behalf of Dr. Prem Singh Bishnoi and Dr. Mohd. Ameen since the said doctors have left the services of the hospital and their present whereabouts were not known. The MLC No. 81934 of deceased Rachna, dated 20.07.2014, prepared by Dr. Mohd. Ameen, J.R. under the supervision of Dr. Prem Singh Bishnoi, is Ex.PW22/A. He has further deposed that after medical examination, the aforesaid patient was referred to Medicine, S.R. for further examination and management.
27. PW-23 Inspector Naresh Kumar has deposed that on 10.10.2014, on the direction of SHO, the investigation of this case was marked to him as IO Inspector Rajesh was on leave on that day. He has further deposed that on that day, Ms. Babita D/o Harnam Singh came to P.S and handed over him dowry list Ex.PW1/B, 10 photocopies of receipt/bills Ex.P1 to P10, one CD ark PW2/A, one paper i.e. transcript Ex.PW5/A, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B and he recorded statement of Ms. Babita in this regard.
28. PW-24 Dr. R.P. Singh, Specialist Forensic Medicine, BJRM Hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi has deposed that on 12.02.2015, he was posted as Specialist & Head, Forensic Medicine, BJRM Hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. He has further deposed that on that day, an application was moved by Inspector Rajesh Kumar regarding opinion on cause of death in postmortem report no. 657/14 dated 21.07.2014 of deceased Rachna. He has further submitted that alongwith application, photocopy of postmortem report of Rachna and photocopy of FSL report no. FSL.2014/C-5783 dated 06.01.2015 was also submitted. He has further deposed that he gone through the Postmortem Report as well as FSL report and gave subsequent opinion to the effect that the cause of death of Rachna was the consumption of Aluminum Phosphide poisoning. He has further deposed that opinion no. 24A/15 dated 23.02.2015 prepared by him in this regard and the same is Ex.PW24/A.
29. PW-25 Inspector Rajesh, Investigating Officer of the present case has deposed about the investigation conducted by him in the present case as already discussed in the testimonies of above mentioned PWs. He has further deposed that he went to the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan Ex.PW25/A, which bears my signature at point-A. He has further deposed that on 21.07.2014, he recorded the statements of Sh. Shiv Mangal as well as Sh. Harnam Singh, including police officials and deposited the case property in Malkhana. He has further deposed that on 22.07.2014, after formal arrest accused Sandeep, Ramesh Singh and Meena Devi were got medically examined and were sent to JC. He has further deposed that on 28.07.2014, he recorded the statement of Smt. Munni Devi U/s 161 Cr.P.C and also collected postmortem report of Rachna. He has further deposed that on 06.08.2014, upon his instructions, Ct. Ram Niwas collected four sealed pullandas and sample seals from MHC(M) HC Surender vide R.C. No. 96/21/14 and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini and he recorded the statement of Ct. Ram Niwas and HC Surender in this regard. He has further deposed that during investigation on 21.08.2014, he formally arrested Ekta Chauhan, in the presence of W/Ct. Neelam vide arrest memo Ex.PW25/B. He has further deposed that on 09.09.2014, he alongwith SI Madan Lal accompanied Draftsmen Inspector Manohar Lal to the place of occurrence and said Draftsman prepared rough notes and took measurements of the place of occurrence. He has further deposed that on 02.10.2014, he recorded the statement of Crime Team officials. He has further deposed that from 03.10.2014, further investigation of the present case was conducted by SI Naresh Kumar as he was on leave and joined his duties on 15.10.2014. He has further deposed that upon completion of investigation, he prepared chargesheet and filed the same in Court. He has further deposed that during further investigation, he recorded the statement of PW Babita and upon the receipt of FSL report, he obtained subsequent opinion regarding the cause of death and filed the said FSL report and subsequent opinion alongwith the supplementary chargesheet in the Court.
30. Accused persons have examined four witnesses in their defence. DW-1 Smt. Hansa has deposed that on 20.07.14 at about 5 p.m all the accused persons were present in their house to attend the Kriya ceremony of her mother-in-law. She has further deposed that accused Sandeep went back to his house at about 5.30 p.m and immediately came back to call his parents stating that Rachna was lying on the floor. She has further deposed that she has brought the death certificate of my mother-in- law Smt. Premwati and the same is Ex. DW1/A(OSR).
31. DW-2 Smt. Seema Pandey has deposed that on the day when the daughter-in-law of accused persons expired, she accompanied accused Meena to Babu Jagjeevan Ram hospital and from there deceased was referred to Lok Nayak Hospital. She has further deposed that in Lok Nayak Hospital doctors declared her dead. She has further deposed that father deceased also went with them to Lok Nayak Hospital and demanded Rs. 10 lacs from Meena and Ramesh for not reporting the matter to the police.
32. DW-3 Smt. Swarn Lata has deposed that her house is adjoining to the house of accused persons. She has further deposed that whenever she used to go on the roof for drying the clothes, she used to talk with the wife of accused Sandeep. She has further deposed that one day she found her(deceased) under tension and on her asking she told her that she was not well and told that she was feeling pain in her chest. She has further deposed that there, she never talked with her.
33. DW-4 Col. Harish Chander Seth, Administration Head, Dr. Lalpath Lab, Sector-18, Rohini has deposed that he has brought the summoned record I.e Medical tests report of Rachna dated 20.05.14 bearing Lab No. 107538510 and the same is Ex. DW4/1. During cross-examination he has admitted that Ex. DW4/1 neither bear the name of husband nor the father name and address.
34. I have heard the arguments from both the sides and have also perused the record.
Arguments on behalf of ld. counsel for accused persons
36. It is argued by the ld. counsel for the accused persons that all the witnesses are giving contradictory versions. It is not clear who had actually made the call on 20.07.2014. If the testimony of PW1 i.e. Shiv Mangal is read it seems that he had made a call to her deceased sister on 20.07.2014. On the other hand, the testimony of PW3 i.e. the mother of the deceased also mentioned that a call was made by her to her deceased daughter on 20.07.2014. The Ld. counsel has further stated that all the parties are stating that they had made call to the deceased but the prosecution has not placed any witness apart from their verbal version. No CDR and CAF has been placed on record by the prosecution.
Ld. counsel has further stated that even the names of dowry articles are having some contradictions in the version of the prosecution witnesses.
He has further stated that for Section 304B IPC demand has to be specifically mentioned and proved by the prosecution but in the present case from the only vague statement given by the witnesses which do not establish that the same was for the purpose of dowry. He has further stated that the exhibits made by PW5 cannot be believed as no certificate u/s 65 B Evidence Act has been placed by her on record. He has further submitted that even the presence of all the accused persons has not been established by the prosecution at the time of incident.
He has further stated that there is a delay of one day in the registration of the FIR. He has further submitted that the statement of the witnesses are also taken after a considerable delay which gave ample opportunity to the prosecution to manipulate the case by implicating false statements. He has further stated that the prosecution case is also not believable as no public witness has been arrayed in the list of witnesses though where the accused persons were residing is a heavily thickly populated area. He has further submitted that if the statements of the public witnesses are read together, it is not clear whether two or four persons had visited the house of the deceased. He has further submitted that in the present case no presumption u/s 113B Evidence Act can be raised as the prosecution has not proved the basics of the case which are required prior to application of presumption u/s 113 B Evidence Act. He has further submitted that it was the husband who had taken the deceased to the hospital so his conduct reflects that he had not committed the offence and that the victim had committed suicide in frustration as she was suffering from prolonged breast cancer. He has further submitted that it is not clear whether the prosecution wanted to establish the demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- or for Rs.1 Lac. He has submitted that due to the ambiguity regarding the demand amount no case of demand by the accused persons can be ascertained.
Arguments on behalf of ld. Addl. PP for the State On the contrary, Ld. APP for the State stated that all the witnesses are giving similar versions which reflects that they are reliable and genuine witnesses. He has stated that all the witnesses have categorically given the names of articles given at the time of marriage. He has further stated that the testimony of the witnesses are reliable and the same establishes that there was a call by the brother of the deceased on 20.07.2014 wherein the present accused admitted having broken the phone of the deceased. He has further submitted that if prior to the marriage the family of the deceased had given an amount of Rs.3 Lacs to the accused persons and in this regard they have given proper explanation that the amount was arranged from uncles (chachas). He has further submitted that just after few days of marriage, accused persons had started causing cruelties and harassment for the demand of dowry to the deceased. He has further submitted deceased have communicated all these things to her family members. He has further stated that minor contradictions in the statements reflects the genuineness of the witness. He has further stated that there is no reason why these witnesses could falsely implicate the accused persons. He has further submitted that there is no delay in FIR as the FIR was registered on the next day at 4 a.m. and that was for the reasons as the deceased had shifted to the hospital and the doctor has stated that she was unfit for statement. Ld. APP also submitted that even DD no. 35A can be considered as the first information so there is no delay. The other family members were also in shock so no immediate statement could be recorded but the circumstances clearly reflect that there is no delay if that has been properly explained. He has further submitted that whether two or four persons had visited the matrimonial house of the deceased cannot be given much weightage unless this fact is proved that the family members has visited the matrimonial house of the deceased and the accused persons had not led them to take deceased to her paternal home.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
37. In the present case, there is no eye-witness and whole of the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Generally, when there are eye- witnesses to the incident, the Court has to rely upon the veracity of the witnesses to establish the incident, but while dealing with the case based on circumstantial evidence, not only the veracity of the witness but also other points become relevant. Before we proceed further it is necessary to state the requirements in a case based on circumstantial evidence. In this regard, we can rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 79), which have laid down the requirements with regard to circumstantial evidence as under:-
"10. ........ This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests :
(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra )."
(6 of 22) (CRLDR-7/2020) It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Brajendrasingh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1552, as under:-
"There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis, i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete so as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court. Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to the conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the only possibility that the accused has committed the crime. To put it simply, the circumstances forming the chain of events should be proved and they should cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused alone. In such circumstances, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. Furthermore, the rule which needs to be observed by the Court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively. The Court has to examine the complete chain of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be kept in mind that all these principles are based upon one basic cannon of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is innocent till proven guilty and that the accused is entitled to a just and fair trial."
In Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984: 1984 AIR 1622, 1985 SCR (1) 88, the honorable supreme Court upheld as under:-
"Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.(1) This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions uptodate, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh(2) and Ramgopal v. Stat of Maharashtra(3). It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant's case (supra):
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground far a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra(') where the following observations were made:"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."
38. As discussed above that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the above-stated requirements are to be fulfilled and the facts on which the case is based, has to be cogently and firmly established. After reading the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the other evidence placed on record, this Court has considered that the following facts have been fully established.
In the light of the rival contentions and the charges levelled against the appellants and to place the matter in its correct perspective, it is considered necessary to take note of the provision as contained in Section 304 B of IPC which reads as follows:
"304B 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 purposes of this sub- section. "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 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."
A perusal of the above provision would indicate that the main ingredients of the offence required to be established are:
(i) that soon before the death, the deceased was
subjected to cruelty and harassment in
connection with the demand of dowry;
(ii) the death of the deceased was caused by any burn or
bodily injury or some other circumstance which was not
normal;
(iii) Such a death has occurred within 7 years from
the date of the marriage;
(iv) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband;
(v) such a cruelty or harassment should be for, or in
connection with the demand of dowry; and
(vi) it should be established that such cruelty and
harassment were made soon before her death.
39. The presumption drawn relating to dowry death has been contemplated in Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states as follows:
"113 B. Presumption as to dowry death- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is show 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 (45 of 1860)"
WHETHER PRESUMPTION OF SECTION 106 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT IS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE
40. For the sake of convenience Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is reproduced herein below:-
" 106. Burden of proving fact especially within the knowledge- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him"
Relevant law regarding Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is discussed in the following judgments.
"40 In the case of Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar Vs. State of Bihar (2007) 10 SCC 403 the Apex Court held that " If some one occurrence happens inside the residential portion of the accused, where he was also available, at or about the time of the incident, he is bound to offer his version as to how the occurrence had taken place. The only other person who can speak about the occurrence will be the deceased and now that she is dead, if at all, the accused alone can offer an explanation. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. It is true that this section can not be used, so as to shift the onus of proving the offence, from the prosecution to the accused. However, in the present, there is satisfactory evidence, which fastens or conclusively fixes the liability, for the death of Gandhi Mathi on the inmate of the house, present therein at the relevant time. So, in the absence of any other explanation, the only possible inference is that the accused participated in the act. If he claims contrary, under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proving that fact is upon him, since that is within his special knowledge".
41. In the case of Prithpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 10, the Apex Court in the following para has held as under:-
"...... If fact is especially in the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. It is impossible for the prosecution to prove certain facts particularly within the knowledge of the accused. Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the Section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding suspects, fail to offer any explanation which might drive the Court to draw a different inference. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is designed to meet certain exceptional cases, in which, it would be impossible for the prosecution to establish certain facts which are particularly within the knowledge of the accused"
42. In the case of Harijan Bhala Teja Vs. State of Gujarat,(2016) 12 SCC 665, it has been held as follows:-
" Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that facty is upon him. Since it is proved on the record that it was only the appellant who was staying with his wife at the time of her death, it is for him to show as to in what manner she died, particularly, when the prosecution has successfully proved that she died homicidal death."
Demand of dowry prior to marriage
41. The case of prosecution was that there was demand of dowry prior to marriage of Rachna (since deceased) to accused Sandeep. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of PW1 Sh. Shiv Mangal, PW2 Sh. Harnam Singh, PW3 Smt. Munni Devi and PW5 Ms. Babita.
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW1 is reproduced as under :
" ....In the marriage of my sister Rachna with accused Sandeep, we had given a cash amount of Rs. 3 lacs, one motorcycle make Stunner worth Rs. 62,000/-....."
"......At this stage, the witness has been asked to go through the saving bank account statement of his father Sh. Harnam Singh. Witness has gone through the said statement. Witness submits that the said saving bank account statement is not containing any entry of withdrawal/deposit of Rs. 3 lacs as well as Rs. 62,000/- in between January, 2014 till 19.04.2014. Voltd. but there are entries of deposit as well as withdrawal for the aforesaid period in the said statement......"
"......At this stage, the witness has been asked to go through his saving bank account statement. Witness has gone through the said statement. Witness submits that the said saving bank account statement is not containing any entry of withdrawal/deposit of Rs. 3 lacs as well as Rs. 62,000/- in between January, 2014 till 19.04.2014. Voltd. but there are entries of deposit as well as withdrawal for the aforesaid period in the said statement. Further volunteered, the cash amount was available with us during the said period and my father took Rs. 5 lacs i.e. Rs. 2,50,000/- each from my uncles (chachas) and a cash sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was available with us. The copy of said saving passbook is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/DB (original passbook seen & returned). It is correct that we had not given any documentary evidence to the effect that my father had taken Rs. 5 lacs from my uncles. Voltd. IO had never demanded the same....."
"........ I had mentioned to the Executive Magistrate that in the marriage of my sister Rachna with the accused, we had given a cash amount of Rs. 3 lacs, one motorcycle, gold jewellery, etc. but the Executive Magistrate had not written the details of the articles and cash given in my said statement already Ex.PW1/A. I had gone through my statement Ex.PW1/A before signing the same. I did not raise any objection before Executive Magistrate for not mentioning the details of the articles and cash told by me to him, in statement Ex.PW1/A. Voltd. I did not do so as I was quite disturbed at that time and therefore, I signed the said statement on the asking of Executive Magistrate....."
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW2 is reproduced as under :
"..........In the marriage of my daughter Rachna with accused Sandeep, I had given a cash amount of Rs. 3 lacs, one motorcycle make Hero Honda Stunner worth Rs. 62,000/-......"
".............My son Shiv Mangal was working as Accountant and was earning Rs. 20,000/- p.m. just before the marriage of my daughter Rachna with accused Sandeep. I had never withdrawn a sum of Rs. 3 lacs in a single transaction from my bank account. It is correct that I had never maintained balance of Rs. 3 lacs or above in my bank account at any point of time till date. It is not within my knowledge as to how much saving was there in the bank account of my daughter Rachna prior to her marriage. I will have to check if the passbook of said bank account of my daughter Rachna is available in my house or not. I also do not have any knowledge as to whether the bank account of my daughter Rachna is still operational or not. It is correct that I had not withdrawn a sum of Rs. 62,000/- for the purchase of motorcycle either from my bank account or from the bank account of my son Shiv Mangal or from bank account of my daughter Rachna. Voltd. I was having cash amount of Rs. 1 lakh with me.
Q. Can you show any document that you had given a sum of Rs. 3 lacs cash in the marriage of your daughter Rachna? Ans. I have already given the photographs of Sagan Ceremony.
At this stage, witness has pointed out to the two photographs out of the photographs already exhibited as Ex. PW1/D (colly.) available on judicial record and states that said photographs show that the cash amount is lying in thaal which was being given to accused Sandeep....."
"........It is correct that on the basis of aforesaid two photographs, one cannot make out that the currency notes reflected in said two photographs, constitute a sum of Rs. 3 lacs. Voltd. there was videography of Sagan Ceremony and this fact is duly recorded in the CD of the said function....."
".....It is wrong to suggest that I had never given a cash amount of Rs. 3 lacs in the marriage of my daughter with accused Sandeep. No list of articles given in the marriage was prepared at the time of marriage. It is wrong to suggest that we had given a false list of articles to the IO during investigation of the case. My statement was also recorded by the investigating officer. I had not stated the purchase amount of Rs. 62,000/- of motorcycle in my statement Ex PW2/A...."
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW3 is reproduced as under :
"........In the marriage of my daughter Rachna with accused Sandeep, we had given a cash amount of Rs. 3 lacs, one motorcycle make Hero Honda Stunner worth Rs. 62,000/-......"
".......My son Shiv Mangal was working as Accountant and was earning Rs. 20,000/- p.m. just before the marriage of my daughter Rachna with accused Sandeep. It is not within my knowledge if my husband had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 3 lacs in a single transaction from his bank account. It is also not within my knowledge if my husband had ever maintained balance of Rs. 3 lacs or above in his bank account at any point of time till date. It is not within my knowledge as to how much saving was there in the bank account of my daughter Rachna prior to her marriage. I also do not have any knowledge as to whether the bank account of my daughter Rachna is still operational or not. It is not within my knowledge if my husband had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 62,000/- for the purchase of motorcycle either from his bank account or from the bank account of Shiv Mangal or from bank account of my daughter Rachna...."
".......It is wrong to suggest that we had never given cash amount of Rs. 3 lacs in the marriage of my daughter with accused Sandeep. No list of articles given in the marriage was prepared at the time of marriage. It is wrong to suggest that we had given a false list of articles to the IO during investigation of the case...."
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW5 is as under:
"......At the time of marriage of my sister Rachna with accused Sandeep, my parents had given a cash amount of Rs. 3 lacs, one motorcycle make Stunner worth Rs. 62,000/-....."
".....I had stated to IO in my statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 26.02.2015 that in the marriage of my sister Rachna, we had given cash sum of Rs. 3 lacs and a motorcycle worth Rs. 62,000/-....."
"......In his statement given to SDM concerned, Sh. Harnam Singh, father of Rachna (since deceased) claimed that the marriage of Rachna was solemnized with pump and show and he had given valuable articles besides cash amount of Rs.3 lacs in dowry as per demand raised by accused Ramesh Singh, father of accused Sandeep...."
42. From the aforesaid testimonies of PW1 Sh. Shiv Mangal, PW2 Sh. Harnam Singh, PW3 Smt. Munni Devi and PW5 Ms. Babita, it has been proved that there is no documentary evidence regarding withdrawal/deposit of Rs.3 lacs as well as Rs.62,000/- from the bank account of either of the abovesaid witnesses as the saving bank account passbook in the name of Sh. Harnam Singh w.e.f 09.02.2011 till 11.10.2014 Ex.PW1/DA and the saving bank account passbook in the name of PW1 Shiv Mangal between January till 19.04.2014 Ex.PW1/DB not contained any entry regarding withdrawal/deposit of Rs.3 lacs as well as Rs.62,000/- from the bank account of either of the abovesaid witnesses. Also, no independent witnesses to this effect had been produced by the victim side who could proved the aforesaid fact. From the testimony of abovesaid witnesses, it is evident that no complaint regarding demand of dowry by accused persons prior to marriage had been made by any of the abovesaid witnesses. The testimonies clearly reflects the financial condition of the family and does not go with the testimony that the samount of Rs. 3 Lacs would have been paid by them at the time of marriage. Though it was not mentioned by PW1 that his father had taken a loan of Rs. 5 Lakh from his uncles (chachas) but PW2 had not given the same version. It is also pertinent mention here the alleged person has also not been produced as witness and no return agreement or receipt has been placed on record. Therefore, the fact that Rs.3 Lacs had been given by the family of the deceased is not proved.
Demand of dowry subsequent to marriage
43. The case of prosecution is that all the four accused persons had been harrassing Rachna for bringing more dowry after her marriage to accused Sandeep. In his statement to the SDM concerned, PW1 Sh. Shiv Mangal, PW2 Sh. Harnam Singh, PW3 Smt. Munni Devi and PW5 Ms. Babita also levelled similar allegations against the accused persons. In this regard, the prosecution has also relied upon the testimonies of abovesaid witnesses.
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW1 is reproduced as under :
"......After about 20 days of marriage of my sister Rachna with accused Sandeep, accused Ramesh Singh, present in the Court today (correctly identified) made a telephone call to my father and over the said phone call, accused Ramesh Singh had demanded a cash sum of Rs. 1 lakh as dowry from him. My father had replied to accused Ramesh Singh that he was not in a position to arrange the said amount of Rs. 1 lakh as we had already spent more than our financial capacity in the said marriage. ".....Accused Sandeep, Ramesh Singh, Meena Devi and Ekta Chouhan @ Varsha used to demand dowry i.e. jewellery and cash from my sister Rachna. They also used to taunt her on the pretext that they had to suffer humiliation and insult in the eyes of their relatives and members of society for bringing insufficient dowry in the marriage. On 09.06.2014 and 10.06.2014, upon the demands of the accused persons, I had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each from the ATM of the bank account in Syndicate Bank of my father. I had also taken a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from my father. Thereafter, on 10.06.2014, I took the cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the matrimonial house of my sister at Swaroop Vihar where I had met accused Meena Devi, Ramesh Singh and Ekta Chouhan and I had handed over the said cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- to accused Meena Devi. When I handed over the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- to accused Meena Devi, she enquired as to how much was the said amount and when I told that it was Rs. 50,000/-, accused Ekta immediately uttered the words "bas Rs. 50,000/- hi laye ho, humne to Rs. 1 lakh mange the". Then, I replied that we could arrange only Rs. 50,000/- which I had brought and given to them....."
"....... I had not stated to the Executive Magistrate as well as to police that after 20 days of marriage of my sister, accused Ramesh Singh made a telephone call to my father and demanded a cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- from him or that my father stated to him that he was not in a position to arrange the said amount. Voltd. I had made brief statement to the Executive Magistrate as well as to the police. ".....It is wrong to suggest that my statement with regard to the cash, jewellery articles, etc. made during chief examination, is an afterthought. It is wrong to suggest that my statement with regard to the phone call made by accused Ramesh Singh thereby demanding cash sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry from my father made during my examination in chief, is an afterthought. It is wrong to suggest that I had made deliberate improvements to fill up the lacunae...."
"....I had not specifically stated to the Executive Magistrate or to the police that accused Sandeep, Ramesh Singh, Meena Devi and Ekta Chauhan used to demand dowry i.e. jewellery and cash from my sister Rachna or that they used to taunt my sister on the pretext that they had to suffer humiliation and insult in the eyes of their relatives and members of society for bringing insufficient dowry in the marriage. Voltd. I had made brief statement to the Executive Magistrate as well as to the police....."
"......I had specifically not stated to the Executive Magistrate or to the police that "on 09.06.2014 and 10.06.2014, upon the demands of accused persons, I had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each from the ATM of the bank account in Syndicate Bank of my father. I had also taken a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from my father. Thereafter, on 10.06.2014, I took the cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the matrimonial house of my sister at Swaroop Vihar where I had met accused Meena Devi, Ramesh Singh and Ekta Chouhan and I had handed over the said cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- to accused Meena Devi. When I handed over the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- to accused Meena Devi, she enquired as to how much was the said amount and when I told that it was Rs. 50,000/-, accused Ekta immediately uttered the words "bas Rs. 50,000/- hi laye ho, humne to Rs. 1 lakh mange the". Then, I replied that we could arrange only Rs. 50,000/- which I had brought and given to them. Voltd. I had made brief statement to the Executive Magistrate wherein I had mentioned the factum of giving Rs. 50,000/- cash to the accused persons....."
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW2 is reproduced as under :
".......After about 20 days of marriage of my daughter Rachna with accused Sandeep, accused Ramesh Singh, present in the Court today (correctly identified) made a telephone call to me and over the said phone call, accused Ramesh Singh had demanded a cash sum of Rs. 1 lakh as dowry from me. I had replied to accused Ramesh Singh that I was not in a position to arrange the said amount of Rs. 1 lakh as I had already spent more than of my financial capacity in the said marriage. "......On 09.06.2014 and 10.06.2014, upon the demands of the accused persons, my son Shiv Mangal had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each from the ATM of my bank account in Syndicate Bank. I had also given a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to my son Shiv Mangal. Thereafter, on 10.06.2014, my son took the cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the matrimonial house of my daughter at Swaroop Vihar where he met accused Meena Devi, Ramesh Singh and Ekta Chouhan and he handed over the said cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- to accused Meena Devi. When my son Shiv Mangal handed over the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- to accused Meena Devi, she enquired as to how much was the said amount and when my son told that it was Rs. 50,000/-, accused Ekta @ Varsha immediately uttered the words "bas Rs. 50,000/- hi laye ho, humne to Rs. 1 lakh mange the".
Then, my son replied that we could arrange only Rs. 50,000/- which he had brought and given to them...."
".....We had not lodged any complaint before the police till the death of my daughter, on account of harassment and demand of dowry. Voltd. I had not lodged any complaint because I do not want to disturb the matrimonial life of my daughter and also because of the fact that my relatives would not come to know about all such facts. I had never disclosed to the mediator the fact that my daughter was being treated with cruelty on account of dowry......."
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW3 is as under :
"........After about 15 days of marriage, when my daughter Rachna came to our house and stated to me, my husband and my daughter Babita that after four days of her stay to matrimonial house, all the aforesaid accused persons had stated to her that in the marriage, we had not given the dowry to their expectations, as a result of which, they have lost their reputation in between their relatives. She further stated to me that we had paid only Rs. 3 lacs in the said marriage, whereas their demand was of Rs. 4 lacs. "........After about 20 days of marriage of my daughter Rachna with accused Sandeep, accused Ramesh Singh, present in the Court today (correctly identified) made a telephone call to my husband and over the said phone call, accused Ramesh Singh had demanded a cash sum of Rs. 1 lakh as dowry from him.
".......On 09.06.2014 and 10.06.2014, upon the demands of the accused persons, my son Shiv Mangal had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each from the ATM of bank account of my husband from Syndicate Bank. My husband had also given a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to my son Shiv Mangal. Thereafter, on 10.06.2014, my son took the cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the matrimonial house of my daughter at Swaroop Vihar where he met accused Meena Devi, Ramesh Singh and Ekta Chouhan and he handed over the said cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- to accused Meena Devi. When my son Shiv Mangal handed over the said amount of Rs.50,000/- to accused Meena Devi, she enquired as to how much was the said amount and when my son told that it was Rs. 50,000/-, accused Ekta @ Varsha immediately uttered the words "bas Rs. 50,000/- hi laye ho, humne to Rs. 1 lakh mange the". Then, my son replied that we could arrange only Rs. 50,000/-, which he had brought and given to them....."
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW5 is as under:
"......After about 20 days of marriage of my sister Rachna with accused Sandeep, accused Ramesh Singh, present in the Court today (correctly identified) made a telephone call to my father and over the said phone call, accused Ramesh Singh had demanded a cash sum of Rs. 1 lakh as dowry from him. My father had replied to accused Ramesh Singh that he was not in a position to arrange the said amount of Rs. 1 lakh as they had already spent more than our financial capacity in the said marriage. ".........Accused Sandeep, Ramesh Singh, Meena Devi and Ekta Chouhan @ Varsha used to demand dowry i.e. jewellery and cash from my sister Rachna. They also used to taunt her on the pretext that they had to suffer humiliation and insult in the eyes of their relatives and members of society for bringing insufficient dowry in the marriage. The said facts were told to us by my sister Rachna when she had come to our house after about 15 days of her marriage....."
".........On 09.06.2014 and 10.06.2014, upon the demands of the accused persons, my brother Shiv Mangal had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each from the ATM of the bank account in Syndicate Bank of my father. My brother had also taken a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from my father. Thereafter, on 10.06.2014, my brother took the cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the matrimonial house of my sister at Swaroop Vihar where he had met accused Meena Devi, Ramesh Singh and Ekta Chouhan. My brother Shiv Mangal had handed over the said cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- to accused Meena Devi. When he handed over the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- to accused Meena Devi, accused Ekta immediately uttered the words "bas Rs. 50,000/- hi laye ho, humne to Rs. 1 lakh mange the"........"
44. Though all the witnesses are stating that there was demand of Rs.1 Lac by the accused persons after about 20 days of marriage. They alleged that in this regard one telephonic call was received by the family of the deceased but the prosecution has failed to produce any call recording or any CDR regarding the fact that accused Ramesh Singh had made a telephone call to Sh. Harnam Singh and over the said phone call, accused Ramesh Singh had demanded a cash sum of Rs. 1 lakh as dowry from him. PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 all deposed in the same lines that on 09.06.2014 and 10.06.2014, upon the demands of the accused persons, PW1 Shiv Mangal had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each from the ATM of the bank account in Syndicate Bank of his father. It cannot be ascertained as to whether the said amount was withdrawn to be given to the accused family or for their own needs. From the testimony of abovesaid witnesses, it is clear that no complaint regarding demand of dowry by accused persons after marriage had been made by any of the abovesaid witnesses. Merely alleging that the accused persons had been demanding money without any previous complaint against the accused also raises doubt. Moreover, the testimony of PW2, PW3 and PW5 regarding the witness PW1 going at the house of the accused persons and handing over the amount of Rs.50,000/- also the mentioned of derogatory and dowry demand made by the mother-in-law of the deceased are no more than hearsay. Therefore, it remains unproved that a demand of Rs. 1 Lac was made by the accused persons and for the purposes of that the family of the deceased had given Rs.50,000/- on 10.06.2014.
Other Acts of Cruelty or Harassment by the accused persons
45. It was the case of the prosecution that all the accused persons had been harassing deceased to meet her unlawful demands and had subjected her to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. The prosecution has also relied upon the statement of complainant Sh. Harnam Singh (PW2), father of deceased and of Sh. Shiv Mangal (PW1), brother of deceased in this regard recorded by Excecutive Magistrate. The prosecution has also referred to the statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Smt. Meena Devi (PW4), mother of deceased and Ms. Babita (PW5), sister of deceased who have stated that the accused persons had harassed deceased to meet their unlawful demands. In this regard, the prosecution has also relied upon the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5.
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW4 Smt. Meena Devi is reproduced as under:
"....Even thereafter, all the accused persons did not stop harassing my daughter Rachna and kept on pressurizing her to bring more cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- as well as jewellery articles from her parental house. The accused persons also used to threaten my daughter Rachna that in case their demands for dowry are not fulfilled by her parents and family members, they would kill her and would also grease the palms of police officials for not taking any action against them. The aforesaid facts were told by my daughter Rachna herself to me over phone and Rachna had also narrated the similar facts to my husband over phone...."
".......On 19.07.2014, my daughter Rachna made a call to mobile no. 7838389803 which was attended by me at our house. Over the said phone call, my daughter Rachna asked me to bring her from matrimonial house on the next day as the accused persons were treating her with cruelty. My husband had also talked to Rachna over the said phone call and she stated the aforesaid facts to my husband and also stated to him that we should bring her to our house as she wanted to disclose something to us......."
".......Accordingly, on 20.07.2014 at about 2.30 pm, my son Shiv Mangal made a call on the mobile phone which was being used by accused Meena Devi and he talked to accused Meena Devi over the said phone call and requested accused Meena Devi for sending Rachna to parental house, but accused Meena Devi refused to send Rachna to our house. On that day, my husband had also made a call at the mobile phone used by accused Meena Devi. He had talked to accused Meena Devi over the phone, but she refused to send Rachna to our house. Thereafter, my husband had talked to Rachna and while he was talking to my daughter Rachna, she was weeping and requested my husband to take her to parental house. Thereafter, he had also talked to accused Sandeep but he had stated to me that "mein Rachna ko kisi bhi haalat me aaj nahi bhejunga" (objected to being hearsay)....."
"......On the same day at about 3 pm, I had also made a call to my daughter Rachna and over the said phone call, my daughter had stated to me that all the accused persons had been treating her with cruelty and she requested me for taking her to our house. She further stated to me that accused Sandeep and Ekta @ Varsha had also broken her mobile phone after snatching the same from her....."
"....Thereafter, my son Shiv Mangal and daughter Babita went to the matrimonial house of Rachna and they reached there at about 3.45 - 4.00 pm, where my son had met all the accused persons. My son had requested all the accused persons to sent Rachna with them, but they refused to send Rachna with them and stated to them that they should take Rachna on the next day. Accordingly, they returned back to our house at about 4.30 pm and narrated the aforesaid facts to me as well as to my husband..."
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW5 is as under:
"......I was also told by my sister Rachna over telephone conversation as also personally that Rachna was used to be beaten up by her mother-in- law i.e. accused Meena Devi, accused Sandeep and Ekta @ Varsha for not bringing sufficient dowry as also that all the four accused persons used to harass her for bringing more dowry...."
A close scrutiny of the aforesaid portion of the testimonies reflects that the nature of cruelty has not been specified. Only general allegations such as the victim was beaten and threatened by accused persons. No specific acts and references to dates have been made by the witnesses. Only one specific reference has been made regarding the incident dated 19.07.2014 wherein it is alleged that the deceased had made a call to PW4 and were treating her with cruelty. Even witness PW4 gives general allegation of being treated by cruelty but the manner is not specified. It is also pertinent to mention here that no effort was made by the prosecution to produce any evidence that such a call had been made by the deceased on 19.07.2014. So to allege that the deceased was not allowed to be sent to her parents home on 19.07.2014 cannot be stated an act of cruelty in itself. There might be various reasons for not permitting the deceased on that day. It can also be seen that the witnesses have not alleged any kind of hot verbal exchanges had taken place on 19.07.2014 to take the deceased at her parents home. Even complaint is also not registered in this regard and with regard to the breaking of mobile phone it is pertinent to mention here that the same was not recovered /traced by the investigating agency. Even it is not clear from the testimonies of witnesses in whose name that mobile phone pertained to. Therefore, it is not established that a cruelty or harassment was made by any of them. No independent witness in this regard was also produced by the prosecution.
Place of suicide by Rachna (since deceased), wife of accused Sandeep
46. As per the case of prosecution the marriage of Rachna (Since deceased) was solemnized with Sandeep on 19.04.2014. 13 Photographs Ex.PW1/D to be of Sagai Ceremony and of marriage were placed on record to prove the said fact.
The case of prosecution is that on 20.07.2014, at 6.55 p.m, DD no. 26A was recorded at PS Swaroop Nagar to the effect that Rachna, w/o Sandeep aged 22 year, r/o Gali No. 05 C Block S Vihar Delhi, who has consumed unknown poison has been admitted in the hospital by her husband vide MLC No. 81934/14. The said DD entry was marked to SI Madan Mohan, who alongwith Ct. Neeraj reached at BJRM hospital and collected the MLC of Rachna, wherein the concerned doctor has mentioned "brought by husband with alleged history of unknown poison". Concerned doctor has also mentioned that unconscious orients and unfit for statement. SI Madan Mohan has also came to know that husband of Rachna had taken her to Vinayak hospital and SI Madan Mohan reached at Vinayak hospital, where doctor declared Rachna "brought dead". SI Madan Mohan also came to know that marriage of Rachna was performed in the same year in April, 2014 and he informed the concerned SDM through SHO of P.S Swaroop Nagar. SI Madan Mohan got preserved the dead body of Rachna through Ct. Neeraj at the mortuary of BJRM hospital. Thereafter SI Madan Mohan reached at the spot and called the crime team. Crime team inspected the spot and crime team photographer took the photographs. During inspection it was found that in the inner side room of ground floor in between two iron almirahs in a steel glass kept on the floor was found sticking some substance of gray colour and smell of tablets of "salfas" was coming from the said glass.
This fact was not denied by the accused Sandeep. in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that his wife was found unconscious in his house.
In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C accused Sandeep in Question no. 13 and 66, admitted that Shiv Mangal (PW1) and Babita (PW5) had visited their house on the 20.07.2014, however, only he and Rachna were present at home at that time. His mother and father had gone to attend a tehravi at the house of one Sh. Vijay while his sister had gone to distribute Prasad which they had brought from Vaishno Devi. His wife Rachna asked him to bring some snacks and he went to brought Kachoris from a shop situated at Street No. 11. When he returned back, Shiv Mangal and Babita were not there and Racha was in semi conscious state at that time.
From the above said statement of accused Sandeep, it is quite clear that Rachna (since deceased) had committed suicide at her matrimonial house.
Cause of death of Rachna (since deceased)
47. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of inspection carried out by Crime Team, one glass having grey colour powder, was found lying inside the room where deceased is shown to have committed suicide. As per Viscera Report filed on record, Aluminium Phosphide was detected in the body of deceased. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of PW16 Dr.Bhim Singh, who had carried out the postmortem on the dead body of Rachna. He prepared the detailed postmortem report dated 21.07.2014 Ex.PW16/A. After postmortem, he opined that both the lungs congested, edematous, full of frothy haemorrhagic fluid. He had also opined that the time since death to be about 18-19 hours. The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW18 Sh. Jitendra Kumar and PW24 Dr. R.P. Singh in this regard.
The relevant portion of the testimonies of PW18 is as under:
"....I had examined the said exhibits from chemical side and upon examination, the result was that Exhibit 1, Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 5A were found to contain Aluminium Phosphide. Exhibit 5B and Exhibit 5C were found to contain Phosphide. My reports in this regard is Ex.PW18/A...."
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW24 is as under:
".......I had gone through the Postmortem Report as well as FSL report and gave subsequent opinion to the effect that the cause of death of Rachna was the consumption of Aluminum Phosphide poisoning. Opinion no. 24A/15 dated 23.02.2015 prepared by me in this regard is now exhibited as Ex.PW24/A, which bears my signature and official stamp at point-A....."
48. From the testimony of abovesaid witnesses, it is clear that the death of Rachna was unnatural and due to poisonous substances. No evidence to the contrary has been brought by the accused person to rebut this conclusion. The witnesses are trustworthy and independent witnesses. Their testimonies are reliable.
Presence of accused persons at the relevant time.
49. PW21 Inspector Madan Mohan had deposed in his testimony that he came to know that Rachna was taken to Vinayak Hospital, Model Town by her husband Sandeep. PW16 Dr. Bhim Singh on postmortem report Ex.PW16/A had opined the time since death to be 18-19 hours and on the MLC Ex.PW22/A proved by PW22 Dr. Deepak, Hospital it is mentioned that Rachna was brought to the casualty by her husband.
50. Accused Sandeep in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C stated that his wife Rachna asked him to bring some snacks and he went to brought Kachoris from a shop situated at Street No. 11 and when he returned back, Shiv Mangal and Babita were not there and Rachna was in semi conscious state at that time. On the other hand, DW1 Hansa Devi produced by accused persons in their defence has deposed that accused Sandeep went back to his house at about 5.30 p.m. and immediately came back to call his parents stating that Rachna was lying on the floor. There is a contradiction in both these statements which reflects that in order to save accused persons they are making the false statements.
51. From the MLC Ex. PW22/A, it is explicit that the deceased Rachna was brought to the hospital by the accused Sandeep and the accused Sandeep has himself admitted that he was at his house on that day. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he has taken the defence that he had gone to buy Kachori and when he returned he found his wife/deceased Rachna unconscious. He has not brought the witness which could prove that he infact has brought kachoris on that day at the relevant time. One defence witness was brought by him i.e. DW1 Smt. Hansa Devi. She had stated that he had left her house at about 5.30 p.m. So the defence taken by the accused could not be fully substantiated and if read with Section 106 IPC the fact whether he was actually not on the spot rested on him wherein the defence has failed. While the presence of accused Sandeep can be established, there is insufficient evidence brought by the prosecution regarding the presence of other accused persons at the spot at the relevant time. So, it can be safely upheld that accused Sandeep was present at the place of incident at the relevant time and no one else from the family was there at that time.
Fact regarding telephonic call dated 20.07.2014
52. The prosecution has also relied upon the recorded conversation between accused Sandeep and PW Shiv Mangal on his mobile phone wherein accused Sandeep had admitted to have broken the mobile phone of Rachna. In this regard, prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW5 Ms. Babita. The prosecution has also relied upon the recorded conversation between accused Sandeep and PW1 Shiv Mangal on his mobile phone wherein said accused is alleged to have broken the mobile phone of the deceased.
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW5 is recorded as under :
"...At that time, accused Sandeep had also told my brother Shiv Mangal that he had broken the mobile phone of Rachna. The entire conversation which had taken place between accused Sandeep and my brother Shiv Mangal, was got recorded in the mobile handset of my brother. Subsequently, my brother got audio CD thereof prepared and handed over the same to me. I had also heard the entire recorded conversation and my brother Shiv Mangal had also told me about the said facts. The said audio CD was handed over by me to IO during investigation...."
".....At this stage, record reveals that one Audio CD has been placed on record along with the chargesheet. As per directions issued to IO on the last date, he has produced one Laptop make Compaq bearing Model No. "Presario CQ 57". The said audio CD is now being played with the help of said Laptop. After playing the said Audio CD, witness has identified the voice of two speakers to be that of her brother Shiv Mangal and accused Sandeep. The said CD is now exhibited as Ex.PX. I had also prepared the transcripts of the said recorded conversation and had handed over the same to IO. The said transcripts as shown to me from record, is in my handwriting. Same is exhibited as Ex.PW5/A......"
The transcript of recorded conversation Ex.PW5/A is as under:
Sandeep : Hello Shiv : Hello Sandeep : Hanji Shiv : Dhang se baat nahi kar rahi Rachna/Gudia kya koi baat to nahi hui kuch Sandeep : Pata Nahi Shiv : Tabiyat Kharab hai kuch aisa to nahi hai, btati bhi nahi hai koi dikkat hai koi pareshani hai Sandeep : Gala baitha hai dono ka Shiv : Gala kharab hai Sandeep : Ha, inka (Rachna) parso ho gya mera kal raat mein ho gya Shiv : Accha Sandeep : Pta hai bhaiya, thanda-thanda pani pite rahe Shiv : Ha Sandeep : Uske baad coffee bhi pee li chai bhi pee li. Shiv : Tumhara to lag bhi raha hai gala bhari-2 sa baitha baitha lekin uska (Rachna) to thik lag raha hai.
Sandeep : Nahi bahiya unko (Rachna) ko cold ho rakha hai. Shiv : Accha Sandeep : Aur to baat kuch nahi hai.
Shiv : Hmm Sandeep : Subah aaye hai aaram se------
Inhone kanya-vanya ki hogi.
Shiv : Accha, Accha mein yeh keh raha tha mobile nahi hai, kya gudiya par. Sandeep : Mobile nahi hai maine tod diya.
Shiv : Kyo Sandeep : Papa se koi baat ho gyi thi.
Shiv : Accha Sandeep : Isliye maine tod diya, ab de dunga ek-aadh din mein kharid ke aa jayega, tab de dunga, thoda bhut------- Nokia wale ke baat kar raha hu wo kharab ho gya.
Shiv : Accha, chalo nahi to mein de deta hu, mein bijwa dunga. Sandeep : Nahi-nahi koi baat nahi Shiv : 1-2 din mein, mein dekh leta hu kharid lunga koi sasta sa mobile. Sandeep : Nahi- nahi.............
Shiv : Jaise kabhi hota hai na baat wagairah karni ho halchal lene ho. Sandeep : Ha, sahi baat hai.
Shiv : Aajkal to jaruri hai na har kisi ko jarurat hoti hai mobile ki. Sandeep : Ha, wo to hai he.
Shiv : Chalo thik hai fir ha dekh lena isko (Racha) ko kya pareshani ho koi dikkat ho puch lena thoda dhyan rakhna ha, Seni hai thodi.
Sandeep : Nahi, nahi koi dikkat nahi.
Shiv : Chalo thik hai Sandeep : Thik hai
53. PW5 Ms. Babita had produced the CD of recorded conversation between his brother and accused Sandeep and the transcript of the recorded conversation in her handwriting during trial. Though she had not handed over the said CD and the transcript to the IO in which the fact of breaking the mobile phone is also recorded, the CD was not supported by the Certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The said CD was never sent to the FSL for opinion. No voice samples of the persons between whose conversation was taken place has ever been taken. Neither the broken mobile phone of the deceased Rachna or PW Shiv Mangal were seized by the investigating agency. No CDR of the conversation was brought on record. Neither the mobile number nor the documents of ownership/CAF have been retained and verified by the investigating agency. Hence, no reliance can be taken on the CD and transcript of the recorded conversation.
Whether the chain of circumstances is complete against the accused persons:
54. As already stated that the case pertains to the circumstantial evidence, it has to be seen that the chain of circumstances is complete and specifically points out towards the commission of offence by the accused persons and none else. In this regard, relevant facts have been discussed above and after the detailed discussion it has come out that the prosecution could not prove the facts regarding being demand of Rs. 3 lacs being fulfilled at the time of marriage as there was no idependent witness and the accounts related to the family of deceased could not establish this fact. The subsequent demand of Rs.1 Lac could also be not proved by the prosecution as there were no documentary evidence and it was not possible to ascertain that the amount taken from ATM was given as dowry demand on 20.07.2014. Merely giving some articles and jewellery at the time of marriage cannot be considered a demand from the accused side as it is very usual in Indian marriages that gifts are offered to the bride and grooms. The element of demand from the side of accused could not be established. The suicide by deceased Rachna had taken place on 20.07.2014 and MLC had reflected that it was accused (Sandeep) who had brought the deceased to the hospital. Even the accused (Sandeep) had admitted this fact in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Though he had taken the defence that he had gone, during that time, out of the home to buy kachoris but this fact could not be sufficiently proved in defence. So, presumption u/s 106 Evidence Act was clearly applicable upon him to explain the circumstances under which the deceased had committed suicide. With regard to the presence of accused persons, the presumption u/s 106 Evidence Act cannot be applied as there was no evidence from the side of prosecution regarding their presence at the relevant time when the suicide was committed. Though, the prosecution has produced witnesses which stated that PW1 and PW5 had gone to the house of the deceased at about 3.45 p.m. but thereafter the presence of the accused persons namely Ramesh Singh, Meena Devi and Ekta Choauhan is not reflected in the evidence. There is approximately 2-3 hours of gap between the time the family members visited the home of the deceased and the suicide was committed. Hence, the presence of accused persons namely Ramesh Singh, Meena Devi and Ekta Choauhan could not be established. In the present case, the marriage between the accused (Sandeep) and the deceased had taken place on 19.04.2014 and she had expired due to suicide no 20.07.2014. The time gap between the marriage and the commission of suicide is of just few months which itself becomes a ground that some sort of cruelties/harassment must have been extended at least by the accused Sandeep and the same gets fortified from the fact that the presence of the accused Sandeep at the place when suicide was committed is established. Further, he had admitted in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C that the family members of the deceased had visited on 20.07.2014 and the death had occurred just few hours thereafter when accused was at home with the deceased. The defence regarding having gone outside the home to buy Kachoris is nothing but an attempt to hide the truth. Hence, accused Sandeep is clearly guilty of the offence u/s 304B/498A IPC. But the presence of other accused persons could not be established to the point that the presumption u/s 106 Evidence Act could be raised, their implicit role in the offence is not made out. Hence, accused persons namely Ramesh Singh, Meenu Devi @ Meena Devi and Ekta Choauhan @ Versha @ Ekta Chauhan are acquitted of all the charges.
Announced in the open Court
today i.e. on 30th July, 2022 (Shivaji Anand)
Additional Sessions Judge-04
North District/Rohini Courts/Delhi