Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Sunil Kumar on 3 March, 2010

                             1
                                 1




        IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMESH SHARMA,
                   ASJ-II,NORTH, DELHI.


                          SESSIONS CASE NO: 20/2006


                          FIR No: 145/06
                          P.S. Subzi Mandi
                          U/S: 498A/304 BIPC



                          DATE OF INSTITUTION: 8.6.2006

                          DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT HAS
                          BEEN RESERVED : 24.02.2010

                          DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGEMENT
                          HAS BEEN DELIVERED : 03.03.2010


STATE


VERSUS

1. SUNIL KUMAR
   S/O TUKI RAM
   R/O 4230, ARYA PURA,
   SUBZI MANDI, DELHI

2. ANIL KUMAR
   S/O TUKI RAM
   R/O 4230, ARYA PURA,
   SUBZI MANDI, DELHI
                             2
                                2




3. GITA
   D/O TUKI RAM
   R/O 4230, ARYA PURA,
   SUBZI MANDI, DELHI

4. BHAGWATI
   W/O TUKI RAM
   R/O 4230, ARYA PURA,
   SUBZI MANDI, DELHI

5. SMT. MUNNI
   W/O SH. POORAN SINGH SAINI
   R/O A-5, DHOBI GHAT,
   HARI NAGAR ASHRAM, DELHI.

6. SH. POORAN SINGH SAINI
   S/O SH. BABU RAM
   R/O A-5, DHOBI GHAT,
   HARI NAGAR ASHRAM, DELHI.

7. SH. CHUNNI LAL
   S/O SH. BABU RAM
   R/O E-4/368, NAND NAGRI, DELHI

8. SMT. TRIVENI
   W/O SH. CHUNNI LAL
   R/O E-4/368, NAND NAGRI, DELHI

9. DEVINDER KUMAR
   S/O MANGE RAM SAINI
   R/O BRAUT - PATTI CHAUDHARAHAN,
   DISTRICT BAGHPAT, U.P


10. SMT. SUNITA
    W/O SH. DEVINDER KUMAR
   R/O BRAUT - PATTI CHAUDHARAHAN,
                                     3
                                        3


     DISTRICT BAGHPAT, U.P

11. TUKKI RAM
   S/O BABU RAM
   R/O 4230, ARYA PURA
   MALKA GANJ, DELHI

APPEARANCE:

             Sh. Maqsood Ahmed, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for
             State.
             Mr. Y. S. Dahiya, Advocate for the accused Sunil Kumar,
             Bhagwati, Tuki Ram, Anil Kumar and Geeta.
             Mr. J. B. Saini, Advocate for the accused, Devender,
             Sunita, Chunni Lal and Triveni.       .
             Mr. Dinesh Rohilla, Advocate for the accused persons
             namely Puran Singh Saini and Smt. Munni Devi


03.03. 2010


JUDGMENT:

1. Accused persons namely husband Sunil Kumar and ten more members of his family Anil Kumar, Geeta, Bhagwati, Munni, Puran Singh Saini, Chunni Lal, Triveni, Devender Kumar, Sunita and Tuki Ram have been arraigned for trial by the State for bringing about dowry death of deceased Sushila on 10.04.2006.

FACTS

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.04.2006 at about 8:41a.m DD No. 11A Ex. PW 16/A was lodged at Police Station 4 4 Subzi Mandi that one lady had committed suicide by hanging herself in House No. 4230 Arya Pura, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi. The investigation was marked to PW -20 then SI Raj Kumar who along with PW-10 Ct. Raj Kumar reached the place of occurrence where one lady who was identified as Sushila wife of Sunil Kumar was found dead in her room and there was severed piece of her saree which was lying nearby. On inquiries, it was revealed that deceased Sushila had got married with accused Sunil Kumar as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies on 29.04.2004 at Jahangirabad, Bullandshehar, UP. The information was given to SDM PS Kotwali and accordingly PW- 15 Sh. R. K. Sharma, then SDM Kotwali, reached the place of occurrence who recorded statements of PW -1 Diwan Singh and PW 17 Smt. Manju Bala, parents of the deceased Sushila. It is suffice to indicate that PW1 Diwan Singh in his statement Ex. PW1/A informed the SDM that he had received an anonymous telephone call at 10:15 a.m that his daughter Sushila had committed suicide by hanging herself; that soon after the marriage, father in law and mother in law of his daughter had been demanding Rs. 4 lakhs in dowry and they had threatened that if their demand is not met, they would kill his daughter; that he suspected that it was not a case of suicide but murder and his daughter was hanged by the ceiling fan after her murder. He further stated that he was not in the right frame of mind at that time and he would disclose the details later on but at the same time he alleged that his daughter had been killed by her father in law Tuki Ram, mother in law Bhagwati, husband Sunil Kumar, nanads i.e., sisters 5 5 in law Sunita and Geeta, brothers in law dewar Anil and bahnoi Devender Kumar besides Chuni Lal, Puran Singh Saini, and their wives who were the uncles and aunts of his son in law Sunil Kumar.

3. The SDM also recorded statement of PW-17 Smt. Manju Bala, mother of the deceased, Ex. PW15/A. The statement Ex. PW 1/A was then forwarded by PW 15 Sh. R. K. Sharma to SHO Police Station Subzi Mandi, Delhi for registration of FIR and the same was registered which is Ex. PW 13/A. The. Inquest proceedings were done and the body of the deceased Sushila was sent for postmortem. The place of occurrence was also visited by the Members of the Mobile Crime Team. Accused persons were arrested one by one and on completion of the investigation, the present Police Report was filed against the accused persons. CHARGE

4. Needless to state that all the accused persons were firstly charged for subjecting deceased Sushila to cruelty in connection or in relation to demand of dowry punishable u/s 498A/34 IPC; Secondly they were charged for bringing out dowry death of deceased Sushila within two years of her marriage punishable u/s 304B read with section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. Accused Sunil Kumar, Anil Kumar both sons of accused Tuki Ram and accused Tuki Ram accused Ms. Geeta and her mother accused Bhagwati were separately charged for criminal 6 6 misappropriation of stridhan items of the deceased Sushila punishable u/s 406/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

WITNESSES

6. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 23 witnesses: The main prosecution witnesses were PW-1 Diwan Singh, father of the deceased; PW-3 Ms. Poonam Saini, sister of the deceased; PW 10 Naresh Kumar Saini who claims himself to be a Social Worker and deposed making attempts for reconciliation between the two parties; PW 17 was Smt. Manju Bala mother of the deceased. I shall dwell upon their evidences later on in this judgment. Another public witness was PW Brahm Pal. He was uncle of deceased Sushila and deposed that the Police in his presence had removed the jewellary items which were being worn by the deceased and the same were seized vide memo PW 4/A.

7. The following witnesses were examined in the category of expert, formal and police witnesses: PW-2 was Ct. Arvind Kumar. He was associated during the investigation of this case leading to arrest of accused Sunil Kumar, Anil Kumar, Munni Devi, Geeta and Bhagwati by the IO. PW -5 was HC Inderjeet Singh. He deposed conducting videography of the postmortem on the deceased Sushila in the Subzi Mandi Mortury; PW-6 was Lady Ct. Anita. She deposed reaching the place of occurrence on 10.04.2006 and conducting Personal Search on the dead body of 7 7 the deceased Sushila and removing the jewellary articles from her body; PW-7 was HC Rakesh Kumar. He was associated during the investigation with the IO and deposed reaching the place of occurrence on 10.04.2006 and he was also involved in the initial investigation at the spot; PW-8 was SI Dalip Kumar Shukla. He was Member of the Crime Team who visited the place of occurrence on 10.04.2006 and scanned the scene and proved his report Ex.PW 8/A which interalia indicated that the room was probably bolted from inside at the time of suicide and was broke open; PW 9 was HC Rajpal, Member of the Mobile Crime Team who deposed about the photographs which are Ex.PW 9/B-1 to B-10 and proved the negatives which are PW 9/A-1 to A-10; PW 11 was Ct. Jaiveer. He deposed taking photographs while the postmortem of deceased was being conducted and he proved the negatives which are Ex.PW 11/A with 34 photographs that are Ex.PW 11/B-1 to B-34; PW 12 was Dr. Anil Aggarwal, Professor MAMC, Delhi. He deposed conducting the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and proved his report which is Ex.PW 12/B; PW 13 was HC Chakerdhari. He was duty officer at PS Subzi Mandi who recorded the present FIR from 3:25pm onwards on10.04.2006 Ex.PW 13/A and proved his endorsement on the same Ex.PW 13/B; PW 14 was HC Medha Lal. He was MHC(M) at PS Subzi Mandi. He proved the entries in record to deposit of exhibits and their movements to FSL and back, and proved the relevant entries which are PW 14/A to PW14/G; PW 15 was Sh. R. K. Sharma, the then Sub Divisional Magistrate; PW 16 was HC Vijender Singh. He proved recording 8 8 DD no.11A at about 8:40am; PW 18 was Inspector Harish Chand Yati. He was Addl. SHO at PS Subzi Mandi. He handled the investigation between 14.04.2006 to 05.05.2006 during which period he received one box containing viscera sealed with the seal of MAMC from SI Raj Kumar besides receiving postmortem report; PW 19 Inspector Dharamvir Singh. He deposed that on 20.05.2006 he took the parcel containing viscera of the deceased from MHC(M) on the directions of the SHO and deposited the same with FSL Rohini, Delhi. He was also associated during the arrest of the accused persons; PW 20 was Inspector Raj Kumar who was the main Investigating Officer; PW 21 was Ct. Kiran Pal. He deposed that on 11.07.2006 he joined the investigation and IO SI Vijay Kumar recovered the stridhan items of the deceased which were seized vide memo Ex.PW 3/A; PW 22 was ASI Giresh Kumar. He deposed that on 11.07.2006 accused Tuki Ram surrendered before the concerned Ld. M.M and he was arrested by IO SI Vijay Kumar in his presence; PW 23 was Inspector Vijay Kumar. He completed the necessary formalities in the investigation of this case, prepared the charge sheet and put it before the SHO.

8. It is pertinent to mention here that PW-Dr. Sona Lal and Amit Aggarwal who were Members of the Medical Board that conducted postmortem of the body of the deceased were dropped as per statement of the Ld. APP for the State on 24.10.2006. Similarly, one PW- Sanjay was dropped as his evidence was in regard to identification of dead body of deceased Sushila. Five 9 9 more witnesses who were neighbours were also not examined. STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 Cr.PC.

9. On the close of the prosecution evidence, all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused persons as per Section 313/281 Cr.P.C. Suffice to state that accused persons denied the case of the prosecution and it was denied that the deceased was ever harassed for bringing insufficient dowry or for more demands of dowry. Accused Sunil, Tuki Ram and Bhagwati chose to lead defence and they examined two witnesses namely DW-1 Rambir Singh and DW-2 Smt. Rajni who were the neighbours of the accused persons.

ARGUMENTS

10. I have heard Mr. Maqsood Ahmed, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. I have also perused the oral and documentary evidence on the judicial record.

11. First thing first, in the instant case there is no dispute that deceased Sushila had got married with the accused Sunil Kumar as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies on 29.04.2004. It is brought out in the evidence of main prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis PW-12 Dr. Anil Aggarwal that deceased died due to "asphyxia consequent upon to ante mortem hanging" and the postmortem report Ex.PW 12/B has not been challenged. Thirdly, the deceased Sushila committed suicide on 10.04.2006 within two years of her marriage at her matrimonial home.

10 10

LAW ON DOWRY DEATH

12. It is well settled by a catena of decisions by the Apex Court as well as by High Courts that in order to bring the acts of the accused within the scope and ambit of Section 304 B of IPC, the following essentials must be established:-

i). The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injuries or otherwise than under normal circumstances;

ii). Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;

iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband soon before her death; and

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

13. Section 113 B of the Evidence Act further lays down that if soon before the death such woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry then the Court shall presume that such person has committed the dowry death. The meaning of cruelty for the purpose of these Sections has to be gathered from the language as found in Section 498A which means "any willful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive to the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injuries or danger to life or harassment to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or 11 11 valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. As per the definition of dowry, any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given at or before or any time after the marriage comes within the meaning of dowry.

!#" %$& (' )

14. In a decided case titled *,+-+ . /0.,1 2 435 76 8 +:9;*,+ + . /=<-<>1 @?A <B*,+:9;*,+ + .7/C< D 1 E GFH GFH *(D D ), I 7 J JK 7L , MNLO PJQ (JK R Q S & T JIU VWL> - X Y' N Q JK Z J[ I \ X'NL> J] N - ^ L " J`_ acb%dfehgidkjlenm oqp%r%stjlevuwdyx-z{p%b%mGj|dfe~}%}=C€‚ƒdyxNm‚„np~…‡†‡jˆs‰pyevb%p@a,b%m ryevsŠzfp%b%m]j|dke C‹=Œv€iH4Ž‰‘n„vd‡’( m]„vr%mkm]„vp‡o“p•”—–‡Cm>˜vp ” r%m“p‡o]j|rš™=m d›n„vd‡’œm]„vr%mCd‰dke•˜vpžx“d{o“p „np‰oTs‡p%r%m‚„ m‚„npŸ†‡j|b%mGjl” ’ rš %–‰˜Igip%b%m p%s¡m d¡b‡o]–špš™|m£¢¤d{oY„nr‡oqrš%n”[pyevmG¥ Ž{o“dkCp%bš–vm]j|dke!„vršEm“dƒo]–‰™|p›dk–vm,m‚„npŠ¦ndk%%jl˜yj ™ j|m§¢¨dyx-rŠevr%mG–to“rš™Bdfo r%b%bšj|s‰pyenm“rš™ s‡pnr%m]„OCdSrš©m“dª˜«o]jlenuYj|m ’(j|m]„‡jle¬m‚„npc¦‡–«o§†‡j|p%’­dyx—m]„vp¯®§s‰p%r%m‚„¬d‰b%bš–«o°o]jlenu d‡m‚„vp‡o“’(j Cp±m‚„nryeŸjle²evdfo‚” rš™Šbšj4oqbš–‰”—Cm ryevb%pš=³´¥wµ{„vp¶pž·‡¦«o“pš%%j|dke²®qCd‰dke ˜np%x“d{o“pn³tj —†vp‡o§¢Ho“pš™|p=†vr‡enm ’ „vp‡o“pEzfp%b%m]j|dke~}%}=C€i‘dyx m‚„np~…y†‡j|s‰pyenb%p—a b%m,ryens zfp%b%m]j|dke C‹=Œv€iƒ4Ž‰©r‡o“p¸¦‰oqpš%Cp%sHjlenm“dwCp‡o§†‡j|b%pš¥{Ž>o“dtCp%bš–šmGj|dfeEj •dk˜‡™¹j|u‰p%sºm“d n„vd‡’ m‚„nr%m¶Cd‡dfe ˜vpžx“d{o“p m]„vp»d‡bnbš–«oio“p‡enb%p¼m‚„np‡o“p½’ rš½b‡o]–špš™|m£¢ dfo „nr‰o“rš%n”[p‡enm ryenswdfey™ ¢wjle m‚„nr%mb%ršCp¨¦‰o“py%–‰”@¦nm]j|dke df¦np‡o“r%m“pš%¥B…‡†‡jˆs‰pyevb%p¸jle m‚„nr%m o“p%u‰r‡o“s¯„nrš m“d¬˜np~™|p%s¯˜ž¢ƒ¦«o“dtCp%by–vm]jˆdfey¥®“zfd‡dfe‘˜np%x“d{o“pn³Aj ¸r!o“pš™|r%m]j †vp m“p‡o‚”¾ryens©j|m-’ dt–‰™|sŠs‡p‡¦npyevs©–«¦ndfe›bšj4o“bš–«”—Cm ryevb%pš d‡x p%r%by„wb%ršCpwryevs©evd Cmio“ršj|m € gir%by¿Àp%m-x“d{o‚” –‰™|rºb%ryeŠ˜npH™|ršj|sŠs‡d‰’ e¨rš5m“dH’ „vr%m ’ dt–‰™|s~b%dke‡CmGj|m]–vm“p¨r ¦np‰o]j|d‡sÁdyx!Cd‰dke˜npžxqdfo“pZm‚„npZd‰b%bš–«o°o“pyenb%py¥@|m~’ dt–‰™|sØvpÄvrvÄ&r‡o“s‰dt–‰Ym“d jlenskj|b%r%m pRryež¢Sx‚jˆ·np%sÁ¦np‡o]j|d‰stÅ ryevsYm]„vr%mº˜«o]jlevutSjleªm]„vpªjl”@¦nd{o“m ryevb%pRdyx r ¦‰oqdy·yjl”—j|m£¢Em pšCm ˜vd‡m‚„ x“d{om‚„np¸¦«o“d‡d‡xdyx rye5dyx“x“pyevb%p#d‡xAs‰d‡’Xo ¢•s‰p%r%m‚„ rš@’ pš™ ™ rš;xqdfoAo“ršj %jlenu5r ¦‰o“py%–‰”@¦nm]j|dke•–‰evs‡p‡o>zfp%b%mGj|dfeE}%}=C€‚wdyxkm]„vp5…‡†‡jˆs‰pyevb%pXa,b%m]¥ µ{„vpÂpž·‡¦«o“pš%%j|dfeÁ®GCd‡dfe ˜vpžx“d{o“p¾„vp‡oHs‡p%r%m‚„v³5–‡Cp%s­jleÂm]„vpÁ%–«˜yCm“ryenm]j †vp zfp%b%m]j|dke‘C‹=Œv€ic4Ž‰OryensŠz{p%b%mGj|dfe©}%}=C€i¯dyx,m‚„np~…‡†‡jˆs‰pyevb%p a b%m(j  ¦‰o“pyCpyenm ’(j|m‚„¸m‚„np¨j|s‡p%rEdyx ¦«o“d‡·yjl” j|m§¢¸m“pšCm]¥Æ{d¨s‰pžx]jle‡j|m pw¦np‡o‚jˆd‰sH„vršº˜npnpyewjlenskj|b%r%m pns ryevs¾m‚„npÂpž·‡¦‰o“pš%njˆdfeîqCd‰dkeǘvpžx“d{o“pn³Ej Âevd‡mHs‡p%x]jlevp%st¥@a¼o“pžxqp‡o“pyevb%pZm“d pž·‡¦«o“pš%%j|dkeƒ®qCd‰dke©˜vpžx“d{o“pn³N–‡Cp%sTjle!zfp%b%m]j|dke¬}%}`Œ‡¥N ™ ™ –‡Cmio“r%m]j|dkeƒÈ ržÉ dyx m‚„np …y†‡j|s‰pyenb%p(a,b%mAj Êo“pš™|p=†vryevmG¥y|m{™|r=¢‡ s‰d‡’ e m‚„nr%mkr  dk–«o“m{” r=¢ ¦‰o“py%–‰” pÊm‚„nr%m«r ” rye•’X„ndwj •jle@m‚„npº¦ndk%Cpš%%j|dke5dyxu‡d‰d‡sk ®qCd‰dke¸ržx“m“p‡om‚„np@m]„vpžx“m]Åkj Êpšj|m]„vp‡o m‚„npÊm‚„yj|pžxB„nrš—o“p%b%pšj †vp%s•m‚„np@u‡d‰d‡sk ¿%evd‡’(jlevu•m‚„npy”Sm“d ˜np@Cm“dt™|pye‡Åš–‰e‡™ˆpy% „np b%rye r%b%b%dt–«enm‰x“d{oB„‡j ;¦vdt%Cpš%%j|dfey¥Cµ>„np;s‡p%m“p‡o‚”—j evr%m]j|dke[d‡xfm‚„npʦnp‰o]j|d‡s•’X„yj|by„ b%rye b%df”[p ’(j|m‚„yjle#m‚„npÊm“p‡o‚”Y®GCd‡dfeE˜npžxqdfo“pn³nj @™|pžx“m{m“d ˜np@s‡p%m“p‡o‚”—jlenp%s¸˜%¢5m‚„np  dt–to“m]%źs‡py¦vpyenskjlenuŸ–‰¦vdke xqr%b%mGËryevs²bšj4o“bš–«” Cm“ryenb%pšËd‡x¯p%r%by„ b%ršCpš¥ zB–vx x‚j|b%pšÅ>„vd‡’ pž†vp‡o]Å«m“dŠjlenskj|b%r%m p m‚„nr%mm‚„npºpž·‡¦«o“pš%%j|dke ®GCd‡dfe~˜npžxqdfo“pn³t’ dt–‰™|s end{o‚” rš™ ™ ¢ªjl”—¦‡™ ¢Sm‚„nr%m5m‚„npPjlenm“p‡o§†vrš™Ên„vdt–‰™|sÂevd‡mº˜vpY” –šby„ª˜vp%m ’ p%pyePm‚„np b%dfenb%p‡o‚evp%sOb‡o]–vpš™|m§¢¬dfo#„vr‡o“rš%n” pyenmÊryevsTm‚„npœs‡p%r%m‚„cjle¬Ìk–vpšCm]j|dke‡¥ µ{„vp‡o“p ”—–‡Cm7˜vp›pž·yj Cm“pyenb%p›dyx,r‘¦«o“dy·yjl” r%m“pºryevs©™ j †vpn€G™ jle‡¿›˜vp%m ’ p%pyewm]„vp›pžx“x“p%b%m dyx b‡o]–špš™|m£¢Š˜nryCp%sŠdke¨s‰d‡’Xo ¢¨s‡py” ryensHryensŠm]„vpºb%dkevb%p‡o‚enp%s‘s‡p%r%m‚„y¥ˆx,rš™ ™|p%u‰p%s 12 12 ÍlÎnϚÍ|ЉÑyÎnÒfÓyÔ{χÕ]֚њ×|Ò£Ø Í Ù—ÕqÑyÚ[Ó‰Ò Ñ ÍlÎ Ò]Í Ú Ñ—ÛyÎvкÜvۚÙÊÝvÑ%Ï%ÓkÚ Ñ#ÙCғۚ×|Ñ ÑyÎnÓkÖvÞfÜ#ÎvÓ‡Ò Ò“Ó ÐtÍ ÙCÒ]ÖtՂݺÚ[ÑyÎvғۚ×nÑ%ßkÖ‡Í × ÍlÝ«Õ]Í Ö‰ÚÂӇÔBÒ]Üvѕà ÓfÚ[ÛyÎEÏ%ÓfÎnÏ%чՂÎvÑ%ÐtákÍ|Ò>à Ót։×|ÐHÝvÑ@ÓyÔ ÎnÓ@Ï%Ók·ÙCÑ%ßt֚ÑyÎvÏ%њâ APPRECIAITON OF EVIDENCE

15. With this background of the provisions of law, it would be expedient to examine the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses in the instant case. PW-1 Diwan Singh in his evidence deposed that he had given sufficient dowry articles beyond his capacity in the marriage of his deceased daughter Sushila including jewellary items. He deposed that on the date of marriage in Jahangirabad, Bullandshehar, UP, he had given a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ in cash as dowry to accused Devender brother in law (Jija) of accused husband Sunil Kumar at the instance of accused Tuki Ram, father in law of his daughter. Similar was the version in the deposition of PW-3 Puran Singh Saini as well as PW 17 Smt. Manju Bala, sister and mother of the deceased respectively. PW-1 Diwan Singh then deposed that his daughter had complained to him that her husband, father in law, mother in law and also remaining accused persons used to demand dowry from her and also used to harass her for dowry. It may be indicated that PW-1 named all the accused persons and identified them in the Court as against whom his daughter had complained to him. He then deposed that 20 days after the marriage, all the accused persons had also demanded Rs.4 lakhs from him; that he used to received telephone calls time and again from the accused persons and during this conversation these persons used to tell him that if the demand of Rs. 4 lakhs is 13 13 not met, they would cause death of his daughter Sushila. He then deposed that on 10.04.2006 after receiving the telephonic call that his daughter had hanged herself, he along with his wife and other relatives reached Arya Pura, Delhi where he met to SDM who recorded his statement Ex.PW 1/A.

16. PW 3 Poonam Saini deposed that soon after the marriage of her sister Sushila her in laws accused Tuki Ram, Bhagwati, Chuni Lal, Triveni Devi, Puran Chand and his wife Munni Devi, Sunita , her husband Devender, Geeta and Anil had started demanding dowry and used to harass deceased Sushila for want of dowry. She deposed that after few days of her marriage she received telephone calls from Sushila that accused persons were harassing her and demanding Rs. 4 lakhs; that she received another call after two days from deceased Sushila who complained that she was being harassed and not even being allowed to take her meal. She also deposed that again after 2-3 days Sushila called her on telephone and told that accused Devender was quarreling with her and telling her in laws why they were keeping that liability i.e Sushila in the house; PW -3 deposed that on 09.04.2006 he received a telephonic call from Sushila that the accused persons were harassing her and beating her; that she pacified her and assured her that she with others would come to her house to sort out the matter but next day she committed suicide.

17. In this regard, PW 17 deposed that Geeta i.e Nanad of 14 14 Sushila, Anil Dever, mother in law Smt. Bhagwati Devi used to beat her daughter. She also deposed that accused Tuki Ram, Puran Singh Saini, Devender, Bhagwati, Muni Devi, Triveni used to harass her daughter for bringing insufficient dowry and were demanding Rs. 4 lakhs. She deposed that all these facts were told to her by Sushila on telephone. She also stated that at the time of marriage of her daughter Sushila, all the accused persons were not happy with the dowry and Fera Ceremony was completed only after Rs. 1,50,000/- were paid in cash. She deposed that due to the continuous harassment of her daughter she committed suicide.

18. PW1 Diwan Singh, PW3 Poonam and PW 17 Manju Bala were put through a searching cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. Before I advert to examine certain aspects of the evidence in the cross-examination of the witnesses, it would be expedient to refer to the contents of statement made by PW1 Diwan Singh to SDM which is Ex. PW1/A. Perusal whereof shows that it was written in question-answer form and in response to a question by the SDM, whether deceased Sushila had informed them anything regarding incident today or concerning the circumstances leading to her death, the response of PW1 was that father-in-law and mother-in-law of his daughter Sushila were making demands of Rs.4 lakhs from her and they had threatened that in case demand is not met, she would be killed. When asked as to whether he had anything further to say in regard to the incident, PW1 responded that when he reached the place of 15 15 occurrence, his daughter was lying dead on the bed and it was not suicide but murder and he alleged that torn piece of cloth hanging by the ceiling fan appeared to have been put afterwards. He was further asked whether he had anything further to say and on that he responded that he was disturbed and was not in a position to think and later he would consider the entire matter and if necessary, would make a report. He, however, also in the same breath stated to the SDM that as per his information, his daughter Sushil has been killed by her father-in-law Tuki Ram and mother-in-law Smt. Bhagwati, Sunil Kumar, husband, Sunita (Nanad), Geeta (Nanad), Anil Kumar (Devar), Behnoi Devender Kumar and Chachia Sasud Chunni Lal and his wife Triveni, Pooran Chand and his wife pursuant to criminal conspiracy. He also stated that there was no stool or chair in the room and it was not possible that Sushila could have hung herself by standing on the bed. He also stated that as per his thinking, the above said persons conspired and then killed her.

19. Statement of PW17 Manju Bala, mother of the deceased was also recorded by the SDM which is Ex. PW15/A in question answer form. On being asked whether she suspected anyone behind the death of her daughter Sushila, her response was that she suspected her husband Sunil and Behnoi (Devender Kumar) and other members of the family committing murder of her daughter Sushila in a pre-planned manner.

16 16

20. Bare perusal of statement Ex. PW1/A and PW15/A would show that both PW1 and PW17 suspected that their daughter had been murdered and it was not a case of suicide. Secondly, whereas PW1 specifically named all the accused persons in allegedly hatching a criminal conspiracy and murder of his daughter, PW17 Manju Bala primarily suspected her son-in-law accused Sunil and his brother-in-law i.e. Jija Devender Kumar and other members of the family without naming them. There was no iota of allegation of killing her daughter for or on account of dowry in the statement of PW 17. Well, one could very well imagine the mental state of mind of PW1 and PW17 at that time. They were obviously not in a position to make an elaborate or detailed narration of the sequence of events that might have been brought about by the accused persons in driving the deceased to end her life. Both PW1 and PW17 were naturally under grief, dismay and agony on seeing the deadbody of their young daughter and it strikes to commonsense that their judgment was impaired and they were hardly in a position to give a complete statement. Nevertheless, later on their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were also recorded by the police on 25.04.2006 in which they disclosed the entire story.

21. It is our judicial experience that many times minute or major details do not get reflected in the statements of witnesses recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C due to variety of human factors. Every witness has a tale to tell but the story need not come in a synchronized manner. Then there are flaws in the recording of 17 17 such statements due un-trained policemen, their insensitivities and lack of legal knowledge besides lack of application of commonsense. The real test of the witness comes when deposition is recorded in the court and it is then it has to be seen whether the facts introduced or improvement made by them over their earlier statements to the police or gaps filled up are natural, cogent and trust-worthy. It is also a matter of consideration that as PW 1, PW3 and PW 17 are interested witnesses their evidence should be minutely examined particularly so as to rule out false or ill motivated implication.

22. First thing first, PW1 in his cross-examination admitted that he is a Law Graduate and that he was in active practice but had left the same. PW3 Poonam Saini also admitted in her cross- examination that she was a practicing lawyer for about 7 years. I am afraid both in their evidence have not given any specific detail or instances as to how or in what manner the deceased Sushila was being harassed and if so by whom. Evidence of PW17 Manju Bala is also devoid of specific instances and the manner or the extent of harassment if any that was faced by her daughter. To my mind simple bald allegation that deceased was being harassed for dowry would not be serving the rigors of law. At the cost of repetition, there was nothing in her statement Ex. PW 15/A that her daughter was being harassed for or in connection with demand of dowry. Evidence of PW1, PW3 vis-a-vis PW17 rather exhibits a tendency to rope in all the family members of the in-laws of 18 18 deceased Sushila. This is fortified from the fact that a bald and sweeping evidence has been given by the witnesses that all the accused persons were demanding money and used to harass the deceased.

23. Sh. Dinesh Rohilla, Ld. Counsel for the accused Pooran Chand and Munni Devi pointed out that his clients have all the time been residing at Ashram in the south of Delhi, having their own families and they did not even attend the marriage of deceased with accused Sunil and it was inconceivable that his clients would be visiting the house of the brother of accused Tuki Ram all the time at Arya Pura in North Delhi about twenty Kilometres from their house and would be making demand for Rs.4 lakhs and/or harassing the deceased Sushila in any manner. PW1 in his cross- examination admitted that accused Pooran Chand and Munni Devi have been residing at Ashram. PW17 when given such suggestion neither admitted nor denied that accused Pooran Chand along with three sons, their wives and children have been residing at Ashram, far away from the matrimonial home of her daughter. PW3 Poonam Saini in this regard contradicted the version of his father that accused Pooran Singh and Munni Devi have all along been residing at Ashram and her evidence that they were residing at Arya Pura with accused Tuki Ram is not correct.

24. Similar is the case with accused Chunni Lal and his wife Triveni. Mr. J.B. Saini, Ld. Counsel for these accused persons 19 19 pointed out that accused Chunni Lal is a poor three wheeler driver and has been residing with his family at Nand Nagri. PW1 was given a suggestion that accused Chunni Lal and his wife have been residing at Nand Nagri and he showed ignorance about it. Same happens with accused Devender and his wife Sunita. PW1 in his cross-examination admitted that accused Devender is serving in PAC at posted at Meerut, UP and a resident of Baghpat Hving two sons but he stated that he used to reside with accused Tukki Ram in Delhi. PW3 Poonam Saini in this regard denied that accused Devender and Sunita had been residing at Baghpat. Evidence of PW1, PW3 besides PW17 is not trustworthy that accused Devender as well as Chunni Lal with their wives have been residing in the house along with accused Tukki Ram. It is in evidence that accused Tukki Ram with his wife Bhagwati, son Anil and daughter Geeta besides accused Sunil Kumar and deceased had been residing in a two room accommodation in the premises besides having a separate kitchen. PW 3 admitted in her cross examination that deceased with her husband was residing in a separate room. It is not conceivable that accused Tukki Ram with other five members in the family besides a small child from the marriage of deceased Sushila were able to accommodate all others in a small dingy room of 10x10 feet.

25. It is also pertinent to mention that PW1, PW 3 and PW17 in their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 25.04.2006 primarily targeted accused husband, his parents, unmarried brother Anil and 20 20 unmarried sister Geeta besides his jija accused Devender and Sunita for harassing deceased Sushila for or in connection with demand of dowry. Then they in chorus word to word made a passing reference that the accused Puran Singh, his wife Munni Devi, Chunni Lal and his wife Triveni used to taunt the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry.

26. The sum and substance of the discussion so far is that evidence of prosecution witnesses is not truthful when they state that accused persons namely Pooran Singh, Munni Devi, Chunni Lal, Triveni, Devender and Sunita used to reside with the deceased Sushila in her matrimonial home. Further, the evidence is too bald and general to believe that they had any occasion or opportunity to harass the deceased on account of dowry in one manner or the other. They were having their own families, work and responsibilities to cater to. Their deposition smacks of ill will and vindictiveness as against the accused persons. At the cost of repetition, in the statement Ex. PW1/A, there is no iota of allegation that accused persons except for accused Tukki Ram and Bhagwati made any demand for dowry or were harassing the deceased Sushila. Similarly in the statement Ex. PW15/A, there is no idea of word that accused persons were demanding dowry and harassing deceased Sushila. Assuming for the sake of convenience that accused Devender received Rs. 1,50,000/ in cash at the time of marriage would not imply that he demanded any dowry. It is customary in Hindu traditions at the time of marriage to accord 21 21 respect to damads i.e., daughter's husband. It is also pertinent to mention that evidence of PW 17 that phera ceremony was performed only after such amount was given does not find corroboration from the evidence of PW1 and PW 3.

27. That brings us to evidence of the witnesses as regards accused Sunil Kumar, Anil Kumar, Geeta, Bhagwati and Tuki Ram. While the evidence of the witnesses is not truthful as regards accused Munni, Puran Singh Saini, Chunni Lal, Triveni, Devender Kumar and Sunita, considering that the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has no application in criminal in India, it would be expedient to examine the evidence afresh qua other accused persons.

28. Evidence of PW3 Poonam Saini that her sister had called her a day earlier and she had stated that she was beaten up is not inspiring confidence in as much as in the postmortem report, there was no signs of any bruising, abrasion or laceration of any kind on the deadbody of deceased Sushila. PW 12 categorically deposed that there were no external injuries on the body of the deceased and no injuries are visible on the body in the photographs Ex. PW 11/B-1 B-34. It is also pertinent to mention here that PW3 Poonam Saini deposed that her sister was harassed and not given meals and surprisingly she was found wearing several jewellary items on her body vis. Four gold bangles, gold ring, gold ear-rings, silver pajeb, silver chutkias (which are silver rings worn on the fingers of 22 22 the foot) besides a Nath that is a gold ornament worn on a pierced nose which were seized vide memo Ex. PW4/A. It is inconceivable that the deceased who was being ill-treated or physically beaten up was allowed by the accused husband and his parents to wear such jewellary all the times.

29. The moot question is whether rupees four lakhs were demanded, and deceased ill treated for such demand "soon before the death"? PW1 deposed that the accused person after twenty days of marriage had demanded such amount and thereafter the accused persons kept on reiterating their demand. The deceased was married for almost two years. PW 17 in her cross examination stated that her daughter had visited her last time in October - November, 2005. Pw3 deposed that she had met deceased about two months before her death. PW 17 in her cross examination admitted that her daughter had remained in her matrimonial home most of the times after marriage except for few visits to her parental home at Bulandshahar on festivals and other family occasions. It is also in evidence of PW1 that deceased had given birth to a male child in her matrimonial home on 25.01.2006. PW 3 also in her cross examination stated that deceased Sushila had been taking some medical treatment after having a caesarean operation but witness was not able to tell the name of the hospital. It only shows that it was the accused persons who were taking care of the deceased. The said evidence does not satisfy the proximity test assuming that there was any demand for dowry.

23 23

30. The only independent witness who corroborates the evidence on demand of rupees four lakh was PW10. Now as per his evidence, he had no prior acquaintance with the accused persons despite residing very near to the house of the accused Tuki Ram. He had no prior acquaintance with PW1 Dewan Singh either. His version is that he is a social worker and one fine day in January, 2006 PW1 came to him and apprised that his daughter is being harassed by her in laws who were demanding rupees three to four lakhs for purchase of a house and he was taken to the house of the accused Tuki Ram where all the accused persons were present and he tried to make them understand that what they were doing is not acceptable. As per him there was a meeting second time also in the same month and both meetings failed. Well, if both meetings had failed, why then no complaint lodged with the police. I am afraid it is difficult to rely on his evidence. He was a stranger to the parties, having no visible weight or stature in society as such. Though this witness stated that he had also reached the spot on the day suicide was committed but his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was not recorded. In his deposition before the Court he conceded that he had no talks with the deceased.

31. To my mind, the evidence discussed above creates doubt that that there was committed any cruelty upon the deceased for or in relation to demand of dowry soon before her death. This doubt is further fortified from the fact that matrimonial home of the deceased 24 24 is located in a Katra which is a huge property housing several dwelling units. Sh. Dahiya, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons rightly brought home the point that though five witnesses from the neighbourhood were cited as a witness by the prosecution, they were not examined. On the contrary, both DW1 Ranbir Singh and DW2 Rajni deposed that they never came to know about any quarrel or bickering in the family of Sunil, and deceased Sushila was never harassed for or in relation to dowry either by Sunil or his family members. DW2 rather stated that deceased was having very cordial relationship with her husband as well as in-laws. Well, a question naturally arises if the relationship was so cordial, what compelled the deceased to end her life? PW1 and PW3 were given a suggestion that deceased was little hyper-sensitive and temperamental which suggestion was of-course denied. The answer comes somewhat in the cross-examination of PW17 where it was suggested that deceased wanted to go to her parent's house and on 09.04.2006 sought permission from her mother-in-law which was refused which had terribly annoyed her. She was also suggested that her husband Sunil Kumar came late from duties and on the fateful day she requested him as well but he also refused on the pretext that he would take leave after fifteen days and would take her to her parent' home. The response of PW 17 was ignorance about it. It is pertinent to mention that the police in its investigation recorded statement of two neighbours u/s 161 Cr.P.C namely, Smt. Veena Devi and Dalip Kumar, who were cited as witnesses but not examined, who stated that there had been a 25 25 quarrel between accused Bhagwati and deceased Sushila a day earlier over the desire of the deceased to visit her parents and Dalip Kumar stated that deceased was beaten up by her Bhagwati and Geeta. Both stated to the police that accused Sunil did not support his wife and rather sided with his mother.

32. The evidence discussed so far leads to an irrefutable impression that deceased did not die due to ill treatment in relation to demand of dowry but it was an ordinary SAAS BAHU KAHANI i.e., mother in law and sister in law saga. The poor woman wanted to visit her parents as she had not visited them for a long time and she lost hope due to insensitivities of her husband and in laws, and unfortunately decided to end her life. I am afraid the above discussion brings me to the decision that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the deceased was being harassed for or in connection with demand of dowry and thus fails to show that the accused person either singularly or conjointly brought about the dowry death of the deceased Sushila. Similarly, there is no itoa of evidence that the accused Sunil, his parents Tuki Ram and Bhagwati besides Geeta and Anil misappropriated the stridhana items of the deceased Sushila.

FINAL ORDER

33. In view of the above discussion, all the accused persons are acquitted of all the charges. Their personal bonds and surety bonds are discharged. File be consigned to the record room.

26 26

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN              (DHARMESH SHARMA)
COURT TODAY i.e 03.03.2010         ASJ-II / NORTH, DELHI
                                 27
                                 27




SC No. 20/06


03.03.2010.

Present:- Sh. Maqsood Ahmed, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

Mr. Y. S. Dahiya, Advocate for the accused Sunil Kumar, Bhagwati, Tuki Ram, Anil Kumar and Geeta.

Mr. J. B. Saini, Advocate for the accused, Devender, Sunita, Chunni Lal and Triveni. .

Mr. Dinesh Rohilla, Advocate for the accused persons namely Puran Singh Saini and Smt. Munni Devi Vide separate judgment announced today, all the accused persons are acquitted of all the charges. Their personal bonds and surety bonds are discharged. File be consigned to the record room.

(DHARMESH SHARMA) ASJ-II / NORTH, DELHI