Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Balvinder Singh @ Bobby on 30 April, 2011

  IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS 
   JUDGE­II (NORTH­WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

Session Case No.: 1050/2009
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0463962007

State                            Vs.              Balvinder Singh @ Bobby
                                                  S/o Rajender Singh
                                                  R/o E­24/A, Shyam Nagar,
                                                  Delhi.
                                                  (Convicted)

FIR No.:                                          360/07
Police Station:                                   Tilak Nagar
Under Section:                                    498­A/304­B Indian Penal Code

Date of committal to session court:                                31.8.2007

Date on which orders were reserved:                                4.4.2011

Date of Judgment:                                                  23.4.2011


JUDGMENT:

As per the allegations between December 2005 to 14.5.2007 the accused Balvinder being the husband of Manjeet Kaur (deceased) subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry. Further, it is alleged that on 14.5.2007 the death of Smt. Manjeet Kaur occurred at House No. E­34, Shyam Nagar, Tilak Nagar, Delhi, otherwise than under normal circumstances and within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death she was St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 1 subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused in connection with demand of dowry and her death was an unnatural death and thus the accused caused dowry death.

BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

The case of the prosecution is that on 14.5.2007 DD No. 23 was received at Police Post Khyala, Police Station Tilak Nagar regarding suicide by one lady pursuant to which ASI Madan Lal went to the place of incident i.e. E­24, Shyam Nagar, Delhi and found the dead body of a female lying on the bed and one chunni of green colour was also lying the on table near the bed. On inquiry the name of the deceased was revealed as Manjeet Kaur and the accused Balvinder Singh is the husband of the deceased who informed the police that in the morning his father saw that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging from the ceiling fan and upon hearing hue and cry he came over there and had taken down the dead body of his wife from the fan. Thereafter, information was sent to the SHO of Police Station Tilak Nagar, area SDM and other senior officer pursuant to which SDM Sh.

K.K. Sharma reached the spot and recorded the statements of the parents of deceased namely Smt. Prakash Kaur (mother of the deceased), Sardar Inder Singh (father of the deceased), Smt. Jasbir Kaur (sister of the deceased) and Hardev Singh (jija of the deceased). In their statement the parents and sister of the deceased St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 2 made allegations against the accused regarding cruelty being inflicted upon the deceased and demand of dowry. On the basis of the statement fo Smt. Prakash Kaur the present FIR was got registered and the accused Balvinder Singh was charge sheeted of the offence under section 498­A/304­B Indian Penal Code. CHARGE:

The Ld. Predecessor of this court has settled the charges under Sections 498­A and 304­B Indian Penal Code against the accused Balvinder Singh to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

EVIDENCE:

In order to discharge the onus upon it the prosecution has examined as many as fourteen witnesses as under: Complainant/ public witnesses:

PW1 Sardar Inder Singh is the father of the deceased Manjeet Kaur who has deposed that he had four children and out of them three were girls and one is a boy. According to him, his youngest daughter namely Manjeet Kaur was married according to Sikh rites and customs on 11.12.2006 (wrongly written as 11.12.2006 whereas it should be read as 11.12.2005 as admitted St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 3 by both the parties) with accused Balvinder Singh and he had given sufficient dowry as per his best means. The witness has stated that his daughter went to her matrimonial home at E­24 Sham Nagar, Delhi and after her marriage when his daughter came to his home after three to four months, she told him that her in­laws and husband used to beat her and that her husband was involved in bad habits. According to PW1, his daughter also told him that her husband used to demand money from her and in turn she used to ask money from him as per the demand of her husband on which he used to give money as and when she asked for the same as per the demand of her husband. The witness has further testified that one he had given once Rs.10,000/­ and once he has given Rs.

5,000/­ to his daughter and when the deceased visited his house about two weeks prior to her death she told him that her husband had demanded Rs.2 Lacs from her and had asked her to bring the money from her parents house on which he (the witness) told her that he could manage about Rs. 1 Lac. According to PW1, on 13.5.07 when his elder daughter Jasbeer Kaur had visited his house, he sent her to the house of his youngest daughter to inform her that he was managing the money as per the demand of husband of his youngest daughter. He has also deposed that his daughter never told the facts of demands of money from her husband to his wife as she is a patient of hypertension. According to him, on St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 4 14.5.2007 at about 7.45 a.m to 08.00 a.m police telephoned him and asked him to come to the matrimonial home of his youngest daughter on which he went to the house of the accused where he found the dead body of his youngest daughter on the bed. He has proved that his statement was recorded in the police station by the SDM which is Ex.PW1/A. The witness has further deposed that his statement regarding the identification of the dead body of his youngest daughter was also recorded by SDM which is Ex.PW1/B and after the postmortem they took the dead body vide handing over memo which is Ex.PW1/C and performed her last rites. The witness has correctly identified the accused Balvinder Singh in the court.

In his cross­examination the witness has deposed that he received the message from the police from the matrimonial home of his youngest daughter at about 8.00 am and they reached there at about 9.00am. According to him, they reached the police station at about 11.30 am along with his eldest daughter, wife and his neighbour Arti. He has admitted that he had not specifically stated in his statement to the SDM that his daughter came to his house and told him that she was being beaten and demands were raised from her husband. He has also not stated in the statement to the SDM that the husband of his youngest daughter was involved in bad habits. The witness has admitted that he did not state about St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 5 giving Rs.10,000/­ and Rs.5,000/­ to his son­in­law i.e. accused in his statement to the SDM and that he had stated about the demand being raised from the in laws of his youngest daughter and not specifically about her husband. According to him, he had stated to the SDM that he had sent his elder daughter to the house of the accused on 13.5.07. The witness has testified that he had not made any complaint with regard to the beatings given to his daughter after two to three months of her marriage by her husband. According to him, the fact of the demand of money from the husband of his youngest daughter was told to his wife when the amount of demand got increased. He has testified that he got retired in January 2006 and used to get about Rs.13,000/­ to Rs. 14,000/­ per month as salary and all his daughters are married PW1 has testified that his son is not mentally fit and is under treatment and used to occasionally do odd jobs. The witness has further stated that he bought a house after one year of his retirement and he spent about Rs.5 to Rs.6 Lacs in the purchase of house and he got about more than Rs.10 lacs on retirement. He has also deposed that his daughter was fit and fine and she was not suffering from any ailment. The witness admits that the statement of his wife was recorded first but has denied the suggestion that his statement is an after thought as the statement of his wife does not speak about the demand of Rs Two lacs or that the accused St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 6 Balvinder had helped him with Rs.50,000/­ at time of purchase of his house. The witness has further denied that his daughter was under treatment as she could not conceive or that she had been under treatment even before her marriage at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. According to him, he never made any complaint to the police about the demand of money from his daughter time to time by her husband. He admits that his son in law Balvinder maintains a car. The witness has denied that the in­laws of her deceased daughter were financially well of than them or that his daughter committed suicide as she was under depression on account of her not being able to conceive. PW1 Sardar Inder Singh has been shown seven photographs which he has admitted which photographs are Ex.PW1/D1 to D7. He has deposed that there was no specific reason for his sending Jasbir Kaur to the house of his youngest daughter as she had come to visit his house and states that she was only told to convey the message about the availability of the money. The witness has admitted that Balvinder was having a mobile phone and they were also having a mobile phone but states that he did not think it proper to talk to the accused Balvinder on telephone. He has denied that that his neighbour Arti was there at the time of his statement before the SDM and states that they all were together at the Police Station but at the time of his statement before the SDM he was alone. PW1 has also denied that accused St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 7 Balvinder got the deceased treated from good doctors and that his daughter was not able to conceive due to which reason she committed suicide. According to him, when he was at the Police Station some one told them that his daughter was strangulated with a cable wire which fact he did not tell to the SDM since the same was told to them after his statement was recorded.

PW2 Smt. Prakash Kaur who is the mother of the deceased, is the complainant in the present case. She has deposed that her youngest daughter Manjit Kaur (now deceased) was married with Balvinder Singh on 11.12.2005 according to Sikh Rites and Customs and after the marriage her daughter went to her matrimonial home i.e. Shyam Nagar, Delhi. According to the witness, after one week her daughter Manjeet Kaur came to her and told her that Balvinder Singh had asked her as to why her parents had given furniture in the marriage instead they could have given more cash in place of furniture, on which she made her understood that all matter would be settled later on and she did not disclose this fact to any other family member after which her daughter went to her matrimonial home. The witness has further deposed that his son­in­law Balvinder used to beat her daughter for demand of dowry on which he called the accused Balvinder, brother­in­law of accused Balvinder, sister of Balvinder and his younger brother but the mother of the accused Balvinder did not accompany them and St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 8 asked them as to why her daughter was being beaten daily. She has deposed that the accused Balvinder assured her that her daughter shall not be beaten in future and the brother in law of accused Balvinder also assured her that he would make the accused Balvinder understand and nothing would happen to her daughter in future. The witness has also testified that she wanted that her daughter should live happily in the matrimonial home and therefore, they ignored everything and sent her daughter to her matrimonial home. According to PW2, her daughter Manjit came to her home alone on the birthday of her son Harjeet Singh on 24.5.2006 and in the evening she left for her matrimonial home. She has deposed that accused Balvinder always used to pick her daughter from the Metro Station but on that day accused had not come to pick her and when her daughter went home only her mother in law was present in the house and within few minutes her mother in law also left saying that she had to go for some work. The witness has further deposed that when her daughter entered in the kitchen she saw that both the knobs of the gas burner were opened and the kitchen was filled with gas and when her daughter complained to her mother in law, she told her that gas mechanic must have left the same open. The witness has further testified that her daughter met her and told the above said fact to her and there were frequents complaints from her daughter against the accused. St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 9 According to PW2, her daughter told her that she was being given constant beatings by the accused and some time she was driven out of the house during night hours for demand of dowry. She has further deposed that the accused Balvinder had demanded Rs.2 Lacs from her daughter which she came to know at the time of death of her daughter. The witness has also deposed that off and on they had been paying cash amounting to Rs 10,000/­ to Rs 15,000/­ to the accused. According to her, on 14.05.2007 at about 8 AM her husband received a call on his mobile phone and he informed her that police officials were calling them in the matrimonial home of her daughter at about 8AM and she along with her husband and her neighbour Arti reached the matrimonial home of her daughter where she saw that her daughter was lying on the bed and there was swelling on her face and there were finger marks on her both hand and she had an injury on her nose and lips and her face was red. The witness has testified that there was a ligature mark on her neck and the mouth and eyes of her daughter was under her back. According to her, one month prior to the incident her daughter told her that she was pregnant and accused in her presence told to her daughter that he doesn't want the child. She has proved that the SDM recorded her statement which is Ex.PW2/A and later on statement of her husband was recorded. She has also deposed that accused had threatened her that he would St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 10 see her and has proved that she went to mortuary DDU hospital where she identified the dead body of her daughter vide her statement Ex.PW2/B and after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to them vide handing over memo which is Ex.PW1/C. In her cross examination the witness has deposed that she had not stated the name of accused specifically with regard to demand of more cash in lieu of furniture in the statement given to SDM. According to her, she had stated in her statement to the SDM that accused used to beat her daughter for bringing less dowry but she had not stated to the SDM that she had called the brother­in­law of the accused, his sister and his mother to her house and has explained that at that time the dead body of her daughter was in front of her and she was very much perturbed. She has further deposed that she had not stated to the SDM that despite all that she ignored everything and sent her daughter to her matrimonial home and she had not stated to the SDM that her daughter had visited her on the birth day of her son on 24.08.2006. According to PW2, she also did not tell the SDM that accused had not come on the birthday of her son and that her daughter went to her matrimonial home alone from metro station but states that she had stated to the SDM that when her daughter brought the fact of leaking gas to the notice to her mother­in­law she told that gas mechanic must have left the same open. The witness was St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 11 confronted with her statement Ex.PW2/A where it is not so recorded. She has testified that she did not state to the SDM that the accused used to throw her daughter out of the house during night hours and also that they paid Rs.10,000/­ and Rs.15,000/­ to the accused. According to PW2, she also did not tell the SDM that her daughter disclosed her that she was pregnant and that the accused in her presence told her daughter that he doesn't want a child. The witness has further deposed that she had made a complaint with regard to the threat given by the accused to the SDM and has denied that she had not made any complaint. Smt. Prakash Kaur (PW2) has also deposed that at the time of marriage the accused was not having good earnings but since her daughter liked the personality of the accused so they married Manjit with the accused. According to the witness, her husband was a government servant at that time and used to give Rs.14,000/­ to her from which amount she used to make some savings. She has admitted that accused was having two motorcycles at the time of marriage and he purchased a car later on but has denied the suggestion that accused was having car prior to marriage. The witness has further admitted that the accused used to do a finance business but has denied the suggestion that accused was well to do or that he had refused to take furniture as he was well off or that he never demanded cash in lieu of furniture. She has admitted that she had stated to the SDM St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 12 about the infection to her daughter but has denied that her daughter was suffering from the infection since the age of 14 years or that she was getting treatment from RML hospital. PW2 has also admitted that they had given the medical papers of Manjit Kaur to the accused before the marriage and states that they had handed over the medical papers so that the accused could get medical opinion with regard to the operation of abdomen of her daughter which was conducted at the age of 13 years, before saying yes for the marriage. She has denied that no medical document was given to the accused or anything about her illness was disclosed to the accused. The witness has also denied the suggestion that her daughter was having injury marks on her arms and face or that she gave the documents to the accused only when he told her that her daughter could not conceive or that she had not disclosed about the demand of dowry to the SDM as there was no such demand or that her daughter was under depression because she was unable to conceive. She has admitted that her son is of immature mind and is getting treatment and getting the same from government hospital and no special diet was recommended by the doctor to her son. She has deposed that they get all the medicines from the government hospital and as her son is getting medicine and treatment from government hospital so they are not making any expenditure under these two heads. According to her, both the St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 13 married daughters visit her occasionally. She has denied the suggestion that accused never demanded any dowry from them or that he never gave any beatings to her daughter or that her daughter used to harass the accused for money after visiting her or that used to help them financially after taking money from the accused.

PW3 Smt. Jasbir Kaur is the sister of the deceased Manjit Kaur and has deposed that she had two sisters and one brother and her younger sister Manjeet Kaur was married with accused Balvinder Singh on 11.12.2005 according to Sikh Rites and Customs and her parents had given sufficient dowry in the marriage. According to her, after marriage her sister Manjeet Kaur went to her matrimonial home i.e. E­24, Sham Nagar, Tilak Nagar, Delhi and when her sister Manjeet Kaur met her she told that accused used to beat her and demand dowry and the accused had demanded Rs.2 Lakh from her father through her sister Manjeet Kaur. The witness has testified that at the instance of her father on 13.05.2007 she along with her husband went to the matrimonial home of her sister Manjeet Kaur i.e. E­24, Sham Nagar, Tilak Nagar, Delhi and told her that their father had arranged Rs. 1 Lac and noticed that her sister was having bruises on her body and she was crying and it looked that she was severally beaten by her husband. According to PW3, she asked her sister Manjeet Kaur whether the accused used to beat her daily on which her sister told St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 14 that accused used to beat her almost daily. The witness has testified that on 14.05.2007 her husband received a call from her father and from police that Manjeet Kaur had expired on which she along with her husband reached at the house of accused and found that her sister was lying on bed and was having injury marks on her both arms, ligature mark on her neck, blood was coming out form her ear and her hand was tilted. She has proved her statement made to the SDM which is Ex.PW3/A. In his cross examination the witness has deposed that that her statement was recorded by the SDM in the police station and she met her parents at the house of accused. According to her, from the house of accused herself, her husband and her parents went to the police station and at that time they had not talked to each other as they were disturbed due to the death of her sister Manjeet Kaur and they all talked to each other with regard to the death of her sister. She has further deposed that she had not stated to SDM that her sister was crying when she went to her matrimonial house but has stated that when she met Manjeet she was having bruises on her body. The witness was shown her statement Ex.PW3/DA where it is so recorded. According to PW3, she had stated to the SDM that accused had demanded a sum of Rs.2 Lakh from her sister but the said fact is not recorded in his statement Ex.PW3/DA. She has further deposed that she cannot St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 15 tell any specific date of beatings given to her sister by the accused as it was almost a daily affair but she had not lodged any complaint with higher police officials as they wanted that the matrimonial life of her sister is not destroyed. According to the witness, her husband runs a repair shop of AC and fridge and she does not have a car. She is unable to tell the date when the demand of Rs 2 lac was made by the accused and also the specific month and date when the accused tortured her sister for money. The witness has further deposed that they were told that accused deals in Finance business and she had visited the house of the accused four times after the marriage and lastly she visited on 13.05.2007. She has denied the suggestion that her sister in law had purchased a house in Sham Nagar or that on 13.05.2007 she had visited the house of her sister in law and had not gone to the house of her sister Manjeet Kaur. PW3 has admitted that the house of her father is near to the house of the accused and is unable to tell why her father had not gone to the house of the accused to inform that he had arranged Rs. 1 lac. According to her, she had talked to her sister Manjeet Kaur on telephone and her father had two telephone connections. She has denied the suggestion that she had never gone tot he house of accused along with her husband on 13.05.2007 or that no amount of Rs.2 lakh was ever demanded by the accused. The witness has testified that they had not disclosed about the demand of Rs.2 lakhs St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 16 to her mother. She has further deposed that she got married at the age of 22 years but she cannot tell anything about the expenditure incurred by her parents in running the house hold. She has further deposed that when she saw the dead body of her sister she was wearing gold bangles and gold ear rings and gold ring but she is unable to tell whether the value of gold ornaments was more than Rs 2 Lakh. According to her, the deceased Manjeet Kaur was five years younger to her and at the time of operation of her sister Manjeet she was around 20/21 years old but she is unable to tell why her sister was operated upon. She has denied the suggestion that her sister was suffering from disease because of which she was unable to conceive or that she used to remain in depression or that because of this she committed suicide. She has further deposed that she stayed at her sister's house on 13.05.2007 for about an hour. PW3 has denied that during the stay of an hour at the house of her sister nothing was disclosed to her or to her husband. Medical evidence/ witnesses:

PW5 Dr. Swati Grover has deposed that on 14.05.2007 she medically examined patient Manjit Kaur, W/o Balvinder Singh, aged 26 years and on local examination there was ligature mark over the anterior aspect of neck extending from middle upwards towards both angles of cheek. She has proved St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 17 that the patient was declared brought dead and she prepared the MLC which is Ex.PW5/A. She has not been cross­examined by the accused despite opportunity.

PW12 Dr. Mukesh Mittal has deposed that on 14.05.2007 he was working as CMO and on that day Dr. Swati Aggarwal was also working under his supervision as SR who examined the body of deceased Manjit Kaur, W/o Balvinder Singh aged about 26 years female under his supervision vide MLC Ex.PW5/A. According to him, on examination Dr. Swati Aggarwal found ligature mark over the anterior aspect of neck extending from middle upward towards both angles of cheek and rest of the detailed examination was to be done by mortuary and thereafter the dead body was sent to mortuary. He has further deposed that two bangles of golden color, three rings gold color, two pair of ear top and one nose pin were sealed with the seal of hospital and were handed over to the police official. He has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity.

PW14 Dr. Shefali Jain, Medical Officer from DDU Hospital has deposed on behalf of Dr. Anita Jha who has prepared the postmortem report of deceased Manjit Kaur. She has proved the postmortem report which is Ex.PW14/A and has deposed that St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 18 as per the opinion given by Dr. B.N. Mishra on the basis of FSL report bearing no. 2/207/C­2329 dated 5.10.2007, no common poision was detected in the viscera of deceased Manjit Kumar. According to her, as per findings the cause of death was due to asphyxia caused by ante­mortem hanging which is considered to be suicidal in nature. She has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.

Police/ office witnesses:

PW4 SI Lalit Kumar is the Crime Team Incharge who has deposed that on 14.05.2007 he was called by the Investigating Officer ASI Madan Lal at E­24, Sham Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi on which he along with staff reached at the spot and inspected the spot and on the instructions of the Investigating Officer Ct. Suresh took the photographs of spot from different angles. According to him, the chunni lying on wooden table was kept in a pullanda by the Investigating Officer and he prepared the report which is Ex.PW4/A. He has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity.

PW6 SI Mahesh Kumar has deposed that on 07.07.2007 he was posted as a Draftsman in Crime Branch and on that day on the request of Insp. Mangal Singh he went to E­24, Shyam Nagar, Tilak Nagar where on the pointing of ASI Madan St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 19 Lal, who was also present there, he took rough notes of the place of incident. He has further deposed that thereafter on 09.07.07 on the basis of the said rough notes he prepared scaled site plan in his office which is Ex.PW6/A. According to him, thereafter he destroyed the rough notes and handed over the scaled site plan to the Investigating Officer. This witness has also not been cross­ examined by the accused despite opportunity.

PW 7 WHC Nirmala has deposed that on 14.05.2007 she was posted as HC at Police Station Tilak Nagar and was working as Duty Officer from 8AM till 4 PM and on that day Insp. J.K. Sharma SHO Police Station Tilak Nagar himself handed over to her a rukka mark X on the basis of which she recorded FIR No. 360/07 for the offence U/s. 498A/304B IPC. According to her, the said FIR was typed on computer on her dictation by the Computer Operator assisting her in this regard, the computerized copy of which FIR is Ex.PW7/A. The witness has also proved having recorded DD No.11A in the roznamcha of the Police Station made an endorsement to that effect on the rukka which endorsement is Ex.PW7/B. She has not been cross­examined by the accused despite opportunity.

PW8 ASI Madan Lal has deposed that on 14.05.2007 he was posted as ASI at Police Post Khayala, Police Station Tilak St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 20 Nagar and on that day at around 7:05AM upon receipt of DD No. 23 regarding suicide by one lady he went to the place of incident i.e. E­24, Shyam Nagar where he found dead body of a female lying on the bed and one chunni of green color was lying on a table nearby the bed. He has further deposed that accused Balvinder Singh met him over there and claimed himself to be the husband of said lady and stated that in the morning his father had seen that his wife had committed suicide by hanging from the ceiling fan and upon hearing his hue and cry he had come over there and had taken down her dead body from the fan and made her to lie on the bed. According to the witness he accordingly conveyed information about the incident to SHO Police Station Tilak Nagar, Crime Team and to their area SDM. The witness has further deposed that Crime Team, SHO along with other senior officers of the police reached at the spot and Crime Team inspected the place of incident and took photographs over there. He has testified that the dead body was thereafter removed to DDU hospital where she was medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW5/A and the doctors collected the jewelery articles which were there on the dead body and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer and he seized them in a pullanda after sealing them with the seal of ML and took into possession vide memo Ex.PW8/A. According to him, the dead body was thereafter shifted to mortuary and Ct. Lal Chand was St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 21 deputed over there to guard it and he thereafter returned back to the spot. He has further deposed that SDM Sh. K.K. Sharma was present there who recorded the statements of parents of deceased Manjit Kaur and the SDM ordered for registration of a case U/S 498A/304B IPC and thereafter SHO Police Station Tilak Nagar Insp. J.K. Sharma made an endorsement and got a case registered. He has further deposed that the SDM had also recorded statement of Hardev Singh and Jasbir Kaur the sister and Jeeja of deceased Manjeet Kaur. The witness has testified that after registration of the case the subsequent investigation was taken over by Insp. Pratap Singh, the Addl SHO and prior to it he had also taken into possession the impugned chunni from the place of incident after sealing it in a pullanda with the seal of ML and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW8/B. According to him, subsequently, on his pointing out Inps. Pratap Singh prepared site plan of the place of incident which is mark PW 8/A1. He has further deposed that later on 07.07.07 on his pointing out SI Mahesh Kumar the draftsman prepared scaled site plan which is Ex.PW 6/A. He has correctly identified the accused in the court as well as the chunni of green color which is Ex.P1 which was recovered from the place of incident. He has not been cross­examined by the accused despite opportunity.

PW9 Sh. K.K. Sharma has deposed that on 14.05.2007 St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 22 he was posted as SDM Patel Nagar and on that day in the morning he received information from Police Post Khyala, Police Station Tilak Nagar that some lady had committed suicide and she expired within seven years, on which information he reached the spot i.e. E­24, Shyam Nagar, Tilak Nagar where he met ASI Madan Lal and found body has already been shifted to the hospital. According to the witness, there he met Smt. Parkash Kaur, mother of deceased Manjit Kaur and Hardev Singh Jija of deceased Manjeet Kaur, Smt. Jasbir Kaur sister of the deceased and Sardar Inder Singh father of deceased and then he recorded their statements. He has proved the statement of Smt. Parkash Kaur which is Ex.PW2/A, statement of Jasbir Kaur which is Ex.PW3/A, statement of Inder Singh which is Ex.PW1/A and statement of Hardev Singh is Ex.PW9/A. According to him, he made endorsement on statement of Smt. Parkash Kaur and give directions to SHO to register the case U/S 498A/304B IPC. The witness has also deposed that on the same day he visited DDU Hospital and conducted the inquest proceedings. He has proved the request for postmortem examination which is Ex.PW9/C, Brief facts which are Ex.PW9/D, Form 25.35 which is Ex.PW9/F. According to him, the dead body was identified by Inder Singh and Smt. Parkash Kaur vide their statements Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW2/B. He has St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 23 further deposed that the postmortem examination of the deceased was got conducted and after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. This witness has not been cross­examined by the accused despite opportunity in this regard.

PW10 Constable Ravinder has deposed that on 27.06.2007 he was posted at Police Station Tilak Nagar and on that day on the directions of Addl. SHO/ Investigating Officer Insp. Mangal Sen he took one sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of hospital containing viscera and one sample seal with the same seal along with photocopy of seizure memo, copy of FIR, copy of MLC and PM report form MHC(M) and took the same to FSL Rohini vide RC No. 158/21 and got deposited the same. According to him, he handed over the copy of the receipt to the MHC(M) after getting the same deposited in FSL Rohini. He has proved that no tampering was done while the aforesaid exhibits and the documents remained in his possession.

In his cross examination the witness has deposed that he took the aforesaid exhibits and documents from MHC(M) at about 10­11AM and reached at FSL office within 30­45 minutes and met the dealing clerk at the counter and deposited the same. According to him, his statement was recorded in the police station by the Investigating Officer at about 4PM. He has admitted that there is St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 24 no mention of the receipt which he handed over to MHC(M) in his statement and has deposed that the road certificate was issued by MHC(M) and the DD entry regarding his arrival back form FSL Rohini was made.

PW11 Sh. Mangal Sen (Retired ACP) has deposed that on 19.05.2007 he was posted at Police Station Tilak Nagar as Addl. SHO and the further investigations of this case was handed over to him and he received the case file from MHC(R). according to him, on 27.06.2007 he sent the parcel containing viscera and sample seal to FSL Rohini through Constable. Ravinder vide RC NO. 158/21 and he recorded the statement of Constable Ravinder and MHC(M) on that day itself. He has further deposed that on 07.07.07 he called the draftsman SI Mahesh Kumar who prepared the scaled site plan on his request vide Ex.PW6/A and SI Mahesh Kumar handed over the same to him on 09.07.07. He has also deposed that he made a request from the doctor seeking opinion of ligature mark on the body of the deceased orally but he had refused to give opinion in the absence of viscera report after which he filed the challan through the SHO.

In his cross examination the witness has deposed that Constable Ravinder left the police station with the exhibits for depositing the same in the FSL at about 10­11 AM and Constable Ravinder got the DD entry lodged regarding his departure from the St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 25 police station and arrival back. He has admitted that the said departure entries are not on record. He has further deposed that he recorded the statement of Constable. Ravinder at about 4­5 PM.

PW13 Inspector Pratap Singh has deposed that on 14.5.2007 he was posted as Addl. SHO Police Station Tilak Nagar and on that day the investigations of this case was handed over to him. According to him, he reached at DDU Hospital where ASI Madan Lal, Ct. Lal Chand, SDM Sh. K.K. Sharma and parents of the deceased namely Inder Singh and Prakash Kaur met him. He has deposed that the dead body of the deceased Manjit Kaur was shown to the parents of the deceased who identified the same vide their statements Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW2/B. The witness has deposed that the SDM got conducted the postmortem of the deceased after which the dead body was handed over to the parents vide receipt Ex.PW1/C. According to the investigating officer, the doctor produced a parcel sealed with the seal of DDU Hospital, FMT and sample seal containing viscera of the deceased which he seized vide memo Ex.PW13/A. Thereafter he along with ASI Madan Lal and other police staff reached at the spot where at the instance of ASI Madan Lal he prepared the rough site plan which is Ex.PW8/A­1 and the accused Balvinder was apprehended who was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW13/B and his personal St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 26 search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW13/C. He has further testified that investigations of this case was handed over to Inspector Mangal Sen and he handed over the case file MHCR on 17.5.2007.

In his cross­examination the witness has deposed that he made inquiries from the public persons at the spot but he does not remember their names. According to him, the neighbours of Balvinder Singh were also interrogated but they had not disclosed anything incriminating. He has further deposed that the statement of Smt. Prakash Kaur and Inder Singh were recorded at DDU Hospital whereas the statements of Jasbir Kaur and Maidan were recorded in the Police Station. The witness has testified that during the investigations it did not come to his knowledge that the deceased was suffering from any ailment. He has denied that the neighbour of accused informed him that the deceased was not able to conceive. He has admitted that the mother of the deceased was present in the hospital on 14.5.2007 when he recorded the statement of Jasbir Singh and Inder Singh but he does not remember whether one Hardev Singh was also present in the hospital on 14.5.2007. According to him, he recorded the statement of Hardev Singh in the Police Station but he does not remember the exact date. The witness has further deposed that he did not inquire about the financial status of Inder Singh. He has St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 27 denied that he did not conduct the investigations properly. Statement of the accused/ defence evidence:

After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him which he has denied. He has stated that the deceased was under

depression as she was unable to conceive due to some gynecological problems. According to the accused, the deceased was operated in the age of 15 years as she had cocoon obstruction intestine due to which reason she was not able to conceive and even after the treatment in this regard was conducted by Dr. Monika Thapar and Cr. Promila Gai. He has stated that due to depression Manjit Kaur had committed suicide. The accused has also stated that the parents and sister of the deceased being aggrieved by the death of deceased they have deposed against him. The accused initially wanted to examine two doctors in his defence but the record reveals that despite opportunity granted in this regard, he did not examine any witness in his defence. FINDINGS:

I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the ld. Addl. PP for the State and also the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 28 also gone through the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the record of the case.

Identity of the accused/ marriage of the deceased with the accused:

The aspect of identity of the accused Balwinder Singh who is the husband of the deceased Manjeet Kaur, the same is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the marriage between the deceased and the accused was solemnized according to Sikh rites and customs on 11.12.2005 and the death of the deceased occurred on 14.5.2007 which death took place within one year and five months of her marriage.

Section 498­A IPC/ Dowry Death - Proximity Test (Section 304­ B) IPC:

In order to succeed in charge under Section 498­A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had subjected deceased to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the section. It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498­A of the Indian Penal Code. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498­ A of Indian Penal Code, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 29 health. The use of the expression "willful" in the explanation to Section 498­A of IPC indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonable expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative, as the case may be. Everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act and such a presumption must necessarily be drawn even if there is no intention to cause any injury or harm to the woman. Whether the conduct in question is likely to drive the woman to cause injury to her life, limb or health, will depend upon a number of factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of awareness of the aggrieved woman, her temperament, state of her health, physical as well as mental and how she is likely to perceive such a behavior. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, it will also constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section 498­A of IPC.

St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 30

The expression "Cruelty" takes in its ambit mental cruelty as well as physical torture of the woman. If the conduct of the accused with a woman is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life and safety, such a conduct would attract criminal liability, envisaged in Section 498­A of IPC.

If the woman has harassed on account of her failure or the failure of her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, that also constitutes cruelty, within the meaning of Section 498­A of IPC. The expression "harassment" has not been defined in Section 498­A of IPC, but its dictionary meaning is to subject someone to continuous vexatious attacks, questions, demands or other unpleasantness, etc. However, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under section 498­ A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, by positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand.

Now coming to the Dowry Death - Proximity Test. The Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act are both remedial and penal statutes. As such Courts are expected to St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 31 construe the provisions in a way that the purpose is fulfilled through and within the limits of language employed in the statute. If a case is established then the Courts are to be stringent in dealing with the culprits. The Courts while taking a stringent view and despite the obligation of the Legislature enactment a success have also to keep in mind that the charge should be made out.

The main ingredients to be proved for establishing a case under Section 304­B IPC are (i) unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and (ii) she being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with any demand of dowry.

The words "it is shown" occurring in section 304­B IPC are of significance for the reason that the initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Section 304­B IPC do exist on the prosecution. This being shown or established, the question of presumption under Section 113­B of the Evidence Act would arise. In other words, to draw a presumption under section 113­B of the Evidence Act the necessary ingredient that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry has to be proved. Only when these facts are proved then by virtue of the deeming provision of section 304­B IPC, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death. Though St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 32 cruelty at any time after the marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and harassment envisaged by Section 304­B is to be soon before the death of a woman.

The Courts are required to scrutinize the evidence carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is a demand and then the atmosphere become calm and quiet and then again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of her husband within a short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as the torture and harassment is confined to the four walls of the house. The Courts are, however, required to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in laws are strained for any reason whatever it might be.

Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological trouble or mental agony or such circumstances that the person committing suicide may think that life he or she is living is more miserable than the pangs and agony of death. The power of tolerance would vary from person to person . Some persons try to make the life easy by tolerance while others even on petty points St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 33 bring an end to their life. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported as Gurditta Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1992 Crl. L.J. 309).

The importance of proximity test is both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under section 113­B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive section 304­B IPC and section 113­B Evidence Act is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" used in section 113­B of the Evidence Act, Illustration (a) of the Act is relevant. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be too much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. It is well settled by several judgments that mere St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 34 suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt. In the case reported as State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 258, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:­ ''The circumstances of this case undoubtedly create suspicion against the accused.

Suspicion, by itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of the accused.'' In another case reported as Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:­ Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 35 circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of this innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have benefit of that doubt........

It needs all the same to be re­emphasized that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. The courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because the acquittal might have an impact upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 36 courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused..

In another case reported as AIR 1973 SC 2622, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :­ ''Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before the court can convict and the mental distinction between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure consideration.'' Further more, in another case reported as Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :­ ''Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 37 like this goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this Court in the case of "Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) stated thus:

It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold­ blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted.'' It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 38 that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused.

Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is apparent that in so far as the evidence against the accused on the allegations of harassment, cruelty and demand of dowry is concerned it is in the form of the testimonies of the parents and sister of the deceased. Sardar Inder Singh (PW1) has deposed that after the marriage when his daughter came home after three to four months, she told him that her in­laws and husband used to beat her and that her husband was involved in bad habits and was demanding money from her. According to him, he had given money to his daughter as per the demand of the accused which is to the tune of Rs.10,000/­ on one occasion and Rs.5,000/­ on another occasion. According to him, when his daughter visited his house about two weeks prior to her death, she told him that her husband had demanded Rs.2 lacs from her and had asked her to bring the money from her parents house on which he told her that he could manage only about Rs. 1 lac. He has testified that thereafter on 13.7.2007 when his elder daughter Jasbeer Kaur had visited his house, he sent her to the house of deceased Manjeet Kaur to inform her that he was managing the money as per the demands. According to him, his daughter never disclosed the facts St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 39 of demands of money to his wife (mother of the deceased) as she was a patient of hyper tension and on the next day i.e. on 14.5.2007 at about 7:45 am to 8:00 am the police asked him to come to the house of his youngest daughter on which they went to the house of the accused where they found the dead body of deceased. It is evident from his cross­examination that he had not specifically stated in his statement to the SDM that his deceased daughter had told him that she was being beaten by the accused who also raised a dowry demand. He also did not statement to the SDM that his daughter had informed him that her husband (i.e. the accused) was involved in to bad habits. Further, he also did not inform the SDM about Rs.10,000/­ and Rs.5,000/­ being given by him to his son in law i.e. the accused though he had made a general statement to the SDM about the demand being raised from the in­laws of his deceased daughter but not specifically about her husband. Therefore, it is writ large that the deposition of the witness is an improvement over his previous statements made to the SDM and are required to be read with caution. He has also admitted that he had not made any complaint with regard to the beatings given to his daughter after two to three months of her marriage by her husband. According to him, he had disclosed this fact of the demand to his wife when the demand increased much later. He has denied the suggestion that her deceased daughter could not St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 40 conceive and even before the marriage she had been under treatment from RML Hospital. It is further evident from the cross­ examination of this witness that the fact of the accused Balvinder being financially well off i.e. more than him and even maintaining a car has been admitted by him. It is further admitted by the witness Inder Singh that accused Balvinder was having a mobile phone. Even Jasbir Kaur admits having a telephone connection. Under these circumstances, it does not appear natural that instead of making a call to his deceased daughter he would send his elder daughter staying elsewhere to the house of the deceased. There is no independent corroboration to this aspect. Further, he has been cross­examined on the point of having sent his elder daughter Jasbir Kaur to the house of the deceased and has admitted that the accused Balvinder was having a mobile phone and even they are having a mobile phone but he has stated that he thought that it was better that he should not talk to the accused Balvinder on mobile, which again does not appear natural.

Smt. Prakash Kaur (PW2) the mother of the deceased who is also the complainant in the present case has identified her signatures on the complaint which is Ex.PW2/A on the basis of which the FIR was registered. She had identified the dead body of her daughter. She has made similar allegations as those made by Inder Singh that one week after the marriage, her daughter had St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 41 come to her and told that the accused Balvinder had asked her as to why her parents had given the furniture in the marriage and instead they could have given more cash, however since the matter was settled, she did not tell the other family members. According to the witness, her son­in­law Balvinder used to beat her daughter for demand of dowry and she had even called the accused Balvinder, his brother­in­law, his sister and his younger brother but the mother of the accused did not accompany them and asked them as to why her daughter was being beaten on which the accused Balvinder assured that her daughter (deceased) would not be beaten in future and even his brother­in­law also assured that he would made the accused Balvinder understand and nothing would be happened to her daughter and it was under these circumstances that she ignored the entire incident. Smt. Prakash Kaur (PW2) has also narrated an incident when on 24.8.2006 her deceased daughter had come to her home to attend the birthday of her son namely Harjeet Singh and thereafter left in the evening. According to her, the accused Balvinder always used to pick her deceased daughter from the Metro Station but on that day accused did not come to pick the deceased and when her daughter went to her home only her mother­in­law was present who also left after some time saying that she had to go for some work. According to the witness, when her daughter entered in the kitchen she saw that both the knobs of St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 42 the gas burner were open and the kitchen was filled with gas and when she (deceased) complained to her mother­in­law she told her that the gas mechanic must have left the same opened. According to PW2, her deceased daughter was being given constant beatings by the accused and some times she was driven out of the house during night hours for demand of dowry and the accused Balvinder had demanded Rs.2 lacs from her daughter which fact she came to know only at the time of death of her daughter. The witness has testified that off and on they had been paying cash amounting to Rs.10,000/­ to Rs.15,000/­ to the accused. She has further deposed that one month prior to death her daughter told her that she was pregnant but the accused, in her presence told to her daughter that he did not want a child. This witness in her cross­examination has admitted that she did not tell the SDM about the incident when she had called the brother, sister and brother­in­law of the accused Balvinder to her house and informed them about the conduct of the accused Balvinder. She has also admitted that she did not tell the SDM about the incident dated 24.8.2006 when the gas nobs were found opened. She has further admitted that she did not tell the SDM that they had paid Rs.10,000/­ to Rs.15,000/­ to the accused. The witness has also admitted that she did not tell the SDM that her daughter had told her that she was pregnant and the accused had told her that she did not want a child. This being the background St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 43 these aspects are all after thoughts and improvements over the earlier statement made by the witness to the police and no explanation is forthcoming for the same. A suggestion was made to the witness that the accused was financially well off and had refused to take the furniture on the said count and never demanded any cash. This is also the defence of the accused and this appeals to the mind. Being financially well off and the house of the accused being already equipped with furniture etc. the additional furniture can prove to be burdensome and therefore, it is only natural that this suggestion would have been made.

It is further evident that though PW2 Prakash Kaur had denied that her deceased daughter was suffering from some infection yet she admits that they had given some papers of the deceased to the accused so that he could get an opinion from the doctor with regard to the operation of the abdomen of her daughter which was conducted at the age of 13 years. She has denied the suggestion that no medical documents were given to the accused nor this fact was disclosed to the accused. It is evident that in her statement to the SDM, Smt. Prakash Kaur did not disclose any aspect regarding the demand of dowry. This being the background the statement of the mother of the deceased also does not inspire confidence of this court there being no independent corroboration.

Similar is the testimony of Ms. Jasbir Kaur (PW3) who St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 44 has orally reproduced what has been earlier stated by PW1 and PW2 in toto. She has admitted that all these aspects of demand of dowry and of Rs.2 lacs from her deceased sister, were not stated to the SDM. She has admitted that they did lodge any complaint with the police regarding beatings given to her sister since according to her, they never wanted the married life of her sister to be spoiled. According to the witness, she had last visited the house of the deceased on 13.5.2007 and has denied the suggestion that on 13.5.2007 she had visited the house of her sister­in­law and not the house of the deceased. The witness has admitted that the house of her father is near the house of the accused and was unable to tell why her father did not go himself to the accused rather than sending her as alleged. These being the circumstances, it has made this court to ponder why Inder Singh whose house is closer to the house of Balvinder Singh would call his daughter Jasbir Kaur specially to the house of the deceased, when he himself is within the easy reach of the deceased not only distance­wise but also because Balvinder was connected to them through telephone all the time.

Now coming to the postmortem report of the deceased. It is evident from the record that PW5 Dr. Swati Grover and PW12 Dr. Mukesh Mittal both have proved the MLC of the deceased Manjeet Kaur which is Ex.PW5/A. Dr. Shefali Jain (PW14) has St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 45 proved the postmortem report of the deceased which is Ex.PW14/A. According to her, the cause of death was due to asphyxia caused by ante­mortem hanging which is considered to be suicidal in nature. Allegations had been made by PW1, PW2 and PW3 that at the time when they went to the house of the accused on receiving the telephone call they saw some bruises marks on the body and face of the deceased. The postmortem report, however, does not reveal any such injury. I have gone through the photographs of the deceased taken by Ct. Suresh, a member of the Crime Team which had been duly proved by PW4 SI Lalit Kumar on which he prepared the Crime Team report which is Ex.PW4/A. I may observe that as per the postmortem report the injury no.2 i.e. swelling of nose, both lips and left side face was observed though on incision both lips, face and nose did not show any effusion of blood clots. Also, an abrasion of size 1cm x 1cm lateral aspect of right knee, reddish in colour and irregular in shape was observed. The aforesaid injuries prove that before her death the deceased had fallen down on the left side of her body. It is only in case of a sudden and unexpected fall, that the deceased in order to save herself would have put her right knee forward to save herself on which she fell on the left side of her body resulting into swelling on the left side of face, lips and nose. The possibility of the sudden fall being on account of a push or a physical assault could be St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 46 possible but there is no evidence to substantiate the same. The postmortem report shows that the deceased had suffered injuries on her face, lips and nose and there was an abrasion on the right knee but no explanation is forthcoming for the same but no explanation is forthcoming for the same and there is no evidence on record to prove that the injuries had been inflicted upon her by Balvinder though the possibility of the same cannot be ruled out but the evidence on record is silent on the same for which benefit is required to be given to the accused. The death of the deceased, however has been established on account of a suicidal hanging.

It is evident from the above that the allegations made by the in­laws of the accused and the parents of the deceased as two fold; firstly with regard to the demand of dowry and secondly with regard to the abetment to suicide. In so far as the first aspect regarding the demand of dowry is concerned, the allegations made by the family members of the deceased before the SDM were only general and at no point of time any complaint with regard to the dowry harassment had been made to any authority. Smt. Prakash Kaur (PW2) has deposed that on one occasion the accused Balvinder was called along with his younger brother, sister and brother­in­law and informed them about the conduct of the accused. The younger brother, sister and brother­in­law of the accused have not been called to the court to prove the aforesaid St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 47 incident. How they were called and by what mode, has not been specified. Whether any other independent person or relative was informed about the above is an aspect which has not been clarified. It is also an admitted case of the parents of the deceased that as compared to them the accused is financially well off and is running a business of finance and is having a car and he used to pick up the deceased from the Metro Station. The father of the deceased has specifically stated before the court that on one occasion he had given the deceased Rs.10,000/­ to Rs.15,000/­ and later a demand of Rs.2 lacs was made and the was in the process of managing the same. This however does not inspire confidence of this court. The father of the deceased was a pensioner and had no independent source of income. He would have certainly withdrawn these amounts from some source, the details of which have not been placed before the court. Further, I find strange that when the father of the deceased is residing very near to the house of the accused, why should he call his married daughter from another place to communicate to the accused that he has made arrangements for demand.

It is writ large that this entire story of the demand is an after thought. A suspicion is created in the mind of the court and it is apparent that this entire story of the demand is an after­thought though the aspect of cruelty having been inflicted upon the St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 48 deceased cannot be ruled out. Why would a young girl married about one and a half year end her life suddenly? The only explanation given by the accused Balvinder is that she was suffering from cocoon obstruction intestine and was unable to conceive and she was under the treatment of Dr. Monika Thapar and Dr. Promila Ghai.

In this regard I may observe that the accused has not placed on record treatment paper of the deceased before the court. It is an admitted case of the parents of the deceased that she had been operated at the age of 15 years for abdominal cocoon but I may observe that medically cocoon obstruction does not cause infertility. Abdominal cocoon is a rare cause of intestinal obstruction and is characterized by small bowel encapsulation. The surgical treatment under these circumstances consists of peritoneal sac excision. The symptoms would include abdomen pain, bowel distress, nausea etc. but in women it would not affect her ability to conceive.

The case of the mother of the deceased is that a month before her death the deceased had told her that she was pregnant but her husband never wanted the child. This does not appear to be correct because the postmortem findings do not corroborate this aspect and not prove the aspect of the pregnancy of the deceased. It has also been specifically deposed by the parents of the deceased St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 49 that when she visited them, a few days before her death, she told them that she was sick and the accused was not getting her treated. This aspect, however, appears to be correct since the accused himself admits that the deceased was suffering from infection and has not been able to place before this court any documents to prove that she was being treated for the same. Neglecting or depriving a wife of proper medical treatment and care is also Cruelty. Further, the postmortem report shows that the deceased had suffered some injuries on her face, lips and nose and there was an abrasion on the right knee but no explanation is forthcoming for the same but no explanation is forthcoming for the same and there is no evidence on record to prove that the injuries had been inflicted upon her by Balvinder though the possibility of the same cannot be ruled out but the evidence on record is silent on the same and hence benefit of doubt is being given to the accused qua the aforesaid.

In the present case the postmortem report Ex.PW14/E is very clear reflecting that the cause of death was due to asphyxia caused by ante­mortem hanging which is considered to be suicidal in nature. The death of the deceased occurred at her matrimonial house. It stand established that before her death she was suffering from some infection a fact which has been admitted by the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure but there is nothing on record to show that she had been provided any medical St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 50 treatment for the same. Rather in his statement before the court, the accused has stated that the deceased was unable to conceive and was under depression. Medically cocoon obstruction does not cause infertility in women and it appears that the deceased was being repeatedly blamed for the above since it is the accused Balvinder Singh who had stated before the court that the fact of ailment of the deceased had been suppressed from him.

The aspect of cruelty being inflicted upon the deceased also cannot be ruled out since the postmortem shows that swelling of nose, both lips and left side face was observed though on incision both lips, face and nose did not show any effusion of blood clots and an abrasion of size 1cm x 1cm lateral aspect of right knee, reddish in colour and irregular in shape was also observed. No doubt the death of the deceased was within seven year of the marriage and the aspect of cruelty has been duly proved but it does not stand established that the said cruelty was on account of demand of dowry.

FINAL CONCLUSION:

In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are pre­requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:

St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 51

1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;

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 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.

Applying the above principles of law to the present case, it stand established that the marriage of the deceased Manjit Kaur was solemnized with the accused Balvinder Singh on St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 52 11.12.2005. It also stand established that the deceased Manjit Kaur committed suicide on 14.5.2007 i.e. within one year and five months of her marriage. Further, the aspect of the deceased having suffered from an infection and that she was not got medically treated for the same, has been proved. The postmortem report shows that injuries like swelling of nose, both lips and left side face was observed though on incision both lips, face and nose did not show any effusion of blood clots. Also, an abrasion of size 1cm x 1cm lateral aspect of right knee, reddish in colour and irregular in shape was observed and it appears that she was physically assaulted before her death. However, though it stands established that the deceased Manjit Kaur was subject to cruelty before her death but the prosecution has not been able to prove that the said cruelty so inflicted upon the deceased was in connection with the demand of dowry.

In view of my aforesaid discussion, I hereby hold the accused Balvinder Singh guilty of the offence under Section 498­A Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. He is, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 304­B Indian Penal Code.

Case be listed for arguments on the point of sentence on 29.4.2011.

Announced in the open court                                         (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 23.4.2011                                                   ASJ­II(NW)/ ROHINI


St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar                           Page No. 53 
   IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS 
   JUDGE­II (NORTH­WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

Session Case No.: 1050/2009
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0463962007

State           Vs.                               Balvinder Singh @ Bobby
                                                  S/o Rajender Singh
                                                  R/o E­24/A, Shyam Nagar,
                                                  Delhi.
                                                  (Convicted)

FIR No.:                                          360/07
Police Station:                                   Tilak Nagar
Under Section:                                    498­A/304­B IPC


Date of Conviction:                               23.4.2011

Arguments heard on:                               28.4.2011

Date of Sentence:                                 30.4.2011

APPEARANCE:

Present:        Sh. Taufiq Ahmed, Additional Public Prosecutor for 

                the State.

Convict Balvinder in judicial custody with Sh. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Advocate.

ORDER ON SENTENCE:

Vide my detailed judgment dated 23.4.2011, this court has held the accused Balvinder Singh guilty of the offence under St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 54 Section 498­A Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. He has however, been acquitted of the charge under Section 304­B Indian Penal Code.

The accused Balvinder Singh and Manjit Kaur (deceased) had been married on 11.12.2005 in accordance with the Sikh rites and ceremonies. Unfortunately within one year and five months of marriage with accused Balvinder Singh, Manjit Kaur committed suicide. On the basis of the allegations made by the parents of the deceased to the SDM regarding demand of dowry and infliction of cruelty upon the deceased, the present FIR was registered against the accused Balvinder Singh and charges under Section 498­A and 304­B IPC had been framed against the accused. After going through the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution including the parents and sister of the deceased and after considering the postmortem report, the opinion of the doctor and the forensic evidence, the accused Balvinder Singh has been acquitted of the offence under Section 304­B Indian Penal Code but has been held guilty of the offence under Section 498­A Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted.

I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Balvinder Singh is aged about 34 years and has a St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 55 family comprising of aged parents, two brothers and one married sister. He is a Graduate and is self employed. He has no other criminal case pending against him and has remained in judicial custody for about one year, one month and twenty two days. Ld. counsel for the convict requests that a lenient view be taken against the convict. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the other hand has prayed for a strict punishment against the convict keeping in view the nature of offence and allegations involved.

I have considered the rival contentions. During the course of arguments on sentence the father of the deceased namely Sardar Inder Singh was called to the court and heard through the Additional Public Prosecutor. Sardar Inder Singh submitted that he had spent about Rs.4 lacs to Rs.5 lacs in the marriage of his daughter and further stated he would have no objection if a lenient view is taken against the convict whose family was ready to compensate him for the expenses incurred in the marriage of the deceased Manjit Kaur. The statement of the father of the deceased has been recorded separately in this regard. An application has also been filed by the convict stating that he is ready to compensate the parental family of the deceased which application is duly signed by the convict and the father of the deceased Sardar Inder Singh. I have duly considered the same and I hold that in the given circumstances when the family of the deceased is ready to forgive St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 56 the convict who has already been acquitted for the offence under Section 304(B) Indian Penal Code, a lenient view is required to be taken against him.

This being the background, I hereby award the following sentence to the convict:

The convict Balvinder Singh is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 14 months and fine to the tune of Rs.4 lacs for the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 100 days. The entire fine amount of Rs. 4 lacs shall be paid to the family of the deceased Manjit Kaur as compensation under Section 357 Code of Criminal Procedure.

Benefit of Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by him during the trial, as per rules.

The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34­37, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.

St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 57

Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of cost and another be attached with his jail warrants.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court                                      (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 30.4.2011                                                 ASJ (NW)­II: Rohini




St. vs. Balvinder Singh, FIR No. 360/07, PS Tilak Nagar                           Page No. 58