Delhi District Court
State vs . Sandeep Singh Etc. - Sc No. 105/2012 1 on 13 May, 2014
ID No. 02406R0208252012
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
& SPECIAL JUDGE SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 105/2012
ID No. 02406R0208252012
FIR No. 172/2012
U/s. 304-B, 498-A, 34 IPC
PS : Jaitpur
State
Vs
Sandeep Singh , ..........accused No. 1
S/o Sh. Ishpal Singh ,
R/o H. No. 64, Harijan Basti,
Lakpat colony, Part-II,
Meethapur Extension, New Delhi
Ishpal Singh ..........accused No. 2
S/o Late
R/o H. No. 64, Harijan Basti,
Lakpat colony, Part-II,
Meethapur Extension, New Delhi
Smt. Sudha Rani, ..........accused No. 3
W/o Sh. Sh. Ishpal Singh ,
R/o H. No. 64, Harijan Basti,
Lakpat colony, Part-II,
Meethapur Extension, New Delhi
Ms. Rakhi ..........accused No. 4
d/o Sh. Sh. Ishpal Singh ,
R/o H. No. 64, Harijan Basti,
Lakpat colony, Part-II,
Meethapur Extension, New Delhi
Instituted on : 18th September, 2012
Argued on : 06th May,014
Decided on : 13th May,2014
JUDGMENT
Facts
1. Accused persons were sent up to face trial for commission of offence punishable u/s 498-A & 304-B r/w 34 IPC. In brief, facts of the case as unfolded during trial are that at about 06:40am on 24.05.2012, information regarding hanging of a lady in Meethapur Extension, School road, Harijan Basti, near Hanuman Mandir was received at Police Station Jaitpur vide DD no. 6-A . SI Rajeev Ranjan reached at the State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 1 ID No. 02406R0208252012 spot and found dead body of Kalpana (deceased) lying on bed and a chunni was lying nearby. It was revealed that Kalpana (deceased) was married with Sandeep on 27.04.2008. Senior Police officials, Mobile Crime Team, parents of deceased and SDM were informed regarding the incident of hanging by Kalpana (deceased) within seven years of her marriage.
2. Sh. Ajit Singh, Executive Magistrate recorded statement of Sh. Virender Bahadur Singh (father of deceased). In his statement, Sh. Virender Bahadur Singh stated that his elder daugther Kalpana got married with Sandeep s/o Sh. Ishpal four years ago. He spent more than his capacity in the marriage. After marriage, his daughter was staying in Delhi at H. No. 10, Harijan Basti, Lakhpat Colony, Meethapur Extension, Delhi alongwith her husband, Smt. Sudha Rani (mother-in-law), Sh. Ishpal (father-in-law) and Ms. Rakhi (sister-in-law). After some time, her in-laws started harassing deceased for dowry. They used to beat her and when the situation became worse, complainant took away his daughter to his house. After keeping Kalpana (deceased) with him for some time , he fulfilled the demands of her in-laws and sent Kalpana back to her in-laws house. He further stated that Ajay Pal brother-in-law of Sandeep took her, from his house with the assurance that incident will not be repeated. Since last six months, accused persons (Sandeep Singh (husband), Smt. Sudha Rani (mother-in-law), Sh. Ishpal (father-in-law) and Ms. Rakhi (sister-in-law)) were pressurizing Kalapana to ask her parents to purchase house for them. It is stated that on the last occasion, Kalpana had gone to her parents house on 10 th/11th May, when she was ill and on 13.05.2014 her husband took her back. It is stated that accused persons used to beat her and Sandeep Singh used to tell them that they had beaten their daughter and threaten to do whatever they could do. Sh. Dharmender Kumar, who played role of mediator also tried to improve the situation 8-10 times but situation remained unchanged. On 24.05.2012, they received a telephonic message from Police Station Jaitpur regarding commission of suicide by their daughter Kalpana State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 2 ID No. 02406R0208252012 They talked to Ajay Pal regarding the incident, who told them that whatever has happened, has happened and now, nothing could be done. They were informed by the neighbours that in the night of 23.05.2012, Kalpana was beaten by Sudha Rani (mother-in-law) and Ms. Rakhi (sister-in-law) . She was killed by her in-laws.
3. Statement recorded by Ajit Singh, Executive Magistrate was forwarded to SHO, Police Station Jaitpur for necessary action. FIR under section 498-A/304-B IPC was registered. Investigation was handed over to Inspector Harendra Singh , who prepared site plan at the instance of SI Rajiv Ranjan. On 25.05.2012, postmortem on the dead body was got conducted. Sealed box of viscera brought by Constable Vikas was handed over to Inspector Harendra Singh. Charge sheet further noted that from the statement of witnesses, it was found that accused persons were harassing Kalpana for bringing dowry since her marriage. As per FSL result no poison was detected in the viscera of deceased. Accused persons were charge sheeted u/s 498-A and 304-B r/w 34 IPC .
4. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 23.08.2012. Case was committed to the court of Sessions by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 11.10.2012. Charges u/s 498-A and section 304-B IPC was framed against accused Sandeep Singh (husband) by this Court on 11.10.2012, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On 12.09.2012, a supplementary charge sheet was filed against other accused persons namely, Sudha Rani (mother-in-law), Sh. Ishpal (father-in-law) and Ms. Rakhi (sister-in-law) . Charges u/s 498-A and 304-B r/w 34 IPC these accused by this Court on 28.02.2013, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Charges
5. Points which emerge for determination in this case are :
(i) Whether during the period between 27.04.2008 to 24.05.2012 in her matrimonial home at H. No. 64, Harijan Basti, Lakpat colony, Part-II, State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 3 ID No. 02406R0208252012 Meethapur Extension, New Delhi Smt. Kalpana (deceased) was subjected to cruelty by accused (her husband and parent-in law)?
(ii) Whether on 24.05.2012 or before, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed cruelty upon Smt. Kalpana (deceased) soon before her death?
Prosecution Evidence
6. To establish accusations against the accused, prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. Gist of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is as under:
6.1 Doctor Hari Prasad (PW-6) conducted postmortem on the dead body of Kalpana (deceased) on 25.05.2012 vide his report (Ex.PW6/A). He opined that cause of death was antemortem hanging and time since death was about one and half day. He placed on record FSL report prepared by Sh. Amarpal Singh, Assistant Director, (Chemistry) regarding viscera analysis which showed negative result for common poison.
6.2 Virender Bahadur Singh (PW-3) father of deceased made statement (Ex. PW-3/A) and identified dead body of his daughter in the mortuary vide his statement (Ex.
PW3/B-1) and received her dead body vide receipt (Ex.PW3/B). He identified photographs of his daughter (Ex. PW3/C), photographs of marriage (Ex. PW3/D-1 to Ex. PW3/D-5). Ajit Kumar (PW-4) Teshsildar cum Executive Magistrate, Kalkaji, who had recorded statement of Virender Bahadur Singh and prepared death report (Ex. PW4/A). He recorded statement of Virender Bahadur Singh and Sajjan Kumar regarding identification of dead body (Ex. PW3/B-1 to Ex. PW4/B) and made request (Ex. PW4/C) to the Department of Forensic Medicine, Toxicology for conducting postmortem on the dead body of Kalpana. Sajjan Kumar (PW-10) brother of Kalpana (deceased) is witness to the arrest of accused Sandeep vide memo (Ex. PW10/A), personal search memo (Ex. PW10/B) and photographs of marriage (Ex. PW10/C). Dharmender Singh (PW-8) mediator in the marriage between Kalpana (deceased) and Sandeep Singh (accused). 6.3 Pritam Sharma (PW-5) landlord of the house where Kalpana (deceased) was residing alognwith accused persons between the period 2009 till and of 2011. He was cross examined by learned Addl. PP. Vinod Sharma (PW-9) landlord of matrimonial house where incident of hanging by Kalpana (deceased) had taken place. He was cross examined by Learned Addl. PP for State.
State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 4
ID No. 02406R0208252012 6.4 SI Sanjay Pal (PW-1) inspected the the place of incident and placed on record scene of crime report (Ex. PW1/A). HC Kanwar Singh (PW-2) duty officer, recorded FIR (Ex. PW2/A). He made endorsement (Ex. PW2/B) on the rukka. Constable Vikas Kumar (PW-7) took the dead body to the mortuary for preservation and viscera peti, was seized by the IO vide seizure memo (Ex. PW7/A). HC Babu Lal (PW-11) placed on record photographs (Ex. PW11/A to Ex. PW11/E) of place of occurrence. 6.5 Constable Hawa Singh (PW-12) and Constable Sudhir Kumar (PW-14) joined investigation with IO/Inspector Harendra and Constable Sudhir. The are witness to the arrest, personal search memo of accused Sandeep Singh. Inspector Harendra Singh (PW-13) investigated the case and prepared several documents . He placed on record copy of DD no. 6-A (Ex. PW13/A) and prepared site plan (Ex. PW13/B) at the instance of SI Rajiv Ranjan.
6.6 SI Rajiv Ranjan (PW-15) reached at the place of occurrence on receipt of DD no. 6-A and seized chunni allegedly used for hanging vide memo (Ex. PW15/A) and collected MLC (Ex. PW15/B) of Kalpana (deceased). SI Subhash (PW-16) carried further investigation after transfer of Inspector Harendra Singh. He placed on record arrest memo of Sudha Rani (Ex. PA), her personal search memo (Ex. PW16/B) disclosure statement (Ex. PW16/C) and placed on record arrest memo of accused Ishpal (Ex. PB), his personal search memo (Ex. PW16/D) and disclosure statement (Ex. PW16/E). and arrest memo of accused Rakhi (Ex. PW16/G), personal search memo (Ex. PW16/H) and her disclosure statement (Ex. PW16/J). He placed on record photograph of marriage (Ex. PW16/F-1), marriage card (Ex. PW16/f-2), list of istridhan articles (Ex. PW16/F-3) and copy of bills (Ex. PW16/F-4 to Ex. PW16/F-9) vide seizure memo (Ex. PW16/F). PW-16 obtained report from the school alongwith attendance record (Ex. PW16/K). Statement of accused
7. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, Statement of accused persons was recorded under section 313 Cr.PC. Accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication. They stated that they had never demanded money and never beaten or harassed Kalpana. She used to remain ill since marriage and was suffering from chronic typhoid and used to have fever, due to which she remained depressed State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 5 ID No. 02406R0208252012 and committed suicide due to depression and illness. Dharmender Singh, mediator was closer to Virender Pratap and family members of deceased had lodged a false case against them in anger as their daughter had expired.
Submissions advanced
8. I have heard submissions advanced by Sh. Wasi Ur Rahman Learned Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Rajeev Jain Learned defence counsel and have considered material on record carefully.
9. Learned Additional PP for the State submitted that Virender Bahadur Singh (PW-3), Sajjan Kumar (PW-8) and Dharmender Singh (PW-10) are material witnesses of prosecution. They have proved the cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry. Virender Bahadur Singh (PW-1) and Sajjan Kumar (PW-10) deposed that accused persons used to demand dowry and deceased was harassed and beaten several times. They made complaint in this regard to Dharmender Singh (PW-8) ,mediator. It is submitted that Dharmender Singh (PW-8) had deposed that he himself had conversation with Kalpana (deceased) at her matrimonial house and made accused persons understand and asked them not to repeat their demand of dowry and harass Kalpana. Kalpana herself stated in the presence of his father that "fufa mujha kahan fasa diya". It is submitted that Dharmender Singh (PW-8) deposed that after some months of marriage, Virender Bahadur Singh had called him and seven-eight months before the death of Kalpana, he had gone to the house of Kalpana (deceased).
10. Per contra, Learned defence counsel submitted that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove demand of dowry by the accused persons and perusal of testimony of Virender Bahadur Singh (PW-1), Sajjan Kumar (PW-10) and Dharmender Singh (PW-8) shows that prosecution has miserably failed to prove it. He drew attention of the Court towards cross-examination to show vagueness, contradictions and improvements to which, shall refer in the following portion. State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 6
ID No. 02406R0208252012 Legal position
11. At the outset, to appreciate submissions and before discussion of testimony of material witnesses, relevant legal position may be noted.
12. Ingredients of Section 498-A are as follows:
"498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section 'cruelty' means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
13. Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman are required to be established in order to bring home the application of Section 498A IPC. Cruelty has been defined in the Explanation for the purpose of Section 498A. Substantive Section 498A IPC and presumptive Section 113B of the Evidence Act have been inserted in the respective statutes by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. It is to be noted that Sections 304B and 498A, IPC are not mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. Cruelty is a common essential to both the Sections and that has to be proved. The Explanation to Section 498A gives the meaning of 'cruelty'. In Section 304B there is no such explanation about the meaning of 'cruelty'. But having regard to common background to these offences, meaning of 'cruelty' or 'harassment' is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to Section 498A under which 'cruelty' by itself amounts to an offence. State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 7
ID No. 02406R0208252012 Essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are as follows:
(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance.
(ii) Such a 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 relative of her husband.
(iv)Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.
(v)Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
15. As per the definition of "dowry death" in Section 304-B IPC and the wording of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, one of the essential ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions is that the concerned woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment "soon before her death" and that too "for or in connection with the demand for dowry". The legal position is well settled that on a joint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC it would reveal that there must be cogent material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment, and that too in connection with any demand for dowry. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the "death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances". The expression "soon before" is very relevant where presumption u/s 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment; and only thereafter, the presumption would operate. Evidence in this regard has to be led in by the prosecution and established beyond doubt. "Soon before" is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would be the quantum to constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 8 ID No. 02406R0208252012 proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive section 304-B IPC and section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test.
16. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" is not defined. A reference to the expression "soon before" used in Section 114 Illustration
(a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods soon after the theft, is either the thief who has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. Thus, it is well settled that before a presumption is raised under Section 113-B Evidence Act, the foundation thereof must exist. Unless and until the preliminary facts are established beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecution, it is not open to draw a presumption against the accused to invoke this Section.
17. In K. Prema S. Rao vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, (2003) 1 SCC 217, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the definition of "dowry" in the context of offence under Section 304B, I.P.C. alongwith Section 113B of the Evidence Act, and held that :
State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 9
ID No. 02406R0208252012 "one of the key ingredients of the offence is that deceased must have been subjected to cruelty and harassment "in connection with the demand for dowry" shortly before her death. Para 16 of the judgment reads as under:
"The evidence which has been found acceptable by the Courts below against accused 1 is that the cruel treatment and harassment of the deceased by him led her to commit suicide which was a death "otherwise than under normal circumstances". To attract the provisions of Section 304B, I.P.C. one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty and harassment "in connection with the demand for dowry". There is no evidence on record to show that the land was demanded as a dowry. It was given by the father to the deceased in marriage ritual as pasupukumkuma. The harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased by the husband after the marriage to force her to transfer the land in his name was "not in connection with any demand for dowry". One of the main ingredients of the offence of "demand of dowry" being absent in this case, the High Court cannot be said to have committed any error in acquitting accused for offence under Section 304B, I.P.C."
18. In Appasaheb and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (1) Crimes 110, their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, "A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. Since an essential ingredient of Section 304B, I.P.C. viz. demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained."
19. In a case reported as Sunil Bajaj vs. State of M.P. 2001 CrLJ (SC) 4700, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that :
"In case of an offence under section 304-B Indian Penal Code an exception is made by deeming provision as to nature of death as "dowry death" and that the husband or his relative, as the case may be, is deemed to have caused such death, even in the absence of evidence to prove these aspects but on proving the existence of the ingredients of the said offence by convincing evidence. Hence, there is need for greater care and caution, that too having regard to the State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 10 ID No. 02406R0208252012 gravity of the punishment prescribed for the said offence, in scrutinizing the evidence and in arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the above mentioned ingredients of the offence are proved by the prosecution."
20. Our Hon'ble High Court in Babita Vs. State 2009 (2) Crimes 772 observed :
"There is no thumb rule as to what is meant by the expression "soon before" death of a woman, under Section 304-B yet despite substantial flexibility, the charge cannot be maintained, if the acts are remote in point of time. The Supreme Court has held in Kedya Perumal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2003 SC 3828 and Yashoda Vs. State of M.P. 2004(3) SCC 98 that there should not be too much of a time-lag between cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry and the death in question. It was also held that there must exist a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demands and death of the woman. The Court held that if the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale, not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman, it would be of no consequence".
21. "In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal & Another. (1994) 1 SCC 73, Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. ''
22. In Dr. S.L. Goswami Vs. State of MP 1972 SCC(Cri.) 258 it was observed "In our view, the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defense of the accused does not State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 11 ID No. 02406R0208252012 appear to be credible or is Palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests. upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probablises the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt."
"....We have had occasion to observe earlier that the standard of proof which the accused may adduce in support of his plea in defence is not the same which the prosecution is required to adduce. Once the probability of the accused's plea is established, we must give him the 'benefit of doubt."
23. Improvements made in the court over the earlier statements in FIR/161 and 164 Cr. P. C. were commented with deprecation in the case of Haladhar Behera Vs. State of Orissa 2008 Cri LJ 3389 wherein it was observed:
"so far as charge under Section 304-B, I. P. C. is concerned, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence with regard to demand of dowry or torture for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry as stated by P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 cannot be accepted considering the fact that such statements made in Court were neither reflected in the F. I. R. nor in the statements recorded by the police during investigation under Section 161, Cr. P. C. As indicated earlier, none of these four witnesses during their examination in the course of investigation has stated before the police regarding such demand of dowry or torture at the hands of the appellant for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Even in the FIR also an omnibus statement has been made but no specific allegation has been brought against the appellant so far as demand of dowry is concerned".
24. In State of Haryana Vs. Gurdial Singh,1974 SCC (Cri.)530 while rejecting the inconsistent and contradictory version and improvements,Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
''The present is a case wherein the prosecution witnesses have come out with two inconsistent versions of the occurrence. One version of the occurrence is contained in the evidence of the witnesses in Court, while the other version in contained in their statements made before the police..... In view of these contradictory versions, the High Court, State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 12 ID No. 02406R0208252012 in our opinion, rightly came to the conclusion that the conviction of the accused could not be sustained.'' Discussion of Evidence
25. On the touchstone of tests noticed above, now it has to be considered whether 'cruelty' as defined under section 498-A IPC and 'cruelty soon before her death' in connection with demand of dowry, was meted out to deceased in the present case or not? There is no dispute that Kalpana (deceased) got married with Sandeep Singh (accused no. 1) on 27.04.2008 and she committed suicide by hanging with ceiling fan on 24.05.2012 and therefore, had an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage.
26. Statement of Sh. Virender Bahadur Singh (PW-3) recorded by SDM soon after the death of the deceased is the basis of the FIR. This Court finds that testimony of Virender Bahadur Singh (PW-3) is untrustworthy and does not inspires confidence. Virender Bahadur Singh (PW-3) deposed that after few days of marriage , accused persons started harassing and beating his daughter Kalpana and on account of this , he brought his daughter back to his house. PW-3 stated that he used to fulfill their petty demands and they used to receive back his daughter. PW-3 stated that he visited house of accused persons 8-10 times alongwith Dharmender Singh (mediator) to make them understand not to repeat their demands of dowry and harassment. Despite his sincere efforts, accused persons remained adamant and rather they continued to make demands and harass his daughter. In the cross examination, PW-3 stated that after few days of the marriage, it came to his notice that accused persons used to give beatings to his daughter. He could not tell number of days after the marriage, when it came to his notice. He even could not tell whether it was after six months, one year or two years when it came to his notice about the beatings of his daughter. On asking, he could not tell how many times it came to his notice that his daughter had been given beatings by accused persons. Admittedly, he had not made any complaint to the Women Cell and not made any complaint to the police or filed State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 13 ID No. 02406R0208252012 any complaint before the Court. PW-3 introduced new fact in the cross examination that he had made a call at 100 number and PCR van had come. He stated that deceased had not told them anything. On asking, PW-3 stated that he had not collected record of calling PCR van. PW-3 stated that he was not present there, when PCR van came. He had not counted how many times , he had brought Kalpana to his house on account of beatings given to her. He admitted that he had not got medically examined Kalpana (deceased) at any point of time. PW-3 admitted that till the solemnization of marriage of Kalpana with Sandeep Singh , there was no demand made by the accused persons. As regards informing Dharmender Singh (PW-8) or accompanying him to the house of accused. PW-3 deposed that he used to make call to Dharmender to make accused persons understand not to harass and give beatings to Kalpana on account of demand of dowry, but on asking he could not tell the time and date when he visited the house of accused persons alongwith Dharmender singh (mediator) . He did not know how many times, he visited alongwith Dharmender Singh 10 Lakpat Colony or at the house at Meethapur near red light or at their previous residence. He did not remember the date, when he visited fell on a holiday. PW-3 could not when accused Sandeep Singh made a call to him or told that they had beaten his daughter and he could do whatever he wanted. PW-3 stated that after receiving calls, he had not lodged any complaint to the local police station.
27. Now, Dharmender Singh (PW-8) other material witness of the prosecution in his deposition has stated that after few months of marriage, Virender Bahadur called him and asked him as to where he had establish relation of his daughter, as her in- laws were not good persons. He told him that in-laws of Kalpana used to harass her and make demands of dowry. On this, he went to the house of accused persons, but he did not remember the date. Kalpana told him in the presence of her father that "fufa mujha kahan fasa diya". PW-8 stated that he made in-laws of Kalpana understand not to repeat any objectionable act. He deposed that 7-8 months before State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 14 ID No. 02406R0208252012 the death of Kalpana , Virender Bahadur singh told him that the accused had made a demand of a house in the area of Meethapur, Jaitpur . On this, he alongwith Virender Bahadur Singh had gone to the house of accused persons and discussed the matter with the accused persons and they, again promised not to make any such demand in future.
28. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused persons urged that in examination-in-chief, on asking, PW-8 could not even tell exact reason as to why Kalpana hanged herself. He submitted that he was mediator and was the prosecution witness and if demand of dowry was the reason of commission of suicide by Kalpana (deceased) , nothing prevented PW-8 to say so, in his testimony. PW-8 admitted that he knew father of Kalpana (deceased) for the last 15 years as his neighbour and therefore, he is an interested witness, who supported the complainant. Learned counsel appearing for accused pointed out that in the cross examination, PW-8 has admitted that after their formal talks, solemnization of marriage was kept in abeyance for about one and half years and during this period, they used to visit each other and marriage had taken place between accused Sandeep and Kalpana (deceased), after both the parties were satisfied with each other in respect of conduct and behaviour. On asking, PW-8 could not tell on which date, Virender Bahadur had called him and told him that in-laws of Kalpana were not good persons. PW-8 again stated that 7-8 months prior to the death of Kalpana (deceased) , Virender Bahadur Singh had called. On being further probed by Learned defence counsel, PW-8 admitted that he had not visited house of accused persons during the period of last 7/8 months. Admittedly, it is not mentioned in statement u/s 161 Cr. P. C. of PW-8 that Kalpana had not told him that "fufa mujhe kahan fasa diya". Version of Virender Bahadur Singh (PW-3) stands contradicted by the testimony of Dharmender Singh (PW-8). Thus, in is deposition, PW-8 stated that he had not visited the house of accused persons during the period between 7-8 months whereas PW-3 deposed that he accompanied him on 8-10 State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 15 ID No. 02406R0208252012 occasions.
29. Now, I advert to the testimony of Sajjan Kumar (PW-10) (brother of the deceased), who has come out with a new version and has made improvement upon his statement u/s 161 Cr. P. C recorded by the police. He has not been corroborated by other witnesses. PW-10 deposed that 'stridhan' given to the accused persons was kept by accused persons at their native place. They started demanding further 'stridhan' when they were residing in Delhi and pursuant to the demand of 'stridhan', his father had fulfilled the same as per his capacity. Whenever his father was unable to fulfill their demand, then all the accused persons used to pressurize them and used to beat his sister. On asking, PW-10 could not tell specific dates of demand or date of giving beating to his sister. He stated that once his sister had made a call at 100 number and on arrival of police, his sister Kalpana was pressurized by in-laws and the matter was closed. PW-10 further deposed that six months prior to the death, accused persons had made demand of purchase of a house in Delhi and threatened to grant divorce to his sister Kalapana (deceased). His sister Kalpana and Dharmender, (the mediator) used to tell them about the beating of his sister Kalpana by accused persons. PW-10 stated that he had told to the police that 'stridhan' given to the accused persons was kept by accused persons at their native place and they started demanding further 'stridhan' when they were residing in Delhi. He was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C, where it was not so recorded. PW-10 stated that he had told to the police that "once his sister had made a call at 100 number. On arrival of the police, his sister Kalpana was pressurized by in-laws and the matter was closed." He was confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C (markA-1) where it was not so recorded. PW-10 deposed that he had told to the police that "accused persons threatened to grant divorce to his sister Kalpana , if they would not fulfill the demand of house". He was confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C where it was not so State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 16 ID No. 02406R0208252012 recorded. He had told to the police that on 24.05.2012, in the morning, he was informed telephonically by accused Sandeep that 'maine sara khel khatam kar diya hai, aap aa jao." He was confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C, where it was not so recorded. According to PW-10, he had told to the police that he had handed over the documents to the IO pertaining to a previous criminal case of dowry registered against the accused persons at Police Station of the area village Bhawani Pur, wherein accused persons were residing prior to the marriage between Kalpana (since deceased) and accused Sandeep." He was confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C where it was not so recorded. PW-10 had told to the police that a previous criminal case of dowry registered against the accused persons at Police Station of the area village Bhawani Pur, wherein accused persons were residing prior to the marriage between Kalpana (since deceased) and accused Sandeep." He was confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C , where it was not so recorded. These material improves make his deposition unworthy of credence.
30. This leads me to discuss now, what neighbours had allegedly told PWs, Virender Bahadur Singh (PW-3) deposed that neighbours, who were present there had voluntarily told him about the incident of beating of Kalpana by the accused persons on 23.05.2012. He could not tell their names and addresses. Sajjan Kumar (PW-10) admitted that he could not tell the date on which his sister had made a call at 100 number. PW-10 admitted that they had not not lodged any complaint against accused persons . PW-8 deposed that he alongwith Virender Bahadur Singh (PW-1) had gone to the house of accused persons on the day of incident and when they reached their, immediately, he entered in the house where the dead body was lying. Meaning thereby, none of the public persons, gathered there , told him anything about the incident of beating on the last night. Vinod Sharma (PW-9) landlord of matrimonial home where alleged incident had taken place, has not supported the case of prosecution. In the cross examination conducted by Learned Addl. PP, he stated that State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 17 ID No. 02406R0208252012 he had not told to the police that there was tension between Ish Pal, Sandeep and Kalpana and her parents. He denied having made such statement u/s 161 Cr P. C. before the police.
31. Vinod Sharma (PW-9) landlord of the matrimonial house of deceased testified that he had never noticed any altercation or any unusual incident in the family of Ishpal and they were living happily. Similarly, Pritam Sharma (PW-5) where Kalpana (deceased) was residing with his husband-accused Sandeep Singh, deposed that during their stay at his house, the relations between Kalpana on the one hand and Sudha Rani and Rakhi on the other remained cordial. According to PW-9, he never heard about the quarrel between them. PW-9 deposed that Sandeep, Sudha Rani, Rakhi and others had never made any demand from Kalpana for bringing money or any other articles and stated that they were living peacefully at his house on rent. In cross examination, conducted by Learned Addl. PP for State, he denied having made statement u/s 161 Cr. P. C to the police. PW-9 denied the suggestion that Sudha Rani used to quarrel with Kalpana and Rakhi used to support his mother Sudha Rani. He denied the suggestion that Sudha had beaten Kalpana several times. He denied the suggestion that after fixing of the marriage of accused Sandeep with Kalpana, one another offer of marriage had come for Sandeep, wherein the offer of Rs. 15-16 lacs was made from the side of bride. PW-9 denied the suggestion that Ishpal and Rakhi wanted more dowry. He denied the suggestion that accused Sandeep Singh used to drink liquor due to clash between his wife Kalpana and his mother Sudha Rani. In their statement u/s 313 Cr. P. C. accused persons have stated that they had never beaten or harassed or demanded dowry from Kalpana (deceased), who was suffering from chronic typhoid and used to have fever due to which she used to remain depressed. She committed suicide due to depression and illness. In cross examination, Virender Bahadur Singh (PW-3) admitted that his daughter Kalpana had fallen ill and was suffering from typhoid since 11.05.2012. He stated that whenever his State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 18 ID No. 02406R0208252012 daughter fell ill, she came to his house for treatment and at the time of delivery of a baby, she stayed at her house for about seven months. He could not tell when she visited their house prior to or after the delivery of a baby for the purpose of taking treatment for illness. This testimony of Virender Bahadur Singh (PW-3) father of deceased, indicates that Kalpana (deceased) was not keeping well and was under
going treatment for her illness and was suffering from typhoid, thereby making the version of the defence probable and Kalpana (deceased) might have committed suicide due to her illness and resulting depression.
32. It is pertinent to note that Court has to keep in mind manner of giving evidence, surrounding circumstances, probabilities, motive for giving true or false evidence, intrinsic merit of the evidence, how it stands with other evidence adduced. Reliability of witnesses depends upon the accuracy of the witnesses, original observations of the evidence which he described; correctness and extent of what he remembers and his veracity. Court has to consider in the circumstances of the case, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in his evidence. Discrepancies which relate to material points, can not be lightly glossed over but must be assessed seriously. Trifling discrepancies have to be ignored as natural discrepancies among honest witnesses. Broad facts of the case and not minor details have to be considered in weighing the evidence and Court has to weigh the evidence carefully in measuring its worth or worthlessness.
33. Scrutiny of the testimony of material prosecution witnesses reveals that no case under sections 498-A or 304-B IPC is made out. It appears that only after the unfortunate death of Kalpana, her family members and relatives, out of anger, introduced story of demand belatedly to make it a case of dowry death. This Court finds that no specific demand of dowry and harassment against the accused persons is proved and allegations leveled are general in nature. Admittedly, there is no previous complaint with any authority regarding harassment and cruelty or demand of State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 19 ID No. 02406R0208252012 dowry from the deceased or any of her family members. No specific allegations of commission of cruelty 'soon before death' of Kalpana (deceased) have been established by the prosecution.
34. Basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely by being carried away by the heinous nature of the crime. Mere suspicion, however strong or probable it may be, is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and graver the charge is, greater should be the standard of proof required.
Conclusions
35. This court finds that no presumption u/s 113-B of Evidence Act can be raised against the accused in the facts and circumstances of the case. Allegation of demand of dowry or house are not proved. In the present case, the standard of "proof beyond doubt" as required by law has not been achieved by prosecution . There is no satisfactory and reliable evidence of demand of dowry or subjecting Kalpana to cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry other than improved version of interested witnesses i.e. father, brother and mediator. Vinod Sharma (PW-9) owner of house where deceased was residing with her husband, has not uttered anything about subjecting her to cruelty by the accused in relation to demand of dowry. Significantly, he has deposed that they were living happily and had never noticed any altercation or any unusual incident in the family of Ish Pal (father-in-law of deceased). Pritam Sharma (PW-5) previous landlord has also deposed on the same lines that during stay in his house, taken on rent by the family of accused sandeep Singh State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 20 ID No. 02406R0208252012 between 2009 to the end 2011 , relations between Kalpana (deceased) and Sudha Rani and Rakhi were cordial. He had never heard any quarrel between them or in between Kalpana and her husband Sandeep. He categorically stated that accused persons had never made any demand from Kalpana for bringing money or any other article. In the result, having considered factual matrix, as a whole, it cannot be concluded that the accused are guilty of the offence with which they are charged. Crucial and necessary ingredient that the Kalpana (deceased) was subjected to cruelty or harassment by him 'soon before her death' or was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry at any point of time has not been established beyond doubt by the prosecution. Prosecution having failed to discharge its burden, all the accused persons, namely Sandeep Singh , Ish Pal, Sudha Rani and Rakhi are hereby acquitted from the charges under section 498-A and Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC. Accused persons shall furnish requisite bonds under section 437-A Cr. P. C. Accused Sandeep Singh, who is in JC is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. File be consigned to record room.
announced in the
open court on (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
13th May, 2014 Additional Sessions Judge-04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS)
South East, New Delhi
State Vs. Sandeep Singh etc. - SC No. 105/2012 21