Delhi District Court
India In Criminal Appeal No. 689/2013 ... vs . on 22 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 26/1/12
Unique Identification No. 02404R0441592006
State
Versus
1. Krishan Lochan Anand
S/o late Sh. Kanhaiya Lal
R/o WZ2024, Rani Bagh,
Delhi.
2. Veena Anand
W/o Sh. Krishan Lochan Anand
R/o WZ2024, Rani Bagh,
Delhi.
FIR No. 1173/05
PS - Saraswati Vihar
U/s. 498A/304B/34 of IPC
Date of Decision: 20/09/2014
Date or order on sentence: 22/09/2014
ORDER ON SENTENCE
22/09/2014
Present: Ld. APP for State.
Convict Krishan Lochan Anand and Veena Anand from J.C. with counsel
Sh. Anupam Sharma.
Heard on the point of sentence.
Learned defence counsel has contended that convict Krishan Lochan
Anand is aged about 64 years. He is a diabetic patient and is having cataract in right
eye. It is further contended that he is a retired government servant, having clean
antecedents. He is receiving pension as per rules. He has faced trial since the year
2005. It is further contended that he is not a previous convict nor habitual offender.
SC No. 26/1 1
It is further contended that a lenient view be taken, while sentencing the convict and
minimum sentence be awarded to him as he remained in custody in this case from
20/11/2005 to 13/07/2006, 18/08/2006 to 17/10/2006, 28/11/2006 to 10/10/2007 and
from 20/09/2014 till today.
Learned defence counsel has contended that convict Veena Anand is
aged about 63 years. She is having slip disc problem of lower back. She is also
suffering from hypertension and is a diabetic patient and is having allergic body. It is
further contended that she is a housewife. She has faced trial since the year 2005. It
is further contended that she is not a previous convict nor habitual offender. It is
further contended that a lenient view be taken, while sentencing the convict and
minimum sentence be awarded to her as she remained in custody in this case from
20/11/2005 to 07/04/2008 and from 20/09/2014 till today.
On the other hand, learned APP assisted by counsel for complainant has
contended that considering the nature and gravity of the offences proved against the
convicts, appropriate sentence be awarded upon the convicts with compensation.
Offence u/s. 498A of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Offence u/s. 304B of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term,
which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for
life.
I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the convicts
and also on behalf of State alongwith the age, character and antecedents of both the
convicts. Accordingly, sentence of two years SI is imposed on each convict with
fine of Rs. 5000/ each u/s. 498A/34 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, each
convict shall further undergo six months simple imprisonment.
Sentence of seven years SI is also imposed on each convict u/s. 304B/34
of IPC.
On the point of compensation, Ld defence counsel has contended that
SC No. 26/1 2
keeping in view the financial capacity of both the convicts and further that the child
of the deceased, who is now aged about 10 years, is being looked after by the
convicts along with his father Karan Anand, minimum compensation be imposed
upon the convicts.
It has been held in Delhi Domestic Working Women's forum V. Union
of India and ors. (1995) 1 SCC 14 that:
"Compensation payable by the offender was introduced in the Criminal
Justice Act 1972 which gave the Courts powers to make an ancillary order for
compensation in addition to the main penalty in cases where 'injury, loss, or damage'
had resulted. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 made it possible for the first time to
make a compensation order as the sole penalty. It also required that in cases where
fines and compensation orders were given together, the payment of compensation
should take priority over the fine. These developments signified a major shift in
penology thinking, reflecting the growing importance attached to restitution and
reparation over the more narrowly retributive aims of conventional punishment. The
Criminal Justice Act 1982 furthered this shift. It required courts to consider the
making of a compensation order in every case of death, injury, loss or damage and,
where such an order was not given, imposed a duty on the court to give reasons for
not doing so. It also extended the range of injuries eligible for compensation. These
new requirements mean that if the court fails to make a compensation order, it must
furnish reasons. Where reasons are given, the victim may apply for these to be
subject to judicial review. The 1991 Criminal Justice Act contains a number of
provisions which directly or indirectly encourage an even greater role for
compensation.."
In judgment dated 03/05/2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Criminal Appeal No. 689/2013 titled as "Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Vs.
State of Maharashtra", it has been held that:
"Amongst others, the following provisions on restitution and
compensation have been made:
12. Restitution shall be provided to reestablish the situation that existed
prior to the violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. Restitution
requires inter alia, restoration of liberty, family life, citizenship, return to one's place
of residence, and restoration of employment or property.
13. Compensation shall be provided for any economically assessable
damage resulting from violations of human rights or international humanitarian law,
SC No. 26/1 3
such as;
(a) Physical or mental harm, including pain, suffering and emotional
distress;
(b) Lost opportunities including education;
(c) Material damages and loss of earnings, including loss of earning
potential;
(d) Harm to reputation or dignity;
(e) Costs required for legal or expert assistance, medicines and medical
services.
In view of above, on account of physical or mental harm, including pain,
suffering and emotional distress and costs required for legal or expert assistance
caused to the family of deceased Daljeet Kaur, compensation to the tune of Rs.
25,000/ is also imposed upon each convict, payable to the mother of deceased. In
default of payment of compensation, each convict shall further undergo sentence
of six months SI.
Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
Benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. be also given to both the convicts.
Compensation, if deposited and no appeal is preferred within the period
of limitation, then the same be released to the mother of deceased Daljeet Kaur.
Fine and compensation not deposited.
Convicts are remanded to serve the sentence.
Announced in the open court (Virender Kumar Goyal)
today on 22nd of September, 2014 Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts,Delhi.
SC No. 26/1 4
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 26/1/12
Unique Identification No. 02404R0441592006
State
Versus
1. Karan Anand
S/o Sh. K.L. Anand
R/o WZ2024, Rani Bagh,
Delhi.
2. Krishan Lochan Anand
S/o late Sh. Kanhaiya Lal
R/o WZ2024, Rani Bagh,
Delhi.
3. Veena Anand
W/o Sh. Krishan Lochan Anand
R/o WZ2024, Rani Bagh,
Delhi.
FIR No. 1173/05
PS - Saraswati Vihar
U/s. 498A/304B/34 of IPC
Date of institution of the case: 17/01/2006
Arguments heard on: 02/09/2014
Date of reservation of order: 02/09/2014
Date of Decision: 20/09/2014
JUDGMENT
This case was registered on the statement of one Sh. Gurusharan Singh on 20/11/05 u/s 498A/304B of IPC. Prior to that DD no.2 was recorded on 20/11/05 at about 7 am on receipt of information from HC Rajinder that in Multani Mohalla, Mahendra Park, near House no. 2001, one lady is lying in unconscious condition and police be sent. Copy of this DD was handed over to HC Rajesh Kumar, who left for the spot. At about 7.30 pm, one more DD no. 4 was recorded on receipt of SC No. 26/1 5 information on wireless set from Ct Hamil that one Daljeet Kaur wife of Karan Anand was brought dead to Jaipur Golden hospital and her MLC no. is 7381 and police be sent. Copy of this DD was handed over to CT Bijender to further hand over to HC Rajesh for necessary action. One more DD no.7A was also recorded at 4.30 pm about registration of FIR u/s 498A/304B/34 of IPC. SDM reached at the hospital and recorded the statement of Gurbachan Singh, brother of the deceased and direction was given for SHO for registration of FIR. SDM also recorded the statement of Paramjeet Kaur and Smt Balbir Kaur, sister and mother of deceased. Three letters were handed over to SDM by the brother of deceased namely Gurbachan Singh, which were seized by preparing memo.
During investigation, rough site plan of place of occurrence where body of Daljeet Kaur was lying, was prepared. Blood, Earth control, Blood stained earth control were lifted from the spot and were sealed and seized by preparing memo. One baby blanket of red/yellow/blue/pink colour was also sealed and seized from the top floor i.e. fourth floor of the house. Postmortem of the deceased was got conducted and inquest papers were filled up. After postmortem, sealed pullandas containing clothes of Daljit Kaur, sealed envelopes containing blood gauze piece of Daljeet Kaur and three samples seal were handed over by the doctor to the IO, which were seized by preparing memo.
During investigation, IO also collected the DD entries and recorded the statement of Gursharan Singh, mother Balbir Kaur and Sister Paramjeet Singh of deceased. MLCs of deceased and child were also collected from Jaipur golden hospital. Accused persons were arrested from their houses and their personal searches were conducted. One diary was also produced by brother of deceased containing admitted handwriting of deceased, which was seized by preparing memo.
During the course of investigation, scaled site plan was also got prepared by IO and exhibits were sent to FSL. IO had also collected the postmortem report, death report and FSL report.
SC No. 26/1 6
On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed U/s. 498A/304B/34 of IPC, which was committed to the court of Session on 17/05/2006 and was received on 19/05/2006.
Charge U/s. 498A/34 and 304B/34 of IPC was framed against the accused persons, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW23 in all. On completion of prosecution evidence, statements of all the accused persons were recorded. All the accused persons have denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded their innocence.
Accused Karan Anand has stated in his statement that his mother Veena Anand is closely related to the parental side of his wife Daljeet Kaur. He was having an affair with Daljeet Kaur and they both wanted to get married. However, Paramjeet Kaur, elder sister of Daljeet Kaur was still unmarried. His younger brother Tuber, during the same period was also having an affair and his would be in laws at that time, were insisting for early marriage. As such, they had to request the parents of Daljeet Kaur for his marriage with her since they were under the pressure of inlaws of Tuber. However, this was not liked by Gursharan Singh and Paramjeet Kaur, who were against their marriage, since Paramjeet Kaur was unmarried and it would spoil her prospects. There was no demand of dowry, in the marriage, since it was a love marriage between closely related families. Sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs was not given by parental side of Daljeet. In fact the car was purchased by his father from his own funds, after withdrawing part amount from his bank accounts and getting the rest of the amount financed from the bank. After the marriage, there was great love and affection between them. He had gone to Kathmandu along with his wife and had also gone to Vishnu devi.
He had to join Qatar airlines in Qatar, where he had to take Daljeet Kaur along with him. He applied for her passport, in which she was shown to be his wife, however, for some period, he had to go alone and after issuance of passport, SC No. 26/1 7 Daljeet Kaur was supposed to join him. However, Paramjeet Kaur utilised this opportunity to settle her score and objected to his going to Qatar and also stated that they wanted Daljeet to stay in Delhi itself. He , as such did not accept the job in Qatar, under the pressure of his in laws.
After the marriage, Daljeet Kaur was never harassed for demand of dowry nor was any demand made at any point of time. She had very cordial relations with coaccused persons and there was great love and affections amongst them.
On the day of incident, family members of Daljeet had to go to finalize an alliance for the marriage of Paramjeet Kaur, however Daljeet Kaur was not invited since they thought that it would disrupt the possibility of alliance of Paramjeet Kaur. Daljeet and Paramjeet had an altercation on this issue as Daljeet felt depressed and very unhappy on being treated as an untouchable. In the night she said she was feeling very dizzy and suffocated and he tried to console her before going to sleep. He is innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
Accused Veena Anand has stated in his statement that she is closely related to the parental side of Daljeet Kaur, wife of her son. Her son Karan was having an affair with Daljeet Kaur and they both wanted to get married. However, Paramjeet Kaur, elder sister of Daljeet Kaur was still unmarried. Her younger son Kuber, during the same period was also having an affair and his would be inlaws at that time, were insisting for early marriage. As such, they requested the parents of Daljeet Kaur for marriage of Karan with her since they were under the pressure of in laws of Kuber. However, this was not liked by Gursharan Singh and Paramjeet Kaur, who were against the marriage, since Paramjeet Kaur was unmarried and it would spoil her prospects. There was no demand of dowry, in the marriage, since it was a love marriage between closely related families. Sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs was not given by parental side of Daljeet. In fact the car was purchased by her husband from his own funds, after withdrawing part amount from his bank accounts and getting the rest of the amount financed from the bank. After the marriage, there was great love SC No. 26/1 8 and affection between her son and his wife. her son had gone to Kathmandu along with his wife and had also gone to vaishnu devi.
Karan had to join Qatar airlines in Qatar, where he had to take Daljeet kaur along with him. He applied for her passport, in which she was shown to be wife of her son karan, however, for some period her son had to go alone and after issuance of passport, Daljeet Kaur was supposed to join him. However, Paramjeet Kaur utilised this opportunity to settle her score and objected going of her son to Qatar and also stated that they wanted Daljeet to stay in Delhi itself. Her son, as such did not accept the job in Qatar, under the pressure of his in laws.
After the marriage, Daljeet Kaur was never harassed for demand of dowry nor was any demand made at any point of time. She had very cordial relations with coaccused persons and there was great love and affections amongst them.
On the day of incident, family members of Daljeet had to go to finalize an alliance for the marriage of Paramjeet Kaur, however Daljeet Kaur was not invited since they thought that it would disrupt the possibility of alliance of Paramjeet kaur. Daljeet and Paramjeet had an altercation on this issue as Daljeet felt depressed and very unhappy on being treated as an untouchable. She is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Accused Krishan Anand has stated in his statement that his wife Veena Anand is closely related to the parental side of Daljeet Kaur, wife of his son. His son Karan was having an affair with Daljeet Kaur and they both wanted to get married. However, Paramjeet kaur, elder sister of Daljeet Kaur was still unmarried. His younger son Kuber, during the same period was also having an affair and his would be inlaws at that time, were insisting for early marriage. As such, they requested the parents of Daljeet Kaur for marriage of his son Karan with her since they were under the pressure of in laws of Kuber. However, this was not liked by Gursharan Singh and Paramjeet Kaur, who were against the marriage, since Paramjeet kaur was unmarried and it would spoil her prospects. There was no SC No. 26/1 9 demand of dowry, in the marriage, since it was a love marriage between closely related families. Sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs was not given by parental side of Daljeet. Infact the car was purchased by him from his own funds, after withdrawing part amount from his bank accounts and getting the rest of the amount financed from the bank. After the marriage, there was great love and affection between his son and his daughter in law. His son had gone to Kathmandu along with his wife and had also gone to vaishnu devi.
Karan had to join Qatar airlines in Qatar, where he had to take Daljeet kaur along with him. He applied for her passport, in which she was shown to be wife of his son karan, however, for some period his son had to go alone and after issuance of passport, Daljeet Kaur was supposed to join him. However, Paramjeet Kaur utilised this opportunity to settle her score and objected going of his son to Qatar and also stated that they wanted Daljeet to stay in Delhi itself. His son, as such did not accept the job in Qatar, under the pressure of his in laws.
After the marriage, Daljeet Kaur was never harassed for demand of dowry nor was any demand made at any point of time. She had very cordial relations with coaccused persons and there was great love and affections amongst them.
On the day of incident, family members of Daljeet had to go to finalize an alliance for the marriage of Paramjeet Kaur, however Daljeet Kaur was not invited since they thought that it would disrupt the possibility of alliance of Paramjeet kaur. Daljeet and Paramjeet had an altercation on this issue as Daljeet felt depressed and very unhappy on being treated as an untouchable. He is innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
I have heard Ld APP for State and learned defence counsel for the accused persons and have gone through the evidence adduced with material placed on record.
Finding qua offence u/s. 498A/34 of IPC:
PW1 Gursharan Singh is brother of deceased Daljeet Kaur. He has stated SC No. 26/1 10 that his youngest sister Daljeet Kaur was married to accused Karan Anand on 22/01/2004 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, his sister went to her inlaws house at WZ2024, Rani Bagh, Delhi, where parents of husband of his sister and devar Kuber Anand and his wife used to reside. In the marriage, they had given gold jewellery, T.V., washing machine, cash of Rs. 18,000/ for shagun ceremony and also gave Rs. 1,50,000/ for financing a car. They had spent around Rs. 4,50,000/5,00,000/ in the marriage. From the first day of the marriage, inlaws of his sister i.e. accused Krishan Lochan Anand and Smt. Veena Anand started harassing his sister on the pretext that articles given in the marriage were not according to their desire. As his sister had not brought fridge and airconditioner in the marriage and they had stated to give both these articles later on, so, they were demanding the same. Fatherinlaw of his sister used to take drinks daily. On small pretext as his sister had not taken fridge in the marriage and on objecting by his sister that whatever her fatherinlaw wanted to say, should say to his brother or father in regard to demand of fridge and other items, fatherinlaw of his sister used to beat her. Similarly, motherinlaw of his sister used to beat his sister on the small pretext and also used to taunt her. The above said circumstances were narrated by his sister to him and his parents, when she first came to their house.
PW1 has further deposed that once a bath soap was found missing by his sister and for that, she was given severe beatings by her motherinlaw and when she complained to her husband, she was also beaten by her husband. His sister had also written 23 letters to her elder sister Ms. Paramjeet Kaur and she had also mentioned these facts in those letters. PW1 has identified the said letters dated 02/03/2004, 23/04/2004 and 02/05/2014, which are in the handwriting of his deceased sister as he had seen her writing and signing. The same are Ex. P1 to Ex. P3. He had also given these letters to the SDM at the time of recording of his statement. One diary was also given by him to the IO having admitted handwriting of his sister Daljeet Kaur, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/A. Diary is Ex. P4.
SC No. 26/1 11
PW1 has further deposed that just one day before the death of his sister, in the night at about 8.00 p.m., his deceased sister made a call to her elder sister Paramjeet Kaur on her mobile phone and at that time, he was present along with his sister and his deceased sister told that car make Indica, which was given by them in the marriage, was not according to the standard of her inlaws and they were stating that why they had not given Honda City car in the marriage. She also uttered and requested that they should make her inlaws understand so that they may not demand dowry, otherwise they would kill her. As it was night time, so, she told her sister that they would come in the morning of the next day.
PW1 has further deposed that on 20/11/2005, they received a telephone call from devar Kuber Anand on mobile, at about 7.00 a.m., that his sister had fallen from the stairs and she was taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital. So, he along with his wife and his another sister Paramjeet Kaur went to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where they came to know that they had taken the dead body to the hospital. Her 13 months son was also brought with his sister in the hospital. In the hospital, fatherinlaw of his sister informed him that his sister had jumped from the neighbour's fourth floor roof with her 13 months son. At that time, son of his sister was normal, but even then, he was medically examined. He was suffering from Pneumonia and was discharged after one week. At that time, PW1 got admitted the son of his sister and paid the medical expenses for the treatment. On the same evening, SDM recorded his statement, which is Ex. PW1/B. Statements of his sister Paramjeet and his mother Smt. Balbir Kaur were also recorded. His statement was also recorded by the police in the investigation after some days from the incident. At the time of giving diary of his sister to the police, his statement was not recorded. He had identified the dead body of his sister in the hospital and his statement Ex. PW1/C was recorded in this regard. Thereafter, after postmortem, dead body was handed over to him for last rites. The handing over memo is Ex. PW1/D. PW2 Ms. Paramjeet Kaur is sister of deceased Daljeet Kaur. She has SC No. 26/1 12 stated that she had one sister Daljeet Kaur and has one brother. Marriage of her sister Daljeet Kaur was fixed with accused Karan Anand on 11/11/2003. At the time of Roka ceremony, her father had given one tola gold chain to accused Karan Anand and Rs. 2,100/ in cash. Rs. 500/ each were given to accused Veena Anand and Lochan Anand. The Sagan ceremony took place on 18/01/2004 and at that time, her father had given whirlpool washing machine, Sony colour T.V, Indica car, which was got financed and her father had given Rs. 1.5 lac to accused Veena Anand, motherin law of her sister, one gold kara and one gold ring were given to accused Karan Anand, gold tops were given to accused Veena Anand, one gold ring was given to Kuber Anand and one gold ring was given to accused Lochan Anand. A sum of Rs. 5,100/ in cash was given to accused Karan Anand, Rs. 2,100/ were given to parents and grandparents of accused Karan Anand and expensive clothes were also given to accused persons.
PW2 has further deposed that her sister Daljeet Kaur was married to accused Karan Anand on 22/01/2004 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage took place in the Invitation Banquet Hall. After marriage, her sister went to her matrimonial house in Rani Bagh. The accused persons were not happy with the arrangements of marriage. On 31/01/2004, her father invited the accused persons for lunch. Her sister, her husband, her motherinlaw, fatherinlaw and brotherinlaw came to their residence. They took lunch. Motherinlaw of her sister asked his mother that she was having financial difficulty. She also asked her mother that sufficient cash was not given in the marriage. Her mother told motherinlaw of her sister that she had given cash and dowry articles according to her capacity in the marriage. Thereafter, her sister along with accused persons left their house. After that, she asked her mother to make a call to her sister, at which, her mother made a call to her sister. Her sister told her mother that she cannot tell anything on telephone as her motherinlaw was sitting in front of her.
PW2 has further stated that her mother telephoned the motherinlaw of SC No. 26/1 13 her sister on the occasion of Holi and told her that she wanted to come to their house along with her son. On this, motherinlaw of her sister retorted as to why they wanted to come to their house and handed over the telephone to her sister. Her sister told her mother that her inlaws did not want them to come to their house. In the month of March, 2004, her sister made a call to her in the absence of her inlaws that she was being harassed for payment of installments of car. Immediately after the marriage, accused Karan Anand had applied with Kuwait Airways, declaring himself to be unmarried and asked her sister not to disclose this fact to anybody and because of this reason, her sister was not allowed to visit their house and was also not left alone.
PW2 has further deposed that after the birth of the child, fatherinlaw of her sister demanded a fridge. The fridge was not given as per the demand, so, her sister was taunted by the accused persons. She used to give Rs. 2,000/ and Rs. 2,500/ to her sister so that she could handover the same to her inlaws. Her sister wanted that accused Karan Anand should not go abroad on unmarried status. Accused Lochan Anand used to abuse and beat her sister and accused Veena Anand used to pull the hair of her sister and always threatened her that she would get her son remarried.
PW2 has also identified the letters dated 02/03/2004, 02/05/2004 and 23/04/2004 as Ex. PW2/P1, Ex. PW2/P2 and Ex. PW2/P3 as the same, which were written to her by her sister Daljeet Kaur. She has also identified the diary as Ex. PW2/P4, which her deceased sister used to write.
PW2 has further deposed that on 21/11/2004, marriage of brotherinlaw of her sister was to be performed. On 20/11/2004, she along with her mother, her brother Gursharan Singh, her Bhabhi Jasvinder Kaur and their children went to the house of accused persons at about 9.30 p.m. for ladies sangeet. On 21/11/2004, she reached at the matrimonial house of her sister at 4.00 p.m. When at about 6.00 p.m., her sister was about to leave for beauty parlor, accused Veena Anand told her sister SC No. 26/1 14 that nobody will drop her at beauty parlor as no vehicle was available and accused Karan Anand was also not present in the house. Accused Veena Anand asked her and her sister to go to beauty parlor in rickshaw. She then told accused Veena Anand that they will not go to beauty parlor and will dress up at home. On this, accused Veena Anand started shouting and abusing her sister and asked her sister to leave the child at home and go. In the meanwhile, accused Lochan Anand also came there and started abusing her sister badly. He also tried to beat her sister, but she intervened. All the relatives present there tried to stop accused Lochan Anand from beating her sister. In the meanwhile, accused Karan Anand came there and asked about the matter. He asked his father not to abuse and beat her sister. At that time, accused Lochan Anand asked her sister to bring Rs. 2.5 lacs from her parents, otherwise he would not let her sister live in the house. PW2 left the house of accused persons at about 6/6.30 p.m. for her house. On 23/11/2004, her sister Daljeet Kaur came to their house along with her husband.
PW2 has further stated that in the month of December, 2004, when her sister came to their house, she told her that accused Veena Anand and Lochan Anand used to say to her that her parents had given very less amount in the sagan of her brotherinlaw and also used to say that her parents had not performed her marriage in a decent manner. Her sister also told her that whenever they used to see the marriage video of Kuber Anand, her motherinlaw used to say that she would perform the second marriage of accused Karan Anand, from where, he will get more dowry. When her sister told this to accused Karan Anand, he said that his mother was in the habit of joking. PW2 has further deposed that in the month of March, she had gone to the matrimonial house of her sister and her sister told her that her motherin law had pulled her hair and gave beatings to her because her child was crying and he disturbed the sleep of her son Karan Anand and also that of her and her husband.
PW2 has further deposed that on 19/11/2005 at about 8.00 p.m., she was watching T.V. at her house. She received a call on her mobile from the mobile of SC No. 26/1 15 accused Karan Anand and her sister was calling from the said mobile and she asked her to call back. She immediately called her back and asked her why she had phoned her, while crying, at which, her sister told her that her motherinlaw was saying that Indica car given to accused Karan Anand was not according to their status. She further told her that accused Veena Anand was demanding Honda City car for accused Karan Anand. She asked her sister to keep her cool and that on the next day, they would come and settle the matter. She told about the demand of car to her brother, who was standing near her.
PW2 has further deposed that on 20/11/2005, her Bhabhi knocked the door of her room and told that Kuber Anand had telephoned to her brother and informed that Daljeet @ choti had received injuries and she had been removed to Jaipur Golden Hospital. She along with her Bhabhi and brother reached at Jaipur Golden hospital at 7.30 p.m. None of the accused persons was present in the casualty. She saw accused Karan Anand and Veena Anand coming from the side of Ultrasound department. She rushed towards them and accused Karan Anand met her in the casualty, who told her that Daljeet had gone to the roof at about 5.00 a.m. along with her child Krish to remove clothes, but he did not disclose about the condition of her sister. Accused Veena Anand was also standing by his side. In the meanwhile, ward boy told her that they were wrapping a dead body and asked her to see the same. She saw the dead body, which was of Daljeet Kaur. She called her brother and bhabhi. Her brother enquired from accused Karan Anand as to what had happened to his sister, at which, accused Karan Anand told that they were sleeping and he is not aware what happened to Daljeet Kaur. When she enquired about the child from the doctor, he told that he had been taken for CT scan etc. Doctor told her that her sister was brought dead to the hospital. Her brother informed the police. She went to the house of accused persons along with 34 friends of her brother and saw blood lying in the gali in front of the house, adjacent to the house of accused persons. Her statement was recorded by the SDM, which is Ex. PW2/A. SC No. 26/1 16 Smt. Balbir Kaur is mother of deceased Daljeet Kaur. She has been examined as PW6. She has stated that on 22/01/2004, her daughter Daljeet Kaur was married with accused Karan Anand according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the time of roka, gold chain and Rs. 2,100/ were given to accused Karan Anand, Rs. 1100/ each to accused Veena Anand and Krishan Lochan i.e. motherinlaw and fatherinlaw of her daughter and Rs. 500/ each were given to accused Karan's grandmother, step brother and his wife, of accused Veena, bua and fufa of Karan and devar of her daughter and other gift items.
PW6 has further deposed that prior to the marriage, devar Kuber, father inlaw and motherinlaw of her deceased daughter used to visit her house and they used to pressurize them about giving dowry articles according to their status. Accused Veena had demanded Indica car prior to the marriage and her husband had given Rs. 1.50 lacs to accused Veena for financing Indica car. On 18/01/2004, sagan ceremony was performed and at that time, Indica car was got financed and same was brought at the time of Sagan. At the time of sagan, gold kada and gold ring were given to accused Karan Anand, gold tops were given to motherinlaw, gold ring was given to fatherinlaw and devar of her deceased daughter. Washing machine, T.V. and Rs. 5100/ were given to accused Karan Anand as sagan. Rs. 2100/ each were given to mother and father in law of her daughter, Rs. 1100/ were given to grandmother, grandfather and brother of accused Karan and Rs. 500/ each were given to MamaMami, fufa, bua and other relatives, who were present there, as milni.
PW6 has further deposed that on 22/01/2004, the marriage was solemnised in a banquet hall in Karnal Road and they spent about Rs. 1.50/2.00 lacs on the arrangements of the marriage. At the time of doli, 11 suits were given for her daughter, gold set, chain sets, two rings and other domestic articles like pressure cooker, press, press stand etc. were given. They had also given clothes to all the relatives of accused Karan Anand at the time of Sagan and doli.
PW6 has further deposed that after about one week of the marriage, the SC No. 26/1 17 family members of accused Karan including her daughter came to their house and accused Veena was talking with her and she was searching for an opportunity to talk to her alone and she started shivering. On this, she took her inside the room and she told that they were financially very tight as the retirement benefits were not received by her husband till that time. She further told that they had arranged the marriage of their son within two months despite being financially tight. The devar of her daughter was also present at that time. thereafter, in the evening, they all left along with her daughter. They had also given milanies to them along with fruits and sweets.
PW6 has further deposed that after they left, she discussed the matter with her son, her husband and her another daughter. In the month of February, her daughter Paramjeet Kaur went along with her to the matrimonial house of her deceased daughter and her daughter gave Rs. 15,000/ to accused Veena as she discussed about their financial tightness, when she had visited earlier to her house as mentioned above.
PW6 has further deposed that on every occasion and festival of each year, they had given gifts and clothes to all the family members of accused Karan Anand. The inlaws of her deceased daughter used to taunt her deceased daughter on the issue that whatever gift and clothes they used to give them on the above said occasions, were cheap and of low quality. They also used to torture her deceased daughter mentally and physically and also used to demand money instead of gifts and clothes, while saying that they do not want gifts but money. The father in law of her deceased daughter used to give beatings to her daughter under the influence of liquor. Accused Veena, mother in law of her daughter, also used to give beatings to her daughter. They used to force her daughter to do all the domestic work after removing the maid despite her being pregnant and besides this, she was illtreated.
PW6 has further deposed that on the occasion of birth of son of her daughter, they gave clothes to all the family members of accused Karan and also gave milanies. Whenever, she along with her son Gursharan went to the matrimonial house SC No. 26/1 18 of her deceased daughter to bring her for a week stay, father in law and mother in law of her daughter did not allow her daughter to sit with them and they used to send her deceased daughter with them on some occasions and sometimes, accused Karan Anand also used to accompany her daughter at the time of her visit to their house. Whenever accused Karan visited her house, she gave sagan to him.
PW6 has further stated that one day prior to the death of her daughter Daljeet, a phone call of Daljeet was received from the mobile phone of accused Karan and same was received by her elder daughter Paramjeet Kaur and she informer her that they should not come to her matrimonial home in the night as her father in law used to drink liquor in the evening and will abuse them. Her daughter Daljeet had made the said call as they were to visit her matrimonial house as her inlaws gave beatings to her on that day.
PW6 has further deposed that on the next morning, a telephonic call was received on the mobile phone of her son Gursharan Singh that Daljeet had sustained injuries and she had been taken to Jaipur Golden hospital. The said telephonic call was received from Kuber. On receipt of that call, her son Gursharan along with his wife and her daughter Paramjeet Kaur went to Jaipur Golden hospital. Thereafter, her son made a telephonic call to them and asked them to reach the hospital, so, she along with her grandchildren went to hospital. In the hospital, she saw the dead body of her daughter Daljeet, who was bleeding from the back side of her ear. Thereafter, she asked accused Veena as to what she had done to her daughter, but she remained quite. She also enquired from accused Karan but he did not reply to her. Thereafter, they made a call to police at 100 number and the police reached at the hospital.
PW6 has further deposed that thereafter, she was taken to the PS, where SDM came and recorded statements of her son Gursharan, her daughter Paramjeet and her statement. Her statement recorded by the SDM is Ex. PW6/A. SDM read over her the statements of her son Gursharan and daughter Paramjeet and she admitted them to be correct. Her statement in detail was also recorded by the police. SC No. 26/1 19 She has further stated that her daughter Daljeet had written 23 letters to her sister Paramjeet and the same were read over to her.
PW9 Sh. B.S. Thakur, the then SDM Model Town, has stated that on 20/11/2005, he was posted as SDM Model Town and was looking after the additional charge of SDM Saraswati Vihar. On that day, he received a telephonic message from SHO, PS Saraswati Vihar informing that a lady with her son had fallen from a building causing her death. As the said incident had taken place within seven years of her marriage, intimation was sent to him for inquest. Accordingly, he visited the site and saw the place from where the said lady had fallen. He also found some blood marks on the ground. At that venue, he also met the brother of deceased namely Gurshran Singh and her another sister namely Paramjeet Kaur i.e. PW1 and PW2 respectively. Gursharan Singh gave his statement Ex. PW1/B and the same was got recorded by him through his Reader. The said statement bears the signatures of Gursharan Singh at point A, who appended the said signatures in his presence. He also made his endorsement Ex. PW9/A and directed the SHO to take legal action as per law immediately.
PW9 has further deposed that complainant Gursharan Singh had also given three letters dated 02/03/2004, 23/04/2004 and 02/05/2004 to him and he attested the said letters and photocopies of the said letters are Ex. PW9/B, Ex. PW9/C and Ex. PW9/D. The reference of these letters was also made in the complaint filed by Gursharan Singh. Statement of Paramjeet Kaur Ex. PW2/A was also recorded by his Reader in his presence. Statement of Balbir Kaur, mother of deceased, Ex. PW6/A was also recorded by his Reader in his presence. Thereafter, he made a request for postmortem to the concerned authority of the hospital and the said application is Ex. PW9/E. He also filled up form 25.35 (i) (b) (death report) and the same is Ex.PW9/F. The dead body was also got identified through Gursharan Singh, brother of deceased and Nachhatar Singh vide their statements Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW9/G. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over its relatives by the IO. SC No. 26/1 20
PW4 HC Satyapal Singh has stated that on 20/11/2005, he was posted at PS Saraswati Vihar and on that day, he was working as Duty officer from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. At about 4.30 p.m., he received a complaint duly endorsed by the SDM, Model Town and further endorsed by SHO, PS Saraswati Vihar for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, he registered FIR of this case u/s. 498A/304B/34 of IPC. The same is in his handwriting. He also made endorsement on the original rukka vide DD No. 7A. After registration of the FIR, copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to Inspector Gulshan Kumari for further investigation through Constable Satish. This witness has produced the original FIR register before the Court. Copy of the FIR is Ex.PW4/A and endorsement of the rukka is Ex. PW4/B. PW15 Constable Satish Rathi has stated that on 20/11/2005, he was posted at PS Saraswati Vihar. On that day, DO handed over rukka and copy of FIR to him and he took the same to WZ2024, Rani Bagh and handed over the same to the IO. Thereafter, he came back to PS. It is contended by learned defence counsel for the accused persons that FIR is anti dated and anti time, which is evident from the statement of PW1 Gursharan Singh Ex. PW1/B, wherein on the first page, signatures of the complainant are overlapping the contents of the application. It is further contended that no explanation has been given by the SDM as to why he had made endorsement by the side of page2 of the statement of complainant Gursharan Singh, which shows that statement was fabricated and endorsement of the SDM was obtained on the same. It is further contended that according to the noting of the SDM appearing on second page of Ex. PW9/A, he had mentioned that Gursharan Singh, brother of deceased, has filed a complaint before him and from the complaint of the complainant, it appears quite clearly that offence has been committed by the persons, alleged in the complaint, so, necessary action be taken. It is further contended that this noting shows that complaint was filed in writing before the SDM and he had not recorded or got recorded the statement of the complainant in his presence. It is further contended SC No. 26/1 21 that statement of Paramjeet Kaur Ex. PW2/A is also bearing the endorsement of the SDM that "statement recorded before him", which shows that he had not recorded the statement of Paramjeet Kaur and statement of Balbir Kaur Ex. PW6/A is also bearing the same endorsement i.e. "statement recorded before him", in which, instead of giving the statement, Balbir Kaur told that she had heard the statement of her son and daughter and she is agree with the same, so, the statements recorded by the SDM are not in accordance with law and it seems that the statements were recorded by some other person, on which, SDM had made endorsement for registration of FIR, so, the witnesses cannot be relied upon in this respect.
It is further contended that PW23 Inspector Gulshan Kumari has stated in the cross examination that when she reached in the hospital, parents of deceased, her brother and sister met her and they had not given any statements at that time and they had consulted with themselves prior to giving the statements before the SDM. Gursharan Singh had file the complaint before the SDM on the basis of which FIR was got registered and his statement was not recorded by the SDM nor got recorded through his Reader. Reader was not present at that time, whereas PW9 Sh. B.S. Thakur, the then SDM has stated that he got recorded statement of Gursharan Singh Ex. PW1/B through his Reader. Statement of Paramjeet Kaur Ex. PW2/A was also recorded by his Reader in his presence and of Balbir Kaur, mother of deceased, was also recorded by his Reader in his presence, which shows that SDM has deposed falsely before the Court regarding the proceedings conducted by him.
It is further contended that marriage between the deceased and accused Karan Anand was a love marriage and no previous complaint was given at any time by the deceased or her family members to the police regarding cruelty and harassment caused to her by her inlaws i.e. accused persons. It is further contended that father of the deceased has not been examined in this case, which shows that had he been examined, then truth must have come out. It is further contended that there are contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses regarding the SC No. 26/1 22 cruelty and harassment caused to the deceased on the ground of demand of dowry, which rendering the witnesses i.e. Gursharan Singh, Paramjeet Kaur and Baljeet Kaur unreliable.
It is further contended that they are interested witnesses and accused persons have explained that the marriage between the deceased and accused Karan Anand was not liked by Paramjeet Kaur, sister of deceased, as she was elder and had to be married first, but due to affair of another brother Kuber Anand as his inlaws were pressing for the marriage, the marriage between deceased and accused Karan Anand was performed in a short time. It is further contended that no demand of dowry was ever raised nor seems to be possible because it was a love marriage and according to the witnesses, Rs. 2 to 5 lacs were spent in the marriage, in all. It is further contended that to prove these facts, DW1 Bhim Singh Khattar, father in law of Kuber Anand, brother of accused Karan Anand,has been examined, who has told before the Court that they were pressing for the marriage of their daughter Himani with Kuber Anand, so, on their request, accused Karan Anand was married with deceased Daljeet Kaur and till that time, Paramjeet Kaur, her sister, was unmarried. DW2 Himani Anand i.e. wife of Kuber Anand, brother of accused Karan Anand, has also deposed the circumstances, in which, marriage of accused Karan Anand and Kuber Anand were performed.
To rebut the payment of purchase of Indica car by the accused persons as dowry, for which, family of deceased Daljeet Kaur had given Rs. 1,50,000/, as stated by them, DW2 Himani Anand has stated that they had selected TATA V2 car in the month of December, 2003 and part payment of Rs. 1,59,000/ was made vide receipt Ex. DW2/A, which was withdrawn from the bank i.e. sum of Rs. 50,000/ was withdrawn on 23/12/2003 from State Bank of India, Rani Bagh branch. Certified copy of the passbook of accused Krishan Lochan Anand and Veena Anand is Ex. DW2/B. Another amount of Rs. 50,000/ was withdrawn on the same day from account of accused Karan Anand in State Bank of India, Rani Bagh branch. Certified SC No. 26/1 23 copy of the relevant entry in this regard is Ex. DW2/C. Another amount of Rs. 50,000/ was withdrawn from Punjab National Bank, Rani Bagh branch, from the account of accused Krishan Lochan Anand and Veena Anand and the relevant entry in the passbook is Ex. DW2/D and the rest of the amount was taken on loan from Standard Chartered Bank vide documents Ex. DW2/E. The said car is registered in the name of accused Krishan Lochan Anand. Photocopy of RC is Ex. DW2/F. DW2 has further deposed that no demand of dowry was made from the family of Daljeet Kaur at the time of marriage of accused Karan Anand with Daljeet Kaur as the families were known to each other. It is further contended that DW2 Himani Anand has further deposed that financial position of family of Daljeet Kaur was not good as her father was truck driver living in Janta Flat and her brother was working as mechanic doing repair of fax machine, otherwise there was no occasion to demand any dowry. DW2 has further deposed that all the comforts were provided to Daljeet Kaur and has proved certain document Ex. DW2/H and Mark DW2/X,Y and Z to rebut the fact that accused Karan Anand got issued passport to join Qatar Airlines showing himself to be single.
DW2 has further deposed that on the day prior to the death of Daljeet Kaur, she found her depressed and on asking, she informed that her family members were going to fix the marriage of Paramjeet Kaur and she was not invited and when she tried to discuss with Paramjeet Kaur, she started quarreling with her saying that her marriage had been delayed because of her and she was responsible for the same. DW2 has further deposed that Paramjeet Kaur threatened Daljeet Kaur that she would show the letters written by Daljeet Kaur to her husband, which were in her possession, and then Daljeet Kaur will see the reaction of Karan Anand and how her marriage will survive. DW2 has further deposed that letters before the Court have been misused by Paramjeet Kaur to take revenge. Daljeet Kaur was feeling suffocated and dizzy on betrayal by her sister. There was no demand of Honda City car.
Accused Krishan Lochan has also appeared as a witness u/s. 315 Cr.P.C. SC No. 26/1 24 He has been examined as DW3. He has deposed the same circumstances, in which, marriage of accused Karan Anand was performed. He has also stated that no demand of dowry was made at the time of marriage of accused Karan Anand from the family of Daljeet Kaur and the car was purchased by him from his funds and some amount was taken on loan. He has further deposed that great love and affection was given to Daljeet Kaur after the marriage and she was provided all comforts in a room. He has also deposed that one day prior to the death of Daljeet Kaur, he came to know that family members of Daljeet Kaur were going to fix the marriage of Paramjeet Kaur and Daljeet Kaur was not invited, so, she was depressed and he advised that it should be taken lightly. On the day of incident, he was awaken by the shout in the gali and after coming out, he saw Daljeet along with child lying in the gali. Immediately, he removed both of them to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where Daljeet Kaur was declared brought dead and they have been falsely implicated in this case.
In support of his contentions, learned defence counsel has relied upon 2004 (3) JCC 1515 titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Teg Bahadur & Ors, wherein it has been held that:
"Witnesses/PWs have given different statements regarding demand of dowry and they turned hostile. Death of the woman was due to falling in well. Prosecution failed to prove that just before her death, she was subjected to cruelty on the issue of demand of dowry. Hende, no presumption of guilt under Section113B of Evidence Act can be raised."
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon 2011 (3) JCC 1966 titled as State Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors., wherein it has been held that:
"Deceased died of unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. Trial Court acquitted the accused a merely because deceased committed suicide in the matrimonial home, no inference could be drawn that it must be an outcome of a cruelty or torturous act committed by the respondents or by any of them. Appeal SC No. 26/1 25 against acquittal. There is no complaint made either to the police or to any other authority regarding any demand of dowry or any harassment allegedly meted out to the deceased during her lifetime. There are contradictions as to the time and manner of the alleged demands. Moreover, the evidence is completely lacking to show that any harassment much less than cruelty as envisaged under Sec. 498A was meted out to the deceased. Conclusion reached by the trial court cannot be faulted with. Petition is dismissed."
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon 2010 CRI.L.J. 4664 titled as Hans Raj Sharma and Ors. Vs. State Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, wherein it has been held that:
"Deceased committed suicide at her parents' home. Appellants stated that she committed suicide due to her inability to conceive. Brother of deceased specifically admitted that deceased was physically not fit to bear child. Furthermore, no evidence showing that deceased made any complaint of being subjected to cruelty within meaning of Sec. 498A at any point of time. Solitary instance of asking for money to purchase shop to start business, does not per se constitute dowry to attract provisions of Sec. 498A or S. 304B. Accused entitled to be acquitted."
On the other hand, Ld. APP assisted by counsel for complainant has contended that all the witnesses i.e. Paramjeet Kaur, Gursharan Singh and Baljeet Kaur have fully supported the case of the prosecution and Daljeet Kaur was treated with cruelty and was harassed for demand of dowry, which is selfexplanatory in the letters written by Daljeet Kaur Ex. P1 to P3 and according to the report of handwriting expert, the letters are in the handwriting of deceased Daljeet Kaur. It is further contended that contents of letters are itself explanatory as to in what manner Daljeet Kaur was treated by the accused persons and in consequence of which, she committed suicide.
In support of his contentions, learned APP assisted by counsel for SC No. 26/1 26 complainant has relied upon AIR 1983 Supreme Court 753 titled as Bharwada Boginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat, wherein it has been held that "overmuch importance cannot be given to minor discrepancies."
Learned APP assisted by counsel for complainant has further relied upon AIR 1998 Supreme Court 958 titled as Pawan Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana, wherein it has been held that:
"Bride was repeatedly taunted, maltreated and mentally tortured right from next day of marriage. There was quarrel between wife and husband only a day before her death leading deceased to commit suicide. Presumption as to dowry death under S. 113B Evidence Act not rebutted by accused husband."
According to the evidence brought on record, marriage of deceased was performed on 22/01/2014 and she died on 20/11/2005. She was having a 13 months child, when she jumped from fourth floor of neighbour's house. Case was registered on the statement of Gurcharan Singh, brother of deceased. Besides the contentions of Ld defence counsel as to whether this statement was recorded by SDM himself or he got recorded from his reader or it was pre recorded , on which he made endorsement in police station, the allegations made by Gursharan Singh in the complaint Ex.PW1/B are to the extent that accused all three used to harass the deceased.
Before the date of incident, at about 8.00 pm, Paramajeet Kaur, sister of deceased was contacted by deceased and she has stated that her mother in law was saying that the indica car, which was given in the marriage was not according to the status of her husband and atleast Honda city car could be given. She had further told that as fridge was not given, so her father in law had taunted her many times and fridge was demanded otherwise she used to go to ground floor to fetch the milk for her child. She was also beaten by the accused persons and her father in law used to abuse to deceased after consuming liquor in excess. So, in all there are 23 allegations only, one is that the deceased was being harassed and taunted, SC No. 26/1 27 secondly Honda city car was demanded in place of indica car and fridge was also demanded. Statement of Paramjeet Kaur, sister of deceased was also recorded, which is Ex.PW2/A, for which similar objections were raised by Ld defence counsel regarding the manner of recording of the same. She has agreed with the statement of her brother Gurcharan Singh and has further alleged that her sister was being threatened by her mother in law to the extent that she will perform second marriage of accused Karan Anand and she also used to beat her sister and also used to taunt for giving less dowry. Statement of Smt Balbir Kaur Ex.PW6/A is to the extent that she agreed with the statement of her son and daughter.
Now before the Court, Gurcharan Singh has been examined as PW1. He has stated that in the marriage they had given gold jewellery, TV, washing Machine, cash of Rs. 18,000/ for shagun ceremone and they had also given Rs. 1,50,000/ for financing a car. He has further deposed that his sister was harassed on account of not bringing fridge and air conditioner and they have asked to give both these articles later on and on this account, his sister was also beaten.
In the cross examination, PW1 has stated that Rs. 1,50,000/ were given by his father to accused persons from his own funds, which he had received after sale of a flat in Dwarka. The said amount was given to accused Lochan Anand and his wife after the roka ceremony.
PW1 has further deposed in the cross examination that the payment was made in cash and further he has admitted that Rs. 1,50,000/ were not given by his father in his presence . However, he came to know about the same, so he is not an eye witness to the fact that Rs. 1,50,000/ was given by his father to accused persons at roka ceremony for financing the car, whereas according to DW2 Himani Anand and DW3 Krishan Lochan Anand they got financed the Indica Car from their own sources, which were withdrawn from their bank account.
PW1 Gurcharan Singh is not an eye witness to the payment of amount and father who had paid the amount is not a witness to the case of prosecution nor SC No. 26/1 28 he has been examined before the Court. PW1 has stated that his sister was harassed on account of not bringing fridge and air conditioner and in the complaint also he had alleged that his sister was harassed on account of not bringing the fridge in the marriage. Even PW1 has been confronted about the demand of Rs. 1,50,000/ in the marriage on his sister, which is not appearing in the alleged statement Ex.PW1/B stated to be recorded by the SDM.
In further cross examination, PW1 has not been able to depose the date of the demand, when he came to know about the demand of fridge or demand of air conditioner. He came to know about the allegations from his sister Paramjeet Kaur and his mother after the death of his sister Daljit Kaur, which shows that Daljit Kaur had never told about the cruelty and harassment caused to her by the accused persons face to face, to her brother. In further cross examination, PW1 has admitted that he has seen the refrigerator in the room of his sister, after the marriage because the old fridge was being used as almirah. This fact itself is in contradiction with the complaint of this witness Ex PW1/B, where he had alleged before the SDM that his sister was taunted for fridge when she used to go to ground floor to fetch milk for child and on this account fridge was demanded.
PW2 Paramajeet Kaur has made allegations to the extent that her father had given Rs. 1,50,000/ to the mother in law of her sister, which is contradictory to the deposition of PW1 Gursharan Singh, who had stated that he came to know that this amount was given to Krishan Lochan Anand and Veena Anand. She has further made allegations that accused persons were not happy with the arrangements of marriage. On 31/01/14, her father invited accused persons for lunch and mother in law of her sister asked her mother that she was having financial difficulty and after pointing out that sufficient cash was not given in the marriage.
She has further deposed that in the month of March 2004, her sister made call to her in the absence of her in laws that she was being harassed for payment of installment of car and after the birth of child, her father in law demanded fridge. SC No. 26/1 29 Fact of demand of fridge is also in contradiction with the statement of PW1. PW2 has further deposed that she used to give Rs. 2000/ or Rs. 2500/ to her sister to hand over the same to her in laws. Father in law of her sister used to abuse her sister and used to beat her sister with accused Veena Anand and she was also threatened that the accused Karan Anand would get remarried. Thereafter, PW2 had deposed about the incident of marriage of Kuber Anand, devar of her sister on 21/11/2004, when she and her sister wanted to go to the beauty parlour and car was not provided to them and they were asked to go in rickshaw but they refused to go in rickshaw, on which accused Veena Anand started shouting and abusing her sister. Accused Lochan Anand also came and he also started abusing her sister badly and he tried to beat her sister. Meanwhile Karan Anand and he asked not to abuse and beat Daljit Kaur, at that time accused Lochan Anand asked her sister to bring Rs. 2.5 lacs from her parents otherwise he would not let her sister live in the house .
PW2 has further deposed that she left the house of the accused persons at about 6/6.30 pm, for his house. In the month of December 2004, when her sister came to their house, her sister told her that accused Veena Anand and Lochan Anand used to say her that her parents had given very less sagan in the to her brother in law and they also used to say that her parents had not performed her marriage in a decent manner. PW2 has further deposed before the court that on 19/11/2005, she received a call on his mobile from the mobile of accused Karan Anand and asked her to call her back and when she called her back, she told that her mother in law was saying that indica car given to accused Karan Anand was not according to his status and that accused Veena Anand was demanding Honda City car for accused Karan Anand. All these facts have not been alleged by PW2 in her statement given to the SDM and the facts about the incident taken place at the time of marriage of devar of deceased Daljit Kaur on 21/11/2004 and demand of Rs. 2,50,000/ made earlier, so she has been confronted with all these facts.
In the cross examination, PW2 has also affirmed that Rs. 1,50,000/ was SC No. 26/1 30 given out of the sale consideration of the flat by her father.
In further cross examination, PW2 has stated that her sister had disclosed about the demand of fridge when she came on the festival of Rakhi prior to her death. They were told at the time of fixing of marriage that the accused had purchased a new fridge in addition to an old fridge, which they had already have but she does not know whether the said fridge was purchased by the accused persons. She had not seen new fridge 1 or 2 months prior to the marriage of her sister when they visited the house of accused persons. She was informed by her sister that old fridge has been kept in her room and her in laws were insisting to purchase a new fridge. Voluntarily she has stated that they do not want to give a new fridge as per their demand as the TV given by them in dowry was not kept in the room of her sister. She has also been confronted with certain facts for which she has made improvements regarding the facts as disclosed by her that accused Veena Anand had told that they were in financial difficulty, regarding the fact that she used to hand over Rs. 20002500/ to her sister to further hand over the same to her in laws.
PW6 Smt Balbir Kaur, mother of deceased had given a very short version before the SDM but before the Court she has stated that lots of articles and cash were given in the marriage and prior to the marriage, her husband had given Rs. 1,50,000/ to accused Veena for financing Indica Car and on 18/01/2004, Shagun Ceremony was performed and at that time indica car was got financed and same was brought at the time of sagan. After about one week of the marriage, the family members of accused Karan including her daughter came to their house and at that time mother in law of her daughter told that they were in financial difficulty. After that, she discussed the matter with her son and daughter. In the month of February, her daughter Paramjeet Kaur went along with him to the matrimonial house of her deceased daughter and her daughter gave Rs. 15,000/ to accused Veena. This fact has not been disclosed either by PW1 Gursharan Singh or by PW2 Paramjeet Kaur but according to this witness, her daughter gave Rs. SC No. 26/1 31 15000/ to accused Veena Anand, so this is also an improvement made by her. She has further deposed that accused persons wanted money instead of good and clothes and they used to harass and torture her daughter and they also used to beat her daughter.
In the cross examination, she has admitted that whatever she has deposed before the Court was not told to the SDM by her in statement Ex.PW6/A. She has been confronted with certain facts, which were not disclosed by her earlier. According to her further cross examination, Rs. 1,50,000/ were given by her husband to accused Veena for financing the car and the same were from the savings of her late husband, which is again contradictory as PW1 and PW2, who have stated that amount was given from the part of sale consideration of the flat, which was used by their father. Beside the statements of PW1 Gurcharan Singh, PW2 Paramajeet Kaur and PW6 Dalbir Kaur, there are three letters, which were written by deceased Daljit Kaur during her life time i.e. Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW9/D. These are signed by deceased Daljit Kaur on 02/03/2004, 23/04/2004 and 02/05/2004 and these were taken into possession by the SDM on 20/11/2005 from Gurcharan Singh. These letters have been examined by the FSL with the specimen handwriting of deceased in a diary and according to the report of FSL, it is found to be handwriting by deceased Daljit Kaur. FSL report is Ex.PW22/A, which has been proved by Ms Deepa Verma, Deputy Director, FSL Rohini. She has been cross examined at length and PW1 and PW2 were also cross examined at length about handing over these letters to the SDM but nothing came out from their cross examination to disbelieve their testimonies. Even PW1 and PW2 have been cross examined about handwriting of deceased Daljit Kaur but nothing material came out from the same to disbelieve their testimonies.
These letters have been written to Paramjeet Kaur. According to first letter Ex.PW9/B, it is written that deceased Daljit Kaur was not allowed to have talk on phone with her family members as at the same time, accused Veena Anand used to sit SC No. 26/1 32 nearby her and started making inquiries. Her mother in law used to taunt her about the dowry given in the marriage and she was harassed on very small things. She was scolded badly by her mother in law once, when bath soap went missing from the bathroom and her mother in law also started keeping away accused Karan Anand from deceased and she was not taken outside by her husband. It is further written that after two months of the marriage, they were not having any love and affection towards her.
In the letter Ex.PW9/C, she has written that she is very disturbed and she does not know whether she will remain in this world or not till the letters will be received by her sister . Her husband had applied in Qatar Airlines, showing himself to be unmarried and when job offer was received, it was mentioned that he could come back after about one year and when she asked as to what will happen to her then her mother in law said that after one year Karan would perform court marriage with her and would take her, on which she refused. Then her father in law started scolding her and stated that in all circumstances they will send Karan outside and also stated that they had financed the car only and who will pay installment of the car. Either the installment will be paid by family members or Karan will go outside and and till that time, she will remain there. She was insulted by her father in law in presence of all the family members and she was taunted that her parents had given nothing and that they had demanded Rs. 2100/ but only Rs. 5100/ were given. Her father in law also used to say that she should ask her family members to pay installment of car and when she refused, her father in law threatened her to throw out of the house. In the last, she has written that she was unable to bear all this harassment and cruelty and she does not know till what time this all will go and she will do something to herself, which would end this torture and probably accused persons also wanted the same so that they could perform second marriage of accused Karan.
According to third letter Ex.PW9/D, again she has made certain allegations SC No. 26/1 33 regarding torture and harassment to the extent that she has been stopped from going outside or talking with neighbour. Her mother in law, used to get done all the household jobs from her and harass her while she used to eat meal, so she could not eat proper meal. From these letters, which have been proved before the Court, given by PW1 Gurusharan Singh to SDM, it is proved that these have been written by deceased Daljit Kaur and what has emerged is that mother in law and father in law had tortured and harassed her on various small issues and the installment of the financed car was demanded. On account of non payment of the same, she was threatened to be thrown out of the house. Letter Ex.PW9/C shows the mental condition of the deceased as she was unable to bear this torture and harassment and she was having something in mind to do something with herself to end all these sufferings.
In the last, it is mentioned that car was got financed by the family members of deceased but there is nothing mentioned about the demand of fridge in any manner. Nothing was demanded before the marriage but the demand of the payment of installment of car was raised after the marriage and on nonfulfillment of the same, she was threatened by her father in law that she would be thrown out of the house.
In view of above discussion, the contradictions in the statements of PW1 Gursharan Singh, PW2 Paramjeet Kaur and PW6 Balbir Kaur on certain facts are minor in nature, even though, they have not corroborated each other on certain facts, but one fact has been corroborated and proved beyond reasonable doubts from their testimonies that Indica car was financed by the inlaws of deceased Daljit Kaur by paying Rs. 1,50,000/, but the said amount was given in cash, so, for getting financed the car, the payment was required to be made through cheque or demand draft, hence, the money lying in the bank accounts of accused persons was utilized and it is also established and proved beyond reasonable doubts from the letters written by deceased Daljeet Kaur Ex. PW9/B, Ex. PW9/C and Ex. PW9/D. SC No. 26/1 34 In the letter Ex. PW9/D, Daljeet Kaur has specifically written that her motherinlaw and fatherinlaw were demanding payment of installments of the car and on nonfulfillment of the same, she was threatened by her fatherinlaw that she will be thrown out of the house. Neither witnesses have deposed anything against accused Karan Anand nor any allegation has been made by deceased Daljeet Kaur in the letters written by her Ex. PW9/B to Ex. PW9/D to the extent that accused Karan Anand was acting in furtherance of the common intention of his parents or had raised any demand of dowry at any time, but accused Krishan Lochan Anand and Veena Anand taunted deceased Daljeet Kaur for demand of dowry and she was asked to demand the installments of the Indica car from her parents and on nonfulfillment of the same, she was threatened that she will be thrown out of the house.
The judgments relied upon by learned defence counsel are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The witnesses have corroborated about the finance of Indica car by them, with each other and the same is also corroborating with the letters written by deceased Daljeet kaur during her lifetime Ex. PW9/B to Ex. PW9/D, which have been proved to be in the handwriting of deceased, so, prosecution has been able to prove offence u/s. 498A/34 of IPC against accused Krishan Lochan Anand and Veena Anand beyond reasonable doubts, for which, both are held guilty and convicted for the same.
As nothing has been proved against accused Karan Anand to the extent that he had treated with cruelty and harassed the deceased during her lifetime for demand of dowry, so, prosecution has not been able to prove offence u/s. 498A/34 of IPC against accused Karan Anand in any manner, for which, he is acquitted. Findings qua offence u/s. 304B/34 of IPC:
PW8 Hindpal has stated that he has been running a tent house at WZ1998, Rani Bagh, Delhi. He does not remember the date, month or year, however, on the relevant day, at about 6.307.00 a.m., he saw one lady namely SC No. 26/1 35 Daljeet lying in the gali and after seeing her, he made a call at 100 number to the police. On being putting leading question by the ld. APP, the witness has admitted that relevant date was 20/11/2005.
PW23 Inspector Gulshan Kumari has stated that on 20/11/05, she was posted as Addl. SHO PS Saraswati Vihar and after registration of this case, investigation was handed over to her. Thereafter, she collected the MLC of Daljeet Kaur and Master Kartikaye. On the same day, she reached at the spot, where she met with the crime team. Crime team had inspected the scene of occurrence and crime team photographer took the photographs of place of occurrence.
PW16 SI Suraj Bhan has corroborated with PW23 Inspector Gulshan Kumari and has stated that on 20/11/2005, he was posted as incharge of Mobile Crime Team, NorthWest District. On that day, he received message on wireless set to reach at H.No. WZ2024, Rani Bagh, Delhi, along with his team. He along with photographer Ct Sushil and finger print proficient HC Dharampal reached at the spot in government vehicle. At the spot, SI Yashpal Singh, I/C PP Rani Bagh along with other staff was present. He inspected the site. SI Yashpal briefed them about the site stating that one female had tried to commit suicide by jumping from fourth floor and that the victim had been removed to hospital. There were blood stains in front of the building, where victim had fallen. IO was told to collect earth control sample and blood stained earth sample. They also inspected the fourth floor i.e. the place from where the said victim had jumped. One shawl was found lying on the water tank. IO was asked to seize the said shawl. Photographs of both the places were taken by the photographer at the instructions of the IO. He prepared detailed inspected report and handed over the same to the IO at the spot. The same is Ex. PW23/D. IO recorded his statement in this regard.
PW12 Constable Sushil Kumar has further corroborated with PW23 and PW16 and has stated that on 20/11/2005, he was posted in Mobile Crime Team, NorthWest district as constable and was working as photographer. On that day, at SC No. 26/1 36 the request of IO PW23 Inspector Gulshan Kumari, he along with I/C crime team PW16 SI Suraj Bhan reached at the spot, where as per the directions of IO, he took seven photographs of the spot from different angles and after developing the same, he handed over the said photographs to the IO, which are Ex. PW12/A1 to A7 and the negatives are Ex. PW12/B1 to B7.
PW23 Inspector Gulshan Kumari has further stated that she had prepared the rough site plan of place of occurrence Ex.PW23/A. She had collected earth control blood from blood stained RCC from the spot and after keeping them in three separate plastic dibbis. These were sealed with the seal of GK and were taken into possession by her. Earth control was taken into possession vide Ex.PW13/B. Blood was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW13/Aand RCC was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW13/C. One blanket of baby size was also taken into possession from the top floor i.e. fourth floor of the adjacent house. Pullanda of blanket was also prepared by her, which was sealed with the seal of GK and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW18/A. At that time, she had recorded the statements of concerned witnesses. Thereafter, she came back to PS and deposited the case property in malkhana.
PW23 has further deposed that on the next day, postmortem on the body of deceased Daljeet Kaur was got conducted by the SDM . After the postmortem, the inquest papers were filled up by SDM. Dead body of deceased was handed over vide handing memo Ex.PW1/D. After postmortem, doctor handed over to her sealed viscera petti, sealed pullanda of clothes of Daljeet Kaur, sealed envelope containing blood gauze piece of Daljeet Kaur and three samples seals, which were taken into possession vide Ex.PW23/B. Thereafter, she came back to PS, where case property was deposited in malkhana.
PW23 has further stated that on 20/11/05, when the investigation was handed over to her, she had collected the copies of concerned DD entries from Duty Officer and also recorded the statements of brother Gursharan Singh, mother Balbir SC No. 26/1 37 Kaur and sister Paramjeet Kaur of deceased on 20/11/05 and brother of deceased Gursharan Singh had produced three letters to SDM, which were written by deceased on 02/03/04, 23/04/04 and 02/05/04 and these were taken into possession by her vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/C. On the same day, all the three accused persons i.e. Karan Anand, husband of deceased, Smt Veena Anand, mother in law of deceased and Krishan Lochan Anand, father in law of deceased were arrested from their house vide memo Ex.PW13/D, Ex.PW13/F and Ex.PW13/E. She also collected their personal searches vide memo Ex.PW13/G, Ex.PW13/J and Ex.PW13/H. Thereafter, all the accused persons were produced before concerned court and were remanded to JC.
PW23 has further deposed that on 18/12/05, Gursharan Singh, brother of deceased had produced one old diary of blue colour containing admitted handwriting of deceased Daljeet Kaur and told that the said diary was of his deceased sister Daljeet Kaur and writings in that diary was of his sister Daljeet Kaur. The diary was of the year 1995. It was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/A. During the course of investigation, she got prepared the scaled site plan by SI Manohar Lal, who had visited the spot on 04/01/06 and prepared rough notes and measurements, on the basis of which, he prepared scaled site plan.
PW7 SI Manohar Lal, draughtsman, has corroborated with PW23 Inspector Gulshan Kumari and has stated that on 04/01/2006, he was posted as Draughtsman in NorthWest district. On that day, IO Inspector Gulshan Kumari called him at PS Sarawati Vihar. Accordingly, he reached there and from there, he along with HC Om Prakash went to the spot, where at the instance of HC Om Prakash, he inspected the spot and took rough notes and measurements, on the basis of which, he prepared scaled site plan Ex. PW7/A on 05/01/2006 and handed over the same to the IO after one or two day. After preparation of the scaled site plan, he destroyed the rough notes and measurements.
PW23 Inspector Gulshan Kumari has further deposed that during the course of investigation, the exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini. She had also collected the SC No. 26/1 38 postmortem report Ex. PW5/A. Death report Ex. PW3/B was also collected. Diary Ex.P4 and letter dated Ex.P2/P1, P2 and P3 are the same, which were taken into possession by her from brother of deceased. After completion of investigation, she had prepared the challan against all the accused persons and filed before the Court and FSL result was obtained later on, which thereafter was filed in the Court.
She has identified the cemented material, having brown stains, as Ex. P6, cotton wool swab, having brown stains, as Ex. P7 and cemented material described as earth control (RCC) as Ex. P8, which were lifted by her from the spot and also one baby size blanket as Ex. P9,which was taken into possession from the spot.
PW14 Constable Suresh Kumar has stated that in the intervening night of 1920/11/2005, he was posted as constable at PP Rani Bagh of PS Saraswati Vihar and was working as DD Writer from 10 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. On that day, at about 7.01 a.m., a wireless message was received from control room and on the basis of the same, he recorded DD no. 2 and thereafter, copy of the same was handed over to HC Rajesh, who left for the spot along with Constable Resham. The witness has produced original DD register before the Court. True copy of DD No. 2 dated 20/11/2005 is Ex. PW14/A. PW14 has further stated that on the same day at about 7.30 a.m., he again received information from Ct Hamil of Jaipur Golden Hospital, on the basis of which, he recorded DD No. 4 dated 20/11/2005 and thereafter, copy of the same was handed over to Ct Bijender for handing over the same to HC Rajesh. The witness has produced original DD register before the court. True copy of DD No. 4 is Ex. PW14/B. PW11 Ct Bijender Kumar has corroborated with PW14 and has stated that on 20/11/2005, he was posted at PP Rani Bagh of PS Saraswati Vihar and on that day, he was given DD no. 4 PP Rani Bagh to handover the same to HC Rajesh and accordingly, he reached at the spot i.e. H.No. WZ2024, Rani Bagh and handed over the said DD to HC Rajesh. His statement was recorded by the IO. SC No. 26/1 39
PW21 HC Rajesh is the first IO of the case. He has stated that on 20/11/2005, he was posted at PP Rani Bagh of PS Saraswati Vihar. On that day, on receipt of copy of DD No. 2, he along with PW10 Ct Resham reached at the spot i.e. H.No. WZ2024, Rani Bagh, and when he reached there, he received another DD no. 4 through PW11 Ct Vijender and on receipt of the same, he left PW10 Ct Resham at the spot and himself reached at Jaipur Golden Hospital, where he collected MLC no.
7381 of Smt. Daljeet Kaur Anand, on which, the doctor had opined Daljeet Kaur Anand as brought dead. He also collected one more MLC No. 7382 regarding Kartik Anand, aged about one year.
PW21 has further deposed that after receiving both the MLCs, he came back to the spot, where Addl. SHO Gulshan Kumari met him there and he handed over both the MLCs and copies of DD No. 2 and 4 to her as per the directions of senior police officials. His statement was also recorded by the IO in this respect.
PW10 Ct Resham Singh has deposed the same facts as of PW21 HC Rajesh regarding accompanying PW21 HC Rajesh to the spot and receiving of DD no. 4 through Ct Bijender by HC Rajesh.
PW18 Inspector Yashpal has deposed the same facts regarding recording of DD No. 2 and DD no. 4 as of PW14 Constable Suresh Kumar and assigning the same to PW21 HC Rajesh. He has further deposed that thereafter, being incharge of PP Rani Bagh, he along with HC Om Prakash i.we. PW13 ASI Om Prakash reached at the spot, where PW10 Ct. Resham met them. On reaching there, they came to know that injured along with her minor son had already been removed to Jaipur Golden Hospital. Thereafter, he along with PW13 ASI Om Prakash reached at Jaipur Golden Hospital, where PW21 HC Rajesh met them. At that time, HC Rajesh was having the MLCs of both the injured and informed that doctor declared the lady brought dead. Thereafter, he gave information to the SHO PS Sarawati Vihar in this regard. SHO Inspector Gurbachan Singh also reached at the hospital with staff and he told all the facts to the SHO. Thereafter, SHO gave information to SDM, Saraswati SC No. 26/1 40 Vihar.
PW18 has further deposed that thereafter, he along with HC Om Prakash reached at the spot and SHO also left the hospital. At the spot, blood was lying in the gali. At about 5/5.30 p.m., Addl. SHO Inspector Gulshan Kumari reached at the spot i.e. PW23. PW18 has further corroborated with PW23 Inspector Gulshan Kumari regarding lifting and seizing of the exhibits from the spot vide memos Ex. PW13/A to Ex. PW13/C, Ex. PW18/A, got preparing of site plan, seizing of three letters Ex. PW9/B to Ex. PW9/D vide memo Ex. PW1/DA, arrest of all the three accused persons vide memos Ex.PW13/D to Ex. PW13/F and conducting of their personal searches vide memos Ex. PW13/G to Ex. PW13/J. He has further deposed that on 30/12/2005, he got sent the exhibits to FSL, Rohini through Ct Resham.
PW13 ASI Om Prakash has deposed the same facts as of PW18 Inspector Yashpal and that of PW23 Inspector Gulshan Kumari.
PW19 ACP Gurbachan Singh has stated that on 20/11/2005, he was posted as SHO, PS Saraswati Vihar. On that day, information was received through wireless at PP Rani Bagh that one woman had fallen along with a child at H.No. 2024, Rani Bagh, Delhi. He went to the place of incident. He came to know at the spot that injured had already been removed to Jaipur Golden Hospital. He also proceeded to the hospital. The woman had been declared brought dead by the doctor concerned. Mother, brother and sister of the deceased met him in the hospital. On inquiry, he came to know that deceased had not yet completed seven years of marriage, so, he informed the concerned SDM. SDM came to the spot and recorded statement of Gursharan Singh, brother of the deceased in the PS vide Ex. PW1/B. The SDM then made endorsement upon the statement of Gursharan Singh vide Ex. PW9/A and directed that he should take action as per law. Accordingly, he made endorsement and directed registration of case u/s. 498A/304B/34 IPC and also marked the investigation to Addl. SHO Inspector Gulshan Kumari. The endorsement made by him is Ex. PW19/A. SC No. 26/1 41 PW17 ASI Om Prakash has stated that on 20/11/2005, he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Saraswati Vihar. On that day, PW23 Addl. SHO Inspector Gulshan Kumari i.e. PW23 had deposited four sealed parcels with the seal of GK with him and he made entry in register no. 19 against serial No. 3324 in this regard. Photocopy of the said entry is Ex. PW17/A. PW17 has further deposed that on 21/11/2005, PW23 Addl. SHO Inspector Gulshan Kumari had also deposited four sealed parcels with the seal of FMT BJRM HOSPITAL, DELHI along with sample seal with him and he made entry in register no. 19 against serial no. 3328 in this regard. Photocopy of the entry is Ex. PW17/B. PW17 has further deposed that on 30/12/2005, one parcel i.e. wooden box containing viscera duly sealed with the seal of FMT, BJRM HOSPITAL along with sample seal was sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct Resham Singh vide RC No. 319/21/05 and he made entry in this regard in register no. 19. Photocopy of the same is Ex. PW17/C. PW17 has further deposed that on the same day, Ct Resham Singh handed over the acknowledgment receipt to him regarding depositing the sealed parcels in FSL. Photocopy of RC is Ex. PW17/D and photocopy of acknowledgment receipt is Ex. PW17/E. The exhibits as long as remained in his possession, he did not tamper with the same and same remained intact. This witness has produced the original register no. 19 and RC register before the Court.
PW10 Constable Resham Singh has corroborated with PW17 and has stated that on 30/12/2005, MHC(M) handed over one parcel containing viscera to him and he took the same to FSL vide RC no. 319/21 and deposited the same in FSL, Rohini. After depositing the abovesaid parcel, he handed over the acknowledgment receipt to the MHC(M). Till the parcel remained with him, it was not tampered with by him in any manner.
PW10 has further deposed that on 02/01/2006, MHC(M) handed over six parcels sealed with the seal of BJRM Hospital FMT & GK to him and he took the same to FSL vide RC No. 321/21/05 and deposited the same in FSL, Rohini. After SC No. 26/1 42 depositing the abovesaid parcels in FSL, Rohini, he handed over the acknowledgment receipt to the MHC(M). Till the time said parcels remained with him, it was not tampered with by him in any manner.
PW20 Sh. V. Shankar Narayan, SSO (Biology), FSL Rohini, Delhi, has stated that on 02/01/2006, five sealed parcels were received in the office of FSL Rohini, Delhi in connection with this case. The same were marked to him for examination. He found the seals intact on the abovesaid parcels and the same tallied with the specimen Seal. He opened the abovesaid parcels.
PW20 has further deposed that parcel No.1 contained Ex. 1a, Ex. 1b , Ex. 1c and Ex. 1d i.e. one ladies shirt having brown stains, which was marked as Ex. 1a, one brasier having brown stains, which was marked as Ex. 1b, one salwar having brown stains, which was marked as Ex. 1c and one underwear, which was marked as Ex. 1d. Parcel No.2 was opened and was found to contain brown gauze cloth piece described as blood gauze piece marked as Ex. 2. Parcel No.4 was found containing cemented material having brown stains, which was marked as EX. 4. Parcel No. 5 contained cotton wood swab having brown stains marked as Ex. 5 and parcel No.6 contained cemented material described as earth control (RCC), marked as Ex. 6.
PW20 has further deposed that on examination, he found blood on Ex. 1a, Ex. 1b, Ex. 1c , Ex. 2 ,. Ex. 4 and Ex. 5, whereas blood could not be detected on Ex. 1d and Ex. 6. His detailed biological report in this regard is Ex. PW20/A. PW20 has further deposed that abovesaid parcels were also examined by him serologically. On serological examination, human blood was found on Ex. 1a, Ex. 1b, Ex. 1c, Ex.2, Ex. 4 and Ex. 5. EX. 1a, Ex. 1b, Ex. 1c and Ex. 2 gave reaction for human blood group A. Ex. 4 and Ex. 5 gave no reaction regarding blood group. Ex. 6 gave no reaction for human origin. He also prepared his serological report in this respect, which is Ex. PW20/B. After examination, the remnants of the exhibits were resealed with the seal of "VSN FSL Delhi".
PW20 has identified the ladies shirt as Ex. P1, brasier as Ex. P2, salwar as SC No. 26/1 43 Ex. P3 and underwear as Ex. P4, brown gauze cloth piece described as blood gauze piece as Ex. P5, cemented material having brown stains as Ex. P6, cotton wool swab having brown stains as Ex. P7 and cemented material described as earth control (RCC) as Ex. P8,which were examined by him.
PW22 Ms. Deepa Verma, Deputy Director, FSL Rohini, Delhi, has stated that on 30/12/05, he was working as Senior Scientific Officer and on that day, documents for examination were received in FSL from the office of SHO, PS Saraswati Vihar, Delhi vide memo dated 30/12/05 in connection with this case. The question documents were marked as Q1, Q1/1, Q2, Q2/1 and Q3 purported to be of deceased Daljeet Kaur written to her sister in letters dated 02/03/04, 23/04/04 and 02/05/04 respectively and the standard writings and signatures of deceased were marked as A1 to A42. She had examined the questioned and standard documents using various scientific instruments and after examination, she was of the opinion that the person, who wrote the red enclosed writings, stamped and marked as A1 to A42, also wrote the red enclosed Hindi writings similarly stamped and marked as Q1/1, Q2/1 and Q3. She had also prepared her report regarding her examination. The same is Ex. PW22/A. PW22 has further deposed that she had also mentioned the detailed reasons for her opinion. After examination, the documents were resealed with the seal of "DOC FSL" in the presence of authorized person, who came to collect the exhibits and report.
PW22 has identified the questioned documents, Q1, Q1/1, Q2/1, Q2 and Q3 alongwith one dairy containing admitted handwriting and signatures of deceased Daljit Kaur i.e. A1 to A42 as Ex.PW2/P1 to P3 and diary as Ex. PW2/P4, which were examined by her.
Admittedly marriage of deceased had taken place with accused Karan Anand on 22/01/2004 and she died on 20/11/2005 under un natural circumstances within seven years of marriage.
SC No. 26/1 44
Only the third ingredient is to be seen whether soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relative of her husband in connection with demand of dowry.
PW1 Gursharan Singh has stated that on 20/11/2005, they received a call from the devar Kuber Anand on mobile at about 7.00 am that his sister had fallen from the stairs and she had been taken to Jaipur Golden hospital. He along with his sister Paramjeet Kaur and his wife went to Jaipur Golden hospital and there they came to know that they had taken the dead body to the hospital. Her 13 months son was also brought with her sister in the hospital. PW1 has further deposed that in the hospital, her father in law informed him that her sister had jumped from the neighbourer's fourth floor roof with 13 months son.
PW2 Paramjeet Kaur has stated that on 20/11/2005, she was informed by her bhabhi informed her that Kuber Anand had telephoned to her brother and informed him that Daljit @ Choti had received injuries and she had been removed to Jaipur Golden hospital at 7.30 pm, so she alongwith her bhabhi and brother reached at Jaipur Golden hospital at 7.30 pm. None of the accused was present in the casualty. She had seen accused Karan Anand and Veena Anand coming from the side of Ultrasound department. She rushed towards them and Karan Anand met them in the casualty, who told that Daljit had gone to the roof at about 5.00 am alongwith her child Krish to remove clothes. In the meanwhile she came to know that Daljit Kaur had died. Then inquiry was made from accused Karan Anand as to what had happened. He told that they were sleeping and he does not know what had happened to Daljit Kaur. Doctor had told that her sister was brought dead in the hospital.
According to PW6 Balbir Kaur, from the hospital, she received a call from her son to reach at the hospital, so she alongwith her grandchildren reached there and she saw the dead body of her daughter Daljit as she was bleeding from the back side of her ear. Thereafter, she asked accused Veena as to what she has done SC No. 26/1 45 to her daughter but she remained quite. She also enquired from accused Karan but he did not reply to him. Thereafter, they made a call to police at no.100 and the police reached at the hospital.
Ld defence counsel has contended that in her deposition, PW2 Paramajeet Kaur has stated that Karan Anand had informed her in the hospital that Daljit Kaur had gone at the roof at about 5.00 am along with her son Krish to remove clothes and it is further contended by Ld defence counsel that it was the month of November and at about 5.00 am due to darkness, it seems that under these circumstances Daljit Kaur had fallen down from the roof and she had not committed any suicide. It is further contended that even otherwise, if at all, she had committed suicide then it was not due to the demand of dowry on account of which she was allegedly tortured and harassed rather she was feeling depressed and dejected as she was not called in the finalization of marriage alliance of her sister Paramjeet Kaur, before the day of incident.
It is further contended that DW2 Himani Anand has stated that she found Daljit Kaur depressed and on her asking the reason, she informed her that her family members were going to fix the marriage of Paramjeet Kaur on the next day and she was not invited.
It is further contended that PW2 has also admitted in the cross examination that her family members had to go for the finalization of her marriage on the day before the incident had taken place. Her sister was informed about the finalization of her marriage, however, she was not called for that purpose by her family and her sister had told that the accused should be informed after the finalization of the marriage. It is further contended by ld defence counsel that even if it is presumed that she had committed suicide then it was not on account of cruelty or harassment allegedly caused to her on account of demand of dowry.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that in respect of the fact that Daljit Kaur with her child had fallen accidentally from the roof , PW5 Dr Anil SC No. 26/1 46 Shandil has been cross examined at length.
I have gone through the cross examination of PW5 Dr Anil Shandil who had conducted postmortem on the dead body of Daljit Kaur, according to whom, cause of death was shock resulting from carniocerebral damage, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and consistent with fall from height.
In the cross examination, PW5 has stated that he has not expressed any opinion whether the manner of fall was accidental, suicidal or homicidal and in conclusion, he has stated that accidental cause of death cannot be ruled out but in my view, if Daljit Kaur had gone to remove clothes from the roof of the house then she was not required to go to the top floor of the neighbour's house and also with her child in the early morning at about 5.00 am. Although a baby blanket was seized from the roof of the house but no one has been able to depose or the same has also not been revealed from the circumstances as to why Daljit Kaur required baby blanket in the morning at about 5.00 am, which was to be removed from the roof of the house. Moreover, as per the prosecution, she had jumped from the roof of the neighbour's house and if she had gone to remove the clothes from the roof then she was not required to go to the roof of the neighbour's house, in any manner.
The opinion of PW5 to the extent that accidental cause of death cannot be ruled out is mere possibility, which has to be seen from other circumstances also and in view of the normal human conduct as discussed above, deceased Daljit Kaur was not required to go to the roof at about 5.00 am to remove clothes with her child in the month of November, so this explanation is not acceptable in any manner, as disclosed by accused Karan Anand in the hospital to PW2.
The second contention of Ld defence counsel that according to DW2, she was depressed as she was not invited in the finalization of marriage alliance of her sister Paramjeet Kaur and she was feeling dejected is also not acceptable as PW2 has stated in the cross examination that she had talked with Daljit Kaur in this respect, who had told that accused should be informed after the finalization of SC No. 26/1 47 marriage. Moreover, in my view, it could not be a reason for Daljit Kaur to commit suicide as she was already married and why on this account, she along with her child would go to the roof in the early morning at about 5.00 am in the month of November 2005. Moreover, if it had been accidental then the child could not be with her and the baby blanket, which was found on the roof should have been in her hands, while she was found lying in the gali after falling from the roof of the fourth floor. According to the explanation given by accused Karan Anand in her statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, on the day of incident, family members of the Daljeet had to go to finalize an alliance for the marriage of Paramjeet Kaur, however Daljeet Kaur was not invited since they thought that it would disrupt the possibility of alliance of Paramajeet Kaur. Daljeet and Paramjeet had an altercation on this issue as Daljeet felt depressed and very unhappy on being treated as an untouchable. In the night, she said she was feeling very dizzy and suffocated and he tried to console her before going to sleep.
Accused Veena Anand has also given the same explanation as of accused Karan Anand . Similarly, accused Krishan Lochan Anand has also given the same explanation as of the other accused persons.
In defence, DW1 Bhim Singh Khattar has been examined. He is father in law of devar Kuber Anand. He has deposed about the circumstances in which marriage of Karan Anand and Daljeet Kaur had taken place and that too without any demand of dowry.
DW2 Himani Anand wife of Kuber Anand has also deposed the same facts in which marriage of her jeth and jethani had taken place. In respect of the incident in question, she has stated that one day prior to the death of Daljeet Kaur, she informed her that her family members were going to fix the marriage of Paramjeet Kaur on the next day and she was not invited. She also told that when she tried to discuss this with Paramjeet Kaur, Paramjeet Kaur started quarreling with her saying that her marriage was delayed because of her and she was responsible for staying at SC No. 26/1 48 parental house and if she accompanies the family members, even this alliance would not fructify. Daljeet informed that quarrel ensued between them and Paramjeet Kaur threatened Daljeet that she would show the letters written by her to her husband, which were in her possession and then, she will see how Karan would react and how her marriage would survive.
DW2 has further deposed that on her asking with regards to the letter, she informed that when Karan was adamant to go to Qatar, her sister Paramjeet Kaur thought that his parents were instigating him and She was induced to write a few letters at that time, so as to pressurize Karan, same letters were being misused and Daljeet stated that she was feeling very suffocated and dizzy on betrayal by her sister.
I have gone through the letters produced before the Court and proved as ExPW9/B, Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW9/D. Same are not in any manner seems to be written under any pressure from their flow. Neither there is any evidence to the extent that these letters were written by Daljit Kaur under any inducement.
In support of his contentions, learned defence counsel has relied upon 2011 CRI. L.J. (Supp) 231 titled as Shindo alias Sawinder Kaur and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, wherein it has been held that:
"Unnatural death of woman taking place within seven years of marriage. However, fact that demand for dowry was made soon before death, not proved. Presumption under S. 113B cannot be raised. Conviction of accused set aside."
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon 2006 (1) C.C. Cases (SC) 37 titled as Harjit Singh V. State of Punjab, wherein it has been held that:
"No evidence brought on record to show that there has been any act of omission or commission on part of accused, before death of deceased to demonstrate that appellant was responsible for the same. Prosecution has not been able to prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty within meaning of Section 498A. No case that SC No. 26/1 49 deceased committed suicide is made out. In case of unnatural death of a married woman, husband could be prosecuted u/s. 302,304B and 306. It is not in all cases that an accused may be held guilty of commission of an offence u/s. 306 wherever the prosecution fails to establish charge u/s. 304B. Prosecution has failed to establish any case against appellant. Conviction is set aside."
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon 2009 (4) JCC 3185 titled as Sanjay & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), wherein it has been held that:
"When the prosecution has failed to establish the main ingredient of Sec. 304B that the deceased was harassed in relation to dowry demand soon before her death, it is not right in drawing a presumption of guilt against the deceased under Sec. 113B Evidence Act. Thus prosecution failed to prove the guilt under Secs. 498A and 304B IPC and once the charge u/s.304B fails, it is difficult to hold that the appellants have intentionally destroyed the evidence of their guilt by hastily cremating the deceased."
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon 2009 (3) JCC 1840 titled as Raman Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, wherein it has been held that:
"No incidence of demand of dowry or cruelty or harassment 'soon before death'. Letter relied on shows demand of articles by her parents by her own and not on the behalf of appellant. Improvements in the statements of prosecution witness. Prosecution squarely failed to establish accusations against appellant. Appeal is allowed. Conviction is set aside."
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon 2012 (1) JCC 340 titled as Vinita & Anr. Vs. State N.C.T. of Delhi, wherein it has been held that:
"Presumption under Section 113B Indian Evidence Actoperation of conditions for same would arise if prosecution is able to establish the ingredients set out in Sec. 304B IPC, which are (i) that the death of the woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances (ii) SC No. 26/1 50 such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage (iii) soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband (iv) such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand of dowry (v) such cruelty or harassment must have been made soon before her death."
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon 1998 CRI. L.J. 1105 titled as Meka Ramaswamy v. Dasari Mohan and others, wherein it has been held that :
"Evidence of parents of deceased and her friend that deceased committed suicide as a result of cruelty of husband and inlaws for not meeting dowry demands. No evidence that dowry was demanded before or at the time of marriage. Deceased in fact was married at instance of her inlaws. Also no mention of demand of dowry or illtreatment in letter written by deceased to her friend. Finding that evidence of parents and friend of deceased was not reliable was proper. Acquittal of accused persons upheld."
On the other hand, learned APP for State assisted by counsel for complainant has relied upon VI (2006) SLT 551 titled as Thakkan Jha & Ors Vs. State of Bihar, wherein it has been held that:
"Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act would not be drawn against accused, if it is shown after alleged demand, cruelty or harassment dispute stood resolved and there was no evidence of cruelty or harassment thereafter."
Learned APP for State assisted by counsel for complainant has further relied upon AIR 1998 Supreme Court 958 titled as Pawan Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana, wherein it has been held that:
"Agreement for dowry is not always necessary. Persistent demands for TV and scooter made from bride after marriage or from her parents, such demands can be said to be in connection with marriage, would constitute a case falling within SC No. 26/1 51 definition of "dowry" under S. 2 and S. 304B IPC."
Learned APP for State assisted by counsel for complainant has further relied upon 2014(2) JCC 1257 titled as Ramesh Vithal Patil V. State of Karnataka & Ors., wherein it has been held that:
"Deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage. Sec. 113A of Evidence Act is clearly attracted to this case. Presumption contemplated therein must spring in action. Prosecution has led evidence to establish cruelty or harassment caused to the deceased. Foundation for the presumption exists. The appellant, however, has led no evidence to rebut the presumption. It can be safely concluded in the facts of this case that the appellant abetted the suicide of the deceased."
It has been further held that:
"When a married woman jumps in a river along with her small child, within seven years of marriage, prosecution leads reliable evidence to establish harassment caused to her in her matrimonial house in connection with demand of money. Accusedhusband leads no evidence to prove to the contrary to the logical and legal conclusion that must follow is that she committed suicide and her suicide was abetted by her husband."
Cause of death PW3 Dr. Pradeep Dua has stated that on 20/11/2005, at about 7.10 a.m., Daljeet Kaur Anand was brought to casualty by accused Karan Anand with the alleged history of fall as told by husband Karan Anand. On examination, patient was not responding to vocal commands or pains stimuli bilateral pupils were dilated and fixed. Spontaneous respiration and heart sounds were absent. Blood pressure was not recordable and peripheral pulses were not palpable. Local examination bilateral ear bleed and right nasal bleed were present. There was depressed fracture over left parieto occipital area. Patient was declared brought dead. He prepared the MLC Ex. SC No. 26/1 52 PW3/A. He also prepared the death report, which is Ex. PW3/B. PW5 Dr. Anil Shandil has stated that on 21/11/2005, he was posted as SR at BJRM hospital. On that day, he had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Daljeet Kaur, aged 28 years female, sent by SDM Model Town PW9 Sh. B.S. Thakur, PS Saraswati Vihar with the alleged history as per brief facts that a woman has fallen to death from the roof. On local inquiry, it was revealed that on her fall, the woman died instantaneously on the spot, but the child with whom she had fallen survived. Actually, no one saw the woman jumping from the roof. The height of the place from where she jumped was approximately 45 feet.
PW5 has further deposed that on examination, he had observed certain external and internal injuries. In his opinion, all the injuries were antemortem in nature and postmortem findings were consistent with fall from height. Cause of death was shock resulting from cranio cerebral damage, injury to spinal cord, liver, spleen, kidneys with cumulative effect of polytrauma, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Time since death was approximately about 1¼ of day.
PW5 has further deposed that clothes, blood in gauze piece, blood and viscera for chemical analysis and preservative common salt were preserved, sealed and handed over to concerned official. Postmortem report is in his handwriting and the same is Ex. PW5/A. The last incident of demand of dowry, according to PW2 Paramjeet Kaur, is of 19/11/2005. According to PW2, on 19/11/2005, at about 8.00 p.m., she was watching T.V. at her house. She received a call on her mobile from the mobile of accused Karan Anand and her sister was calling from the said mobile and she asked her to call back. She immediately called her back and asked her why she had phoned her, while crying, at which, her sister told that her motherinlaw was saying that Indica car given to accused Karan Anand was not according to his status and further told that accused Veena Anand was demanding Honda City car for accused Karan SC No. 26/1 53 Anand. She asked her sister to keep cool as on the next day, they will come and settle the matter.
This fact has been told by PW1 Gursharan Singh in his statement given to the SDM Ex. PW1/B, but the call was attended by PW2 Paramjeet Kaur. PW2 Paramjeet Kaur has been cross examined on this aspect and in the cross examination, she has stated that she was present in the drawing room, when she received the telephonic call from her deceased sister prior to one day of the incident. At that time, her mother was in the kitchen, while her brother and her Bhabhi were present in the drawing room. She does not remember whether her brother, mother and Bhabhi had a talk with her sister at that time. Her mobile number was 9810692693. They did not take any action in the night because she told her sister that they will come in the morning. The did not make any complaint to the police on that day. She had talked with her sister for about 10 minutes on that day.
It has been brought on record that on the next day, incident had taken place, so, there could not be any possibility of taking action against the accused persons on this incident of demand of Honda City car as one day prior to the incident, demand of Honda City car was raised by accused Veena Anand, which was informed by deceased Daljeet Kaur to her sister on telephone. It is not unnatural that deceased Daljeet Kaur had a talk with her sister because she was feeling comfortable with her sister, while talking with her about the cruelty and torture caused by her inlaws on account of demand of dowry.
On the other hand, according to DW2 Himani, wife of Kuber Anand, Devar of deceased Daljeet Kaur, she found the deceased depressed and on asking, she informed that her family members were going to fix the marriage of Paramjeet Kaur and she was not invited. Daljeet Kaur also told that when she tried to discuss with Paramjeet Kaur, she started quarreling with her saying that her marriage was delayed because of her and she was responsible for her staying at parental house and if she accompanies the family members, even this alliance will not fructify. Daljeet Kaur SC No. 26/1 54 had further told that a quarrel ensued between both of them and Paramjeet Kaur threatened that she will show the letters written by Daljeet Kaur to her husband, which were in her possession, and then she will see the reaction of accused Karan Anand and how her marriage will survive.
DW2 has further deposed that on her asking about the letters, Daljeet Kaur told that when Karan was adamant to go to Qatar, her sister Paramjeet Kaur thought that his parents were instigating him and she was induced to write a few letters to pressurize Karan. DW2 has further stated that there was no demand of Honda City car one day prior to the death of Daljeet Kaur.
So, one one hand, according to complaints, one day prior to the incident, they were informed by deceased Daljeet Kaur that accused Veena Anand was demanding Honda City car according to the status of accused Karan Anand and was not satisfied with the Indica car, whereas according to DW2, Daljeet Kaur was depressed on account of being not called in the settlement of marriage of her sister, which was going to take place on the next day. This fact has not been disputed by PW2 Paramjeet Kaur, but she has stated that Daljeet Kaur had told in this respect that accused persons be informed after fixing the marriage.
In my view, after considering the circumstances, it seems to be improbable that on this small issue that Daljeet Kaur was not invited by the complainants in fixing the marriage of Paramjeet Kaur, was not so grave, which could instigated and abet Daljeet Kaur to commit suicide in the early morning at about 5.00 a.m. with her child because she was already married and fixing of marriage of Paramjeet Kaur was not affecting her marriage in any manner, rather the view of harassing her on account of demand of dowry seems to be more probable because since beginning, she was treated with cruelty and was harassed on account of demand of dowry by accused Veena Anand and Krishan Lochan Anand, which is also reflecting from the letters written by Daljeet Kaur Ex. PW9/B to Ex. PW9/D. The fact as deposed by PW2 Paramjeet Kaur that call was made by her sister from the mobile phone of accused SC No. 26/1 55 Karan Anand has not been rebutted in any manner. More so, DW2 Himani Anand being daughter in law of the accused persons is an interested witness and she has deposed in a manner to save the accused persons, so, she cannot be relied upon.
Accused Karan Anand failed to uphold the dignity and status of his wife in his family, while she was being harassed and was treated with cruelty by her parents inlaw i.e. accused Veena Anand and Krishan Lochan Anand. He never resisted the acts of accused persons to save his wife from the harassment and cruelty caused to her. Even accused Karan Anand has not been able to bring on record his passport,which allegedly was applied showing himself to be unmarried, but neither in the complaints nor before the Court either of the complainant has deposed any act on the part of accused Karan Anand to the extent that he had harassed or treated with cruelty to deceased on account of demand of dowry. There is no evidence that he was acting with coaccused persons in furtherance of their common intention of demand of dowry.
In view of above, the judgments relied upon by learned defence counsel are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. One day before the death of Daljeet Kaur, demand of Honda City car was raised as Indica car was not according to the status of accused Karan Anand and this fact was disclosed by the deceased on the mobile phone of her sister PW2 Paramjeet Kaur. The testimony of PW2 Paramjeet Kaur in this respect is unrebutted and unshaken. The defence raised by the accused persons that the deceased was upset because she was not called in the fixing of marriage of her sister does not seem to be probable under the circumstances, in which, the deceased had committed suicide with her child in the morning at about 5.00 a.m. , while jumping from the roof of the neighbour's house. Even otherwise, DW2 Himani Anand, wife of Kuber Anand, devar of deceased Daljeet Kaur, is an interested witness being daughterinlaw of accused persons, hence, she cannot be relied upon. So, there was demand of Honda City car soon before her death. Daljeet Kaur died under unnatural circumstances during seven years of her marriage and SC No. 26/1 56 prior to this demand also, she was treated with cruelty and was harassed on account of nonfulfillment of demand of dowry, particularly demand of payment of installments of Indica car, which earlier was financed by the parents of deceased at the time of marriage.
The accused persons have also not been able to rebut the presumption of dowry death u/s. 113B of Indian Evidence Act.
Accordingly, prosecution has been able to prove offence u/s. 304B/34 of IPC against accused Krishan Lochan Anand and Veena Anand beyond reasonable doubts, for which, both are held guilty and convicted for the same.
There is no evidence to prove that accused Karan Anand was acting in furtherance of common intention of his parents in the demand of Honda City car as dowry soon before her death. Accordingly, prosecution has not been able to prove offence u/s. 304B/34 of IPC against accused Karan Anand in any manner, for which, he is acquitted.
Announced in the open court (Virender Kumar Goyal)
today on 20th of September, 2014 Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts,Delhi.
SC No. 26/1 57