Delhi District Court
State vs Sandeep on 8 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA: ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST DISTRICT:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
SESSIONS CASE No. 44989/15
CNR No. DLNE01-000540-2014
FIR No. 883/14
P.S. Bhajanpura
U/s : 498A/304B/34 of IPC
STATE
Versus
(1) Sandeep
s/o Sh. Karmpal
R/o H. No. G-17/9, Madhu Kunj,
Gali near Sani Bazar, (expired and proceedings
North Ghonda, Delhi abated vide order dt. 30/11/23)
(2) Raj Rani @ Rajjo Rani
w/o Sh. Karmpal
R/o H. No. G-17/9, Madhu Kunj,
Gali near Sani Bazar,
North Ghonda, Delhi
Date of Institution : 31-10-2014
Date of Argument : 12-11-2024
Date of Judgment : 08-01-2025
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of this case are that on 02-07-2014 at about 6 pm, an information was received from Duty Ct. Bhopal Singh of JPC Hospital at PS Bhajanpura that one lady namely Alka w/o Sandeep, aged 20 years old, r/o H. No. B-17/9, Madhu Kunj Gali, near Shani Bazar, North Ghonda, Bhajanpura, Delhi was got SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 1 of 53 admitted by her husband in an unconscious state with history of consuming some unknown medicine. The information was reduced into writing vide DD no. 34A (Ex. PW2/A) and the same was marked to HC Dinesh (hereinafter referred to as first IO/ Investigating Officer). Thereafter first IO went to JPC hospital where he found aforesaid Alka admitted, he collected MLC of the patient wherein the doctor concerned declared her unfit for statement. The doctor concerned had handed over one sealed pulanda containing gastric lavage of the patient Alka alongwith one sample seal, which were taken into police possession vide seizure memo vide memo Ex. PW2/B. Thereafter, IO came back at the PS and narrated the afore-said facts to the SHO concerned. The IO met father of the victim namely Anil Kumar and other people. During inquiry, the IO came to know that victim Alka was got married with Sandeep in the year 2013. The SDM concerned and senior police officials were intimated. On 09-07- 2024, an information regarding death of victim Alka at GTB hospital was received vide DD no. 4A (Ex. PW5/C), which was assigned to SI Mehmood Khan (hereinafter referred to as 2 nd IO/ Investigating officer). Thereafter, 2nd IO produced the father of deceased namely Anil Kumar, uncle of deceased namely Rishipal before concerned Executive Magistrate. Sh. Anil Kumar stated that about one year ago, his daughter Alka got married with one Sandeep, who is also residing at the Madhu Kunj gali, Shani Bazar, Subhash Vihar, North Ghonda, Delhi along with his mother, against wishes of the family. During this one year of marriage, his daughter Alka called him 3-4 times and stated that her mother-in-law and husband Sandeep used to beat her and used to insist her to ask for money for purchasing one bike from SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 2 of 53 him, to which he responded by saying that he could not do anything as she had married of her own will. As and when her daughter reported to him about the harassment committed upon her by her husband and mother-in-law, he considered the same to be trivial matter. On 03-07-2014, accused Sandeep called him and reported that Alka was ill and got admitted in ICU of JPC hospital. He immediately went to the hospital along with his wife Raj Rani where he found his daughter admitted in unconscious condition. On 05-07-2014, his daughter was referred to GTB hospital. On 08-07-2014, his daughter passed away. He raised suspicion that his daughter had passed away on account of being administered poison by the accused Sandeep and his mother. He requested to take action against the aforesaid suspects. On the basis of afore-said statement of Anil Kumar, present FIR came to be registered and further investigation was assigned to Inspector Sudhir Kumar (hereinafter referred to 3rd IO/ Investigating officer). During investigation, the 3 rd IO recorded statements of witnesses, prepared site plan, got inspected the spot through Crime Team and got the spot photographed. On 22-07-2014, accused Sandeep had surrendered himself in the concerned court and with the permission of Ld. MM, accused Sandeep was interrogated and arrested. Three days PC remand of accused was obtained and co-accused was searched. During investigation, advocate of accused Sandeep had handed over one suicide note, photocopy of marriage certificate etc., which were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/C. On 19-08-2014, IO collected PM report of deceased Alka wherein it was reported that cause of death shall be given after receipt chemical analysis report of SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 3 of 53 viscera and gastric lavage sample sent to CFSL/ FSL.
On 29-08-2014, the complainant came to the PS and produced one plastic bottle having label of Netro Cleaner having about 100 ml of liquid, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/F. Thereafter, further investigation was assigned to Inspector Jaswant Singh on 17-10-2014. Since the co-accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo Rani was absconding, the IO obtained her NBWs from the concerned court. The IO recorded statement of Crime Team members, collected scene of crime report and photographs. After completion of investigation, the IO initially filed chargesheet against the accused Sandeep. On 31-10-2014, three sealed parcels, containing viscera, gastric lavage and sample seal were sent to FSL through Ct. Banwari Lal. On 04- 11-2014, Smt. Preeti (cousin of deceased) and Smt. Raj Rani (mother of deceased) came to PS. Smt. Preeti had produced one memory card containing audio recording of conversation dated 02-07-2014 between her, deceased Alka and husband of deceased. The said memory card was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW17/A. Thereafter, proceedings u/s 82 of Cr.P.C. was got initiated against accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo Rani. On 06-02- 2015, the above-mentioned Smt. Preeti again visited the PS and produced one CD containing conversation dated 02-07-2014, which she had got prepared from afore-said memory card with the help of her brother. Thereafter, IO got prepared transcript of the conversation, which had taken place between the deceased, her cousin Preeti and her husband-accused, which is Ex. PW26/A1 to Ex. PW26/A-5. The voice of concerned persons in the aforesaid recording had been recognized by Smt. Preeti. The afore-said CD was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW17/B. On SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 4 of 53 12-02-2015, the IO moved an application for taking voice sample of accused, which was allowed vide order dated 12-02-2015 of concerned court. On 18-02-2015, accused Sandeep was produced from Tihar jail at FSL. Smt. Preeti, Smt. Raj Rani and Anil Kumar were also produced at FSL for the purpose of taking their voice sample. The expert had taken voice samples of Smt. Preeti, Smt. Raj Rani and accused Sandeep one by one and same were saved in three separate CDs. On 03-03-2015, four sealed parcels containing memory card, one CD containing conversation, three audio cassettes containing voice sample and three other CDs seized by Inspector Sudhir containing conversation were sent to FSL Rohini for analysis and matching voice of concerned persons with CDs and memory card and voice sample. During investigation, the IO also collected CDRs of mobile phone of Smt. Preeti, Anil Kumar and phone of deceased Alka. From the analysis of CDRs, it was learnt that deceased Alka and accused Sandeep were using one phone bearing no. 9210829945. It was also learnt that on the date of incident, the deceased Alka had talked with her cousin Preeti and her mother Raj Rani. Earlier, deceased had also talked with her cousin Preeti and deceased used to talk with her father on phone. On 12-01-2015, accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo Rani was arrested by SI Shahid Khan at Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Thereafter, supplementary chargesheet was filed against accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo Rani. During trial, FSL expert opinions dated 18-02-2016, 27-11-2015 and 06-01-2017 were collected by the IO and placed on record.
COMMITTAL
2. After taking cognizance and compliance of section 207 of SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 5 of 53 Cr.P.C., the present case was committed to the Courts of Sessions vide order dated 20-10-2014 by the Ld. MM/KKD 'qua' accused Sandeep. The same was allocated by the then Ld. District and Sessions Judge to the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Subsequently, supplementary chargesheet qua accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo Rani was filed and, the same was committed to the Courts of Sessions.
CHARGE
3. After hearing the arguments and finding that prima facie case was made out against the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s 498A/304B/34 of IPC, charges were framed by ld. Predecessor against accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution got examined as many as 33 witnesses.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. (i) PW1 Ct. Rajender was the police official who had collected sealed wooden box containing viscera along with sample seal from the mortuary of GTB hospital, which was seized by HC Dinesh Kumar vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, he had deposited the afore-said parcels with MHCM. He deposed correctly about the role performed by him.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(ii) PW-2 Ct. Sonu was the investigating police official who had accompanied first IO HC Dinesh Kumar (PW5) at JPC hospital on 02-07-2014. He deposed on the same lines on which HC Dinesh Kumar has deposed, whose testimony shall be dealt with later on.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 6 of 53 but nothing material came out therein.
(iii) PW-3 Ct. Khushi Ram was the investigating police official who had joined the investigation of the present case with Inspector Sudhir Kumar on 22-07-2015 during arrest of accused Sandeep. He deposed on the same lines on which Inspector Sudhir Kumar (PW18) has deposed, whose testimony shall be dealt with later on.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(iv) PW4 Sh. Madan Lal was the Executive Magistrate, who had conducted inquest proceedings on 09-07-2014. He has proved the statement of Sh. Anil Kumar, which was recorded in his office by the SDM as Ex. PW4/A; One written request dated 09-07-2014 of Sh. Anil Kumar addressed to SDM as Ex. PW4/B; Statement of Sh. Rishipal and Sh. Anil Kumar recorded at mortuary of GTB hospital by SI Mehmood Khan as Ex. PW4/C and Ex. PW4/D respectively; Inquest form filled up by SI Mehmood Khan on his direction as Ex. PW4/E; written request for conducting postmortem examination as Ex. PW4/F; copy of death report filled up by the IO as Ex. PW4/G and directions in writing to the SHO, PS Bhajanpura for taking taction u/s 498A/304B/34 of IPC as Ex. PW4/H. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(v) PW5 HC Dinesh Kumar deposed that on 02-07-2014, he was posted at P.S. Bhajanpura. On that day, he was on day emergency duty and was busy in the area of P.S. at about 6 P.M. Contents of DD No. 34A dated 02.07.2014 were passed on to him by the Duty Officer through phone. It came into his notice SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 7 of 53 that one Smt. Alka, W/o Sandeep Giri aged about 20 years, R/o B-1719, Madhu Kunj, Shani Bazar, North Ghonda was got admitted by husband in Jag Parvesh Hospital in an unconscious state with history of consuming some unknown medicines. He alongwith Ct. Sonu reached Jag Parvesh Hospital in pursuance of aforesaid information at about 6.20 P.M. He collected MLC of patient Alka Giri already Marked PW4/1. At that time, patient was unconscious and doctor had declared her unfit for statement on her MLC. At that time, husband of the patient was also not present there. One person told him that he was friend of Sandeep Giri, who had gone somewhere else after admission of patient. No other person met him there from the family of either Sandeep or from the parental side of patient Alka Giri. History was given by the brought by person that digestion of unknown poisoning substance 45 minutes before at home. Doctor had given one sealed small bottle containing Gastric Lavages of patient Alka as sample alongwith one sample seal to him which was taken into possession by him in presence of ct. Sonu vide seizure memo already Ex.PW2/B bearing his signature at point B. No clue come forward in the hospital about the incident hence he left the Jag Parvesh Hospital and reached at P.S. where he narrated the aforesaid facts of this case to the SHO and deposited the aforesaid sealed parcel and sample seal in intact condition with MHCM. He kept pending DD No.34A. He visited Jag Parvesh Hospital twice for the purpose of recording the statement of patient but she was declared unfit to make statement by the doctors on both the aforesaid occasions.
On 05.07.2014, it came into his notice from Duty Ct. of GTB Hospital that patient Smt. Alka was shifted there from Jag SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 8 of 53 Parvesh Hospital, then he visited GTB Hospital at about 9 A.M. on 06.07.2014 and met with injured but she was unconscious and doctor had made endorsement to this effect on the MLC Mark PW4/1 at encircled portion A. On next day, he again visited GTB and patient Alka Giri was declared unfit to make statement by the doctor at about 10 P.M. At that time, father of patient Alka Giri namely Anil Kumar had met him there. He interrogated Anil Kumar and recorded his statement, same is Ex.PW5/A which bears signature of Anil Kumar at point A and he attested the same at point B. Thereafter, he returned to P.S and narrated the aforesaid facts to the SHO and on the same day, at about 10.30 P.M. He recorded DD No.7B, same is Ex.PW5/B. Prior to recording of DD No. 7B dated 08.07.2014, he had informed SDM concerned about the facts of under treatment of patient Alka in GTB Hospital as incident had taken place within seven years of marriage of Alka. He had told to SDM that patient Alka was unconscious. He had been advised by the SDM to make call again as and when patient regain consciousness.
On 09.07.2014, at about 1.20 A.M. information regarding death of Alka was received at P.S. Bhajanpura on which DD No.4A was recorded. Copy of DD No.4A is Ex.PW5/C which was assigned to SI Mehmood Khan to take action in the matter. He had passed on information to SDM about the death of Alka as he had been advised earlier. He alongwith SI Mehmood reached at the office of SDM on 10.07.2014 where father of deceased namely Anil Kumar had met them. SI Mehmood had produced Anil Kumar before SDM to record his statement. He had also visited mortuary on that day. Executive Magistrate reached there, SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 9 of 53 inquest proceedings were completed by Executive Magistrate by help of SI Mehmood, some writing work was done by SI Mehmood during inquest proceedings, dead body was identified by Anil Kumar and one other relative. Executive Magistrate left the mortuary after giving direction to SI Mehmood to release the dead body after postmortem examination. Postmortem examination was conducted on the same day and dead body was released to the father of deceased. They returned to P.S. He further deposed that on 17.07.2014, he was directed by IO Insp. Sudhir Kumar to collect the sealed viscera box and postmortem report. He alongwith Ct. Rajender reached at mortuary and collected the same. He seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/A which bears signature of Ct. Rajender at point A and his signature at point B. He returned to P.S and deposited the sealed parcel containing viscera material alkongwith sample seal with MHCM in intact condition. He also handed over PM report to IO. So long as sealed parcel containing viscera material and sample seal remained with him, nobody tampered with same.
He added that on 22.07.2014, he had again joined investigation with Insp. Sudhir Kumar. On that day, he alongwith IO visited the spot. IO prepared site plan of spot in his presence and IO had also called crime team officials there. E.S. Yadav inspected the same and prepared SOC report. Photographer Ct. Zile Singh had taken photographs of the spot. Thereafter, they left the spot and returned to P.S. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(vi) PW-6 ASI Kartar deposed that he was posted with Duty SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 10 of 53 Ofifcer HC Ranbir on 09-07-2014 at PS Bhajanpura. He has proved DD no. 4A as Ex. PW6/A, which was in connection with information received regarding death of Alka at GTB hospital.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(vii) PW-7 SI Lalu Oraon was Duty Officer posted at PS Bhajanpura on 11-07-2014. He has proved the endorsement made by him on the photostate statement of Anil Kumar, which was endorsed by the SHO concerned as Ex. PW7/A; endorsement made by him vide DD no. 38A as Ex. PW7/B and he registered the FIR vide Ex. PW7/C. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(viii) PW8 HC Zile Singh was the photographer of the Crime Team. He has proved the photographs clicked by him from different angles at the instance of IO as Ex. PW8/A1 to Ex. PW8/A4 and negatives thereof as Ex. PW8/B-1 to Ex. PW8/B-4.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(ix) PW9 SI E. S. Yadav was the in-charge of Crime Team who had inspected the spot. He has proved the scene of crime report prepared by him as Ex. PW9/A. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(x) PW10 HC Charat Lal was also Duty Officer posted at PS Bhajanpura at the relevant time. He has proved DD no. 34A as Ex. PW2/A, which was in connection with information received regarding admission of deceased Alka at GTB hospital on 02-07- 2014 by her husband with history of consuming unknown SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 11 of 53 medicine.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xi) PW11 HC Pradhan Singh was the investigating police official who was assigned the task of depositing one notebook and 11 sheets having writing material from the custody of MHCM to FSL on 17-10-2014. He deposed correctly about the role performed by him. He has proved the photocopy of relevant road certificate as Ex. PW11/A and acknowledgment from FSL as Ex. PW11/B. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xii) PW12 Retd. SI Mehmood Khan deposed that on 09-07- 2014, copy of DD no. 4A Ex.PW5/C in connection with death of Alka in GTB hospital was assigned to him. He visited the mortuary of GTB hospital where HC Dinesh and Executive Magistrate Sh. Madan Lal were present. The Executive Magistrate conducted inquest proceedings and he assisted him. Father and uncle of deceased were also present there. He recorded statements of Anil Kumar and Rishi Pal on the direction of Executive Magistrate vide Ex. PW4/D and Ex. PW4/C respectively. He filled up inquest form Ex. PW4/E; request for postmortem Ex. PW4/F and filled death report Ex. PW4/G. The documents bear his signature along with brief facts of case Ex. PW12/A. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xiii) PW13 Dr. Ashok was the doctor who had examined the victim Alka on 02-07-2014, who was admitted by her husband at SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 12 of 53 GTB hospital. He proved the MLC of victim as Ex. PW13/A. The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.
(xiv) PW14 Dr. Deepak Chaturvedi Jr. Resident, Rajendra Institute of Medical Science, Ranch, Jharkhand deposed that on 10.07.2014, at 11.30 a.m, he received inquest papers for conducting postmortem and started postmortem at 12.05 p.m on 10.07.2014 and completed it by 1.05 p.m. on 10.07.2014. He conducted postmortem on the dead body of Alka 21 years old female w/o Sandeep r/o H. No. 17/19, Madhu Kunj, Gali near Reliance Fresh, North Ghonda, Delhi.
He narrated the brief history of ingestion of unknown substance at home following which patient taken to main casualty of Jag Pravesh Chand Hospital, Shastri Park, Delhi at 5.27 p.m. on 02.07.2014 where gastric laves done vide MLC No. 4676 (CR No. 79097). from there, patient was referred to GTB hospital and admitted here on 05.07.2014 where during the course of treatment patient expired on 08.07.2014 at 10.55 p.m. vide inquest papers No. 13 and 14.
PW14 reported following General Observations:-
Height of deceased 142 cm.
Weight of deceased 40 kg.
Dead body of an adult female wrapped in white sheet wearing sky blue colour hospital gown.
Eyes and mouth were closed, cornea opaque and all other natural orifices were NAD.
Rigor mortis passed off.
Postmotrem staining was present on back and fixed. Greenish black discoloration present on chest and abdomen.SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 13 of 53
Postmortem skin blisters were present at places. Marblling was present on upper chest and bilateral shoulder joint at anterior aspect.
An infected wound of size 4 cm x 3.2 cm was present on right upper back, 12 cm from midline and 7 cm below right shoulder top (bed sore).
PW14 reported following details of External Injuries:-
No external antemortem injuries noted all over the body. PW14 reported following details of Internal Examination:-
Scalp: NAD.
Skull: NAD.
Brain:Weight-1281 gm, congested and soft on cut section. Neck and vertebrae: NAD Chest: Ribcage - NAD, Lungs:Right - Weight 595 gm, Left - Weight 502 gm. Both the lungs were edematous, congested, firmly adherent to chest wall. Pleura thickened and yellowish in colour. On cut section, multiple pus pockets were present in all the lobes of both lungs. Consolidation present on lower lobes of both lungs.
Heart: Weight 198 gm, coronaries NAD Abdomen and Others:
Stomach: Contain about 25 ml of reddish brown liquid , walls - congested and hemorrhagic at places. Intestine: Distended due to gases of decomposition, contains fecal matter and fluid, walls - NAD. Liver:Weight 1349 gm, greenish black discoloration present all over the liver, soft and congested on cut section. Spleen: Weight 146 gm, enlarged, soft and congested on SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 14 of 53 cut section.
Kidney: Right-Weight-120 gm, Left-weight 103 gm. Both kidneys were soft and congested on cut section. Uterus with appendages: Weight 70 gm, empty, walls NAD.
Urinary Bladder. Empty, Walls NAD.
Pelvis and vertebrae: NAD Viscera was taken, sealed and handed over to police alongwith sample seal of DC with sealed envelope containing true copy of P.M. report. IO was advised to collect gastric laves sample and sent to CFSL. Time since Death. About 1 and 2 of a day.
Cause of Death was kept reserved for want of chemical analysis report of viscera and gastric laves sent to CFSL/FSL. 16 inquest papers were initialed and numbered by him.
He proved the PM report as Ex. PW14/A which also bear signature of Dr. Navneet Ateriya, Jr. Demonstrator at point B. He identified his signature in official capacity as he was on duty on that day with him.
He had left his services from GTB hospital in the month of May-June, 2015.
He saw the PM report Ex. PW14/A and original viscera report dated 27.11.2015 as Ex.PW14/B. After examination of PM report as well as viscera report, he reached to conclusion that cause of death was septicemic shock as a result of antemortem infection to bilateral lungs.
He was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite having given opportunity.
(xv) PW-15 Rishipal was the uncle of deceased. He has proved SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 15 of 53 his statement recorded in connection with identification of dead body as Ex. PW4/C. He was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite having given opportunity.
(xvi) PW16 Anil Kumar deposed that he is father of deceased Alka. In the month of June, 2013, his daughter Alka, aged about 19 years, got married with accused Sandeep against his wishes. She had married with accused of her own according to Hindu rites and customs and started to live at her matrimonial house i.e. B-17/19, Madhu Kunj, Gali Shani Bazaar, Subhash Vihar, North Gondha, Delhi. During her lifetime, his daughter had made telephonic call to him 3-4 times. She told him once or twice that she was being harassed by her husband and mother-in-law for motorcycle and demand of money to purchase motorcycle. She had further told him that she was beaten by her mother-in-law namely Smt. Rajjo Devi @ Raj Rani. She had also told him that once or twice she was given beatings by her husband. She did not disclose what was the reason behind the said beatings. She had also told him that she was harassed and tortured by her mother in law by saying "tu apne ghar se kya lekar ayi hai'.
PW16 further deposed that on 03.07.2014, at about 10 a.m., he received phone call of accused Sandeep that his wife Alka was admitted in the ICU of Jag Parvesh Chand hospital and her condition was serious. He alongwith his wife Raj Rani reached at hospital and found his daughter Alka admitted in ICU of aforesaid hospital. It came into his notice in the hospital that Alka was got admitted by her husband there on 02.07.2014. Accused Sandeep had told him that Alka had consumed some liquid as a result of which she became unconscious and got SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 16 of 53 hospitalized.
He further testified that on 05.07.2014, his daughter Alka regained consciousness. He talked with her at about 12 noon. She told him that "maine nahi piya tha issne (Sandeep ne) pilaya tha". Brother in law of accused Sandeep namely Anil was also present in the hospital. On the same day, she was referred to GTB hospital. He and his wife had also visited GTB hospital on 05.07.2014. She remained under treatment there for two days. On 08.07.2014, at about 9 p.m., Alka was declared dead by the doctor during treatment. Someone from the hospital informed to Police about the death of Alka. Police came in GTB. Dead body was shifted to mortuary. Panchnama was prepared by the Executive Magistrate. He had identified dead body vide his statement Ex. PW4/D. One police official namely HC Dinesh Kumar was also present with Executive Magistrate. He had recorded his statement there vide Ex.PW5/A. His cousin Rishi Pal was also present when dead body was identified. His statement was also recorded regarding identification of dead body.
PW16 claimed that on 09.07.2014, he had given his written complaint to the office of SDM pertaining to death of his daughter Alka vide Ex.PW4/B. Same was registered by the clerk in the register at Sr. No. 8039. It has been mentioned by him in the aforesaid statement that death of his daughter Alka took place due to giving her poisonous substance by her husband and her mother in law.
He further deposed that Postmortem was conducted by the concerned doctor on 10.07.2014. They had received the dead body of Alka from the mortuary for cremation and same was SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 17 of 53 brought by them at their home. In the year 2013, his daughter Alka was pursuing B.A. (1st year) and she was also having diploma in Cosmetics Technology and Health. It came into his notice from the police that one suicide note was found from the room of deceased. Police had shown the same. One suicide note Mark PW16/1 was shown to witness and on seeing the same, he submitted that it was the same suicide note which was shown to him by the Police. He submitted that the suicide note was not written in the handwriting of his daughter. After some days from the death of his daughter, police had demanded some writing material for comparison of suicide note and he had delivered 11 sheets on which writing material of his daughter Alka was available which are Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A11 i.e. 11 sheets having writing material of Alka. He stated that those were the same sheets which were delivered by him from his house to police for the purpose of comparison.
PW16 added that on 29.08.2014, police had seized one plastic cane having some liquid ie. Netro Cleaner in the hospital in his presence on being produced by doctor. Same was sealed at P.S and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/F. The said liquid was the remaining part of the same liquid which was got consumed to his daughter Alka by her husband Sandeep. Smt. Preeti was the daughter of his brother in law. His daughter used to talk on phone with her. During course of investigation, Preeti had told to Police that one day earlier from the day of incident, Alka had talked with her on phone and she saved that conversation on her phone. Police had taken voice sample of Smt. Preeti and his wife Raj Rani for the purpose of comparison. SIM of the phone of Smt. Preeti was seized by the Police. On that SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 18 of 53 day, Sandeep had also met them in the office of FSL, there his voice sample was also taken.
FIR of present case was registered on his photostat statement dated 10.07.2014 recorded by Executive Magistrate Ex.PW7/B. He correctly identified accused Rajjo in the court.
On 12.01.2015, IO had prepared arrest papers of accused Rajjo Devi vide Ex.PW16/B and Ex.PW16/C. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State on certain points.
During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he affirmed that his statement was recorded in this case on 29.08.2014. It was affirmed that plastic container of Netro Cleaner was having liquid approx. 100 ml when it was seized. It was also affirmed that plastic container was of blue colour. He denied the suggestion that he had produced the aforesaid plastic container before Police in presence of doctor or that same was sealed with seal of SKS and seized vide seizure memo. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely on the facts that he had not produced the aforesaid plastic container before police.
Two seizure memos dated 18.02.2015 were shown to witness and he admitted his signature at point A on aforesaid memos Ex.PW16/E and Ex.PW16/F. It was affirmed that his statement was recorded in this case on 18.02.2015. It was affirmed that in the FSL, one lady official had taken voice sample of three persons and prepared 06 cassettes. It was also affirmed that police officials had prepared 03 copies from 03 cassettes. It was also affirmed that same were sealed in a cloth parcel with seal of JS or that thereafter, same were seized vide seizure memos or that same were allotted Sr. No. 1,2, and 3. It is SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 19 of 53 also affirmed that three original cassettes were converted into cloth parcel and same were also sealed with seal of JS. It was affirmed that one Constable Pradeep was also accompanied with IO at that time. It was affirmed that original three CDs were allotted as A, B,C respectively and that copies were allotted as 1 to 3 by the police.
PLW16 identified one empty cream colur plastic cane having label of S/S Netro Cleaner besides blue colour plastic polythene and cloth piece having seal impression of SKS as Ex. P1 submitting that it was the same plastic container which was seized by police in his presence. He volunteered that at that time, it was having some liquid.
In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel for accused persons, it was affirmed that his daughter got married with Sandeep against his wishes as well as wishes of her family and relatives. It was affirmed that neither husband nor in-laws of his daughter Alka had demanded anything from him or his family after marriage. They did not have objection of staying of Sandeep and their daughter Alka in the same colony. He had not told to Police in his statement dated 08.07.2014 Ex. PW5/A that his daughter regained consciousness in the hospital on 05-07-2014 and she had told him that "maine nahi piya tha, issne (Sandeep) ne pilaya tha". He had not told to Executive Magistrate in his statement that his daughter regained consciousness in the hospital on 05.07.2014 and that she had told him that " maine nahi piya tha, issne (Sandeep) ne pilaya tha".
(xvii) PW17 Ms. Preeti deposed that she is cousin of deceased Alka. She was residing with her parents at H. No. H-11, Gali No.2, Subhash Vihar, Delhi in the year 2013 and before. She was SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 20 of 53 on visiting terms with her at her house. In the month of May 2013, her cousin Alka married with Sandeep (accused) against wishes of her parents and she started residing with accused at North Ghonda, Delhi. In those days, she was having mobile phone sim connection no. 9210820054. On 02.07.2014, at about 2:30 or 3 P.M., her cousin Alka had made phone call at her phone no. 9560747533 and she had talked with her and told to her that she was beaten by her husband. The aforesaid phone which was being used by her was in the name of her husband. When she was talking with Alka on phone, she was weeping. Sandeep did not permit her to talk with her and he snatched the mobile phone from her hand. She had also talked with Sandeep on phone. She had tried to make Sandeep understand not to give beatings to her cousin sister Alka. She had requested Sandeep to come at her home alongwith Alka but he did not come at her home.
PW17 further deposed that on 03.07.2014, in afternoon, she came to know through her husband that her cousin sister Alka is admitted in Jag Parvesh Hospital. She alongwith her husband reached at Jag Parvesh Hospital and met to Alka. She was admitted there. It also came into his notice that she was got admitted in the hospital by her husband with history that she was administered some chemical by her husband. On that day, Alka was unconscious and she was not responding. On third day, she had visited the hospital alongwith her husband. On that day, she had talked with Alka. She told her that her husband had administered some chemical to her. Thereafter, she had also visited GTB hospital, there Alka had been referred for further medical examination. On 08.07.2014, in evening hours, his sister SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 21 of 53 Bhawna made call to her and told that her cousin Alka had expired in GTB hospital. Dead body after postmortem examination was brought by the father of deceased and they had completed the last rites.
PW17 added that on 22.07.2014, she had delivered three CDs containing conversation dated 02.07.2014 between her, her sister Alka and Sandeep to Police. She had got prepared from market three CDs of the aforesaid conversation from the memory card of her phone. Police official had taken into possession the same after putting them in polythene bag and converting in a cloth parcel and sealing with seal of SKS vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/D. On 04.11.2014, she was called by police official at PS. She went to there alongwith her bua Smt. Raj Rani and on that day, she had delivered memory card of her phone containing conversation dated 02.07.2014 to Police and Police had put the same in a match box and prepared cloth parcel which was sealed with seal of JS and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/A. On 06.02.2015, she had also delivered one audio CD containing conversation dated 02.07.2014 between her and her Bua Smt. Raj Rani as she had also talked with his Buaji on that day. The said CD was also got prepared from the same memory card in the market. IO had seized the aforesaid CD after putting in a plastic cover and sealing with seal of JS vide seizure memo Ex.PW17B. She had also delivered one audio cassette to Police and on that day, her Bua Smt. Raj Rani and accused Sandeep had also delivered their cassettes having voice as sample. Same were seized by the IO after converting in a parcel and sealing with seal of JS vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/E. IO had taken her, her buaji and accused in one office where her voice sample was taken for SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 22 of 53 the purpose of comparison with memory card and three CDs produced by her before Police which were containing conversation dated 02.07.2014 between her, her sister Alka and accused Sandeep. She claimed that she can identity memory card and three audio CDs which were delivered by her to Police during course of investigation.
One sealed parcel duly sealed with seal of Dr.C.P. Singh FSL Delhi produced by MHCM bearing Parcel No.4 containing exhibit No. 4+ OPC was opened before court and found containing one matchbox which further contains one memory card besides other two sealed envelopes- one duly sealed with seal of Dr. C. P. Singh and other duly sealed with seal of DOC FSL (However, the envelope was having cut from front side and it contained nothing). Memory card was shown to PW17 and she submitted that it was the same memory card (1 GB) which had been delivered by her to Police and it was having conversation of her cousin sister Alka (deceased) with her. Memory card is Ex.P2.
Another sealed envelope duly sealed with seal of Dr. C.P. Singh FSL Delhi bearing Parcel No.1 containing exhibits 1A, 1B, 1C + OPC produced by MHCM was opened before court. Same was found to be containing three audio CDs (make Sony, CD-R 700 MB) in a transparent polythene covers. Same were shown to PW17. On seeing the same, she submitted that these were the same CDs which had been delivered by her to Police and conversation containing in memory card has been transferred in these CDs. CDs are Ex. P3 colly.
In her cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, she deposed that she never visited matrimonial house of deceased SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 23 of 53 Alka. Alka never made complaint against her husband and in- laws pertaining to demand of dowry. She had not told her on phone about any harassment and torture by the accused persons for demand of dowry. She was at her job at Harit Vihar when she received phone call of her husband and he had told her that her cousin sister Alka had made call at his phone, then, she had made call to Alka at her phone. She was supervisor in the factory at Harti Vihar. She denied that her husband had not received phone call of Alka at about 2:30 or 3 pm on 02-07-2014 or that she had not made call to Alka at her phone on that day.
(xviii)PW18 Inspector Sudhir Kumar deposed that on 11.07.2014, he was posted as Inspector Investigation at PS Bhajanpura. On that day, FIR of present case was registered at PS for offence 498-A/304B r/w 34 IPC at about 7 P.M. The aforesaid FIR was recorded on the statement of Anil Kumar which had been recorded by Executive Magistrate Sh. Madan Lal on 10.07.2014. SHO Insp. Subhash had made endorsement to register FIR of present case. Investigation of this case was assigned to him. Rukka Ex.PW7/A and copy of FIR Ex.PW7/B were delivered to him by Duty Officer ASI Lalu Oraon. On that day, he had contacted SI Mehmood and collected DD entry no. 34A dated 02.07.2014 Ex.PW18/A, forwarding letter dated 10.07.2014 issued by Executive Magistrate already Ex.PW4/H, complaint addressing to SHO moved by father of deceased dated 09.07.2014 Ex.PW14/B, statement of Anil Kumar Ex. PW4/A besides inquest papers including seizure memo of gastric lavage from him. On 12.07.2014, he made search of accused persons who had been named by the complainant in his statement and in his complaint in the area of North Ghonda, Subhash Mohalla and SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 24 of 53 Babarpur area, but no clue come forward. Both were absconding from their house on that day. On 14.07.2014, he made search of aforesaid accused persons namely Sandeep and Smt. Raj Rani @ Rajjo Devi but no clue come forward. On that day, he had recorded statements of SI Mehmood, HC Dinesh, Ct. Sonu, father of deceased Anil Kumar and one Rishi Pal u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
PW18 claimed that on 17.07.2014, HC Dinesh and Ct. Rajender were directed to collect the PM report from Forensic Department of GTB. They visited Forensic Department but PM report was not ready on that day however, they brought one sealed parcel containing viscera material and sample seal. Viscera etc was seized by SI Dinesh vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A on his direction. Ct. Rajender had delivered the same to him and he deposited the same to MHCM. He recorded statements of Ct. Rajender and HC Dinesh on that day. He placed seizure memo of viscera material and sample seal on file.
He further claimed that on 22.07.2014, accused Sandeep was formally arrested by him with the permission of concerned court as he had surrendered himself there. He prepared arrest memo Ex.PW3/A. He recorded disclosure statement Ex.PW3/B. Accused Sandeep was taken on PC for three days. Counsel of accused Sandeep had produced original suicide note and some other documents Mark PW3/1 to Mark PW3/7. Same were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C. He had seized original suicide note Mark PW16/1. They came at PS along with accused Sandeep. On the same day, cousin of deceased Smt. Preeti had come at PS and she had produced three audio CDs containing conversation of deceased with her. Same were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/D after SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 25 of 53 converting in a cloth parcel and sealing with seal of SKS. On the same day, prior to taking into possession the aforesaid CDs, complainant of this case had come at PS and he had delivered 11 papers having handwriting material of deceased vide Ex. PW16/A-1 to Ex. PW16/A-11. He had taken into possession the aforesaid papers for the purpose of comparison with suicide note vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/G. On the same day i.e. 22.07.2014, he called crime team officials at PS. He took them at spot ie. H. No. 1719, Shani Bazar Road, Madhu Kunj, North Ghonda, Delhi. He inspected the place and prepared unscaled site plan of place of incident where Alka had consumed Netro Cleaner liquid at her matrimonial house on 02.07.2014. Site plan is Ex.PW18/B. Crime team Incharge had also inspected the ground floor where incident took place and first floor of aforesaid house where Alka was residing with her husband, where SI ES. Yadav prepared SOC report Ex.PW9/A which were delivered to him. Photographer Ct. Jile Singh had taken four photographs of first floor and ground floor of house which are Ex.PW8/A-1 to Ex. PW8/A-4. The photographs were shown to PW18 who on seeing the same submitted that photograph Ex.PW8/A-3 was depicting first floor of house and remaining photographs were depicting the ground floor of the house in question.
PW18 further testified that accused Sandeep was also with them at that time. He had also pointed out the place where Netro Cleaner liquid in plastic bottle was lying on that day. He recorded statements of crime team Incharge SI E S. Yadav and photographer Ct.Jile Singh and Ct. Khushi Ram there at about 10 or 10:15 PM. They left the spot. On the way, he had made search of co-accused Smt. Raj Rani as she was not present at her house SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 26 of 53 and was found absconding from there but no clue come forward about the presence of accused Raj Rani on that day. They reached at PS and accused was put in lock up. On next day i.e. 23.07.2014, one police team was sent to Punjab in search of co- accused Smt. Raj Rani but her presence could not be procured there. Team returned at PS. On 23 and 24.07.2014, he made search of co-accused Smt. Raj Rani at the instance of accused Sandeep who was on PC but no clue came forward. On 25.07.2014, accused Sandeep was produced before concerned court and he was sent to JC on his written request. On 19.08.2014, he collected PM report of deceased Alka from Forensic Department of GTB vide Ex.PW14/A he placed the same on file.
PW18 added that on 29.08.2014, complainant came to him at PS and produced one plastic bottle having label of Netro Cleaner and having 100 ml. Liquid therein. He took into possession the same after converting in a parcel and sealing with seal vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/F. He had collected certificate pertaining to correctness of FIR and proper maintenance of computer system vide Ex.PW18/C bearing signature of DO ASI Lalu Oraon at point A. He identified his signature in official capacity as he had performed his duty under his supervision. Further investigation of this case was assigned to some other IO due to his transfer from there. He handed over the case file to MHCR.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xix) PW19 Smt. Raj Rani deposed that she is mother of deceased Alka, who had solemnized love marriage with accused SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 27 of 53 Sandeep on 01.05.2013. Thereafter, she started to reside with her husband, mother-in-law and other in-laws at H. No. G-17/9, Madhu Kunj, Gali near Shani Bazar, Subhash Vihar, North Ghonda, Delhi. She and her family members were not on visiting terms at the matrimonial house of Alka. About 4 and 5 months from the day of marriage, her daughter Alka started to make call at the phone of her father and she used to tell that she was being harassed and tortured for demand of cash and bike and her husband used to tell her whatsoever his daughter used to tell him. Her husband had also told to her that mother in law of Alka had demanded motorcycle Once or twice, he had talked with her daughter Alka on the phone of her husband and she had told to her that her mother in law used to taunt her saying that "tu kuchh bhi nahi lekar aayi hai". Once her husband had told to her that nanad of Alka, whose name she do not remember, had also demanded dowry from their daughter. About 20-25 days prior to the day of incident, her husband had received phone call of Alka and he had not told to her anything. Whenever her daughter had made call on the phone of her father by using phone of Sandeep and Sandeep used to be present with Alka at the time of making phone call by her daughter.
PW19 further deposed that Preeti is her bhatiji (niece). One day prior to day of incident of administering the chemical to her daughter Alka, husband of Preeti had received phone call of Alka and he asked her to talk with her sister i.e. Preeti. Thereafter, her daughter had talked on phone with Preeti. It was told to Preeti by Alka that Sandeep had given beatings to her (Alka). On the insistence of Preeti, her daughter had told to her that her mother in law locked room of Alka and she was not providing keys of SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 28 of 53 that lock. Thereafter, Preeti talked with Sandeep on the same phone. It was told to Preeti by Sandeep that he had given beatings to Alka as Alka is his wife. Aforesaid conversation between Preeti, Alka and Sandeep was recorded in the mobile handset of Preeti. On 02.07.2014, her husband received phone call of Sandeep that Alka is admitted in Jag Parvesh Chandra hospital. She and her husband reached there. Her daughter was under treatment. She had stayed 2-3 days there. Thereafter, her daughter was referred to GTB. She had also stayed there for two days. Her daughter was able to speak in Jag Parvesh Chandra Hospital and she had told to her, her husband and her niece Preeti that she was beaten by her husband and mother in law. She had further told to them that accused Sandeep had administered some chemical. She was not aware on which date her daughter had told to them about aforesaid incident in Jag Parvesh Chandra hospital.
PW19 further testified that on 08.07.2015, her daughter was declared dead by the doctors in GTB hospital. Accused Sandeep and mother in law of her daughter had run away from GTB hospital. After postmortem examination her husband had received the dead body and they had brought the dead body at their home and completed the cremation. She volunteered that jeeja of accused and bhabhi of jeeja of accused and one unknown old lady from the side of accused were also present when her daughter had told to the that she was beaten by both the accused persons present in court and accused Sandeep had administered some chemical which was being used at their house for printing work. She had also noticed burn injuries on the back of her daughter in Jag Parvesh Hospital. It was told to them by accused SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 29 of 53 Sandeep that she had sustained injuries on her back as chemical from her mouth reached on her back. One cane having some liquid / chemical was lying in Jag Parvesh Hospital as same had been brought by Police on the asking of doctor as doctor wants to check what was administered to Alka. Her husband had also taken some chemical from that cane and put the same on his arm but no injury was sustained by him from that chemical. She had also seen injuries marks on her face. One old lady who was present in the hospital from the side of accused, whose name she do not know, had told to her that mother in law of her daughter had caused burn injuries on the back of Alka by throwing boiled milk (garam doodh). As far as she remembered, about 5-6 months from the day of incident, she herself, her husband, Smt. Preeti and accused Sandeep had been called by Police and they had reached alongwith police officials to FSL Rohini Delhi where sample of her voice and sample of voice of Preeti and accused Sandeep were taken and CDs were prepared. IO had prepared 2 or 3 documents pertaining to CDs of their voice.
PW19 identified her signature on seizure memo Ex.PW17/A at point B. She correctly identified accused Sandeep and Rajjo Devi in the court. She identified three audio CDs make Sony CDR 700 MB kept in a transparent polythene cover as the same CDs which had been delivered by Preeti to Police having conversation between Preeti, Alka and Sandeep. The aforesaid three CDs had been delivered by Preeti to Police and same was got prepared by Preeti for the conversation which was in the memory card of her phone.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State as she was resiling from her earlier statement.
SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 30 of 53During her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, she affirmed that on 29.08.2014, her husband had produced the cane containing Netro Cleaner having 100 ml liquid to Police and Police had seized the same after converting in a parcel and sealing with seal of SKS.
In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, she affirmed that Alka got married with accused Sandeep against their wishes and she was not happy with that marriage. It was affirmed that Alka and Sandeep started residing about 2-3 streets away from her house. It was affirmed that she and her family did not like residing of deceased with accused nearby to them. It was affirmed that they used to feel insult by residing the accused with deceased nearby to their house. She asked the accused and deceased to shift their residence as they were feeling insulted. It was affirmed that Alka and Sandeep eloped prior to their marriage. She made a police complaint against accused and Alka and police called the mother of Sandeep in PS and then accused and deceased came to PS. It was affirmed that Sandeep and his mother had never demanded any dowry from her and her husband. She never received any phone call of Alka at any point of time. She volunteered that her husband received phone call but she did not remember when her husband received that call.
PW20 Ct. Pradeep was the investigating police official who had accompanied Inspector Jaswant Singh during proceedings conducted at FSL Rohini on 18-02-2015 with regard to taking voice sample of Preeti, Raj Rani and accused Sandeep. He deposed on the same lines on which Inspector Jaswant Singh (PW30) has deposed, whose testimony shall be dealt with later on.
SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 31 of 53The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xxi) PW21 Ct. Ajender Singh was the investigating police official who was assigned the task of depositing four sealed parcels containing exhibits of this case vide RC no. 37/21/15 at FSL Rohini. He has proved the copy of relevant RC vide Ex. PW21/A and acknowledgment obtained from FSL as Ex. PW21/B. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xxii) PW22 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan was the Nodal Officer from Tata Tele Services Ltd. He has proved the CAF, subscriber details, CDR of mobile no. 9210820045 for the period 01-08-2013 to 03- 07-2014 and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW22/A to Ex. PW22/D. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xxiii)PW23 Sh. Surender Kumar was also Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd. He has proved the CAF, subscriber details, CDR of mobile no. 9560747533 for the period 01-07-2014 to 03- 07-2014 and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW23/A to Ex. PW23/D. He also proved the CAF, subscriber details, CDR of mobile no. 8527171219 for the period 01-01- 2014 to 03-07-2014 and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW23/E to Ex. PW23/H. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xxiv)PW24 Rohit deposed that he is cousin of Preeti, In the month of July 2014, her cousin Preeti came to him and she SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 32 of 53 produced memory card of her phone to copy the conversation in audio cassettes. She prepared four audio cassettes from the memory card of aforesaid mobile phone at the shop of one Ankit in Sant Nagar, Burari as he was learning graphic designing there. He was not aware about the exact date when he copied the conversation from the memory card into four audio CDs. He had prepared two files for the aforesaid work with the names of Track 1 and Track 2. Computer used for the aforesaid purpose was in the computer shop of Ankit and it was in his possession on that day and was in proper care.
One court sealed envelope bearing Parcel No. 4 produced by MHCM was opened and found containing one matchbox which further contained one memory card besides other two sealed envelopes. On seeing the same, PW24 submitted that it was same memory card (1gb) which was delivered by her cousin Preeti to him to copy the conversation in four audio CDs. Memory card is Ex. P2.
One court sealed parcel bearing Parcel No.2 produced by MHCM was opened. Same was found to be containing one audio CD having FSL No. Ex.P2 and name of Alka. On seeing the same, PW24 submitted that it was one CD out of four in which I had copied the conversation from the memory card. Same is Ex.P7.
One court sealed parcel bearing Parcel No.1 produced by MHCM was opened. Same was found to be containing three audio CDs having FSL No. Ex.A1, B1 and C1 and having name of Alka. On seeing the same, PW24 submitted that these were the three CDs out of four in which he had copied the conversation from the memory card. Same are Ex. P8, Ex.P9 and SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 33 of 53 Ex.P10 respectively.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xxv) PW25 HC Dhan Raj was the MHCM posted at PS Bhajanpura at the relevant time. He has proved the entries made by him in register no. 19 in the year 2015 regarding deposit and release of exhibits from Malkhana of PS Bhajanpuran and the relevant RC and acknowledgment obtained from FSL. The record proved by him are Ex. PW25/A to Ex. PW25/E. The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel for accused but nothing material came out therein. (xxvi)PW-26 Ct. Om Prakash deposed that on 06.02.2015, he was on duty as Computer Operator at PS Bh. Pura. On that day, one lady namely Smt. Preeti W/o Dinesh Kumar had come at PS. She had produced one audio CD having two tracks. One track of aforesaid CD containing conversation between her and her cousin Alka, another track containing conversation between Sandeep and Smt. Raj Rani The aforesaid CD was taken into possession by the IO after hearing the conversation of aforesaid persons. He had played aforesaid CD on computer system of PS. Conversation was heard by Insp Jaswant Singh and he had noted down the conversation containing in aforesaid CD in two tracks and same was noted down by aforesaid Inspector on five sheets. He had put his signatures on the said transcript running upto five sheets. Same is Ex.PW26/A1 to A-5. Preeti was also present at PS when aforesaid transcript was prepared by aforesaid Inspector in his presence. Thereafter, aforesaid audio CD was kept in a cloth parcel with its cover which was sealed with seal of JS and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW17/B. Seal after use was SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 34 of 53 handed over to him. It has been told by the aforesaid Smt. Preeti that she had also got prepared four audio CDs from the memory card of her phone with the help of her brother. She had further told to IO that she had delivered three audio CDs out of four to Police earlier.
One court sealed parcel bearing No.2 produced by MHCM was opened before court and found containing one audio CD having FSL number as Ex.P2 and name of Alka. On seeing the same, PW26 submitted that it was the same CD which was produced by Smt. Preeti before IO and he had played the same for hearing of Insp. Jaswant Singh on 06.02.2015. CD is Ex.P7.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xxvii) PW27 ASI Jitender Singh was also the MHCM posted at PS Bhajanpura at the relevant time. He has proved the entries made by him in register no. 19 in the year 2014 regarding deposit and release of exhibits from Malkhana of PS Bhajanpuran and the relevant RC and acknowledgment obtained from FSL. The record proved by him is Ex. PW27/A to Ex. PW25/G. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel for accused but nothing material came out therein. (xxviii)PW28 W/ASI Deval was the lady investigating police official who had accompanied IO/ SI Shahid Khan at the time of arrest of accused Rajjo Devi in her present vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex. PW16/B and Ex. PW16/C. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xxvix)PW29 Ct. Banwari Lal was the investigating police official who was assigned the task of depositing the case property SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 35 of 53 at FSL Rohini and to obtain acknowledgment from there on 31- 10-2014. He deposed correctly about the role performed by him.
The witness was not cross-examined by accused persons despite having given the opportunity.
(xxx) PW30 Inspector Jaswant Singh deposed that on 17.10.2014, he was posted at PS Bhajanpura and was on duty as Inspector Investigation. On that day, further investigation of the case was assigned to him by oral order of Sr. Police official. He collected case file from MHC(R). After going through the case file, it came into his notice that major part of the investigation was completed by Inspector Sudhir Kumar. One accused, namely, Sandeep was in J/C and search of co-accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo was continued. On 17.10.2014, he called HC Pradhan and recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. He had taken the sealed parcels containing exhibits of this case to FSL. On next day i.e. 18.10.14, he obtained NBWs against absconding accused Smt. Raj Rani @ Rajjo from the concerned court. On the same day, he visited District Crime Team Office and recorded statement of Crime Team Incharge Inspector E.S.Yadav and photographer HC Jile Singh. During course of investigation, he collected copy of DD no. 58B dt.02.07.14 Ex.PW30/A-1 and DD 28B dt. 09.07.2014 Ex. PW30/A-2 and placed on file. He also collected photographs already Ex. PW8/A-1 to Ex. PW 8/A-4 from the photo section and placed on file. He also collected SOC report Ex. PW 9/A and placed on file.
He claimed that he completed investigation qua accused Sandeep and prepared chargesheet against him for offence u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC which was sent to court for trial through proper channel. Witness correctly identified the accused Sandeep SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 36 of 53 in court.
PW30 deposed that on 31.10.2014, three sealed parcels containing viscera, gastric lavas and sample seal etc. were sent to FSL from the custody of MHC(M) for analysis through Ct. Banwari Lal vide R/C no.99/21/14. Copy of R/C is Ex PW30/B. Ct.Banwari deposited the same to dealing clerk of FSL and he had given acknowledgment to MHC(M). Copy of the acknowledgment is Ex.PW30/C. He recorded statement of Ct. Banwari Lal and HC Jitender time to time and they had told him that they had kept aforesaid parcels in safe custody. He identified signatures of Ct.Banwari Lal and HC Jitender in official capacity.
PW30 claimed that on 04.11.2014, Smt. Preeti (cousin of deceased) and Smt.Raj Rani (mother of deceased) came at PS and met with him. It was told to him by Smt. Preeti that she has memory card of her phone which contains the conversation dt.02.07.14 which took place between her, deceased and her husband. She produced memory card. He seized the same after putting in a match box converting in a parcel, sealing with the seal of 'JS' vide seizure memo already Ex. PW17/A. He had recorded statement of Preeti and Raj Rani.
One court sealed parcel was produced by MHC(M) and opened. Same was found to contain one matchbox and match box contains memory card which was shown to the PW30 to which he admitted that this was the same memory card which had been given by Preeti. The memory card is Ex.P2.
PW30 further deposed that he made efforts to search the co-accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo here and there, but in vain. He thereafter got issued proceedings u/s 82 Cr.PC against the accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo from the concerned court. On SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 37 of 53 06.02.2015, Preeti visited PS Bhajanpura and met with him. On that day, she had produced one CD containing conversation dt. 02.07.2014 and she further told that she got prepared 4 CDs of conversation from the memory card with the help of her brother. She had told him that three CDs containing aforesaid conversation had already been delivered by her to previous IO Inspector Sudhir and he had seized the same. He heard the conversation with the help of computer operator on duty Ct. Om Prakash. He recorded the conversation on papers in presence of Preeti and it came into his notice from the conversation that prior to incident, deceased had talked with her sister Preeti and husband of deceased had also talked with Preeti and on the same phone, mother of deceased had also talked with accused Sandeep. Transcript recorded by him from the CD is Ex. PW26/A-1 to Ex. PW26/A-5 (running into 5 sheets). Voice of aforesaid concerned persons had been recognized by Preeti as she had also heard the conversation on that day from the CD. He placed aforesaid transcript on file and seized aforesaid CD vide seizure memo Ex. PW17/B after converting in a parcel and sealing with the seal of JS. He handed over seal after use to Ct.Om Prakash.
One court sealed envelope parcel no. 2 produced by MHC(M) was opened and it was found containing one CD wrapped in plastic cover which was make Moserbaer on which name of deceased Alka with black ink and FSL no. with signatures of expert are written. Same was opened and shown to PW30 to which he identified to be the same CD which was produced before him by Preeti and she had prepared transcript from this CD. The CD is Ex. P7.
PW30 added that on 12.02.2015, he moved application SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 38 of 53 before concerned court for taking voice sample of accused which was allowed vide order dt. 12.02.2015 passed by Sh. Rakesh Sidharth, Ld. District Judge (NE). Copy of order is Ex. PW30/D. On 18.02.2015, Preeti (cousin of deceased), Smt. Raj Rani (mother of deceased), Anil Kumar (father of deceased) were taken to FSL by Ct. Pradeep as directed by him for the purpose of taking voice sample of aforesaid persons. He also reached there alongwith them. On that day, accused was also produced from Tihar Jail as he had given information to jail authority. He produced aforesaid persons and accused before expert for the purpose of taking their voice sample in FSL, Delhi. As per directions given by expert, he had presented photocopy of transcript prepared by him to aforesaid persons and they had read over the same one by one. Expert had taken voice sample of Preeti, Smt.Raj Rani and accused one by one and same was saved in three separate CDs in original and duplicate. Original CDs were marked as A,B, C,D and these CDs were converted in one cloth parcel and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/F. One sealed envelope duly sealed with the seal of court was opened and found containing their audio cassettes with their covers. After seeing the same, PW30 submitted that one audio cassette belonged to Preeti, other belonged to Smt Raj Rani and other belonged to accused Sandeep. Audio cassette of accused Sandeep having his voice are Ex. P4, Preeti is Ex P5 and Raj Rani is Ex. P6 respectively. Duplicate cassettes having voice sample of aforesaid persons were marked as 1, 2 and 3. Same were also converted in a cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of 'JS' and seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW16/E .
One sealed envelope produced by MHC(M) was opened.
SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 39 of 53Same was found to contain three duplicate/copy of audio cassettes which had been prepared by FSL expert. Same were shown to PW30 to which he submitted that these cassettes contained voice sample of accused Sandeep, witnesses Preeti and Raj Rani and are Ex. P11 of accused Sandeep, Ex.P12 of witness Preeti and Ex.P13 of witness Raj Rani.
PW30 further testified that they returned to PS from FSL after completion of proceedings pertaining to taking of voice sample. He deposited the sealed parcels with MHC(M) in intact condition. He recorded statement of Ct.Pradeep, Anil Kumar, Preeti and Raj Rani. Accused was interrogated by him and he was sent to Tihar Jail in custody of police official who had brought him. On 03.03.2015, four sealed parcels containing memory card, one CD containing conversation and three audio cassettes containing voice sample and three other CDs seized by Inspector Sudhir containing conversation were sent to FSL, Rohini for analysis and matching the voice of concerned persons with CDs and memory card and voice sample vide R/C no.37/21/15 through Ct.Ajender. Copy of R/C is Ex. PW21/A. He identified his signatures in official capacity. On return at PS, Ct.Ajender had produced acknowledgment Ex. PW21/B and told him that he had deposited the aforesaid sealed parcels to clerk of FSL and he had kept the same in his safe custody on that day. He recorded statement of Ct. Ajender on 03.03.2015 and MHC(M) HC Dhan Raj. During course of investigation, he collected CDR of phone of Preeti, phone of Anil Kumar and phone of deceased Alka and same were placed on supplementary chargesheet. The CDR of phone no. 8527171219 and 9210820045 from the relevant period are Ex PW23/G which belonged to Anil Kumar SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 40 of 53 and Ex. PW23/C which belonged to the deceased. Another CDR of phone no.9560747533 belonged to Smt. Preeti is Ex.PW 23/C-
1. From the analysis of CDR that deceased Alka and accused Sandeep were using one phone bearing no. 9210829945. It also came into his notice that on the day of incident, deceased Alka had talked with her cousin Preeti and her mother Raj Rani. Earlier, deceased had also talked with her cousin Preeti and deceased used to talk with her father on phone.
PW30 further testified that accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo was arrested by SI Shahid Khan on 12.01.2015 vide arrest memo Ex PW 16/B and p/search memo Ex.PW 16/C as he had gone to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to attend some other matter on that day. Witness correctly identified accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo. He completed investigation qua accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo and prepared chargesheet for offence u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.
During course of trial, expert opinions of this case were received one by one which are exhibit as under:
1 Expert opinion dt. 18.02.2016 prepared by Sarita Sharma Scientific Assistant (document) is Ex.PW 30/E-1 and its forwarding letter is also Ex.PW 30/E-2. Aforesaid opinion was placed before court on 18.02.2016 vide written request Ex.PW 30/E-3.
2 Expert opinion dt.27.11.2015 prepared by Kavita Goel, Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry) is Ex.PW 14/B and its forwarding letter is also Ex.PW 30/F-1. Aforesaid opinion was placed before court on 29.09.16 vide written request Ex.PW 30/F-2. 3 Expert opinion dt.06.01.2017 (running into 2 sheets) prepared by Sh. C.P.Singh, Assitant Director (Physics) is Ex.PW 30/G-1 and its forwarding letter is also Ex.PW 30/G-2. Aforesaid SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 41 of 53 opinion was placed before court on 20.04.2017 vide written request Ex.PW 30/G-3. The aforesaid report indicates that voice sample was found tallied with the memory card and CD.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xxxi)PW31 Dr. Sarita Sharma, Senior Scientific Assistant (document) FSL, Rohini, Delhi deposed that in the year 2016, she was posted as Scientific Assistant at RFSL, Chankayapuri, Delhi. During her said posting, she was assigned task to examine and report regarding the present case.
She deposed that on 17.10.2014, the questioned document marked Q1 i.e suicide note on a ruled sheet and Standards writing marked Al to All of deceased Alka were received in the office vide memo No.1924/R/SHO/Bhajanpura, Delhi dated 17.10.2014 in connection with FIR case No.883/14 dated 11.07.2014. After examination, she had prepared the report stating that admitted handwriting and questioned handwriting were fount to be matching. The report proved by her is Ex. PW31/A. She was not cross-examined by Ld. Amicus Curiae despite having given the opportunity.
(xxxii) PW32 Dr. C. P. Singh, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL Rohini, Delhi deposed that on 03-03-2015, he was working as above. On that day, four sealed cloth parcels were received in the office of FSL Rohini and same were entrusted to him for examination. He had examined the conversation contained in three CDs and voice sample of accused Sandeep, Preeti and Ms. Raj Rani (mother of deceased). He has proved the report dated 06-01-2017 prepared by him as Ex. PW32/A. He has also proved SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 42 of 53 the report prepared by Sh. Ajay Kumar, Sr. Scientific Assistant (document), FSL Rohini as Ex. PW32/B. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
(xxxiii) PW33 Dr. Kavita Goyal, Assistant Director, Chemistry, FSL Delhi deposed that on 31.10.2014, one sealed wooden box and two sealed cloth parcels in connection with the said FIR case were received in their office and allotted to him for examination. Parcel-1 had two seals of "CMO' and contained Ex.-1 i.e. one Syringe containing dirty white liquid volume approx. 40 ML. Parcel-3 had three seals of "DC" and contained exhibit 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D. Ex. 3A ie. stomach and piece of small intestine with contents was kept in a sealed jar. Ex. 3B i.e. piece of liver, spleen and kidney was kept in a sealed jar. Ex. 3C i.e. Blood sample volume approx. 15 ML was kept in a sealed bottle. Ex. 3D 1.e. preservative sample saturated solution of common salt, kept in a sealed bottle. Parcel -5 had 7 seals of "SKS" and was found containing Ex.5 i.e some yellowish deposits sticking inside a bottle. He examined the said exhibits and gave his detailed report as "On chemical, Microscopic, TLC & FTIR examination:
(i) Exhibit-'5' was found to contain "Nitrobenzene".
(ii) Nitrobenzene, Metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in exhibits "1", '3A', '3B', '3C' & '3D She proved her report as Ex. PW33/A. During cross examination by Ld. Amicus Curiae, it was affirmed that during examination, she had prepared her notes on worksheet and she brought her worksheet as Ex. PW33/B. SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 43 of 53 STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons Raj Rani @ Rajjo Devi and Sandeep were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein incriminating facts were put to the accused, which were denied by them. They stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It was a love marriage and parents of deceased Alka were not happy with the marriage. The parents of deceased Alka used to put pressure on Alka to get her separated from Sandeep.
After the suicide by Alka, her parents wanted to extort money from them. The accused persons opted to lead defence evidence and examined two witnesses.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
6. (i) DW1 HC Sakshi brought the summoned record of compliant dated 08-05-2013 which was filed by victim/ deceased Alka with SHO, PS Bhajanpura, which was weeded out as per order of ACP/ HQ, on behalf of DCP, NE District vide order no. 17483-17582/HAR/NED dated 24-06-2024. The copy of order was exhibited as Ex. DW1/D1.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State despite having given the opportunity.
(ii) DW2 ASI Yogesh Sharma brought the summoned record of complaint dated 08-05-2013 which was filed by victim/ deceased Alka with DCP, NE District, Delhi, which was weeded out as per order of ACP/ HQ, on behalf of DCP, NE District vide order no. 25174-25273/HAR/NED dated 18-10-2017. The copy of order was exhibited as Ex. DW2/D1.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 44 of 53 State despite having given the opportunity.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
7. This court has heard the arguments and perused the record.
The Ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses is sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences punishable u/s 498A IPC and u/s 304B IPC beyond reasonable doubts. There is no major discrepancy or contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. PW-17 Preeti has proved the dying declarations of deceased Alka by producing the recording of telephonic conversation which took place between her and the deceased Alka and accused Sandeep on 02.07.2024. It is submitted that in the said telephonic conversation there is specific allegations that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by accused Raj Rani by refusing to hand over keys of the room. There is no major discrepancy or inconsistency in the version of the prosecution witness. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act as no defence evidence was led by him.
On the other hand, Sh. C. B. Singh, Ld. Amicus Curie of accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo has submitted that the family members of the deceased have made only omnibus allegations against the accused without referring date, time and place. PW-16 Anil Kumar, father of deceased, admitted in his cross examination that deceased was married against the wishes of her family. PW19 Smt. Raj Rani, the mother of deceased, too had admitted this fact in her cross-examination. In suicide note Mark PW3/I, deceased Alka had admitted on her own that she was not blaming anyone for taking extreme step. No complaint was ever made by SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 45 of 53 deceased or her parents during the matrimonial life of deceased alleging harassment on the part of in laws at any time prior to the date of incident. Further, there is no explanation for delay in registration of FIR. The date of incident is 02.07.2014 and FIR was registered on 11.07.2024.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
8. Before analyzing the evidence led by the Prosecution in the present case, this court deems it proper to refer to some provisions of law and citations of Superior courts, which are found to be applicable to the facts of the present case.
Sections 304B, 498A, and 113B Indian Evidence Act read as under:-
"304B. Dowry death--Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
113B. Presumption as to dowry death--When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, on in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 46 of 53Explanation--For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
9. It is pertinent to note that the principles governing the cases u/s 304B of IPC have been culled by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a landmark case titled Sudhakar Singh Vs. State on 18-07-2014 in Crl. Appeal No. 240/1998 as follows:
17.1. To attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC the main ingredient of the offence to be established is that soon before the death of the deceased she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. 17.2. The death of the deceased woman was caused by any burn or bodily injury or some other circumstance which was not normal.
17.3. Such death occurs within seven years from the date of her marriage.
17.4. That the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.
17.5. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.
17.6. It should be established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death.
17.7. The expression "soon before" is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. 17.8. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.
17.9. Therefore, the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate or live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. In other words, it should not be remote in point of time and thereby make it a stale one.
17.10. However, the expression "soon before" should not be given a narrow meaning which would otherwise defeat the very purpose of the provisions of the Act and should not lead to absurd results.
17.11. Section 304-B is an exception to the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence that a suspect in the Indian law is entitled to the protection of Article 20 of the Constitution, as well as, a presumption of innocence in his favour. The concept of deeming fiction is hardly applicable to criminal jurisprudence SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 47 of 53 but in contradistinction to this aspect of criminal law, the legislature applied the concept of deeming fiction to the provisions of Section 304-B. 17.12. Such deeming fiction resulting in a presumption is, however, a rebuttable presumption and the husband and his relatives, can, by leading their defence prove that the ingredients of Section 304-B were not satisfied.
17.13. The specific significance to be attached is to the time of the alleged cruelty and harassment to which the victim was subjected, the time of her death and whether the alleged demand of dowry was in connection with the marriage. Once the said ingredients are satisfied it will be called "dowry death" and by deemed fiction of law the husband or the relatives will be deemed to have committed that offence."
10. In Kanwar Pal vs. Shakuntala And Ors. Crl. Rev.P. 345/2006, it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 29-01-2015, that:-
"In our view, onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient of Section 498A, IPC and the essential ingredient of offence under Section 498A is that the accused, as the husband of the deceased, has subjected her to cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A IPC. Similarly, for the Court to draw the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act that the appellant had caused dowry death as defined in Section 304B, IPC, the prosecution has to prove besides the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty caused by the accused to the deceased soon before her death. Since the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt this ingredient of harassment or cruelty, neither of the offences under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC has been made out by the prosecution."
The concluding para read as under:
"40. I am of the considered opinion that to establish the offence under Section 304B IPC of dowry death, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be raised against an accused until independently the offence under Section 498A IPC is proved by leading evidence to the specific allegation with regard to time and date of such demand and cruelty and furthermore establishing the proximity live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand (offence under section 498A IPC) and the death of the victim."
11. Now, let this court apply the above-mentioned principles to the facts of the present case. Indisputably, the alleged incident has taken place within seven years of marriage; the factum of death of deceased Alka was brought to the knowledge of parents SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 48 of 53 of the deceased by accused Sandeep and it was accused Sandeep, who had got the deceased admitted at JPC hospital, which fact stands proved from MLC (Ex. PW13/A). Since the accused Sandeep Giri had already expired after the conclusion of trial and proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated 30-11- 2023, there is no point in analyzing the evidence led by the prosecution against accused Sandeep.
12. It is pertinent to note that the entire police machinery was set into motion by father of the deceased Sh. Anil Kumar, who had stated in his statement Ex. PW4/B before the SDM concerned that his deceased daughter Alka had called him 3-4 times and reported that she was being subjected to beatings by her husband and her mother-in-law in connection with demand of money for purchasing the bike. In his examination in chief dated 16-08-2016, PW16 had claimed that once or twice, her daughter was being harassed by her in-laws for motorcycle and demand of money to purchase the motorcycle. However, PW16 has not revealed about the manner in which her daughter was being harassed or beaten nor he has revealed the exact date and time pertaining to the incident of beatings. In his cross- examination which was conducted on the same day, he had admitted the suggestion that neither husband nor in-laws of her daughter Alka had demanded anything from him or his family after marriage. Similar allegations have been levelled by PW19 Smt. Raj Rani, mother of deceased, in her deposition dated 05- 06-2017 regarding harassment committed upon her daughter for demand of cash by the in-laws. Even she did not reveal the exact date and time pertaining to the incident of alleged harassment. PW17 Ms. Preeti, the cousin of deceased, had made series of SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 49 of 53 allegations of subjecting the deceased to cruelty by accused Sandeep. She had not stated anything in specific regarding role of accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo in committing the alleged offence of cruelty upon the deceased. During investigation, PW17 Ms. Preeti had also handed over one memory card containing conversation dated 02-07-2014 between deceased Alka, herself and accused Sandeep. The said conversation was reduced into writing by the IO vide transcript Ex. PW26/A1 to A5. In the entire transcript, it appears that the deceased was making complaint primarily against accused Sandeep. In the entire transcript, the only allegation levelled by the deceased against accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo is that some arguments took place between the deceased and accused Raj Rani on account of handing over of keys of house. The said transcript nowhere indicates that the allegations of cruelty on account of refusal of handing over of keys of house by accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo was committed in connection with demand for dowry.
13. In order to establish the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death for or in connection with demand of dowry, the prosecution has got examined three witnesses i.e. PW16 Sh. Anil Kumar (father of the deceased), PW17 Ms. Preeti, (cousin of deceased) and PW19 Smt. Raj Rani (mother of deceased). Both PW16 and PW19 have admitted in their respective cross-examination that accused Sandeep and his mother had never demanded any dowry from them. The testimony of PW16 and PW19 has already been analyzed hereinabove. PW17 did not level any specific allegation against accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo. As such, merely on the basis of bald allegation of cruelty in the deposition of PW16, PW17 and SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 50 of 53 PW19, presumption u/s 113B of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be drawn.
14. On careful analysis of evidence, it is evident that there is no evidence of demand of dowry subjecting the deceased to cruelty or harassment 'soon before her death', for or in connection with demand of dowry. Presumption u/s 113B of the Indian Evidence Act can be drawn only when the prosecution first establishes essential ingredients of Section 498A of IPC. In view of judgment of Kanwar Pal Vs. Shakuntala & Ors., (Supra), presumption u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act cannot be raised against an accused until independently the offence under Section 498A of IPC is proved by leading evidence to the specific allegation with regard to time and date of such demand and cruelty and furthermore establishing the proximity live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand (offence under section 498A IPC) and the death of the victim.
15. As already noted above, PW16 Anil Kumar, PW17 Preeti and PW19 Raj Rani have only levelled general and omnibus allegations against both the accused persons of subjecting the deceased to cruelty during her marriage between 01-05-2013 to 02-07-2014.
16. In Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 3363, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India stated that, "the tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. Hence, the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases."
17. In Anju Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., Crl. Rev. P. 730/2016 decided on 04-02-2019, the Hon'ble High Court of SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 51 of 53 Delhi held that, "9. Revisional Court has in my view committed no error in coming to the conclusion that apart from general and omnibus allegations roping in all the relations, there is no material on record to justify framing of charge under Section 498A/34 IPC. It may be noted that charge has already been framed against the husband and he is facing trial.
10. For a charge to be framed, the evidence gathered by the prosecution should not only give rise to suspicion but there should be grave suspicion that the accused have committed the offence.
11. In the present case apart from bald, omnibus allegations without their being any specifics about date time or place, there is no incriminating material found by the prosecution even during investigation to give rise to grave suspicion against the respondents."
18. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, Crl. Appeal no. 195/22, Arising out of SLP (Crl.) no. 6545/20 dated 08-02-2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that, "18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general ombibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."
In light of the above-mentioned findings of the Superior Court, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge for the offence punishable u/s 498A of IPC against accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo. Even in the postmortem report Ex. PW14/A, there is no mention of any external antemortem injuries. After seeing the PM report and viscera report Ex. PW14/B, the autopsy surgeon PW14 Dr. Deepak SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 52 of 53 Chaturvedi had opined the cause of death of deceased as septicemic shock as a result of antemortem infection to bilateral lungs. There is nothing on record to indicate that accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo had administered any harmful food items to the deceased in furtherance of common intention with accused Sandeep (since deceased).
19. Since the prosecution could not prove the essential ingredients of Section 304B of IPC, the question of drawing presumption against the accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act does not arise. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge u/s 498A and 304B of IPC against accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo.
DECISION OF THE COURT
20. It is well settled that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, on the basis of the material available on the record, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and the benefit of doubt certainly goes in favor of the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused. Accordingly, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, accused Raj Rani @ Rajjo is hereby acquitted of the charges punishable u/s 498A/34 and 304B/34 of IPC. File be consigned to record room after compliance of section 437A of Cr.P.C.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08-01-2025 (PANKAJ ARORA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/ KARKARDOOMA/ 08-01-2025 SC No. 44989/15 State Vs. Sandeep & Anr. Page 53 of 53