Delhi District Court
State vs Kamal Etc on 2 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SC No. : 27545/2016
FIR No. : 153/2012
Under Section : 498A/304B/34 IPC
Police Station : Subzi Mandi
CNR No. : DLCT01-000286-2012
State Versus 1. Kamal (Husband)
S/o Sh. Moti Lal
2. Surender @ Sumit (Jeth)
S/o Sh. Moti Lal
3. Moti Lal (Father-in-law)
S/o Sh. Dale Ram
4. Saraswati (Mother-in-law)
W/o Sh. Moti Lal
5. Parmita (Jethani)
W/o Sh. Surender @ Sumit
All Residents of:
H. No. 3226, Arya Pura
Subzi Mandi, Delhi
Date of Institution : 07.11.2012
Date of Arguments : 05.07.2024
Date of Judgment : 02.09.2024
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION:
1. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, harassed Deepika for demand of dowry and subjected her to cruelty from 23.11.2011 to 19.07.2012 at H. No. 3226, Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, within jurisdiction of PS Subzi Mandi. Thus, the State prosecuted the accused persons for offence under Section 498-A/34 of 'The Indian Penal Code, 1860' (In short 'IPC').
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 1 of 56
2. It is further case of the prosecution that on 19.07.2012 at unknown time, Ms. Deepika (Hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') died otherwise than under normal circumstances by committing suicide by hanging herself from a hook on the ceiling with a stole (chunni) in a room on 2nd floor of H. No. 3226, Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi within 7 years of her marriage and soon before her death, the accused persons subjected her to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, demand for dowry. Thus, the State prosecuted the accused persons for committing offence under Section 304-B/34 IPC. MLC OF THE DECEASED:
3. On 19.07.2012 at about 08.30 a.m., the accused Kamal, Moti Lal and Saraswati admitted the deceased in Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi in unconscious state.
4. PW-5 Dr. A.K. Banka, CMO, Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi examined her. On examination, the pulse and B.P. of the deceased were not recordable. Her pupil were bilaterally dilated with no auscaltatory sound. He declared her brought dead at 08.30 a.m. on 19.07.2012. He sent the dead body to mortuary. He prepared MLC Ex.PW5/A. DD NO. 19A DATED 19.07.2012:
5. On 19.07.2012 at 09.07 a.m., PW-15 Ct. Vijendra, Duty Constable, Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi informed PW-6 ASI Anil Kumar, Duty Officer, PS Subzi Mandi, through telephone, regarding admission of the deceased in Hindu Rao Hospital by the accused Moti Lal in unconscious state and the examining doctor declared her 'brought dead', vide DD No. 19A Ex.PW6/A. PW-6 ASI Anil Kumar, Duty Officer assigned the said DD to PW-26 SI Sombir Singh for appropriate action.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 2 of 56 DD NO. 21A DATED 19.07.2012:
6. On 19.07.2012 at 09.15 a.m., PW-6 ASI Anil Kumar, Duty Officer, PS Subzi Mandi received a PCR call that the caller is residing at H. No. 26, Bhogal Road and he received a call from his brother-in-law (jija) that the deceased was admitted in emergency in Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi and the caller suspected that something has happened (Phone No. 9911975645).
He recorded the said information, DD No. 21A Ex.PW6/B. He conveyed the said call to PW-26 SI Sombir Singh for appropriate action.
PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY SI SOMBIR SINGH:
7. On receipt of DD No. 19A Ex.PW6/A, PW-26 SI Sombir Singh alongwith PW-28 Ct. Vikas reached Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi. He collected MLC of the deceased. He came to know that the deceased was married before 8 months. He informed PW-1 Rakesh Sharma, SDM, Kotwali, Delhi. He alongwith PW-28 Ct. Vikash reached H. No. 3226, Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. He came to know that the room of the deceased was at 2nd floor of the said house. He inspected the said room. He found one stole (chunni) and one mobile phone lying on the double-bed. There was a hook on the ceiling for a fan. He called crime team and photographer.
8. PW-10 SI Devender Kumar, In-Charge, Crime Team, North District, Delhi inspected the place of incident. He prepared scene of crime (SOC) Ex.PW10/A, as under:
"At SOC, there is a chunni maroon and mehandi colour having a long cut mark in between. There is a LG mobile black colour with side red stripe lying on the bed. The injured / deceased has already been taken to hospital.
IO is directed to take into possession the chunni lying on bed and LG mobile phone lying on the bed."
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 3 of 56
9. PW-13 Ct. Irshad Ahmad had taken photographs of the place of incident, vide Ex.PX1 to Ex.PX6 and negatives thereof are Ex.PX7 (colly.).
RECORDING OF STATEMENTS OF THE COMPLAINANT AND PW-3 HARI CHAND, THE PARENTS OF THE DECEASED:
10. On 19.07.2012 at 12.00 noon, PW-1 Rakesh Sharma, SDM, Kotwali recorded statement of PW-2 Veena Devi, mother of the deceased (Hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') Ex.PW1/B, translated as under:
"I, Smt. Veena Devi W/o Sh. Hari Chand R/o 26, Bhogal Road, Jangpura, Delhi, making statement without any pressure before SDM. I know that I am making this statement to SDM, Kotwali. Q. What is your name and what is your relationship with the deceased?
Ans. My name is Veena Devi. I am mother of the deceased Deepika. I have four children. One boy and three girls. Deepika is my youngest daughter. Q. When you married the deceased and with whom? Ans. On 23.11.2011, we solemnized marriage of Deepak with Kamal Singh S/o Sh. Moti Lal in our house in accordance with ceremonies and rites. Q. Did the groom side demanded dowry at the time of marriage?
Ans. The groom side had not demanded any dowry at the time of marriage but father of the groom and his elder brother Sumit had stated that vehicle (gaadi) was a common thing.
Q. Did your daughter made any complaint regarding the behavior of her husband or in-laws? Ans. After three days from the date of her marriage, Deepika came to her maternal house and stated that her husband and mother-in-law had stated that if she wanted to travel anywhere then she should bring an amount of Rs. 50,000/- of kanyadaan. Thereafter, Deepika had stated that she was constantly harassed. Her father-in-law and husband started making demand of money from Deepika for expansion of their business.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 4 of 56 Q. How did you come to know about death of Deepika and whom do you suspect for her death? Ans. Today at about 10.30 a.m., I received a call from Kamal that Deepika is not well and we should reach hospital. While I was putting locks, I received another call that Deepika has expired. I am certain that my daughter was killed by her husband Kamal, mother- in-law Saraswati, jeth Sumit and jethani Parmita. Strict legal action be taken against them. Besides them, father-in-law Moti Lal is also involved. I have made this statement voluntarily to SDM Sh. Rakesh Sharma. I have read the statement. I have signed on each page thereof."
11. On 19.07.2012 at 12.55 p.m., PW-1 Rakesh Sharma, SDM, Kotwali recorded statement of PW-3 Hari Chand, father of the deceased Ex.PW1/A, translated as under:
"I, Hari Chand S/o Sh. Budh Singh R/o 26, Bhogal Road, Jangpura, Delhi, making statement without any pressure before SDM, Kotwali. I know that I am making this statement to SDM, Kotwali. Q. What is your name and what is your relationship with the deceased?
Ans. My name is Hari Chand. I am father of the deceased Deepika.
Q. When you married the deceased and with whom? Ans. On 23.11.2011, we solemnized marriage of Deepak with Kamal Singh S/o Sh. Moti Lal in our house in accordance with ceremonies and rites. Q. Did the groom side demanded dowry at the time of marriage?
Ans. There was no such thing at the time of marriage. All these things happened after marriage. Q. Did your daughter made any complaint regarding the behavior of her husband or in-laws? Ans. My daughter did not use to talk much with me. She used to talk to her mother. Because, I used to be at my work. My wife used to tell me that Deepika was not happy in her matrimonial house. Her in-laws comprising her husband Kamal, father-in-law Moti Lal, mother-in-law Saraswati, jeth Sumit and jethani Parmita used to harass her for dowry and used to demand dowry.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 5 of 56 Q. How did you come to know about death of Deepika and whom do you suspect for her death? Ans. In the morning, I received a call from Kamal that condition of Deepika was not good and they were taking her to hospital. After sometime, I received another call that Deepika has expired. I believe that my daughter was killed by her husband Kamal, mother-in-law Saraswati, father-in-law Moti Lal, jeth Sumit and jethani Parmita. Strict legal action be taken against them.
I have made this statement voluntarily to SDM Sh. Rakesh Sharma. I have read the statement. I have signed on each page thereof."
12. PW-1 Rakesh Sharma, SDM, Kotwali directed SHO, PS Subzi Mandi to take action as per law.
ENDORSEMENT FOR REGISTRATION OF CASE:
13. On the basis of the complaint Ex.PW1/B, statement of PW-3 Hari Chand, MLC Ex.PW5/A and facts and circumstances, PW-26 SI Sombir Singh made endorsement Ex.PW26/A for registration of FIR under Section 498-A/304- B/34 IPC. He handed over tehrir to PW-28 Ct. Vikas for being taken to PS Subzi Mandi for registration of FIR. REGISTRATION OF FIR:
14. On 19.07.2012 at about 01.40 p.m., PW-6 ASI Anil Kumar, Duty Officer, PS Subzi Mandi registered FIR No. 153/2012 under Section 498-A/304-B/34 IPC Ex.PW6/C and assigned investigation of the case to PW-27 Insp. Surender Kumar.
POST-MORTEM OF THE DEAD BODY OF THE DECEASED:
15. On 19.07.2012 at 03.30 p.m, PW-4 Dr. C.B. Dabas, HOD, Forensic Medicine, Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi conducted post-mortem upon the dead body of the deceased. The post- mortem report is Ex.PW4/A. FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 6 of 56
16. PW-4 Dr. C.B. Dabas observed external injuries, as under:
"1. Ligature Mark: There is one pressure abrasion measuring 2.8 cm encircling the neck, except in the area of 3 X 2 cm (knot area) over left mastoid region. The pressure abrasion (ligature mark) located above thyroid cartilage in front of neck and 7 cm above sternal notch, 5 cm below right mastoid and 4 cm below left angle of mandible and 2.5 cm below hairline on back of neck. The margins of the ligature mark showed bruising with pink discoloration and floor of the L mark are dark brown, dry and parchment like floor. The width of the ligature was varying between 0.7 to 1.5 cm in size and more prominent on right side of neck.
On deeper dissection and exploration of neck, it is observed that base of ligature mark is translucent and parchment like and muscles and tissues of the neck had deep grooving underlying the ligature mark. The thyroid cartilage, hyoid bone and other neck structures were intact. There was effusion of blood under the area of knot over left mastoid region. There is no mark of external injury on the body of the deceased."
17. On internal examination of the dead body of the deceased, PW-4 Dr. C.B. Dabas observed, as under:
"Stomach was empty. Liver, spleen and both kidneys were normal. The uterus contained a dead female fetus of about 5 months gestation age. Both lungs were oedematous and congested. The meninges and brain were oedematous. Other internal organs were intact."
18. PW-4 Dr. C.B. Dabas deferred his opinion regarding cause of death till receipt of report of chemical analysis.
19. PW-4 Dr. C.B. Dabas sealed clothes and viscera of the deceased in separate parcels with the seals having impression 'FMHRH' and handed over to IO for chemical analysis.
20. PW-4 Dr. C.B. Dabas opined the time of death approx. 7 to 8 hrs. FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 7 of 56 FSL REPORTS:
21. PW-17 Ms. Poonam Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Delhi examined the clothes of the deceased and given opinion that no blood was detected thereon, vide FSL Report Ex.PW17/A.
22. PW-21 Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Delhi examined the viscera of the deceased, vide FSL Report Ex.PW21/A, as under:
"On Chemical & TLC examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in exhibits '1A', '1B', '1C' & '1D'."
OPINION QUA CAUSE OF DEATH:
23. PW-4 Dr. C.B. Dabas given opinion regarding cause of death, vide report Ex.PW4/B, as under:
"On perusal of post mortem report of deceased and FSL reports bearing No. FSL 2012/B-5596 dt.
24.09.2012 and FSL 2012/C-5620 dt. 24.09.2012, forwarded by IO, it is opined that:
1. Death in this case was due to Ante Mortem hanging, caused by constriction of neck by a ligature material, made of soft and thick material, consequent to suspension of body.
2. Time since death as approx. 07 to 08 hrs."
INVESTIGATION:
24. During investigation, PW-27 Insp. Surender Kumar prepared unscaled site plan of the place of incident Ex.PW27/G at the instance of PW-26 SI Sombir Singh. He seized stole (chunni) and mobile phone from the place of incident and converted them into a parcel and sealed them with his seal having impression 'SK' and seized them, vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/B. FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 8 of 56
25. After post-mortem, PW-27 Insp. Surender Kumar handed over dead body to PW-3 Hari Chand, vide memo Ex.PW3/A. He received sealed parcels containing clothes and viscera of the deceased and sample seals from autopsy surgeon, vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/A. He recorded statements of the complainant, PW-3 Hari Chand, PW-9 Kavita, sister of the deceased, PW-4 Shiv Kumar, paternal uncle (fufa) of the deceased, Smt. Balawati, maternal aunt (bua) of the deceased, PW-7 Vimal Prakash, cousin of the deceased and PW-8 Prem Singh, neighbour of PW-7 Vimal Prakash under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
ARREST OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS:
26. PW-27 Insp. Surender Kumar arrested the accused persons, vide arrest memos Ex.PW27/B to Ex.PW27/F. He deposited the sealed parcels with PW-22 HC Kesar Singh, MHC(M), PS Subzi Mandi.
27. PW-11 SI Mahesh Kumar, Draftsman prepared scaled site plan of the place of incident Ex.PW11/A.
28. PW-27 Insp. Surender Kumar collected Call Detail Records (CDR) pertaining to mobile No. 8527985529 for the period from 01.01.2012 to 20.07.2012 subscribed to the accused Kamal Ex.PW25/A, mobile No. 9810518163 for the period from 01.01.2012 to 20.07.2012 subscribed to PW-3 Hari Chand Ex.PW25/C and mobile No. 9871930968 for the period from 01.01.2012 to 20.07.2012 subscribed to PW-3 Hari Chand Ex.PW25/E. CHARGE-SHEET:
29. On completion of investigation, the accused persons were charge-sheeted under section 498-A/304-B/34 IPC.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 9 of 56 COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS:
30. Vide order dated 31.10.2012, Jurisdictional Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session. CHARGE:
31. Vide order dated 11.12.2012, the accused persons were charged for committing offences under Section 498-A/34 IPC and 304-B/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
32. The prosecution examined 29 witnesses, as under:
The witnesses Description of the witnesses PW-1 Mr. Rakesh Sharma SDM, Kotwali PW-2 Smt. Veena Devi Mother of the deceased / the complainant PW-3 Sh. Hari Chand Father of the deceased PW-4 Dr. C.B. Dabas Conducted post-mortem upon the dead body PW-4 Shiv Kumar Paternal uncle (fufa) of the deceased PW-5 Dr. A.K. Banka CMO, Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi PW-6 ASI Anil Kumar, Recorded DD No. 19A and 21A and recorded Duty Officer FIR on 19.07.2012 at PS Subzi Mandi PW-7 Vimal Prakash Cousin of the deceased PW-8 Prem Singh Neighbour of Mr. Vimal Prakash PW-9 Kavita Sister of the deceased PW-10 SI Devender Kumar In-Charge, Crime Team, North District, Delhi PW-11 Insp Mahesh Kumar Draftsman, Crime Branch, Delhi PW-12 Ct. Manoj Kumari Conducted personal search of the accused Saraswati and Parmita PW-13 Ct. Irshad Ahmad Photographer, Crime Team, North District PW-14 Ct. Deepak Kumar Parcel Depositor PW-15 Ct. Vijendra Duty Constable, Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi PW-16 Dr. Urvashi Sharma Medical Officer, In-Charge, M&CW Centre, Subzi Mandi, Ghantaghar, Delhi PW-17 Poonam Sharma Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL PW-18 Ct. Vinod Kumar Parcel Depositor PW-19 Bhupender Singh AERO, Voters Centre, AC-3, Timarpur FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 10 of 56 PW-20 W/Ct. Anita Channel Operator, CPCR (PHQ) PW-21 Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL PW-22 HC Kesar Singh MHC(M), PS Subzi Mandi PW-23 SI Ganga Prasad Witnessed seizure of wedding card and marriage photographs PW-24 Amrender Kumar AERO, AC-3, Timarpur PW-25 Surender Kumar Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. PW-26 SI Sombir Singh 1st Investigating Officer PW-27 Insp. Surender 2nd Investigating Officer Kumar PW-28 Ct. Vikas Seizure and arrest witness LIST OF PROSECUTION DOCUMENTS:
33. The prosecution relied on the documents, as under:
Exhibit Description of the documents Ex.PW1/A Statement of PW-3 Hari Chand Ex.PW1/B Statement of Smt. Veena Devi / the complainant Ex.PW1/C Request for conducting post-mortem upon the dead body Ex.PW1/D Inquest report Ex.PW1/E Identification memo signed by PW-3 Hari Chand Ex.PW1/F Identification memo signed by Smt. Veena Devi Ex.PW3/A Dead body receiving memo Ex.PW4/A Post-mortem report Ex.PW4/B Final opinion regarding cause of death of the deceased Ex.PW5/A MLC of the deceased Ex.PW6/A DD No. 19A dated 19.07.2012 at 09.07 a.m. Ex.PW6/B DD No. 21A dated 19.07.2012 at 09.50 a.m. Ex.PW6/C FIR No. 153/2012 under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC Ex.PW9/A Seizure memo of wedding card and 11 marriage photographs Ex.PW10/A Scene of Crime (SOC) report
Ex.PW11/A Scaled site plan of the place of incident Ex.PW12/A Personal search memo of the accused Saraswati Ex.PW12/B Personal search memo of the accused Parmita Ex.PW16/A Ante-natal card qua the accused Parmita Ex.PW17/A FSL (Biology) report Ex.PW19/A Verification report qua voter ID card of the accused Kamal, Surender, Saraswati and Moti Lal FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 11 of 56 Ex.PW20/A PCR Form dated 19.07.2012 at 09:37:29 hrs. Ex.PW21/A FSL (Chemistry) report Ex.PW22/A Entry at Sl. No. 1985 in Reg. No. 19 regarding deposit of two sealed parcels containing clothes and viscera of the deceased Ex.PW22/B RC No. 82/21/12 alongwith acknowledgement issued by and FSL, Rohini dated 27.07.2012 and RC No. 82/21/12 Ex.PW22/C alongwith acknowledgement issued by FSL, Rohini dated 27.07.2012 Ex.PW22/D RC No. 84/21/12 alongwith acknowledgement issued by and FSL, Rohini dated 30.07.2012 and RC No. 84/21/12 Ex.PW22/E alongwith acknowledgement issued by FSL, Rohini dated 30.07.2012 Ex.PW24/A Verification report qua existence of name of the accused Parmita in electoral roll of 2012 in AC-3, Timarpur Ex.PW25/A Call Detail Record (CDR) of mobile No. 8527985529 w.e.f.
01.01.2012 to 20.07.2012 Ex.PW25/B Customer Application Form with ID proof qua subscription of mobile No. 8527985529 to the accused Kamal Ex.PW25/C Call Detail Record (CDR) of mobile No. 9810518163 w.e.f.
01.01.2012 to 20.07.2012 Ex.PW25/D Customer Application Form with ID proof qua subscription of mobile No. 9810518163 to PW-3 Hari Chand Ex.PW25/E Call Detail Record (CDR) of mobile No. 9871930968 w.e.f.
01.01.2012 to 20.07.2012 Ex.PW25/F Customer Application Form with ID proof qua subscription of mobile No. 9871930968 to PW-3 Hari Chand Ex.PW25/G Certificate under Section 65B of 'The Indian Evidence Act, 1872' Ex.PW25/H Tower Location Chart Ex.PW26/A Endorsement for registration of FIR U/s. 498A/304B/34 IPC Ex.PW26/B Seizure memo of stole (chunni) and mobile phone containing SIM No. 8527985529 Ex.PW26/C Personal search memos of the accused Moti Lal, Surender to Singh @ Sumit and Kamal Ex.PW26/E Ex.PW26/F Seizure memo of two CDs regarding marriage of the deceased and the accused Kamal Ex.PW27/A Seizure memo of the clothes, viscera and sample seals Ex.PW27/B Arrest memos of the accused Kamal, Surender Singh @ to Sumit, Parmita, Moti Lal and Saraswati Ex.PW27/F FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 12 of 56 Ex.PW27/G Unscaled site plan of the place of incident Ex.PX1 to Photographs of the scene of crime (SOC) Ex.PX6 Ex.P1 Wedding card Ex.P2 11 marriage photographs (colly.) Mark A to J Photographs EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS:
34. Incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were explained to the accused persons, under section 313 Cr.P.C.
They denied each and every circumstance appearing in evidence against them. They stated that they never demanded any dowry from the parents of the deceased. They stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. They stated that the prosecution witnesses falsely deposed. They pleaded innocence. PLEA OF DEFENCE:
35. The plea of the accused Kamal is, as under:
"Q. 51. Do you want to say anything else? Ans. I am innocent. Deepika was having good relations with me as well as my family members i.e. other accused persons. She used to exchange SMSs with me and my sister-in-law Parmita. Mother of Deepika and her sister Kavita used to pressurize her to get separated from her in-laws but she was happy in her matrimonial home in a joint family. Her mother used to call her regularly on mobile phone and pressurize her to get separated from her in-laws due to this she was under constant pressure as she wanted to live with her in-laws in a joint family. On 18.07.2012, Harichand (father of Deepika), Shiv Kumar, Bala Devi and Kavita reached at our home and they were angry because of the fact that my brother Surender and his wife Parmita has started residing with us. They pressurized my parents to get myself and Deepika separated from them and give my share in the property to me. Deepika became angry and went to her bedroom and they went to meet her in the bedroom but she did not talk to them as according to her they were disturbing her family peace.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 13 of 56 When they were leaving our house, Kavita told Deepika "tu humara kahna nahi maan rahi hai, ab tu humare liye mar gai aur hum there liye mar gaye, humara tere se koi rista nahi hai'. Due to their constant pressure, she was under tremendous mental pressure as she wanted to live in her matrimonial home peacefully and that is why she committed suicide."
36. The accused Surender @ Sumit, Moti Lal, Saraswati and Parmita stated to the same effect in their plea of defence. DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
37. The defence examined 2 witnesses, as under:
(a) DW-1 Deepak Kumar Gautam stated that he prepared transcripts mark 'H' and 'J' of SMS sent from mobile phone of the accused Parmita. He furnished certificate under Section 65 of 'The Indian Evidence Act, 1872' Ex.DW1/A.
(b) DW-2 Dilawar Singh stated that he prepared transcript mark 'K' of SMS sent from mobile phone of the accused Kamal. He furnished certificate under Section 65 of 'The Indian Evidence Act, 1872' Ex.DW2/A. APPEARANCE:
38. I have heard arguments of Mr. Amit Dabas, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Mr. Harish Kumar Mehra, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and examined the evidence, oral and documentary, and perused written arguments filed by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PROSECUTION:
39. Mr. Amit Dabas, Ld. Addl. PP for the State contended that the deceased died within one year from the date of her marriage. He contended that the date of marriage of the deceased is 23.11.2011 whereas date of death is 19.07.2012. He contended that the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 14 of 56
40. Ld. Addl. PP for the State contended that the deceased died due to hanging from a ceiling in her marital home. He contended that the deceased died an unnatural death. He contended that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry demand. He contended that there is presumption under Section 113-B of 'The Evidence Act, 1872'. He contended that the prosecution witnesses deposed specific instances of harassment, maltreatment and cruelty to the deceased since beginning in connection with dowry demand. He contended that there are specific allegations against each of the accused persons that they had subjected the deceased to cruelty for dowry demand. He contended that the prosecution witnesses categorically stated that at the time of bidai, the accused Moti Lal and Surender @ Sumit were annoyed with the fact that parents of the deceased had given a motorcycle and they stated that they were expecting a car. He contended that the prosecution witnesses categorically stated that on her first visit to her parental house at the time of pagfera, the deceased stated that the accused Moti Lal and Surender @ Sumit harassing her in connection with demand of a car and the accused Saraswati and Kamal were pressurizing her to bring Rs. 50,000/- from kanyadan. He contended that after 2-3 days from the date of her departure from her maternal home, the deceased informed her mother Smt. Veena Devi (PW-2) on her mobile phone that the accused persons were taunting and harassing her that she had not brought anything in dowry and asked her to demand Rs. 50,000/ from her parents. He contended that the accused Moti Lal and Surender @ Sumit were constantly taunting that the deceased had not brought anything in dowry whereas the accused Parmita is earning.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 15 of 56
41. Ld. Addl. PP for the State contended that when the deceased was in family way, the accused Parmita taunted that the deceased did not bring anything from her house and she should bring cash so as to meet the expenses of her delivery and otherwise, she would get the accused Kamal married to her sister. He contended that on 16.05.2012, the accused Moti Lal and Saraswati abused the parents of the deceased in the house of cousin of the deceased, namely, Vimal Prakash (PW-7) and stated that the parents of the deceased had not given cooler, AC, fan and Rs. 2,00,000/- for business expansion to them. He contended that the said accused persons threatened the parents of the deceased to meet their demand otherwise the marriage of the deceased would not succeed. He contended that an independent witness, namely, Prem Singh (PW-8) also corroborated evidence of the parents of the deceased and cousin of the deceased, namely, Vimal Prakash (PW-7) on this aspect. He contended that on 18.07.2012, the accused persons abused PW-3 Hari Chand, father of the deceased, PW-9 Kavita, sister of the deceased, PW- 4 Shiv Kumar, fufa of the deceased and Smt. Balawati, bua of the deceased when they visited matrimonial home of the deceased for giving festival gifts and thrown the said gifts / articles while stating that why had not brought some valuable articles. He contended that the accused persons insulted and humiliated the said family members of the deceased. He contended that the deceased could not bear constant harassment and humiliation to which she was subjected by the accused persons and committed suicide by hanging herself with a stole from a ceiling of her room. He contended that the accused persons are guilty of cruelty and dowry death under Section 498-A/34 and 304-B/34 IPC.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 16 of 56 CONTENTIONS OF THE DEFENCE:
42. Mr. Harish Kumar Mehra, Ld. Defence counsel contended that there was no demand of dowry before or at the time of marriage. He contended that the prosecution has failed to prove that any demand was ever made to the deceased or her family members by the accused persons. He contended that the prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused persons made any dowry demand soon before death of the deceased. He contended that the accused persons had no intention to demand any dowry. He contended that PW-3 Hari Chand, father of the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and there was no reason for the accused persons to marry the deceased belonging to a family having meager income. He contended that the photographs placed on file would show that the deceased was living a happy married life and she had never been subjected to any mental or physical cruelty or any dowry demand. He contended that the deceased went for honeymoon with the accused Kamal. He contended that the parents of the deceased did not disclose any instance of dowry demand at the time of recording their statements Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B before PW-1 Rakesh Sharma, SDM, Kotwali. He contended that the prosecution witnesses made material improvements in their subsequent statements recorded on 24.07.2012 and 31.07.2012 in order to falsely implicate the accused persons in a case of dowry death. He contended that the deceased was unhappy as the parents of the deceased were pressurizing her to separate from her in-laws and for that reason, she committed suicide. He contended that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was ever subjected to cruelty by the accused persons.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 17 of 56 SECTION 304-B IPC:
43. Section 304-B IPC defines 'dowry death', as under:
"(1) 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.
Explanation- For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."
SECTION 113-B OF 'THE EVIDENCE ACT, 1872':
44. Section 113-B of 'The Evidence Act, 1872' is, as under:
"113-B. 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, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)"
45. In Parvati Devi vs. State of Bihar (now State of Jharkhand) and Others, (2022) 14 SCC 500, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"16. In Maya Devi v. State of Haryana, (2015) 17 SCC 405, it was held that : (SCC p. 418, para 23) "23. To attract the provisions of Section 304-B, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty or harassment "for, or in connection with the demand for dowry".
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 18 of 56 The expression "soon before her death" used in Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. In fact, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there is no proximity for the alleged demand of dowry and harassment. With regard to the said claim, we shall advert to while considering the evidence led in by the prosecution. Though the language used is "soon before her death", no definite period has been enacted and the expression "soon before her death" has not been defined in both the enactments. Accordingly, the determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before her death" is to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the said expression would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. In other words, there must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence." [Also refer to G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, (210) 12 SCC 350]"
46. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Jogendra and Another, (2022) 5 SCC 401, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"17. In the above context, we may usefully refer to a recent decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab, that has restated (at SCC pp. 111-12, para 9) the detailed guidelines that have been laid down in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, both authored by N.V. Ramana, C.J. relating to trial under Section 304-B IPC where the law on Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act has been pithily summarised in the following words : (Satbir Singh case, SCC p. 13, para
38) FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 19 of 56 "38.1. Section 304-B IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand.
38.2. The prosecution must at first establish the existence of the necessary ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304-B IPC. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttal presumption of causality, provided under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act operates against the accused.
38.3. The phrase "soon before" as appearing in Section 304-B IPC cannot be construed to mean "immediately before". The prosecution must establish existence of "proximate and live link" between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives.
38.4. Section 304-B IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorising death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental. The reason for such non-categorisation is due to the fact that death occurring "otherwise than under normal circumstances" can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental."
(emphasis in original and supplied)
47. In Devender Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2022) 13 SCC 82, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"12. Section 304-B IPC read along with Section 113- B of the Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that once the prosecution has succeeded in demonstrating that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death, a presumption shall be drawn against the said persons that they have caused dowry death as contemplated under Section 304-B IPC. The said presumption comes with a rider inasmuch as this presumption can be rebutted by the accused on demonstrating during the trial that all the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC have not been satisfied. [Ref.:
Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana, Maya Devi v. State of Haryana, G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana.]"
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 20 of 56 INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 304-B IPC:
48. To bring home the guilt under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must prove that:
(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii) Such a death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(iii) Soon before death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with demand of dowry; and
(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
49. So far as the first two ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, there is no dispute that the deceased was married to the accused Kamal on 23.11.2011. The deceased committed suicide by hanging herself with a stole from ceiling in a room in her marital home on 19.07.2012. The deceased died an unnatural death on 19.07.2012 i.e. within 7 years of her marriage.
50. The issue before this Court is whether the prosecution established essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC for raising presumption under Section 113-B IPC.
51. In other words, whether the prosecution has produced evidence to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment and if so, it was in connection with any dowry demand and such cruelty or harassment was caused 'soon before death'. When such evidence is brought on the record, the Court can raise presumption envisaged under Section 113-B of 'The Indian Evidence Act, 1872'. Thereafter, the accused persons must rebut the said statutory presumption.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 21 of 56
THE COURT MUST ASSESS THE EVIDENCE
CAREFULLY:
52. In Randhir Singh vs. State of Pubjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, as under:
"This Court has observed that the Courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced here to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
(A) WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS SUBJECTED THE DECEASED TO CRUELTY OR HARASSMENT FOR ANY DEMAND OF DOWRY:
53. The case of the prosecution is founded on the edifice of the evidence of PW-2 Smt. Veena Devi, mother of the deceased, PW-3 Hari Chand, father of the deceased, PW-4 Shiv Kumar, fufa of the deceased, PW-7 Vimal Prakash, cousin of the deceased, PW-8 Prem Singh, neighbour of PW-7 Vimal Prakash and PW-9 Kavita, sister of the deceased.
54. To begin with, there is sufficient evidence on record that the accused persons had not made any demand for dowry before or at the time of marriage of Deepika with the accused Kamal.
55. In her statement Ex.PW1/B, PW-2 Veena Devi, mother of the deceased, stated that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 22 of 56
56. Similarly, PW-3 Hari Chand, father of the deceased, in his statement Ex.PW1/A, stated that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage.
57. To be more precise, it will be relevant to take note of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on this aspect, as under:
(a) PW-2 Veena Devi, mother of the deceased deposed, as under:
".....Before the marriage when we went at the house of Kamal to fix the marriage, we made it clear to Moti Lal and we would not be able to give dowry in the marriage as I have three daughters and that I would give according to my capacity but I would not be able to fulfill their demands. At that time, no demand was raised by Kamal and his family members....."
(b) PW-3 Hari Chand, father of the deceased deposed, in his cross-examination, as under:
".....It is correct that before performing rokka ceremony, I had informed the accused persons about my job and salary. There was no demand from accused persons at the time of rokka ceremony. I had informed the accused persons that I will not be able to fulfill any of their demands before rokka ceremony. (Vol. In fact there was no demand from the bridegroom side)....."
(c) PW-4 Shiv Kumar, paternal uncle (fufa) of the deceased deposed, in his cross-examination, as under:
".....It is correct that at the time of rokka ceremony and till completion of marriage / bidaai no demand of money and dowry articles was ever made by accused persons....."
(d) PW-9 Kavita, sister of the deceased deposed, in her cross-examination, as under:
".....It is correct that at the time of talks of marriage (before Rokka ceremony), my father made clear to Sh. Motilal about his financial condition. It is correct that at time of talks of marriage and at the time of marriage Kamal, no demand was made by Kamal and his other family members from us....."
(emphasis supplied) FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 23 of 56
58. On the aspect of financial capacity of the parents of the deceased, there is sufficient evidence that the parents of the deceased informed about their financial capacity to the accused persons at the time of the marriage.
59. There is evidence that PW-3 Hari Chand, father of the deceased was earning about Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/- per month from a private job in Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi, as under:
(a) PW-2 Veena Devi, mother of the deceased deposed, in her cross-examination, as under:
"My husband is doing a private job in a shop at Lajpat Rai Market. He is earning Rs. 20,000/- to 30,000/- per month. Again said, my husband does not earn Rs. 20,000/- to 30,000/- per month except his monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/- per month. He does not file ITR. I do not know what my husband is doing except the job at shop from which he earns rest of the earning. It is correct that I am a housewife."
(b) PW-3 Hari Chand, father of the deceased deposed, in his cross-examination, as under:
"It is correct that I am doing a private job at a shop in Lajpat Rai Market. It is correct that my wife is a house wife. At the time of marriage of my daughter Deepika, I was getting Rs. 12,000/- per month salary....."
(emphasis supplied)
60. Therefore, it is proved that PW-3 Hari Chand, father of the deceased was earning about Rs. 12,000/- per month from his employment in a private shop in Lajpat Rai Market at the time of marriage and he had informed his inability to the accused persons to arrange for any dowry and the accused persons had not made any demand of dowry before or at the time of marriage of Deepika with the accused Kamal. It is an arranged marriage. The marriage was conducted in a simple manner in a tent in front of house of the parents of the deceased.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 24 of 56
61. The first plank of the case of the prosecution is that the accused Moti Lal, father-in-law and the accused Surender @ Sumit, son-in-law (jeth) demanded a car at the time of bidai.
62. On this aspect, it is relevant to state that PW-2 Veena Devi, mother of the deceased, in her statement Ex.PW1/B, merely stated that father-in-law and son-in-law (jeth) of the deceased stated that vehicle is a common thing in a marriage. However, in her examination-in-chief, she made considerable improvement to the extent that at the time of bidai, the accused Moti Lal, father-in-law and the accused Surender @ Sumit, son- in-law (jeth) saw motorcycle and they became furious and stated that they were expecting a car as it is a common thing and her husband requested them with folded hands that he has given dowry as per his capacity and would not be able to give anything more. Thereafter, bidai could take place and baraat left with bride, as under:
".....But at the time of Vidai, when Moti Lal (father- in-law) and Sumit (Jeth) saw motorcycle, they became furious and said that they were expecting car and it is a common thing in the marriage. My husband requested with folded hands that he has given dowry as per his capacity and would not be able to give anything more. Thereafter the Vidai ceremony took place and Baraat went away with bride."
63. It is relevant to note that PW-3 Hari Chand, father of the deceased did not state, in his statement Ex.PW1/A, that the accused Moti Lal and Surrender @ Sumit stated, at the time of bidai, that car is a common thing in marriage. In fact, he did not state anything what has been deposed by PW-2 Veena Devi, in his evidence, as deposed above.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 25 of 56
64. PW-2 Veena Devi admitted, in her cross- examination, that she had not stated the aforesaid facts in her statement Ex.PW1/B and statement dated 19.07.2012 Ex.PW2/DA, as under:
".....I had told SDM that at the time of Vidai, when Moti Lal (father-in-law) and Sumit (Jeth) saw motorcycle, they became furious and said that they were expecting car and it is a common thing in the marriages. Witness is confronted with her statement Ex.PW1/B wherein it is not found so recorded but she states that she does not know if it was recorded by SDM or not. Volunteer, the SDM had told me to answer only those questions which were being asked by him. Witness is also confronted with her statement dated 19.07.2012 U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW2/DA wherein it is only recorded that at the time of marriage, Moti Lal and Sumit said car is common matter in the marriage....."
65. PW-3 Hari Chand, father of the deceased did not state, in his examination-in-chief recorded on 19.07.2013, that at the time of bidai, the accused Moti Lal and Surender @ Sumit stated that car is a common thing. However, in his examination- in-chief recorded on 12.09.2013, he merely stated that the accused Moti Lal and Surender @ Sumit stated, at the time of bidai, that vehicle is a common thing at the time of marriage, as under:
"At the time of Vidai of my daughter Deepika, accused Moti Lal and Surinder told me that vehicle is common to be given at the time of marriage....."
66. PW-4 Shiv Kumar, paternal uncle (fufa) of the deceased stated nothing, as stated by PW-2 Veena Devi, had taken place at the time of bidai. He stated that at the time of bidai, the accused Moti Lal and Surender @ Sumit asked PW-3 Hari Chand that vehicle is a common thing in marriage and thereafter, nothing happened and bidai ceremony was completed.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 26 of 56
67. The relevant part of examination-in-chief of PW-4 Shiv Kumar is, as under:
".....At the time of bidai ceremony, father of accused Kamal, namely, Moti Lal present in Court (correctly identified) and his brother, namely, Surender present in Court (correctly identified) asked Hari Chand that "shaadi mein gaadi dena to aam baat hai", thereafter nothing happened and bidai ceremony was completed."
68. In his cross-examination, PW-4 Shiv Kumar stated that marriage and bidai ceremony were completed in a joyful manner, as under:
".....It is correct that the marriage ceremony and bidaai ceremony completed in a joyful manner....."
69. PW-7 Vimal Prakash, cousin of the deceased stated, in his cross-examination, that the marriage was performed in a peaceful and happy atmosphere.
70. PW-9 Kavita, sister of the deceased deposed, as under:
"My younger sister Deepika got married with accused Kamal on 23.11.2011. At the time of the Vidai of my younger sister Deepka, elder brother of Kamal, namely, Surender @ Sumit and father-in-law Motilal, after seeing the motorcycle in dowry articles, they were annoyed and they were saying "shadi main gaadi dena aam baat hai".
71. In her cross-examination, PW-9 Kavita was confronted with her statement Ex.PW9/B wherein it is not stated that at the time of bidai, the accused Moti Lal and Surender @ Sumit got annoyed after seeing the motorcycle, as under:
"I have stated before the police that at the time of the Vidai ceremony, after seeing the motorcycle, accused Motilal and Surender got annoyed. Confronted with statement PW9/B recorded by the police.....It is also correct that in a happy atmosphere, marriage ceremony of Kamal and Deepika completed...."
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 27 of 56
72. On careful examination of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as referred above, it is evident that PW-3 Hari Chand did not state, in his statement Ex.PW1/A, regarding any discussion pertaining to any vehicle at the time of bidai. PW- 2 Veena Devi made material improvements in her evidence. The prosecution witnesses, as stated above, categorically stated that the marriage and bidai ceremonies were completed in a happy and peaceful manner.
73. This Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its first plank of the case that there was any demand pertaining to car at the time of bidai.
74. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused persons had subjected the deceased with physical cruelty.
75. On this aspect, it is relevant to take note of evidence of PW-2 Veena Devi, mother of the deceased, as under:
".....It is correct that there was no physical torture from the accused persons meted to my daughter....."
76. The second plank of the case of the prosecution is that at the time of pagfera, the deceased stated that the accused Kamal and Saraswati demanded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from kanyadan, in case the deceased wanted to go for honeymoon. The deceased also informed PW-2 Veena Devi that the accused Moti Lal and Surender @ Sumit were taunting and harassing her for demand of a car.
77. In this regard, evidence of PW-2 Veena Devi is reproduced, as under:
"After three days, my daughter came for PAGFERA ceremony at my house. My deceased daughter Deepika started crying before me and told me that her Jeth Sumit and father in law Moti Lal are taunting and harassing her for the demand of car.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 28 of 56 She further told me that her mother in law Saraswati and her husband Kamal are asking her to bring Rs. 50,000/- out of kanyadan from the parental house if she wants to go out for outing. I made my daughter understand that she should tell her in-laws that the entire amount of kanyadan was handed over to her in-laws at the time of kanyadan itself. Thereafter she went to her matrimonial house....."
78. In her cross-examination, she stated that she had not informed the police regarding the facts deposed by her, as under:
"When Deepika came to our house after three days of her marriage for Pagphera, myself, my husband and my daughter Kavita were present at the house.....I have not stated to the Police in my any of the statements that after three days my daughter came for pagfera ceremony at my house and she started crying before me and told me that her Jeth and father in law are taunting and harassing her for the demand of dowry. It is wrong to suggest that I have not stated to the Police as no such incident ever happened. I have told the fact that mother-in-law and husband of Deepika demanded Rs. 50,000/- out of Kanyadan to the SDM (confronted with the statement given to SDM where it is so recorded)....."
79. PW-2 Veena Devi admitted that the deceased went to Vaishno Devi for honeymoon and she has no proof of receipt of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as kanyadan, as under:
"My daughter had gone to Vaishno Devi with Kamal after her marriage.....It is correct that I have not produced any proof that we received kanyadan in the marriage of my daughter amounting to Rs. 50,000/- "
80. PW-3 Hari Chand, father of the deceased, in his examination-in-chief, deposed on this aspect, as under:
".....After three days of marriage on pagfera, she visited our house and told us that her husband and mother-in-law are saying that if she wanted to go for outing, then she should bring Rs. 50,000/- from us....."
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 29 of 56
81. In his cross-examination, PW-3 Hari Chand deposed, as under:
"It is correct that my daughter Deepika had gone to honeymoon trip at Vaishno Devi but I do not know whether the said trip was joyful or not. Vol. It is correct that since it was a honeymoon trip, they both must have enjoyed it in a joyful manner. It is correct that photographs Mark 'B' (colly.) are of honeymoon trip.....It is correct that as I leave for my office in the morning and come back to house in the late evening, due to that my daughter Deepika used to talk to my wife only. Vol. Whenever my daughter used to visit our home and all of us used to sit together, that time my daughter used to tell about her "aapbeeti". It is correct that I had not disclosed such facts to police or SDM....."
82. PW-4 Shiv Kumar, paternal uncle (fufa) of the deceased deposed on this aspect, as under:
"After 4-5 days of the marriage, I received a phone call of Hari Chand who told me that Deepika informed him at the time when she came to his house for "Pagphera ceremony" that her husband and her mother-in-law present in Court (correctly identified) asked her to bring Rs. 50,000/- if she had to go for honeymoon....."
83. In his cross-examination, PW-4 Shiv Kumar stated, as under:
"It is correct that parents of Deepika never gave any money for honeymoon or for expansion of business....."
84. PW-9 Kavita, sister of the deceased deposed, as under:
"After three days of the marriage, my younger sister Deepika came to the house of my mother in Pagfera ceremony. She told that his mother-in-law Smt. Saraswati and husband Kamal asked her, if she wants to go anywhere, she will bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents....."
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 30 of 56
85. However, in her cross-examination, PW-9 Kavita deposed, as under:
".....It is correct after marriage Kamal and Deepika went for honeymoon at Vaishno Devi and my parents did not give any amount to them for honeymoon expenses. Vol. Demands were made by the accused persons for honeymoon expenses....."
86. On analysis of the prosecution evidence on the aspects that at pagfera, that the accused Kamal and mother-in-law demanded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from kanyadan, if she wanted to go for outing and the accused Moti Lal and Surender @ Sumit harassing her for demand of a car, it is evident that PW-2 Veena Devi made material improvements in her evidence while deposing that the accused Moti Lal and Surender @ Sumit were taunting and harassing the deceased for demand of a car. She went to the extent of stating that she had handed over entire amount of kanyadan to in-laws of the deceased at the time of kanyadan. These facts were not stated in her statement Ex.PW1/B. Moreover, none of the prosecution witnesses corroborated her evidence on the aforesaid aspects. PW-3 Hari Chand, father of the deceased did not state anything regarding the facts pertaining to pagfera, as deposed by PW-2 Veena Devi, in his statement Ex.PW1/A. He merely stated that the deceased did not use to talk to him much as he used to be at his work place and his wife used to tell him that Deepika was not happy in her marital home and the accused persons used to harass her for dowry and they used to demand dowry. He did not state that the accused Kamal and Saraswati asked the deceased to bring an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from kanyadan, if she wanted to go for honeymoon. He did not state that the deceased had informed that the accused Moti Lal and Surender @ Sumit were harassing her for the demand of car.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 31 of 56
87. It is relevant to note that in his examination-in-chief, PW-3 Hari Chand did not state that the accused Kamal and mother-in-law asked the deceased to bring amount of Rs. 50,000/- from kanyadan, if she wanted to go for outing. He even did not state that the accused Moti Lal and Surender @ Sumit were harassing the deceased and demanding a car.
88. The prosecution has not led any evidence that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was collected from kanyadan at the time of marriage. There is sufficient evidence on record that the deceased alongwith the accused Kamal went to Vaishno Devi for honeymoon and the parents of the deceased did not incur the expenses of honeymoon.
89. The prosecution could not establish its second plank of the case that the accused Kamal and Saraswati asked the deceased to bring an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from her parents towards honeymoon expenses and the accused Moti Lal and Surender @ Sumit harassed the deceased for a demand of car.
90. The third plank of the case of the prosecution is that the accused Kamal and Saraswati asked the deceased to bring an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for expanding their business.
91. PW-2 Veena Devi, in her examination-in-chief, deposed, as under:
".....After 2-3 days my daughter deceased Deepika informed me on telephone that my mother in law, Jeth, Jethani, father in law and husband continuously keep on taunting and harassing me that I have brought nothing in the dowry and that she has been sent empty handed and that they want to expand their business and for which she has to brought cash of Rs. 50,000/- from her parental home. I asked her to refuse them. On which she told me that abovesaid accused persons are harassing and taunting her.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 32 of 56 On this my daughter Deepika further told me that her father in law taunts her that her Jethani Parmita is earning and that she sits in the home and had not brought anything in dowry. Her Jeth also taunted her that her wife earns and she sits at home and that she is not brining cash of Rs. 50,000/- from her house for expanding their business. She further told me that all the abovesaid five accused persons continuously keep on harassing and taunting her for their demands."
92. In her cross-examination, PW-2 Veena Devi deposed, as under:
".....It is correct that accused Kamal had separate business and accused Surender had separate business. It is also correct that their business office were situated at different places. I do not know about the business of accused Surender. Kamal was running his business of Lipstic container at Bhajanpura.....Phone came from my daughter Deepika that a demand of Rs. 50,000/- is made by her in-laws for extension of business."
93. PW-3 Hari Chand, in his examination-in-chief, deposed, as under:
".....After returning to her matrimonial home on the same day, she called up her mother after two / four days of her return she told her that her husband Kamal and mother in law are demanding money. We asked our daughter to bear and wait for sometime. After some days, her Jethani Parmita told her that her parents had not given anything to her. Parmita was also harassing her. Deepika was forced to do all the household works. Jeth of Deepika, namely, Surender @ Sumit used to taunt her that her father had not given anything to us in the marriage whereas his wife is working. Surender @ Sumit also used to ask my daughter that if she wanted to stay in the house, she had to arrange Rs. 50,000/- from her parents so that they can make progress in the business. All the in- laws of deceased Deepika, namely, husband Kamal Singh, mother in law Saraswati, father in law Moti Lal, Jeth Surender @ Sumit and Jethani Parmita used to torture and harass her on account of dowry demand.....My deceased daughter used to make calls to her mother informing her that her father in law Moti Lal used to taunt her that his elder daughter in law is in service and deceased had not brought any dowry articles. My deceased daughter was being harassed due to non giving of dowry articles....."
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 33 of 56
94. In his cross-examination, PW-3 Hari Chand deposed, as under:
"My daughter never called me on phone. She used to call her mother.....I do not know about the business of Surender. I am not aware at the time of marriage of Surender whether his wife Parmita was not doing any job.....Accused Kamal was doing business of plastic cover of lipstick. It is correct that Surender and Kamal were doing separate business.....It is correct that I did not state before SDM that Surender asked my daughter to bring Rs. 50,000/-, if she wanted to live in this house. I did not state before SDM that Surnder and his wife Anita used to demand dowry from my daughter.....It is also correct that I did not state before SDM that Parmita, the Jethani said to my daughter that her parents did not give anything to her and also Parmita was harassing her. (Vol. These questions were put to me by SDM in questions- answer form and that is why I did not state these above stated facts to the SDM)."
95. PW-4 Shiv Kumar, in his examination-in-chief, deposed, as under:
".....As and when I visited the house of Hari Chand, he informed me that Deepika was being harassed by her in-laws and she was being compelled to do all the household work by her jethani, namely, Parmita, present in Court (correctly identified). Accused Surender also used to harass Deepika and used to compel her to do all the household work and used to taunt her saying that she had not brought sufficient dowry in the marriage. Once mother-in-law and father-in-law of Deepika forced her to bring money for business expansion saying that she had not brought sufficient dowry in the marriage....."
96. In his cross-examination, PW-4 Shiv Kumar deposed, as under:
".....It is correct that after the marriage of Deepika, I met her 1-2 times within 2-3 months of her marriage. It is wrong to suggest that Deepika was given proper food, clothing and other required items at her matrimonial home. I do not know whether Deepika was having any mobile phone.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 34 of 56 When Deepika met us in Bhogal, after 2-3 months of her marriage she told me that she was not given proper food, clothing and other items in her matrimonial home. I did not tell this fact to IO in my statement on 19.07.2012 and thereafter also I did not try to tell this fact to IO. Deepika told me in those two meetings about demand of Rs. 50,000/- for honeymoon and about the demand of money for business expansion by her mother-in-law, father-in- law and Kamal. I told this fact to the IO on 19.07.2012 at the time of recording of my statement. Confronted with statement Ex.PW4/D1 wherein it is not so recorded, however it is recorded that these facts were told to the witness by Hari Chand and his wife....."
97. PW-7 Vimal Prakash, cousin of the deceased, in his cross-examination, deposed, as under:
".....After her marriage whenever Deepika used to come to the house of my uncle Harichand, she also used to come to my house.....I could not talk to my uncle Harichand and his family for 2-3 days from the day of the marriage of my cousin sister Deepika. Even thereafter also, I had not heard anything about any kind of demand of dowry or expectation from Motilal or his children.....My cousin sister Deepika did not tell me at any point of time after her marriage about harassment on account of dowry. Vol. The same fact was told to my wife by my cousin sister Deepika. On 24.07.2012 when IO had come to my house, my wife did not tell the aforesaid fact to the IO.
Ques. I put to you that your wife did not disclose this fact to the IO on 24.07.2012 as Deepika never told your wife that she was subjected to harassment on account of dowry because Deepika never complained in this regard to your wife?
Ans. I do not know."
98. PW-9 Kavita, sister of the deceased, in her examination-in-chief, deposed, as under:
".....After some days, Deepika informed me and my mother, when she came to the house of my mother that her father-in-law Motilal, Jeth Sumit are demanding Rs. 50,000/- for the expansion of their business.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 35 of 56 She further told that her jethani and mother-in-law used to taunt and harass her and they forcibly made her to do all the house-hold works. She further told that her Jethani Parmita used to taunt "tere maa baap ne dahez main kuchh nahin diya hai" and Jeth also used to taunt that her wife is working whereas you did not bring any dowry. He also demanded Rs. 50,000/- for the expansion of their business....."
99. In her cross-examination, PW-9 Kavita deposed, as under:
"Initially, Deepika did not tell me about the demand of Rs. 50,000/- by the accused persons namely Kamal andhis mother. Initially, she told the said fact to my mother and subsequently, she told me also about the demand of Rs. 50,000/- after 1-2 days on my mother's phone. Deepika used to make call on my mother's phone and as and when I was there at my mother's home, she also spoke to me too."
100. On assessment of the prosecution evidence, it is evident that PW-2 Veena Devi, in her statement Ex.PW1/B, stated that thereafter, Deepika had informed that she was being harassed and her mother-in-law and husband were demanding money from her for expanding their business. However, in her examination-in-chief, she made material improvements. She stated that the accused persons were continuously harassing her that she had not brought dowry and she must bring cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- from her parents for expanding their business. It means PW-2 Veena Devi included the accused Moti Lal, Saraswati, Surender @ Sumit and Parmita within the purview of the allegations pertaining to demand of Rs. 50,000/- for expansion of business. It has come in evidence that the accused Kamal and Surender @ Sumit had separate businesses at different places. PW-3 Hari Chand has not made any allegation, in his statement Ex.PW1/A, regarding the said demand.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 36 of 56
101. In his evidence, PW-3 Hari Chand stated that the accused Surender @ Sumit also used to ask the deceased to arrange Rs. 50,000/- from her parents for their businesses. He fairly admitted that the allegations made by him against the accused Surender @ Sumit and Parmita are absent in his statement Ex.PW1/A. PW-4 Shiv Kumar further included the accused Moti Lal so far as demand for money for business expansion is concerned. PW-7 Vimal Prakash stated that he had not heard anything about any kind of dowry demand or expectations from the accused Moti Lal or his children. PW-9 Kavita did not make any allegation pertaining to demand of Rs. 50,000/- for expansion of business against the accused Kamal and Saraswati. Instead, she stated that the accused Moti Lal and Surender @ Sumit were demanding Rs. 50,000/- for expansion of their business.
102. It is, therefore, evident that the evidence of prosecution witnesses on the aspect of demand of Rs. 50,000/- from the deceased for expansion of business is suffering from material improvements, contradictions and omissions, as noted above. Besides a general allegation in the statement of PW-2 Veena Devi Ex.PW1/B, there is no credible, reliable or inspiring evidence to the effect that the accused Kamal and Saraswati made any demand of Rs. 50,000/- from the deceased for expanding their business and subjected the deceased to harassment for that demand. There is no coherence in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on this aspect.
103. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused Kamal and Saraswati asked the deceased to bring an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for expanding their business.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 37 of 56
104. The fourth plank of the case of the prosecution is that while the deceased was in family way, the accused Parmita asked her to bring cash from her parents to meet expenses of medical check-up and delivery and otherwise, she would get the accused Kamal married to her sister.
105. On this aspect, PW-2 Veena Devi deposed, as under:
"When my daughter became pregnant in the month of March, her Jethani taunted her that who would bear her expenses of check up and delivery and that she had brought nothing from her house and that she told her that she should bring the cash for abovesaid expenses and if unable to bring the same, she should give divorce to Kamal and that she would get Kamal married to her sister. This fact was told to me by my daughter. All the above five accused persons used to harass and torture my daughter for the dowry and they have killed my daughter."
106. In her cross-examination, PW-2 Veena Devi deposed, as under:
".....The attention of the witness has been drawn towards statement recorded by the SDM and the Police on 19.07.2012 where it is not recorded that on the pregnancy of her daughter, her Jethani Parmita taunted her. The attention of the witness has been drawn towards statement recorded by the SDM and the Police on 19.07.2012 where it is not recorded that Deepika should bring cash to meet the expenses of her delivery from her parents....."
107. PW-3 Hari Chand, in his examination-in-chief, deposed, as under:
".....My daughter was pregnant and she was also forced to do all the household works. All the aforesaid accused persons used to say my daughter that they had to spend lot of money on her treatment.....Thereafter Parmita was torturing my daughter Deepika. She was saying that my daughter had not brought dowry articles and she should go to her parent's house and seek divorce from her husband. She was further saying that she will get Kamal married with her younger sister."
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 38 of 56
108. In his cross-examination, PW-3 Hari Chand deposed, as under:
".....It is correct that I did not mention in my statement recorded by the police on 19.07.2012 that my daughter Deepika told me that her Jethani Parmita used to ask her that "agar tu dahej nahi la sakti to apne maa baap ke ghar ja kar talak le le, mai apne dewar Kamal ki shaadi apni chhoti behan se kar dungi". It is wrong to suggest that I did not mention this fact in my statement dated 19.07.2012 as no such incident ever happened and I had cooked up another story in consultation and deliberation with my other family members and the IO of this case.....It is correct that I did not state before SDM that Parmita, the Jethani asked my daughter that she did not bring sufficient dowry articles and she should go to her parent's house and she should seek divorce from her husband. It is correct that I did not state before SDM that Parmita, the Jethani of my daughter said to my daughter that she will get Kamal married with her younger sister. It is also correct that I did not state before SDM that Parmita, the Jethani said to my daughter that her parents did not give anything to her and also Parmita was harassing her. (Vol. These questions were put to me by SDM in questions- answer form and that is why I did not state these above stated facts to the SDM.....My daughter was keeping good health before her death. (Vol. She was pregnant at that time and therefore she required medical treatment). She was taking treatment from government dispensary (Child - Mother Health Care Unit), Subzi Mandi Clock Tower. I do not know for how may times my daughter was checked by doctor in the said Unit. I did not spend any money on the treatment / check up and it was government Unit and no expenses were incurred. The expenditure, if any, might have been spent by her in laws but I am not aware of that....."
109. PW-9 Kavita, in her examination-in-chief, deposed, as under:
".....She further told that her Jethani Parmita said that if she cannot bring the dowry, she may take divorce from her devar Kamal and Kamal will get marry with her younger sister. All the accused persons asked my sister to bring the money for her treatment."
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 39 of 56
110. On examination of the prosecution evidence, it is evident that PW-2 Veena Devi and PW-3 Hari Chand have not made any allegation in their statements Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/A respectively that the accused Parmita asked the deceased to bring money from her parents to meet expenses of her medical check-up and delivery and otherwise, the deceased should get divorced and she would get the accused Kamal married to her younger sister. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 19.07.2012, there is no allegation that the accused Parmita taunted the deceased during her pregnancy and asked her to bring cash from her parents to meet expenses of her delivery. PW-3 Hari Chand has not supported the evidence of PW-2 Veena Devi. He has not made any allegation that the accused Parmita asked the deceased to bring money from her parents to meet expenses of her medical check-up and delivery. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 19.07.2012, PW-3 Hari Chand did not state that the accused Parmita used to taunt the deceased that if she could not bring dowry, the deceased should get divorced from the accused Kamal and she would get him married to her younger sister. PW-3 Hari Chand admitted that the deceased was in a sound state of health and she was receiving regular medical check-up from a government dispensary while she was in family way and there was no expense on such medical check-up.
111. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused Parmita asked the deceased to bring cash from her parents to meet expenses of her medical check-up and delivery and otherwise, she would get the accused Kamal married to her younger sister.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 40 of 56
112. The fifth plank of the case of the prosecution is that on 16.05.2012, the accused Moti Lal demanded cooler, AC, fan and an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for expanding the business.
113. On this aspect, PW-2 Veena Devi deposed, as under:
"On 16.05.2012, Moti Lal, father-in-law of my deceased daughter went to the house of my nephew Vimal Prakash (son of Jeth). I and my husband were called by Vimal at his house. On seeing us, the accused Moti Lal started abusing us and said that we had given nothing in marriage and that we had not given cooler, fan or AC in the marriage. He further taunted that we had not given sufficient utensils in the marriage. He further taunted that he had demanded Rs. 2 Lakhs for expanding the business which was not given by us. He further taunted that he was expecting car in the marriage but we had given motorcycle. He further told us that if we wanted that marriage of our daughter should succeed, we should meet the above said demands. He started abusing and shouting. On hearing his shout, our neighbourer Prem Singh also reached there. He tried to make him understand but the accused Moti Lal continued his abuses and shout and left the house."
114. In her cross-examination, PW-2 Veena Devi deposed, as under:
".....Area of my house is 77 sq. yards approximately and same is the area of house of my Jeth which is stated next to our house. There is one house between the house of Prem Singh and our house.....Police officials visited our house after cremation on that day. Inspector Surender Kumar and two other police officials visited our house. They came at about 7 pm and remained in our house for more that 1½ hours. At that time, my all relatives were present at my house. Police recorded my statement on that day as I was unable to make complete statement before the SDM due to the shock and bereavement. My statement was written by police official accompanying Insp. Surender Kumar on his direction / dictation. Statement of my husband, my daughter Kavita, my sister in law and brother in law were also recorded. Police officials left our house at about 9 pm.....I have told the alleged incident of 16.05.2012 to the IO on 19.07.2012. (Confronted with statement Ex.PW2/DA where it is not so recorded)."
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 41 of 56
115. PW-3 Hari Chand, in his examination-in-chief, deposed, as under:
"On 16.05.2012, my nephew Vimal Prakash who resides in my neighborhood came to my house and he told us that father-in-law of Deepika had visited his house. After sometime, I alongwith my wife reached at the house of Vimal Prakash. We had sit there for sometime, Moti Lal started abusing us in filthy language. After hearing the same, Prem Singh entered the house of Vimal Prakash. Moti Lal started saying that we had not given A.C., Cooler and he was also saying that we had also not paid Rs. 2 Lakhs & also about vehicle. Moti Lal also told me that we had not given sufficient utensils. Moti Lal further told me that if we want that my daughter stay in the matrimonial house, we should consider their demand. I along with Vimal Prakash and Prem Singh tried to persuade Moti Lal but Moti Lal did not pay any heed to our request. He left the house of Vimal Prakash in anger and abusing us....."
116. In his cross-examination, PW-3 Hari Chand deposed, as under:
".....I did not state before the SDM that Moti Lal accused came to the house of my nephew on 16.05.2012. Vol. The SDM told me that he should told whatever he may ask.....It is correct that on 19.07.2012, I have not given statement to the police in regards to my allegation of incident dated 16.05.2012.....I did not state before SDM that on 16.05.2012, Moti Lal came at the house of my nephew Vimal Prakash and he demanded AC, cooler and Rs. 2 Lacs from me. I did not state before SDM that Moti Lal asked me that we have not given sufficient utensils to my daughter in her marriage....."
117. PW-7 Vimal Prakash, cousin of the deceased deposed, as under:
"I am cousin brother of Deepika. On 16.05.12, father in law of my cousin sister Sh. Moti Lal came to my house. I offered him tea. During the conversation with the accused Motilal, who is now present in the court accused started abusing my uncle and aunt namely Sh. Harichand and Ms. Veena (parents of the Deepika) and saying that they had not given sufficient dowry.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 42 of 56 Then, I called my uncle and aunt Sh. Harichand and Ms. Veena. After seeing them, the accused Motilal started shouting upon them. After hearing the shout of accused Motilal, my neighborer Prem Singh came there. Accused Motilal stated that Sh. Harichand and Ms. Veena had not given full utensils, even they had neither given any fan nor cooler nor AC. They had only given cheap motorcycle. However, we had expected a car from them. He further stated that he had demanded Rs. Two lacs for expansion of the business but they had not paid the said amount. Accused Motilal had abused my uncle and aunt. He further stated that if they want to maintain the relation, they would pay Rs. Two lacs and a car. I tried to pacify the accused Motilal but he left my house."
118. In his cross-examination, PW-7 Vimal Prakash deposed, as under:
"We returned back to the house of Hari Chand after cremation of Deepika at about 7.30 pm. I remained for the whole night outside the house of my uncle Hari Chand. My house is adjacent to the house of my uncle Hari Chand. I cannot tell the exact time when police came at house of my uncle. I cannot say as to whose statements were recorded by the police.....Police might have come to the house of my uncle on 20.07.2012. I do not know whether police had come there or not. On the day of cremation of my cousin sister Deepika, I went for sleep at 10 pm and on the next day morning, I went for walk. I cannot say whether police had come there on 21.07.2012.....Police never met me on 19.07.2012 to 22.07.2012.....I was that much busy that I could not inform the police about the alleged incident dated 16.05.12 happened at my house from 19.07.12 to 23.07.12. Vol. Police had recorded my statement on 24.07.12 at my house wherein I had narrated the incident dtd. 16.05.12. On 24.07.12 at around 7.30 pm, IO and one Constable had come at my house to record my statement. Vol. I cannot tell the name of the Constable....."
119. PW-8 Prem Singh, neighbour, in his examination-in- chief, deposed, as under:
"On 16.05.12 in the noon time, I was going to market from my house. While I was passing in front of the house of Vimal Prakash. I heard the shouting from his house.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 43 of 56 Then I entered into the house of Vimal Prakash, I saw that Beena Devi, Harichand, Vimal Prakash and Motilal were present. Accused Motilal, now present in the court was abusing Harichand. Accused Motilal was saying to Harichand that "you have not given the utensils, cooler, fan and AC and you have given a cheap motorcycle, however, I thought that you could give car and accused Motilal demanded Rs. Two lacs for the purpose of business". Motilal is father in law of Deepika who is the daughter of Hari Chand. I tried to pacify the matter. Harichand refused to give the above mentioned items. After that Motilal again started shouting and saying that "rishta rakhna hai ya nahi rakhna hai". After that I went away from the house of Vimal Prakash."
120. In his cross-examination, PW-8 Prem Singh deposed, as under:
"I do not have good relation with Hari Chand. My house is 2-3 house away from the house of Hari Chand.....I have not attended the cremation of Deepika. I did not go to cremation place as it is 3 km away from my house.....I do not know on which date, month and year Deepika died. I did not go to the house of Hari Chand even after return from the cremation place. Again said, I went to the house of Hari Chand when the dead body of Deepika was brought to his house and stayed there for half an hour. After that day, I never went to the house of Hari Chand.....On 24.07.12 at around 6 / 7 pm, two police officials came to my house. I was called at the shop of my nephew on the ground floor of my house.....I had stated before the police that accused Motilal demanded Rs. 2 lacs for the purpose of business on 16.05.12. Confronted with statement from Mark A to A on Ex.PW8/A where it is not so recorded. No family members of Vimal Prakash was present in his house when I reached there on 16.05.12 at around 02.30 / 03.00 pm....."
121. On careful perusal of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is evident that PW-2 Veena Devi and PW-3 Hari Chand, in their statements Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/A respectively, did not state anything regarding the incident dated 16.05.2012.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 44 of 56
122. It has also come in evidence that PCR call was made at 09:37:29 hrs. on 19.07.2012 through mobile No. 9911975645 belonging to PW-7 Vimal Prakash, vide PCR Form Ex.PW20/A. It has also come in evidence that house of PW-7 Vimal Prakash is adjacent to the house of the parents of the deceased. House of PW-8 Prem Singh is also adjacent to the house of the parents of the deceased. PW-27 Insp. Surneder Kumar reached at 07.00 p.m. on 19.07.2012 at the house of the parents of the deceased and recorded statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW-2 Veena Devi, PW-3 Hari Chand and PW-9 Kavita. However, they did not state anything regarding the incident dated 16.05.2012 in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-7 Vimal Prakash was present in the house of PW-3 Hari Chand. However, he also not made any statement regarding the incident dated 16.05.2012 on 19.07.2012. PW-8 Prem Singh did not make statement pertaining to the incident dated 16.05.2012 on 19.07.2012. The statements pertaining to the incident dated 16.05.2012 were recorded after five days on 24.07.2012. Such inordinate delay in making statements pertaining to such a material fact makes the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding incident dated 16.05.2012 highly doubtful.
123. The prosecution has failed to prove that on 16.05.2012, the accused Moti Lal demanded cooler, AC, fan and an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for expanding the business.
124. The sixth plank of the case of the prosecution is that on 18.07.2012 when PW-3 Hari Chand, PW-4 Shiv Kumar, PW- 9 Kavita and Smt. Balawati (bua) of the deceased went to her marital home alongwith festival gifts, the accused persons humiliated them and thrown the festival gifts.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 45 of 56
125. On this aspect, PW-2 Veena Devi deposed, as under:
"On 18.07.2012, my daughter Kavita, my husband, my brother in law Sh. Shiv Kumar and my sister in law Bala Devi went to matrimonial house of daughter with sindhara (gifts for festival), on seeing them, accused Kamal and Moti Lal started abusing them in filthy language. After some time, accused Parmita and Sumit came who were not present in the house when they reached. Accused Kamal, Sumit and Moti Lal started throwing the articles saying that TUM YAHI LE KAR AAYHO LANA THA TO KIMTI SAMAN LATE KAPDE LATTE HI LE AAYO HO.
Mother in law of my deceased daughter also abused to the abovesaid persons. My husband told the abovesaid facts to me and my deceased daughter also informed to me."
126. PW-3 Hari Chand deposed, as under:
"On 18.07.2012, I alongwith my brother Sh. Shiv Kumar, my younger sister Balawati, my second number daughter Kavita went to matrimonial home of Deepika on the occasion of Teej with gifts. We had sit there for a while, Moti Lal, Surneder, Kamal, Saraswati, Parmita threw away all the gifts which we had taken there. All the accused persons were saying that we had brought cheap articles. We had not brought any costly item. Thereafter, we returned to our home."
127. In his cross-examination, PW-3 Hari Chand, deposed, as under:
".....On 18.07.2012, I along with Shiv Kumar, Bala Devi and my daughter Kavita reached to the matrimonial house of my daughter Deepika at about 5-5:30 pm and we left from there at about 9:30 pm. It is wrong to suggest that my daughter Kavita served us dinner and accused Moti Lal and Saraswati were prepared food in the kitchen for us. We have taken breakfast there. I do not know whether Saraswati and Moti Lal prepared breakfast for us or not. I cannot tell as to how much time Deepika came down to meet us and remained there and at what time she went to her room. There was no special reasons to take Shiv Kumar and my sister Bala Wati at the matrimonial house of my daughter Deepika.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 46 of 56 When we reached to the matrimonial house of Deepika on 18.07.2012, at that time Moti Lal, Saraswati, my daughter Deepika and Kamal was available there. After about half an hour, Surinder and Parmita also came there. It is correct that Surinder and Parmita were doing job at that time. It is wrong to suggest that Surinder and Parmita came there at about 8:30 am. Vol. They were called by making phone.....I do not remember the time as to when I, my daughter Kavita and my relatives Shiv Kumar and his wife Balawati went to the bedroom of my daughter Deepika at second floor. I cannot tell exact time period during which we remained with Deepika in her bedroom. Thereafter, we came down and we left for our house.....I did not state before SDM that on 18.07.2012, we went to the house of the accused persons with gifts on the eve of Teej and the accused persons threw away all the gifts saying that the gifts were cheap and not costly....."
128. PW-4 Shiv Kumar, in his examination-in-chief, deposed, as under:
"On 18.07.2012, I alongwith my wife namely Smt. Balawati, Hari Chand and daughter of Hari Chand namely Kavita went to the matrimonial house of Deepika with Sindhara (gifts for festival). On seeing the gifts items, all the accused persons started abusing us and asked us "agar lana tha to keemati saman laate ya nagad laate" and they all threw our gift articles. We tried to convince the accused persons with folded hands, but they did not get convinced, then we came back to our house."
129. In his cross-examination, PW-4 Shiv Kumar deposed, as under:
"On 18.07.2012, we reached at the matrimonial house of Deepika at about 05.30 p.m. and we left from there at about 09.00 p.m. The accused persons threw the gift articles (sweets, fruits and clothes) outside their house at about 05.45 p.m.....Vol. Within 10 minutes after we reached to the matrimonial house of Deepika, all the accused persons started abusing us and threw away all the gift articles outside the house. No neighbour came there....."
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 47 of 56
130. PW-9 Kavita, in her examination-in-chief, deposed, as under:
"On 18.07.2012, I along with my father Harichand, Bua Balawati and Fufaji Shiv Kumar went to the house of the accused persons on the occasion of Sindhara and took the gift for the in-laws family of the Deepika but after seeing the gift, the accused Motilal, Sumit and Kamal thrown the gift items and said that "yehi samaan lahe ho, laana tha to kuchh kimti uphaar lekar aate".
On 18.07.2012, when the accused persons Kamal, Sumit and Motilal had thrown the gift items and all the accused persons abused us. After that we returned."
131. In her cross-examination, PW-9 Kavita deposed, as under:
"Prior to 18.07.2012, I had visited 2-3 times to the matrimonial house of Deepika.....During the visit to the matrimonial house of Deepika prior to 18.07.2012, I met all members of Kamal. It is correct that during those visits, myself and my family members were given full respect. I have visited to the matrimonial house of Deepika two times after her marriage and prior to 18.07.2012.....We reached to the matrimonial house of Deepika on 18.07.2012 at about 05.00 pm to 05.30 pm. At that time, there were only Deepika, Kamal and parents of Kamal were present. Vol. After some time (20-25 minutes) Deepika's Jeth and Jethani also arrived.....We stayed at first floor for some time and Deepika came down there and served us cold drinks and water. We left the matrimonial house of Deepika at about 09.00 pm. During our stay, none of the neighbours or relative of Kamal came there. Tea was also served to us during our stay, though I did not have tea.....I cannot tell the exact time when we went to 02nd floor at Deepika's room. However, I stayed at 01st floor for about 45-60 minutes. I stayed at the room of Deepika for about 1 ½ hours to 02 hours. I cannot tell the time of stay of my other family members in the room of Deepika. My cousin brother namely Rishab (bua's son) was also with us in the room of Deepika."
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 48 of 56
132. On appreciation of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is evident that PW-2 Veena Devi and PW-3 Hari Chand, in their statements Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/A respectively, did not state anything regarding the incident dated 18.07.2012. There is inconsistency regarding the place of recording of statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW-2 Veena Devi and PW-3 Hari Chand on this aspect. PW-2 Veena Devi stated that PW-27 Insp. Surender Kumar recorded her statement on 19.07.2012 after 07.00 p.m. in her house. PW-3 Hari Chand stated that police officials recorded his statement in his house on 19.07.2012. However, PW-27 Insp. Surender Kumar stated that he recorded statements of PW-2 Veena Devi, PW-3 Hari Chand, PW-4 Shiv Kumar, PW-9 Kavita and Smt. Balawati in the mortuary. PW-26 SI Sombir Singh also stated to this effect. There is inconsistency in the statements of the witnesses regarding the accused persons who had thrown the gift articles. PW-2 Veena Devi and PW-9 Kavita attributed the said role to the accused Kamal, Surender @ Sumit and Moti Lal whereas PW-3 Hari Chand and PW-4 Shiv Kumar attributed the said role to all the accused persons. The prosecution witnesses reached at marital home of the deceased at 05.30 p.m. and they stayed there till 09.30 p.m. They were served dinner and tea there, and they remained with the deceased about 2 hrs. in her room. PW-9 Kavita stated that during her prior 2 visits, the accused persons had given them full respect.
133. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused persons humiliated PW-3 Hari Chand, PW-4 Shiv Kumar, PW-9 Kavita and Smt. Balawati on 18.07.2012 and thrown the gift articles.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 49 of 56
134. The prosecution has not examined any witness from neighborhood of the marital home to prove harassment and cruelty regarding dowry demand. PW-1 Rakesh Sharma, SDM, Kotwali stated that he had not made any enquiry from the occupants of adjoining houses. PW-26 SI Sombir Singh stated that he did not enquire from the neighbours about the relationship between the deceased and the accused persons. PW-27 Insp. Surender Kumar stated that he had made enquiry from the neighbours of the accused persons but he had not recorded their statements as they had not stated anything.
135. Mr. Sunil Dev was mediator of the marriage. However, the prosecution has also not examined him. PW-2 Veena Devi stated, at one place, that when they tried to contact mediator, he did not lend his ears while stating that his job was only to get the marriage fixed. However, subsequently, she stated that she did not complain to the mediator because she could not find him.
136. As noted above, PW-2 Veena Devi stated that the deceased was not subjected to any physical cruelty. There is evidence on record that the deceased attended family functions and accompanied the accused Kamal, Surender @ Sumit and Parmita to Agra. The deceased was having a mobile phone and she was regularly interacting with PW-2 Veena Devi. There is evidence that the accused Surender @ Sumit and Parmita shifted to 3rd floor of marital house of the deceased after Holi in 2012. The accused Kamal and Surender @ Sumit were doing separate businesses at different places. There is evidence that the deceased wanted to stay in her marital home. The prosecution has failed to prove any mental cruelty or harassment for any dowry demand.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 50 of 56
137. On the aforesaid aspects, it is relevant to note the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as under:
(a) PW-2 Veena Devi deposed, as under:
"It is correct that my deceased daughter used to go out for outing and visiting the relatives' functions with the accused Kamal, Parmita and Surender.....It is correct that there were cordial and loving relations between the accused Kamal and Deepika. It is correct that she was also having cordial relations with her parents-in-law..It is correct that whenever Parmita used to go for outing with her husband in their car, she also used to take Deepika and Kamal with them..It is correct that Deepika used to send SMS to us for conversation..She used to make missed calls to me and then I used to make call to her because she was not having money to recharge the mobile phone. It might be correct that Kamal used to get recharged the SIM card of Deepika.....On 30.11.2011, our family members went to attend the function of DASYARI at the matrimonial home of Deepika to take her to our house but I did not go there...After the marriage of Deepika with Kamal, Parmita and Surender most of time used to reside at the matrimonial house of Deepika i.e. Subzi Mandi house but after Holi in the year 2012, they brought all their articles and shifted there.....It is correct that on 09.06.2012, Deepika went to Agra with Kamal, Parmita, Surender and Saraswati.....It is correct that my daughter visited for Kuan Pujan on 25.06.2012.....Vol. My daughter Deepika had told me that Surender and Parmita had purchased a new car and they are pressurizing me to go out for outing in this car.....It is correct that I used to talk with Deepika on phone daily when she remained at her matrimonial home. My phone number is 98719 30968.....She used to make me call for 3-4 times daily.....It is correct that Deepika wanted to live in joint family. It is correct that the accused Kamal had separate business and the accused Surender had separate business. It is also correct that their business office were situated at different places.....I was happy to know that Surender and Parmita have shifted from tenanted premises to their own parental house at Subzi Mandi.....It is correct that there was no physical torture from the accused persons meted to my daughter. My daughter had mobile phone and that of her sister-in-law (jethani) had also a mobile phone......"
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 51 of 56
(b) PW-3 Hari Chand deposed, as under:
"It is correct that my deceased daughter used to have talk on phone with her mother daily. (Vol. She used to give missed call to my wife).....It is correct that Surender and Kamal were doing separate businesses.....I am aware that the accused Surender had purchased a car but I do not know its make and date of purchase.....It is correct that my daughter Deepika had accompanied the accused persons Surender and Parmita on their visit to Agra on 09.06.2012 to see Taj Mahal. It is correct that Deepika had also attended birthday function of nephew of Parmita.....It is correct that Deepika had gone to attend Kuan Pujan ceremony of nephew of Parmita on 25.06.2012.....I cannot tell the mobile number of Deepika before and after the marriage. I cannot tell whether Deepika was having mobile number 85279 85529.....My daughter Deepika used to live on second floor in her matrimonial home. It is correct that parents-in-law of Deepika reside on first floor.....Deepika used to go to first floor. It is correct that kitchen in the matrimonial home of Deepika is at first floor. It is correct that Surender and Parmita are residing at third floor of the matrimonial home. I cannot say whether Surender and Parmita shifted to third floor on 05.03.2012 as the first floor and second floor were already occupied by Kamal - Deepka and parents-in-law."
(c) PW-9 Kavita deposed, as under:
".....It is correct that Deepika was having her own mobile phone but I cannot say whether she was having freedom at her matrimonial home to make calls as per her own wish. I visited the matrimonial house of Deepika 3-4 times. I do not know whether Parmita and Surender (jeth and jethani) were residing in a tenanted house at North-East District, Trans Yamuna.....It is correct that Deepika wanted to live in the joint family in her matrimonial home. It was her own choice.....I do not know when the accused Surender and Parmita shifted to their Subzi Mandi house."
138. Mobile No. 85279 85529 Ex.PW25/A was subscribed to the accused Kamal, vide Customer Application Form (CAF) Ex.PW25/B. Mobile No. 98719 30968 Ex.PW25/E was subscribed to PW-3 Hari Chand, vide Customer Application Form (CAF) Ex.PW25/F. FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 52 of 56
139. PW-2 Veena Devi deposed that she was using mobile No. 98719 30968. On perusal of Call Detail Records (CDR) of mobile No. 85279 85529 Ex.PW25/A and Call Detail Records (CDR) of mobile No. 98719 30968 Ex.PW25/E for the period from 01.01.2012 to 20.07.2012, it is seen that the deceased used to have several conversations with PW-2 Veena Devi on each day.
140. The prosecution did not send the mobile phone containing Airtel No. 85279 85529, seized from the place of incident, vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/B, for forensic examination and retrieving transcripts of SMS exchanged between the deceased and the accused Kamal and Parmita. FINDING:
141. On careful examination of the prosecution evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no evidence that soon before her death, the accused persons subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. In absence of the said evidence, the presumption under Section 113-B of 'The Indian Evidence Act, 1872' cannot be drawn against the accused persons. Accordingly, the prosecution failed to bring home the charge under Section 304-B/34 IPC.
SECTION 498-A IPC:
142. Section 498-A IPC is, as under:
"Section 498-A IPC. 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.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 53 of 56 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."
143. The object of Section 498-A is to curb the vice of cruelty to married woman by her husband or in-laws. Section 498-A does not specifically speak of any dowry demand. It speaks of unlawful demand for property and valuable articles. Cruelty or harassment need not be physical. Even mental torture would be a case of cruelty and harassment within the meaning of Sections 304-B and 498-A. Explanation (A) to Section 498-A itself refers to both mental and physical cruelty. The prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment under Explanation to Section 498-A IPC. To establish 'cruelty' the prosecution has to establish, firstly, the wilful conduct of the offender; secondly, that the nature of such conduct was likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life or limb (whether mental or physical). The prosecution failed to prove that the accused persons subjected the deceased to any wilful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused persons subjected the deceased to harassment or to any harassment with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. The prosecution failed to bring home the charge under Section 498-A/34 IPC.
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 54 of 56 CONCLUSION:
144. The accused persons are acquitted from charges under section 498A/34 and 304B/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.09.03
15:12:47 +0530
Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II
on this 02nd September, 2024 Addl. Sessions Judge (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 55 of 56
State vs. Kamal & Ors.
CNR No.: DLCT01-000286-2012
SC No. 27545/2016
FIR No. 153/2012
Under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC
PS Subzi Mandi
02.09.2024
Present : Mr. Amit Dabas, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Mr. Harish Kumar Mehra, Ld. Counsel with Mr. Amit Srivastav, Ld. Counsel with the accused persons.
Mr. Hari Chand, father of the deceased is present.
Vide separate judgment announced in the open Court, the accused persons are acquitted from charges under Section 498-A/34 and 304-B/34 IPC. The accused persons already furnished bail bonds, as required under Section 437A Cr.P.C. Bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from the date of judgment. The accused persons are informed to appear before the appellate Court, as and when any notice is received by them. As requested, requisite bonds be furnished within one week. File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.09.03 15:12:56 +0530 Sanjay Sharma-II Addl. Sessions Judge Central, THC, Delhi 02.09.2024 FIR No. 153/2012 State vs. Kamal & Ors. Page No. 56 of 56