Delhi District Court
) That After 5-6 Months Of Marriage vs State (Delhi Admn.) Crl. Appeal No on 29 March, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SMT. BIMLA KUMARI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH) : DELHI
S.C. No. 01/2010
State
Vs.
1 Baljit Singh
S/o Sh. Charanjit Singh
2 Charanjit Singh
S/o Sh. Sunder Singh
3 Smt. Inderjeet Kaur
W/o Sh. Charanjit Singh
All residents of 4579,
Gali Sunder Singh,
Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi,
Delhi
FIR No. 205/2003
P.S. Subzi Mandi
U/S 304B/498A/34 IPC
Arguments heard on 18.02.10, 22.02.10 and 19.03.10
Judgment announced: 29.03.10
JUDGMENT
The prosecution case in brief is that deceased Smt. Harvinder Kaur was married to accused Baljit Singh on 19.01.2000 as per the Sikh rites and ceremonies. On the night of 03.09.03, deceased Smt. Harvinder Kaur consumed something and started vomiting. She was brought to St. Stephens hospital at about 10:50 PM, where her stomach was washed. Since there was no availability of bed in the ICU of the St. Stephens hospital, she was shifted to Hindu Rao Hospital, where she died at 3:00 AM. Her postmortem was conducted. Her viscera was preserved. FIR was registered on the statement of Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 1/ 24 2 father of deceased, recorded by the SDM. After investigation, challan was submitted in the court against all the accused in respect of offences U/S 498A and 304B IPC.
2 All the accused i.e. Baljit Singh (husband of deceased), Charanjit Singh (father-in-law of deceased) and Inderjit Kaur (mother-in-law of deceased) were charged in respect of offence U/S 498A r/w Section 34 IPC by ld. Predecessor on 08.02.06. A separate charge was also framed against accused Baljit Singh (husband of deceased) in respect of offence U/S 306 IPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed trial. 3 To prove its case, the prosecution has examined sixteen witnesses. They are Surender Singh(PW-1), ASI Hira Singh(PW-2), Dr. Vijay Kataria (PW-
3), Constable Brij Pal(PW-4), Purbjit Kaur(PW-5), Jasvinder Kaur(PW-6), Jagjit Singh(PW-7), Satender Singh(PW-8), Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta(PW-9), SI Ved Prakash(PW-10), SI Krishan Chand(PW-11), Ved Prakash Wadhwa(PW-12), Inspector Rajbir Singh(PW-13), Dr. Dhananjay Kumar(PW-14), Dr. M.K. Panigrahi (PW-15), and SI D.K. Singh(PW-16).
4 Statements of all accused have been recorded, wherein they have denied the allegations of the prosecution. They have submitted that on 03.09.03, deceased had gone to her parental house, which was less than half kilometer from her matrimonial home. At about 9:30 PM, she returned to her matrimonial home. She had taken dinner at her parental home. After five minutes of her returning the matrimonial home, deceased started vomiting. She was taken to St. Stephens hospital. After preliminary treatment in the hospital, she was referred to Hindu Rao hospital, where she expired. The deceased was living a happy married life and there was no problem. They do not know what was consumed by deceased in the dinner at her parental home. After the death of deceased, father and other relatives of deceased became suspicious and lodged the case against them. Accused have further submitted that they do not know as to what the deceased had consumed or whether the same was given to her against her will. No poisonous substance was available at their house. They have no reason to believe that deceased had consumed any poison of her own to commit Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 2/ 24 3 suicide as she was living happily in her matrimonial home. 5 Accused did not examine any witness in their defence.
6 I have heard arguments from the ld. counsel for accused and ld. Addl. PP for State. I have also perused the case file.
7 Ld. counsel for accused has prayed for acquittal of all accused by submitting that there was no demand of dowry by the accused at the time of marriage. There are no allegations of demand of dowry in the statements made by the parents of deceased before the SDM. The parents of deceased and other PWs have totally improved their statements in the court. No injury was found on the body of deceased. It is not proved on record whether the death was suicidal, homicidal, accidental or natural. There are contradictions in the statements of PWs. As per FSL report, cause of death of deceased was consumption of poisonous substance. There is no evidence on record to show as to who gave poison and from where it was procured.
8 Ld. Addl. PP for State has prayed for conviction of all accused by submitting that PWs examined by prosecution have supported the case. Accused did not take deceased to hospital. The improvement made by PWs have been explained by the prosecution. The MLC of deceased is corroborated with the postmortem report.
9 In the present case, out of 16 witnesses, PW-1 Surender Singh is the star witness being the complainant/father of deceased. He has deposed that deceased Smt. Harvinder Kaur was married to accused Baljit Singh on 19.01.2000. At the time of marriage, the parents of Baljit Singh asked to solemnise the function of marriage at 'Invitation Banquet Hall' as they were going to perform marriage of their daughter in the same banquet hall and he (PW-1) would get some discount on that account. PW-1 replied them that he had already booked the caterer and selected the venue of marriage at Nanak Piao Gurudwara. He has further deposed that he performed the marriage at Gurudwara. Accused were not happy with that. Accused Charanjit Singh was wearing a black turban in protest, instead of colourful turban on the happy occasion of marriage. Accused were angry that he performed the ring ceremony Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 3/ 24 4 at their house as they were expecting that he (PW-1) should perform the ring ceremony at his own house. He has further deposed that at the time of negotiations of marriage, there was no specific demand and accused stated that whatever, they (accused) would do, will be for their own daughter. On the occasion of Shagun ceremony, he (PW-1) gave one gold ring and one gold kada to accused Baljit Singh, one gold ring to accused Charanjit Singh(father-in-law of deceased) and one pair of golden ear tops to the mother of Baljit Singh. However, accused were not happy as he (PW-1) did not give the gold ring to the brother-in-law (Jija) of accused Baljit Singh. After Shagun ceremony, when they went to gurudwara for Ardas, demand of gold ring for Paramjit Singh was again made by accused Charanjit Singh. Accused were not happy at the time of Shagun ceremony as their expectations were much higher than what he (PW-1) did. After marriage, accused Charanjit Singh taunted that his son-in-law did not eat in the marriage, which was factually wrong as in their video film, son-in-law of accused Charanjit Singh was seen having his food in the marriage. Bidai ceremony was performed from the Gurudwara, which was not liked by the accused. At the time of Bidai, accused Inderjit Kaur asked as to where the dowry articles were kept. He (PW-1) pointed out towards two attachi, where all the items were lying including the clothes of bride. Accused Inderjit Kaur asked about the other articles. He told her that that was all whatever he had to give. Before marriage, he had already sent one bed and almirah in the house of accused.
10 PW-1 has further deposed that his daughter came to his house after five days of marriage. She was not looking happy and only said that "all Saas are alike". He felt that his daughter was not happy. All the accused had come to his house on that day alongwith his daughter and he had given sweet boxes, clothes and cash to them. Though he was not willing to give cash or clothes but his daughter insisted him to do so saying that that would make them happy. So long as his daughter remained in the house of accused, she was not happy. On the second visit, accused Baljit Singh (husband of his daughter) left his daughter at his house at about 8:00 AM in the morning saying that he would come in the Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 4/ 24 5 evening to take her back but he did not return. His daughter complained that the behaviour of accused was not good towards her. She (deceased) told that she had been given to a beggar's house. She further told that the sweets given by PW-1 on the last occasion, were thrown in the dustbin by accused. She further told that the expectations of accused were much more than what he (PW-1) did and accused were taunting her for the same. Accused Baljit Singh came to take her daughter after about ten days. When he (PW-1) went to know the reason for not coming of accused Baljit to take her daughter back, it was told by accused that accused Baljit Singh was busy in work and he would come some day. He further deposed that whenever his daughter used to visit his house, she used to make complaints that behaviour of accused was not good. Accused were demanding washing machine by passing comment that he (PW-1) had saved the amount of car. His daughter complained to him that her mother- in-law used to give frequent beatings to her for not fulfilling demands of money. She also complained that accused were extending threat of divorce. She also told him that on the 5th day after marriage, her father-in-law slapped her by saying that her father (PW-1) had committed injustice to him. In the month of May, 2000, his daughter came to his house and she was upset because of the taunts and behaviour of accused. She stayed at her parental house for three months and was not willing to go back to her matrimonial home on account of taunts and beatings of accused persons. He (PW-1) made up his mind to lodge a complaint against the cruel behaviour of accused but the accused came to know about the same as they were residing in the same locality. His neighbour conveyed the message to the cousin of accused. Accused Charanjit Singh sent one of his employees to call him (PW-1) in his office. He went there, where owner of the shop met him. Accused Charanjit Singh told that he was not willing to keep his daughter in his house. He(PW-1) offered them to assist whatever they were doing. He (PW-1) said this as he was completely fed up with their behaviour. The owner of the shop, however, advised him (PW-1) to send his daughter back to her matrimonial home. He (PW-1) apprised the owner of the shop about the difficulties his Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 5/ 24 6 daughter was facing in the house of accused. The owner of the shop asked accused Charanjit Singh to treat his (PW-1) daughter well. He (PW-1) agreed to send his daughter back to the house of accused on the persuasion of owner of shop and asked the accused Charanjit Singh to take his daughter on Wednesday, which was falling after 1st day of month but accused insisted to take his daughter back on the 1st day of month itself as it was auspicious to them. All the accused came to his (PW-1's) house on 01.07.2000 and took his daughter back with them. On the said day itself, while talking to accused, he (PW-1) asked them if they wanted anything from him, upon which, accused Charanjit Singh raised demand of car. Thereafter also, his daughter was not kept well in the house by accused. He fulfilled their demands of money on few occasions for which he maintained a register, wherein he recorded the dates, when he gave money to accused as per their demand. As per the said register, a sum of Rs. 4,000/- was given to his daughter on 15.06.2000 by cheque, a sum of Rs. 4,000/- in cash ; a sum of Rs. 6,000/- was given to his daughter on 21.09.2000; a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 07.11.2002 and a sum of Rs. 7,000/- was given on 13.01.03. Despite all these payments, behaviour of accused was not good towards his daughter. His daughter used to come to his house on several occasions and was not willing to go back to her matrimonial home but accused Baljit Singh used to take her back by swearing in the name of Guru Nanak that he would keep his (PW-1's) daughter well. He used to assure that his parents would treat her well. About six months, prior to the date of incident, accused Inderjit Kaur made a demand of Rs. 20,000/- but his daughter refused to tell about the demand to him (PW-1). She was thrown out from her matrimonial home. His daughter instead of coming to his house, went to Ambala, where his two sisters and elder daughter were married. His daughter Harvinder Kaur (deceased) made a telephone call from Ambala telling that her mother-in-law had turned her out from matrimonial home. She further told that she was feeling humiliated of coming out to her matrimonial home after every 3rd or 4th day and for that reason, she alongwith her son had gone to Ambala. Accused visited his house to find out his daughter Harvinder as she did not tell them that she was in Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 6/ 24 7 Ambala. He (PW-1) told accused that his daughter Harvinder Kaur was in Ambala (despite asking of his wife not to tell them). After 3-4 days, accused went to Ambala and brought Harvinder back after making apology to her. He has further deposed that when his daughter became pregnant for the first time, accused came to know that she was having two female children in her womb. One day, in the morning, accused Inderjit Kaur gave danda blows on the womb of Harvinder Kaur. Accused Inderjit Kaur wanted Harvinder to get the female children aborted but his daughter did not agree to the same. On the same evening, some incident happened in the matrimonial house of his daughter, upon which, his daughter made a telephone call to them from the house of her neighbour and told that her mother-in-law was beating her and gave leg blows on her abdomen. When he (PW-1) reached in the matrimonial house of his daughter, he found that accused Baljit Singh was sitting on sofa with a knife in his hand and threatened him that he would slit his nerve in case he (PW-1) did not take his daughter from the matrimonial house. He threw the knife towards the side of his daughter, which hit her on her abdomen but it did not cause any injury to her. His daughter complained that accused Baljit Singh hit her with leg blows in her abdomen. He tried to pacify the matter. Son-in- law of accused was also called and he assured that this thing would not be repeated in future and on his assurance he left his daughter at her matrimonial home and returned back to his house. Next day, at about 2:00-3:00 PM, he received a telephone call from accused Inderjit Kaur from St. Stephens hospital and asked him to talk to his daughter. His daughter asked him to come to hospital. He immediately went to the hospital, where he was told by the doctors that his daughter would have to suffer an abortion as she was bleeding. His daughter was operated. Doctor asked the blood group of accused Baljit Singh but he did not come in the hospital for two days. As there were twins in the womb of his daughter, she was operated twice after a gap of 15 days. Last time, his daughter came to his house on 03.09.03. He was having his meal at that time. His daughter also started sharing his meal. On seeing her face, he felt that she was hungry for many days. However, his daughter did not tell him anything.
Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 7/ 24 8On that day, she remained in the house upto 8:00 PM. On the same day, he received a call from accused Baljit Singh asking him the telephone number of his house, to which he (PW-1) taunted him that three years of marriage had passed but he ( accused Baljit Singh) was not remembering their telephone number. His daughter went with accused Baljit Singh.
11 PW-1 has further deposed that about 4-5 months prior to this incident, accused Baljit Singh had lost his job. Accused Baljit Singh received a cheque of Rs. 7,000/- from some company. Accused Baljit Singh told him that his daughter was pressing him to return the amount borrowed from him (PW-1). On 03.09.03, when he (PW-1) was about to sleep, accused Baljit Singh came to his house at about 10:20 PM and told him that Harvinder had consumed something and she was vomiting. He (PW-1) immediately went to their house and found that his daughter was lying unconscious on her bed. The vomiting was spread in the room. After 2-3 minutes, accused Charanjit Singh and Inderjit Kaur also came in the room. PW-1 lifted his daughter and brought her down. He and accused Baljit Singh brought Harvinder to St. Stephens hospital, where she was given initial treatment and doctor informed that she has suffered a paralytic attack and referred her to Hindu Rao hospital. His daughter Harvinder expired in Hindu Rao Hospital at about 3:00 AM. SDM met him (PW-1) in the police station and recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. Statement of his wife Prabhjit Kaur was also recorded by SDM. His statement was based on the questions, put to him, by SDM. SDM told him that he was new to his job and he was running short of time. Postmortem on the dead body of his daughter Harvinder was conducted on 05.09.03. He identified his daughter's dead body vide statement Ex. PW1/B. After postmortem, dead body was handed over to him.
12 In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, PW-1 has admitted that he did not tell the following facts to the SDM when his statement was recorded:
1) that the parents of accused Baljit Singh insisted to perform the function of marriage at Banquet Hall but PW-1 performed marriage at Nanak Piao Gurudwara and accused were not happy;Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 8/ 24 9
2) that accused Charanjit Singh was wearing a black turban in protest instead of colourful turban on the happy occasion of marriage.
3) that accused were angry that he performed the ring ceremony at their house;
4) that accused were not happy as he (PW-1) did not give the gold ring to the brother-in-law (Jija) of accused Baljit Singh;
5) that accused were not happy at the time of Shagun ceremony as their expectations were much higher than what he (PW-1) did;
6) that after marriage, accused Charanjit Singh taunted that his son-in- law did not eat anything in the marriage;
7) that at the time of Bidai, accused Inderjit Kaur asked as to where the dowry articles were kept and he (PW-1) pointed out towards two attachi, where all the items were lying including the clothes of bride;
8) that he had already sent one bed and almirah to the house of accused;
9) that his daughter came to his house after five days of marriage and she was not looking happy and only said that all Saas are alike;
10) that he was not willing to give cash or clothes to the in-laws of his daughter on the first visit but his daughter insisted him to do so as that would make them happy;
11) that as long as his daughter remained in the house of accused, she was not happy;
12) that on the second visit, accused Baljit Singh (husband of his daughter) left his daughter at his house at about 8:00 AM in the morning saying that he would come in the evening to take her back but he did not return on that day;
13) that his daughter told that she had been given to a beggar's house or that the sweets given by PW-1 on the last occasion, were thrown in the dustbin by accused;
14) that whenever his daughter used to come to his house, she used to make complaints that attitude of accused was not good towards her and they Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 9/ 24 10 were demanding washing machine by making comment that PW-1 had saved the amount of a car;
15) that his daughter complained to him that her mother-in-law used to give frequent beatings to her for not fulfilling demands of money;
16) that she complained that accused were extending threat of divorce;
17) that his daughter told him that on the 5th day after marriage, her father-in-law slapped her saying that her father (PW-1) had committed injustice to him;
18) that in the month of May, 2000, his daughter came to his house and she was upset because of taunts and behaviour of accused. She stayed at her parental house for three months and was not willing to go back to her matrimonial home on account of taunts and beatings of accused persons;
19) that he (PW-1) made up his mind to lodge a complaint against the cruel behaviour of accused but the accused came to know about the same;
20) that the owner of the shop advised him (PW-1) to send his daughter back to her matrimonial home;
21) that he asked the accused Charanjit Singh to take his daughter on Wednesday, which was falling after 1st day of month but accused insisted to take his daughter back on the 1st day of month itself as it was auspicious to them;
22) that on 01.07.2000 in-laws of his daughter came to take his daughter and he (PW-1) asked them to say frankly if they wanted something from him, upon which, accused Charanjit Singh raised demand of car;
23) that thereafter also, his daughter was not kept well in the house by accused and slapping was their routine;
24) that he fulfilled their demands of money on few occasions for which he maintained a register, wherein he recorded dates when he gave different amounts of money to accused as per their demand on different dates (as stated by PW-1 in his examination-in-chief);
25) that despite all these payments, behaviour of accused was not good towards his daughter and his daughter used to come to his house on several occasions and was not willing to go back to her matrimonial home;Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 10/ 24 11
26) that about six months prior to the date of incident, accused Inderjit Kaur made a demand of Rs. 20,000/- and when his daughter refused to fulfill her demand, she was thrown out from her matrimonial home and his daughter went to Ambala at his sister's house from where she informed him;
27) that his daughter felt humiliated in coming to her matrimonial home after every 3rd or 4th day and for that reason, she alongwith her son went to Ambala, instead of coming to his house;
28) that accused visited his house to find out his daughter Harvinder and they went to Ambala and brought Harvinder back after making apology to her;
29) that when his daughter became pregnant for the first time, accused came to know that she was having two female babies in her womb and accused Inderjit Kaur started beating his daughter in the morning of one day;
30) that his daughter was given beatings by her mother-in-law Inderjeet Kaur with danda blows on her womb and accused Inderjit Kaur wanted Harvinder to get the female children aborted but his daughter did not agree to the same;
31) that his daughter made a telephone call to him from the house of her neighbour and told that her mother-in-law was beating her and gave leg blows on her abdomen;
32) that when he went to the matrimonial house of his daughter, he found that accused Baljit Singh was sitting on sofa with a knife in his hand and threatened him that he would slit his nerve in case he (PW-1) did not take his daughter from the matrimonial house;
33) that accused Baljit Singh threw the knife towards the side of his daughter, which hit her on her abdomen but it did not cause any injury to her;
34) that his daughter complained that accused Baljit Singh gave leg blows in her abdomen;
35) that he tried to pacify the matter and returned to his house when assurance was given by son-in-law of accused that this thing would not be repeated in future;Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 11/ 24 12
36) that he received a telephone call from accused Inderjit Kaur from St. Stephens hospital, where he was called by his daughter and he immediately went to the hospital, where he was told by the doctors that his daughter will have to suffer an abortion as she was bleeding;
37) that one day, he was having his meal, his daughter came and she started sharing his meal and from her face, it appeared that she was hungry for many days;
38) that accused Baljit Singh had lost his job and one day, he received a cheque of Rs. 7,000/- and his daughter was pressing him (accused) to return the amount borrowed from him (PW-1);
39) that he was informed by the doctor at St. Stephens hospital that his daughter had suffered a paralytic attack and she was referred to Hindu Rao hospital.
13 PW-1 was further confronted with his statements Ex. PW1/DA, Ex. PW1/DB, wherein all the facts narrated above have not been recorded and same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition. 14 PW-1 was further confronted with his another statement U/S 161 CrPC Ex. PW1/DC, wherein all the facts narrated above were also not recorded. 15 PW-1 has denied that his daughter suffered operation because of some pregnancy problem i.e "Hydatidiform Mole Molar Pregnancy Placenta Multiples Overgrows No Fetus formation". He is not aware that his daughter had any problem of fetus growth during her pregnancy. He denied that his daughter was admitted to St. Stephens hospital and suffered abortion as per medical advise. He is not aware if his daughter underwent a surgery on 22.03.01 for removal of some residue left in her uterus. PW-1 has not identified any person in the photographs which are Ex. PW1/D4 to Ex. PW1/D8. He denied that in the photograph Ex. PW1/D5, the persons encircled 1-3 are himself, his wife and his elder daughter Lucky. He has further deposed that he cannot identify in the photograph Ex. PW1/D6 that the person encircled as 1 is he(witness). He further denied that the persons encircled as 2-3 in Ex. PW1/D6 are his wife and accused Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 12/ 24 13 Inderjit Kaur. He also denied that in the photograph Ex. PW1/D7, the person encircled is his wife. He does not know that these photographs pertain to some function held in Apsara banquet hall and was attended by him, his wife and other family members. He does not know if these photographs pertain to marriage ceremony of Jitender Kaur, daughter of accused Charantjit and Inderjeet Kaur. However, PW-1 has admitted that Jitender Kaur was married on 17.01.2000 and function was attended by his wife and him but he does not know that marriage function took place at Apsara banquet hall.
16 Another material witness is PW-5 Smt. Parabjit Kaur. She is the mother of deceased Harvinder Kaur. This witness has deposed on the same lines which are more or less identical as those of PW-1 and are not repeated here to avoid repetition. However, in the testimony of PW-5, some facts are deposed by her which do not corroborate with the testimony of PW-1 and will be discussed at later stage while appreciating the evidence. 17 Besides this, PW-5 has deposed that her deceased daughter had sent 4-5 letters to them through neighbours, wherein it was mentioned that accused were repeatedly making demand of money from her and were taunting. These letters were handed over to the police by them. Same are Mark A1 to A5. (Objection was raised by ld. counsel for accused on the letters). 18 In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, PW-5 was also confronted with her statement Ex. PW5/A, which was made by her to SDM. She was also confronted with her statements, made by her to police, which are Ex. PW5/DA, Ex. PW5/DB and Ex. PW5/DC. PW-5 was also confronted with photographs Ex. PD1 to Ex. PD6, where she admitted that the said photographs were of Gurudwara Nanak Piyau, where wedding ceremony of her daughter was performed. She was further confronted with the photographs Ex. PW1/D1 to Ex. PW1/D3, to which she admitted that the photographs pertained to the marriage of her daughter. She was further confronted with the photographs Ex. PW1/D4 to Ex. PW1/D8 to which she admitted that they pertained to the marriage of the daughter of accused Charanjit Singh. PW-5 also admitted that in the Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 13/ 24 14 photographs, her husband, daughter Jaswinder Kaur are present. PW-5 has also identified accused Charanjit Singh in the photographs Ex. PW1/D1 to Ex. PW1/D3.
19 Another material witness is PW-6 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur. She is the real and elder married sister of deceased Harvinder Kaur. She has deposed that her father had given dowry according to his capacity at the time of marriage of deceased Harvinder Kaur but accused were not happy with the dowry articles. Deceased was ill-treated and beaten by accused and they used to demand money. Deceased used to tell whenever she used to meet her. Accused Baljit Singh used to beat deceased with danda. Accused Charanjit Singh and Inderjit Kaur used to taunt her by saying her 'Murakh'. The deceased was harassed immediately after marriage i.e. on the 5th day of her marriage. After marriage, deceased conceived and it was known that she was having twin females. All the accused insisted the deceased to abort the pregnancy. Accused Baljit Singh gave kick blows on her abdomen at the instigation of his parents, as a result of which deceased suffered abortion. Her parents told this fact to her. Subsequently, when she met deceased, she also told her that fact. Deceased was harassed even at the time of second pregnancy. Deceased was operated twice after a gap of 15 days and she was made to do domestic chores and was harassed. When deceased gave birth to a son, mother of accused Baljit Singh demanded washing machine. Whenever they went to visit deceased with sweets, accused Inderjit Kaur used to throw the same in dustbin. Her father (PW-1), mother, uncle and Masad used to visit the matrimonial house of deceased and make efforts to patch up the matter. Accused used to assure in the name of God that they would not tease and harass the deceased in future but they did not stick to that and made demand of money. The deceased died on the intervening night of 03-04.09.03. 20 In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, PW-6 was confronted with her statement U/S 161 CrPC, which is Ex. PW6/DA, wherein following facts were not recorded:
1) that accused were not happy with the dowry articles;Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 14/ 24 15
2) deceased was ill-treated and beaten by accused and they used to demand money;
3) that deceased used to tell her, whenever she used to meet her that accused Baljit Singh used to beat deceased with danda;
4) that after marriage, deceased conceived and it was known that she was having twins female;
5) that accused Baljit Singh gave kick blows on her abdomen at the instigation of his parents, as a result of which deceased suffered abortion;
6) that her father, mother, uncle and Masad used to visit the matrimonial house of deceased and make efforts to patch up the matter.
Accused used to assure in the name of God that they would not tease and harass the deceased but they did not stick to that and made demand of money. 21 PW-6 has further admitted that she did not tell certain facts to police which were deposed by her in the court. PW-6 was also confronted with the photographs Ex. PW1/D1 to Ex. PW1/D3 and she admitted that in all the three photographs, the person encircled in red is accused Charanjit Singh and the person encircled in blue, Mark B, is her father Surinder Singh. She had seen the photographs Ex. PW1/D4 to Ex. PW1/D8 and admitted that in the photographs her mother, accused Inderjit Kaur, her father and she herself are present. She has further admitted that in the photograph Ex. PW1/D6, her father, mother and accused Inderjit Kaur are present and photographs pertain to marriage of sister of accused Baljit Singh, which took place on 17.01.2000. 22 PW-6 has further admitted that her father was earning very little at the time of marriage of her deceased sister.
23 Another material witness is PW-7 Jagjit Singh. He is the uncle (Chacha) of deceased Harvinder Kaur. He has deposed that after 5-6 months of marriage, he received telephone call from his brother Surinder Singh that she (deceased) used to be beaten with danda and harassed by her in-laws. He alongwith his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) i.e. PW-5 reached the matrimonial home of deceased and his brother Surinder Singh also reached there. Deceased told them that accused used to harass, beat her with dandas, give kick blows, pull her Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 15/ 24 16 hair and used to demand dowry by saying that whatever was given in dowry by her father was not adequate. Accused used to demand dowry and car. Accused felt sorry for their attitude and they came back. Accused did not mend their ways and continued their demands of dowry. He learnt that on the intervening night of 03-04.09.03, the deceased was poisoned. On 05.09.03, he identified the dead body of deceased vide memo Ex. PW7/A. 24 In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, PW-7 was confronted with his statement U/S 161 CrPC Ex. PW7/DA wherein the following facts were not recorded:-
1) that after 5-6 months of marriage, he received telephone call from his brother Surinder Singh that deceased used to be beaten with danda and harassed by her in-laws;
2) that he alongwith his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) i.e. PW-5 reached the matrimonial home of deceased and his brother Surinder Singh also reached there;
3) that deceased told them that accused used to harass, beat her with dandas, give kick blows, pull her hair and used to demand dowry by saying that whatever was given in dowry by her father was not adequate;
4) that accused used to demand dowry and car
5) that accused felt sorry for their attitude and then they came back;
6) that accused did not mend their ways and continued with their demand of dowry.
25 Another material witness is PW-8 Satender Singh. He is the uncle (Mausa) of deceased Harvinder Kaur. He has deposed that Harvinder Kaur was married to accused Baljit Singh in January, 2000. It was an average marriage, in which Surinder Singh gave items as per his capacity. After 4-5 months of marriage, he came to know from his wife that Harvinder Kaur was being harassed for want of dowry. She was taunted from time to time by her in-laws as to what her father had given as dowry. This fact was also told to him by the deceased about 4-6 months after her marriage. He had given his mobile number to deceased to call him in case of any harassment and not Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 16/ 24 17 to trouble her parents. Thereafter, she did not talk much to him on that issue. The harassment to deceased continued till her death. He visited matrimonial home of deceased thrice. The in-laws told him that deceased kept on sitting at upper floor. The deceased told him that her in-laws used to taunt her for bringing insufficient dowry and not bringing the car. When he went to the matrimonial home of deceased for amicable settlement, the in-laws of deceased promised not to harass deceased on the issue of dowry. After a gap of one and a half months, he again went to the matrimonial house of deceased after receiving information from her that she was beaten with dandas. Deceased told him that they (accused) did not keep their words undertaken earlier by them. She told him that her in-laws were demanding more money to which she refused. She further told him that she told her in-laws that she had already brought lot of money from her father. On her refusal, she was beaten with fists and dandas. Thereafter, they told them that they would approach Women Cell against them to which her in- laws requested them not to do so. Thereafter, the younger son-in-law of accused assured them that no untoward incident would occur in future but the things did not improve even thereafter. He again met the deceased at her father's house and she again narrated the same story. On the intervening night of 03-04.09.03, he received a telephone call from his brother-in-law that Harvinder was being treated in the hospital. He alongwith his wife reached the hospital and came to know that Harvinder was no more.
26 In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, PW-8 has deposed that accused persons were greedy by nature from the very beginning and they wanted to extort money and valuable articles from deceased and her parents on account of dowry. He has given so many handwritten letters of deceased, which were sent to him from time to time by the deceased through students, to whom she was giving tuition. He has brought the photocopies of letters written by deceased, to her parents, alongwith handwritten proof from University to get it verified from the handwriting experts. He had given the said letters to police and had taken the receipt from the police. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had also given direction to police to investigate the contents of the letters and to get the Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 17/ 24 18 opinion of handwriting expert. The father of deceased had also given a letter to DCP, Civil Lines in this regard. He had brought the receipt copy of the said letter/application. (the above said letters and application are not on judicial record). He has further deposed that two days before Harvinder Kaur died, she was sitting at her parental home. At that time, her mother-in-law came in gali and shouted in Punjabi " tu ithe maan de potre dhondi payein wahan tera saura bimar hai ghar nahi aana". He met the deceased since the time of her marriage till her death but he cannot tell the specific numbers about his meeting with deceased as to whether he met her 40 times, 50 times or 60 times.
27 PW-8 was confronted with his statement U/S 161 CrPC Ex. PW8/DA wherein the fact, that after 4-5 months of marriage of Harvinder, he came to know through his wife that Harvinder was being harassed for want of dowry, was not recorded. He was further confronted with his statement Ex. PW8/DA, wherein the fact, that she was taunted time to time by her in-laws as to what her father had given as dowry, was not recorded.
28 PW-8 has further deposed that he did not tell the police in his statement Ex. PW8/DA that he gave his mobile number to deceased to call him in case of any harassment and not to trouble her parents. He cannot give any documentary proof for possession of mobile phone in the year 2000. He has further deposed that he did not tell the police in his statement that he met deceased till her death and he visited her matrimonial home thrice in connection with harassment. PW-8 has further admitted that he did not tell police in his statement Ex. PW8/DA the facts, which were deposed by him in his statement in the court. He has admitted that no separate receipt was issued by police against the receipt of letter. PW-8 could not produce the original stamped photocopies of letters submitted by him to police. He has further deposed that he neither had in possession nor can produce any order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide which directions were given to police to investigate the contents of the letters and to take opinion of handwriting expert. He did not accompany the father of deceased, when he had gone to give letters to DCP, Civil Lines.
Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 18/ 24 1929 Another material witness is PW-10 SI Ved Prakash. He was on emergency duty at P.S Subzi Mandi on the date of incident. He received the copy of DD No. 29-A regarding admission of a lady at St. Stephens hospital. He went there and collected MLC of deceased Harvinder Kaur, which is Ex. PW3/A alongwith gastric lawas of deceased sealed with the seal of hospital and a sample seal. He went to Hindu Rao hospital and contacted the doctor, who declared patient unfit for statement. He informed SDM, Civil Lines and SHO regarding the death of Harvinder Kaur. SDM made enquiry regarding the death of deceased from her father and recorded his statement. SDM handed over statement of father of deceased to him, which he took to police station and handed over the same to the SHO. On 05.09.03, he again joined the investigation and went to the mortuary, Subzi Mandi, where SDM prepared the inquest papers and requested the concerned doctor to conduct postmortem on the dead body of deceased. After postmortem, doctor handed over him viscera peti, sealed with the seal of mortuary and wearing clothes of the deceased sealed in a parcel with the seal of hospital and sample seal. He handed over the same to the I.O of the case, who took into possession the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/A in his presence. Accused Baljit Singh was arrested on the pointing out of father of deceased vide arrest memo Ex. PW10/C. 30 PW-13 Inspector Rajbir Singh is the I.O of the case. He has deposed that complainant handed over him letters written by the deceased, which he took into possession vide memo Ex. PW13/A. The letters are Mark A to Mark A5. 31 In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, PW-13 has deposed that he cannot identify as to whether letters Mark A to A5 were in the handwriting of the deceased. He did not send the said letters for forensic examination as he could not get any reliable document containing the handwriting of the deceased for comparison.
32 Another material witness is PW-15 Dr. M.K. Panigrahi, Chief Medical Officer, who has opined that death of deceased could be possible due to "organo phosphorus insecticide poisoning".
Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 19/ 24 2033 In the present case, accused Baljit Singh has been charged in respect of offence U/S 306 IPC.
In Jagdish Prasad & Anr. V. State (Delhi Admn.) Crl. Appeal No. 278/99 decided on 02.12.09 it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that in order to succeed in charge under Section 306 of IPC, the prosecution was required to prove not only that deceased Sukhna committed suicide, but also that the appellant directly or indirectly abetted the commission of suicide by her. In order to amount to abetment, there must be mens rea. Without knowledge or intention, there can be no abetment and the mere fact that the deceased wife was treated by the appellants with cruelty by itself may not be sufficient to prove abetment of suicide unless the acts or conduct of the accused singly or cumulatively were of such formidable and compelling nature as may lead to commission of suicide.
It was further held that abetment necessarily means some active suggestion or support to the commission of the offence. The word "instigate" found in Section 107 of IPC means to urge forward, provoke, incite, or encourage to do an act and a person is said to instigate another when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means indirect or direct whether it takes the form of express solicitation or hints instigation or encouragement. It is not necessary that the instigation by word, it may also be by conduct. Direct evidence of instigation is not necessary and in a given case, it can also be a deduced from the circumstances. The basic difference between Section 498-A of IPC and Section 306 thereof is that in Section 498-A, cruelty committed by the husband or his relative drags the woman to commit suicide while under Section 306 the suicide is abetted or intended.
In Mahender Singh V. State of M.P1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitements to the commission of suicide and the mere fact that the husband treated the deceased wife with cruelty is not enough.
In Sushil Kumar Sharma V. UOI, MANU/SC/0418/2005: JT 2005 (6) SC 266, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the distinction of cruelty as provided under Section 306 and 498-A IPC observing that under Section 498-A cruelty committed by the husband or his relative drives women to suicide while under Section 306 IPC suicide is abetted and intended.
In Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu V. State of West Bengal, Crl. Appeal No. 2091 of 2009 decided on 11.11.2009, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 20/ 24 21 proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
34 In the present case, it is not proved on record as to how the deceased Harvinder Kaur consumed insecticide on the fateful night. Whether it was given by accused Baljit Singh or she herself consumed the same. It is not the case of prosecution that insecticide was recovered from the house of accused. It has not been proved on record by prosecution, whether the death was homicidal, suicidal or accidental.
35 Besides this, there is nothing on record to show that accused Baljit Singh has directly or indirectly abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased Harvinder Kaur or he instigated Harvinder Kaur to commit suicide by making the availability of insecticide to deceased or by provoking or encouraging her to consume the insecticide. Circumstances of the case also do not suggest that accused Baljit Singh has abetted the deceased Harvinder Kaur to commit suicide.
36 In the absence of evidence regarding the direct or indirect involvement of accused Baljit Singh in abetment of suicide allegedly committed by the deceased, I am of the considered view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused Baljit Singh in respect of offence U/S 306 IPC. Accordingly, accused Baljit Singh is acquitted of offence U/S 306 IPC. 37 In the present case, all the accused namely, Baljit Singh, Charanjit Singh and Inderjit Kaur have been charged in respect of offence U/S 498-A read with Section 34 IPC.
Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 21/ 24 2238 In Jagdish Prasad & Anr. V. State (Delhi Admn.)(Crl. Appeal No. 278/09 decided on 02.12.09) it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that in order to succeed in charge under Section 498-A IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty, which has been defined to mean willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health or harassment is with a view to coerce 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. The expression "cruelty" takes within its sweep both mental as well as physical agony and torture.
It was further held by Hon'ble High Court that the concept of cruelty varies from place to place and individuals to individuals and also according to social and economic status of the person involved. Cruelty postulates such a treatment as would cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the wife that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life. Therefore, to decide the question of cruelty, the relevant factors are the matrimonial relationship between the husband and the wife, their cultural and temperamental status in life, state of their health and their interaction in daily life which dominates the aspect of cruelty. The word "harassment" has not been defined in Section 498-A IPC, but dictionary meaning of the word "harassment" is to subject to someone to continuous vexatious attack, questions, demands or other unpleasantness. 39 In the present case, the allegations of harassment to deceased in connection with unlawful demand of dowry are totally missing in the statements made by the parents of deceased to SDM. The parents of deceased have made substantial improvement in their statements in court and levelled allegations of dowry demand. They were confronted with their statements to the SDM, wherein these facts are not mentioned.. The explanation furnished by PW-1 for not stating the facts, which he has stated in the court, is that the SDM was new and he was running short of time. The testimony of PW-1 Surender Singh does not seem to be trustworthy and reliable as he did not state to the police that he is giving the details of facts because at the time of recording his statement, he (SDM) was running short of time.
40 Besides that, it is worth noting that facts deposed by PW-1 were not stated to police in his statement Ex. PW1/DA, Ex. PW1/DB and Ex. PW1/DC and it is not the case of PW-1 that police official/I.O was also new and he was also running short of time.
Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 22/ 24 2341 Besides this, there are contradictions in the testimony of PWs on material points. PW-1 has deposed that at the time of Bidai, he pointed out towards two attachi, which were having clothes of deceased, when accused Inderjit Kaur asked as to where were the dowry articles. He has further deposed that he has already sent one bed and one almirah at the house of accused. In other words, before marriage, PW-1 had already sent one bed and one almirah to the house of accused but PW-5 has deposed that at the time of Bidai ceremony, when accused Inderjit Kaur asked where were the dowry articles, they replied that bed and almirah would be delivered at their residence. 42 Further, PW-1 has deposed that accused Inderjit Kaur gave danda blows on the womb of deceased and was asking the deceased to get the children aborted but his daughter did not acceed to. In other words, dands blows were given by accused Inderjit Kaur on the womb of deceased but PW-5 has deposed that when her daughter was having about 4 months pregnancy, she was hit by leg blows by her husband, as a result of which, abortion took place of her daughter.
43 It is worth noting that PW-1 did not identify himself, his wife and daughter and accused persons in the photographs, which were confronted to him but PW-5 Purbjit Kaur and PW-6 Jasvinder Kaur have identified the persons as are shown in the photographs which are on record. PW-1 has given an evasive reply by deposing that he cannot identify the person encircled on the photographs. It is worth noting that PW-1 has again given an evasive reply when he was suggested by ld. counsel for accused that his deceased daughter suffered abortion on account of some pregnancy problem as deceased was having problem of fetus growth during her pregnancy and abortion took place on medical advise and she was operated for residue left in the uterus of her daughter.
44 In the present case, objection was raised by ld. counsel for accused on placing of record the letters Mark A to Mark A5 allegedly written by the deceased. I find substance in the objection of ld. counsel for accused. None of the PWs has proved on record that the letters were written by the deceased. It would Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 23/ 24 24 not be out of place to mention that I.O of case has categorically admitted that the letters could not be sent to FSL as he was not having any reliable document containing handwriting of deceased for comparison. The cruelty or harassment suffered by the deceased is general in nature. No specific date, time and place have been given by PWs of the alleged harassment by the accused. The allegations of harassment are quite general in nature. 45 In the present case, the cruelty allegedly committed by all accused persons was not of such a nature as to drive the deceased to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life or health. I am of the considered view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against all accused U/S 498-A read with Section 34 IPC as necessary ingredients of Section 498-A are not found present in the present case. Accordingly, all accused are acquitted in respect of offence, they were charged with.
46 In this case, all accused are on bail. Their bail bonds/surety bonds are cancelled. Their sureties are discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today on 29.03.10 (Smt. Bimla Kumari) Additional Sessions Judge(North) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Sessions Case No. 01/2010 Page 24/ 24