Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Deepak Bhardwaj on 8 November, 2019
1
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NEELAM SINGH
ASJ03 & SPECIAL JUDGE (COMPANIES ACT)
DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:
State Vs. (1) Deepak Bhardwaj
S/o Sh.Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj
R/o R27, New Roshanpur,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
(2) Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj
(since expired)
S/o Sh.Suraj Bhan
R/o R27, New Roshanpur,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
(3) Smt. Darshana
W/o Sh.Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj
R/o R27, New Roshanpur,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
● CNR No. : DLSW010001362016
● Registration No. of the Case : SC/441050/2016
● Court Institution Number : SC/25/2019
● FIR Number : 491/2010
● PS : Najafgarh
● Under Section : 498A/304B/34 IPC
● Date of Institution : 10.02.2011
Page No. 1 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
2
● Case committed to the Court of
Sessions for : 19.02.2011
● Case reserved for Judgment on : 08.11.2019
● Judgment announced on : 08.11.2019
● Final Order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Adumbrated in brief, the case of prosecution is that the deceased Diksha got married on 05.03.2006 with accused Deepak Bhardwaj. From the said wedlock, one male child namely Harshil was born. On 01.11.2010 Diksha died under unnatural circumstances and as per the case of prosecution, she committed suicide on account of cruelty inflicted by her husband and inlaws for demand of dowry.
2. The legal system set into motion on receipt of a call at No.100 on behalf of relative of deceased and on reaching the spot, the officials found the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. Thereafter FIR No.491/2010 under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC was registered at PS Najafgarh against all the accused persons namely Deepak Bhardwaj, Jagdish Chander and Darshana. During investigation, all the accused persons were arrested and on culmination of the investigation, a final report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC was filed against the accused persons under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC Page No. 2 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
3 in the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
COMMITTAL AND CHARGE:
3. On being satisfied of existence of a prima facie case, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and after supplying copies of the final report free of cost as per mandate of Section 207 CrPC, committed the case under Section 209 CrPC to this Court as the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
4. After perusal of the record and after hearing the parties, all the accused persons were charged on 05.04.2011 for the offences punishable under Section 304B/498A/302 read with Section 34 IPC as the deceased Diksha W/o accused Deepak Bhardwaj was found dead otherwise then under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and that soon before of her death, she was subjected to cruelty/harassment by all the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed and claimed trial. During trial on various date, accused persons were granted bail by our Hon'ble High Court.
5. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 32 witnesses in all. After the same, the statement of the Page No. 3 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
4 accused persons were recorded without oath under Section 313 CrPC wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing against them was put to them. They have denied the case of prosecution and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated with malafide motives and nefarious designs. They have further stated that no dowry demands were ever raised by them or their family members and the deceased was kept with full love and care. The accused persons did not prefer to lead any evidence in their defence.
6. It is relevant to mention here that during trial, the accused Jagdish Chander died on 13.12.2017 and proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated 09.03.2018.
7. I have heard Sh. P.N. Singh, ld. APP for the State and Sh. R.N. Vats, ld. counsel for the accused at length. I have also carefully gone through the record of the case and given my thoughtful consideration to the material on record. It is submitted by Ld. Addl.PP that prosecution has examined 32 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and they be convicted for the offences charged. On the other hand, ld. defence counsel submitted that nothing incriminating against the accused persons is brought on record by the prosecution and in the light of suicide note by the deceased, both the accused persons be acquitted Page No. 4 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
5 from the charges framed.
SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
8. PW3 Sh. Satya Prakash Gaur, who is father of the deceased Diksha was examined by the prosecution. In his deposition before the Court, he has submitted that he got married his daughter with accused Deepak Bhardwaj on 05.03.2006 and he had given his daughter one Alto Car, cash of Rs.51,000/, jewellery, furniture, TV, fridge and other household articles as istridhan in her marriage. He has deposed that just after the marriage of his daughter, accused Deepak Bhardwaj, his parents and his sister Arti started harassing the deceased by stating that she had brought a small car and a small fridge. Thereafter, he had given Rs.20,000/ to the deceased to purchase a big fridge and accused Jagdish Chander purchased a big fridge from that amount. PW3 further submitted that the deceased was blessed with a son on 29.03.2007 and at the occasion of Kuan Pujan, he has given certain items as per his capacity but accused Darshana and her daughter Arti (sisterinlaw of deceased) taunted the deceased that the clothes sent by them were not according to their status and accordingly they returned the said clothes and new clothes were thereafter sent to them through his son. It is further submitted by this witness that in the year 20082009, accused Page No. 5 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
6 Deepak Bhardwaj left his private job and started an educational institution at Palam and for that, he demanded Rs.2 lakhs from the deceased and when she refused to fulfill his demand, he had beaten her. It is further submitted by him that in order to save the matrimonial life of his daughter, he arranged Rs.2 lakhs and gave the same to the accused persons through the deceased. It is further submitted that on the occasion of birth of his grandson, inlaws of the deceased further demanded two gold necklace and Rs.51,000/ and the same were given to the deceased. It is further submitted that even the accused Deepak Bhardwaj demanded Rs.2 lakhs from the deceased on the occasion of marriage of sister of his partner and his elder son Vijay arranged Rs.1 lakh and gave the same to the accused persons through the deceased. It is further submitted by PW3 that the accused persons still continued to harass the deceased for want of more money and accused Deepak Bhardwaj used to beat the deceased on petty issues. It is further submitted that on the occasion of Bhai Dooj on 07.11.2010, the deceased came to his house and on asking her, he gave Rs.50,000/ to the deceased and thereafter, the deceased informed him on telephone after returning from his house that she was beaten by accused Deepak Bhardwaj and Arti and husband of Arti for bringing less money and he consoled the deceased and asked her to have patience.
Page No. 6 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
7
9. PW3 further submitted that on 08.11.2010 at about 7.15 am he received a call on his mobile phone from the matrimonial uncle of accused Deepak Bhardwaj that the condition of deceased was bad and he asked him to come immediately. He alongwith his son and other relatives went to the house of accused at RZ27, New Roshanpura, Najafgarh, Delhi. The door of the house was closed from inside. His cousin Surender Gaur called the police on 100 number. He further submitted that PCR came to the spot and he alongwith the officials of PCR went inside the house of accused persons and saw that the dead body of his deceased daughter was lying on the floor in the verandah. He also noticed that some blood was lying near the body of deceased. He came to know that accused Deepak Bhardwaj had inflicted some injuries to himself. PW3 further deposed that after sometime, SHO from local police came and he started proceedings at the spot. Executive Magistrate also came there and he made inquiries but nobody told him the cause of death of his daughter. The Executive Magistrate directed the police to send the dead body to RTRM hospital for postmortem and he also went to the police station. His statement was also recorded by the Executive Magistrate. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 09.11.2010 and after postmortem, the dead body was given to him for cremation and accordingly, the cremation was done. It is further submitted by PW3 that neither the doctor who Page No. 7 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
8 conducted the postmortem nor the Execution Magistrate informed him about the recovery of any paper from the dead body of his daughter at that time.
10. PW3 has further stated that his daughter was not suffering from any disease and she had not written any paper about the cause of her death. He has submitted that in case, if any paper was there that had been got written by the accused persons forcibly. He further submitted that he suspected that the accused persons had caused death of his daughter for greediness for more dowry and the suicide note had been planted by the accused persons with the help of Dr. Devender and brotherinlaw of accused Deepak Bhardwaj. He has further submitted that he made a complaint to the IO against the doctor who conducted the postmortem and an inquiry regarding the role of the doctor was conducted and investigation of this case was thereafter transferred to DIU, South West. PW3 further submitted that on 08.11.2010 the deceased told him that accused persons had threatened to kill her for failure to fulfill the demand of Rs.1 lakh and he had only given Rs.50,000/ to the deceased on that demand.
11. PW3 has been cross examined at length by learned defence counsel and in his cross examination, he submitted that at the time of meeting with the inlaws of his deceased daughter, though no Page No. 8 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
9 specific demand was made but accused persons had disclosed that they had performed marriage of their daughter in a lavish manner and had given a car in the dowry. He has submitted that accused persons had conveyed the demand of car in an implied manner. This witness has submitted that he had not disclosed this statement before the SDM. He further submitted that he had conveyed to accused Jagdish Chander regarding the factum of teasing his daughter for bringing insufficient dowry in the year 20082009, however, the witness was not able to recollect the exact date, time and month of such complaint made by him to accused Jagdish Chander. PW3 further submitted in his cross examination that it is correct that he had taken a loan of Rs.2 lakhs from his PPF Account. In his cross examination, the witness has submitted that the date of birth of deceased's son and his granddaughter is same i.e. 29th March and his family had gone to the residence of deceased on 29.03.2008 to celebrate the birthday of deceased's son and his granddaughter was also forcibly made to celebrate her birthday at that place. He further submitted that his family members used to visit matrimonial home of the deceased on the birthday of Harshil.
12. PW3 has further submitted in his cross examination that although, there was no specific demand of any article, jewellery, cash or vehicle from the side of accused persons but fatherinlaw of the Page No. 9 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
10 deceased had given a hint that he had presented a car in his daughter's marriage and that marriage should be solemnized accordingly to their position. The witness has admitted that he did not mention any of these facts during investigation to the police. The witness did not recall the middleman and the person who got the family of the accused persons introduced to him. The witness has admitted that he did not make any complaint before any authority including police about the demand of dowry or cruelty on the deceased by her husband as he did not want to ruin the matrimonial life of his daughter. The witness has also admitted that he never took any of his family member or other relative for the purpose of making complaint to the family of accused persons or for making them understand that they should not harass the deceased. The witness has admitted that he did not make any such statement before the investigating officer. The witness has admitted that he approached accused Jagdish Chander and asked him as to whether he required a big fridge and the accused replied in affirmative, though he has admitted that he had not stated any such fact before the investigating agency. The witness has denied the suggestion that there was neither any demand of big fridge and A.C. nor there was any consequent harassment to the deceased and also there was no occasion for him to have approached accused Jagdish Chander in this regard. The witness has admitted that accused Jagdish Chander Page No. 10 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
11 met him one day and he handed over Rs.20,000/ for purchasing the fridge, however he cannot specify the date and month of such incident. He has also not mentioned these facts in his statement recorded by the IO under Section 161 CrPC. The witness has admitted that after the birth of Harshil, accused Jagdish Chander visited his house for the purpose of ceremony of delivering Bhelli and he was received in a very cordial atmosphere. He had lunch with him and he was sent off after giving customary gifts. The witness has admitted that at that time, accused Jagdish Chander did not raise any demand of any cloth, article, jewellery or cash to be presented on Kuan Pujan ceremony. The witness was not aware as to when the Kuan Pujan ceremony of his deceased daughter took place. He has further submitted that accused Darshana and Arti taunted both his sons that they had brought clothes which were below their status and the said clothes were pantshirts and sarees and she sent them back and these articles were replaced, however, he did not remember if his son replaced those articles on the same day or the next day. He has admitted that he has not placed on record any receipt for the clothes.
13. PW3 has submitted that he never inquired from accused Deepak Bhardwaj or from any of his family member as to whether accused Deepak Bhardwaj was working at the time of marriage, though he Page No. 11 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
12 has admitted that he was informed that he is getting a salary of Rs.15000/ per month. He has admitted that he or his family member never visited the office of accused Deepak Bhardwaj prior to the marriage of his deceased daughter for the purpose of confirming as to whether he was infact serving in any company or not. He is not aware about any date or month or time as to when accused Deepak Bhardwaj left his job and started any educational institution at Palam. The witness has admitted in his cross examination that prior to opening of said educational institution, accused Deepak Bhardwah made demand of financial help as his daughter disclosed to her mother that accused Deepak Bhardwaj needed financial help of Rs.2 lakhs in December, 2008. Though he has admitted in his cross examination that he never spoke to any of the accused persons as to whether they had raised any such demand through the deceased or not. He has submitted in his voluntarily statement that the deceased had been so much threatened by the accused persons that she forbid him to talk to the accused persons. Though he has admitted that he has not mentioned any of these facts before the IO during his entire investigation. He has admitted in his cross examination that he never approached any of the accused persons for the purpose of finding out as to whether her daughter had been beaten at any point of time by accused Deepak Bhardwaj nor he made any inquiry at any point of time and also he never made any Page No. 12 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
13 complaint whatsoever in this regard. He has admitted the fact that he cannot specify any date, month or year as to whether his daughter was beaten by accused Deepak Bhardwaj. He has also submitted in his cross examination that he cannot specify any date or month as to when the deceased visited his house and disclosed to his wife that she had been beaten by accused Deepak Bhardwaj. This witness has admitted in his cross examination that when he met accused Darshana at his house, he asked her whether she had raised any demand of any cash and gold necklace and she told him that she required two gold necklaces and Rs.51,000/ as presents for her. He has admitted that he did not state any such fact in his statement recorded by the IO during his entire investigation and that it is accused Darshana who had raised demand of 2 gold necklaces and Rs.51,000/ from him at his house. He has admitted that two gold necklaces were old one which were lying at his house which were given to his daughter and he has admitted the fact that he did not tell the aforesaid facts to the police in any of his statement. He has admitted that these two gold necklaces and a sum of Rs.51,000/ were given to the deceased at the time of Kuan Pujan ceremony of his daughterinlaw Divya, wife of Vinay. However, he cannot tell any date or month or time.
14. PW3 has admitted the fact that accused Darshana never demand a Page No. 13 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
14 sum of Rs.2 lakhs from him at any point of time and he has volunteered that the aforesaid sum was demanded by accused Deepak Bhardwaj from his son Vinay. He has admitted the fact that he has no knowledge as to when a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was demanded by accused Deepak Bhardwaj from his son and he has never inquired from the accused persons as to whether they had raised any such demand of Rs.2 lakhs from any of his family member or as to what was the requirement for making such demand. He has also admitted the fact that his son Vinay never told him with regard to the alleged demand of Rs.2 lakhs but he disclosed this to him for the first time after the death of his deceased daughter that he had given a sum of Rs.1 lakh. He has also admitted the fact that he even did not know as to whether the alleged sum of Rs.1 lakh which he claimed to have been given by his son Vinay was either given to any of the accused persons or to his daughter. He has further admitted that he is not at all aware either the demand or making of such demand. He also cannot specify any date, month or year to when accused Deepak Bhardwaj might have beaten the deceased or any issue based upon which he might have beaten her. He has admitted the fact that he has never approached accused Deepak Bhardwaj or his family regarding the beatings to his deceased daughter. He has denied the suggestion that the deceased was kept with full love and care and there was absolutely no complaint against all the accused persons Page No. 14 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
15 and for that reason, there arises no occasion or reason to make any complaint to the accused persons or his family members. The witness has admitted the fact that no demands either of any cash or article was raised by any of the accused persons on the occasion of earlier Bhai Dooj festivals which fell in the years 2006, 2007, 2008 or 2009. He has also admitted that he did not know whether any of the present or Shagun or cash was earlier given to the accused persons by his family members for Bhai Dooj fell in the year 2006 to 2010. The witness has admitted that his deceased daughter told him on07.11.2010 when accused Deepak Bhardwaj had demanded a sum of Rs.1 lakh and that he had given Rs.50,000/ to her (however, he was confronted with his statement under Section 161 CrPC wherein it is not so recorded). The witness has admitted that he has not mentioned to the IO that on 08.11.2010 his deceased daughter told him that the accused persons had threatened to kill her for her failure to fulfill the demand of Rs.1 lakh.
15. Prosecution has examined PW6 Smt. Pramila Gaur who has submitted that after few days of the marriage of her deceased daughter with accused Deepak, his mother Darshana, Jagdish and accused started taunting the deceased for not bringing big car and fridge. She submitted that she talked to her husband (PW3) and they Page No. 15 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
16 gave Rs.20,000/ to accused Deepak for purchasing a big fridge and he purchased the same. She has admitted that on 29.03.2007, her daughter was blessed with a son and they gave clothes in the Chuchak ceremony and same were returned to them and her son got them replace. She also submitted that in year 20082009, accused Deepak resigned from his job and opened a private college and for that he demanded Rs.2 lacs from her deceased daughter and when she expressed her inability to pay, accused Deepak gave beatings to the deceased. She further submitted that her husband (PW3) sent Rs. 2 lacs to accused Deepak. She further submitted that at the time of birth of sons of her sons Vinay and Hemant, accused Darshana demanded two gold necklaces and Rs.51,000/ from them and then they gave two gold necklaces and Rs.51,000/ apart from other clothes to the deceased. She further submitted that on the occasion of Bhai Dooj, deceased had come to her house and after tikka, she told that accused Deepak had asked her to bring Rs.1 lakh from us and then she was given Rs.50,000/. She further submitted that on the 8th of that month, her husband received a telephone call from the maternal uncle of accused Deepak that the condition of deceased was critical and when her husband alongwith other family members visited the matrimonial house of deceased, they came to know that deceased was killed. On a leading question, PW6 submitted that the inlaws of the deceased gave beatings to her for having brought Page No. 16 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
17 Rs.50,000/.
16. PW6 has been crossexamined and in her crossexamination, she has admitted that accused Deepak had never demanded any dowry either from her or her husband on any occasion. She volunteered that the deceased informed them that she was being harassed by accused persons for bringing a small car and a small refrigerator and for not bringing a big car and big refrigerator in dowry. She admitted the fact that she never made any complaint to the inlaws of the deceased. She did not remember the date, month and year as to when such aforesaid demands were made from the deceased. She admitted the fact that during 23 visits of the inlaws of deceased to their house, they never put forward any kind of dowry demand and they have also not made any complaint to the inlaws for making any demand or for the harassment of her deceased daughter. She did not remember as to on which date, month or year PW3 gave Rs.20,000/ to the deceased. She has admitted the fact that when the parentsin law of the deceased visited their house after the birth of their grandson, they did not put forward any demand of any article of clothes from them. She has admitted the fact that during her visit and visit of her husband to the matrimonial home of the deceased, no complaint whatsoever was made to the inlaws of deceased regarding dowry demands or harassment. She has admitted the fact Page No. 17 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
18 that none of her family member had made any complaint telephonically or otherwise to the inlaws of Diksha for returning the clothes given by them on the occasion of Chuchak ceremony. She has admitted the fact that the inlaws of deceased had returned the clothes meant for pant and shirt and had kept the remaining clothes with them on that occasion. She is not aware about the receipts or place from where the clothes were purchased by them. She has admitted the fact that she did not remember the date, month or year when deceased Diksha informed her about demand of Rs.2 lacs by accused Deepak Bhardwaj for business or when the same was paid. She has admitted the fact that none of her family member inquired accused Deepak Bhardwaj or his parents about the demand. She is also not aware about the date, month or year when the deceased informed them about her beatings by accused Deepak Bhardwaj. She has admitted the fact that accused Darshana had attended the Kuan Pujan ceremony of her son Vijay and no demand of any gold necklace or cash was made by accused Darshana either from her or any of the family member. She has admitted the fact that on the Kuan Pujan ceremony, one gold necklace and Rs.51,000/ each were given to the deceased as she had stated that her motherinlaw would taunt her in case the same are not given, (however, she has not mentioned these facts before the Executive Magistrate while recording her statement). She has admitted the fact that she never Page No. 18 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
19 made any complaint to accused Darshana regarding alleged demand of one gold necklace and Rs.51,000/. She has admitted the fact that on none of the occasions of Bhai Dooj from year 20062009, any demand of dowry whatsoever was made by husband of deceased or her inlaws from them or no such fact of any such demand was brought to their notice by deceased. She has admitted the fact that on the occasion of Bhai Dooj in the year 2010, the deceased was not accompanied by accused Deepak Bhardwaj during her visit to their house. She has admitted the fact that accused Deepak Bhardwaj had visited their premises on the same day in the evening for taking the deceased back. She has admitted the fact that no grievance whatsoever was raised by accused Deepak regarding dowry demand on that day. She has admitted the fact that deceased had not informed them about any beatings given to her by her husband or in laws or about any taunts by her sisterinlaw and motherinlaw. She has admitted the fact that from the date of marriage of deceased till her death, no Panchayat relating to any harassment of deceased or demand or dowry by her inlaws was organized. She has admitted the fact that no Mediator was informed or intervened regarding the same. She has admitted the fact that no police complaint regarding said acts was made by them. She has admitted the fact that deceased had gone to pilgrimage to Vaishno Devi temple with accused no.2 and 3 prior to her death. She has admitted the fact that birthday of Page No. 19 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
20 son of deceased and her grandson falls on 29 th March and both the families used to celebrate the birthday together.
17. Prosecution has examined PW7 Hemant Gaur (brother of deceased) who submitted that after the marriage, the inlaws of his deceased sister started harassing her for not bringing sufficient dowry and they used to taunt her for bringing less dowry. He submitted that they used to taunt her for bringing small car and small refrigerator and his father gave Rs.20,000/ to accused Deepak Bhardwaj to purchase a big refrigerator. The witness has admitted that on 29.03.2007, on the occasion of birth of the son of deceased, sufficient customary articles were given to her inlaws, but they returned the clothes. He further submitted that in year 20082009, accused Deepak Bhardwaj also left his job and started a coaching centre at Palam and he demanded Rs. 2 lacs and when deceased refused for the same, she was given beatings. He further submitted that his father arranged Rs.2 lacs and gave the same to accused persons. He further submitted that on the occasion of birth of his son, accused Darshana demanded two gold necklaces and his father gave two gold necklaces and Rs.51,000/ in cash to the accused persons. He has submitted that accused persons used to harass and cause cruelty to his deceased sister. He has further submitted that on Page No. 20 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
21 07.11.2010, on the occasion of Bhai Dooj, when the deceased came to their house, they gave Rs.50,000/ to her, but her inlaws gave beatings to her for not bringing sufficient money on that occasion and on 08.11.2010, his father (PW3) received a call from the maternal uncle of accused Deepak that his sister was ill and when he visited the house of the deceased, the doors of the house were found closed and when they entered the house alongwith officials of PCR, they saw that dead body of his sister was lying on the floor. He further submitted that he came to know that accused Deepak had inflicted some injuries to himself and his relatives had taken him to hospital.
18. In his crossexamination, PW7 has submitted that all the money transactions of the family are done by his father. He has admitted that none of the accused persons raised any type of demand of dowry including the cash or jewellery or vehicle at the time of lagan/tika ceremony. He has admitted the fact that whatever was presented in the marriage of his sister, the same was presented according to their free will and volition and there was absolutely no demand of any kind from the side of accused persons prior to or at the time of marriage. He has admitted the fact that he could not muster courage to point out to the inlaws of his deceased sister about her harassment by them. He has admitted in his crossexamination that Page No. 21 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
22 the inlaws of his sister never demanded anything directly but all such demands were made through his deceased sister. He has submitted that he cannot tell any date, month or year when his sister demanded Rs.2 lacs for opening a coaching centre by her husband. He submitted that he never visited the matrimonial home of his deceased sister for verifying as to whether she was beaten or threatened by the accused persons for bringing insufficient dowry article. He has admitted that he used to go to the matrimonial house of his deceased sister for the purpose of celebrating birthday of her son which falls on 29th March. He has admitted the fact that he visited about 3040 times to the matrimonial house of his deceased sister and also admitted that none of the accused person has ever demanded any dowry directly from him. He also admitted the fact that accused Deepak has ever demanded any sort of dowry during his visit in his presence. He has admitted the fact that he alongwith his family has never made any complaint before the police or to any authority. He has also admitted the fact that he has no knowledge whether any of the accused person had put forward any type of demand with regards to clothes, jewellery, etc. prior to the Chuchak ceremony when his deceased sister was blessed with a son. He also admitted the fact that on Chuchak ceremony, no particular brand of clothes were demanded by the inlaws of deceased. He admitted the fact that he did not make any complaint to the parents of accused Page No. 22 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
23 Deepak that accused Deepak had taken Rs. 2 lacs from his father as financial help for opening a coaching centre. He also admitted the fact that he did not make any complaint to the police that any demand for dowry/cash or gifts was ever made by accused Deepak during his visit to his house. He submitted in his crossexamination that on the occasion of Bhai Dooj in year 2010, deceased only visited their house and accused Deepak was only sitting in the car. He admitted the fact that it has been disclosed by his father that he received a call from the deceased that she was beaten by accused for bringing insufficient money (though he admitted the fact that talks never took place in his presence). He has admitted the fact that he alongwith his cousin sister accompanied Diksha to Nainital and Masoori in year 2008 and during said visit the relations were cordial and they enjoyed the said trip. He admitted the fact that he joined the celebration of the birthday of the son of his deceased sister alongwith photographs and at that time the relations were cordial.
19. Prosecution has examined PW10 Deen Dayal Sharma who deposed that before this court that on his visit to the deceased's house, he found that deceased Diksha was upset and when he inquired from her as to what had happed, she remained silent and signaled him to disclosed the matter lateron. He further submitted that when he as sitting in drawing room, Diksha brought water and offered him tea Page No. 23 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
24 but he refused and when he inquired as to why she was upset, she told him that she had been married in a wrong family and her husband was not doing any job and used to torture her for bringing money from her parents for financial help of her husband. He further submitted that deceased told him that behaviour of her in laws was not good towards her as her father has not given sufficient dowry according to their family status. He further submitted that he saw tears in the eyes of deceased and he informed about this fact to the father of deceased on the same day. In his crossexamination, PW10 has admitted that he never visited the matrimonial house of Diksha prior to his visit at Diwali. He has admitted the fact that he was not having any personal acquaintance with the inlaws or husband of deceased. He admitted the fact that he did not make any complaint to the motherinlaw of Diksha at that time and thereafter he never went to inquire the welfare of Diksha. He further deposed that father of deceased told that it was his internal matter and he do not need to any interference of other persons. He admitted the fact that he did not state before the police that he visited the matrimonial house of Diksha 34 times prior to Diwali. He admitted the fact that he did not state to the police that Diksha was upset and when he inquired from her as to what had happened, she remained silent and signaled him to disclose the matter later.
Page No. 24 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
25
20. Prosecution has examined PW1 Dr. Parvinder Singh who has conducted the postmortem of the deceased. In his report, he has submitted that no internal injury was found on the body and the death was caused due to asphyxia following antemortem hanging. The witness has submitted that at the time of removal of clothes from the dead body for postmortem, he had found four written sheets of paper from the left armpit of the dead body inside the blouse of the deceased. He has submitted that he had handed over the said sheets to the IO alongwith inquest papers and postmortem report on 20.11.2010. It is further submitted that he signed on each paper of four sheets of the letter (hereinafter referred as suicide note). With the permission of the Court, the learned Addl. PP for State cross examined the witness in respect of manner of recovery of alleged suicide note Ex.PW1/C and the procedure adopted by him. In his cross examination by learned Addl. PP for the State, the witness has admitted that there is a column for "Articles/specimen preserved" in the postmortem report and he did not mention about the suicide note in that column. He has volunteered that the suicide note was not preserved by him and for that reason, he has not mentioned about the suicide note in the said column. He has submitted that he had shown it to the IO. The witness has admitted the fact that two family members of the deceased were present at the time of postmortem Page No. 25 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
26 and he did not show the suicide note to any of the family member. He has also admitted the fact that he did not take signature of IO on postmortem report or on any other document in token of showing him the suicide note immediately after it was recovered. He has admitted the fact that a departmental inquiry in respect of Ex.PW1/C was conducted by the Senior Doctor of DDU Hospital and volunteered that he was exonerated in the said inquiry.
21. PW1 has been cross examined by learned counsel for accused persons and in his cross examination, he has submitted that on recovery of suicide note, he had informed SDM Sh. Arvind Prakash about the same. He has submitted that he is not aware if the IO has recorded his statement in respect of recovery of suicide note on 28.11.2010. He has further admitted that from the date of recovery till it is handed over to police, suicide note remained in his custody. He has admitted the fact that the identification of the dead body was got done before conducting the postmortem and the witnesses were waiting outside the mortuary. He had admitted that fact that he did not deem it necessary to inform family members of deceased about the suicide note as he had informed SDM in this regard.
22. Prosecution has examined PW4, Dr. Raj Kumar, who has submitted that accused Deepak Bhardwaj was brought in the hospital by his Page No. 26 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
27 relatives in a state of shock and in unconscious state. He submitted that on examination he found 2.5 cm long bone deep wound. The patient had left radial artery injury with left median nerve injury with multiple tendon injuries in his left wrist area and he was operated upon and was admitted in hospital and was discharged on 12.11.2010.
23. PW11, Constable Sachin Kumar has also been examined by the prosecution who submitted that on 29.11.2010, he alongwith Investigating Officer had gone to Indira Gandhi National Open University, Maidan Garhi, and on the request of the Investigating Officer, Sh. Satish Kr. Gautam, Section Officer, (ExamIII), had handed over the answer sheet of the deceased alongwith covering letter which he produced before the I.O. who had seized the same and the answer sheet vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/A.
24. Prosecution has examined PW12, Vinay Gaur, the other brother of deceased, who has deposed almost on the similar line of PW7. He submitted in his examination that when there was marriage of sister of the coaching partner of accused Deepak Bhardwaj, accused asked his deceased sister to bring Rs.2 lacs for the partner and then PW12 arranged a sum of Rs.1 lakh and gave it to his deceased sister for the said purpose. He has further submitted that accused Deepak Page No. 27 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
28 Bhardwaj regularly used to taunt and beat his deceased sister for dowry and trivial issues.
25. In his crossexamination, PW12 has admitted the fact that before finalizing the marriage, the accused persons had not made any demand of dowry or any other customary gifts and car. He has admitted the fact that whatever they spent in the marriage was out of their own choice. Witness has further submitted that he had visited the matrimonial house of his deceased sister about 20 times and accused persons never raised any demand of dowry from him during any of his visit to their house. He has also admitted the fact that he never made any complaint to the accused persons as to why they were making demands from his deceased sister. He also admitted the fact that none of the accused persons have told him that they did not like the car or the refrigerator. He further admitted that the amount of Rs.20,000/ was not paid in his presence and it was given to the inlaws of deceased through deceased. He has admitted the fact that accused Deepak Bhardwaj had not told him personally about the demand of big refrigerator and he also had not inquired about the demand of aforesaid Rs.20,000/. He has submitted that his father had made complaint about the demand of dowry and cruelty telephonically to accused Jagdish Bhardwaj. He has admitted the fact that he has never confronted any of the accused persons Page No. 28 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
29 regarding demand of dowry, beatings and cruelties inflicted by them on the deceased. He has also admitted the fact that no demand whatsoever was raised by any of the accused person from him on the Kuan Pujan ceremony. He has also admitted the fact that none of the accused persons had told him that the clothes brought by them on the Kuan Pujan ceremony were not upto their standard. He has also admitted the fact that no demand of Rs. 2 lacs was made from him by any of the accused person including Deepak Bhardwaj before opening of coaching institute by him. He has submitted that his father had informed him that accused Deepak Bhardwaj had beaten the deceased for not brining Rs.2 lacs for opening the coaching institute and accordingly his father had paid the same. He has also admitted the fact that demand of two gold necklaces and Rs.51,000/ by the sisterinlaw of deceased was not made in his presence. He has also admitted the fact that demand of Rs. 2 lacs for the marriage of sister of partner of accused Deepak Bhardwaj was not made to him rather was conveyed to him through his deceased sister and he had made payment of Rs. 1 lakh through his sister (however the witness is not aware about the name of the partner, name of the sister, the place where the marriage was solemnized). The witness has also admitted the fact that no dowry demand was ever made by the accused persons on the occasion of Bhai Dooj in the years 2006 2009.
Page No. 29 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
30
26. Prosecution has examined PW17 Sh. Surender Kumar Gaur, who is brother of PW3 Sh. Sat Parkash Gaur. He has submitted that on 08.11.2010, he received an information from his cousin i.e. PW3 Sh. Sat Parkash Gaur that he received a telephone call that Diksha was not well and is serious. On receiving the telephone call, he alongwith his cousin and other family members reached the matrimonial house of deceased. He has further submitted that the main door of the house was found locked from inside and they knocked the door for sometime but the door was not opened. Then he made a call at 100 number from his mobile phone and PCR reached there. Then only the door of the house was opened. He has submitted that despite a lavish marriage by his cousin brother Sh. Sat Parkash Gaur, the accused persons were not satisfied and tortured Diksha and submitted that this fact has been told to him by PW3. He has further submitted that PW3 has told him that the accused persons had tortured Diksha on account of dowry and a day before the incident on the occasion of Bhai Dooj, Rs.50,000/ was given to Diksha on demand of her inlaws. He was cross examined by learned defence counsel and in his cross examination, he has submitted that his cousin brother had informed him about the demand of dowry by the accused persons. He has admitted that he had not personally asked from any of the accused persons about any Page No. 30 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
31 such demand by them.
27. PW20 Sh. Sardar Singh Gaur, who is also one of the cousin brother of PW3, has deposed that one day in the summer of 2010, the deceased told him that her fatherinlaw, motherinlaw, husband and sisterinlaw tortured and harassed her for bringing less dowry in the marriage. He has further submitted that on 01.08.20110 on the occasion of Kuan Pujan when accused No.2 and 3 also participated in the event, he discussed with them about the harassment and torture for dowry but they replied that PW3 is well to do and he can help her daughter and soninlaw that would help to maintain peace in the family and from this statement, he concluded that the deceased was infact harassed by the accused persons on account of demand of dowry. This witness was cross examined by learned defence counsel and in his cross examination, he has admitted that it is correct that no demand was put forward by any of the accused persons at the time of marriage of the deceased. He has also admitted the fact that he never visited the matrimonial home of the deceased. He is also not aware that what was demanded by accused persons nor he has inquired from PW3 or his family. He has also admitted the fact that he never visited the deceased for inquiring about the demand of dowry and the cruelties inflicted upon her. He has admitted the fact that even on the day of suicide, he did not visit Page No. 31 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
32 the matrimonial home of deceased. He has submitted that his brother (father of deceased) never disclosed him about any demand made by inlaws of the deceased at the Kuan Pujan ceremony. He has admitted the fact that he never inquired from his family members whether they have given a reference before the SDM or police about his conversation with the accused persons.
28. PW23, Satish Kumar Rauthan has been examined by the prosecution who has submitted that he has handed over the original answer script of MLIE101 Course pertaining to December 2009 term end examination held on 15.12.2009 in respect of student Ms. Diksha Gaur. He further submitted that this answer sheet was duly signed by the student, invigilator and evaluator.
29. PW24, Arvind Prakash has also been examined by the prosecution who was Executive Magistrate at the time of death of deceased and who was present during proceedings under Section 176 CrPC. He has submitted that he recorded the statement of Satya Parkash Gaur, Promila Gaur, Hemant Gaur and Vinay Gaur and in his presence the dead body of deceased was sent to the mortuary. He has further submitted that during postmortem, doctor Parminder Singh had called him inside the postmortem room and had shown him the handwritten suicide note which was in Hindi containing four pages Page No. 32 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
33 stating that the same was recovered from the armpit of deceased Diksha. He further submitted that he had gone through the suicide note and thereafter it was taken back from him by the doctor stating that the same would be given alongwith the postmortem report.
30. PW26 Inspector Rajesh Kumar was examined by the prosecution, who in his cross examination has submitted that the suicide note had been recovered by the Autopsy Surgeon on 09.11.2010 at the time of conducting postmortem of the dead body and the same was attached with the postmortem report and was later on seized by him.
31. On the basis of the deposition of the witnesses, documents on record and submissions of both the parties, following are the points of determination before this court for adjudication:
(A) Marriage between the deceased and accused Deepak Bhardwarj.
It is an admitted fact that accused Deepak Bhardwaj and the deceased Diksha got married on 05.03.2006 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies and out of this wedlock, one child namely Harshil was born on 29.03.2007.
(B) Unnatural death of deceased.
As per the statement of PW1 and MLC placed on record. It can very well to said that the deceased died an unnatural death due to asphyxia Page No. 33 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
34 following antemortem hanging, received injury on her neck which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
(C) Deceased died within 7 years of marriage.
This is an admitted fact that marriage of deceased and accused was performed on 05.03.2006 and she died on 08.11.2010 and thus the deceased died within seven years of her marriage with accused Deepak Bhardwaj.
(D) Episodes of demand of dowry and cruelty.
As per the case of prosecution, the deceased was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the accused persons on account of demand of dowry. The prosecution has produced PW3 Satya Prakash Gaur, PW6 Pramila Gaur, PW7 Hemant Gaur and PW12 Vinay Gaur (family members of deceased) as the witnesses in order to prove the demand of dowry and cruelty inflicted upon the deceased.
(i) Demand of Rs.20,000/ just after the marriage.
It is the case of the prosecution that accused persons have demanded Rs.20,000/ from the father of deceased for purchasing a bigger fridge.
In his crossexamination, PW3 has admitted that he himself approached the accused Jagdish Chander and asked him as to whether he required a big fridge and accused replied in affirmative. He has further admitted that accused Jagdish Chander met him one day and he handed over Rs.20,000/ for purchasing the fridge. However PW6 Smt. Pramila Page No. 34 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
35 has submitted that she talked to her husband and they have given Rs.20,000/ to accused Deepak Bhardwaj for purchasing a big fridge and accused Deepak Bhardwaj purchased the same. PW7 Hemant Gaur has submitted that his father gave Rs.20,000/ to accused Deepak Bhardwaj to purchase a big fridge. PW12 in his crossexamination has submitted that the amount of Rs.20,000/ was not paid in his presence and it was given to the inlaws of deceased through deceased. However, all these witnesses have submitted that all the three accused persons have not demanded the bigger fridge and Rs.20,000/ from them personally. It has also been deposed by all the family members of the deceased family that at the time of marriage, accused persons never made any demand of dowry or other customary gifts, etc. While considering the factum of demand of Rs.20,000/ for purchasing a big fridge, the testimony of all these witnesses are contrary to each other to the fact as to whom this amount has been given as one says that this amount was given to the deceased and other says that this amount was given to accused Deepak Bhardwaj and other says that this amount was given to fatherinlaw of deceased and admittedly they all have submitted that there was demand of Rs. 20,000/ or for a big fridge from any of the accused persons to them and any amount of Rs.20,000/ if at all they have given to any of the accused or deceased i.e. on the saying of deceased and admittedly they have not given this amount of Rs.20,000/ in the presence of any other family members like the maternal or paternal Page No. 35 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
36 cousins of the deceased. So the same cannot be considered that this amount was demanded and was paid.
(ii) Gifts etc. given at Chhuchhak Ceremony.
It is the case of prosecution that the accused persons have demand branded clothes on the Chhuchhak ceremony.
PW3 Sh. Sat Prakash Gaur has submitted that accused Darshana and Arti (Sisterinlaw of the deceased) taunted both his sons that they had brought clothes which were below their status and the said clothes were pant shirts and sarees and she sent back the said clothes and these articles were replaced.
PW6 Smt. Pramila Gaur in her cross examination has submitted that they have given clothes for the chhuchhak ceremony and the same were returned to them and her son got them replaced.
PW7 Sh. Hemant Gaur has admitted the fact that on chhuchhak ceremony no particular brand of clothes were demanded by inlaws of the deceased.
PW12 Sh. Vinay Gaur has submitted that none of the accused persons had told him that the clothes brought by them on the Kuan Pujan ceremony were not upto their standard.
All these witnesses have invariably submitted that there was no specific demand of any clothes, articles, jewellery or cash to be presented to the accused persons in chhuchhak ceremony of the deceased.
Page No. 36 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
37 On the basis of the deposition by all these witnesses, nothing has been established on record by the prosecution that accused persons had demanded branded clothes for them. Though this fact is admitted that the clothes were exchanged/replaced but for what purpose they were replaced has not come up on record. The deposition of above witnesses has not established that the clothes were of inferior quality and for what purpose the same have been replaced as nothing of the sort has been established in the deposition of these witnesses by the prosecution.
(iii) Demand of Rs.2 lakhs for opening coaching centre by accused Deepak Bhardwaj.
It is the case of prosecution that when accused Deepak Bhardwaj wanted to open his coaching centre at Palam, he and other accused persons demanded Rs.2 lakhs from the family of the deceased.
In the deposition of PW3, it has come on record that his deceased daughter discussed to her mother that accused Deepak Bhardwaj needed financial help of Rs.2 lakhs in December, 2008 though he has admitted that he never spoke to any of the accused persons as to whether they have raised any such demand through the deceased or not. PW3 has admitted the fact that all the accused persons never demanded a sum of Rs.2 lakhs from him at any point of time though he has submitted that accused Deepak Bhardwaj has demanded the amount of Rs.2 lkahs from his son Vijay.
Page No. 37 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
38 It has come in the deposition of PW6 that accused Deepak Bhardwaj resigned from his job and opened a private college and for that purpose he demanded Rs.2 lakhs from her deceased daughter and accordingly her husband (PW3) sent Rs.2 lakhs to accused Deepak Bhardwaj.
It has come in the deposition of PW7 Sh. Hemant Gaur that he never inquired from his deceased sister or her inlaws as to why she was beaten and why they have demanded Rs.2 lakhs. He has further submitted that he has never made any complaint to the inlaws of her deceased sister that accused Deepak Bhardwaj had taken Rs.2 lakhs from his father as a financial help for opening a coaching centre.
PW12 has admitted the fact that no demand of Rs.2 lakhs was made from him by any of the accused persons including Deepak Bhardwaj for opening of coaching institute by him. He has further submitted that his father had informed him that accused Deepak Bhardwaj has demanded a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and accordingly his father has paid the same.
On the basis of deposition of these witnesses, one fact has come up on the fora that none of the accused persons have demanded Rs.2 lakhs from any of the family member of the deceased as there is inconsistency in the statement of PW3 and PW12 as PW3 has submitted that accused Deepak Bhardwaj demanded a sum of Rs.2 lakhs from his son Vijay, however, Vijay submitted that Deepak Bhardwaj never demanded any such amount from him. So here also, whatever is coming in the form of demand Page No. 38 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
39 to the family member of the deceased is only through the deceased and not directly from any of the accused persons.
(iv) Demand of Rs.2 lakhs on the marriage of sister of the partner of accused Deepak Bhardwaj.
It is the case of prosecution that accused Deepak Bhardwaj has demanded a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for the marriage of sister of his partner, however, it is submitted by PW12 that there was no demand on behalf of accused Deepak Bhardwaj as the said demand was conveyed to him through his deceased sister and he only made a payment of Rs.1 lakh though his sister. Other witnesses are silent to this effect that any demand of Rs.2 lakh has ever been made by accused Deepak Bhardwaj. Admittedly, PW12 cannot tell in his cross examination the name of the partner/name of the sister of the partner/venue of the marriage/date, month or year of the marriage. So on the basis of above deposition, this demand of Rs.2 lakhs has not been established by the prosecution.
(v) Demand of two gold necklaces and Rs.51,000/ by accused Darshana at Kuan Pujan ceremony of both the brothers of deceased.
It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of Kuan Pujan ceremony of the son of PW7 and PW12, accused no.3 has made demand of two gold necklaces and Rs.51,000/. It has come in the crossexamination of PW3 that when he met accused Darshana at his house, he asked her whether she had raised any demand of cash or gold necklace then she told Page No. 39 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
40 him that she required two gold necklace and Rs.51,000/ as present for her. (however this statement does not find mention in the statement recorded before the IO and the statement before the SDM). In his crossexamination the witness has admitted that these two gold necklaces were old one and were still lying at his house. It has come in the deposition of PW6 that she had given one gold necklace and Rs.51,000/ to her deceased daughter as her deceased daughter had told her that if the same would not be given to her, her motherinlaw would taut her (however she has not stated this fact before the IO or before the SDM). PW6 has further admitted the fact that she never made any complaint to accused Darshana regarding demand of one gold necklace and Rs.51,000/. It has come in the deposition of PW7 that none of the accused persons raised any type of demand of dowry before, at the time or after the marriage. PW12 has admitted the fact that demand of two gold necklace and Rs.51,000/ by motherinlaw of deceased was not made in his presence. On the basis of deposition of these witnesses, one fact has come to the culmination that there was no specific demand of gold necklace and Rs.51,000/ in the presence of any of the family member of the deceased and as per the case of prosecution, this demand has also come from the deceased indirectly. It has come invariably in the deposition of all the witnesses that there was no demand of any dowry, jewellery, etc. from any of the accused persons at the time of marriage. So I cannot consider that the demand of two gold necklace and Rs.51,000/ was ever made by the accused Darshana at the time of Kuan Page No. 40 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
41 Pujan ceremony of the deceased's brothers.
(vi) Demand of Rs.1 lakh in Bhai Dooj ceremony in October 2010.
It is the case of prosecution that accused Deepak Bhardwaj has demanded Rs.1 lakh to be brought up by deceased in Bhai Dooj ceremony in October 2010. In the deposition of PW3, it has come that when the deceased came home on the Bhai Dooj ceremony, she told that accused Deepak Bhardwaj had demanded Rs. 1 lakh and when she was given only Rs.50,000/, accused Deepak Bhardwaj had beaten her and he consoled her daughter over the telephone. PW3 has admitted the fact that no demand either of any cash or articles was ever raised by accused person on the occasion of earlier Bhai Dooj festival which fell in the years 20062009. PW7 has also admitted the fact that there was no demand on the occasion of Bhai Dooj from 20062009 in any manner and even no such fact of any demand was brought to her notice by the deceased. It has also come in the deposition of PW7 that accused Deepak Bhardwaj did not visit the house on Bhai Dooj in year 2010. PW12 has also submitted in his cross examination that there was no demand of any article/money from the in laws of the deceased/accused persons on the occasion of Bhai Dooj in the year 20062009. Like other demands, this demand is also not direct from any of the accused persons and as per the case of the prosecution, it has come only through deceased. It is admitted fact that on the occasion of Bhai Dooj ceremony from 20062009, there was no demand of any money Page No. 41 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
42 from any corner of the inlaws.
Apart from all these above mentioned fact, there are certain facts which has come up before this court and needs a mention is that all the witnesses have deposed that there was no demand of any car, AC, jewellery or cash etc. at the time of marriage of deceased. It has also come on record that the relations between the inlaws of the deceased and the family member of the deceased were cordial. It has also come on record that there is no complaint in any form by the family member of deceased either before any Panchayat or before other family members or to any police, or to any women protection center or even to the inlaws of the deceased before her death. It has also come on record that PW7 and PW12 often used to visit the matrimonial house of their deceased sister and they have never made any such complaint to the inlaws of the deceased or to the husband of the deceased. As regards cordial relations between two families is concerned, it has also come on record that at times they celebrated the birthdays of deceased son and the son of one of her brother jointly which falls on 29th March. It has also come on record that the deceased alongwith her cousin and brother went to the picnic with the accused and the relations were cordial. On this aspect, decisions of the High Court of Delhi given in the cases titled "State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Others", MANU/DE/1810/2010, and "Ahmed Sayeed Vs. State", 2014 (I) JCC 727, may be relied upon wherein it is stated that when the Page No. 42 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
43 allegations of dowry demand emerge only after the incident and no complaint of protest is made in any corner and no report or complaint is filed, it reflects and gives an impression that the entire theory of demand of dowry is an afterthought.
E) Suicide Note.
A four page letter/writing written by deceased (handwriting admitted by FSL) has come in the picture through PW1 who conducted the postmortem of the deceased. The witness has admitted that at the time of removal of clothes from the dead body for postmortem, he found four page written sheet of paper from the left armpit inside the blouse of deceased and he handed over these four papers duly signed by him with the postmortem report to the IO. Though the witness has been crossexamined on the suicide note by the prosecution itself on the ground as to why this suicide note was not shown to the parents of the deceased at the mortuary when the doctor was aware of the fact that the family members were standing outside. He was also questioned about the fact that as to why he has not mentioned in the column in the postmortem report that he recovered a suicide note from the clothes of the deceased. It has also come on record that due to this act of the doctor, a complaint was made by the family members of the deceased and an enquiry was initiated against the witness though the witness has admitted that he has been exonerated in the Page No. 43 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
44 departmental enquiry. Though nothing of this fact has been placed on record by the prosecution yet as per the report of FSL, the handwriting of the deceased in these four pages is compared with the answer sheet wherein she appeared for a library course before IGNOU and as per finding of FSL, the handwriting on both the documents matches.
Perusal of record shows that suicide note gave a clean chit to all the accused persons by mentioning that the deceased has committed suicide on her own as she was suffering from some disease. It has also been repeatedly mentioned by her in the suicide note that her inlaws has given huge love and care to her and she has no complaint in any manner from them. She has also mentioned to her father not to take any legal action against her inlaws as she had committed the suicide on her own and has not been abated by any one of her inlaws.
Now as per the discussion, the fact has come out that all the demands of dowry and cruelty inflicted upon the deceased were informed to the family of the deceased through the deceased only as admittedly there is no specific demand of dowry or any other articles as mentioned above directly from any of the accused persons to the family of the deceased and as per contents of the suicide note, nothing of the sort has come that she was ever tortured, beaten or otherwise dealt with any cruelty. Nothing has come on record from the suicide note that there was any demand of anything from the inlaws rather huge praise has been written for the inlaws by the deceased in her suicide note.
Page No. 44 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
45
32. It is the case of the prosecution that just before one day of death of deceased, she told her father on telephone that she was beaten by accused Deepak Bhardwaj and that she had threats for her life. On this issue, defence side has rightly relied on the decision of High Court of Delhi given in the case titled as "Lachhman @ Raju & Another Vs. State of Delhi", 2014 (4) JCC 2926, wherein the Court noted that if the brother of the deceased did not visit her matrimonial home until two days after receiving call from her, then that is an important factor, which creates reasonable doubt on the version of the family members.
33. I could lay my hands on judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex court in case title as "Kashmir Kaur & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab" (2012) 13 SCC 627. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Apex court summarized the following principles for proving offence u/s 304B IPC:
(1) To attract the provisions of Section 304B IPC main ingredient of offence to be established is that soon before death of deceased she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry.
(2) The death of the deceased woman was caused by any burn or bodily injury or some other circumstance which was not normal.
(3) Such death occurs within 7 years from the date of her marriage.
Page No. 45 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
46 (4) That the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.
(5) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.
(6) It should be established that such cruelty or harassment was made soon before her death.
(7) The expression "soon before" is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence.
(8) It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
(9) Therefore the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of proximate or live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. In other words, it should not be remote in point of time and thereby make it a stale one.
(10) However, the expression "soon before" should not be given a narrow meaning which would otherwise defeat the very purpose of the provisions of this Act and should not lead to absurd results.
(11) Section 304B is an exception to the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence that a suspect in the Indian law is entitled to Page No. 46 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
47 the protection of Article 20 of the Constitution, as well as, a presumption of innocence in his favour. The concept of deeming fiction is hardly applicable to criminal jurisprudence but in contradiction to this aspect of criminal law, the legislature applied the concept of deeming fiction to the provisions of Section 304B.
(12) Such deeming fiction resulting in a presumption is, however a rebuttable presumption and the husband and his relatives, can by leading their defence prove that the ingredients of Section 304B were not satisfied.
(13) The specific significance to be attached is to the time of the alleged cruelty and harassment to which the victim was subjected, the time of her death and whether the alleged demand of dowry was in connection with the marriage. Once the said ingredients are satisfied it will be called "dowry death" and by deemed fiction of law the husband or the relatives will be deemed to have committed that offence."
34. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the presumption as to abatement of suicide by a married woman and Section 113B deals with the presumption as to dowry death. It has been held in various cases that before a presumption of commission of dowry death shall be presumed, the following conditions must be established:
(i) the question before the court must be whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman;
(ii) it must be established that the woman died unnatural death within a period of 7 years from the date of her marriage and;
Page No. 47 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
48
(iii) that soon before her death, such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment or in connection with any demand for dowry.
35. I could also lay my hand on the judgments reported as "Davinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab" (2014) 12 SCC 629; "Pardeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana" (2014) 7 SCC 395 and "Jagdish & Ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal" (2015) 2 SCC 252, it was held that for the purpose of Section 304B IPC, a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, could be raised only on the proof of following essentials:
(1) Death of a woman took place within 7 years of her marriage; (2) Such death took place not under normal circumstances; (3) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives; and (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death and in connection with demand of dowry.
36. It is further held in case titled as "Sher Singh Vs. State of Haryana"
AIR (2015) SC that as regards live link between death and cruelty is concerned, it could be drawn by preponderance of probability. It is further held that once presumption is drawn under Section 113B, it is to be rebutted beyond reasonable doubt by accused.
37. A conjoint reading of Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act and Page No. 48 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
49 Section 304B of Indian Penal Code shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibilities of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence, there was cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry and only in that case, the presumption operates. The phrase "soon before" is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute the period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any time frame or fixed period for "soon before" and the legislature in its wisdom has not confined any period/time limit and has left the same to be determined by the Courts depending upon the fact and circumstances of each case. Suffice to say that there must be a proximate existence between the death and the effect of cruelty. If the alleged incident of cruelty is so remote that it has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
38. On the basis of above said consideration, I am of this considered opinion that there are lots of shades in the story of prosecution Page No. 49 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
50 regarding demand of dowry and cruelty upon the deceased and the cruelty inflicted upon the deceased in connection with demand of dowry. On the basis of aforesaid judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as our own High Court, the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act would only arise when the prosecution would establish that soon before the death of deceased, she was subjected to cruelty on account of or in connection with demand of dowry, which is not proved by the prosecution in this case.
39. Of late, Hon'ble Supreme Court in criminal appellate jurisdiction (Crl.A. No.1475 of 2009 decided on 23.07.2019 cases titled as Girish Singh vs. State of Uttrakhand) as well as our own High Court (in Crl.A. No.766/2017 decided on 08.01.2018 in case titled as State vs. Sanjay Singh), have further laid down that a conjoint reading of Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act and Section 304B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connected with any demand of dowry.
40. On the basis of these sequels of events, I am of this considered opinion that big loopholes are present in the story of the prosecution. Accused persons may appear guilty on basis of suspicion but that Page No. 50 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
51 cannot amount to legal proof.
41. I could lay my hand on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 wherein it was held as under:
"Another golden threat which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views as possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted."
42. In another case Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
".....suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take place of proof and there is a large difference between some that 'may be' proved and something that 'will be' proved."
43. As it has already been held in catena of judgments by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by our own Hon'ble High Court that in criminal trial, prosecution is to stand on its own legs. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from "may have" to "must have". If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility, the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
44. In view of the above discussions, I am of this considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges framed Page No. 51 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.
52 against the accused persons. Consequently, accused persons Deepak Bhardwaj and Darshana are hereby acquitted for the offences charged giving them benefit of doubt.
Announced in the open Court on 8th day of November 2019.
Digitally signed by(total 52 pages) NEELAM NEELAM SINGH
SINGH Date: 2019.11.13
14:27:57 +0530
(NEELAM SINGH)
ASJ03 & Special Judge (Companies Act)
Dwarka Courts (SW), New Delhi.
Page No. 52 of 52 State Vs. Deepak Bhardwaj & Ors.
FIR No. 491/2010 of PS Najafgarh.