Delhi District Court
State vs Ricky on 18 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 912/2017)
FIR No. 453/2017
Police Station Burari
Charge-sheet filed under Sections 304B/498A/34 IPC.
Charges framed against accused 498A/34 IPC, 304B/34
persons namely Ricky, Om Pal & IPC & alternatively
Smt. Raj Kumari. 302/34 IPC.
State Versus 1. Ricky,
S/o Sh. Ompal,
R/o H. No. 160, Gali No. 8,
Ramesh Tyagi Colony,
Jharoda, Part-II, Burari,
Delhi.
2. Smt. Raj Kumari,
W/o Sh. Ompal,
R/o H. No. 160, Gali No. 8,
Ramesh Tyagi Colony,
Jharoda, Part-II, Burari,
Delhi.
...Accused Persons.
Date of Institution of case 15.12.2017
Date of Arguments 09.10.2025
Judgment reserved on 09.10.2025
Judgment pronounced on 18.10.2025
Decision Acquitted
FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari
State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 1 of 43
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Ricky and Raj Kumari are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sec. 498A/34 IPC, Sec. 304B/34 IPC & alternatively under Sec. 302/34 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that from 23.02.2014 till 19.08.2017, prior to the death of Smt. Sangeeta, accused persons namely Ricky, being husband, Om Pal being father-in-law (since deceased) and Smt. Raj Kumari being mother-in-law, in furtherance of their common intention subjected her with cruelty on account of demand of dowry. It is further alleged that on or before 19.08.2017 at H. No. 160, Gali No. 8, Ramesh Tyagi Colony, Jharoda Majra, Burari, Delhi all the aforesaid accused persons in furtherance of their common intention subjected Smt. Sangeeta with cruelty on account of demand of dowry soon before her death, due to which her death took place on 19.08.2014 and deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of her marriage and alternatively on 19.08.2017 at H. No. 160, Gali No. 8, Ramesh Tyagi Colony, Jharoda Majra, Burari, Delhi all the aforesaid accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Smt. Sangeeta.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the case are that on 19.08.2017 on receiving DD No. 21PP, Ex. PW-9/A regarding admission of one Sangeeta at St. Stephen Hospital in a case of hanging, PW-15 Retd. SI Nanhe Lal along with Ct. Vinod went to the hospital and collected the MLC of Sangeeta and as per MLC, patient Sangeeta was brought dead.
FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 2 of 43 During inquiry, it was informed by accused Ricky i.e. husband of deceased that he had married with deceased Sangeeta around two and half years back. Thereafter, PW-15 Retd. SI Nanhe Lal Mishra informed the concerned SDM. Mobile Crime Team also reached at the spot. Thereafter IO seized jewellery of deceased from the concerned doctor at hospital and got preserved the dead body in mortuary. Thereafter, on direction of SHO, PW-15 Retd. SI Nanhe Lal Mishra went to the spot of incident i.e. H. No. 160, Gali No. 8, Ramesh Tyagi Colony, Jharoda Majra, Burari where concerned SDM and Mobile Crime Team reached. Thereafter, during inquiry, IO seized one chunni by cutting the same from ceiling fan and got inspected the spot of incident through Mobile Crime Team. On 20.08.2017, present FIR under Sec. 498A/304B/34 IPC was registered at PS Burari on the statement of mother of deceased Sangeeta recorded by the Executive Magistrate and further investigation was entrusted to SI Jagdish Singh (since deceased). During investigation, IO got identified the dead body of deceased by her brother and mother, got conducted the inquest proceedings and after postmortem dead body was handed over to her bother and mother of deceased. During investigation, IO also collected postmortem report of deceased, subsequent opinion of concerned doctor regarding cause of death and sent the exhibits to FSL for examination. Thereafter, IO arrested accused Ricky in the present case. Accused persons namely Om Pal (since deceased) and Raj Kumari were kept in column no. 11 of the charge-sheet and the charge-sheet was filed by the IO through SHO in the Court. FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 3 of 43
3. Vide order dated 1 8 . 11 . 2 0 1 7 , copy of the charge- sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C was supplied to the accused R i c k y and v ide order dated 3 0 . 11 . 2 0 1 7 , copy of the charge-sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C was supplied to the accused p e r s o n s n a m e l y O m p a l a n d R a j K u m a r i and v i d e o r d e r d a t e d 1 3 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 7 , the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C.
4. Vide order dated 10.07.2018, the Ld. Predecessor Court was pleased to frame charges under Sec. 498A/34 IPC, Sec. 304B/34 IPC & alternatively under Sec. 302/34 IPC against all the three accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the trial, accused Ompal expired and proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 27.03.2021.
6. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 18 witnesses. The testimonies of presecution witnesses along with its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs:-
7. PW-1 Sh. Narender Kumar, deposed that deceased Sangeeta was his niece (Bhanji) and her marriage was solemnized with accused Ricky in the month of February, 2015. He further deposed that on 19.08.2017, his niece Sangeeta had committed sucide. He further deposed that on 20.08.2014, after receiving information, he along with other relatives reached at Subzi Mandi Mortuary, where dead body of deceased Sangeeta was identified by Sh. Praveen Kumar and Smt. Kalpana and after FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 4 of 43 the postmortem, the dead body of deceased was handed over to brother of deceased Praveen Kumar vide receipt Ex. PW-1/A. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
8. PW-2 Sh. Bachu Pal, deposed that deceased Sangeeta was his sister-in-law and her marriage was solemnized with accused Ricky in the month of February, 2015. He deposed indentically on the lines of PW-1 Sh. Narender Kumar and proved receipt regarding handing over of dead body of deceased to her brother Sh. Parveen Kumar, after postmortem as Ex. PW-1/A. He also deposed that accused Om Pal and Rajwati who were father-in- law and mother-in-law of deceased Sangeeta and accused Ricky used to scold her on petty issues. This witness was also not cross- examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
9. PW-3 Sh. Praveen Kumar, was the brother of deceased Sangeeta. He deposed that his sister namely Sangeeta was married with Ricky, son of accused Om Pal in the month of February, 2015. He further deposed that they celebrated marriage of his sister very well and they had also given gifts/dowry in the marriage. He further deposed that after some time of marriage, his sister started complaining that her mother-in-law Raj Kumari used to taunt her on petty issues. He further deposed that she also informed them whenever Ricky was informed about the taunting, he did not pay any heed. He further deposed that at the time of Notebandi, accused Ricky asked money for purchase of Swift car FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 5 of 43 but they were not in a position to pay the same. He further deposed that one day, prior to her death, her father-in-law Sh. Om Pal made a call to him to visit his house and next day, he again made a call to him but he did not attend the same. He further deposed that he tried again and again but sister-in-law (Neeshu) of his sister informed him to reach at St. Stephen Hospital. He further deposed that on 19.08.2017, when he reached hospital along with his mother, he came to know about the death of his sister. He proved his statement recorded by SDM as Ex. PW-3/A, dead body identification memo of deceased Sangeeta as Ex. PW-3/B and seizure memo of marriage card of deceased as Ex. PW-3/C. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which he admitted that the statement, Ex. PW-3/A was recorded by SDM and in the said statement it was not mentioned that at the time of Notebandi, accused Ricky demanded cash amount for the purchase of Swift car against cheque payment or otherwise. He also admitted that on the day of festival of Rakshabandan, his sister Sangeeta came to their house and next day she went away and after reaching the house of in- laws, she informed him on telephone that her husband Ricky was angry because his family member had not given proper respect to him. He also admitted that on 19.08.2017, at around 11:15 am, he made call to the mother-in-law of his sister and she asked him to come at St. Stephen Hospital by saying that 'tumhari behan ne hamari naak katwa di'. He also admitted that he had stated to Executive Magistrate that he believed that 'gharwalon ke tang karne ki vajah se meri behan iss duniya me nahi rahi'. He denied FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 6 of 43 the suggestion that he had stated to the police that his sister Sangeeta hanged herself due to torture of accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he had stated to the police that after some days, his sister made call to them and informed that her mother-in-law was demanding Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of Swift car and that her father-in-law and accused Ricky supported her mother-in-law and he and his mother refused to give the said money and that thereafter accused persons started taunting her sister by saying that 'tere pihar wale thori si madad nahi kar sakte'. He also denied the suggestion that he had stated to the police that after birth of girl child of his sister Sangeeta, accused persons started taunting her sister by saying that 'tune ladki paida kar ke hamara kharcha bada diya' and that thereafter they started torturing his sister physically and mentally. He also denied the suggestion that he had stated to the police that his sister hanged herself due to torture of the accused persons. This witness was confronted with his statements Ex. PW3/D & Ex. PW-3/E.
10. In his cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, PW-3 Sh. Praveen Kumar deposed that the the only word stated by accused Ompal to him were 'kuch serious baat hai aap mil lo'. He also deposed that some of his relatives and neighbours were asking them to twist the fact so that a criminal case can be registered against the accused persons but they had refused to do so. He admitted that the facts stated by him to the Executive Magistrate on 19.08.2017 were not against accused Ricky or his parents. He also admitted that all the facts narrated by him to the FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 7 of 43 Executive Magistrate were regarding petty incidents that they had already ignored. Voluntarily, he deposed that no incident of cruelty or quarrel was ever reported to them by his sister Sangeeta. He also admitted that at the time of Notebandi, accused Ricky only requested him to accept a cheque in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from him and in lieu of the same pay him Rs. 50,000/- in cash. He also deposed that the mother-in-law of his sister was a government servant and used to attend her duties. He also deposed that after death of her sister, her mother-in-law had been rearing/upbringing their grand daughter (daughter of his sister Sangeeta) and they had been taking due care of her till date.
11. PW-4 Smt. Rajwanti, was the mother of deceased Sangeeta. She deposed that her daughter Sangeeta was married to accused Ricky in the year 2015 and one daughter was born out of the said wedlock. She further deposed that at the time of marriage, she had given furnitures, jewellery and other electronic items. She further deposed that after the marriage, Sangeeta started residing in village Jharoda with her husband, mother-in- law and father-in-law. She further deposed that after death of her daughter, postmortem of her dead body was conducted by the doctor and after the postmortem, they took the dead body of her daughter and cremated the said dead body. She proved her statement recorded before SDM as Ex. PW-4/A. She also deposed that SDM asked about the demand of dowry, but she told him that there was no demand of dowry from the side of in-laws of Sangeeta. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 8 of 43 for the State in which she denied the suggestion that she had stated to the Executive Magistrate that after three months of marriage, in-laws of Sangeeta started torturing her on petty issues. She admitted that she had stated to the Executive Magistrate that her daughter told her that after the birth of girl child, her mother-in-law scolded her on the several issues and that her husband did not pay any heed at that time. She denied the suggestion that she had stated to Executive Magistrate that her daughter Sangeeta committed suicide due to torture/harassment of accused. She denied the suggestion that she had stated to the police that accused Ricky harassed her daughter Sangeeta for dowry. She denied the suggestion that she had stated to the police that she and her son told the Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar that her daughter hanged herself due to torture/harassment of accused persons. This witness was confronted with her statements, Ex. PW-4/A & Ex. PW-4/B given to the Executive Magistrate & Police respectively. In her cross- examination on behalf of accused persons, she admitted that her daughter was having very cordial relations with wife of Ricky's elder brother. She deposed that she could not say if on 18.08.2017 & 19.08.2017, the wife of elder brother of Ricky namely Nisha was at home only, however, she met her in the hospital on 19.08.2017. She admitted that she had not stated anything against accused Ricky or his parents to the Executive Magistrate on 19.08.2017.
FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 9 of 43
12. PW-5 Smt. Kalpana, was the elder sister of deceased Sangeeta. She deposed that her younger sister Sangeeta was married with accused Ricky on 23.02.2015. She further deposed that on 19.08.2017, she was present at her house and she received a telephone call of her brother Praveen Kumar, who informed her that Sangeeta was admitted in hospital. She further deposed that after receiving the said call, she along with her husband went there where she came to know that Sangeeta was no more. She proved her dead body identification statement as Ex. PW-5/A and dead body handing over memo as Ex. PW-1/A. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which she denied the suggestion that she had stated to the police that her sister Sangeeta disclosed her that her mother-in-law Raj Kumari, father-in-law Om Pal used to taunt and torture her for dowry and that her sister committed sucide due to torture of her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law. She also denied the suggestion that she had not deposed the true facts about the torture and taunt given by the accused persons to her sister as she had been won over by them. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
13. PW-6 HC Shyam Lal, deposed that on 19.08.2017, he was on petrolling duty in his beat area and at about 12:00 noon, he received information from ASI Nanhey Lal and accordingly, as per direction, he reached at the spot of incident i.e. H. No. 160, Gali No. 8, Ramesh Tyagi Colony, Jharoda Majra, Burari. He further deposed that at the spot, he came to know that injured FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 10 of 43 lady had already been removed to the hospital and as per direction of IO, he guarded the spot. He further deposed that he found that one chunni was hanging with the ceiling fan in the room. He also deposed that as per direction of IO, he cut the chunni with the help of blade from near the ceiling fan and handed over the same to IO, which was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/A. He further deposed that on 21.08.2017, he along with IO visited the spot where IO inspected the spot and prepared site plant at his instance. In his cross-examination he deposed that he remained in the investigation on 19.08.2017 and 21.08.2017 only. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being the police official.
14. PW-7 HC Rajendra Kumar, deposed that on 14.09.2017, he received two parcels from MHC(M) along with sample seal vide RC No. 163/21/17 and deposited the same at FSL Rohini and after depositing the same, he handed over copy of RC and acknowledgment to MHC(M). This witness was not cross- examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
15. PW-8 HC Vinod Kumar, deposed that on 19.08.2018, on receipt of DD No. 22PPJ, he along with ASI Nanhey Lal reached St. Stephen Hospial, where IO collected the MLC of deceased Sangeeta. He further deposed that husband of deceased Sangeeta Ricky met them there and IO made inquiries from him. He further deposed that IO conveyed the information to SHO and SDM concerned regarding the death of deceased Sangeeta. He FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 11 of 43 further deposed that the doctor concerned who had examined Sangeeta had handed over the jewellery articles which were worn by deceased Sangeeta and same were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/A. He further deposed that as per instructions of IO, he shifted the dead body of deceased Sangeeta to Subzi Mandi Morturary for postmortem. He also deposed that on the same day, Tehsildar reached there and met with mother and brother of deceased and took them to his office. He further deposed that on the next day, Tehsildar along with family member of deceased came in the Subzi Mandi Mortuary where Tehsildar prepared inquest papers of deceased with the help of IO. He further deposed that dead body of deceased was got identified by brother and mother of deceased and after postmortem, dead body was handed over to them. He also deposed that the concerned doctor handed over the parcel of exhibits of deceased along with sample seal, which was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/B. In his cross-examination, he deposed that IO did not prepare any site plan in his presence.
16. PW-9 W/HC Sushila, was the DD Writter at PP Jharoda, PS Burari. She deposed that on 19.08.2017, at about 10:50 am, an information was received from Dr. Rajendra, St. Stephen Hospital that patient Sangeeta, W/o Ricky was admitted in the hospital as she had hanged herself and she was brought to the hospital by her husband. She further deposed that she reduced this information in Daily Diary No. 21PPJ dated 19.08.2017, Ex. PW-9/A and she telephonically informed about the said DD to FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 12 of 43 ASI Nanhey Lal for taking appropriate action. In her cross- examination, she denied the suggestion that she had manipulated the information with respect to DD No. 21PPJ at instance of IO.
17. PW-10 ASI Gopal, was the MHC(M) at PS Burari. He proved entries in register no. 19 & 21 regarding movements of case properties as Ex. PW-10/A to Ex. PW-10/C. He also proved acknowledgment of FSL Rohini regarding deposit of case property as Ex. PW-10/D. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that abovesaid parcels were deposited in Malkhana in tempered condition. He also denied the suggestion that he had not sent the parcel of viscera to FSL.
18. PW-11 ASI Raj Kumar, was Duty Officer at PS Burari. He proved copy of present FIR, his endorsement on rukka and certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW-11/A to Ex. PW-11/C. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the contents of rukka were not got keyed by him.
19. PW-12 Inspector Surender Kumar, was In-charge at Mobile Crime Team. He deposed that on 19.08.2017 on receipt of information from Control Room, he along with Ct. Vikrant, Photographer and Ct. Ajay Kumar, Fingerprint proficient visited the spot of incident i.e. H. No. 160, First Floor, Gali No. 8, Ramesh Tyagi Colony, Jharoda, Burari. He further deposed that he inspected the spot, got photographed the same but no chance print could be developed from the spot. He proved his detailed FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 13 of 43 inspection report in this regard as Ex. PW-12/A and photographs as Ex. PW-12/B (colly). In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not conduct photography hence he could not tell about negatives. He also deposed that Ct. Vikrant took the photographs under his supervsion.
20. PW-13 HC Vikrant Chaudhary, was photographer at Mobile Crime Team. He proved photographs of spot of incident from different angles as Ex. PW-12/B (colly). He also proved negatives of aforesaid photographs as Ex. PW-13/A (colly). In his cross-examination, he deposed that they reached at the spot at about 02:30 am and conducted proceedings for about an hour. He also deposed that he took six photographs. He denied the suggestion that the photographs were manipulated or that he had not conducted the photography.
21. PW-14 Dr. J. P. N. Gupta, Chief Medical Officer, St. Stephen Hospital has proved the MLC No. 423/17 of deceased Sangeeta, prepared by Dr. Rajendra Kumar as Ex. PW-14/A. He also deposed that as per MLC, on examination, no pulse, no blood pressure recordable, no respiration and no cardiac activity were found. He also deposed that no oxygen level recordable, both pupil fixed and dilated, ECG straight line in multiple leads, ligature mark around neck was present, impression Hanging. Patient was brought dead. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the time 11:01 am was mentioned after examination, as per medical protocol. He admitted that MLC, Ex. PW-14/A did not FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 14 of 43 mention head injury. He also admitted that as per record, patient was brought to hospital by her husband.
22. PW-15 Retd. SI Nanhe Lal Mishra was the first IO in the present case. He deposed that on 19.08.2017, on receiving information from St. Stephen Hospital vide DD No. 21PP, Ex. PW-9/A, he along with Ct. Vinod went to the hospital and collected MLC of Sangeeta, W/o Ricky and as per MLC, the patient was brought dead. He further deposed that Ricky i.e. husband of deceased told that he had married Sangeeta around two and half years back. He further deposed that he informed SDM and HC Shyam Lal to reach the spot and called the mobile crime team. He further deposed that mother and brother of deceased was also present at the hospital. He further deposed that the concerned doctor handed over jewellery of deceased which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/A. He further deposed that he got preserved the dead body at Mortuary and on direction of SHO, he went to spot of incident i.e. H. No. 160, Gali No. 8, Ramesh Tyagi Colony, Jharoda Majra, Burari where SDM/Tehsildar, Mobile Crime Team and other police officials also came. He further deposed that he seized one chunni by cutting the same from ceiling fan vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/A. He further deposed that SDM called mother and brother of deceased to his office and recorded their statements. He further deposed that postmortem of deceased was got conducted and dead body was released to brother of deceased vide memo Ex. PW-1/A. He further deposed that FIR was got registered on FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 15 of 43 20.08.2017 and further investigation was carried by SI Jagdish. He proved arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Ricky as Ex. PW-15/B & Ex. PW-15/C. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not know as to who had brought deceased to hospital. He also deposed that SDM called mother and brother of deceased to his office on the same day i.e. on 19.08.2017. He also deposed that as per direction of IO, FIR was registered on 20.08.2017, subject to outcome of postmortem report. He also deposed that Crime Team had cut chunni from the ceiling fan which he took into possession. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted fair investigation or accused had been falsely implicated.
23. PW-16 Dr. Rishi Solanki, Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine had conducted the postmortem on dead body of deceased Sangeeta. He proved detailed postmortem report of deceased Sangeeta as Ex. PW-16/A. He also opinied about cause of death as Asphyxia consequent upon ante-mortem ligature hanging. He also deposed that head injury mentioned as injury no. 2 was ante-mortem in nature and was caused by blunt force. He also proved his subsequent opinion, Ex. PW-16/B with respect to injury no. 2 mentioned in postmortem report and opined that said injury was ante-mortem in nature, consistent and being caused during or before committing suicide and it was not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In his cross-examination, he admitted that head injury was not external FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 16 of 43 in nature. He also deposed that he noticed two external injuries and one internal injury on the person of deceased.
24. PW-17 Sh. Amrendra Kumar Singh, Section Officer, Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi was the Executive Magistrate. He deposed that during August, 2017, he was posted as Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar, Civil Lines, Delhi. He further deposed that on receipt of information regarding death of a lady namely Sangeeta, W/o Ricky within two years of marriage, he conducted inquest proceedings. He further deposed that he recorded statements of mother and brother of deceased as Ex. PW-4/A & Ex. PW-3/A respectively. He further deposed that he directed SHO to take action as per law on the basis of allegations leveled by mother and brother of deceased in their statements. He proved written proceedings regarding inquest as Ex. PW-17/A (colly). In his cross-examination, he deposed that he recorded statements of mother and brother of deceased in his office on 19.08.2017. He also deposed that he recorded their statement separately and no one else was present except those persons while recording their statements.
25. PW-18 Sh. M. L. Meena, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini has proved his detailed chemical report as Ex. PW-18/A. In his cross-examination, he admitted that metalic piosons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkalois, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in the exhibits.
FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 17 of 43
26. After closing of prosecution evidence, separate statements of both the accused persons were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein they denied all the charges against them. Accused Ricky claimed that there was no dispute between him and his wife. He further claimed that the marriage was going on smoothly and in this marriage, they had a daughter and they all were living happily together. He also claimed that there was no dispute regarding any dowry and they never demanded anything. Accused Raj Kumari claimed that it a false case and the marriage between her son and deceased Sangeeta was going on smoothly. She further claimed that there was no dispute regarding birth of girl child even they properly took care of her grand daughter. She further claimed that they are were living happily and there was no demand of dowry by her and her family member from her daughter-in-law and her family members.
27. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Tarun Kaushik, Ld. Counsel for both the accused persons.
28. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his submissions, he argued that death in the present case took place within seven years of marriage of deceased and since there was demand of dowry presumption under Sec. 113B of The Indian Evidence Act is applicable in the present case. He further argued FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 18 of 43 that deceased was being tortured for the demand of dowry. He also argued that one injury was found on head of deceased which shows that accused persons had committed her murder. He also argued that since the prosecution has proved its case against both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, both the accused persons should be convicted under all sections of law under which charges has been framed against them.
29. Per Contra Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate his point, he argued that the investigation in the present case has been conducted in an arbitrary manner. He argued that PW-3 Sh. Praveen Kumar (brother of deceased), PW-4 Smt. Rajwanti (mother of deceased) & PW-5 Smt. Kalpana (sister of deceased) have turned hostile and they have not deposed about the cruelty done to the deceased by the accused persons. He also argued that there is no eyewitness of the alleged incident. He also argued that no list of dowry articles has been proved by the prosecution. He also argued that no independent witnesses from the neighbourhood, who could have seen the incidents of cruelty done to the deceased have been examined as PWs. He also argued that no previous complaint regarding the cruelty have been proved by the prosecution. He also argued that the cruelty soon before her death has not been proved by the prosecution. He also argued that none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed anything against the accused persons. He also argued that since the prosecution FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 19 of 43 has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond the reasonable doubt, both the accused persons should be acquitted under all the sections of law under which charges have been framed against them.
30. In the present case, charges Sec. 498A/34 IPC, Sec. 304B/34 IPC & alternatively under Sec. 302/34 IPC have been framed against the accused persons. In case of offence punishable under Sec. 304B IPC, the presumption under Sec. 113B of Indian Evidence Act is also applicable. These Sections have been defined as follows:-
498A Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:-
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"
(a) anywilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 20 of 43 account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
304B Dowry death:-
(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
113B Presumption as to dowry death:-
When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 21 of 43 Explanation. For the purposes of this section, dowry death shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 302 IPC provides punishment for the commission of offence of murder which has been defined U/s 300 IPC. 300 Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or Fourthly-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1 When culpable homicide is not murder.
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person my mistake or accident.
FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 22 of 43 The above exception is subject to the following provisos:-
First-That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offendor as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of the public servant.
Thirdly-That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanations: Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Exception 2: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm then is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Exception 3: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, being a public servant or adding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 23 of 43 duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4: Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without pre meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offendor's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation : It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5: Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
34. Acts done by several person in furtherance of common intention:-
When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
31. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 24 of 43
32. In the present case, the prosecution has to prove that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention subjected deceased Sangeeta with cruelty under Section 498A IPC and caused her death for the purpose of dowry under Sec. 304B IPC and alternately the prosecution has to prove that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of deceased Sangeeta. Thus, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Section 498A, 304B & 34IPC and alternatively the ingredients of Sec. 300 IPC, punishable under Sec. 302 IPC against the accused persons. Section 304B IPC has the following ingredients:-
(i) The death of a women should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise other than the normal circumstances. The death in normal circumstances will not be covered under Sec.
304 B IPC.
(ii) The death of such woman must have taken place within 07 years of her marriage.
(iii) Such women must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any other relative of her husband and such cruelty or harassment must have taken place soon before his death.
(iv) The cruelty or harassment should be for the purpose or in connection with demand of dowry.
FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 25 of 43
33. To bring its case within the purview of Section 304B IPC, a valid marriage between deceased Sangeeta and accused Ricky has to be proved by the prosecution. In the present case, the marriage between deceased Sangeeta and accused Ricky has not been disputed on behalf of accused persons during the trial. As per the testimonies of the witnesses, the marriage between accused Ricky and deceased Sangeeta took place on 23.02.2014 and the death of deceased Sangeeta took place on 19.08.2017 and hence the death of deceased Sangeeta took place within seven years of her marriage with the accused Ricky.
34. To prove its case under Section 304B IPC, the prosecution has also to prove that the death of deceased Sangeeta was caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise other than the normal circumstances. Such death may be suicidal as well as homicidal. The death in normal circumstances will not be covered under Sec. 304B IPC.
35. After the deceased was admitted to St. Stephen Hospital, in unconscious state, the police was informed and after her death, the dead body of deceased Sangeeta was sent to mortuary by the police. PW-16 Dr. Rishi Solanki conducted the post mortem on the body of deceased and proved his report Ex. PW-16/A. He also proved his final opinion regarding cause of death, exhibited as Ex. PW-16/B and as per his expert opinion, death was caused due Asphyxia consequent upon ante-mortem ligature hanging. He also deposed that injury no. 2 mentioned on the head of deceased FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 26 of 43 was not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course and the said head injury was not external in nature. The death of deceased Sangeeta was not caused due to any burn or bodily injury but the death had taken place in circumstances other than the normal circumstances. Thus, it is a clear cut case of suicide by hanging and this Court has to determine whether the deceased Sangeeta committed suicide due to the cruelty caused upon her soon before her death by the accused persons for the purpose of demand of dowry.
36. To establish its case under Sec. 304B IPC, one of main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that soon before her death, the deceased Sangeeta was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry.
37. Soon before death does not mean at any time before or immediately before death. The expression soon before death cannot be given a narrower meaning.
38 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as 'Kaliyaperumal & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu cited as (2004) 9 SCC 157' while dealing with the expression soon before death observed as under:-
"5. a cojoint reading of Section 113 B of Evidence Act and Section 304 B shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 27 of 43 has to rule out the possibility of natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of 'death occurring otherwise then in normal circumstances'. The expression 'soon before' death is very relevant where Section 113 B of Evidence Act and Section 304 B of IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in this regard has to be led in by the prosecution. '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 a period soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fix period, and that brings in the importance of proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising presumption u/s 113 B of Evidence Act. The expression 'Soon before death' used in the substantive section 304 B IPC and Section 113 B of Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression 'Soon before' is not defined. A reference to the expression 'Soon before' used in Section 114 illustration (a) of Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that Court may presume that a man who is in FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 28 of 43 possession of goods soon after the theft, is either the thief who had received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. The determination of the period which can come within the term 'Soon before' is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that 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 and live link between the effect of cruelty based on the dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the women concerned, it would be of no consequences.
39. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as 'Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana cited as (2010) 12 SCC 350' observed as under:-
"19. we have already referred to the provisions of Section 304 B of Code and most significant expression used in the Section is 'Soon before her death'. In our view, the expression 'Soon before her death' cannot be given a restricted or narrower meaning. They must be FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 29 of 43 understood in the plain language and with reference to their meaning in common parlance. These are the provisions relating to human behaviour and therefore, cannot be given a such narrower meaning which would defeat the very purpose of provisions of the act. Of course, these are the penal provisions and must receive strict construction. But, even the rule of strict construction requires that the provisions have to be read in conjunction with each other relevant provisions and the scheme of the Act. Further, the interpretation given should be one which would avoid absurd results on the one hand and would further the object and cause of law so enacted on the other.
20. we are of considered view that concept reasonable time is the best criteria to be applied for appreciation and examination of such cases"
40. PW-2 Sh. Bacchu Pal, relative of deceased deposed that accused Ompal (since deceased) and Rajwati (Raj Kumari), who were father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sangeeta and accused Ricky used to scold deceased on petty issues. PW-2 Sh. Bacchu Pal has not deposed about the date, time and place of such scolding. PW-2 Sh. Bacchu Pal is also not the eyewitness of any of the incident of scolding and his evidence is hearsay in nature which is not admissible under the provisions of The Indian FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 30 of 43 Evidence Act. Moreover, scolding on petty issues is not covered under Sec. 498A IPC & Sec. 304B IPC.
41. PW-3 Sh. Praveen Kumar, brother of deceased specifically deposed that there was no harassment from the side of in-laws of his sister/deceased Sangeeta, after three months of marriage. He also deposed that at the time of Notebandi, accused Ricky asked for money for purchase of Swift car but they were not in a position to pay the same. However, again he improved his version and deposed that he had told the SDM that at the time of Notebandi, accused Ricky demanded the cash amount for the purchase of Swift car against cheque payment. Thus, PW-2 Sh. Praveen Kumar has given two contradictory versions with respect to the same fact and hence his testimony is not reliable in this regard.
42. PW-3 Sh. Praveen Kumar deposed that he had not stated to the police that his sister Sangeeta hanged herself due to the torture of the accused persons. He also denied the suggestion that whenever his sister Sangeeta used to come to their house or made call to them, she used to tell that her mother-in-law and father-in- law used to say that 'tere mayke wale saste kapde bhejte, hmari hasiyat k anusar kapde nahi behejte' and on asking of his sister they started sending expensive clothes as demanded by them. He also denied the suggestion that his sister made a call to them and informed that mother-in-law of his sister was demanding Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of Swift car and accused Ricky supported FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 31 of 43 her mother-in-law on that. He admitted that on 19.08.2017, when he reached St. Stephen Hospital, he observed that the husband, parents-in-law of her sister were weeping and mourning her death. In his cross-examination, PW-3 Sh. Praveen Kumar also admitted that some of his relatives and neighbours were asking them to twist the facts so that a criminal case can be registered against the accused persons but they had refused to do so. Thus, from the testimony of PW-3 Sh. Praveen Kumar, it has come on record that deceased was never harassed by the accused persons for the purpose of dowry and the false implication of the accused persons in the present case cannot be ruled out.
43. PW-4 Smt. Rajwanti, mother of deceased deposed that she had not made any complaint to the SDM against the accused persons, however, she admitted her signatures on her complaint, Ex. PW-4/A. She further deposed that whatever SDM had asked, she told about that and when the SDM asked about demand of dowry, she told him that there was no demand of dowry from the side of in-laws of deceased Sangeeta. In her cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she specifically denied the suggestion that she had stated to the Executive Magistrate that after three months, in-laws started torturing deceased Sangeeta on petty issues. She also denied the suggestion that she had stated to the police that she and her son told the Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar that her daughter hang herself due to torture/harassment of accused persons. In her cross-examination, PW-4 Smt. Rajwanti admitted that she had not stated anything FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 32 of 43 against accused Ricky or his parents to the Executive Magistrate on 19.08.2017. The FIR in the present case was registered on 20.08.2017 i.e. after a delay of one day. Thus, from the testimony of PW-4 Smt. Rajwanti, no incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused persons.
44. PW-5 Smt. Kalpana, sister of deceased deposed that her younger sister deceased Sangeeta was married with accused Ricky. She further deposed that after marriage she met deceased Sangeeta twice but she did not tell anything. In her cross- examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-5 Smt. Kalpana denied the suggestion that she had stated to the police that her sister Sangeeta disclosed her that her mother-in-law Raj Kumari, father-in-law Om Pal used to taunt and torture her for dowry and that her sister deceased Sangeeta committed suicide to torture by her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law. Thus, from the testimony of PW-5 Smt. Kalpana also, no incriminating evidence against any of the accused persons has come on record.
45. Thus, none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for the purpose of dowry soon before her death. The prosecution has not brought specific date or month of alleged cruelty on record and rather they have denied the alleged cruelty. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that deceased Sangeeta was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death.
FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 33 of 43
46. The rule of law requires a person to be innocent till proved guilty. However, in case of dowry death under Sec. 304B IPC the presumption under Sec. 113B of Indian Evidence Act is applicable. In case of dowry death when the ingredients of Section 304B IPC are satisfied, the husband or all relatives shall be deemed to have caused the death. However, the presumption under Sec. 113B Evidence shall be raised only on the proof of following essentials:-
(i) Dowry death of a women must have been caused.
(ii) Such women must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
(iii) Such cruelty or harassment must have been done in connection with demand of dowry.
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment was done soon before her death.
As and when the aforesaid circumstances are established, a presumption of dowry death shall be drawn against the accused under Sec. 113B of Evidence Act. It has to be kept in mind that presumption under Sec. 113 B of Evidence Act is presumption of law.
47. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. cited as (2000) 5 SCC 207 has observed as under:-
16. No presumption u/s 113 B of Evidence Act would be FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 34 of 43 drawn against the accused if it is shown that after the alleged demand, cruelty or harassment the dispute should resolved and there was no evidence of cruelty or thereafter.
Mere lapse of some time by itself would not provide to an accused a defence, if the course of conduct relating to cruelty or harassment in connection with the dowry demand is shown to have existed earlier in time not too late and not too stale before the date of death of the woman.
48. In the present case, no specific date of alleged cruelty or harassment has been brought on record by the prosecution. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kans Raj (Supra), the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 is not applicable in the present case.
49. PW-2 Sh. Bacchu Pal, PW-3 Sh. Praveen, PW-4 Smt. Rajwanti and PW-5 Smt. Kalpana have not deposed regarding any kind of demand of dowry by accused persons. Thus, prosecution has failed to bring the ingredients of offences punishable under Section 498A/34 & 304B/34 IPC against accused persons through the above-said witnesses.
50. Accused persons are also facing trial for the offence punishable under Sec. 302/34 IPC. There is no eyewitness of the alleged incident of death of deceased Sangeeta. In these circumstances, the prosecution has to prove its case through the FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 35 of 43 chain of circumstances. On the date of incident, deceased was found hanging with the chunni on the ceiling fan of her matrimonial house. Through the testimonies of PW-2 Sh. Bacchu Pal, PW-3 Sh. Praveen, PW-4 Smt. Rajwanti and PW-5 Smt. Kalpana, prosecution has not brought the motive of commission of murder nor any of the abovesaid witness have alleged that deceased by murdered by the accused persons. PW-16 Dr. Rishi Solanki has proved the postmortem report and subsequent opinion on the postmortem report exhibited as Ex. PW-16/A & Ex. PW-16/B. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was Asphyxia consequent upon ante-mortem ligature hanging. He also deposed that the head injury mentioned as injury no. 2 was ante-mortem in nature and was caused by blunt force and the said injury was not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Prosecution has failed to prove as to how the injury no. 2 was sustained by deceased on her head. Prosecution has also not produced the weapon/object with which the said injury may have been caused. The prosecution is also not clear as to who had caused the said injury on the head of deceased. In these circumstances, injury no. 2 sustained by deceased on her head cannot be attributed to accused persons. Moreover, as per the opinion given by PW-16 Dr. Rishi Solanki in his report Ex. PW-16/B, the said injury was not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Thus, the case does not fall under any of the clauses of Sec. 300 of IPC and hence the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offences punishable under Sec. 302/34 IPC against accused persons.
FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 36 of 43
51. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution witness must be of sterling quality.
52. In case titled as 'Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21', it is held that:-
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 37 of 43 time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-
examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if the FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 38 of 43 version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
53. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) SCC 170, it is held that :
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 39 of 43 that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such quality."
54. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witness should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
55. Due to turning of hostile of PW-3 Sh. Praveen, PW-4 Smt. Rajwanti and PW-5 Smt. Kalpana on the material aspects of the case coupled with non-collection of any other incriminating evidence and non-examination of any independent witness of the alleged incidents of cruelty, serious doubts have been created upon the prosecution story. The versions of PW-3 Sh. Praveen, PW-4 Smt. Rajwanti and PW-5 Smt. Kalpana are not natural one. The things appears to have not happened in the manner these have been projected. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the testimonies of PW-3 Sh. Praveen, PW-4 Smt. Rajwanti and PW-5 Smt. Kalpana are not clear, cogent, credible and trustworthy and same are not corroborated by other material evidence. The testimonies of PW-3 Sh. Praveen, PW-4 Smt. Rajwanti and PW-5 Smt. Kalpana in the present case cannot be said to be of sterling quality to secure the conviction of the accused persons.
FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 40 of 43
56. It is established principle of law that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
57. The Hon'ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows:
"The timetested rule in that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits."
58. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer Singh and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
"The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 41 of 43 be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not."
59. In the present case, due to turning of hostile of PW-3 Sh. Praveen, PW-4 Smt. Rajwanti and PW-5 Smt. Kalpana on the material aspects of the case coupled with non-collection of any other incriminating evidence and non-examination of any inde- pendent witness of the alleged incidents of cruelty, serious doubts have been created upon the prosecution story and two views are possible in this case and hence the benefit of the same must go to the accused persons.
60. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offences punishable under Section 498A/34 IPC, Sec. 304B/34 IPC & Sec. 302/34 IPC, against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 42 of 43
61. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, accused persons namely Ricky & Raj Kumari are hereby acquitted for offence punishable under Section 498A/34 IPC, Sec. 304B/34 IPC & Sec. 302/34 IPC.
62. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR Announced in the open court KUMAR KHARTA KHARTA Date: on 18th day of October, 2025 2025.10.18 14:13:28 +0530 (Virender Kumar Kharta) ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:18.10.2025 FIR No. 453/2017, PS: Burari State Vs. Ricky & Anr. Page No. 43 of 43