Delhi District Court
State vs Paramjeet Singh on 7 June, 2011
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN : ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE01 (OUTER), ROHINI, DELHI
Sessions Case no : 52/08
FIR no : 160/08
Police Station : Rohini
U/S : 498A/304B IPC
State
Versus
1. Paramjeet Singh,
S/o Bhupender Singh,
R/o F25/144, Sector3,
Rohini, Delhi.
2.Kulwant Kaur,
W/o Bhupender Singh,
R/o F25/144, Sector3,
Rohini, Delhi.
3.Sumanjeet Kaur,
D/o Bhupender Singh,
R/o F25/144, Sector3,
Rohini, Delhi. ... Accused
Date of Institution : 22.7.2008
Date of Decision: 7.6.2011.
State V Paramjeet Singh
FIR no. 160/08
PS Rohini Page No. 1 of 40
JUDGMENT
Charanbir Singh and Iqbal Kaur were having two daughters namely Guneet Kaur and Navpreet Kaur. Navpreet Kaur got married with Paramjeet Singh on 7.9.2003 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. Kulwant Kaur is the mother of Paramjeet Singh. Sumanjeet Kaur is the sister of Paramjeet Singh. Navpreet Kaur delivered a female child on 20.10.2005. Charanbir Singh and Iqbal Kaur at the time of marriage of Navpreet Kaur had given sufficient dowry. Paramjeet Singh, Sumanjeet Kaur and Kulwant Kaur were not happy with the dowry given at the time of marriage and started to harass and taunt Navpreet Kaur for not bringing sufficient dowry from the second day of marriage and also demanded dowry from Navpreet Kaur. Navpreet Kaur has conveyed dowry demands made by her husband Paramjeet Singh and inlaws Kulwant Kaur and Sumanjeet Kaur to her parents Charanbir Singh and Iqbal Kaur when Navpreet Kaur came to her parental home for phera ceremony. Jaspreet Singh, elder son in law of Charanbir Singh, in the year 2005, had purchased a Honda City Car. Thereafter Paramjeet Singh, Kulwant Kaur and Sumanjeet Kaur have started to demand Honda City Car from Navpreet Kaur. Various meetings were arranged between both State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 2 of 40 the parties by involving relatives to sort out the differences between Paramjeet Singh and Navpreet Kaur. Navpreet Kaur in the month of April, 2007 came to her parental home and remained there for six months. Navpreet Kaur had gone back to her matrimonial house in the month of October, 2007. Charanbir Singh on 15.3.2008 received a telephonic call from his daughter Navpreet Kaur regarding the beatings given by Paramjeet Singh, Kulwant Kaur and Sumanjeet Kaur to her. A meeting was arranged on 16.3.2008 at Talkatora Garden. Charanbir Singh along with K.L. Dua on 17.3.2008 had gone to CAW Cell, R.K. Puram for lodging the complaint. Charanbir Singh, Iqbal Kaur and Navpreet Kaur on 18.3.2008 had also gone to Domestic Violence Cell, Rohini to make the complaint against Paramjeet Singh, Kulwant Kaur and Sumanjeet Kaur. Thereafter Navpreet Kaur along with her daughter was left near to her matrimonial home. Charanbir Singh and Iqbal Kaur had come back to their own house.
2. A call was received at Police Station, Rohini on 18.3.2008 at about 8.06 pm regarding "meri ladki ko sasural walon ne maar diya hai"
which was reduced into writing vide DD no. 42A. DD no.42A was State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 3 of 40 handed over to SI Krishan Kant who along with Ct. Narender Kumar went to informed place i.e F25/144, Sector3, Rohini. Navpreet Kaur was declared brought dead in Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital (herein after referred to as "the deceased"). SI Krishan Kant informed Sukhbir Singh, Executive Magistrate as the deceased had died within seven years of marriage and in unnatural circumstances. The statement of Charanbir Singh was recorded. The concerned SHO was directed for registration of FIR and further investigation. FIR bearing no.160/08 u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC was registered. The post mortem on the dead body was conducted. The cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of ligature pressure over neck structure produced by strangulation. The accused were arrested. The accused after completion of investigation particularly in view of Post Mortem Report were charge sheeted for offence u/s 302/304B/498A/34 IPC. The charge sheet was submitted before the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The accused were put to trial.
3. The accused were supplied with the copies of charge sheet along with annexed documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide committal order dated State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 4 of 40 18.7.2008 passed by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and thereafter assigned to this court for trial in accordance with law.
4. The charge for the offence punishable u/s 498A/34 IPC and u/s 304B/34 IPC and in alternative charge for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC was framed against the accused vide order dated 18.9.2008. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution examined Charanbir Singh as PW1; HC Kailash Chand as PW2; SI Manohar Lal as PW3; HC Shiv Kumar as PW4; Sukhbir Singh, Executive Magistrate as PW5; L/Ct. Darshana as PW6; Ct. Narender Kumar as PW7; Dr. Manoj Dhingra as PW8; Dr. V. K. Jha as PW9 ; HC Jagdish as PW10; Dr. N.K. Singh as PW11; Kawaljeet Singh as PW12; SI Suraj Bhan as PW13; Ct. Ramesh Chander as PW14; Iqbal Kaur as PW15; Inspector Vijender Pal as PW16; and SI Krishan Kant as PW17.
PW1 Charanbir Singh is the father of the deceased and is the complainant. PW2 HC Kailash Chand on the basis of rukka handed over State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 5 of 40 to him by by Inspector Virender Pal Singh got recorded the FIR bearing no.107/08 and also made endorsement on rukka. PW3 SI Manohar Lal being the draftsman prepared the scaled site plan. PW4 HC Shiv Kumar deposited the exhibits at FSL Rohini vide RC No.88/21/8. PW5 Sukhbir Singh, Executive Magistrate recorded the statement of PW1 Charanbir Singh on the basis of which FIR was got registered and also conducted the inquest proceedings. PW6 L/Ct. Darshana participated in the investigation at the time of arrest of accused Kulwant Kaur and Sumanjeet Kaur. PW17 SI Krishan Kant and PW7 Ct. Narender Kumar on 18.3.2008 after receipt of DD No.42A went to the place of occurrence i.e F25/144, Sector3, Rohini where PW17 SI Krishan Kant conducted investigation. PW8 Dr. Manoj Dhingra and PW9 Dr. V. K. Jha conducted the Post Mortem on the dead body of the deceased and also gave subsequent opinion. PW10 HC Jagdish being the MHC (M) was entrusted with the case property. PW11 Dr. N.K. Singh declared the deceased as brought dead at BSA Hospital. PW12 Kawaljeet Singh is the relative of the deceased and made statement to PW5 Sukhbir Singh, Executive Magistrate. PW13 SI Suraj Bhan being the Incharge of Crime Team inspected the spot. PW14 Ct. Ramesh Chander being the member State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 6 of 40 of Crime Team took the photographs of the spot at the instance of IO. PW15 Iqbal Kaur is the mother of the deceased. PW16 Inspector Vijender Pal conducted the part investigation and submitted the charge sheet before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.
6. The prosecution proved statement of PW1 Charanbir Singh recorded by PW5 Sukhbir Singh, Executive Magistrate as ExPW1/A; seizure memo of the photographs of marriage of the deceased and accused Paramjeet Singh and marriage card as ExPW1/B; marriage card as ExPW1/C; photographs of marriage as ExPW1/D1D3; dead body identification memo executed by PW1 Charanbir Singh as ExPW1/E; receipt of dead body of the deceased after Post Mortem as ExPW1/F; computerized copy of FIR as ExPW2/A; endorsement on rukka made by PW2 HC Kailash Chand as ExPW2/B; DD no.48A as ExPW2/C; scaled site plan as ExPW3/A; endorsement made by PW5 Sukhbir Singh, Executive Magistrate on statement ExPW1/A as ExPW5/A; identification memo of the dead body of the deceased executed by PW12 Kawaljeet Singh as ExPW5/C; inquest papers as ExPW5/D to ExPW5/F; order issued by PW5 Sukhbir Singh, Executive Magistrate for registration of State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 7 of 40 FIR as ExPW5/G; arrest memos of accused Kulwant Kaur and Sumanjeet Kaur as ExPW6/A and ExPW6/B and personal search memos as ExPW6/C and ExPW6/D; seizure memo of two pieces of chunni seized from the spot as ExPW7/A; seizure memo of knife seized from the spot as ExPW7/C and its sketch as ExPW7/B; site plan as ExPW7/D; seizure memo of exhibits collected after the Post Mortem of the dead body of the deceased as ExPW7/E; arrest memo of accused Paramjeet Singh as ExPW7/F; personal search memo of accused Paramjeet Singh as ExPW7/G; Post Mortem Report as ExPW8/A; subsequent opinion given by PW8 Dr. Manoj Dhingra and PW9 Dr. V.K. Jha as ExPW8/B; relevant entries in Register no.19 and 21 as ExPW10/A to ExPW10/G; MLC of deceased as ExPW11/A; Crime Team Report as ExPW13/A; photographs of the spot as ExPW14/B1 to ExPW14/B9 and negatives as ExPW14/A1 to ExPW14/A19. PWs also identified two pieces of chunni seized from the spot as ExP1 and ExP2. PW1 during cross examination also admitted the photographs ExPW1/DX1 to ExPW1/DX104. The prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 8.5.2011.
7. The respective statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 8 of 40 Cr.P.C. wherein accused pleaded innocence and denied the incriminating evidence. The accused stated that they never demanded Honda City Car; the deceased was never beaten by them; the deceased left the matrimonial home without justification in the month of April, 2007 and went to her parental home and came back to matrimonial home on the first Navratra of October, 2007. The accused Paramjeet Singh preferred to lead defence evidence. The accused Kulwant Kaur and Sumanjeet Kaur preferred not to lead defence evidence. The accused Paramjeet Singh examined Dr. Chandrakant as DW1 and Manoj Jaiswal as DW2. The defence evidence on behalf of accused Paramjeet Singh was closed vide order dated 24.5.2011.
8. Shri R.A. Yadav, APP for the State and Shri Suman Kapoor and Dr. Sushil Gupta, Advocates for the accused heard. The written submissions/arguments submitted by the accused and the complaint also perused. Record perused.
9. The accused have been chaged for the offence u/s 498A/ 304B/ 34 IPC and in alternative for offence u/s 302 IPC vide order dated State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 9 of 40 18.9.2008.
Offence U/s 304B
10. Section 304 B IPC reads as under : 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 subsection, "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.
11. A legal fiction has been created as per Section 304B. If it is established that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any of his relative, for or in State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 10 of 40 connection with any demand of dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. The Parliament has also inserted Section 113B in the Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as under : 113B--Presumption as to dowry death--When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry demand 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.
Explanation--For the purposes of this section, "dowry death", shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
12. The combined reading of Section 304B IPC and Section 113B, Evidence Act, 1872 reflects a presumption if the prosecution establishes the following circumstances as set out in Section 304B IPC:
i) The death of the woman caused by any burns or bodily injury or in some circumstances which is not normal;
ii) Such death occurs within 7 years from the date of marriage;
iii)The victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives of her husband;
State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 11 of 40
iv)Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry; and
v) Such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death.
13. In Hira Lal and Others V State (Govt of NCT) Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80, the Supreme Court of India observed that the expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" is not defined. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 12 of 40 Section 498A
14. Section 498 reads as under : Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation--for the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
a)any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
15. The object of introducing Chapter XXA containing section 498A IPC was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A IPC was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 13 of 40 coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. It must be established that the cruelty or harassment to wife was to force her to cause bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide or the harassment was to compel her to fulfil illegal demand for dowry.
16. The accused Paramjeet Singh got married with the deceased on 7.9.2003 according to Sikh rites and customs and out of said wedlock one daughter was born. The deceased and the accused have started their matrimonial life with happy dreams. However, the matrimonial life could not be started as per the dreams and desire of the accused Paramjeet Singh, the deceased and their respective families. The matrimonial disputes have arisen soon after the marriage. Various meetings were held between the family members of the accused Paramjeet Singh and the deceased involving the relatives and friends but the things could not be materialized. The deceased in the month of April, 2007 came back to her parental house and went back to her matrimonial home in the month of October 2007 on the day of first Navratra. The deceased has expired on 18.3.2008 i.e within the seven years of marriage and under unnatural circumstances. After the death of the deceased, law swung into action. State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 14 of 40 The statement ExPW1/A of PW1 Charanbir Singh was recorded by PW5 Sukhbir Singh, Executive Magistrate, Saraswati Vihar and on his direction ExPW5/G, FIR bearing no.160/08 u/s 498A/304B IPC was got registered. The accused were arrested during the investigation. The offence u/s 302 IPC was also added on the basis of Post Mortem Report ExPW8/A.
17. The prosecution to prove its case examined PW1 Charanbir Singh, father of the deceased as PW1 and PW15 Iqbal Kaur, mother of the deceased as star witnesses. The prosecution also examined PW12 Kawaljeet Singh, brother of the PW15 Iqbal Kaur. PW1 Charanbir Singh, PW15 Iqbal Kaur and PW12 Kawaljeet Singh supported the case of the prosecution. PLW1 Charanbir Singh deposed that from the second day of marriage, the accused has started to harass and demanded the dowry from her daughter i.e the deceased, the fact which was disclosed by the deceased to her parents. PW1 Charanbir Singh also deposed that in the middle of 2005 his elder son in law namely Jaspreet Singh had purchased a Honda City Car from his own pocket and thereafter accused Paramjeet Singh has also started to demand Honda City Car from his daughter and the said fact was disclosed by the deceased to him. PW1 State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 15 of 40 Charanbir Singh could not fulfilled the said demand of the accused Paramjeet Singh due to his financial condition and as per the testimony of PW1, the accused continued to harass and torture his daughter i.e the deceased. PW15 Iqbal Kaur also supported the case of the prosecution and the testimony of PW1 Charanbir Singh. PW15 Iqbal Kaur deposed that after the marriage of her daughter i.e the deceased, the deceased was being harassed and taunted by the accused for not bringing the sufficient dowry. PW15 Iqbal Kaur also deposed that her daughter i.e the deceased come to her house for the first time for phera ceremony then she disclosed to her regarding the demands made by the accused Kulwant Kaur and supported by the accused Paramjeet Singh and Sumanjeet Kaur. PW15 Iqbal Kaur further deposed that when the deceased came to her house on second occasion then the deceased told her that the accused Paramjeet Singh, Kulwant Kaur and Sumanjeeet Kaur had demanded Honda City Car from the deceased as Jaspreet Singh, elder son in law of PW1 Charabir Singh and PW15 Iqbal Kaur had purchased a new Honda City Car. PW12 Kawaljeet Singh also deposed that as and when the deceased met him then the deceased told him about the harassment given by the accused Paramjeet Singh, Kulwant Kaur and Sumanjeet Kaur and also disclosed to State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 16 of 40 PW12 Kawaljeet Singh regarding the demand of Honda City Car made by the accused to the deceased.
18. The defence counsel referred the respective testimonies of PW1 Charanbir Singh and PW15 Iqbal Kaur and argued that as per the respective testimonies of PW1 Charanbir Singh and PW15 Iqbal Kaur what is appearing that the accused Paramjeet Singh, Kulwant Kaur and Sumanjeet Singh have demanded Honda City Car from the deceased and the said demand could not be fulfilled by PW1 Charanbir Singh and PW15 Iqbal Kaur due to their financial condition and because of non fulfillment of demand of Honda City Car, the accused had harassed, tortured and beaten the deceased. The defence counsel has also referred the statement ExPW1/A of PW1 Charanbir Singh recorded by PW5 Sukhbir Singh, Executive Magistrate, Saraswati Vihar. The defence counsel argued that the material contradictions are appearing regarding when and how the demand of Honda City Car was made from the deceased in statement ExPW1/A and respective testimonies of PW1 Charanbir Singh and PW15 Iqbal Kaur which raises substantial and serious doubts about the case of the prosecution. The defence counsel State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 17 of 40 further argued that as per the testimony of PW1 Charanbir Singh, PW1 Charanbir Singh received a telephonic call from the deceased on 15.3.2008 regarding the beatings given to her by the accused; thereafter a meeting was arranged between N.S. Sachdeva and Manoj Jaiswal at Talkatora Garden on 16.3.2008; on 17.3.2008 PW1 Charanbir Singh along with K.L. Dua had gone to CAW Cell, R.K. Puram to appraise the condition of the deceased regarding the harassment given to her by the accused in respect of demand of dowry; and on 18.3.2008, PW1 Charanbir Singh, PW15 Iqbal Kaur and the deceased had gone to Domestic Violence Cell, Rohini to make a complaint against the accused but the said facts are not supported by any other evidence or by any documentary evidence. The defence counsel also referred the testimony of PW17 SI Krishan Kant, Investigating Officer.
The APP assisted by the counsel for the complainant argued that the demand of Honda City Car was raised by the accused Paramjeet Singh, Kulwant Kaur and Sumanjeet Kaur soon before the death and the said demand of Honda City Car is the dowry demand within the meaning of Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; and the prosecution has proved State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 18 of 40 its case beyond reasonable doubt as per law.
19. What is appearing from the evidence led by the prosecution regarding dowry demand is that the accused had demanded a Honda City Car from the deceased as Jaspreet Singh, elder son in law, of the PW1 Charanbir Singh and PW15 Iqbal Kaur had purchased a new Honda City Car in the middle of year 2005. There is no any other dowry demand either specific or general made by the accused to the deceased. As per the evidence led by the prosecution, PW1 Charanbir Singh and PW15 Iqbal Kaur could not fulfilled the said demand of Honda City Car and due to this reason, the accused had caused cruelty mental and physical to the deceased and due to which the life of the deceased was put to an end under unnatural circumstances. PW1 Charanbir Singh deposed that in the middle of year 2005, Jaspreet Singh, elder son in law of PW1 Charanbir Singh had purchased a new Honda City Car from his own pocket and thereafter accused Paramjeet Singh had started to demand Honda City Car from the deceased and the said demand could not be fulfilled by him due to his poor financial condition. PW1 Charanbir Singh further deposed that in the month of April, 2007 the accused had given beatings to his State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 19 of 40 daughter i.e the deceased as a result of which the deceased came to her parental home and remained there till October, 2007. The deceased had gone back to her matrimonial home on the first Navratra in the month of October, 2007. The cross examination of PW1 Charanbir Singh is very important. PW1 Charanbir Singh during cross examination admitted that the accused did not demand Honda City Car till 2005 but it was started about 34 months prior to the birth of Ashmeet i.e daughter of accused Paramjeet Singh and the deceased. PW1 further deposed that said demand was firstly conveyed to him by the deceased and at that time, he was alone and prior to that his wife i.e PW15 Iqbal Kaur never conveyed to him about the demand of Honda City Car made by the accused. PW1 Charanbir Singh during cross examination also admitted that as and when the deceased used to come to his house in the interval of 23 months then the deceased used to tell the demand of Honda City Car made by the accused and the said demand was conveyed by the deceased to PW1 Charanbir Singh till April, 2007. The important fact which is appearing from the cross examination of PW1 Charanbir Singh is that after reconciliation, the deceased went back to her matrimonial home on the first day of Navratra in the month of October, 2007 and during period i.e State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 20 of 40 w.e.f. April, 2007 to October, 2007 and till her death, the deceased did not tell PW1 Charanbir Singh about the demand of Honda City Car raised by the accused persons. What is proved from the testimony of PW1 Charnbir Singh is that the accused persons had started to demand a Honda City Car in the year 2005 and continued to raise this demand before April, 2007 when the deceased due to the differences with the accused Paramjeet Singh came to her parental house. This fact appearing from the testimony of PW1 Charanbir Singh is in contradiction with the averments made by the PW1 Charanbir Singh in the statement ExPW1/A recorded by PW5 Sukhbir Singh, Executive Magistrate. In statement ExPW1/A, PW1 Charanbir Singh stated that his daughter i.e the deceased remained properly in her matrimonial home for few days after marriage and thereafter the accused have started to harass his daughter i.e the deceased and the accused Paramjeet Singh had started to demand Honda City Car by saying that the elder son in law of PW1 namely Jaspreet Singh had purchased a new Honda City Car. The marriage between the accused Paramjeet Singh and the deceased was performed in the month of September, 2003. It means that the accused have started to demand a Honda City Car within the year 2003 itself. However as per the testimony State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 21 of 40 of PW1 Charnbir Singh, Jaspreet Singh has purchased the Honda City Car in the middle of year 2005. When Jaspreet Singh had purchased Honda City Car in the middle of year 2005, then there was no occasion for the accused Paramjeet Singh or any other accused to demand Honda City Car soon after the marriage as alleged in complaint ExPW1/A. The demand of Honda City Car as alleged in the complaint ExPW1/A does not appear to be true, correct and inspire any confidence.
20. To ascertain the demand of Honda City Car stated to have been made by the accused to the deceased, the testimony of PW15 Iqbal Kaur, mother of the deceased is equally important. PW15 Iqbal Kaur deposed that when the deceased came to their house on the second occasion, then the deceased told PW15 Iqbal Kaur that the accused had demanded a Honda City Car from her as Jaspreet Singh had also purchased a new Honda City Car. As per the testimony of PW1 Charanbir Singh, Jaspreet Singh has purchased a new Honda City Car in the middle of 2005. As such there was no occasion for the deceased to tell her mother PW15 Iqbal Kaur, regarding the alleged demand of Honda City Car on the occasion of her second visit to her parental home. There are material State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 22 of 40 contradictions in the respective testimonies of PW1 Charanbir Singh and PW15 Iqbal Kaur and statement ExPW1/A regarding the timing of demand of Honda City Car stated to be made by the accused to the deceased.
21. Even if the testimonies of PW1 Charanbir Singh and PW15 Iqbal Kaur are taken together and assumed to be correct then what is reflecting from their respective testimonies is that the accused have demanded a Honda City Car from the deceased during the period w.e.f. 2005 to April, 2007. The deceased had expired on 18.3.2008. During the period w.e.f. April 2007 till her death, as per the testimony of PW1 Charanbir Singh no demand of Honda City Car was made by the accused.
22. It is settled principle of law that the demand of dowry to be covered u/s 304B IPC has to be made soon before the death. Soon before death is a relative term and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No definite interpretation of "soon before death" can be given. It normally conveys that the interval should not be much between cruelty, harassment and the death in question. There must be a proximate and live State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 23 of 40 link between the cruelty caused due to the dowry demand and death of the deceased. In the case, what is proved is that the accused did not demand a Honda City Car from the deceased after April, 2007. The deceased has expired on 18.3.2008. It means about for a period of one year immediately before the death of the deceased, the accused have not demanded a Honda City Car from the deceased. It cannot be said that the demand of Honda City Car if made by the accused was made soon before the death of the deceased. There existed no proximate and line link between the alleged cruelties caused to the deceased by the accused and the death of the accused. The alleged demand of Honda City Car was remote in time from the death of the deceased.
23. The prosecution, in a case u/s 304B IPC has to prove that the harassment or cruelty was related to the demand for dowry. The word "dowry" in Section 304B IPC has to be understood as it is defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Act, 'dowry' means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly
i) by one party to marriage to the other party to the marriage; or State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 24 of 40
ii) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person;
24. There are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is "at any time"
after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. The crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties". This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304B IPC should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage.
25. Another issue which needs consideration is that whether the demand of Honda City Car is covered within the ambit of Section 2 of State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 25 of 40 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. As per Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 the demand must be made in connection with the marriage of the said parties. It means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. PW1 Charanbir Singh and PW15 Iqbal Kaur although deposed about the dowry demands alleged to have been raised by the accused soon after the marriage of the accused Paramjeet Singh and the deceased but these allegations are general in nature and appears to be the normal wear and tear of the life. The demand of Honda City Car cannot be a dowry demand within the meaning of Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In case of Appasaheb & another V State of Maharashtra, 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 747, it was held that the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential.
26. PW1 Charanbir Singh and PW15 Iqbal Kaur had lost their daughter i.e the deceased under unnatural circumstances. The grief and sorrow of PW1 Charnbir Singh and PW15 Iqbal Kaur can easily be State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 26 of 40 understand. PW1 Charanbir Singh and PW15 Iqbal Kaur in their life can never forget the memories of their daughter Navpreet Kaur i.e the deceased. However to prove the guilt of accused for the offence u/s 498A/304B IPC it must be proved that the accused were responsible for the cruelties mental and physical to the deceased for dowry demands and said demands were made soon before the marriage and the demands fall within the Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. If the deceased has died in her matrimonial home it does not mean that she has died because of the cruelties given to her by her inlaws i.e the accused due to the dowry demands.
27. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused have raised dowry demand and caused cruelty to the deceased and said demand of Honda City Car was direct and proximate cause of the death of the deceased. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for offence u/s 498A/304B IPC.
Offence U/s 302 IPC
28. The deceased expired on 18.3.2008. PW5 Sukhbir Singh, Executive Magistrate conducted the inquest proceedings vide document State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 27 of 40 ExPW5/D, ExPW5/E and ExPW5/F. The Post Mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by PW8 Dr. Manoj Dhingra and PW9 Dr.V.K. Jha on 19.3.2008. PW8 Dr. Manoj Dhingra and PW9 Dr. V.K. Jha opined cause of death as asphyxia as a result of ligature pressure over neck structures produced by strangulation. The injury no.2 was found sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the injuries were found to be ante mortem in nature. During the external examination of the body, the external injuries were also found on the dead body of the deceased. The details of the injuries and the opinion as given in the Post Mortem Report ExPW8/A are reproduced as under : The external injuries found on the dead body are:
i) Bruise over left arm inner aspect 2cm above left elbow joint of size 3cm x 2cm.
ii) Ligature mark present over front of neck horizontally placed 20cm in length and 2cm in breadth placed 5cm below chin on front. On dissection of neck tissue underneath the ligature mark is bruised.
iii) Multiple scratch abrasion on right side of neck.
The internal injuries found on the dead body are:
Head:
i) Brain matter congested, meninges and State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 28 of 40 cerebral vessels congested.
Opinion:
The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ligature pressure over neck structures produced by strangulation. Injury No.2 is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All injuries are ante mortem in nature.
29. Initially the case was registered u/s 498A/304B IPC. Subsequently on the basis of Post Mortem Report ExPW8/A and the cause of death opined by PW8 Dr. Manoj Dhingra and PW9 Dr. V.K. Jha, the offence u/s 302 IPC was also added. Vide order dated 18.9.2008, the charge for offnece u/s 302 IPC was also framed against the accused alternative. The doctors also found on dissection of neck, tissue underneath the ligature mark was bruised. PW8 Dr. Manoj Dhingra and PW9 Dr. V.K. Jha due to this observation coupled with the existence of multiple scratch abrasion on right side of neck opined the cause of death as strangulation.
30. The defence counsel argued that the mere presence of ligature mark below the chin is not sufficient to opine the cause of death as strangulation and argued that the respective testimonies of PW8 Dr. State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 29 of 40 Manoj Dhingra and PW9 Dr. V.K. Jha do not inspire confidence to prove that it was the case of strangulation and not of hanging. The defence counsel also relied upon the testimony of DW1 Dr. Chandrakant who is having vast experience in conducting the Post Mortem and in forensic science. The defence counsel has also referred the cross examination of PW8 Dr. Manoj Dhingra and PW9 Dr. V.K. Jha. As per defence, it was a case of hanging.
DEATHS FROM ASPHYXIA
31. The term 'asphyxia' applies to condition in which the supply of oxygen to the blood and tissues is reduced appreciably below the normal working level by any interference with respiration. When supply of oxygen falls below the minimum necessary for the continuance of life is death from asphyxia. The postmortem findings in deaths from asphyxia are characterised by i) intense venous congestion and cyanosis with pronounced lividity ii) petechial haemorrhages (Tardieu spots), and iii) cardiac dilatation. In asphyxia, the face is found swollen, cyanosed and marked with petechial haemorrhages; the eyeballs appear prominent due to congestion, conjunctivae are injected, subconjunctival haemorrhages State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 30 of 40 (Tardieu spots) present, and pupils dilated; the blood stained froth oozes from the mouth and noustrils. Internally, the blood is dark in colour due to diminution of oxygen tension and increase in reduced haemoglobin. HANGING
32. Hanging is form of death caused by suspension of the body by a ligature round the neck. In the examination of a body found suspended by the neck, there are three lines of inquiry needs special consideration, viz i) external appearances ii) ligature mark, and iii) internal appearances.
The neck is stretched due to upward pull of the ligature and the head is always inclined to the side opposite the knot. The saliva may be found dribbling from the corner of the mouth opposite to the side of the knot. The prominent external sign is the ligature mark. It is a pressure mark on the neck at the site of the ligature. It appears as a depression (groove). The ligature mark is situated over the upper part of the neck in complete hanging. The mark is situated above the level of the thyroid cartilage between the larynx and the chin. It is absent at the back where the two limbs of the noose stretch upwards towards the knot. The fibres State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 31 of 40 of the plytysma and strenomastoid are sometimes torn and the posterior horns of the thyroid cartilage may be fractured from pressure on the thyrohyoid ligament. The hyoid bone is rarely injured. STRANGULATION
33. Strangulation is defined as a form of violent asphyxia caused by constricting the neck by some means, the constricting force being other than the weight of the body. Sudden and violent compression of the windpipe often renders a person powerless and causes almost immediate insensibility and death. If the windpipe is not completely closed, the face becomes cyanosed; bleeding occurs from the mouth, nose, and ears, due to rupture of the various venous plexuses; the hands are clenched; and convulsions precede death.
34. The Post Mortem appearances may be divided into i) external appearances; ii) injuries on the neck; and iii) internal appearances.
When a ligature is used, a ligature mark is seen round the neck as a depression(groove). The ligature mark is situated at the level of the thyroid cartilage or below, is horizontal, and encircles the neck State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 32 of 40 completely. There may be evidence of skin brushing if it is caught between the rounds of the ligature. There is always some damage to the skin underneath the ligature. A careful search of the neck may reveal minute fibres or any other material from the ligature. The ligature should be examined for the presence of blood, hair or suspicious substances.
Difference Between Hanging and Strangulation HANGING STRANGULATION 1 Suicidal usually Homicidal usually 2 No signs of struggle Signs of struggle 3 Ligature found in position, Ligature may not be with the body but above thyroid cartilage, when found completely encircles the neck incomplete, directed horizontally below thyroid cartilage. obliquely upwards with a There may be more than one turn of gap indicating position of ligature and there is always some damage the knot with no damage to to the skin underneath. the skin in the gap.
4 Abrasions and bruises round Abrasions and bruises round about the about the ligature marks ligature mark common Dissection of the rare. ligature mark reveals enchymosed subcutaneous areolar tissue 5 Dissection of the ligature Neck not stretched mark reveals a dry and glistening white band of subcutaneous areolar tissue.
State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 33 of 40 6 Neck usually stretched. Fracture of the hyoid not rare in throttling cases in the aged 7 Fracture of the hyoid rare. Fracture of the larynx and tracheal rings common 8 Fracture of the larynx and Injury to carotid arteries common tracheal rings rare.
9 Injury to the carotid arteries Injury to carotid arteries common only in cases with a long drop.
10 Injury to the muscles of the Injury to the muscles of the neck common neck rare.
11 Fracture dislocation of the Injury to the muscles of the neck common cervical vertebrae common in judicial hanging.
12 Saliva running out of the Fracture dislocation of the cervical angle of the mouth vertebrae rare vertically down along the Salive may not have escaped from the neck and front of chest and mouth but if so, usually blood tinged and, abdomen. may not be vertically down 13 External signs of asphyxia External signs of asphyxia usually well may not be well marked marked because of considerable violence when death is due to any that is common cause other than asphyxia.
State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 34 of 40 14 Face usually pale. Face congested and with marked petechiae 15 Bleeding from the nose, mouth and ears very rare. Bleeding from the nose, mouth and ears common 16 Emphysematous patches on Emphysematous patches on the lungs the lungs not common. common (Reference Parikh's Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology: Fifth Edition)
35. The cross examination of PW8 Dr. Manoj Dhingra is very important. The relevant portion is reproduced as under : There is a difference between hanging and strangulation. Hanging is caused due to the body weight. Strangulation is caused by the other person. It is correct that I had conducted the detailed examination of dead body. It is correct that I did not find sub conjuctival hemorrhage on the dead body. It is correct that there was no discolouration of lips or finger nails. It is correct that I have not taken the distance of ligature mark from supra sternal notch. It is correct that I had not taken the distance of ligature mark from mastoid process. It is correct that I had not taken the distance of ligature mark from the superior or inferior nuchal lines. It is correct that I had not State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 35 of 40 mentioned in Postmortem report the margins of ligature mark. It is correct that I have not mentioned that the margins on ligature marks on external examination were contused, abraded or soft. It is correct that I have not mentioned with regard to the conditions to the larynx. It is correct that I had not mentioned the condition of trachia but I have mentioned as injury No.2. I had not mentioned the individual descriptions of hyoid bones, cartilages. Voltd. I have mentioned the same in my report Ex PW 8/A at serial No.2 under the heading of internal examination. It is correct that I had not mentioned about the carotid vessels and vagus nerve. It is correct that I had not mentioned the condition of clothes in the postmortem report but I have mentioned the description of clothes worn by deceased. It is correct that there was no tearing, blood, foreign material found over the clothes and due to this reason I have not mentioned the same in my report. It is correct that if there would have been any abnormality found over the clothes, I would have mentioned the same in the report. It is correct that there was no bleeding from mouth, ear and nose etc and due to this reason I had not mentioned the same in the report. It is correct that in this case, no tear of neck muscles was found but it was bruised.
It is correct that Ligature mark was not found at State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 36 of 40 back of the neck. There are multiple scratch marks over the neck as mentioned in injury No.3 which the deceased might have sustained in her defence.
36. PW9 Dr. V.K. Jha also admitted the following facts in cross examination which are reproduced as under : It is correct that in a case of strangulation the ligature mark is generally low down in the neck.
Q. Is it correct that in case of strangulation the ligature mark is horizontal and complete?
Ans. In case of strangulation usually it is
horizontally placed. However, complete or
incomplete varies with the case.
It is correct that in the case of strangulation there are injuries on the anterior structure of the neck under the ligature mark.
37. What is reflecting from testimonies of PW8 Dr. Manoj Dhingra and PW9 Dr. V.K. Jha that there was no sub conjuctival hemorrhage on the dead body and no discolouration of lips or finger nails was found. In Post Mortem Report ExPW8/A, the margin of ligature marks are not State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 37 of 40 mentioned. The ligature mark was found 5 cm below the chin which is unusual in the case of strangulation. No bleeding from mouth, ear and nose was reported. The distance of ligature mark from supra sternal notch was not taken. The distance of ligature mark from mastoid process was not taken. The condition of trachea is not mentioned in Post Mortem Report ExPW8/A as the fracture of the larynx and tracheal rings are common in strangulation. No damage was found to the skin underneath the ligature. The ligature material was not examined to find minute fibres from the ligature or suspicious substances. However as per the Post Mortem Report ExPW8/A, multiple scratch abrasions on the right side of neck of the deceased were found during post mortem. It may indicate scuffle of the deceased with some one before the death but it does not necessarily mean that death was caused by strangulation by using chunni ExP1 and ExP2. There was no sign of considerable violence which is common in strangulation.
38. DW1 Dr.Chandrakant having vast experience in forensic science and conducting post mortem also deposed that the injury no.2 i.e ligature mark injury has not been properly described and no measurement has been State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 38 of 40 taken from the different points necessary to determine the ligature mark injury as oblique or horizontal. The neck was also not opened to examine the neck structures to differentiate between hanging and strangulation. It was also held in case Narender Singh Arora V State , Criminal Revision Petition No.555/03 decided on 1.9.2010 that mere presence of ligature mark does not mean the strangulation. In this case there was no sign of external injury or mark of struggle or any other evidence to show that it was a homicidal death. The opinion regarding the cause of death as asphyxia by strangulation as given in Post Mortem Report ExPW8/A does not inspire any confidence. It appears to be the case of hanging. There is no evidence that the accused or any of the accused had abated the suicide of the deceased. The prosecution has failed to prove that the cause of death was strangulation as opined in Post Mortem Report ExPW8/A. The offence u/s 302 IPC is not proved in accordance with law.
39. In view of above discussion, the accused are acquitted for the offence u/s 498A/304B IPC and in alternative for the offence u/s 302 IPC. The accused Paramjeet Singh is in JC, be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The bail bonds of accused Kulwant Kaur and State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 39 of 40 Sumanjeet Kaur stand cancelled. Respective sureties discharged. Case property confiscated to the State. File be consigned to the record room. Announced in open court (Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain) Dated 7.6.2011 ASJ01, Outer, Rohini, Delhi.
State V Paramjeet Singh FIR no. 160/08 PS Rohini Page No. 40 of 40