Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj Kumar Nagar on 20 August, 2011
1 IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01 (WEST):DELHI SC No. 88/08 Unique Case I.D. No. 02401R1161932006 FIR No. 469/06 PS Timarpur U/s 498A/306/34 IPC State Vs. Manoj Kumar Nagar S/o Shri Satbir Singh R/o 14/3, Village Wazirabad Delhi. 2. Smt. Harbati W/o Shri Satbir Singh R/o 14/3, Village Wazirabad Delhi. 3. Satbir Singh S/o Shri Mam Chand R/o 14/3, Village Wazirabad Delhi. 4. Rajesh S/o Shri Satbir Singh R/o 14/3, Village Wazirabad Delhi. ... Accused SC No. 88/08 Page 1 of 21 2 Date of Institution : 7.12.2006 Date of arguments : 01.08.2011 Date of Judgment : 20.08.2011 JUDGMENT
In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 09.10.2006 on receiving of DD No. 21 A, SI. R.B. Joshi alongwith Ct. Avdash went to the spot at H. No. 14/3, Village Wazirabad, Delhi. At the spot, they found the dead body of Smt. Jyoti (deceased) lying on the floor and having ligature mark on her neck and one chunni is also lying near the body. The chunni was seized. The crime team, SDM Civil Lines and SHO came at the spot. The dead body was sent for postmortem and after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to heirs of the deceased. Smt. Sashi Bala, mother of the deceased made a statement to the police on the basis of which the FIR was registered.
It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was married to the accused Manoj on 18.02.1999. The deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty by accused Manoj (husband), accused Smt. Harbati (motherinlaw), accused Satbir (fatherinlaw) and accused Rajesh (Devar) in connection with the demands of dowry. The accused Manoj also used to beat the deceased and on account of this beating the tooth of the upper Jaw also get broken. Sh. Jai Prakash, brother of the complainant also made a payment of Rs. 20,000/ to meet SC No. 88/08 Page 2 of 21 3 the demands of dowry of the accused persons. On account of the harassment and cruelty committed upon the deceased by the accused persons, the deceased had committed suicide on 09.10.2006 at about 5.30 pm. The accused persons had instigated the commission of the suicide of the deceased. The FIR has been registered U/S 498 A/306/34 IPC.
2. After investigation, the chargesheet has been filed against the accused persons U/S 498A/306/34 IPC. The charge U/s 498A/34 IPC and U/s 306/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they had pleaded not guilty.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined 16 witnesses. The accused persons in their statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C has denied the case of the prosecution. The accused persons has examined 5 witnesses in their defence.
4. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused persons and perused the evidence on record.
5. FORMAL WITNESSES PW1 Geeta Tyagi has deposed that on 09.10.2006 at about 5/5.30 PM, she rushed to the house of the deceased and found the deceased hanging there. In crossexamination, she has deposed that she had not seen any quarrel between accused Manoj and the deceased. The accused used to take Jyoti to the hospital for her treatment as she was patient of Hysteria (depression).
SC No. 88/08 Page 3 of 21 4
PW2 Ct. Amarjeet Singh had taken the rukka and copy of the FIR to the spot. He has also deposed that the accused Manoj and Smt. Harbati were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/A and Ex. Pw2/B respectively. On 19.10.2006 he had taken one sealed box of viscera from the custody of MHCM to FSL Rohini for analysis.
PW3 Smt. Mithlesh has taken the personal search of the accused Smt. Harbati vide memo Ex. PW2/B. PW8 HC Satyawan has proved the FIR as Ex. PW8/A. PW9 Pawan Kumar has deposed in crossexamination by Ld. APP, that he had not told to the police that Jai Prakash had handed over Rs. 20,000/ to the accused Manoj.
PW11 Insp. Sube Singh from the crime team has deposed that on 09.10.2006. He had inspected the spot and proved his report as Ex. PW11/A. PW13 HC Kuldeep Singh has proved the copy of the FIR No. 31/03, PS Timar Pur as Ex. PW13/A. PW14 Sh. Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd. has deposed that the mobile phone No. 98182386711 has been issued in the name of Jai Prakash, S/o Sh. Bansi lal, R/o H/13, Seelam Pur, Delhi. He proved the application form alongwith the copy of the driving license of Jai Prakash as Ex. PW14/A. He proved the call details of the above said mobile phone number as Ex. PW14/B. SC No. 88/08 Page 4 of 21 5 PW15 Raj Kumar, Assistant Nodal Officer from Reliance communication has deposed that the mobile phone number 9350181758 has been issued in the name of Shiv Kumar, S/o Moti Ram. He proved the application form alongwith the copy of the driving license as Ex. PW15/A. He has proved the call details of the above said mobile phone number as Ex. PW15/B. PW16 H.C. Anil Kumar is the MHC(M) and he has proved the relevant entries regarding the deposit of pulandas and handing over the same to FSL Rohini and the receiving of the same from the FSL Rohini vide entries as Ex. PW16/A to Ex. PW16/H.
6. MEDICAL WITNESSES PW10 Dr. K. Goyal has conducted the postmortem of the deceased and has proved his postmortem report as Ex. PW10/A. He has deposed that the cause of death was kept pending as blood viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. In view of his postmortem findings and after going through the FSL viscera report which was negative for poison, he gave his opinion that the cause of death in this case was 'Asphyxia' consequent upon ligature pressure over neck structures. The ligature was antemortem in nature caused by soft ligature material. The ligature mark found around the neck mentioned in Ex. PW10/A was possible by the chunni which was produced before him or by similar such type of other material. He proved the subsequent opinion as Ex. SC No. 88/08 Page 5 of 21 6 PW10/B. He proved the blue dupatta which was produced before him for subsequent opinion as Ex. P1.
7. PUBLIC WITNESSES PW4 Jai Parkash has deposed that his niece/bhanji Jyoti D/o Shri Ram Bir Singh was married on 18.2.99 with the accused Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Satbir Singh who were Wazirabad Gaon. The marriage was performed in accordance with the Hindu Rites Ceremonies. He had also attended the marriage of his niece Jyoti and the parents of the Jyoti gave dowry articles as per their capacity and status at the time of her marriage to the accused Manoj. After some days, his sister Shashi Bala informed him that his niece Jyoti had been harassed and tortured for demand of more dowry by her husband, fatherinlaw, motherinlaw and brotherinlaw. Whenever his niece Jyoti used to visit his house she used to tell about such incident of harassment and torture to him for demand of dowry made by her in laws. He along with his sister went to the house of the in laws of Jyoti and made them understand not to harass Jyoti but they did not pay heed to their request. They did not stop harassing and torturing Jyoti. In the year 2003 accused Manoj was arrested in a rape case. In the absence of accused Manoj the in laws and devar of Jyoti harassed and tortured Jyoti for more demand of dowry. When the accused Manoj was released from Jail, his sister Shashi Bala told him that in laws and husband of Jyoti were demanding Rs. 20,000/ for SC No. 88/08 Page 6 of 21 7 starting some business. He went to the house of in laws of Jyoti and handed over Rs. 20,000/ to accused Manoj in the hope that better sense would prevail upon him and in future they will not harass Jyoti. But there was no change in the behaviour of her in laws who used to demand dowry. On 9.10.2006 at about 89 a.m he received a telephone call from mobile number 9350181758 at his mobile number 9818286711 from Jyoti who told him that she was beaten by her father in law Satbir, mother in law Harbati, Dever Rajesh and Husband Manoj. She made four telephone calls to him during this period. She also told him that these persons are planning to kill her. He pacified her. He along with his sister went to the house of accused Manoj. There, he met Jyoti who was weeping and she was in state of shock and seemed scared. Jyoti told him that her in laws, husband and Dever had badly beaten her for the demand of the dowry. They made Jyoti understand and thereafter they came back their house. While they were leaving her matrimonial home she told them that all these four persons would kill her today. Thereafter they came back to their house. In the evening, he came to know that Jyoti had expired. He along with other family members reached at the house of the accused Manoj. There they saw the dead body of Jyoti lying on the floor. Either she had been killed or she had committed suicide on the abatement of the accused persons. He correctly identified the accused persons.
SC No. 88/08 Page 7 of 21 8
In cross examination, PW4 has deposed that in the morning when he went to the house of the deceased she was in an injured condition from the beatings given to her by the accused persons. He saw injury marks on her body. He did not give the statement to the police on that day. He did not take Jyoti for treatment after seeing her injuries on her body. As per his knowledge, he had not lodged any complaint against the accused persons. He had conveyed to Smt. Shashi Bala that he received telephone of Jyoti that her inlaws are giving beatings to her. He and Smt. Shashi Bala had not lodged any complaint or made a telephone call at number 100 to the police in this regard. He is not aware of the school and classes in which the children of Jyoti were studying. He cannot tell on which date Smt. Shashi Bala told him that the in laws of Jyoti were harassing her for dowry. He cannot tell the date or time when Jyoti told him about being harassed by her inlaws and husband for dowry.
PW5 Smt. Shashi Bala has deposed that the deceased was married to the accused Manoj on 18.2.99. The deceased has told her that all the four accused used to beat her for dowry. The motherinlaw and fatherinlaw of the deceased used to tell her to get a car for Manoj. They taunted her for not giving various articles like clothes and jewellery.
In cross examination by Ld. APP, she has deposed that accused Manoj was put in Jail in a rape case and during the time the SC No. 88/08 Page 8 of 21 9 accused Manoj was in J/C, the remaining accused persons used harass her. One day accused persons beat her daughter because of which her teeth were broken. Her brother Jai Parkash made arrangement for the amount of Rs. 20,000/ and gave the same to Manoj. On 9.10.06, her brother Jai Parkash had informed her that he had received a phone call on his mobile from Jyoti telling him that all the accused persons were beating her and planning to kill her. They immediately went to the house of the deceased.
In cross examination by the defence counsel, PW5 has been confronted with her statement Ex. PW5/A. PW5 has deposed that after the marriage of deceased and till the time she died, they had not lodged any complaint with any authority against the accused persons with regard to harassment, beating and demand for dowry. After her marriage till her death, deceased used to visit them after a duration of every 15/20 days. She was not on talking terms with her two sons. The deceased was on talking term with her brothers and their families. Whenever the father of the deceased came to Delhi she used to speak to him. He used to often visit her house. The two sons of the deceased were living with the accused persons. She is not aware in which class they were studying and in which school. It is correct that 34 days after the marriage, Jyoti had a fit of 'Hysteria' and she was treated by Dr. Dolly Begai. Vol. It was because of torture and harassment that she had a fit. It is correct that two SC No. 88/08 Page 9 of 21 10 photographs which are Ex. PW5/DA which are of the deceased it can be seen that her front tooth is half missing. She did not recall the time when Jai Parkash told her that he received the phone call from the deceased. The deceased had not written any letter to any one regarding her being harassed. When she visited the deceased on the morning on the day she died. She saw injury marks on her body and her suit was torn. Despite seeing injury marks she did not inform the police. She did not take her to the doctor or any Govt. hospital.
8. POLICE WITNESSES PW7 SI R.B. Joshi has deposed that on 9.10.06 on receiving of DD No. 21A which is Ex. PW7/A, he along with Ct. Avdesh went to the spot and found the dead body of deceased Jyoti lying on the floor and they noticed marks on her neck and one blue coloured Chunni lying near the dead body. He seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A. He inspected the room. SDM Civil Lines, DCP and SHO also reached at the spot. He sent Ct. Avdesh to take the dead body to the Subzi Mandi Mortuary. On 10.10.2006, he moved an application Ex. PW7/C for conducting the postmortem. He prepared the brief facts of the case which is Ex. PW7/D and filled up form 25.35 (1)(B) which is Ex. PW7/E. He identified the chunni as Ex. P1.
PW6 Ct. Avdesh Singh had gone to the spot along with PW7 and has supported the testimony of PW7.
SC No. 88/08 Page 10 of 21 11
PW12 SI Satya Parkash has deposed that on 10.10.2006 at about 7 p.m., he had gone to the house of Smt. Shashi Bala, the mother of the deceased and recorded her statement as Ex. PW5/A. He made endorsement as Ex. PW12/A and handed over a rukka to duty officer for the registration of the FIR. He prepared the site plan as Ex. PW12/B at the instance of Smt. Shashi Bala. He arrested the accused Manoj and Smt. Harbati Devi. On 11.10.06, he received a wooden box duly sealed containing the viscera of the deceased and seized the same as Ex. PW12/C. On 19.10.06, he sent Ct. Amarjeet to FSL Rohini for depositing the box. On 3.12.06 Shri Jai Parkash has joined the investigation and gave three postcard size photographs of the deceased and her husband and was seized vide memo Ex. PW12/D. He obtained the call details of mobile phone number 9818286711 of Jai Parkash from 8.10.06 to 18.10.06 and of mobile number 9350181758 used by the deceased from 8.10.06 to 15.10.06. On 30.12.06, he arrested the accused Rajesh Kumar and accused Satbir Singh who were on anticipatory bail. He obtained the subsequent opinion from the Autopsy Surgeon with regard to cause of death.
9. DEFENCE WITNESSES DW1 Dr. Anil Kumar, Consultant Psychiatrist from Deepak Memorial Hospital, Karkardooma has deposed that on 11.7.99 he was working at Amarnath Hospital, Circular Road, Kailash Nagar, Shahdara, SC No. 88/08 Page 11 of 21 12 Delhi as a psychiatrist. On that day, he attended one female patient namely Jyoti Kiran, aged about 20 years and he gave antipsychotic medicine. His prescription slip dt. 11.7.99 is Ex. DW1/A. Another prescription slip dt. 12.7.99 is Ex. DW1/B. Jyoti Kiran was a psychiatric patient and was suffering from acute psychosis. In patients of this kind the suicidal tendencies are possible to be developed. He referred Jyoti Kiran to G.B. Pant Hospital.
DW4 Shri Surender Kumar, Statistical Assistant from G.B. Pant Hospital has proved the medical report relating to the treatment of the deceased as Ex. DW4/A. DW5 Dr. Abhishek Pallava, Senior Resident from the department of Psychiatry, G.B. Hospital has deposed that according to the medical report as Ex. DW4/A, deceased was admitted to G.B. Pant Hospital, Psychiatry Ward from 30.5.03 to 3.6.2003 and diagnosis of acute psychosis episode was made.
DW2 Shri Deepak has deposed that Jyoti Kiran was his sister. She was married to accused Manoj Nagar in the year 1999. It was an arranged marriage and the accused persons and his family members never demanded anything at the time of marriage or before the marriage. He used to regularly visit the matrimonial home of his sister as she was suffering from depression and psychotic problem. His sister Jyoti Kiran was properly treated by accused Manoj Nagar and his family members. SC No. 88/08 Page 12 of 21 13 His sister was provided medical treatment by the accused persons regularly and she was medically treated at different clinics and hospitals for curing her psychiatric problem. His sister also used to visit their house and she never made any complaint against any of her in laws or husband of demanding any dowry, harassment and taunting. She was never taunted by the accused persons for being less educated. He has good relations with his mother Smt. Shashi Bala. One front tooth of his sister Jyoti Kiran was broken when she was studying at school. They made enquiries from their Biradari regarding the accused and his family members before the marriage and they came to know that they are good persons. The house in which he was residing was purchased by his father for his mother which is in the name of his mother. The accused persons never demanded any dowry from him and his family members. His mother never provided any help to his sister during her illness while she was admitted in the hospital.
DW3 Rambir has deposed that Jyoti Kiran was his daughter. He has two children namely Deepak and Pankaj. His daughter Jyoti was married to accused Manoj Nagar in the year 1999. They made enquiries from their Biradari regarding the accused and his family members before the marriage and they came to know that they are good persons. It was an arranged marriage and the accused persons and his family members never demanded anything at the time of marriage or before the marriage. SC No. 88/08 Page 13 of 21 14 His daughter Jyoti Kiran was properly treated by the accused Manoj Nagar and his family members. He used to regularly visit the matrimonial home of his daughter as she was suffering from depression and psychiatric problem. His daughter was provided medical treatment by the accused persons regularly and she was medically treated at different clinics and hospitals for curing her psychiatric problems. His daughter also used to visit their house and she never made any complaint against any of her in laws or husband of demand of any dowry, harassment and taunting either to him or his wife. She never taunted by the accused persons for being less educated. One front tooth of his daughter Jyoti Kiran was broken when she was studying at school. The house in which he was residing was purchased by him for his wife which is in the name of his wife. The accused persons never demanded any dowry from him and his family members. His wife never provided any help to his daughter during her illness while she was admitted in the hospital. The accused persons never demanded any money from him, his wife and other relatives when accused Manoj Nagar was in J/C in another case.
10. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons. There is no evidence on record which would prove that the accused persons had harassed or subjected the deceased with cruelty in connection with the SC No. 88/08 Page 14 of 21 15 demand of dowry. There is no evidence on record which would prove that the accused persons had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The deceased was suffering from depression and she has committed suicide on account of such depression.
On the other hand Ld. APP has argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons U/s 498A/306/34 IPC.
11. To prove the offence U/s 498A IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused had subjected the deceased to harassment with a view to coercing her to meet the unlawful demand of dowry.
To prove the offence U/s 306 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused has abetted commission of suicide by the deceased.
Section 107 IPC defines the abetment. Reading of Section 306 IPC r/w section 107 IPC makes it clear that in order to make out the offence of abetment of suicide, the necessary proof required that:
(a) the culprits has either instigated the victim to commit suicide, or
(b) has engaged himself in conspiracy with others for the commission of suicide, or
(c) has intentionally aided, by any act or illegal omission for the commission of suicide.
SC No. 88/08 Page 15 of 21 16
It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2002 CRI. L.J. 2796 that:
"The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot b e taken to be uttered with the mens rea."
It has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madya Pradesh in 1987 Cri. L.J. 1573 that :
"It is of the essence of the crime of abetment of suicide that the abettor should be proved to have substantially assisted in the commission of the offence of suicide. Invesigation, incitement, provocation, encouragement, insinuation, solicitation, which words cannote different meanings are, no doubt, some of the acts, which may constitute an 'abetment' for commission of suicide. But all such acts or any of them have to be positive and potent in nature, of such a degree, that the direct result of such acts may be none other, but the commission of suicide."
It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2001) 9 SC No. 88/08 Page 16 of 21 17 Supreme Court Cases 618 that :
"Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
12. The postmortem report Ex. PW10/A and the subsequent opinion Ex. PW10/B proves that the cause of death of the deceased was 'Asphyxia' consequent upon ligature pressure over neck structures. The ligature was antemortem in nature and caused by Dupatta which is Ex. P1. It is not disputed that the deceased had committed suicide . 13 It is the case of the prosecution that on 9.10.06 at about 89 SC No. 88/08 Page 17 of 21 18 a.m., the deceased has been beaten by the accused persons and the deceased had made a call from the mobile No. 9350181758 to the Mobile No. 9818286711 of PW4. However, the prosecution has failed to prove these facts because PW15 has deposed that the mobile No. 9350181758 has been issued in the name of Shiv Kumar. There is no evidence on record which could prove that the mobile No. 9350181758 has been used by the deceased on 9.10.06.
PW4 and PW5 has deposed that they had visited the matrimonial house of the deceased on receiving of mobile call. The deceased has told them that she was beaten by the accused persons and the accused persons are planning to kill her. PW4 and PW5 has deposed in their cross examination that at that time they have seen the injury marks on the body of the deceased. They had not taken the deceased for treatment and had not made any complaint to the police. The conduct of the PW4 and PW5 is very unnatural as being despite coming to know about the alleged injuries given by the accused persons they had not taken the deceased to any hospital and had not made any complaint to the police.
14. PW4 has deposed that whenever the deceased used to visit his house, she used to tell about the incident of harassment and torture to him that demands of dowry were made by her in laws. He has also paid Rs. 20,000/ to the accused Manoj in the hope that in future they will not SC No. 88/08 Page 18 of 21 19 harass the deceased. PW5 has deposed that the deceased had told her that the accused persons used to beat her for dowry. They used to tell her to get a car from Manoj.
It is the case of the prosecution that the PW4 has handed over Rs. 20,000/ to the accused Manoj in the presence of PW9. In cross examination of Ld. APP, PW9 has deposed that he has not told to the police that PW4 has handed over Rs. 20,000/ to the accused Manoj in his presence. PW4 has not mentioned any date on which he has paid Rs. 20,000/ to the accused Manoj. PW4 and PW5 has made general allegations against the accused persons as to the harassment to the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry as they had not deposed any specific date or time when such demands were made. The deceased has been married with the accused Manoj on 18.2.99. The deceased had expired on 9.10.06. PW4 and PW5 has not made any complaint to the police or any Govt. authority regarding the harassment committed by the accused persons to the deceased.
On the other hand, DW2 who is the brother of the deceased and DW3 who is the father of the deceased has deposed that the accused persons had never demanded any dowry from them and their family members. The deceased was properly treated by the accused persons.
PW5 has deposed that one day the accused persons has beaten the deceased because of which her teeth were broken. The SC No. 88/08 Page 19 of 21 20 testimony of PW5 is not reliable as PW2 and PW3 has deposed that one front tooth of the deceased was broken when she was studying at school. PW5 has deposed that the photographs which are Ex. PW5/DA shows that front tooth of the deceased is half missing. The photographs Ex. PW5/DA were taken at the time of marriage of the deceased.
15. The defence of the accused persons is that the deceased was a patient of Hysteria (depression) and despite the best treatment provided to the deceased she could not recover from her mental illness and due to this mental illness the deceased has committed suicide.
PW1 has deposed that the accused used to take the deceased to the hospital for her treatment as she was patient of Hysteria (Depression). DW2 and DW3 has deposed that the deceased was suffering from depression and psychotic problem. DW1 has deposed that patient was a psychiatric patient and was suffering from acute psychosis. In patients of this kind, the suicidal tendencies are possible to be developed. DW5 has deposed that the deceased was admitted to G.B. Pant Hospital from 30.5.03 to 3.6.03 and she was diagnosed of acute psychosis. The testimonies of DW1, DW2, DW3 and DW5 has proved that the deceased was suffering from psychotic problem (acute psychosis).
16. PW4 and PW5 are the material witnesses of the prosecution but their evidence does not inspire confidence, so they are not reliable SC No. 88/08 Page 20 of 21 21 witnesses. On the other hand, the evidence led by the accused persons is reliable evidence.
17. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons has subjected the deceased to harassment with a view to coercing her to meet the unlawful demand of dowry. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused persons had provoked, incited or instigated the deceased in the commission of her suicide. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons U/s 498A/306/34 IPC. All the accused persons are acquitted of the charge. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stands cancelled. File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open court (Rajneesh Kumar Gupta) today i.e. on 20.08.11 Additional Sessions Judge01/West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi SC No. 88/08 Page 21 of 21