Delhi District Court
State vs . Suresh Kumar Etc. on 3 December, 2015
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMARII,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE03, (WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Unique Id. No. 02401R0368232014
SC No. 122/3/14
FIR No. 309/14
U/S 306/498A/34 IPC
PS Nangloi
State vs. Suresh Kumar etc.
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. No. of the case : 122/3/14
2. Date of Committal to Sessions : 21.08.2014
3. Name of the complainant : Smt. Prakashi Devi
4. Date of commission of offence : 06.05.2014
5. Name and Parentage of accused : (1) Suresh Kumar S/o Sh.
Rama Kant
(2) Smt. Ved Kumari, W/o
Sh. Rama Kant
Both resides at:
C25, Street No. 6, Amar
Colony, Nangloi, Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 306/498A/34 IPC
7. Offence charged : 306/498A/34 IPC
8. Plea of guilt : Pleaded not guilty
9. Final order : Acquitted
10.Date on which order reserved : 03.12.2015
11.Date on which order announced : 03.12.2015
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 21.08.2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03.12.2015
State vs .Suresh Kumar etc. FIR No. 309/14 1/13
-: 2 :-
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION :
1. Case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that on 06.05.2014, SI Prem Yadav received DD No. 31A and after receiving the DD, he reached alongwith Ct. Daya Ram at H. No. C25, Gali No. 6, Amar Colony, Nangloi, Delhi and there, they found that a lady was hanging with a ceiling fan on the 2nd floor of the house and the name of the deceased came to know as Bunty W/o Suresh. On inquiry, it came to the notice that deceased got married to accused Suresh on 25.11.2013 and intimation regarding this incident was sent to the SDM and crime team was called at the spot and the dead body of deceased Bunty was taken down from the ceiling fan and the dead body was sent to SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri, Mortuary, Delhi and was preserved there. On 07.05.2014, the statements of mother of deceased and other family members were recorded by the SDM. Complainant Smt. Prakashi Devi in her statement stated that the marriage of her daughter Bunty was solemnized with Suresh on 25.11.2013 and as per their capacity, they gave dowry articles and after the marriage, Bunty used to complaint her that her inlaws were not giving her any money to purchase small things and her mother inlaw and her husband used to quarrel on some patty matters. She stated in her statement that on 06.05.2014, at about 07.30 pm, the father State vs .Suresh Kumar etc. FIR No. 309/14 2/13 -: 3 :- inlaw and motherinlaw of deceased Bunty came to her house and they told her that your daughter is committing suicide and then, she went there alongwith 24 persons and she found that the body of Bunty was hanging with the rod of the fan and her feet were touching the ground and she was suspicious that she has not committed suicide and she has been hanged after murdering her and for this, the motherinlaw and her husband Suresh are responsible. Postmortem of the dead body was got conducted and case under section 498A/306/34 IPC was registered and investigation was carried out by SI Prem Yadav.
CHARGE:
2. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet under section 498A/306/34 IPC was filed. After compliance of 207 Cr.P.C., case was committed to Sessions. During the course of trial, accused persons were charged for commission of offence punishable u/s 498A/306/34 IPC on 08.04.2015 to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
3. To prove its case, prosecution cited 11 witnesses and out of 11 witnesses, 10 witnesses were got examined by the prosecution followed by recording the statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC vide which accused persons claimed to be innocent and opted not to lead State vs .Suresh Kumar etc. FIR No. 309/14 3/13 -: 4 :- evidence in their defence. Dr. Vivek Rawat was dropped by Ld. APP.
4. I have heard the arguments of Sh. Pravesh Ranga, Ld. APP for the state and Sh. B.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for both accused .
5. At the onset, it would be appropriate to have a glance at the gist of the deposition of the witnesses examined by the prosecution.
6. PW 1 Prakashi Devi is the complainant.
7. PW 2 Munesh Kumar is the brother of deceased Bunty.
8. PW 3 J.C. Sehgal is the Executive Magistrate whose reader recorded the statement of Smt. Prakashi Devi and other family members.
9. PW 4 Keshav Singh is the brother of the deceased.
10.PW 5 HC Lal Singh is the Duty Officer.
11. PW 6 Ct. Daya Ram visited the spot with SI Prem Yadav.
12. PW 7 is Ct. Mahesh Kumar in whose presence, accused was arrested.
13.PW 8 HC Dharamveer Singh received certain pullandas.
14. PW 9 Ct. Parminder is the photographer of crime team.
15. PW 10 SI Prem Yadav is the IO of the case.
Findings:
16.The whole case of the prosecution is based upon the statements of PW1 Prakashi Devi (mother of the deceased), PW 2 Munesh Kumar (brother of the deceased) and PW 4 Keshav Singh (brother of the deceased). On the basis of statement of Smt. Prakashi Devi, present FIR Ex.5/A was State vs .Suresh Kumar etc. FIR No. 309/14 4/13 -: 5 :- recorded. Other witnesses are formal in nature.
17. PW 1 Smt. Prakash Devi is the mother of the deceased who deposed that on 25.11.2013, her daughter got married to accused Suresh and in the marriage, she gave the dowry articles as per her capacity. She stated that her daughter never made any complaint against her inlaws and one day, fatherinlaw and motherinlaw of her daughter came to her house and they told her that her daughter Bunty is going to commit suicide and thereafter, she alongwith other family members rushed to the matrimonial house of her daughter and there they found that her daughter was hanging on the ceiling fan with chunni and the door where her daughter was hanging, was found bolted from inside and she saw her from the window. She further deposed that after seeing the condition of her daughter, she became unconscious and she was taken on the ground floor of the house. She further deposed in the examination in chief that she does not know whether her statement was recorded by the police or by any other officer. She further deposed that she does not know as to why her daughter commit suicide.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP but nothing fruitful came out for the prosecution and the relevant portion of cross examination by Ld. APP is as under:
"I do not know whether my statement was recorded by tehsildar. My statement was recorded by one officer but I do not know the contents of the statement. It is wrong State vs .Suresh Kumar etc. FIR No. 309/14 5/13 -: 6 :- to suggest that I had stated to the tehsildar that the inlaws of my daughter were harassing her for dowry. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated in my statement that motherinlaw of my daughter and her husband used to quarrel with her on petty matters. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the tehsildar that the motherin law and the husband of my daughter were not giving any money to her to purchase small things or they used to tell her to take those things from her mother. It is wrong to suggest that motherinlaw and husband were not giving any money for the recharge of the mobile phone and she always used to give missed call to me. (At this stage, portion A to A1 of the statement of witness Ex. PW 1/A which bears her thumb impression at pt. A, is read over to her and she denied having made any such statement).
I do not know if she committed suicide in the month of May. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated during my statement that my daughter did not commit suicide and that she was harassed or murdered and after murdering her, she was hanged. (At this stage, portion B to B1 of the statement of witness Ex. PW 1/A which bears her thumb impression at pt. A, is read over to her and she denied having made any such statement). It is correct that this was second marriage of my daughter with the accused Suresh. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the police officers that due to the second marriage, the motherinlaw and husband used to taunt her. It is wrong to suggest that when my daughter complained against the behaviour of her mother inlaw and husband, I made her understand and sent her back to her inlaw's house. It is wrong to suggest that when I sent her, the behaviour of her motherinlaw and husband remained the same. (At this stage, portion A to A1 of the statement of witness mark A, is read over to her and she denied having made any such statement). It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely as I have been won over by the in State vs .Suresh Kumar etc. FIR No. 309/14 6/13 -: 7 :- law's of my daughter".
18.PW 2 Munesh Kumar is the brother of the deceased who also deposed similar to that of his mother Smt. Prakashi Devi PW 1. He deposed that his sister never made any complaint to him against her inlaws. He deposed that on 06.05.2014, he came to know through vegetable vendor in the market that accused Suresh who was running a grocery shop in the market, went to his house after closing his shop and thereafter, he went to the matrimonial house of his sister and there, on the 2nd floor, he saw from the window that his sister Bunty was hanging on the ceiling fan with chunni and the room in which his sister was hanging, was found locked from inside. He further stated that someone made the call to police and police officials reached there and on the arrival of the police, the door of the room was broken and his sister was taken down. He further stated that he does not know what proceedings were done by the police on the 2nd floor. He stated that his signatures were taken by the police on some blank papers and he did not give any statement before any official. This witness also did not support the case of the prosecution and Ld. APP cross examined this witness and relevant portion of the cross examination is as under:
"I made a statement before the tehsildar vide Ex. PW 2/A which bears my signature at pt. A and B. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated in my statement that mother inlaw of my sister and her husband used to quarrel with her on petty matters. It is State vs .Suresh Kumar etc. FIR No. 309/14 7/13 -: 8 :- wrong to suggest that I had stated to tehsildar that motherinlaw and husband were not giving any money for the recharge of mobile phone. (At this stage, witness is confronted with portion A to A1 of his statement Ex. PW 2/A and he denied having made any such statement). It is wrong to suggest that on 06.05.2014,at about 02.10 pm, I received the telephone call of my sister Bunty. It is also wrong to suggest that on phone, my sister told me that "tumhe hamesha Suresh ki kami nahi nazar aati hai or mujhe hi samjhate ho ki yeh choti moti baat hai, thik ho jaayegi". (At this stage, witness is confronted with portion B to B1 of his statement Ex. PW 2/A and he denied having made any such statement). It is wrong to suggest that I had stated during my statement that my sister did not commit suicide and that she was harassed or murdered and after murdering her, she was hanged by her inlaws. (At this stage, witness is confronted with portion C to C1 of his statement Ex. PW 2/A and he denied having made any such statement). It is also wrong to suggest that in committing the suicide by my sister, the inlaws of my sister were responsible. (At this stage, witness is confronted with portion D to D1 of his statement Ex. PW 2/A and he denied having made any such statement). It is correct that this was second marriage of my sister with the accused Suresh. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the police officers that due to the second marriage, the motherinlaw and husband used to taunt her. (At this stage, witness is confronted with his statement mark B and he denied having made any such statement). It is correct that police official arrested the accused Suresh and he was personally searched vide memos Ex. PW 2/B and PW 2/C respectively which bears my signature at pt. A. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely as I have been won over by the inlaw's of my daughter".
19. PW 3 Sh. J. C. Sehgal is the Executive Magistrate whose reader State vs .Suresh Kumar etc. FIR No. 309/14 8/13 -: 9 :- recorded the statement of the complainant Prakashi Devi and Munesh Kumar vide Ex. PW 1/A and Ex. PW 2/A and he endorsed their statements vide Ex.PW 3/A and Ex. PW 3/B and dead body of Smt. Bunty was moved to SGM Hospital through IO vide his application Ex. PW 3/C.
20. PW 4 Sh. Keshav Singh is also the brother of the deceased Bunty who stated that his sister never made any complaint to him against her in laws. He deposed that on 06.05.2014 at about 07.30 pm, he was intimated by his younger brother Munesh about the suicide of his sister Bunty at her matrimonial house and on receiving the same, he reached at the house of his sisterinlaw. He deposed that he did not give any statement to any official at any point of time. This witness also did not support the case of hte prosecution and Ld. APP cross examined this witness and relevant portion of cross examination is as under:
"It is wrong to suggest that I had stated in my statement that motherinlaw of my sister and her husband used to quarrel with her on petty matters. It is also wrong to suggest that in committing the suicide by my sister, the inlaws of my sister were responsible. It is correct that this was second marriage of my sister with the accused Suresh. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the police officers that due to the second marriage, the motherinlaw and husband used to taunt her. (At this stage, the witness is confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr. PC mark A and witness denied having made such statement except the fact of second marriage of his sister with the accused,the dates of marriage and of suicide). It is wrong to suggest that I State vs .Suresh Kumar etc. FIR No. 309/14 9/13 -: 10 :- am deposing falsely as I have been won over by the inlaws of my sister".
21. PW 5 HC Lal Singh is the Duty Officer who received the rukka and on the basis of which, he got registered the FIR Ex. PW 5/A and endorsed the rukka vide Ex. PW 5/B and he issued certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act Ex. PW 5/C.
22. PW 6 Ct. Daya Ram on 06.05.2014 was on emergency Duty with SI Prem Yadav and he alongwith SI Prem yadav went to the spot where they saw one lady who was hanging on ceiling fan with chunni and that lady was taken down on the floor by cutting the chunni and the chunni was taken into possession through seizure memo Ex.PW 6/A and he identified the chunni Ex. P1.
23. PW 7 Ct. Mahesh Kumar on 07.05.2014 alongwith SI Prem Yadav and Sh. Munesh went to the house of accused and from where accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW 2/B and personally searched vide memo Ex. PW 2/C.
24. PW 8 HC Dharamveer Singh received an unsealed polythene bag containing chunni and in this regard, he made an entry in register no. 19 vide Ex. PW 8/A.
25.PW 9 Ct. Parvinder is the crime team photographer who took the photographs Ex. PW 9/A1 to Ex./ PW 9/A9 and negatives vide Ex.PW 9/A10 colly.
State vs .Suresh Kumar etc. FIR No. 309/14 10/13 -: 11 :-
26. PW 10 SI Prem Yadav is the IO of the case who investigated the matter, arrested the accused persons and filed the charge sheet in the court. Conclusion:
27. PW 1 Smt. Prakashi Devi, PW 2 Munesh Kumar, PW 4 Keshav Singh as per the prosecution case, are the material witnesses but they have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW 1 Prakashi Devi stated that her daughter never made any complaint against her inlaws and deposed that she does not know as to why her daughter committed suicide. She stated that she does not know whether her statement was recorded by the police or any other officer or not and during cross examination by Ld. APP, he denied the suggestion that the inlaws of her daughter were harassing her for dowry and she also denied the suggestion that mother inlaw of her daughter and her husband used to quarrel with her on petty matters and she also denied the suggestion that her motherinlaw and her husband were not giving any money to her to purchase small things She also denied the suggestion that due to the second marriage, the motherinlaw and husband used to taunt her and she also denied that when her daughter complaint against the behaviour of her motherinlaw and husband, she made her understand and sent her back to her inlaws house.
2. PW 2 Munesh Kumar also did not support the case of the prosecution State vs .Suresh Kumar etc. FIR No. 309/14 11/13 -: 12 :- and deposed that her sister never made any complaint to him against her inlaws and her signatures were obtained by the police on some blank papers and he did not give any statement to any officer. He denied the suggestion that he had stated in his statement that motherinlaw of his sister and her husband used to quarrel with her on petty matters and he also denied that he had stated during his statement that his sister did not commit suicide and she was harassed or murdered and after murdering her, she was hanged by her inlaws.
3. PW 4 Keshav Singh stated that no complaint was made by his sister and he denied the suggestion that there was any quarrel between the deceased and the accused persons. He also denied the suggestion that he had statement to the police that due to the second marriage the mother inlaw and husband used to taunt her.
4. From the statements of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 4, it is not established that deceased was treated with cruelty as to drive her to commit suicide by the accused persons or both the accused instigated the deceased by their conduct to commit suicide.
5. In the present case, all the material witnesses are deposing that there was no demand of dowry by the accused or his family at any point of time and deceased was never tortured by her inlaws and the deceased never made any complaint against her inlaws.
State vs .Suresh Kumar etc. FIR No. 309/14 12/13 -: 13 :-
6. From the above discussion, I do not find any act of cruelty or harassment as such committed by the accused person within the meaning of clause (a) and (b) of the explanation to section 498A IPC and no instigation from the accused persons within the meaning of section 306 IPC.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, the court is of the consideration opined the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the court is satisfied that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused Suresh Kumar and Smt. Ved Kumari for the offence under Section 498A/306/34 IPC.
8. In view of my above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Suresh Kumar and Ved Kumari therefore, accused Suresh Kumar and Smt. Ved Kumari are acquitted of the charges u/s 498A/306/34 IPC.
Announced in the open court today i.e 03rd December, 2015.
(Rakesh KumarII) Additional Sessions Judge03, West District, Delhi.
State vs .Suresh Kumar etc. FIR No. 309/14 13/13