Delhi District Court
State vs Aman Bansal on 17 March, 2025
DLNW010072522021
Presented on : 21-07-2021
Registered on : 20-09-2021
Decided on : 17-03-2025
Duration : 3 years, 7 months,
27 days
IN THE COURT OF
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
AT NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided Over by Sh. Vikram)
SC/485/2021
Annexure 'A'- List of witnesses
Annexure 'B'- List of exhibits
STATE
Through Police Station Officer Vijay Vihar
NORTH WEST DELHI
VERSUS
AMAN BANSAL
S/o Sh. Neeraj Bansal
R/o House No. C-1/53-53,
Budh Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi.
Also at:
House no. 4/674-675,
Matiya Mahal Khalapur,
PS Nagar Kotwali,
Saharanpur, U.P.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ld. substitute Addl. PP for State : Sh. Sanjay Jindal
Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused : Sh. Ravi Dabas
SC No. 485/2021 State Vs. Aman Bansal Page no. 1 of 17
FIR No. : 184/2021
Police Station : Vijay Vihar
Under Section : 498A/304B/306 IPC
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 17-03-2025)
1. Facts of the case of prosecution in brief are that deceased Kirti had solemnized love marriage with accused Aman Bansal in the month of January, 2019 and from September 2019 till 22.04.2021, the accused and deceased were living at C-1/52-53, Budh Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi. The accused during subsistence of marriage subjected the deceased to cruelty by making illegal demands of dowry and used to harass her because of which on 22.04.2021 deceased committed suicide by hanging herself on ceiling fan with the help of a bed sheet.
2. Police got the information of the crime vide DD No. 9A, Ex.A-1, on which Pw ASI Jai Bhagwan alongwith accompanying Constable reached at Bhram Shakti Hospital from where the call was received, and collected the MLC and from there went to the scene of crime and found that a bed sheet was hanging with the ceiling fan and the AC installed at window was brought down. ASI Jai Bhagwan tried to find out suicide note but no suicide note was recovered. Meanwhile IO also reached there and called the crime team which took the photographs and inspected the spot and a kitchen knife which was lying near the bed sheet was seized.
SC No. 485/2021 State Vs. Aman Bansal Page no. 2 of 17
3. The dead body was preserved and family of deceased was called and Pw1 Ms. Deepa Singh, mother of deceased arrived at BSA Hospital and gave her statement Ex.Pw1/P1 in which she stated that after marriage with the accused, the deceased was residing at rented accommodation and on the demands of deceased, she had sent her about 40,000/- 45,000/- and if she did not use to send money, the accused used to beat her and the deceased had complained to her that the accused used to level false allegation of having illicit relation with some other persons and for that he used to beat her. Pw1 suspected that deceased has been either killed by accused or she committed suicide to save herself from the torture of accused.
4. On the basis of statement of Pw1 the SDM concerned directed for registration of FIR and FIR, Ex.A-9, was registered. The accused was arrested. Post mortem report, Ex.A-11, revealed that cause of death as asphyxia consequent upon ante mortem hanging i.e. suicidal hanging. After completion of investigation, IO filed the charge sheet for offence under Section 498A/304B IPC.
5. Vide order dated 15.11.2022, charges under Section 498A/304B IPC and alternatively under Section 306 IPC were settled against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. The accused in his statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. admitted the documents from Ex.A1 to A-17, therefore, the witnesses related to those documents were SC No. 485/2021 State Vs. Aman Bansal Page no. 3 of 17 dropped from the list of witnesses. Out of remaining, to prove the charges, prosecution examined five witnesses. A gist of their testimony is as under.
5.1 Pw1 Deepa Singh is the mother of deceased. She deposed about the marriage of deceased with the accused and stated that it took place at some Guruji's Ashram but she had not attended the marriage. She deposed about the ordeal of deceased that the deceased used to live with the accused but she used to bear the expenditure of accused as well as of deceased and while deceased was living at the rented premises, the deceased had complained to Pw1 that accused used to demand money from her. Therefore, she used to send the money through Kiosk or through Paytm and lastly on 15.03.2021 she had given Rs 5,000/- to deceased. Pw1 further deposed that accused used to torture the deceased and beat her demanding money. She further deposed that once she visited at the house where the deceased and accused were living and she witnessed scuffle between the accused and the deceased after which accused had left the house and she went for search of accused and brought him back. She further deposed that on 22.04.2021 she received call from the hospital about death of the deceased and when she visited the hospital she saw impression around the neck of her daughter. She proved her complained Ex.Pw1/P1.
5.2 Pw2 Manisha is the sister of deceased. She was called into to prove that deceased and accused had love marriage and after love marriage they were residing with mother of deceased for some time and accused used to harass the deceased for dowry SC No. 485/2021 State Vs. Aman Bansal Page no. 4 of 17 and also regarding the payments made by the mother of the deceased. However, this witness completely turned hostile except to the fact that accused and deceased were living together and deceased had introduced accused as her husband. She further deposed that at the spot, where the deceased committed suicide, she was also living with them alongwith her two sons but she never witnessed any torture except minor altercations which ensued because of her kids. She proved dead body identification memo Ex.Pw2/P1 and dead body handing over memo Ex.Pw2/P2. Pw2 was cross examined by the State but nothing incriminating came out.
5.3 Pw3 Vijender Singh is the cousin of deceased who was brought to prove the similar facts. However, he also turned hostile stating that he never knew whom deceased had married nor he ever knew accused. The witness was subjected to cross examination but nothing came out.
5.4 Pw4 SI Sunil had visited the BSA Hospital on the instructions of IO to collect the PM report, Ex.A11.
5.5 Pw5 is the IO. He deposed about the investigation as already discussed in brief facts and proved the endorsement Ex.Pw5/A. He also proved the arrest memo of accused Ex.Pw5/B, personal search memo Ex.Pw5/C, disclosure statement Ex.Pw5/D and site plan Ex.Pw5/E.
6. After completion of PE, all the incriminating evidence SC No. 485/2021 State Vs. Aman Bansal Page no. 5 of 17 were put to accused and his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused deposed that he never married with deceased nor demanded money from family members of deceased. Accused claimed that deceased was already married with one Manjeet but had not taken divorce from him and the deceased committed suicide because she was frustrated and under depression due to loss of job during Covid lock down. Accused did not led any evidence in his defence.
7. Arguments heard.
8. To prove the allegations of Section 498A & 304B IPC, the prosecution is required to establish the factum of subsisting marriage of the deceased with the accused. It is the claim of accused that deceased was already married to one Manjeet and this claim is not raised in the air. This fact has been admitted by Pw1 in her cross examination that the deceased was married to one Manjeet in the year 2009. Although it is claimed that Manjeet and deceased were separated, the prosecution has not proved if there was any divorce between Manjeet and deceased. The cross examination of IO reveals that he did not make any inquiry about the previous marriage of deceased. When specifically asked if he was told about the previous marriage of the deceased, the IO flatly refused by saying that no such fact was ever told to him. However, Ex.Pw1/P2 which is a reply given by Pw1, on the notice of IO, clearly shows that Pw1 had informed about the previous marriage of deceased with Manjeet where she had claimed that the deceased had separated in the SC No. 485/2021 State Vs. Aman Bansal Page no. 6 of 17 year 2011. Therefore, it was necessary to find out if there was legal separation by decree of divorce or not.
9. Even if it is assumed that after 2011 & 2019 for a long gap the divorce of deceased with previous husband could not have been verified, the marriage of the deceased with the accused is still required to be established. There is no witness of the prosecution who witnessed the accused marrying deceased. Pw1 herself had not attended the marriage and there is no marriage certificate from any institution to show that deceased and accused had got married on a particular day in the year 2019.
10. Testimony of Pw2 Manisha who used to reside with the accused and deceased although stated that they were living as husband and wife and accused was introduced to her as Jija ji cannot substituted the requirement of legal marriage between the accused and deceased. Therefore, at the best the relationship between accused and deceased was that of live in relationship in which they lived as husband and wife.
11. Therefore, contention of ld. LAC for accused that in absence of verification of marriage the charges under Section 498A/304B IPC shall not lie does not stand as the deceased and accused were living as husband and wife.
12. In Anand Mohan Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. Rev. P. 584/2011, there was similar contention of the defence that there is no legal marriage subsisting between the accused and the SC No. 485/2021 State Vs. Aman Bansal Page no. 7 of 17 deceased, therefore, the charges under Section 498A/304B IPC shall not lie. However, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dismissed the revision with the following observations:
"20. The main contention on the basis of which impugned order has been assailed is absence of proof of marriage between the decease and the petitioner. The statement of brother and sister-in-law of the deceased as well landlord is on record that the deceased was living with the petitioner as his wife in the tenanted premises. In the complaint addressed to the SHO which was recovered from the house of the deceased during search, she has even mentioned the date of her marriage with the petitioner. In Reema Aggarwal vs. Anupam & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1418, the issue whether in a case under Section 498- A IPC it is necessary that the marriage is valid in law, was dealt with. In para 18 of the report, the Apex Court dealt with this subject in detail and it is extracted as under :-
‟18. The concept of "dowry is intermittently linked with a marriage and the provisions of marriage and the provisions of the Dowry Act apply in relation to marriages. If the legality of the marriage itself is an issue further legislation problems do arise. If the validity of the marriage itself is under legal scrutiny, the demand of dowry in respect of an invalid marriage would be legally not recognizable. Even then the purpose for which Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short the „Evidence Act‟) were introduced cannot be lost sight of. Legislations enacted with some policy to curb and alleviate some public evil rampant in society and effectuate a definite public purpose or benefit positively requires to be interpreted with certain element of realism too and not merely pedantically or hyper technically. The obvious objective was to prevent harassment to a woman who enter into a marital relationship with a person and later on, becomes a victim of the greed for money. Can a person who enters into a marital arrangement be allowed to take a shelter behind a smokescreen to contend that since there was no valid marriage the SC No. 485/2021 State Vs. Aman Bansal Page no. 8 of 17 question of dowry does not arise? Such legalistic niceties would destroy the purpose of the provisions. Such hairsplitting legalistic approach would encourage harassment to a woman over demand of money. The nomenclature „dowry‟ does not have any magic charm written over it. It is just a label given to demand of money in relation to marital relationship. The legislative intent is clear from the fact that it is not only the husband but also his relations who are covered by Section 498-A. Legislature has taken care of children born from invalid marriages. Section 16 of the Marriage Act deals with legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages. Can it be said that legislature which was conscious of the social stigma attached to children of void and voidable marriages closed eyes to plight of a woman who unknowingly or unconscious of the legal consequences entered into the marital relationship. If such restricted meaning is given, it would not further the legislative intent. On the contrary, it would be against the concern shown by the legislature for avoiding harassment to a woman over demand of money in relation to marriages. The first exception to Section 494 has also some relevance. According to it, the offence bigamy will not apply to "any person whose marriage with such husband or wife had been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction". It would be appropriate to construe the expression „husband‟ to cover a person who enters into marital relationship and under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty or coerce her in any manner or for any of the purposes enumerated in the relevant provisions - Sections 304-B/498-A, whatever be the legitimacy of the marriage itself for the limited purpose of Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. Such an interpretation, known and recognized as purposive construction has to come into play in a case of this nature. The absence of a definition of „husband‟ to specifically include such persons who contract marriage ostensibly and cohabitate with such woman, in the purported exercise of his role and status as „husband‟ is no ground to exclude them from the purview of Section 304-B or 498-A IPC, viewed in the context of the very object and aim of the legislations introducing those provisions."
SC No. 485/2021 State Vs. Aman Bansal Page no. 9 of 17
13. Prosecution is, however, still required to prove that there was cruelty or harassment for dowry demand soon before the death of a woman in unnatural circumstances.
14. The initial suspicion of Pw1 was that either the deceased was murdered by accused or she committed suicide because of torture of the accused. Crime team report Ex.A5 shows that to access the room AC window was broken and after that the deceased was removed from the room as door was found locked. This coupled with photographs clearly shows that it was deceased who had hanged herself. These observations are also there in the photographs Ex.A6-1 to A6-13. The PM report clearly establishes it a case of ante motem hanging. Hence, it was a suicidal death which is a death in unnatural circumstances.
15. However, Pw1 is not only contradicted by her own statement given to IO but also not supported by other public witnesses i.e. Pw2 & Pw3. In Ex.Pw1/P2, in reply to notice against the seven specific questions, Pw1 had not mentioned if there was any dowry demand or any cruelty or harassment for or in the relation to dowry. It was specifically mentioned against question no. 6 that deceased had solemnized both her marriages on her own. Therefore, she did not spend anything on marriage and for seventh question with respect to any specific demand of dowry, Pw1 had answered that accused never demanded any dowry from her but the deceased had asked for money 4-5 times and she had given that money as loan.
SC No. 485/2021 State Vs. Aman Bansal Page no. 10 of 17
16. To convict a person under Section 498 A or 304 B IPC, there has to be evidence of dowry demand. Pw2 appears to be making false deposition in the Court as during investigation when specifically asked she herself had stated that there was never any dowry demand and the money was given as loan. Therefore, in absence of any testimony or material corroborating the version given by Pw1, her testimony cannot be relied to fasten charges against the accused. It is pertinent to not here that Pw2 who used to reside with accused and deceased, despite the fact that deceased was her sister has specifically deposed that accused had never quarreled with the deceased for dowry. This witness has remained with deceased and accused till 29.03.2020. It is also pertinent to mention here that there is no previous complaint of any cruelty.
17. Deceased, however, committed suicide and accused had stated that deceased was depressed and frustrated due to loss of her job during covid lock down. Deceased did not leave any suicide note before taking such drastic step and there is nothing except the statement of Pw1 to show that accused had any role in driving the deceased to commit suicide. The prosecution would rely on the fact that accused used to make false accusation of having illicit relationship which is deposed by Pw1 in her statement that accused used to impose false allegations of having illicit relationship.
18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Mohan V. State of Tamil SC No. 485/2021 State Vs. Aman Bansal Page no. 11 of 17 Nadu Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 2011 while dealing with ingredients of Section 306 of IPC, held as under:
"Before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 of IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative, but to commit suicide. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable".
19. Further, in Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2017 1 SCC 433, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
"27. The pith and purport of Section 306 IPC has since been enunciated by this Court in Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab (2004)13 SCC 129, and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out hereunder.
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.
13. In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the SC No. 485/2021 State Vs. Aman Bansal Page no. 12 of 17 accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
28. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal (supra) that courts have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the same had induced the person to end his/her life by committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, quite common to the society to which he or she belonged and such factors were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step, the accused charged with abetment could not be held guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707.
29. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option, had been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC
190.
30. In Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48, this Court, with reference to Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, while observing that the criminal law amendment bringing forth this provision was necessitated to meet the social challenge of saving the married woman from being ill-treated or forcing to commit suicide by the husband or his relatives demanding dowry, it was underlined that the burden of proving the preconditions permitting the presumption as ingrained therein, squarely and singularly lay on the prosecution. That the prosecution as well has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had committed suicide on being abetted by the person charged under Section 306 IPC, was emphasised."
20. The case of prosecution lacks in evidence to show that the accused had in any way instigated or aided the deceased in committing suicide. Mere altercations in relationship or accusations made to the deceased, unless it is shown that those accusations were made to drive deceased to commit suicide, would not come under the definition of abetment under Section 306 IPC. The deposition of Pw1 is not supported by Pw2 who used to reside with deceased and accused.
SC No. 485/2021 State Vs. Aman Bansal Page no. 13 of 17
21. In light of the abovesaid findings, observations and reasoning, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case on the touchstone of beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Accused is accordingly acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
Date : 17.03.2025 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/17.03.2025 Dictated on : 17.03.2025 Transcribed on : 17.03.2025 checked on : 17.03.2025 Signed on : 17.03.2025 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/17.03.2025 SC No. 485/2021 State Vs. Aman Bansal Page no. 14 of 17 Annexure 'A' List of Prosecution Witnesses S.No. PW No. Name of Witness Details of Witness
1. PW-1 Smt. Deepa Mother of deceased
2. PW-2 Ms. Manisha Sister of deceased
3. PW-3 Sh. Vijender Singh Cousin of deceased
4. PW-4 SI Sunil Police witness
5. PW-5 Insp. Sudhir Kumar IO (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/17.03.2025 SC No. 485/2021 State Vs. Aman Bansal Page no. 15 of 17 Annexure 'B' List of Exhibits S.No. Exhibit No. Details of Remarks Documents
1. Ex.Pw1/P1 Statement of complainant
2. Ex.Pw1/P2 Notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
3. Ex.Pw2/P1 Dead body identification statement
4. Ex.Pw2/P2 Dead body handing over memo
5. MarkPw3/A Statement of witness
6. Ex.Pw5/A Endorsement on statement of complainant
7. Ex.Pw5/B & Arrest memo and Ex.Pw5/C personal search of accused
8. Ex.Pw5/D Disclosure statement of accused
9. Ex.Pw5/E Site plan
10. A-1 GD No. 0009A Admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C.
11. A-2 GD No. 0059A Admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C.
12. A-3 GD. No. 75A Admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C.
13. A-4 GD No. 0002A Admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C.
14. A-5 Crime team report Admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C.
15. A-6-1 to A-6- Photographs taken Admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C.
13 by crime team
16. A-7 Seizure memo of Admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C.
pieces of bed sheet and knife SC No. 485/2021 State Vs. Aman Bansal Page no. 16 of 17
17. A-8 Seizure memo of Admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C.
viscera etc.
18. A-9 Copy of FIR no. Admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C.
184/2119. A-10 MLC No. 2110 Admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C.
20. A-11 PM report no. Admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C.
227/2121. A-12 Dead body Admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C.
identification memo
22. A-13 MLC No. 7333 Admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C.
23. A-14 Rent agreement Admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C.
24. A-15 Scaled Site plan Admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C.
25. A-16 RC no. 115/21/21 Admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C.
26. A-17 RC NO. 116/21/21 Admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C.
(Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/17.03.2025 SC No. 485/2021 State Vs. Aman Bansal Page no. 17 of 17