Delhi District Court
State vs Rajbala And Others on 17 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-06 /
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer: Neha, DHJS
CNR No. DLND01-003001-2017
SC No. : 76/2017
FIR No. : 964/2016
P.S. : Vasant Vihar
U/s. : 302/498A/306/304B/34 IPC
In the matter of:-
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ...Complainant
Versus
1. Rajbala
W/o Sukhbir Kataria
R/o F-376, Katwaria Sarai,
New Delhi.
2. Renu Tokas
W/o Sh. Satender Tokas @ Sonu
R/o 91A, Prateek Market
Munirka, New Delhi.
3. Ricky Kataria
S/o Sukhbir Kataria
R/o F-376, Katwaria Sarai,
New Delhi.
4. Sukhbir Singh Kataria
S/o Sh. Deep Chand
R/o F-376, Katwaria Sarai,
New Delhi.
5. Naresh @ Nishu
S/o Sh. Nafe Singh
R/o H.No. D-164, Katwaria Sarai,
New Delhi. ... Accused Persons
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 1 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
Date of Institution : 25.01.2017
Date of Committal : 17.02.2017
Date of reserving judgment : 18.10.2025
Date of judgment : 17.12.2025
Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
(The order/judgment in the case was reserved by the undersigned
during her posting as ASJ-06, New Delhi District, Patiala House
Courts. Vide Circular No. 40/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated
17.10.2025, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has directed that the
judicial officers under transfer shall pronounce judgments /
orders in all such matters notwithstanding the posting / transfer.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the case is taken up by this Court
for pronouncement of judgment).
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts as per the case of the prosecution is that on 23.10.2016 at 5.40 a.m. PCR call vide DD no. 15A was received at PS Vasant Vihar which was marked to SI Ramphal. SI Ramphal alongwith Ct. Mahipal and Ct. Poonam reached at the spot i.e. F-376, Katwariya Sarai. The main gate of the house was found latched, PCR caller was not found there and the phone of the PCR caller was going switched off. On calling out, when nobody came out from the house, SI Ramphal, Ct. Mahipal and Ct. Poonam went inside the house after opening the latch. Nobody was found present there. The door of the inside (inner) room was found open. On checking, a lady was found hanging with the ceiling fan with chunni around the neck, one sofa stool was on the bed, lights were on and T.V was also switched on. One mobile phone was found on bed and blood was found on floor. On inquiry from neighbours, the police officials came to know that deceased was Anita Kataria and her elder sister Sunita State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 2 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar also lived at Katwaria Sarai. Mobile number of father of the victim was taken from elder sister Sunita. SI Ramphal informed about the incident to father of the victim on phone. SDM, Mehrauli was informed who nominated Executive Magistrate Mr. M.K. Bharti and Mr. M.K. Bharti were informed on phone. On directions of Executive Magistrate, crime team was called at the spot for inspection. Photographs of the spot were taken. Parents of the victim also reached there. Dead body of the victim was brought down after cutting chunni. Exhibits were lifted from the spot. Dead body of the victim was sent to AIIMS mortuary for preservation of dead body. Executive Magistrate recorded statement of mother and father of the victim.
2. In the statement to the Executive Magistrate, mother of victim stated that she had three married daughters and one adopted son. Her daughter Anita was married to Ricky Kataria s/o Sukhbir Kataria R/o F-376, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi on 20.06.2010. They had incurred expenses beyond their capacity on marriage of Anita. In the marriage, they had given Swift car, 18- 20 tola gold jewellery, 2 kg silver jewellery and coins, household articles, clothes and spent Rs. 28-30 lakhs. After 2-3 months of marriage, her daughter Anita got pregnant. They got Anita checked and came to know that she had a girl child. Thereafter, her in-laws pressurized her for abortion. She called her daughter to her house, provided treatment and all delivery expenses were borne by them. The baby was delivered in Thakral Nursing Home, Gurgaon. When in-laws of her daughter Anita came to know that girl child was born, Rajbala, Ricky Kataria, Renu and Sukhbir Kataria called her on phone and said that she (mother of State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 3 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar victim) had three daughters and her daughter Anita also gave birth to girl child and they would not take her (Anita) to matrimonial home. When she said that it was god's blessing, Rajbala, Sukhbir and Ricky demanded Rs. 5 lakh. In order to get her daughter's matrimonial life settled, she gave Rs. 3 lakhs in cash to in-laws after borrowing it from people. For few days, everything was fine however suddenly, parents-in-laws, sister-in- law and husband started beating Anita for which her MLC was also got prepared from time to time. In 2011-2012, her daughter made complaint in CAW Cell, Saket where her in-laws stated that they would not physically assault her and Anita withdrew her complaint in order to settle her matrimonial life. In September 2015, Anita gave birth to a baby boy and they gave jewellery worth Rs. 6 lakh and other articles as per demand of in-laws. After two months, Anita came to her house with the baby boy and Anita told her that her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in- law and husband had again started harassing her and asked her to take share from her parental property as her brother was adopted one and if she did not get her share, the consequence would be bad. Thereafter, in-laws kept beating her daughter and used to leave her at her parental house and harassed her for getting share in the parental property. On 21.10.2016, she had conversation with Anita on phone. Anita told her that mother-in-law, father-in- law, sister-in-law and husband were pressurizing her to get share in her parental property otherwise they would do anything with her on which she said that she would inform after thinking about it. In the meanwhile, today on 23.10.2016 at about 7 a.m. her husband received call from police that Anita had hanged herself.
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 4 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
They went to the matrimonial house and saw that her daughter was hanging from the fan and legs were on the bed. All the in- laws of Anita were missing and children of her daughter were also not there. The father-in-law always used to say that he was in Tihar jail and he would get them jailed. Her daughter Anita was subjected to cruelty to fulfill demand of dowry and Anita was murdered by mother-in-law Rajbala, father-in-law Sukhbir Kataria, sister-in-law Renu Tokas, brother-in-law Sonu Tokas and husband Ricky Kataria, cousin brother-in-law Neesu @ Naresh and she wanted legal action against them.
3. On 23.10.2016, DD no. 15A was kept pending. Exhibits seized from the spot were deposited in the malkhana in sealed condition. On 24.10.2016, inquest proceedings were conducted by Executive Magistrate. On 24.10.2016 postmortem of dead body of the victim was got conducted. At the time of postmortem, one suicide note was found in the undergarment of the victim. The doctor collected exhibits at the time of the postmortem i.e. viscera, clothes of the victim, ligature material, suicide note, nail clippings, bangles and blood in gauze. After postmortem, dead body was handed over to the father of the victim for last rites. Executive Magistrate provided copy of inquest report, suicide note and statement of parents of deceased to SI Ramphal. On the statement of mother of the victim, FIR u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC was registered at PS Vasant Vihar on 24.10.2016.
4. After registration of FIR, further investigation was assigned to Inspector Joginder Singh Dahiya. Site plan was State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 5 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded. The accused persons had fled away from their house and raids were conducted to arrest them. On 27.10.2016 on receipt of secret information, the IO alongwith the team reached at Kakroi Chowk Tempo Stand, Sonepat, Haryana where at the instance of secret informer, accused Rajbala and Renu were arrested. Personal search of Rajbala and Renu was conducted and they were sent to JC. Thereafter, on 03.11.2016, accused Ricky Kataria was arrested by IO Inspector Anand Prakash when he surrendered in PS Vasant Vihar. Accused Sukhbir Singh was still hiding and NBWs and process u/s 82 CrPC was issued against him. On 20.12.2016, accused Sukhbir Singh was arrested and interrogated. Accused Naresh @ Nishu had applied for anticipatory bail and he was granted interim protection by Ld. ASJ, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court on 03.02.2017. Accused Naresh joined the investigation after grant of interim protection.
5. During investigation, Smt. Santosh, mother of deceased handed over list of dowry articles and bills regarding purchase of dowry articles. Postmortem report was collected and the doctor had opined that the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante- mortem hanging. Scaled site plan of the spot of the incident was got prepared. The IO collected PCR forms and record of PCR call made by the victim. In order to compare the handwriting on the suicide note, admitted handwriting of the victim, account opening form, cheques etc. were collected from the bank and the admitted handwriting of the victim was sent with the suicide note to forensic lab for comparison of the handwriting. Other exhibits including viscera of the victim were also sent to FSL for opinion.
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 6 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
Record in respect of the complaint filed by the victim in the year 2012 and 2015 against her husband and in-laws were also collected. Request was also made to service provider to provide CAF and CDR of the mobile number used by the victim, accused Ricky Kataria, Rajbala, Renu Tokas, Sukhbir Kataria.
6. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Rajbala (mother-in-law), Renu Tokas (sister-in- law), Ricky Kataria (husband), Sukhbir Singh (father-in-law) and Naresh @ Nishu (cousin brother-in-law) for offence punishable u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. Cognizance of the offence was taken by Ld. MM. After compliance of Section 207, Cr.P.C the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
7. Supplementary chargesheet was filed in respect of the report of FSL obtained on the suicide note of the victim, report of FSL obtained on the viscera and other exhibits seized from the spot and FSL report in respect of the mobile phone of the victim. Supplementary chargesheet was also filed after collecting CDR and CAF of the mobile numbers used by the victim and the accused persons at the relevant time.
8. Vide their statements u/s 294 CrPC dated 05.03.2020, the accused persons did not dispute registration of FIR as Ex. C-1; scaled site plan prepared by Mukesh Kumar Jain as Ex. C-2; site plan dated 24.10.2016 as Ex. C-3; record of DD no. 15A dated 23.10.2016 as Ex. C-4; seizure memo of DVR dated 23.11.2016 as Ex. C-5; seizure memo of video CD prepared by Anshu Kumar as Ex.C-6; seizure memo of mobile phone dated 23.10.2016 as Ex.C-7; seizure memo of earth control dated State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 7 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar 23.10.2016 as Ex.C-8; seizure memo of broken bangles dated 23.10.2016 as Ex.C-9; seizure memo of piece of chunni dated 23.10.2016 as Ex.C-10; seizure memo of cloth pulinda dated 24.10.2016 as Ex.C-11; seizure memo of viscera dated 24.10.2016 as Ex.C-12; seızure memo of envelope containing blood in gauze dated 24.10.2016 as Ex.C-13; seizure memo of samples of post mortem dated 24.10.2016 as Ex.C-14; seizure memo of blood stained stone dated 23.10.2016 as Ex.C-15; arrest memo of Ricky Kataria as Ex.C-16; CDRs of Vodafone mobile number 9999778121 from 01.10.2016 till 23.10.2016 as Ex.C-17; arrest memo of Rajbala as Ex.C-18; arrest memo of Renu as Ex.C-19; arrest memo of Sukhbir Singh as Ex.C-20; personal search memo of Rajbala as Ex.C-21; personal search memo of Renu Tokas as Ex.C-22; personal search memo of Sukhbir Singh as Ex.C-23; personal search memo of Ricky Kataria as Ex.C-24; request for post mortem dated 24.10.2016 as Ex.C-25; identification statement of Rakesh Kumar as Ex.C-26; identification statement of Ramesh Singh as Ex.C-27; MLC No. 11683/2016 of Anita Kataria as Ex.C-28; four photographs of dead body as Ex.C-29 (Colly); handing over memo of dead body dated 24.10.2016 as Ex.C-30; PCR form dated 23.10.2016 as Ex.C-31; FSL report dated 17.07.2017 as Ex.C-32; FSL report dated 14.07.2017 as Ex.C-33; FSL report dated 31.07.2017 as Ex.C-34; FSL report dated 16.01.2017 as Ex.C-35; SB A/c pay in slip dated 26.06.2010 as Ex. C-36; cheques no. 019285, 080938, 080934, 019283, 019281, 080936 all drawn on Canara Bank Mahraulli as Ex.C-37 to Ex.C-42 respectively; account opening form dated 21.03.2017 as Ex.C-43; FSL report dated 27.01.2017 State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 8 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar as Ex.C-44; FSL report dated 18.01.2017 as Ex.C-45; FSL report dated 18.01.2017 containing DNA examination alongwith allelic chart as Ex.C-46 and Ex.C-47; photocopies of register no. 19 containing entries no. 2347/2348, 2445/2347 as Ex.C-48 (colly); CAF of Vodafone bearing no. 9999778121 of accused Ricky Kataria as Ex.C-49; CAF of Suman for Vodafone no. 9711738506 and its CDRs for the period from 01.10.2016 till 23.10.2016 as Ex.C-50 (colly); CAF of Renu Tokas for mobile no. 8586857321 and its CDRs for the period from 01.10.2016 till 22.10.2016 as Ex-51 (colly); CAF of Anita for Vodafone no. 9899852283 and its CDRs for the period from 01.10.2016 till 23.10.2016 as Ex.C-52 (colly); CAF of Anita for Vodafone no. 7838511355 and its CDRs for the period from 01.10.2016 till 23.10.2016 as Ex.C-53 (colly) and CAF of Sukhbir for MTNL no. 9868986711 and its CDRs for the period from 01.10.2016 till 25.10.2016 as Ex.C-54 (colly). In view of the statement of accused persons, the concerned witnesses were dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses. The accused persons also did not dispute inspection report of scene of crime prepared by SI Ajay Kumar as Ex. C-55 and accordingly SI Ajay Kumar was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses vide order dated 14.11.2024. The accused persons also did not dispute record of MHC(M) and MHC(M) was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses vide order dated 18.08.2025.
9. After hearing arguments of the parties, vide order dated 05.06.2017, charge for offences punishable u/s 302/34 IPC was directed to be framed against all accused namely Rajbala, Sukhbir Kataria, Ricky Kataria, Renu Tokas and Naresh @ Nishu State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 9 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar and in the alternative, charge for offence u/s 304B/34, 306/34 and 498A/34 IPC was framed against all accused except accused Naresh. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined total 19 witnesses.
11. PW-1 Smt. Santosh is the mother of victim Anita (since deceased). She has deposed that she was a housewife and she had three daughters namely, Sunita, Anita and Kamini and she had adopted a son. All her daughters were married. Her daughter Anita (since deceased) was married with accused Ricky Kataria at Vasu Garden, Chandan Hola on 20.06.2010. She had given dowry articles in Anita's marriage including all the household articles, clothes, one swift car, 18-20 tolas of gold ornaments, 2 kilos silver ornaments and silver coins. Prior to marriage, accused Rajbala (mother-in-law of Anita) and Sukhbir Singh (father-in-law) had demanded a Honda City car and jewellery articles in the marriage. She had spent Rs.28-30 lacs in the marriage which was beyond her capacity. After marriage, accused Rajbala, Sukhbir, Renu Tokas (sister-in-law) and Ricky Kataria (husband) taunted Anita and said that jewellery articles given in the marriage were sub-standard and she (Anita) should not live in their house. Accused Renu Tokas had taunted Anita and made remarks against Anita before her mother (accused Raj Bala). Renu Tokas was residing in Munirka and she frequently visited matrimonial house of Anita and interfered in her affairs. Accused Sukhbir had also taunted Anita for not bringing car in dowry. Raj Bala taunted Anita and asked her to bring gold chain and gold State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 10 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar bracelet from her parental house. Ricky used to come home after consuming alcohol and he did not pay attention to his wife Anita. Husband (Ricky Kataria) used to tell Anita that she was brought to do household works. In September, 2010, Anita became pregnant. Accused Rajbala, Ricky Kataria and Renu Tokas had taken Anita to Munirka for checkup and when they came to know that Anita was pregnant, accused Renu Tokas demanded Rs.10,00,000/- so that Ricky Kataria could purchase a new four wheeler. This demand of Rs.10,00,000/- was also made by accused Ricky Kataria from her (Santosh's) family but the demand was not fulfilled due to financial restrictions. After receiving call from accused Sukhbir Singh, her husband went to matrimonial house of Anita which was found locked. Thereafter, her husband made a call to his daughter Anita and came to know that she was in Munirka as she was thrown out from her matrimonial house by the accused persons and she was left in Munirka. Her husband went to Munirka and brought Anita to the parental house. On reaching home, Anita narrated all the facts regarding demand made by the accused persons and harassment caused to her. After some time, they had conversation with in- laws of Anita and requested them not to do such type of things. The in-laws of Anita took her to the matrimonial house. In January 2011, on the occasion of Sankranti, they had sent clothes and sweets to Anita's matrimonial house in order to please them. The in-laws of Anita taunted that clothes sent to them were not of any use to them and they asked Anita to go to her parental house and bring nice clothes. In order to maintain peace on festival, her daughter came to her parental house and narrated all the facts and State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 11 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar asked her to purchase some new clothes. She purchased costliest clothes and handed over the same to her daughter who took the same to her matrimonial house on the next day. In January 2011, her daughter was four months pregnant. Accused Rajbala and Renu Tokas took Anita to a doctor for ultrasound. After ultrasound, their behaviour completely changed. The accused persons used to ask her daughter to lift heavy articles and used to ask her to do all the household work. Whenever her daughter used to ask her husband for her treatment, her husband used to tell her to bring money from her parents and that he was not having any concern with the same. When Anita asked her mother-in-law for treatment, she (mother-in-law) replied " hamare yahaan jo beti paida karta hai uska ilaaz nahi hota hai ". Her daughter came to know that ultrasound was conducted in order to ascertain the gender of fetus. The husband and in-laws were creating pressure for aborting the child. Whenever her daughter was ill, she was not taken for treatment by her in-laws. When her daughter was seriously ill, she was brought to the parental house. On their asking, accused Ricky Kataria dropped her daughter at the parental house. They got her properly treated. On 02.05.2011, her daughter was blessed with a female child. The in-laws of her daughter did not come to see her. The delivery had taken place in Thakral Nursing Home, Gurgaon and all the expenses were borne by them (Santosh and her family). They made a call to the in- laws of Anita and informed about birth to a female child. The in- laws said that they would not take Anita to the matrimonial house as she had given birth to a girl child. After some time, they had conversation with the in-laws of Anita and the husband and in-
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 12 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
laws demanded Rs.5 lacs. They did not disclose about the demand to Anita so that she was not troubled. After arranging Rs.3 lacs, they had given it to the accused persons on the day of "Chhatti" to safeguard her daughter's matrimonial life. On the day of Chhatti, they sent Anita with the accused persons. Giving of Rs.3,00,000/- was not disclosed to Anita by them. The accused persons did not stop harassing her daughter and they kept taunting her for not giving birth to male child. At the instance of accused Raj Bala, the husband and brother-in-law used to abuse her daughter. Accused Naresh never respected her daughter and he used to enter the room of her daughter without knocking on door. The sister-in-law used to quarrel, abuse and beat her daughter. The in-laws of her daughter never used to give any money for personal expenses of her daughter. Her daughter told those facts on phone as well as whenever she met them. They used to send money for personal expenses of her daughter to her matrimonial home. Her daughter was annoyed by repeatedly asking for money for her personal expenses. Her daughter told her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband that she wanted to do a job. On this issue, her daughter was badly beaten up. The sister-in-law also came from Munirka and beat her up. Her daughter told about this fact on phone. Her daughter also informed that her in-laws told her that they were also giving money to their daughter and what was wrong in case she (Anita) also asked for money from her parents. Her daughter also informed that she had told her father-in-law that she would tell everything to her parents and the police, upon which, he (father- in-law) said that he was in Police and would get her and her State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 13 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar family members killed and implicate them in false cases. The mother-in-law threatened her daughter that her brothers, who were residing in Mitrao, were criminals and that they would make her (Anita) and her family members disappear. Her daughter had received an interview letter of Delhi Police. The in- laws tore said interview letter and threw the same. This fact was disclosed by her daughter later on. In the beginning of January 2012, they came to know that Anita was beaten by her in-laws. She alongwith her husband went to matrimonial home of Anita to discuss the matter with her in-laws. When they were trying to make the in-laws understand, accused Ricky Kataria lifted his hand in order to slap her husband. Her husband made a call at No.100. Police reached there. The in-laws of her daughter threatened that if they did not send the police back, they would be killed. On getting scared by the threat and to keep their reputation, they sent the police back. They returned to their house. After that incident, her daughter was harassed and beaten by the accused persons. Her daughter disclosed about the said fact later on. On 24.10.2012 i.e. on the day of 'Dusshera', her husband called Anita and the call was picked by mother-in-law, who rudely said "Ish Nagin ko le jao, yeh hamara vansh nahin chalayegi". On hearing this, she alongwith her husband went to the matrimonial home of Anita. Anita told them that she was severely beaten by her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law. There were injuries on the person of her daughter. They took their daughter to Safdarjung Hospital where she was treated. Thereafter, they brought Anita to parental house. The treatment of injuries lasted for many days. On 30.10.2012, State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 14 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar accused Sukhbir, Ricky, Naresh @ Nishu and Satender (husband of Renu Tokas) came to their house. Accused Sukhbir threatened to kill all the family members, if any action was taken against him and his family member. Suddenly, accused Ricky Kataria lifted his hand on Anita in order to beat her. Accused Sukhbir, Ricky Kataria, Naresh @ Nishu and Satender Tokas started beating her (Santosh) and her sister-in-laws (Devrani and Jethani). Meanwhile, her husband reached there. Anita somehow managed to call PCR. Police came and accused Sukhbir and Satender Tokas ran away. Accused Ricky and Naresh @ Nishu could not manage to flee away and they were taken to police station. They (Santosh and her family) were medically examined. Police advised them to make a complaint before CAW Cell. Her daughter lodged complaint in CAW Cell against the accused persons. The in-laws of her daughter apologized in CAW Cell. Her daughter withdrew her complaint from CAW Cell. A written compromise also took place at CAW Cell on 11.01.2013. The in- laws took her daughter to their house after the compromise. For some time, everything was fine. Accused Ricky Kataria was in habit of consuming liquor and gambling and he used to beat Anita. The husband, parents-in-law and sister-in-law used to harass and taunt Anita for goods sent on occasions of festivals. They used to send expensive items on festivals at the matrimonial house of their daughter as per the demand of her in- laws in order to please them. In February 2015, they came to know that Anita was pregnant. They went to matrimonial home of Anita for wishing them. Accused Rajbala, Sukhbir, Renu, Ricky Kataria and Naresh @ Nishu met them and said that they State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 15 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar would get gender of the fetus examined. They got scared and brought their daughter to their house. After 2-3 months, they sent their daughter to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, Anita told them that her in-laws had taken her to Haryana for examination of gender of fetus. Her in-laws and other family members had told Anita that her parents had to give 'Chuchak' amounting to Rs.10 Lakhs. Her daughter protested the demand made by her in- laws, on which she was abused by her parents-in-law, sister-in- law, brother-in-law (Nandoi) and her husband. On 23.09.2015, her daughter was blessed with a male child. They had given jewellery and other articles amounting to Rs.6 Lakhs in 'Chuchak' as per demand of the in-laws. After 2-3 months of delivery, Anita came to the parental house and told her that she was again being harassed by her parents-in-law, sister-in-law and her husband and they were asking her to take her share from parent's property. Her daughter also informed that the aforesaid persons were also threatening her that if she would not take share from the parent's property, she would face dire consequences. Her daughter was being beaten by her in-laws and husband. They used to drop her daughter at their house, time and again. In the beginning of December 2015, her daughter again came to the parental house as she was harassed and beaten by the accused persons for share in parent's property. On 25.12.2015, she alongwith her daughter Anita were alone at their house. At about 5.30 p.m., Rajbala, Renu Tokas, Naresh with Bua, Mausi, Mausa and son of Bua of Ricky Kataria came to their house and started quarreling with them and abused them. They also gave beatings to her and her daughter Anita. Her daughter Anita called at State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 16 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar number 100, on which the aforesaid persons ran away. One police official came to her house and asked them to come to police station next morning to give the statement. Her daughter made a complaint on 26.12.2015 in PS Mehrauli regarding incident dated 25.12.2015. Next day, her daughter told her that her husband and in-laws threatened to kidnap and kill her and her family members. Her daughter also told her that she had apprehension of her life from her in-laws. Her daughter was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws after withdrawal of the case from CAW Cell. In March, 2016, the in-laws took Anita to their house on the pretext of first Holi of the child. Even after that, the accused persons harassed and gave beatings to Anita continuously in order to force her to take share in parent's property. On 21.10.2016, Anita had called her and told her that her in-laws were pressurizing her to take her share from her paternal property, otherwise, they would do anything with her. On 22.10.2016, Anita again called her and said that her in-laws had demanded and pressurized her to take share in her parental property. She told Anita that after their death, the property would go to their son Anshul. Anita told her that her in-laws would not spare her life, if her share was not given in the parental property. She told Anita that on the day of 'Bhaiya Dhuj' she could come to matrimonial house to discuss about the same. On the next day i.e. 23.10.2016 at about 7.00 a.m., her husband received a telephonic call from police that her daughter had committed suicide by hanging herself. They reached the matrimonial house of Anita and found the door open. They had found broken pieces of bangles and blood in the hall. In the room adjoining the hall, her State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 17 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar daughter Anita was hanging from a fan. Her feet were on the bed and were folding at the knees. There was a satty on the bed and her feet was below that satty. The TV in that room was on. SDM recorded their (Anita's parents) statements. At that time, they were not in a condition to disclose all the details. Police informed them that since it was Sunday, postmortem would not be conducted. She asked the police to register FIR but they stated that the FIR would be registered after the postmortem. After the postmortem, when the police refused to register the FIR, they protested by keeping the dead body of their daughter on the road. Thereafter, the police registered the FIR. Two days later, when they went to police station for their statements, IO asked them to come after 4-5 days. After 4-5 days, they went to the police station. IO heard their statements and assured that after the statements were typed, he would call them again to obtain their signatures. When the IO did not call them, they filed an application in the court. She had seen her daughter Anita signing and writing since her childhood. The suicide note Ex.PW-1/2 was in the handwriting of her daughter Anita. She also identified handwriting of Anita on complaint dated 26.12.2015, complaint dated 05.11.2012, complaint dated 31.10.2012, Ex.PW1/3, Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/5 respectively. She had seen typed complaint dated 01.11.2012, Ex.PW1/6, complaint dated 01.11.2012, Ex.PW1/7. She had also seen a document regarding intention of in-laws of Anita to settle the disputes which was submitted to CAW Cell, Ex.PW1/8, another document in the handwriting of Anita, Ex.PW1/9, document dated 20.12.2012 which was submitted before CAW Cell, Ex.PW1/10, document State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 18 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar titled as 'Compromise' which was submitted before CAW Cell, Ex.PW1/11, document dated 12.02.2013 wherein her daughter Anita had requested CAW cell not to close her complaint, Ex.PW1/12, document dated 01.04.2013, wherein her daughter had requested CAW cell not to close her complaint, Ex.PW1/13, document dated 05.06.2013 wherein her daughter deceased had requested CAW cell to close her complaint, Ex.PW1/14. She had seen her complaint dated 17.12.2016 made to SHO, PS Vasant Vihar, Ex.PW1/15, her statement dated 23.10.2016, given to SDM, Ex.PW1/16.
12. PW-2 HC Sanjay Kumar is the duty officer who registered the FIR. He has deposed that on 24.10.2016 at about 5:20 p.m, he recorded FIR No. 964/2016 Ex. PW2/A on the basis of rukka produced by SI Ram Phal. He made endorsement on the said Rukka regarding registration of FIR which is Ex. PW-2/B. After registration of case, he had handed over the computerized copy of FIR and original Rukka to Inspector Joginder, to whom, the case was handed over for further investigation by the order of SHO. He had recorded DD No. 37A Ex. PW-2/C regarding 'Kaymi' of the case. He had also proved Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW-2/D.
13. PW-3 HC Meghram is the police official who deposited exhibits in FSL. He has deposed that on 11.11.2016, on the instructions of Inspector Joginder, he took one sealed pullanda alongwith its sample seal from MHC(M) vide RC no.172/21, one sealed pullanda alongwith its sample seal from MHC(M) vide RC no.173/21, ten sealed pullandas alongwith sample seals from State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 19 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar MHC(M) vide RC no.174/21 and deposited them with RFSL and obtained acknowledgment slips from RFSL. He handed over acknowledgment slips to MHC(M). Till the pullandas remained with him, no one tampered them. Copy of RC no. 172/21 with acknowledgment slip is Mark PW3/A and Mark-PW3/B, copy of RC no. 173/21 with acknowledgment slip is Mark PW3/C and Mark PW3/D, copy of RC no. 174/21 with acknowledgment slip is Mark PW3/E and Mark PW3/F.
14. PW-4 ASI Amar Singh is the duty officer who recorded information regarding PCR call. He has deposed that on 22.10.2016 at about 10:00 pm, during his work as Duty Officer, Wireless Operator S-60 had given him information (transmitted by HC Nand Kishore to PS Vasant Vihar) through intercom that, "S-373 Katwaria Sarai, near Kuan no. 1, Sasural wale maar peet kar rahe hai, need police." The said information was given by Mobile no. 9899652283 to PCR. On the aforesaid information, he recorded DD No. 54A which is Ex. PW-4/A and gave the said information to SI Ramphal through telephone.
15. PW-5 ASI Baldan is the member of Mobile Crime Team. He has deposed that on 23.10.2016, after receipt of information from PCR, he (being photographer in Mobile Crime Team) along with SI/Incharge Mobile Crime Team Sh. Ajay and fingerprint proficient Ct. Rajender went to the spot H.No. F-376, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi between 6:30 a.m to 7:30 a.m and found one lady hanging in a room situated on the ground floor where Inspector Joginder Dahiya along with other police staff were already present. SI Ajay inspected the spot. He took 15 State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 20 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar photographs of the spot which are Ex. PW-3/1 to Ex. PW-3/15 and negatives of those photographs are Ex. PW-3/16 to Ex. PW-3/30.
16. PW-6 Sh. Ramesh Singh is the father of victim Anita. He has deposed that his daughter was married with Ricky Kataria at New Vasu Garden, Chandan Hola, New Delhi on 20.06.2010. He had given a Maruti Swift car, 18 to 20 tolas of gold, 2 kg of silver in the form of jewellary and coins and all the household articles. He spent around Rs.28 to Rs.30 Lakhs in the marriage of Anita. After marriage, the in-laws of Anita taunted and harassed her on the ground that the jewellery was of inferior quality and was less in quantity. The sister-in-law of Anita namely Renu Tokas was residing in Munirka and she frequently visited matrimonial house of Anita and interfered in the affairs. After the marriage of Anita, accused Sukhbir Kataria demanded a Swift Dzire car. Rajbala taunted Anita and asked her to bring gold chain and gold bracelet from her parental house. Husband Ricky Kataria used to come home after consuming alcohol and he did not pay attention to his wife Anita. In September, 2010, Anita became pregnant. Accused Renu Tokas had taken Anita to Munirka for checkup to find out about the sex of the unborn child. After getting knowledge of sex of the child, Renu demanded Rs.10,00,000/-. In January, 2011, accused Rajbala and Renu Tokas again took Anita for determination of the sex of her child and after knowing that it was a girl child, they pressurized her for abortion. When Anita did not agree for abortion, the accused persons quarreled with her and refused to have her treated by a doctor. Thereafter, he brought his daughter Anita to his home. On 02.05.2011, his State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 21 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar daughter was blessed with a girl child at Thukral Nursing Home. The delivery expenses were borne by him. Neither the in-laws nor her husband came to visit Anita or the child. His wife called accused Rajbala. Rajbala said that since Anita had given birth to a girl child, they would not take her to matrimonial house. Rajbala demanded Rs.5 Lakhs. On the Chatti of the child, he had given Rs.3 Lakhs in cash to accused Rajbala. After receiving Rs.3 lacs, the accused persons took Anita to her matrimonial home. Thereafter also, the in-laws of Anita harassed her and taunted her for giving birth to female child. Accused Rajbala instigated accused Ricky and Naresh who hurled filthy abuses at Anita. Brother-in-law Naresh had never respected Anita and he used to enter room of Anita without knocking on the door. The accused persons did not give money to his daughter for her personal expenses. He used to give money to Anita for her personal expenses. After birth of the girl child, when Anita went to her matrimonial home and expressed her desire before her in- laws to do a job, she was beaten up by her in-laws. In February 2015, when the in-laws of Anita came to know that Anita was pregnant again, they demanded Rs.10 Lakhs. In September 2015, Anita gave birth to a male child and in order to fulfill the demand of her in-laws, they gave gifts worth Rs.6 Lakhs including clothes and jewellery. 2-3 months later, Anita came to the parental house and informed that her in-laws had pressurized her to get her share from parental properties. She was counseled and sent to her matrimonial home. In December 2015, after getting harassed and taunted by her in-laws, Anita started staying with them. On 25.12.2015, when he and his wife was not at home, State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 22 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar accused Rajbala, Renu Tokas alongwith Mausa, Mausi, Bua and son of Bua of Ricky Kataria came to his house and quarreled with Anita. When Anita called the PCR, they all fled away. On 26.12.2015, Anita gave statement to the police that she was harassed by her in-laws for dowry and was threatened of her life and her brother's life. Police did not take any action on that complaint. In March 2016, Ricky Kataria took Anita and her children to the matrimonial house to celebrate first Holi of their son. On 22.10.2016, Anita had informed her mother on phone that her in-laws had pressurized her to get her share in her parental property to which his wife Santosh told Anita that till the time, they were alive, their property would belong to them only and after their demise, it would be inherited by their adopted son Anshul. On 23.10.2016 at around 7.00 a.m., the police informed him that his daughter had hanged herself. He along with his family members reached the matrimonial house of Anita and found broken pieces of her bangles and blood in the hall which was adjacent to the room where Anita had hanged herself from a fan. The body was brought down by the police and was sent for postmortem. Thereafter, he and his wife were taken to Mehrauli where the SDM recorded their statements. His statement recorded by the SDM is Ex.PW6/1. Next day, the dead body of Anita was handed over to them but the FIR was not registered. When they protested, the police registered their FIR.
17. PW-7 HC Mahipal is the police official who reached the spot with first IO after receipt of PCR call. He has deposed that on 23.10.2016, he alongwith SI Ramphal was on emergency night duty from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. At 5.40 a.m., SI Ramphal State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 23 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar received DD no.15A regarding suicide at F-376, Katwaria Sarai. Thereafter, they along with Const. Poonam reached the place which was found latched from outside and the lights inside the house were on. They entered the house and saw a dead body hanging from a fan in a room and above the bed. TV was on with very loud volume. One soft stool was lying on the bed. SI Ramphal inquired about the residents of that house in the locality but no clue was found. Later, they came to know that the deceased was one Anita. They also came to know that elder sister of Anita namely Sunita also resided in Katwaria Sarai. SI Ramphal went to house of Sunita and obtained mobile number of her father. Thereafter, he returned and made a call to the father of the deceased. Senior officers including DM were informed about the incident. The SDM appointed Executive Magistrate Sh. M.K. Bharti. SI Ramphal summoned the Crime Team. The Crime Team inspected the scene of crime and photographs were taken. The Chunni with which the dead body was hanging was cut and the dead body was brought down. W/Ct. Poonam searched the body. No suicide note was found on the body. In outer room, there were pieces of bangles. Blood was also lying there. Thereafter, SI Ramphal seized the chunni (with which the dead body was hanging), mobile phone which was found on the bed, broken pieces of bangles, blood on gauge from the floor and earth control sample. Thereafter, he and Const. Poonam took the body to AIIMS for preservation. On the next day, postmortem on the dead body was conducted in the presence of Executive Magistrate Sh. M.K. Bharti and it was also videographed. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 24 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar the deceased. Sh. M.K. Bharti collected the samples including the clothes of the deceased during the postmortem. Sh. M.K. Bharti handed over the clothes of the deceased, viscera box, blood of the deceased on gauze and the sample seal to SI Ramphal. SI Ramphal seized them vide memo Ex. C-10 and on return to the police station, he deposited these articles in the Malkhana.
18. PW-8 Smt. Ramrati is the bua of the victim. She has deposed that her cousin Ramesh had four children. He had adopted one male child namely Anshul. The name of three daughters were Sunita, Kamini and Anita. Sunita and Anita were married in Katwariya Sarai in separate families on the same day i.e 20.06.2010. The father-in-law of Anita namely Sukhbir Kataria worked in Tihar Jail. Anita used to complain that her in- laws including Sukhbir Kataria (father-in-law), Rajbala (mother- in-law), Renu (sister-in-law) and husband (Ricky) harassed her to fulfill demand of dowry and also gave beatings to her to fulfill the demand. In the year 2012, Anita had told her that her in-laws including her husband harassed her for dowry and they had beaten her. They demanded big car, cash and share in the parental property. Anita had lodged a complaint against her husband and in-laws in CAW Cell. The said matter was compromised in the year 2013 and Anita was taken to her matrimonial home by her husband and in-laws. At that time, the husband and in-laws had given in writing that they would not harass Anita anymore. On 23.10.2016, her cousin Ramesh had received a phone call that Anita was no more. She also reached the matrimonial house of Anita and found Anita hanging with chunni from a ceiling fan. Later on, the police officials of PS Vasant Vihar inquired from State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 25 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar her and recorded her statement.
19. PW-9 Sh. N. K. Bharti, is the then Executive Magistrate, who recorded statement of the parents of the victim. He has deposed that on 23.10.2016, on the direction of the SDM, he had visited at the spot i.e 376, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi as one lady had committed suicide. He also visited the hospital. On the same day, in the evening Ramesh Singh and Smt. Santosh came in the office where he got recorded their statements Ex. PW-6/A (Ramesh Singh) and Ex. PW-1/16 (Smt. Santosh). On the same day, during postmortem one suicide note Ex.PW-1/2 was also recovered which was produced before him in his office. He handed over the same to the IO. Videography of the proceedings of the postmortem was also got conducted. He filled up form no. 25.35(1)(B) which is Ex. PW-9/A. He also recorded identification statement of Rakesh and Ramesh Chand vide Ex. C-26 & Ex. C-27 respectively before postmortem of the dead body. He had requested to HOD of Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS requesting for permission of videography / photography of postmortem examination vide Ex. PW-9/B. His request to autopsy surgeon, AIIMS for obtaining opinion whether the death of the victim was suicidal or homicidal is Ex. PW9/C. After postmortem, dead body was handed over to relatives of the victim vide delivery memo Ex. C-30. During postmortem, the doctor also seized clothes of deceased, Viscera, blood in gauze and other exhibits i.e ligature material. The same were seized by the IO in his presence vide memo Ex. C-11, Ex. C-12, Ex. C-13 & Ex. C-14 respectively. He also forwarded the video CD of the postmortem proceedings, which was provided by the State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 26 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar photographer, to the IO. On 24.10.2016, FIR was got registered in pursuance of the allegations made in the complaint and the postmortem was conducted on 23.10.2016.
20. PW-10 Ms. Santra is real Mausi (Aunt) of victim Anita. She has deposed that on 20.06.2010, Anita was married with accused Ricky Kataria. Anita was very attached to her before her marriage and even after marriage. She had come to the house of her sister Smt. Santosh at Mehrauli 10 days before marriage of Anita and stayed there for one week after the marriage of Anita. In marriage, the in-laws of Anita had demanded dowry i.e Honda City Car and jewellery articles for the relatives. Her sister and brother-in-law (parents of Anita) had spent money beyond their capacity in the marriage of Anita and they had given a Swift car and Jewellery articles. After the marriage, Anita started remaining sad and disturbed. At that time even on her asking, Anita did not tell her anything about her sadness. In September 2010, Anita become pregnant. She was taken to Munirka by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law Renu Tokas and her husband Ricky Kataria for her pregnancy test. When they came to know that Anita was pregnant, Renu Tokas asked Anita to bring Rs. 10 lakhs from her house so that her brother Ricky would purchase new car. The in-laws of Anita also made phone call to the father of Anita and demanded Rs.10 lakhs. The father of Anita refused to give the money and requested with folded hands that he was unable to arrange the same. At that time, father of Anita had gone to the matrimonial house of Anita at Katwaria Sarai and found that the house of Anita was locked. He called Anita and she informed him that she was taken to Munirka by her mother-in-
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 27 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
law, sister-in-law (nand) and her husband for her pregnancy test and they had left after leaving her alone. The father of Anita went to Munirka and brought Anita to her parental house at Mehrauli. She also went to Mehrauli. At that time, Anita told her the entire facts. Anita also told her that her sister-in-law Renu Tokas had interfered in all the personal and family matters. Renu Tokas used to quarrel with Anita and used to say "tu is ghar ki naukarani hai". Her husband Ricky used to consume liquor, used to beat her and even he also used to say "tu is ghar ki naukarani hai". After about 01-02 months, at the request of father of Anita, the in-laws took Anita to her matrimonial home. In January 2011, ultrasound of Anita was got done for gender determination and the in-laws came to know that Anita was having female fetus. Thereafter, Anita was made to do lot of household work and she was pressurized to abort the pregnancy. She was not provided any medical treatment. When mother of Anita came to know about this fact, Anita was brought to the parental house. On 02.05.2011, Anita gave birth to a female child at Thakral Nursing Home, Gurugram. When mother of Anita informed about the birth of girl child to the mother-in-law, she said, "tere bhi chhoriyaan thi aur teri ladki ke bhi chhori hui". Neither the in-laws nor her husband came to hospital to see Anita or her child. The parents of Anita requested husband and in-laws of Anita to come and see the girl child and at that time, they demanded Rs.5 lakhs. On the "Chhati" of the child, she was present at the house of her sister Santosh. On that day, all family members including mother-in- law, father-in-law, sister-in-law Renu Tokas, brother-in-law Naresh and husband Ricky were also present. At that time, Rs. 3 State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 28 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar lakhs were given to them and they took Anita and her female child to her matrimonial home. Thereafter also, Anita was harassed in the matrimonial house. On 24.10.2012, Anita was beaten mercilessly by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in- law and husband. The parents of Anita took her to Safdarjung Hospital for her medical treatment and from there, she was brought to her parental home. On 25.10.2012 she went to the house of her sister Santosh and Anita informed her about the entire incident. After about 1 ½ months, she again went to the house of her sister Santosh. At that time, Anita told her that one day when she and her mother Smt. Santosh were alone at the house in the day time, her father-in-law, brother-in-law (Nandoi) Satender Tokas, husband Ricky Kataria and brother-in-law Naresh came and they had quarreled with them and abused them. Thereafter, Anita lodged a complaint at Women Cell. However, due to settlement, the complaint was withdrawn by Anita. In February 2015, Anita again become pregnant. The parents of Anita went to her matrimonial house to congratulate her. At that time, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband of Anita told them that they would get ultrasound done to know gender of fetus. Due to fear, her sister Santosh brought Anita to her parental home. In September 2015, Anita gave birth to a baby boy. At that time, as per demand of in-laws of Anita, parents of Anita had given Rs. 6 lakhs, Jewellery and other goods in "chhuchhak" i.e Kuan Pujan. After about 1-2 months, Anita came to parental house at Mehrauli to show her child to her parents. On the next day, she also went to her sister's house at Mehrauli and came to know from Anita that her in-laws were harassing her for dowry and State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 29 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar were pressurizing her to take her share from her parental property. In February 2016, it was marriage of her son Dr. Atul. At that time, Anita came to her house at Gurugram, Haryana and stayed there for about one month. At that time, she came to know from Anita that on 25.12.2015 when she and her mother Smt. Santosh were alone at house in Mehrauli, her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, buaji, Fufaji came along with some other persons and they abused and quarreled with them. At that time, Anita called at 100 number. Before arrival of police, they all ran away and while running away, they threatened to kill. After staying at her house for about one month, Anita went to her matrimonial home. In August 2016, on the eve of Rakshabandhan, Anita again came to her house at Gurugram. At that time, Anita informed that on the first Holi of her baby boy, her in-laws and husband again demanded dowry and pressurized her to get her share in her parental property or to get Rs. 50 lacs from her parents. On 23.10.2016 at about 07:00 a.m, she received a phone call of her sister Smt. Santosh that Anita had been killed. Thereafter, she along with her family members went to the matrimonial house of Anita and found that Anita had hanged herself with a chunni from ceiling fan. Seeing her hanged, she fainted. Anita was cremated at Mehrauli. In December 2016, she had gone to the house of her sister Santosh at Mehrauli and from there, she along with her sister went to Tehsil where on her dictation, her statement was typed. Thereafter they both went to PS Vasant Vihar and gave her statement Ex.PW-10/A to the police.
21. PW-11 W/HC Poonam is the police official who reached the spot with the first IO after PCR Call. She deposed that on the State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 30 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar intervening night of 23-24.10.2016, she was on duty from 08:00 pm to 08:00 am. On 24.10.2016 at around 05:30 am, Duty Officer received a call regarding hanging at H.No. 376, Katwaria Sarai, Delhi. The said information was given to SI Ramphal. Thereafter, she along with SI Ramphal and Ct. Mahipal reached at the spot and found that the main door of the house was bolted. Despite asking, no one opened the main door of the house. After opening the main door, they went inside and saw that TV was on. In another room, they had seen that lights was on and one lady was hanging in that room from the ceiling fan with the help of chunni/dupatta. Blood was also lying on the floor. One stool was also found kept on the bed. Pieces of broken bangles were also found lying on the floor. At that time, the victim was wearing red colour suit and blue colour printed salwaar. SI Ramphal informed the senior officers about the incident. SDM Mehrauli as well as Crime Team were also informed. During inquiry, they came to know that sister of victim Anita Katariya was also residing in the same locality i.e. Katwariya Sarai. After taking mobile number of the parents, the parents were also informed by the IO. After some time, parents of the victim namely, Smt. Santosh and Sh. Ramesh Singh came at the spot. SDM also visited the spot. Crime Team also reached and inspected the spot. Photographer clicked the scene of crime. Dead body of the victim was brought down after cutting the chunni/dupatta. At that time, the parents were present outside the house. IO lifted the exhibits i.e. earth control, broken pieces of bangles, piece of chunni/dupatta removed from the ceiling fan and blood stains earth control which were seized separately vide seizure memos Ex.C-8, Ex.C-9, Ex.C-10 and State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 31 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar Ex.C-15 respectively. She searched the dead body but nothing was recovered from her body. Thereafter, SI Ramphal handed over a request letter addressed to CMO, AIIMS Hospital, Delhi to preserve the dead body for postmortem. She along with Ct. Mahipal took the dead body to AIIMS Mortuary where the same was got preserved. On 24.10.2016, postmortem was got conducted in the presence of SMD Mehrauli. After postmortem, dead body was handed over to the father of the victim vide delivery memo Ex.C-30. During postmortem, the doctor had seized the exhibits i.e. Cloth Pullanda, Viscera Box, Blood in Gauze in envelope, Hand Clipping and Ligature Material and IO seized the same vide memos Ex.C-11, Ex.C-12, Ex.C-13 and Ex.C-14 respectively. She had also joined the investigation with IO at the time of arrest of accused Rajbala and Renu vide arrest memos Ex.C-18 and Ex.C-19 respectively and their personal search were also conducted by her vide memos Ex.C-21 (of accused Rajbala) and Ex.C-22 (of accused Renu). One mobile phone (make Asus) which was lying on the bed in the room where the victim was hanging, IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.C-7. She proved the broken pieces of bangles as Ex.P1, one chunni/dupatta (Green and Pink Colour) as Ex.P2 and one mobile phone (make Asus) as Ex.PW-11/P1.
22. PW-12 Sh. Rakesh Kumar is the uncle (chacha) of victim Anita. He has deposed that his brother Ramesh had three daughters including Anita and Ramesh had adopted one boy Anshul who is son of one of his daughters namely Sunita. The marriage of Anita was solemnized with accused Ricky Kataria on 20.06.2010 at Vasu Garden with pomp and show. Ramesh had State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 32 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar spent around Rs.30 lacs in marriage of Anita and gave one Swift Car and valuable articles to accused Ricky and his family. Soon after the marriage, all accused harassed Anita for dowry. They demanded expensive car. In the year 2011, Ramesh and his wife Santosh had called him and told him about the demands of the accused persons. They had also told him that the accused persons had demanded money for building a house at Najafgarh. Due to harassment, Anita had filed a complaint against accused Ricky Kataria and other accused persons in CAW Cell in the year 2012. Anita and the accused persons had arrived at a compromise and the accused persons had assured not to harass Anita in future and they took her to her matrimonial home. From the year 2012 to 2016, the accused persons had beaten Anita regularly and demanded more dowry and pressurized Anita for taking share in her parental property since they had problem with adoption of boy of Sunita by parents of Anita. On 23.10.2016, Ramesh had telephonically informed him that Anita was murdered by the accused persons. Thereafter, he and parents of Anita rushed to the matrimonial house at Katwariya Sarai and found Anita hanging from ceiling fan. Thereafter, the body was sent to AIIMS hospital. He identified dead body of Anita vide memo Ex.C-26.
23. PW-13 Dr. Rajesh Kumar is the doctor who conducted postmortem on the dead body of Anita. He has deposed that on 23.10.2016 he was posted as Sr. Resident in the department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology at AIIMS Delhi. On that day, dead body of Anita Kataria was brought to mortuary by IO Rampal Singh and he requested for postmortem. He had conducted the postmortem and prepared a detail PM report which State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 33 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar is Ex.PW-13/A. He had given the opinion regarding the cause of death in his report. Videography was conducted at the time of postmortem and same was handed over to IO. One suicide note was recovered from the undergarment of the deceased which was also preserved, sealed and signed and handed over to the police. The viscera was also preserved. The clothes worn by deceased at the time of postmortem was also preserved, sealed, signed and handed over to the IO.
24. PW-14 W/SI Geeta Sharma is the police official who did counselling on CAW Cell complaint of Anita. She has deposed that on 05.11.2012, she was posted as ASI in CAW Cell, Saket, New Delhi. On that day, Anita had filed one complaint in CAW Cell against husband Ricky and in-laws. On the complaint, she had conducted preliminary inquiry dated 05.06.2013 which is Ex.PW-14/A (Colly). On 05.06.2013, the settlement was recorded between the parties vide Ex.PW-14/B.
25. PW-15 SI (Retd.) Ramphal Singh is the first IO who reached the spot after receipt of PCR call. He has deposed that on 22.10.2016, after receipt of DD No. 54A, Ex. PW-4/A, he along with Ct. Mahipal and W/Ct. Poonam went to the spot i.e. F-373, Katwariya Sarai, Delhi where PCR caller i.e. Anita Kataria (victim) met them. He inquired from Anita about the PCR call and Anita stated that today, no beatings had taken place and she would give her complaint separately and the same be sent to CAW Cell. W/Ct.Poonam also inquired from Anita separately but Anita refused to give her statement at that time. Thereafter, on 23.10.2016, at around 05:40 am, DD No. 15 A dated 23.10.2016 State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 34 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar Ex. C4 was marked to him. He along with Ct. Mahipal and W/Ct. Poonam went to the spot i.e, F-373, Katwariya Saria, Delhi where they found the main door of the premises locked. They made efforts to trace the PCR caller but the mobile number was found to be switched off. When no body was found at the premises, they opened the door and found one lady hanging from the ceiling fan with a chunni (laal-gulaabi colour) in the room and the lights and TV were on at that time. One sofa stool was lying on the bed. He informed the senior officers about the incident and inquired from the nearby neighbours about the persons residing in the said premises but all of them said that they did not know where the residents of the premises had gone. During inquiry, they came to know the name of the deceased as Anita Katariya and they also came to know that her elder sister namely Sunita Katariya also resided in Katwariya Sarai. After taking phone number from Sunita Katariya, the parents of the deceased were informed regarding the incident. Senior officers were also informed who reached at the spot. Since the marriage of Ms. Anita Katariya was solemnized only six years ago with accused Ricky Katariya and, therefore, the SDM, Mehrauli namely Sh. M.K Bharti was also informed about the incident, who ordered the crime team to inspect the spot and to preserve the dead body in mortuary. Crime team inspected the spot and photographs of the spot were taken, which are Ex. C-29 (Colly). While inspecting the spot, eight pieces of broken bangles of red color were seized vide memo Ex. C-9, sample of the blood clots on the spot were seized vide memo Ex. C-15, earth control was seized vide memo Ex. C-8 and one mobile phone make Asus was State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 35 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar also seized vide memo Ex. C7. Chunni (of green colour) with which dead body of Anita was hanging on the ceiling fan was cut and dead body was brought down. Thereafter, the knot of the remaining part of the chunni was opened from the ceiling fan and was measured and found to be 4 ft 5-1/2 inches long and 3 ft wide. The said piece of chunni which was found tied with the ceiling fan was kept in a white colour pullinda and the same was sealed with the seal of "RPS' and seized vide memo Ex. C-10.
26. PW-16 Retd. SI Dharampal is the police official who had received complaint dated 26.12.2015 of Anita for enquiry. He has deposed that on 26.05.2017, he was posted as SI at PS Mehrauli. On that day, he had handed over to Inspector Parminder Dahiya, PS. Vasant Vihar, the original complaint of Anita dated 26.12.2015 which was received in the PS vide DD No. 24B dated 26.12.2015. The said complaint was marked to him for proceedings by the SHO vide Diary No. 4294/LC. Inspector Parminder took the original complaint into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-16/A.
27. PW-17 Dr. Gaurav Arora, is CMO Safdarjung Hospital who verified MLC of victim Anita. He has deposed that on 04.08.2017, he was posted as Incharge (Casualty), Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi-110029. On that day, he had received document bearing no. BHT-555/2017 dated 03.08.2017 whereby he was instructed to verify MLC No. 209159 dated 24.10.2012. He verified the aforesaid document on 04.08.2017 and the photocopy of MLC No. 209159 (including OPD card) is Mark. P-1.
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 36 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
28. PW-18 Inspector Paramvir Dahiya is the IO of the case who filed supplementary chargesheet. He has deposed that on 11.05.2017 he was posted as Inspector in PS Vasant Vihar. On that day, he received three FSL results from MHCM i.e DNA examination, biological examination and handwriting expert opinion. The handwriting expert had asked for document of contemporary period to compare the handwriting as only signature had matched but they could not match the handwriting because of non-availability of any admitted document of contemporary period. He contacted father of the victim for any document of the contemporary period written by the victim. The father of the victim handed over photocopy of the complaint lodged at PS Mehrauli and copy of MLC of 2012 prepared at Safdurjung Hospital. He submitted copy of MLC at Safdarjung hospital for verification which was verified. He contacted PS Mehrauli for the original complaint lodged by the victim. The complaint Ex.PW-1/3 was marked to SI Dharampal for enquiry. SI Dharampal handed over original complaint which was seized vide memo Ex. PW-16/A. After receipt of original complaint from SI Dharampal, he submitted the original complaint along with the original suicide note to FSL for opinion. He obtained subsequent opinion after receipt of DNA and BIO result from FSL. The result of DVR, mobile phone and handwriting was received from FSL. He had filed the supplementary charge-sheet along with FSL result in respect of DNA examination, BIO result, DVR examination, mobile phone and handwriting opinion on the suicide note. He had also attended the bail hearing and during bail hearing, he had filed record of four PCR calls made State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 37 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar by the victim in the year 2015-16.
29. PW-19 Inspector Joginder Singh is the second IO of the case. He has deposed that on 24.10.2016, the investigation was transferred to him. He along with SI Ram Phal (First IO) reached the spot at Village Katwaria Sarai and inspected the spot. At the instance of SI Ram Phal, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW-19/A. Thereafter, they went to H. No. 376 and H.No. F-255, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi, in search of accused Sukhbir Kataria, Ricky, Rajbala and Renu etc. but none of them were found there. Thereafter, he recorded statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C of Smt. Santosh, Ramesh Singh, Rakesh Singh and SI Ramphal, Ct. Mahipal, WCt. Poonam. On 25.10.2016, he along with SI Ramphal and other police officials went to District Jhajjar and Sonipat, Haryana for raid in search of the accused persons, but none were found. Thereafter, he recorded statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of photographer/ videographer Anshu Kumar. On 27.10.2016, on the information given by secret informer, he along with SI Sachin, HC Sanjay, W.Ct. Poonam went to Sonipat, Haryana in search of the accused persons. They reached at Kakroi Chowk, Sonipat where on information of the secret informer, they apprehended accused Rajbala and Renu from the tempo stand and interrogated them. Accused Rajbala and Renu were arrested vide memo Ex.C-18 and Ex. C-19. On 08.11.2016, he recorded supplementary statement of Smt. Santosh and took into possession list of dowry articles given by her which is Ex. PW-1/2. He also took into possession photocopy of documents given by Santosh vide memo Ex. PW1/1. The photocopy of documents are Mark PW-19/A (Colly). On 11.11.2016, he had State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 38 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar sent the exhibits to FSL for forensic opinion through Ct. Mange Ram. On 19.11.2016, he had got issued process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against accused Sukhbir Singh Kataria. On 20.11.2016, he recorded supplementary statement of Santosh, Ramesh and Rakesh. On 23.11.2016, he had taken into possession DVR from Katwaria Sarai vide memo Ex. C-5. On 24.11.2016, he gave notice to the Bank Manager, Canara Bank, Mehrauli to give documents about the account opening details of Anita. On 19.12.2016, he got prepared scaled site plan through draftsman Mukesh Kumar Jain which is Ex. C-2. On 20.12.2016, he had arrested accused Sukhbir Singh Kataria vide memo Ex. C-20 and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. C-23. On 21.12.2016, accused Naresh @ Nishu joined the investigation. He recorded supplementary statements of witnesses. He had also obtained the original complaint of the victim from ASI Geeta from CAW Cell which is Ex. PW-2/4. He had also obtained a marriage card of Anita with Ricky Kataria which is Ex. PW-19/MO-1. The marriage card was seized from Smt. Santosh vide memo Ex. PW-19/B. He took into possession photocopies of six cheques from the Manager of Canara Bank, Mehrauli vide memo Ex. PW-19/C and photocopies of cheques are Mark PW-19/B (Colly). He had also obtained the Account Opening Form from the Manager, Canara Bank, Mehrauli and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-19/D and photocopy of the same are Mark PW-19/C (Colly). He also recorded disclosure of accused Sukhbir which is Ex. PW-19/E and disclosure of accused Renu and Rajbala are Ex. PW-19/F and Ex. PW-19/G respectively. After completion of investigation, he State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 39 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar prepared chargesheet against accused Renu, Rajbala, Ricky Kataria and Sukhbir.
30. All prosecution witnesses were cross examined. P.E was closed vide order dated 18.08.2025.
31. In statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused persons denied all the incriminating evidence put to them. In his statement u/s 313 CrPC, accused Ricky Kataria (husband of the victim) has taken defence that after marriage with Anita, his father had asked Anita to look after his transport business and to collect rent from tenants of his rented premises. Anita used to give some money from rental amount to her family members for which his elders (family members) used to object and made her understand to not do so. Whenever they used to call Santosh to inform about this fact, Anita used to threaten that if she would file court case against him, his father would lose his govt job. Several times, she had slit her wrist and threatened to commit suicide. Anita did not like him talking to female friends and female neighbours and many times, they had quarrels on this issue. Anita also filed complaint against him and his family in Mahila Ayog and in CAW Cell, it was decided that he alongwith Anita would live in separate house. On 20.12.2012 he wrote a letter to ACP informing that Anita should not do any act which would defame him and his family in society and she should not attempt to commit suicide. In August 2016, he came to know that his wife was having an affair with one Anil Sehrawat and she used to chat / call him during late night. Thereafter, he started sleeping in the basement and mostly remained outside the house.
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 40 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
On 22.10.2016, when he had asked his wife to give her phone for checking, they had a quarrel on this issue. His wife called PCR. When police officials came, she said that she would give her statement in CAW Cell. After the police officials left, he told Anita that he was going to file divorce case against her and he would shift to live with Vikas Lohchab in his room. Thereafter, Anita called him and said that it would not happen again but he did not agree. She lastly called Vikas and threatened that if he (Ricky) would not return to the house, she would commit suicide and name him and his family members for her death. In the morning around 5 a.m. when he came to the house, he saw that Anita had committed suicide. He called PCR and left the house.
32. Accused Sukhbir, Rajbala and Renu Tokas have taken defence that they have been falsely implicated. They never made any demand. They never gave her beatings. Sukhbir Kataria was posted in Tihar jail and mostly during entire day, he used to have jail duty. After marriage of Ricky and Anita in 2010, he had asked Anita to look after transport business of Ricky and to collect rent from his houses in Katwaria Sarai. Rajbala informed him that Anita used to send some money from rent collection to her family for which Anita's family was called. There was quarrel on this issue and Anita had even tried to slit her wrist. In 2012, Anita had filed complaint in CAW Cell which was settled in 2013. Since then, Anita and Ricky were living separate. In September 2016, they came to know that Ricky used to sleep in the basement as Ricky had seen Anita chatting and talking with one Anil Sehrawat. On 22.10.2016, when he had returned late after duty, he came to know that Ricky and Anita had a quarrel State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 41 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar and Anita had called PCR. Since he was tired, he had gone to sleep on his floor. In the morning, he came to know that Anita had committed suicide.
33. Accused Naresh has taken defence that he only used to drive taxi of Ricky and he had nothing to do with their family matters.
34. The accused persons examined four witnesses in their defence.
35. DW1 Ricky Kataria is husband of the victim. He has deposed that he got married with Anita on 20.06.2010 in Vasu Garden. Entire marriage expense was borne by his father. Anita used to quarrel if he talked to his female friends or female neighbours. She had filed complaint in Mahila Ayog. His sister got married on 02.12.2003 and she was living with her family in Munirka. His sister used to visit his house only on the occasions / festivals. In Mahila Ayog, the matter was settled on the terms that mother and elder sister of Anita would not visit their house and it was also decided that he and Anita would live separate from their family. On 20.12.2012, he had informed ACP that Anita should not do any act like slitting her wrist or attempting to commit suicide which would defame them in society. In August 2016, he found on his phone that Anita used to talk to her ex-boyfriend Anil Sehrawat when she logged in her ID in his mobile. Thereafter, he started living in basement separate from Anita. In the chats dated 08.10.2016 to 20.10.2016 Ex. DW1/A, Anita admitted having illicit relations and she was apologizing and requesting him to live with her. His family had never demanded State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 42 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar dowry. Anita had told him repeatedly that she was repenting for the wrong act done by her. On 21.10.2016 (sic), Anita was talking to her boyfriend. When he tried to snatch her mobile phone, she called PCR. Police came and Anita told the police officials that she would give statement before Woman Cell. Thereafter, he told Anita that he was going to file for divorce and he also talked to an advocate in this regard. Anita asked him not to divorce her and she would not repeat this mistake in future but he left. Anita called him and apologized and asked him to come home but he went to the room of his relative Vicky Lochab. When he did not pick the calls, Anita called Vicky and asked him to send him (Ricky) home. She also said Vicky on phone that if he (Ricky) would not return home, she would die after naming entire family. In the morning, when he returned home to take his belongings, he found that Anita had committed suicide. He called 100 number and informed about suicide. He and his family members got nervous and left the house.
36. DW2 Sh. Sunder Singh is the mediator of marriage between Ricky Kataria and Anita. He has deposed that he and Anita's jija Subhash were native of same village. In January 2010, on the asking of Subhash for a suitable boy for marriage of Anita, he had informed about Ricky and Sukhbir Kataria to Subhash. In February / March 2010, he alongwith Subhash had gone to the house of Sukhbir and the marriage was fixed. The marriage was fixed at One Rupee. In June 2010, Ricky and Anita got married and complete expense of marriage in Vasu Garden was borne by Sukhbir Kataria. He did not know anything else.
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 43 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
37. DW3 Sh. Vikas is the relative of the accused persons. He has deposed that he was resident of village Shahpur, Jhajjar, Haryana. In 2016, he had come to Delhi for gynecological treatment of his wife. He started living at H.No. F-225, Katwaria Sarai which belong to accused Sukhbir. In the night of 22.10.2016, Ricky had come to his room and said that he had a quarrel with Anita. When he asked reason for quarrel, Ricky informed that it was regarding chatting in phone. When Ricky was present with him in his room, aunt Anita was continuously making calls to Ricky. Ricky had answered some calls and sometimes he even did not pick the calls. At about 2 a.m. in the night, Anita called him (DW3) and said that she knew Ricky was with him and asked him (DW3) to send Ricky home otherwise he (Ricky) would find her dead in ten minutes. In the morning at about 6-7 a.m. Ricky went home. Thereafter, he came to know that Anita had committed suicide.
38. DW4 Sh. Harender Kumar Tiwari is the tenant who was living in one room on rent on first floor of H.No. F-376 during the years 2013-2016. He has deposed that he shifted on first floor of H.No. F-376, Katwaria Sarai in 2013. Sukhbir and his wife used to live in another room of first floor. Since he was living alone, he had good conversation with family of Sukhbir. They used to invite him in their family functions. One night when he was talking over phone on his mobile in balcony as there was network problem in room, he noticed that three police officials had come and Anita was talking to them. After sometime, police officials left. When he was going inside his room, he noticed that door of the room of Sukhbir and Rajbala was open and Rajbala State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 44 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar was sitting inside. He informed Rajbala that the police officials had come downstairs and left. Rajbala said that she was not well. Next morning, when he was going out, he noticed that crowd had gathered on ground floor. When he went downstairs, he saw that Ricky's wife Anita had committed suicide.
39. All defence witnesses were cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP with assistance of Ld. Counsel for the complainant. D.E was closed vide order dated 11.09.2025. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
40. Final arguments were addressed by both parties. Written submissions were also filed by the accused persons. After conclusion of final arguments in the matter, written submissions were filed on behalf of the complainant for taking additional documents on record. The written submissions were neither signed by the complainant nor by her advocate. Be that as it may, the written submissions filed on behalf of complainant are also considered while appreciating the evidence on record.
41. Ld. Addl. PP, assisted by Ld. Counsel for the complainant, would argue that as per DD No. 15A dated 23.11.2016, the PCR was informed that wife of caller was hanging with a fan. However, when the police reached the spot, the caller was not found at the spot. The main door was bolted and nobody came from inside. PCR call was made by the victim prior to her death and DD No. 54A dated 22.10.2016 was recorded at PS Vasant Vihar. At 03:50 p.m. on 23.10.2016 after the death of Anita, SI Ramphal made a return entry that Anita told him that no beating had taken place and she refused to give her statement saying that State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 45 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar she would give it in writing which may be forwarded to CAW Cell. SI Ramphal made this DD entry after the death of the victim in order to cover his own lapse. Lividity becomes fixed in 6 to 8 hours of death which does not change even if the position of the body is changed. In the present case, the deceased must have been hanging for at least 6 to 8 hours and thereafter, even if her position was changed by bringing the body down, there would be no postmortem lividity. The postmortem report mentions only the ligature marks over the the dead body. The classical signs of antemortem ligature hanging are absent like dripping of saliva etc. Ligature marks can be created postmortem as well. In case of hanging, lividity would be in the lower limbs, genitals, lower parts of forearm hands and above the ligature mark. This description is absent in the PM report. The classical signs of ante-mortem ligature hanging are absent. No trickling down of the saliva was found in the body of deceased. The so called suicide note is an old document which is undated and it does not suggest that the same was written just before the death of the victim. As per FIR and statements of the witnesses, the harassment of the victim and the dowry demand started immediately after the marriage. In this regard, there is reference to complaints lodged in October 2012 and November 2012 and MLC of the victim which reflect that the victim used to be regularly beaten up at her home. Copy of complaints and MLCs of the victim are proved on record. The victim made a complaint dated 05.11.2012 to CAW Cell and subsequently the matter was compromised. However even in her statement recorded by CAW Cell, she had stated specifically that she was regularly being State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 46 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar beaten up by her husband and in-laws. Even after the compromise, the harassment continued which is reflected in complaint dated 26.12.2015 and various PCR calls made by the deceased. The prosecution has proved that accused persons had committed murder of the victim because of non-fulfillment of dowry demand and they had caused dowry death of the victim. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused persons and the accused persons may be convicted.
42. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons would argue that DD No.15A dated 23.10.2016 at about 5:40 a.m. was recorded on the call of accused Ricky Kataria, who had stated that his wife has committed suicide. On the previous date, a DD No.54A (Ex.PW-4/A) had been received by PCR and this call was made by the victim regarding beating by the in-laws and the victim has clearly stated that no beatings had taken place on that day and that she would give her complaint separately to CAW Cell. Further, there is also contradiction in the date of visit of SDM to the spot. The SDM did not visit the spot on 23.10.2016. It is shown from the record that the statement of the mother and father of the victim was not recorded on 23.10.2016 and it was recorded only on 24.10.2016, which also creates a cloud of doubt over its veracity and truthfulness. PW-1 Santosh (mother of victim) and PW-6 Ramesh (father of victim) are highly unreliable witnesses, which stands affirmed from the complaint dated 17.12.2016 Ex.PW1/3, where another story has been cooked by PW-1 Santosh and attempts have been made on advice of counsel to fill in the lacunas left out in the initial State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 47 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar statements. Further the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses and their testimonies have to be scrutinized with great caution. There are many material improvements in the statements of the parents of the victim and the testimony of prosecution witnesses are not reliable. It is also admitted by PW-19 IO Inspector Joginder Singh that no such dowry demands have ever been investigated and thus, the prosecution could not establish the charge u/s 498A IPC.
43. Ld. Counsel for the accused would further argue that the body of the deceased was received for autopsy at AIIMS Mortuary at around 10:00 a.m on 23.10.2016, however, no postmortem was conducted on the said date and postmortem was conducted on 24.10.2016 at 12:30 p.m. i.e. after almost 30 hours of death. The subsequent medical opinion qua the cause of death is 'asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging'. In these facts and circumstances, charge u/s 302 IPC cannot be sustained. The prosecution has also miserably failed to prove case u/s 304 B IPC in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand v. Sanjay Ram Tamta, MANU/SC/0184/2025, wherein it has been held that if one of the ingredients of offence u/s 304B IPC is absent, the prosecution would not be able to rely upon the presumption present u/s. 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. The record would show that the victim used to transfer money from her account to account of her mother and there is no evidence to show that the parents of the victim had purchased jewellery/gifts after 2012 to fulfill the demand of the accused persons. The suicide note of the victim was recovered at the time of postmortem. In the suicide note, no State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 48 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar allegations of dowry demand or harassment has been made against the accused persons. The suicide note proves that the accused persons had not aided or abet suicide of the victim. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused persons and the accused persons may be acquitted of the charges alleged.
44. I have considered the submissions of Ld. Addl. PP, Ld. Counsel for the complainant, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and perused the material on record.
45. Charge for offence u/s 302/34 IPC has been framed against all five accused namely, Ricky Kataria, Sukhbir Kataria, Rajbala, Renu Tokas and Naresh @ Nishu.
46. Section 302 IPC provides punishment for offence of murder. It reads as, "Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."
47. Section 300 IPC defines murder as, "Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder -- If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused. Or If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 49 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid."
48. Section 299 IPC defines culpable homicide as, "Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide."
49. Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for State, assisted by Ld. Counsel for the complainant, would argue that on 22.10.2016 at about 10.00 p.m, PCR call was made by the victim that she was being beaten by her in-laws and when the police officials reached at the spot, the victim said that she would lodge complaint at CAW Cell on the next day. SI Ramphal has deposed that he found all the accused persons except Naresh present in the house when he reached at the house of the accused persons in the night of 22.10.2016. Thereafter, on the next day, the police found that the victim was hanging from the ceiling fan, the broken pieces of bangles of the victim and blood of the victim were lying on the floor of the house and the T.V in the room was on with full volume and the accused persons were absconding from the house. The circumstances found at the house prove that the accused persons had committed murder of the victim. The postmortem report and the lividity found on the back portion and dependent areas in the body of the victim rules out any case of suicide. When the dead body of the victim was examined at the spot, no saliva was found near her cheek and in absence of any State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 50 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar saliva dripping out from the mouth, it can not be said that the victim had committed suicide. Further, the suicide note is undated and it cannot be made the sole basis to plead that the victim had committed suicide. Further, the accused persons had taken false defence that the victim was having extra marital affair which the accused persons had failed to prove and false defence is an additional circumstance against the accused persons. The material on record proves all the circumstances beyond reasonable doubts that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had committed murder of the victim in the night of 22/23.10.2016 after police officials (SI Ramphal and his team) left the house.
50. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons would argue that there is no evidence on record for offence u/s 302 IPC. The PCR call was made by the victim on 22.10.2016 at about 10.00 p.m. and when the police officials reached, she stated that she would lodge complaint to CAW Cell later on. The CDR of the mobile number used by the victim would show that she had made multiple calls to her husband / accused Ricky Kataria after the police officials left the house and she had also made calls to Vikas Lochab (nephew of Ricky) at about 2:00 a.m. The accused persons have examined Vikas Lochab to prove that in the night of 22/23.10.2016, since Ricky Kataria had gone to the house of Vikas Lochab after quarrel with the victim, the victim called Ricky Kataria multiple times to ask him to return to the house and lastly, she had called Vikas Lochab at about 2 a.m. to ask him to send Ricky Kataria to the house. DW Vikas Lochab has proved that during the call with him (Vikas Lochab), the State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 51 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar victim had stated that if Ricky would not return to the house in ten minutes, she would commit suicide. The CDR would prove that the victim was alive till 2:10 a.m. in the night of 22/23.10.2016. The police had reached at the spot at about 6 a.m. and thereafter, the body of the victim was brought down. Thereafter, the dead body was kept in the mortuary of AIIMS in supine / sleeping position and the dead body remained in supine position for more than 24 hours as the postmortem was conducted in the afternoon of 24.10.2016 and therefore, the lividity was found on the back portion and other dependent areas of the dead body. There is no material on record to show that the suicide note was written on any other date and not on the date of death of the victim. The suicide note was found at the time of postmortem of the dead body in the undergarment of the victim. The burden was upon the prosecution to show as to when the suicide note was written. There cannot be any presumption that the suicide note was not written by the victim just before her suicide and that it was not written on the date of alleged incident. The prosecution has failed to bring any material to show that the accused persons had committed murder of Anita in the night of 22/23.10.2016.
51. I have considered the submissions of Ld. Addl. PP, Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record.
52. The prosecution has alleged that in the night of 22/23.10.2016 at unknown time, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of Anita Kataria and accordingly charge for offence u/s 302/34 IPC State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 52 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar has been framed against all accused namely Sukhbir Singh Kataria, Rajbala, Ricky Kataria, Renu Tokas and Naresh @ Nishu.
53. Admittedly, there is no eye witness examined by the prosecution in support of its case. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down following five golden principles, which constitutes the panchsheel of proof, for a case based on circumstantial evidence:
1. the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established;
2. the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is, the established facts should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
4. they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved;
5. there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.
54. There is no eye witness to prove that the accused persons had committed murder of the victim and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is settled that while there is no burden to prove every piece of evidence on a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict on a circumstantial case, however, the Court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the only rational inference that can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence is one of guilt.
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 53 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
55. It has been argued by Ld. Addl. PP and Ld. Counsel for the complainant that in the night of 22.10.2016, the victim had called PCR regarding beating by the in-laws and on visit by the police officials to the matrimonial house, all accused except Naresh were found present in the house and thereafter, in the morning of 23.10.2016, the victim was found dead and this circumstantial evidence points towards the guilt of the accused for offence of murder.
56. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons would argue that only accused Rajbala and Ricky were present at the house when the police arrived and this fact is proved from testimony of DWs i.e. DW1 Ricky Kataria and DW4 Harender Kumar Tiwari. It is also argued that there is no evidence on record to substantiate the argument that all the accused, except Naresh, were present at the house when PCR officials arrived at the house of the accused persons in the night of 22.10.2016. The statement of witness SI Ramphal in this regard is a material improvement and an afterthought.
57. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
58. It has been proved on record that the PCR call in the night of 22.10.2016 was received vide DD no. 54A at 10 p.m. and the caller had informed, "S.373 Katwariya Sarai near Kuan no.1 Sasural wale marpeet kar rahe hai". This call was received from mobile no. 9899652283 used by the victim. The DD no. 54A has been proved as Ex.PW4/A.
59. PW-15 SI Ramphal, during his cross examination, has State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 54 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar stated that the caller Anita met him in the house alongwith all the accused except accused Naresh @ Nishu. However, the accused persons have examined DW-4 Harender Kumar Tiwari to prove that only Rajbala was present in the house when the police reached in the night of 22.10.2016.
60. In his examination-in-chief, DW-4 Harender Kumar Tiwari has deposed that on the preceding night before death of the victim, when he was standing in the balcony and was talking on the phone as there was network problem in the room, three police officials came and after talking to Anita for sometime, the police officials left. He came inside and saw that Rajbala was sitting in her room and he informed Rajbala about visit of the police and she said that she was not well. In his cross-examination, DW-4 has stated that the police had come at the ground floor at about 10-10:30 p.m. on 22.10.2016. He had not seen the police officials calling or talking to any other resident of the house and he had seen only Anita talking to the police officials.
61. There is nothing on record to doubt the testimony of independent witness DW-4 Harender Kumar Tiwari that when the police reached on 22.10.2016, no enquiry was made from accused Sukhbir Kataria, Rajbala, Ricky Kataria and Renu Tokas and that the police official came at the ground floor of the property while accused Rajbala was present at the first floor of the property. Further, the DD entry 35B was recorded on 23.10.2016 by SI Ramphal regarding the PCR calls received in the night of 22.10.2016. He has recorded, " DD no. 54A ke baare mein arz hai Smt. Anita Kataria w/o Rinki se aaj koi maarpeet State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 55 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar nahi hui thi bayaan dene se mana kiya kaha ki main baad mein likhkar dungi jisko CAW Cell mein bhijwa dena shikayat milne par CAW Cell bhijwai jayegi". DD no. 35B dated 23.10.2016 is silent about the presence of all the accused persons except Naresh at the house during the visit of the police in the night of 22.10.2016. The PCR form dated 22.10.2016 in respect of PCR call made by the victim does not mention about the PCR official meeting any of the accused in the house during inquiry. The report of SI Ramphal mentioned in the PCR form dated 22.10.2016 reads, "Caller Anita ne bataya ki Gharelu Kahasuni - SI Ramphal."
62. On the one hand, PW-15 SI Ramphal has stated that all accused except Naresh were found present in the house during his visit in the night of 22.10.2016. On the other hand, there is testimony of independent witness/DW-4 Harender Kumar Tiwari who has stated that the police did not talk to anyone in the house except Anita and that Rajbala was present on the first floor and Anita was present on the ground floor and he was the one who had informed Rajbala about visit of the police to the house.
63. Further, DW1 Ricky Kataria has also deposed that on that day, when Anita called PCR, police came and on enquiry Anita told the police officials that she would give complaint in women cell. Thereafter, he told Anita that he would file for divorce and he even talked to an advocate. On this, Anita said that she would not repeat such mistake, however he left the house and went to the room of Vicky @ Vikas Lochab.
64. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 56 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar opinion that the statement of independent witness DW-4, the testimony of the husband/DW1, the PCR form and the other material on record create reasonable doubt over the statement of PW-15 SI Ramphal that when he reached the house after receipt of PCR call on 22.10.2016, he found that all accused except Naresh were present in the house.
65. In the present case, it is proved from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (PW15 SI Ramphal, PW11 W/Ct. Poonam, and PW7 Ct Mahipal) that when the police officials reached at the spot after receipt of PCR call in the morning of 23.10.2016, they had found that the door was latched, the PCR caller did not pick the call and his phone was found switched off and when the police officials went inside, they found that body of a lady was hanging from the ceiling fan with chunni tied around her neck, one soft stool was on the bed, the light of the room was switched on and T.V was running.
66. PW15 SI Ramphal has deposed that when he alongwith Ct. Mahipal and W/Ct. Poonam went to the spot, they saw that main door of the premises was locked with kundi and they made efforts to trace the caller but the caller could not be found and the number from which PCR call was made was also found to be switched off and no voice was coming from inside when they asked if anyone was inside the house. After that, they opened the door and entered in the above said premises. They found that no person was present there and the door of the inside room was open and when they entered the room, they found one lady hanging from the ceiling fan with the help of a chunni, the lights State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 57 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar and T.V were on at that time and one sofa stool was lying on the bed. Similarly, PW11 Ct. Poonam has also deposed that she alongwith SI Ramphal and Ct. Mahipal reached at the spot and found that the main door of the house was bolted. Despite asking, no one opened the main door of the house. At that time, no one was present there and after opening the main door, they went inside the room of the said house and saw that T.V was on. In another room, they saw that the lights of the said room were on and one lady was hanging in that room from the ceiling fan with the help of chunni / dupatta. Blood was also lying on the floor. One stool was also found kept on the bed.
67. PW7 Ct. Mahipal has deposed that they found the house to be latched from outside and the lights inside the house were on. They opened the latch and entered the house. There was no one in the house. In a room inside that house, they saw a dead body hanging from a fan and above the bed. T.V was on and in a very loud volume. One soft stool was lying on the bed.
68. It is clear from the examination of aforesaid three prosecution witnesses that except PW7 Ct. Mahipal, no other police official has deposed that the TV was on at loud volume. The statements made by the police officials are contradictory whether the TV was on at loud volume or it was just on. The contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses makes it difficult to believe the statement of PW7 Ct. Mahipal that when the police officials reached the house, the TV was found on at loud volume.
69. On 23.10.2016, when SI Ramphal visited the spot, he State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 58 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar prepared seizure memo of the articles found at the spot. Ex. C-7 is seizure memo of mobile phone make ASUS of the victim found at the spot. Ex. C-8 is earth control from the room. Ex. C-9 is 8 pieces of broken bangles found in the room. Ex. C-10 is part of chunni which was tied from the fan after chunni was cut and dead body was brought down. The blood which was found at the spot was seized by SI Ramphal vide seizure memo Ex. C-15. It is stated in the seizure memo Ex. C-15 that there was blood on the floor and that blood was lifted by breaking that portion of the floor on which there was blood, it was kept in plastic box and sealed with the seal of 'RPS'. All the aforesaid exhibits seized from the spot on 23.10.2016 were seized with seal of 'RPS'.
70. The exhibits seized from the spot on 23.10.2016 were sent to FSL. The FSL report in respect of the exhibits which were found at the spot on 23.10.2016 has been proved as Ex. C-45 to Ex. C-47. The accused persons have not disputed the FSL reports filed in the present case through supplementary chargesheet.
71. RFSL report bearing no. RFSL (CH.P) 2016/B-1167 Bio No. 848/2016 dated 18.01.2017 with allelic data has been proved as Ex. C-46 and Ex. C-47 respectively. Exhibit '1' is one chunni (seized at the spot), Exhibit '2' is pieces of broken bangles (seized at spot), Exhibit '3' is a piece of stone having brownish stains (from the spot), Exhibit '4 is pieces of stone described as 'earth control' (Exhibit 1 to 4 sealed with seal of 'RPS'), Exhibit '5' is brown gauze cloth piece described as blood in gauze (of deceased), Parcel '6' was returned in original, Parcel '7' was also returned in original; Exhibit '8' is few nail clippings described as State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 59 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar nail clipping of left hand of deceased, Exhibit '9' is few nail clippings described as nail clipping of right hand of deceased and Exhibit '10' is piece of cloth (parcel 6 and 7 and exhibits 5, 8, 9 and 10 were sealed with the seal of MSL DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC MEDICINE AIIMS NEW DELHI). On examination, blood was detected on Exhibit '3' (i.e. piece of stone having brownish stains from the spot), Exhibit '5' (i.e. blood in gauze of the deceased), Exhibit '8' ( i.e. nail clippings of left hand) and Exhibit '9' (i.e. nail clippings of right hand). It is recorded in Allelic data Ex. C-47, "Alleles from the source of exhibit '5' i.e. blood stained gauze cloth piece (of deceased) were accounted in the allelic data from the source of exhibit '8' i.e. nail clippings (of deceased) and exhibit '9' i.e. nail clippings (of deceased)" .
72. The RFSL report no. RFSL (Ch.P) 2016/B-1167 dated 18.01.2017 Ex. C-45 would show that exhibit 3 i.e. piece of stone, exhibit 5 i.e. blood stained gauze cloth (of victim), exhibit 8 i.e. nail clipping (of victim), exhibit 9 i.e. nail clipping (of victim) were subjected to DNA isolation and DNA was isolated from exhibit 5 (i.e. blood stained gauze cloth of victim), exhibit 8 and 9 (i.e. nail clippings of the victim). However, DNA could not be isolated from exhibit 3 i.e. piece of stone due to inhibitors. No DNA was isolated on piece of stone i.e. floor containing blood lifted by PW15 SI Ramphal from the spot on 23.10.2016.
73. The report Ex. C-45 to C-47 prove that no DNA of any foreign object was found in the nail clipping of the victim and DNA could not be isolated from the blood found on the floor of the spot. There is nothing in any of the object seized from the State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 60 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar spot to show presence of the accused persons on the night of 22/23.10.2016 at the time of death of the victim. The articles seized from the spot do not prove any circumstance against the accused persons.
74. On 23.10.2016, when the dead body of the victim was taken to AIIMS Hospital for preservation, the MLC bearing no. 11683/2016 Ex.C28 was prepared at AIIMS. In the MLC, the doctor has noted "visible injuries on patient-External injury found 1) Injury:Others (ligature mark is present around neck)".
75. At the time of postmortem of the dead body, the doctor has noticed as under:-
"Post-Mortem changes:
1. Rigor Mortis - Present all over body.
2. Lividity - Present over back and dependant area except pressure area.
3. Decomposition Changes - NIL
4. External appearance - Medium built a. Eyes - Closed b. Mouth - Closed c. Nostrils - NAD d. Ears - NAD e. Nails - Bluish discolouration present f. Condition of orifices - NAD
5. Injuries (Type, size, shape, location and direction etc.) Ligature mark: A reddish brown colour parchmentised ligature mark is present in the middle one-third of the neck. The ligature mark is present 8 cm below the mentum and 9 cm above the suprasternal notch and width is 2 cm at anterior midline of neck. Laterally it is 4.3 cm from right mastoid process and left lateral side it is 6 cm below mastiod tip. Width is 2.8 cm and 1.6 cm at right and left lateral side of neck respectively. The ligature mark is directed upwards, backwards and obliquely merging with the posterior hairline at the nape of the neck. The total neck circumference is 31 cm. On dissection, the undelying soft tissue is dry, pale and glistening and devoid of any extravasation or haematoma. The underlying musculature and blood vessels are intact. The thyrohyoid complex is intact. The tracheal mucosa is congested.
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 61 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
(B) HEAD & NECK
1. Scalp & Sub Scalp - NAD
2. Skull - Intact
3. Brain, Meninges and Cerebral Vessels - Congested wt 1240 gms
4. Orbital, Nasal and Aural Cavities (Examine if special indications present) NAD
5. Mouth, Tongue - Bluish discolouration of lips and oral mucosa is present.
6. Neck, Larynx Thyroid and Other Neck Structures - As mentioned before.
(C) CHEST (THORAX)
1. Ribs and Chest Wall - NAD
2. Diaphragm - NAD
3. Oesophagus - NAD
4. Trachea and Bronchi - NAD
5. Pleural cavities - NAD
6. Lungs a. Right - Congested, Weight : 320 gms b. Left - Congested, Weither: 290 gms
7. Heart and Pericardial Sac - NAD wt 230 gms
8. Large Blood Vessels - NAD (D) ABDOMEN
1. Abdominal Wall - NAD
2. peritoneal cavity - NAD
3. Stomach - NAD A. Contents - About 300 ml partialy digested food particle B. Mucose - Congested C. Presence of any Abnormal Smell - NAD
4. Small intestine - NAD xxxxx
9. Pelvic Wall - NAD
10. Urinary Bladder and Urethra- Empty
11. Genital organs- NAD
12. Uterus (Females) - NAD.
xxxxx Additional remarks - 1) A suicide note is recover from her undergarment, the same has been preserved, sealed, signed and handed over to police along with sample of seal. xxxxxx Any other sample: Nails clipping from both hands, two red and three green colour bangles, blood in gauze are preserved sealed, signed and handed over to police along with sample of seal.
xxxxxx (J) Time since death - About one and half days (K) Opinion- The cause of death to the best of my knowledge and belief is:- In this case is asphyxia due to antemortem State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 62 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar hanging, however viscera has been preserved to rule out concomitent intoxication."
76. At the time of preparation of MLC and even at the time of post mortem, the doctor did not find any external bodily injury on the body of the victim except injury on neck i.e. ligature mark. As discussed above, at the time of postmortem, exhibits from the dead body of the victim were collected and it included nail clipping of the victim also, however no other DNA except DNA of the victim was found on nail clipping.
77. Ld. Addl. PP and Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon specific portion of the postmortem report wherein it is mentioned that lividity was present over back and dependent areas except pressure area. It is argued that since the lividity was present in back and dependent areas, it rules out case of death by hanging as in case of hanging, lividity will be present on feet, palms and other areas but not on the back. The lividity found in the postmortem report rules out case of suicide. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon medical literature i.e. "Forensic Medicine and Toxicology" by Dr. J.B. Mukherjee.
78. I have studied the jurisprudence in respect of rigor mortis and lividity as relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the complainant and discussion regarding lividity in number of judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court.
79. In "Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Volume One" by Dr. J. B. Mukherjee, postmortem staining has been discussed. The relevant portion of the discussion is reproduced hereinafter:
"POSTMORTEM STAINING OR SUGGILATION OR State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 63 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar HYPOSTASIS OR CADAVERIC LIVIDITY With stoppage of heart, circulation of blood ceases; the liquid blood, obeying the law of gravitation, gravitates into the toneless capillaries and venules of the "rete mucosum" in the dependent parts of the body according to its the then position.....
Definition After death the accumulated fluid blood due to gravitation in the toneless vessels, will show up through the skin as purple or reddish purple areas of discolouration in the dependent parts of the body and this is known as "Postmortem staining or Hypostasis, or Cadaveric Lividity or Suggilation."
ime of appearance The staining usually appears within 1/2 - 1 hr. after death in plethoric subjects and by 1-4 hr. in anaemic subjects, as dull red or bluish pink patches, having sharp outlines, but irregular in shape and size; the colour, later on deepens and increases in intensity; the patches gradually coalesce and fuse together to form an extensive large area of reddish purple discolouration within 6 to 10 hours of death.
In North India including Bengal, though it commences soon after death, but it begins to show up as patchy mottled areas within an hour of death and may become well marked by 4 to 6 hours, latest by 8-10 hours of death. In becomes more pronounced in fair complexioned bodies than in darker ones, though it develops in all cases of death. Hypostasis ordinarily becomes well fixed in six to eight hours due to coagulation of blood.
xxx There is no fixed time limit at which the blood begins to coagulate after death. The fluidity of blood seen at autopsy depends upon the rate of intravascular coagulation after death and the amount of available fibrinolysin. When the fibrinolysin is active, the rate of coagulation is slow; the blood will then remain fluid and will gravitate in the dependent parts after death.The extent of lividity depends upon the amount and fluidity of blood. Hence, it may be intense in case of death from asphyxia where blood remains fluid for long, due to prolonged clotting time, because of excess of carbon dioxide accumulating in blood during asphyxia or due to some mechanical interference with the ability to tissues to use oxygen."
80. In Modi's 'A Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology' 26th Edition in Chapter 15, Post-Mortem Changes And Time Since Death has been discussed. The relevant portion State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 64 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar is reproduced hereinafter:-
"(4) Cadaveric Lividity, Hypostasis, Suggilation or post-
mortem Staining.-Cadaveric lividity is a discoloration of the skin due to the accumulation of the fluid blood into the capillaries and small veins of the rete mucosum in the most dependent parts of the body according to its position, as the body after death, like all other inert matter obeys the law of gravitation. If the body is lying on the back, the staining will be seen on the posterior parts of the head, ears, neck, trunk and extremities, on the extensor surfaces of the upper limbs and finger tips and the flexor surfaces of the lower limbs, except on those parts like buttocks and shoulder blades which actually come into contact with the surface on which the body is lying, as pressure caused by the weight of the body prevents the underlying vessels from filling with blood. Similarly, it is not seen on those parts, which have been compressed by tight clothing or tight wrapping of a sheet, but occurs as strips or bands called vibices, which often resemble the marks produced by flogging. Such bands may also be seen on the face of an infant or an epileptic, who may have died of suffocation with the face down on the mattress. Again, a white band on the neck produced by a tight collar or necklace may look like a mark of strangulation, or like small areas of lividity on the sides and front of the neck resulting from incomplete emptying of smaller branches of the superficial veins of the neck, In northern India, post-mortem staining begins to form within an hour after death, and is well marked in four to twelve hours and thus helps in estimating the time of death. It is formed after every kind of death, but it is more marked in the bodies of fair people than in those of dark individuals. It consists of small irregular patches on the skin having a coppery-red or purple colour. At first, they are single and scattered on the surface, but later increases in size and unite together forming a large uniform area of discoloration. The patches will disappear and new ones will form on the dependent parts on altering the position of the body in the first few hours of death, if the blood is still fluid. It is usually believed that once the blood has coagulated, there will be no change on altering the position of the body. However, in practice this is not quite true, as fibrinolysins, probably from the vascular endothelium, maintains the blood in a more or less fluid state in the venules and capillaries but the fading is markedly slow and incomplete because of its inability to flow in well-developed lividity as compared to quick changes observed in change of position in the first few hours of death, hence, this may be helpful in indicating any alteration in the position of the body after death. Prolonged suspension of a body after death may show State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 65 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar petechial haemorrhages in the dependent parts of the body. It is impossible to give the exact time at which the blood begins to coagulate after death."
81. The medical jurisprudence discussed above would make it clear that postmortem staining / lividity / hypostasis becomes fixed in the dead body in 6-8 hours of the death and sometimes in 12 hours, due to coagulation of blood. There is no fixed time limit at which the blood begins to coagulate after death and when the fibrinolysin (clot dissolution) is active, the rate of coagulation is slow. The postmortem staining / lividity also disappear and new ones get formed if the position of the dead body is altered in the first few hours of the death while the blood is still fluid. Also, in case of death from asphyxia, blood remains fluid for long due to prolonged clotting time and because of excess of carbon- dioxide accumulating in blood during asphyxia.
82. In the present case, as per the DD no. 15A dated 23.10.2016 Ex. C-4, the intimation regarding the death of the victim was received at PS Vasant Vihar at 5.40 a.m and this call was made by Ricky Kataria from his mobile number 9999778121. PW15 SI Ramphal has deposed that after receipt of the PCR call, he along with Ct. Mahipal and W/Ct. Poonam went to the spot and when no one opened the door despite knocking, they went inside and found the body of the victim hanging from the ceiling fan with chunni. Inquiry was made from neighbours and he got to know that the sister of the victim was living in same area. Phone number of parents of victim was taken from sister Sunita and the parents were informed. SDM Sh. M.K. Bharti was informed who ordered the crime team to inspect the State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 66 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar spot. The crime team came and inspected the spot and the dead body was brought down. PW11 HC Poonam has deposed that crime team reached at the spot after one and half - two hours of their reaching the spot and the crime team remained at the spot for about one hour. The testimony of PW15 SI Ramphal and PW11 HC Poonam would suggest that the dead body was brought down around 7.30-8.00 a.m. The IO had collected CDR of the mobile number used by the victim which has been proved as Ex. C-52. The accused persons have not disputed the CAF and CDR of the mobile numbers collected during investigation. The CDR would show that the victim has made multiple calls between 10 p.m to 2:10 am in the night of 22/23.10.2016. The relevant calls/ SMS of CDRs of mobile number 9899652283 used by the victim are in table below:-
Mobile no. Incoming /outgoing / Date Time Duration in seconds SMS 9999778121 Outgoing 22.10.2016 21:08:08 141 9999778121 Incoming 22.10.2016 21:20:40 115 100 Outgoing 22.10.2016 21:53:26 63 VK-DPCPCR Incoming (SMS) 22.10.2016 22:00:09 1 7827085816 incoming 22.10.2016 22:03:33 58 9650644116 incoming 22.10.2016 22:06:30 28 9717621012 Outgoing 22.10.2016 22:55:28 24 9999778121 outgoing 22.10.2016 23:33:59 2 9999778121 outgoing 22.10.2016 23:34:11 192 9999778121 outgoing 22.10.2016 23:38:26 178 9999778121 outgoing 23.10.2016 00:20:55 156 9717621012 outgoing 23.10.2016 01:08:38 21 9999778121 outgoing (SMS) 23.10.2016 02:06:46 1 9717621012 outgoing 23.10.2016 02:10:25 19
83. The CDR proves that last call was made by the victim from her mobile to mobile number 9717621012 at 02:10:25 hours on 23.10.2016. DW3 Vikas Lochab has proved that he was State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 67 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar using mobile number number 9717621012 in night of 22/23.10.2016. There is no evidence produced on record to suggest that the victim had not made aforesaid calls from her mobile or that someone else was using her mobile phone. The CDR proves that the victim was alive till 2:10:25 hours on 23.10.2016.
84. The postmortem of the victim was conducted at about 1.00 p.m. on 24.10.2016 and the doctor had opined the time since death as "about one and half days". The PCR call regarding death was made at 5.40 a.m. The victim had lastly used her mobile phone to call DW3 Vikas Lochab at 2.10 a.m. on 23.10.2016.
The material on record i.e. the postmortem report and CDR of the mobile number used by the victim suggests that the victim had died between from 2.10 a.m. to 5.40 a.m of 23.10.2016.
85. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses would show that after the dead body was brought down in morning of 23.10.2016, it was kept in mortuary of AIIMS for more than one day and the postmortem was conducted on 24.10.2016 around 1.00 p.m. The medical jurisprudence as already discussed above, shows that hypostasis i.e. postmortem staining or lividity ordinarily becomes well fixed in the body in six to eight hours due to coagulation of blood and there is no fixed time limit at which the blood begins to coagulate after death and the patches (postmortem staining) will disappear and new ones will form on the dependent parts on altering the position of the body in the first few hours of death and in case of death by asphyxia, blood remains fluid for long.
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 68 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
86. In this case, during his cross examination, PW13 Dr. Rajesh Kumar has stated, "It is correct that since the time the body received at the mortuary and till the time the postmortem was conducted, the body was lying in supine position. It is correct that the observation regarding parchmentised ligature is generally found in death cause by hanging".
87. In the present case also, merely because lividity in dead body at the time of autopsy was found present over back and other dependent areas, there can not be any presumption that the victim was already dead before she was hanged from the ceiling fan with help of chunni. Dr. J.B. Mukherjee has also written in his book "Forensic Medicine and Toxicology" that in case of death from asphyxia, blood remains fluid for long. PW13 Dr. Rajesh Kumar has proved that he had given opinion regarding cause of death in his report Ex. PW13/A. In the report Ex. PW13/A, the doctor has opined the cause of death as asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging.
88. Another argument of Ld. Addl. PP and Ld. counsel for the complainant that there was no saliva dripping from the mouth of the victim, is not sufficient to establish that the victim was already dead before she was hanged with help on chunni.
89. 'As regards death by hanging', in Modi's 'A Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology', it has been mentioned as under:-
"Medico-Legal Question- The medico-legal questions likely to arise in a case of hanging are as follows. (I) Whether death was caused by hanging?
(ii) Whether the hanging was suicidal, homicidal or State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 69 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar accidental?
(i) Whether death was caused by Hanging?- In India, as perhaps elsewhere, there have been reports of killing a victim, and then suspending the body from a tree or a rafter to avert suspicion. Such post-mortem hanging simulates suicidal hanging. It is, therefore, necessary to find out if hanging was the cause of death in a suspended body.
The presence of a ligature mark alone is not diagnostic of death from hanging, inasmuch as, being a purely cadaveric phenomenon it may be produced if a body has been suspended after death. Often a body is suspended after murder to simulate suicidal hanging. In such cases, a close examination of the direction of the friction marks on the fibres of the rope at the point of suspension, may indicate whether the body was pulled up by some one else or dropped down by its weight. Besides, a similar mark may also be produced by dragging a body along the ground with a cord passed round the neck soon after death. However, one can safely say that death was due to hanging, if, in addition to the cord mark, there was dribbling of saliva from the angel of mouth, ecchymosis and slight abrasions around the ligature-mark, laceration of the intima of the carotid arteries with extravasation of blood within their walls and the post-mortem signs of asphyxia, besides if there are no evidence of a struggle, scratches and nail marks, fatal injuries or poisoning.
(ii) Whether hanging was Suicidal, Homicidal or Accidental- Hanging is usually suicidal. Of the 32 cases of hanging that came under Modi's observation during a period of over six years, 30 were suicidal. One was suspended after murder and in the other, there was presumption of homicide. Circumstantial evidence also has an important bearing. Blindness or age is no bar to suicidal hanging. After chastisement or some other violence, children are known to have committed suicide by hanging from shame or grief. Sometimes, hanging is adopted as a last resort, after other forms of suicide, for instance, cutting of the throat or ingestion of poison, having failed to produce the produce the desired effect.
Homicidal hanging, though rare, has been recorded. Usually, more than one person is involved in the act, unless the victim is a child or very weak and feeble, or is rendered unconscious by some intoxicating or narcotic drug. In a case, where resistance has been offered, marks of violence of the body and marks of a struggle or footprints of several persons at or near the place of the occurrence are likely to be found.
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 70 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
90. In the present case, PW9 Sh. M.K. Bharti, Executive Magistrate Mehrauli has proved Form 25.35 (1)(B) i.e. death report as Ex.PW9/A. In Ex. PW9/A, he has mentioned in the column "8. Position of the limbs, eyes and mouth- eye closed, tongue outside from mouth". In the column, "10. Injuries or marks of violence the body may have received. Wounds and bruises- show position, length and breadth", the executive magistrate has mentioned "chunni around neck found, knock". In the column "11. Blood, liquid or clotted / Where oozed from and to what amount", the executive magistrate has mentioned, "leavage (MTC) from tongue". The Executive Magistrate has mentioned that there was leavage from the tongue at the time of examination of dead body.
91. In this case, there is no evidence of any struggle, scratches or nail mark on the body of the victim which could suggest that the death was due to homicidal hanging. Further, the opinion in respect of death has been given by PW13 Dr. Rajesh Kumar and he has reported that the cause of death in this case is Asphyxia due ante-mortem hanging.
92. PW13 Dr. Rajesh Kumar has handed over viscera alongwith other exhibits to the police after the postmortem. The accused persons have also admitted FSL report bearing no. RFSL 2016/C-1166 dated 27.01.2017 in respect of viscera of the victim which is Ex. C-44. The FSL report Ex. C-44 rules out any possibility of poisoning of the victim or death of the victim by poisoning.
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 71 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
93. Also, suicide note was found in undergarment of the victim at the time of the postmortem by PW13 Dr. Rajesh Kumar. The suicide note was not found when PW11 WCt. Poonam had conducted cursory search of the dead body of the victim at the spot. No doubt in the suicide note, no date is mentioned, however, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove as to when the suicide note was written by the victim.
94. The accused persons have admitted the FSL report no. R.F.S.L. (CH.P) 2016/D-1287 dated 16.01.2017 as Ex. C-35 and report no. R.F.S.L (CHP.) 2017/D-0649 dated 14.07.2017 as Ex. C-33 in respect of the handwriting and signature on the suicide note. The RFSL report proves that the victim had written the suicide note and suicide note was also signed by the victim. During trial, the accused persons have not disputed that the suicide note was signed by the victim and that the same was in handwriting of the victim. It is proved from FSL report that suicide note was in handwriting of the victim and also signed by the victim. In the absence of any material produced by the prosecution to show that the suicide note was written on any other date prior to 22/23.10.2016, there cannot by any presumption that suicide note was written on date prior to the death of the victim. It is settled that where two views are possible, the view which favours the accused has to be accepted. In the present case also, in the absence of any material to prove that the suicide note was written on date prior to the date of death, the presumption would be taken in favour of the accused that the suicide note was written by the victim on the date of death of the victim.
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 72 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
95. No doubt, the record proves that after making PCR call on 23.10.2016 at 5.40 a.m, accused Ricky Kataria and his family fled away from the spot. However, DW-1 Ricky Kataria has explained during his evidence that when he reached the house in the morning, he saw that Anita had committed suicide and thereafter, he called PCR and he and his family members got perplexed (ghabra gaye) and they all left the house. It is not a natural behaviour for a person to run away after finding his wife hanging from ceiling fan, however, this circumstance by itself, in the absence of any other material circumstance, is not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused persons had committed murder of the victim in the night of 22/23.10.2016.
96. Merely because the accused persons could not prove their defence that the victim was having extra-marital affair with anyone, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused persons. It is settled that the prosecution can not rely upon weakness in defence of the accused and the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove complete, unbroken chain of facts pointing only to the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubts for conviction of the accused person. A person can not be convicted for offence of murder only on basis of suspicion, conjectures or surmises.
97. As already discussed, in the case, the doctor has opined the cause of death as "asphyxia due to antemortem hanging". No DNA of any other person was found on nail clipping of the victim. There was no mark of any struggle or scratches on the State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 73 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar body of the victim. No external bodily injury i.e. any abrasion, contusion, etc. except ligature mark on the neck, was found on body of the victim. The prosecution could not prove that blood on floor was of the victim. The suicide note found in the undergarment of the victim also proves that the victim had committed suicide. The prosecution has failed to complete the chain of all the circumstances pointing towards guilt of the accused persons for offence of murder.
98. It is proved on record that the cause of the death of the victim was asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. There is no material on record to show that the hanging of the victim was homicidal. The suicide note of the victim and the postmortem report proves that the victim had committed suicide. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case for offence u/s 302/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubts against the accused persons.
99. Charge for offence u/s 304B/34, 498A/34 and 306/34 IPC has been framed against accused namely Rajbala, Ricky Kataria, Sukhbir Kataria and Renu Tokas and not against accused Naresh @ Nishu. Hereinafter in the succeeding paras wherever the words 'the accused persons' are used, it is used only for four accused persons namely Rajbala, Ricky Kataria, Sukhbir Kataria and Renu Tokas.
100. Section 304B IPC defines dowry death as "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 State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 74 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar 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."
101. Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, deals with 'Presumption as to dowry death'. It reads as, "113-B. When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand to dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death."
102. Section 498A IPC reads as, "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".
103. The Hon'ble Apex Court through judgments has settled the law in respect of Section 304B IPC r/w Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act. The following are the essential ingredients of Section 304-B:
a) The death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury, or must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;
b) The death must have been caused within seven years of her marriage;
c) Soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of her husband; and
d) Cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
104. It is also settled position of law that the presumption u/s State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 75 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar 113-B Indian Evidence Act will apply when it is established that soon before her death, the woman has been subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Therefore, even for attracting presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death. Unless these facts are proved, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be invoked.
105. This Court shall now decide whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty / harassment by the husband and in-laws (accused Ricky Kataria, Rajbala, Sukhbir and Renu Tokas) for or in connection with dowry demand.
106. It is admitted case of the parties that the victim got married to accused Ricky Kataria on 20.06.2010. It is matter of record that after two years of the marriage, prior to lodging of complaint with CAW Cell, the victim had lodged complaint with SHO PS Vasant Vihar on 31.10.2012 Ex. PW1/5 wherein allegation regarding beating on 24.10.2012 were made and no allegation of dowry demand or harassment was made in the said complaint. Thereafter, the victim had lodged complaint with SHO PS Mehrauli on 01.11.2012 which is Ex. PW1/6, wherein general allegations of dowry demand and harassment were made and allegation were made regarding physical assault on 24.10.2012. Thereafter, the victim had lodged complaint in CAW Cell on State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 76 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar 05.11.2012. The copy of the complaint to CAW Cell has been proved as Ex. PW1/4. In complaint to CAW Cell Ex. PW1/4, the victim made allegations of taunting by the husband and in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry and taunting by father-in-law for not bringing Honda City car in the marriage. In the said complaint, the victim had also made allegations that when she was pregnant for the first time in the month of September 2010, the sister-in-law demanded Rs. 10 lakhs. When she objected to the demand, her mother-in-law called her father and asked him to take her back. In October 2010, she returned to the matrimonial house with consent of all family members and on occasion of Sankranti in January 2011, she was taunted for not bringing good quality clothes from her parents. In January 2011, her ultrasound was got conducted to ascertain gender of fetus and when the in- laws came to know that it was a fetus of female child, the behaviour of the in-laws changed and she was not given any treatment. Thereafter, she went to her parental house and she gave birth to female child on 02.05.2011. After six days of birth of the child, she came to know that her in-laws were planning to get second marriage of her husband performed and her parents talked to in-laws in this regard and she returned to her matrimonial house. After few days, she was abused and assaulted and she was not given any money for her personal expenses and her parents used to send money to her through her younger sister. When she said to her husband and in-laws that she wanted to do a job, she was beaten. Her husband was having an affair with some other girl. In the said complaint dated 05.11.2012, the victim mentioned about multiple incidents of verbal abuse and physical State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 77 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar assault upon her. She had also stated about the incident dated 24.10.2012 in her CAW Cell complaint that on 24.10.2012, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law had shown her kundli to one pandit to know whether she could give birth to a male child and after getting knowledge from the pandit that she could not give birth to a male child, she was beaten by sister-in-law and mother- in-law and when she tried to save herself, the sister-in-law told the husband that she was beating the mother-in-law. Thereafter, all four accused gave beating to her and she became unconscious. When her father called on her mobile, her mother-in-law picked the call and asked him to take her back to the parental house. Her parents came and took her to Safdarjung hospital where she was medically examined. She alongwith her daughter went to parental house from the hospital. On 30.10.2012, Sukhbir, Ricky, Naresh and Satender Tokas threatened to kill everyone if any action was taken and Ricky also assaulted her. She somehow managed to call PCR.
107. The complaint dated 05.11.2012 lodged at CAW Cell Ex. PW1/4 was inquired by PW14 SI Geeta. PW14 SI Geeta has proved that during counseling on the CAW Cell complaint, the matter was amicably settled between the parties. PW14 SI Geeta has proved the inquiry conducted on the complaint as Ex. PW14/A and the settlement as Ex. PW14/B. The final report was prepared on the statement of the victim as the victim was living together with accused Ricky Kataria. The report of CAW Cell Ex. PW14/A would show that during counseling on 11.12.2012, the victim stated that she wanted to live with her husband and the husband also wanted to live with the victim, however, the State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 78 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar husband wanted that he would live with the victim in house separate from his parents regarding which the victim wanted to think over. Thereafter, on 11.01.2013, both the sides settled the matter in biradari and as per the settlement, the victim was living voluntarily with her husband. It is also recorded in CAW Cell proceedings dated 05.06.2013 that the wife and the husband were living together since February 2013 and there was no problem in her matrimonial life.
108. It has come in cross examination of PW14 SI Geeta that during the CAW Cell proceedings on 11.12.2012, Ricky Kataria had given a complaint before ACP, CAW Cell wherein he had stated that he was ready to cohabit with Anita on the condition that she would not take any steps that could cause troubles to her in-laws (parents of Ricky Kataria) as she (Anita) at instance of her sister and brother-in-law could cause injury to his family members. PW14 SI Geeta has also admitted during cross examination that during the course of settlement of CAW Cell complaint, Ricky Kataria had given a complaint before ACP that the victim should not take any steps i.e. attempting to commit suicide or slitting of her wrist.
109. The proceedings of CAW Cell conducted in 2012-2013 and the testimony of PW14 SI Geeta would prove that the complaint dated 05.11.2012 lodged by the victim regarding dowry harassment was settled amicably. The testimony of PW14 SI Geeta would also prove that during CAW Cell counseling, Ricky Kataria had made allegations that the family of the victim may cause injury to his family and the victim should not take any State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 79 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar steps like slitting of her wrist, attempting suicide etc. The complaint lodged before CAW Cell on 05.11.2012 was settled during counseling and during counseling, Ricky Kataria had made counter allegations against victim Anita and her family members. No findings were given by any competent authority to the effect that the allegations of dowry demand and harassment made in the complaint dated 05.11.2012 were found to be true. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the allegations made in complaint dated 05.11.2012 were true as both the parties were making allegations and counter allegations against each other.
110. Now the question arises whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that after CAW Cell settlement in June 2013, the victim was subjected to harassment and cruelty in connection with dowry demand.
111. The mother of the victim / PW1 Santosh has deposed in her examination-in-chief that after CAW Cell settlement, everything was fine for some time, however, after sometime, the husband started beating the victim and the husband and in-laws used to harass and taunt Anita for goods being sent on occasions and festivals. These allegations made by the mother of the victim / PW1 are vague. There is no specific allegation as to what was demanded, which accused made the demand and when the demand was made after CAW Cell settlement in June 2013.
112. In the statement to SDM Ex. PW1/16, the mother of the victim has made allegations of demand which were made before CAW Cell complaint. In the statement to SDM, the mother of victim did not mention about beating and harassment of the State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 80 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar victim after the settlement before CAW Cell in June 2013 till September 2015.
113. Further, PW6 / father of the victim, during his examination-in-chief, did not state that after return of the victim to her matrimonial house post CAW Cell settlement and prior to February 2015, there was any complaint made by the victim regarding demand and harassment. The father in his examination- in-chief before the Court has not made any allegations of demand or harassment after settlement in CAW Cell till February, 2015. Even in his statement to SDM Ex. PW6/1, the father of the victim / PW6 did not make any allegations of harassment or cruelty upon the victim after June 2013 till September 2015. The statements of the mother and the father of the victim to the SDM are completely silent about any taunting or harassment or beating of the victim to fulfill dowry demand after withdrawal of the CAW Cell complaint till birth of the male child to the victim in September 2015. For the first time in her complaint to SHO PS Vasant Vihar dated 17.12.2016, Ex. PW1/15, the mother of the victim made allegations of demand of dowry and harassment of Anita after withdrawal of CAW Cell complaint in June 2013. There is no explanation on record as to why in the initial statement to the SDM, the mother and the father of victim did not mention about the harassment and cruelty upon the victim from June 2013 till September 2015. In these circumstances, the allegations of dowry demand by the accused persons, after the settlement in CAW cell and before the birth of the male child, have come under the clouds of reasonable doubts.
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 81 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
114. Regarding allegation of demand and harassment post CAW Cell settlement till birth of male child to the victim, the mother and father of the victim had been confronted on material points during their cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion Q to Q of her examination in chief dated 29.08.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion Q to Q, the mother of the victim has stated, " The husband of my daughter was in habit of taking liquor and gambling. He used to beat my daughter. Husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law of my daughter used to harass and taunt her for the goods which were being sent by us on the occasions of festivals. We used to send expensive items on the occasions of festivals at the matrimonial house of my daughter as per the demand of her in-laws in order to please them."
115. Cross examination of PW1 Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion R to R of her examination in chief dated 28.11.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion R to R, the mother of the victim has stated, " In the month of February, 2015, we came to know that our daughter Anita was pregnant. We went to the matrimonial home of my daughter for wishing them. Accused Rajbala, Sukhbir, Renu, Ricky Kataria State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 82 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar and Naresh @ Nishu met us there. They all told us that they would get the gender examined. We got scared and took our daughter to our house. After 2 - 3 months we sent back our daughter to her matrimonial home."
116. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion S to S of her examination in chief dated 29.08.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion S to S, the mother of the victim has stated, " After that, my daughter Anita spoke to us and told that her in laws had taken her to Haryana for examination of her womb. She further told us that her mother in law, father in law and other family members of her in laws had told her that her parents had to give 'Chuchak' amounting to Rs.10 Lakhs. My daughter protested the demand made by her in-laws, on which she was abused by her father in law, mother in law, sister in law, brother in law (Nandoi) and her husband."
117. The aforesaid allegations made by the mother of the victim in her examination-in-chief were not made by the mother of victim in her statement to SDM.
118. Similarly, PW6/father of the victim has stated during his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, "I had not stated in Ex.PW6/1 that in February, 2015 when the deceased became pregnant for the second time, she telephonically informed me that the accused were demanding Rs. 10 Lakhs."
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 83 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
119. The allegations of the prosecution regarding demand and harassment after settlement in CAW Cell and before birth of male child to the victim in September 2015 are not found in the statements of the parents of the victim record by the SDM on 23.10.2016. Further, in the statement to SDM, there is no mention of demand of Rs. 10 Lacs by any of the accused before second delivery to the victim.
120. The mother of the victim/ PW-1 has voluntarily stated during her cross examination that she was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail at the time of statement to the SDM on 23.10.2016. No doubt if a mother comes to know that her daughter had died under unnatural circumstances, the mental condition of such a mother would not a completely fit. However, the statement of the mother to SDM Ex. PW1/16 would show that she had made specific allegations of demand of Rs. 5 lacs after birth of girl child to the victim and she has also specifically stated that after birth of girl child, Anita was regularly beaten by her husband, father in law, mother in law and sister in law. In the statement to SDM, the mother has mentioned about demands made after birth of girl child to the victim. Had it been the case that the victim was harassed for dowry after CAW Cell settlement and before her second delivery, the mother would have mentioned about it in the statement to SDM Ex. PW1/16. Further, when the father was confronted during his cross-examination, he did not give any explanation as to why the allegations of demand and harassment after CAW cell settlement and before birth of male child were not narrated in the statement to SDM Ex.PW6/1. Therefore, this Court finds it difficult to believe that any such State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 84 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar demands were made or the victim was harassed by the accused person for dowry after CAW cell settlement in June 2013 and before delivery in September 2015.
121. The testimony of the father and the mother of the victim would show that they made material improvements in their statements / examination-in-chief recorded before the Court from the statement made to SDM and they had been confronted on material aspects in this regard.
122. Apart from the above mentioned portions, the mother and the father of the victim have also been confronted on other material portions of their examination-in-chief and it has been shown that they had not made such allegations in their respective statements to the SDM. The confronted relevant portion of the testimony of PW-1 Santosh is reproduced hereinafter.
123. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion A to A of her examination-in-chief dated 16.07.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail). At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion A to A of her examination-in-chief dated 23.08.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail). " In her examination-in-chief portion A to A, the mother of the victim has stated, "...they used to say "tu iss ghar main rahne layak nahi hai". Accused Renu Tokas used to taunt my daughter "tu kangle State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 85 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar ghar ki hai, mere maa baap ne meri saadi main ek kilo sona diya tha, tere ghar walo ne itna kam kyu diya hai". Accused Renu Tokas used to say to her mother regarding my daughter "ye toh gandi naali ka kida hai, ise hamare mahal main kyu le aye, ye iss ghar main rahne layak nahi hai". Accused Renu tokas was residing in Munirka. She used to frequently visit the matrimonial house of my daughter and she was having much interference in her parental house. All the family members used to honour her words. Whatever she used to say, family members used to do the same thing. Accused Sukhbir taunted my husband "tumne shadi main Honda City car toh nahi di, kam se kam Dzire he de dete". Mother-in-law of my deceased daughter used to say my daughter to bring golden chain and golden breclate from our house and used to taunt her "SHADI MEIN TERE MAA BAAP NE KAM SONA DIYA AB TU GHAR JA AUR LE KAR AA."
124. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion B to B of her examination in chief dated 23.08.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion B to B, the mother of the victim has stated, "Accused Ricky Kataria present in court today(correctly identified), husband of my deceased daughter used to come to home after taking drink and he was not paying attention on my daughter. On asking of my daughter he used to reply that she was taken to do household works and she was just a servant."
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 86 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
125. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion C to C of her examination in chief dated 23.08.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion C to C, the mother of the victim has stated, "Accused Renu Tokas demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- after coming to know regarding pregnancy of my daughter. She stated to my daughter that her parents had not given anything in the marriage and asked her to bring Rs. 10,00,000/- from us so that accused Ricky Kataria could purchase a new four wheelar. Mother-in-law, sister in law and husband of my deceased daughter had talked with her father in law to make a demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- from us. Demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- was made from my husband. My husband expressed his inability to give Rs. 10,00,000/- due to our financial restrictions. My husband received the call from father in law of my deceased daughter. On receiving of the aforesaid call, my husband had gone to matrimonial house of my deceased daughter. The house of accused persons was locked at that time. My husband made a call to my daughter. My daughter told him that she was in Munirka and she further told that she was thrown out from her matrimonial house by the accused persons and left her in Munirka".
126. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion D to D of her examination in chief dated 23.08.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 87 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion D to D, the mother of the victim has stated, "After some time we made conversation with inlaws of my deceased daughter and requested them not to do such type of things. In-laws of my daughter took her to their house".
127. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion E to E of her examination in chief dated 23.08.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion E to E, the mother of the victim has stated, " In January 2011, there was first Sankranti of my daughter after her marriage. On the fest of Sankranti we had sent clothes and sweets to her matrimonial house in order to please them. At that time, mother-in-law, father in law, sister in law and husband of my deceased daughter taunted that clothes sent by us were not of any use to them and further asked my daughter to go to our house and bring nice clothes. In order to maintain peace on the festival, my daughter came to our house and told all these facts to us and asked us to purchase some new clothes. We had purchased the costliest clothes and handed over the same to my daughter who took the same to her matrimonial house on the next day".
128. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion F to F of her State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 88 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar examination in chief dated 23.08.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion F to F, the mother of the victim has stated, "In January, 2011 my daughter was four months pregnant. Mother-in-law and Sister in law of my daughter took her to a doctor for ultrasound. After ultrasound, mother-in-law and sister in law of my daughter came outside from the clinic. After coming outside from the clinic, their behaviour was completely changed. Accused persons used to ask my daughter lift heavy articles and used to ask her to do all the household works. Whenever my daughter used to ask her husband for her treatment her husband used to say to take money from her mother in law and used to say that he was not having any concern with the same. My daughter asked her mother in law for treatment on which her mother-in-law used to reply "HAMARE YAHAAN JO BETI PAIDA KARTA HAI USKA ILAAZ NAHI HOTA HAI". My daughter came to know that ultrasound was conducted in order to ascertain the gender. Mother-in-law, father in law, husband and sister in law of my daughter used to make pressure on my daughter. They were creating pressure for aborting the fetus. Whenever my daughter was ill she was not got treated by her inlaws. When my daughter was seriously ill she was called by us to our house".
129. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion G to G of her examination in chief dated 23.08.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 89 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion G to G, the mother of the victim has stated, "We had not disclosed this fact to our daughter due to the reason she could be troubled".
130. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion H to H of her examination in chief dated 23.08.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion H to H, the mother of the victim has stated, "MERI BETI KI SAAS MERE BETI KE PATI AUR USKE DEWAR KO SIKHA DETI THI and at the instance of her mother in law, they(husband and brother in law) used to abuse my daughter".
131. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion I to I of her examination in chief dated 23.08.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion I to I, the mother of the victim has stated, "Accused Naresh never respect my daughter. Without knocking the door of the house as well as room of my daughter, accused Naresh used to enter in the same".
132. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion J to J of her State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 90 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar examination in chief dated 23.08.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion J to J, the mother of the victim has stated, "We used to send money for personal expenses of my daughter to her matrimonial home. My daughter became annoyed by repeatedly asking money for her personal expenses from us. My daughter told her father in law, mother in law and husband that she want to do a job. On this small issue, my daughter was badly beaten up".
133. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion K to K of her examination in chief dated 23.08.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion K to K, the mother of the victim has stated, "She also informed that her inlaws told her that they were also giving money to their daughter and that what is wrong in case she i.e. my daughter also asks for money from us. My daughter also informed that she told her father in law that she would tell the aforesaid to us and the police. She further informed that her father in law told her that he was in Police and would get her(my daughter) and her family members killed and implicate them in false cases and that he was so well connected then even after killing her and her family members they would not kept in jail even for two hours."
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 91 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
134. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion L to L of her examination in chief dated 29.08.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion L to L, the mother of the victim has stated, "Mother-in- law of my daughter threatened my daughter that her brothers, who were residing in Mitrao, were criminals and they used to do the same work. She further threatened my daughter that they would make my daughter and her family member disappear and they would not meet again. My daughter received an interview letter of Delhi Police. The in-laws of my deceased daughter tore the said interview letter and threw the same. The aforesaid facts were disclosed to us by my daughter later on".
135. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion M to M of her examination in chief dated 29.08.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion M to M, the mother of the victim has stated, "In the beginning of January, 2012, we came to know that my daughter was beaten by her in-laws. I alongwith my husband went to matrimonial home of my deceased daughter in order to discuss with her in-laws. We were trying to make them understand. In the meanwhile, accused Ricky Kataria, husband of my daughter, lifted his hand in order to slap my husband. My husband made a State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 92 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar call at No.100. Police reached there. The in-laws of my daughter threatened us that if we do not send back the police, we would be killed. On getting scared by the threatening by in-laws of my daughter and keeping our reputation, we sent back the police. We did not initiate any proceedings against the accused persons and came back to our house. After the aforesaid incident, my daughter was harassed and beaten by the accused persons. The aforesaid facts were disclosed by my daughter later on".
136. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion N to N of her examination in chief dated 29.08.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion N to N, the mother of the victim has stated, "On 24.10.2012, it was the day of 'Dusshera'. On that day, my husband called my daughter. The aforesaid call was picked by mother-in-law of my daughter and she rudely and loudly replied "Ish Nagin ko le jao, yeh hamara vansh nahin chalayegi".
137. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion O to O of her examination in chief dated 29.08.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion O to O, the mother of the victim has stated, "On 30.10.2012, Sh. Sukhbir, father-in-law of my daughter, Ricky, State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 93 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar husband of my daughter, Naresh @ Nishu, brother-in-law (Devar) of my daughter and Satender, brother-in-law (Nandoi) of my daughter came to our house. Accused Sukhbir shouted "Hamare khilaf koi bhi karwai ki gayi to khaandan ko khatam kar denge, aur meri itni pahuch hain ki hum kisi aadmi ko khatam kar dein to bhi do ghante se faltu hum jail mein nahin rahe sakte.". Suddenly, accused Ricky Kataria lifted his hand on my daughter in order to beat her. Accused Sukhbir, Ricky Kataria, Naresh @ Nishu and Satender Tokas started beating me, my sister-in-laws (Devrani and Jethani). Meanwhile, my husband reached there. My daughter somehow managed to call at No.100. Police reached our house. Aforesaid persons except Ricky and Naresh @Nishu ran away. Accused Ricky and Naresh @Nishu could not manage to flee away. They were taken to police station".
138. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion P to P of her examination in chief dated 29.08.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion P to P, the mother of the victim has stated, "In CAW Cell, a compromise had taken place between us. In-laws of my daughter felt sorry in CAW Cell".
139. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion T to T of her examination in chief dated 28.11.2019 and asked whether she State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 94 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion T to T, the mother of the victim has stated, "In the beginning of December, 2015, my daughter came to our house as she was being harassed and beaten by the accused persons for share of her property".
140. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion U to U of her examination in chief dated 28.11.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion U to U, the mother of the victim has stated, "On 25.12.2015, I alongwith my daughter Anita were alone at our house. At about 5.30 p.m., accused Rajbala, accused Renu Tokas, Bua of accused Ricky Kataria namely Sukhbiri, Mausa Mausi of accused Ricky Kataria, son of Bua of accused Ricky Kataria and accused Naresh came to our house and started quarrelling with us by shouting and they abused us. The aforesaid persons gave beating to me and my daughter Anita. My daughter Anita saved herself somehow and managed to call at no.100, on which aforesaid persons ran away from there. One police official came to our house and he told us to come to police station next morning to give the statement. Next day, my daughter told me that her father in law, mother in law, sister in law and her husband used to threat her, "ve meri beti ko va meri beti ke bachcho ko aur hamare ladke Anshul ko jaan se maar denge yedi State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 95 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar jaan se nahin maaara to uska apharan karwa denge.".
141. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion V to V of her examination in chief dated 28.11.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion V to V, the mother of the victim has stated, "My daughter further told us that she was subjected to cruelty by her in laws after withdrawal of the case from CAW Cell. Her in laws used to ask her for taking share from our property or take Rs.50 Lakhs from us and they used to pressurize her for the same".
142. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion W to W of her examination in chief dated 28.11.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion W to W, the mother of the victim has stated, "In March, 2016, in-laws of my daughter took her to their house on the pretext of first Holi of her child. Even after this, her father in law, mother in law, sister in law and her husband used to harass and beat my daughter continuously in order to take her share from our property. My daughter told all these facts to us. My daughter also told me that her father in law, mother in law, sister in law and her husband used to say, "hamne tere se shadi isliye karwai thi ki dahej mein tere gharwalo se hame makaan mein hissa State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 96 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar milega tatha budhe ke marne ke baad paisa milega, kyonki unke koi apna ladka nahin hai.".
143. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion X to X of her examination in chief dated 28.11.2019 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion X to X, the mother of the victim has stated, "On 22.10.2016, my daughter again made a call to me and told me that her father in law, mother in law, sister in law, brother in law (Devar) and her husband were demanding her share from our property and they were pressurizing her to take share from our property. We told my daughter that, "abhi ham jinda hai aur hamare marne ke baad, hamari property hamare bete Anshul ki hogi.". My daughter told us that they would not spare me alive, if her share is not given to them. I told my daughter that on the day of 'Bhaiya Dhuj' when she could come, we would discuss about the same".
144. Cross examination of PW1/ Smt. Santosh also records, " At this stage, the witness is confronted from portion Y to Y of her examination in chief dated 13.02.2020 and asked whether she had stated these facts to the SDM. I had not stated these facts to the SDM. (Vol. At that time, I was not in a state of mind to disclose everything in detail)." In her examination-in-chief, portion Y to Y, the mother of the victim has stated, "In the hall, we found broken pieces of bangles. We also found blood".
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 97 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
145. The confrontations / material improvments in the testimony of PW-6 Ramesh / father of the victim is reproduced hereinafter in the succeeding paragraphs.
146. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Rajbala, Ricky Kataria and Renu Tokas, PW6 has stated, " I had stated in my statement Ex.PW6/1 that the very next day of the marriage, the in-laws of the deceased started harassing her on account of bringing less dowry and said that she was from house of paupers." The father / witness was confronted with his statement to SDM Ex.PW6/1 wherein he had not made any such allegation.
147. During cross examination, PW6 has stated, "I had stated in Ex.PW6/1 that accused Renu used to call the deceased 'ek gandi nali ka keera'. The father / witness was confronted with his statement to SDM Ex.PW6/1 wherein he had not made any such allegation.
148. During cross examination, PW6 has stated, "I had stated in Ex.PW6/1 that Renu Tokas was a regular visitor to the matrimonial home of the deceased and in that house, everything used to happen as per her instructions". The father / witness was confronted with his statement to SDM Ex.PW6/1 wherein he had not made any such allegation.
149. During cross examination, PW6 has stated, "I had stated in Ex.PW6/1 that accused Ricky Kataria would come home drunk, would never take care of the deceased and on being confronted by her, he would say that he had only brought her as a servant to State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 98 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar do the household work". The father / witness was confronted with his statement to SDM Ex.PW6/1 wherein he had not made any such allegation.
150. During cross examination, PW6 has stated, "I do not remember whether I had stated in Ex.PW6/1 that in September, 2010, Renu Tokas had taken the deceased for determination of the sex of her unborn child or that thereafter she had demanded that the deceased bring Rs.10 Lakhs from her parents." The father / witness was confronted with his statement to SDM Ex.PW6/1 wherein he had not made any such allegation.
151. During cross examination, PW6 has stated, "I had stated in Ex.PW6/1 that in December, 2015 when the deceased fed up with the daily harassment and taunting, she came to our house and started staying there." The father / witness was confronted with his statement to SDM Ex.PW6/1 wherein he had not made any such allegation.
152. During cross examination, PW6 has stated, "I had stated in Ex.PW6/1 that in March, 2016, Ricky Kataria came to our house and requested that as it was the first Holi of his son, they wanted to celebrate at their house or that upon this request, we had sent the deceased and her children to her matrimonial home. " The father / witness was confronted with his statement to SDM Ex.PW6/1 wherein he had not made any such allegation.
153. During cross examination, PW6 has stated, "I had stated in Ex.PW6/1 that on 22.10.2016, the deceased had telephoned my wife and informed her that her in-laws were demanding that she State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 99 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar should get her share in her ancestral property or that they were threatening that failing in which, she would face dire consequences." The father / witness was confronted with his statement to SDM Ex.PW6/1 wherein he had not made any such allegation.
154. During cross examination, PW6 has stated, "I had stated in Ex.PW6/1 that in response to the demand conveyed by the deceased, my wife had told her that as long as we live, our properties would belong to us, whereafter it would go to our adopted son Anshul or that on hearing this, the deceased had told my wife that her in-laws would not let her live." The father / witness was confronted with his statement to SDM Ex.PW6/1 wherein he had not made any such allegation.
155. The testimonies of PW-1 Santosh and PW-6 Ramesh Singh would show that they had made material improvements in their statements recorded before the Court from the statements made to the SDM during investigation. The confrontations recorded in the testimonies of the parents of the victim are in material aspects. There are material contradictions in the statements of the mother and father recorded by SDM and examination-in-chief recorded before the Court. There is no explanation on record for such material contradictions in their statements. The material discrepancies in their statements can not be ignored and the discrepancies in their statements are of such a material nature that the statements of the mother and father become not reliable. The contradictions in the statements of the parents are not minor contradictions which can be ignored. Their testimonies are not of State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 100 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar sterling quality.
156. In the statement to SDM, the mother did not state that before the delivery to the victim in September 2015, the accused persons had demanded Rs.10 lacs in Chuchak. Similarly, father did not state in his statement to SDM that any demand of 10 lacs was made by the husband and in-laws prior to delivery of the male child to the victim. It is stated by the mother and father of the victim in their statement to SDM that after birth of male child to the victim, as per the demand of the in-laws, jewellery and gift worth Rs. 6 lacs was given in Chuchak ceremony of the male child. Neither the father nor the mother of the victim made allegations at the time of statements to the SDM that any demand of Rs. 10 lacs was made by the accused persons at the time of Chuchak ceremony.
157. There is no evidence on record to show that any jewelry and gift articles worth Rs. 6 Lacs was purchased by the parents of the victim in month of September 2015 or last quarter of the year 2015 to be gifted in Chuchak ceremony of the child. All the invoices handed over by the mother of the victim during investigation are invoice of the year 2009, 2010 and 2011. There is no material produced by the prosecution to show that the parents of the victim had purchased any jewelry or valuable gifts worth Rs. 6 lacs in the year 2015 or 2016.
158. The mother of the victim has stated in her examination-in- chief that after 2-3 months of the birth of the male child, when Anita came to the parental house, she informed that she was again harassed by her husband and in-laws and they were asking State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 101 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar her to get share in the parental property. The father has also stated in his examination-in-chief that 2-3 months after the birth of the male child when Anita came to her parental house, she had informed him (PW-6 Ramesh Singh) and his wife (PW-1 Santosh) that the in-laws were pressurizing her to get share from her parental property. The father has further stated that he had counseled the victim and sent her to her matrimonial home.
159. In the statement to SDM Ex. PW1/16, the mother has stated that after 2 month of birth of male child, when Anita came to the parental house to show the child to her, she had informed that her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and husband were again harassing and beating her and asking her to get share in the parental property and if the share in the property was not taken by her, the consequences would not be good. In the statement before SDM, the mother has stated that the victim was beaten multiple times and she was brought at the parental house. The father has stated in statement before SDM that after 2-3 months of birth of male child, multiple times the victim was beaten by her in-laws and MLC of the victim was prepared and later, the matter was mutually settled.
160. The father had informed in his statement to SDM that multiple times, MLC of the victim was prepared after birth of male child when she was allegedly beaten by the accused persons for dowry i.e. share in the parental property. However, there is no document produced by the prosecution to show that any MLC of the victim was prepared in the year 2015 as stated by the father in his statement to SDM. The only MLC which has been placed on State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 102 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar record is dated 24.10.2012. There is no MLC of the year 2015 to show that the victim was assaulted or beaten by any of the accused in the year 2015.
161. In her examination-in-chief, the mother has stated that in March 2016, the in-laws of her daughter took her to their house on the pretext of first Holi of her child and even after that her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law used to harass and beat the victim continuously in order to take her share from parental property and Anita had told all those facts to them. As already noted above, these allegations were not made by the mother at the time of her statement to the SDM. Further, no such allegations had been made by the father in his examination-in- chief before the Court. PW-6 Ramesh Singh has stated in his examination-in-chief that in March 2016, Ricky Kataria came to their house and said that as it was the first Holi of his son, they wanted to celebrate at their house and asked them to send the victim and her children with him and on such request, they sent the victim and the children with Ricky Kataria. In his statement before the Court as well as in his statement to SDM, the father of the victim did not state that the victim was subjected to any harassment in connection to dowry demand after she returned to her matrimonial house on occasion of Holi in the year 2016. All these circumstances create reasonable doubt over the allegations that when victim returned to her matrimonial house in March 2016, she was subjected to harassment to get share in the parental property.
162. The father of the victim in his evidence has stated that State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 103 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar when the victim had lodged complaint on 26.12.2015, she had informed about the dowry harassment by her in-laws and that there was threat to her life, however, the police did not take any action.
163. The complaint lodged by the victim to the SHO on 26.12.2015 has been proved as Ex. PW1/3. In the complaint dated 26.12.2015 to SHO PS Mehrauli, the victim would state that in the evening of 25.12.2015, she alongwith her mother Santosh were present at their house and around 5.30 p.m, her in- laws i.e. mother-in-law Rajbala, sister-in-law Renu Tokas, bua Sukhbiri, mausi Naresh, nani, mausa and son of bua namely Ashok came to her house and immediately on reaching, they started quarreling with them, abused them and manhandled them. When she called PCR, all of them fled away. One police official came to her house and asked her to come to PS on next day morning to give her statement. Her in-laws had threatened to kill her and her children and to her brother Anshul and also threatened that if they would not get them killed, they would get them kidnapped. She had apprehension to her life from her in- laws that anything could happen to her and previously also, the in-laws had beaten her and her family members regarding which complaint was lodged in Women Cell, Saket, however, in order to save reputation of her family and in-laws, she had withdrawn case lodged at CAW Cell. However, thereafter also, the in-laws kept harassing her and she had called PCR multiple times from her matrimonial home i.e. House no. C-376, Katwaria Sarai and her complaint may be looked into and action may be taken on her complaint. Some of her belongings were kept at her in-law's State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 104 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar house and she had apprehension that if she would go to the matrimonial house to take her belongings, they would beat her.
164. Perusal of the said complaint dated 26.12.2015 would show that in the said complaint, the victim did not make any specific allegation of dowry demand post settlement in CAW Cell in June 2013 and general allegation of harassment and PCR call being made in this regard had been mentioned.
165. PW-1 Smt. Santosh / mother of the victim has deposed in her cross-examination that Surender was mediator in the marriage of Anita and Ricky Kataria. She has further stated that they had informed Surender about the acts of the accused but he refused to intervene. PW-6 Ramesh Singh (father of the victim) has also stated that Surender @ Sunder was the mediator in the marriage of the deceased. He had complained to Surender many times that the victim was being harassed for dowry and sex determination. Surender used to come his house regularly but he did not mediate in the disputes as Surender used to say that he did not know that the in-laws of the victim would be of such character. His wife (PW-1 Santosh) also used to raise complaints against the in-laws of the victim before Surender and the last such complaint was made to Surender around one month before the death of the victim.
166. The testimonies of mother and the father of the victim would suggest that they had informed mediator Surender @ Sunder about the alleged dowry demands and harassment by the accused persons but he did not mediate in the disputes and lastly, Surender @ Sunder was informed about the demands and the State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 105 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar harassment one month before the death of the victim.
167. The accused persons have examined mediator Surender @ Sunder in the defence as DW-2. DW-2 Surender @ Sunder has deposed that he had informed about Ricky and Sukhbir to Subhash (brother-in-law of the victim) and he had gone with Subhash to the house of the accused persons to talk about marriage and the marriage was performed without any dowry and the expenses of the venue (place of marriage) was paid by Sukhbir Kataria. DW-2 has deposed during cross-examination by Ld. Add. PP that he was childhood friend of Subhash (brother-in- law/jija of the victim) and he was not related to the accused persons in any manner except that they belonged to same village. His testimony would suggest that he was never told by the parents of the victim about any dowry demand being made by the accused persons. On the one hand, there is oral testimony of PW-1 Santosh and PW-6 Ramesh Singh that mediator Surender @ Sunder was informed about the dowry demand and harassment of the victim. On the other hand, there is statement of the mediator Surender @ Sunder which suggests that he was not informed anything after the marriage of the victim with Ricky Kataria. Surender @ Sunder's testimony would suggest that he was friend of brother-in-law of the victim. Therefore, there does not appear to be any reason for him to depose falsely to save the accused persons.
168. As already discussed above, there are material improvements and inconsistencies in the evidence of the mother and father of the victim from the statement made to the SDM.
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 106 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
169. In her examination in chief, PW-1 Santosh has stated that she had received call from her daughter / victim on 21.10.2016 and her daughter (Anita) told her that her father-in-law, mother- in-law, sister-in-law and husband were pressurizing her to take share from parental property otherwise they would do anything with her. Thereafter again on 22.10.2016, her daughter (victim Anita) made a call to her and told her that her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law and husband were demanding share in parental property and they were pressurizing her to take share from parental property and when she told her daughter that after their death, the property would go to their son Anshul, Anita told them they (in-laws) would not spare her alive if her share was not given. On this, she told her daughter that on the day of Bhai Dooj, when she would come, she would discuss about the matter. In the cross-examination, PW-1 Santosh had stated that after receiving the call on 21.10.2016 and 22.10.2016, she did not call PCR. The mother of the victim has deposed that she did not call the police after receiving call of the victim that she was beaten for share in the parental property and there was threat to her life.
170. In his examination-in-chief, the father of the victim has stated that on 22.10.2016 his daughter made a phone call to his wife (PW-1 Santosh) and told that her in-laws were pressurizing her to get her share in the ancestral property failing which they were threatening her with dire consequences. In his cross- examination, PW-6 Ramesh Singh (father of the victim) had stated that he did not know at what time his wife had received the call from the victim on 22.10.2016. He was informed about the State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 107 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar conversation in the evening of 22.10.2016 however, he did not raise this issue with the husband or in-laws of the victim because such issues had become a routine thing and he did not take them seriously.
171. Record would show that in statement to the SDM, the mother of the victim mentioned about a call dated 21.10.2016 which she had received from the victim and during that call, the victim had informed that husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law were pressurizing her for getting share in parental property otherwise they would do anything and that on said call, she told the victim that she would think over it. The mother of the victim mentioned about call dated 21.10.2016 in her statement to SDM Ex. PW1/16, however, her statement to SDM is silent about having telephonic conversation with the victim on 22.10.2016.
172. Further, even though in his testimony, the father has stated about the telephonic conversation dated 22.10.2016, the father of the victim in his statement to the SDM Ex. PW6/1 did not state about any telephonic conversation dated 21.10.2016 or 22.10.2016. The fact that the father of the victim in his statement to SDM did not state about any telephonic conversation dated 21.10.2016 or telephonic conversation dated 22.10.2016 creates reasonable doubt over the allegation of the prosecution that the victim had made call on 21.10.2016 or 22.10.2016 to inform her mother that her husband and in-laws were pressurizing and harassing her for share in the parental property.
173. In a case like this, where a daughter is dead in unnatural State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 108 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar circumstances, the parent would always remember the last conversation first and not the previous one. It is difficult to believe that the mother and father would forget about the conversation dated 22.10.2016 which they allegedly had with the victim at the time of recording of statement by the SDM, but they would remember about conversation which had allegedly taken place two days ago. Parents would always remember the last conversation which they had with their daughter before her death. Had it been the case that there was a call from the victim on 22.10.2016 about any demand or harassment by the husband and in-laws, the mother and father would have remembered about the same and mentioned about the same in their respective statements to SDM.
174. Further, the conduct of the parents of the victim, as deposed by them, after receipt of alleged call on 21.10.2016 and 22.10.2016 from the victim regarding her harassment by the accused persons for share in the parental property is not natural. As per allegations, on 21.10.2016, the victim had called her mother and informed her mother that husband and in-laws were pressurizing her to take her share from the parental property and threatening for dire consequences. Even on 22.10.2016 allegedly, the daughter called and informed that if her share was not given in the parental property, the husband and in-laws would not spare her alive. Even after the alleged calls, the mother said that when the victim would come on the day of Bhai Dooj, she would discuss about the issue. The father has stated that after getting information about the call, he did not take it seriously as it was routine affair.
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 109 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
175. In the year 2016, Bhai Dooj was celebrated on 01.11.2016 i.e. after ten days of the last alleged call. As per the allegations of the prosecution, allegedly on 21.10.2016 and on 22.10.2016, the victim had said that her husband and in-laws would not let her live if share in the parental property was not given, however, the parents did not do anything after receiving the call and the mother told her daughter that she would talk to her on Bhai Dooj i.e. after ten days. It is difficult to believe that if a daughter would tell her parents that her husband and in-laws would do anything to her if her share in the parental property was not given, such parents would not do anything and would not take the call seriously. The statement of father of the victim is surprising. It is hard to believe that the parents of the victim would not take the phone calls seriously of their daughter who informed them that her in-laws were threatening of dire consequences in case she did not get share in her ancestral property. No prudent parent can act in such a manner. The conduct of the parents of the victim, as stated by them, makes it difficult to believe that any call on 21.10.2016 and 22.10.2016 for the purpose of informing the parents about harassment to bring share in parental property was received from the victim.
176. As already discussed above, the statement of the mother to SDM is silent about any call on 22.10.2016 and the statement of father to SDM is silent about any such call either on 21.10.2016 or on 22.10.2016. In these facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the allegation of call received from the victim on 21.10.2016 and 22.10.2016 to inform about dowry demand and harassment has come under clouds of reasonable doubt.
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 110 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
177. It is proved on record that a PCR call dated 22.10.2016 was received at 9.55 p.m. and the victim had informed the PCR, "sasural wale maarpeet kar rahe hain, need police ". When IO SI Ramphal had closed the said call, he has mentioned, "caller Anita ne bataya hai ki gharelu kahasuni". In his evidence also, PW15 SI Ramphal has deposed that on 22.10.2016 when he alongwith Ct. Poonam and Ct. Mahipal went to the spot, PCR caller Anita Kataria met them; he inquired from her about the PCR call and Anita stated that on that day, no beatings had taken place and she would give her complaint separately and the same be sent to CAW Cell. PW15 SI Ramphal has also deposed that Ct. Poonam inquired from caller Anita separately but Anita refused to give her statement at that time.
178. It is proved from the testimony of PW-15 SI Ramphal that on 22.10.2016 when he reached at the spot after receipt of PCR call, the victim did not make any complaint and told during inquiry by SI Ramphal as well as by Ct. Poonam that no beating had taken place on that day and she would give complaint on next day which may be sent to CAW Cell.
179. The victim had earlier lodged complaint to the police in October 2012, complaint with the CAW Cell on 05.11.2012 and she had also lodged complaint with the SHO PS Mehrauli on 26.12.2015. The victim was well aware of the proceedings of the CAW Cell and police proceedings. Had it been the case that the victim was harassed and subjected to harassment by any of the accused on 21.10.2016 or 22.10.2016 for share in the parental property, she would have necessarily informed about the said State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 111 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar facts to the police when the police reached the spot on 22.10.2016.
180. As per the allegation by the parents of the victim, the victim was subjected to cruelty to fulfill dowry demand and she had shared such incidents with her parents, time and again. In such circumstances, there does not appear to be any plausible reason for not informing the police officials about any such demand when the victim called the PCR and when police officials were present at her house. There is nothing on record produced by the prosecution to show that when the police officials met the victim in the night of 22.10.2016, the victim was not in her senses or that she looked scared or perplexed or that her conduct seemed un-natural during inquiry by SI Ramphal and Ct Poonam. The fact that the victim did not inform about alleged demand and harassment during visit of the police officials on 22.10.2016 also creates reasonable doubts over the allegations that on 21.10.2016 or on 22.10.2016, the victim was harassed by the accused persons for share in the parental property.
181. Further, it is proved from the material produced by the prosecution that one suicide note was found in undergarment of the victim at the time of postmortem. The signature and handwriting on the suicide note have been proved to be of the victim. The burden was upon the prosecution to prove that the suicide note was not written on the date of alleged incident or that it was written on any other day prior to date of incident. In the absence of any material to show the contrary, the suicide note is presumed to be written on the date of alleged incident by the State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 112 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar victim before committing suicide.
182. The contents of the suicide note are reproduced as under:
"श्रीमान SHO साहब मैं अनिता कटारिया w/o Ricky कटारिया अपनी जान दे रही हु जिसकी जिन्मे दार मेरी सास राजबाला और नंद रे नू है इन दोनो ने मेरे पति रिक्की का इतना माइं ड वॉश कर दिया है की वो इनकी बातों में आकर मुझे मारते है पीटते है और इनकी बातो को सच मानकर हमारे बीच बहुत कड़वाहट आ गई है मैं अपने पति रिक्की को बहुत प्यार करती हूं लेकिन ये मां बेटी हमें सुख से जीने नहीं देगी मैं इनसे दूर रहकर जी नहीं सकती इसलिए मर रही हु रिक्की अगर थोडा सा प्यार कभी किया हो तुमने मुझे अपनी लाईफ में तो कभी दुसरी शादी मत करना तुम्हारी मा बहन तब भी तेरा घर बसने नहीं देगी और इन बच्चों की बिरानमाटी कर देगी अपने बच्चों को पालना पौसना और हो सके तो इन दोनों घर उजाडुओं से दूर रखना इन्हें उजाड़ना था हमारा घर और आज उजाड़ दिया अगर अब भी आपको अकल आ जाए तो ठीक नहीं तो यह दोनों इन बच्चों का भी कहीं घर बसाने नहीं देगी याद रखना आपकी अनीता.आई लव यू रिक्की I Love U"
183. Perusal of the suicide note would show that in the suicide note, the victim did not make any allegation of dowry harassment by any of the accused at any point of time. She has specifically stated that she loved her husband Ricky. The victim has stated, "Main apne pati Ricky ko bahut pyaar karti hun lekin ye maa beti hame sukh se jeene nahi degi, main inse dur rehkar jee nahi sakti isliye mar rahi hun... Kabhi dusri shadi mat karna, tumhari maa behan tab bhi tera ghar basne nahi degi...dono ghar ujaduo se durr rakhna......".
184. The suicide note would suggest that due to interference by accused Rajbala and Renu Tokas in the matrimonial life of the victim, she was committing suicide. The suicide note creates reasonable doubts over the allegation of the prosecution that the victim was subjected to dowry harassment by the accused persons. If the victim was harassed by the accused persons for dowry demand, there is no reason as to why the victim would not State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 113 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar state in her suicide note that due to dowry demand and harassment by the accused persons, she was ending her life. Even there is no mention of father-in-law in the suicide note.
185. The suicide note is a crucial piece of evidence and the authenticity and the relevance of the suicide note has been proved on record. The suicide note suggests the state of mind of the victim at the time of her death. The suicide note suggests that the victim was fed up with the interference in her matrimonial life by mother-in-law Rajbala and sister-in-law Renu Tokas and because of their interference, she was not able to settle in her matrimonial life and she was not happy in her matrimonial home and therefore, she was ending her life. The averments made against mother-in-law and sister-in-law are vague. There is not even an iota of suggestion that the victim was ever subjected to dowry demand and harassment. If the victim was informing her parents and relatives about dowry demand, she must have mentioned the same in the suicide note also.
186. Further, on the one hand, the parents have claimed that accused persons did not give even single penny to the victim for her personal expenses, therefore, they used to give money to the victim regularly for her expenses. On the other hand, the parents of the victim have admitted that the victim had transferred money from her savings account to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- in the account of her mother. The parents of the victim have stated during their testimony that the money was transferred by the victim for LIC policy. However, this statement made by the parents of the victim is inconsistent with the allegations made State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 114 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar by the parents that they used to send money by way of cash for personal expenses of the victim. The prosecution has not produced any LIC policy on record to show that any payment was made against LIC policy of the victim.
187. In the cross-examination, the father of the victim has admitted that Anita used to give account payee cheque as well as she had also given bearer cheque which they (he and his wife) had encashed from the the bank. The fact that the victim had transferred amount of approx. 2.5 lacs in the account of her mother and gave bearer cheque of approx. 50,000/- to her parents after her marriage and the victim was not working at that time supports the defence of the accused persons that there was dispute in the matrimonial house because of the habit of the victim giving money to her parents from the income in the matrimonial house.
188. The prosecution has examined three more witnesses to prove that accused persons demanded dowry and harassed the victim to fulfill the demand.
189. PW-8 Smt. Ramrati is bua in relation of the victim. Perusal of her testimony would show that she made material improvements in her testimony and she was duly confronted with those improvements during her cross-examination. Be that as it may, her testimony would suggest that she was told by the victim about the demand of dowry and harassment in relation to the same before the complaint to CAW cell was filed by the victim. She has stated that she had also attended the case before CAW cell 2-3 times. This fact shows that she is also an interested State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 115 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar witness like the parents of the victim and therefore, her testimony is to be considered with caution. As already discussed, the allegations made in the complaint to CAW cell were never decided and proved because the parties entered into settlement. Further, the bua had not made allegation of demand by the accused post CAW cell settlement. Therefore, the testimony of PW-8 is not sufficient evidence to prove that the accused persons had demanded dowry from the victim and committed cruelty upon her.
190. PW-10 Santra is mausi in relation to the victim. The complaint given to the police by PW-10 is a typed complaint which was given in December 2016 i.e. after about two months of the death of the victim. At the time of typing of the complaint, the mother of the victim was also with her. Perusal of testimony of PW-10 would show that the allegations made by her are vague. She has stated that the victim had told her that her in-laws were asking her either to take share in the parental property or to bring Rs 50 Lakhs from her parents. This fact of demand of Rs. 50 Lakhs is not stated by any of the parents of the victim girl in their statement to SDM. The testimony of PW-10 Santra would show that she was very attached to the victim. Therefore, she is also an interested witness. Her testimony also does not inspire confidence of the court regarding the alleged demand of dowry i.e. share in the property.
191. PW-12 Sh. Rakesh Kumar is real chacha (uncle) in relation to the victim. First part of his testimony is related to the allegations of demand of dowry before complaint to CAW cell State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 116 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar was made by the victim. As already stated, those allegations were never proved before any authority. The second part of his testimony is vague allegation of harassment of the victim by the accused persons. He has stated, "Thereafter, from the year 2012 to 2016, her husband and in-laws used to beat her regularly and demanding for more dowry and they pressurized my niece for taking share in her parental property since they had problem with the adoption of boy of Sunita by my elder brother." The testimony of PW-12 does not show that he was ever told by the victim that she was beaten and harassed for meeting the demand of dowry by the accused persons. Therefore, his testimony also does not inspire confidence of the Court.
192. During course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the complaints given by the mother of the victim after two months of death of the victim. The statement to the police made by Santosh after two months of the incident in December 2016 and January 2017 are all typed statements. The application given to the SHO by mother on 03.01.2017 and the language mentioned in the application suggests that the said application has been drafted by a person having legal knowledge. The copy of record regarding PCR calls made by the victim are regarding domestic violence. These PCR calls do not establish that the victim was subjected to harassment to fulfill dowry demand. Domestic violence includes verbal abuse, emotional abuse and not necessarily dowry demand and harassment. The PCR calls made by the victim are not sufficient to establish that demand of dowry was made from the victim and that she was subjected to harassment to fulfill the demand. The State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 117 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for complainant are distinguishable from the facts of the case. In the case of State of M.P. v. Jogendra, AIR 2022 SC 933, the testimony of the relatives of the victim was consistent regarding demand and harassment. However, in the present case, as discussed above, there are material improvements and inconsistencies in the statements of the parents of the victim and relatives of the victim. In the case of Bachni Devi & Anr. v. State of Haryana, AIR 2011 SC 1098, demand of motorcycle for starting business to sell milk was considered to be demand of dowry. The judgment is distinguishable from the facts of present case. In the case of Vipin Jaiswal v. State of A.P. AIR 2013 SC 1567, the conviction of the accused was set aside and the suicide note of the victim was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while setting aside the conviction. This judgment is of no help to the complainant. In the case of Rajender Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2015 SC 1359, the victim had died within four months of her marriage and the allegations of demand were proved which reasonably connected to the death of the victim. In the case of Surender Singh v. State of Haryana, 2013 AIR SCW 6741, Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the question whether the demand of money made for business constituted dowry. In the case of Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2011 SC 691, recovery of the suicide note was doubtful and it was not proved that the suicide note was in the handwriting of the victim. The judgments passed in the case of Kansraj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324, Kulwant Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, 2013 AIR SCW 2154; Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2021 SC State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 118 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar 2616; Mustafa Shahadal Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SC 851 and Maya Devi v. State of Haryana, AIR 2016 SC 125 are distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
193. In view of the discussion herein-above, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused persons had demanded dowry and harassed the victim to fulfill the demand of dowry or that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty to fulfill dowry demand. The ingredients of offence u/s 304B and 498A IPC are not proved beyond reasonable doubts.
194. Charge is also framed against the accused persons for offence u/s 306/34 IPC.
195. Section 306 IPC reads as, "If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
196. In the case of Prakash and Others v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Criminal appeal (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1073 of 2023) decided on 20.12.2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with appeal u/s 306 IPC, has held as under:
"13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well-
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 119 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.
15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide.
16. This Court in the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another12, had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 306 of the IPC and the ingredients which are essential for abetment, as set out in Section 107 of the IPC. It observed as follows:
"16. The word "suicide" in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. "Sui" means "self" and "cide"
means "killing", thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.
...........
18. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 IPC.
..........
21. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] In Mahendra Singh [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] the allegations levelled were as under: (SCC p. 731, para 1) "1. ... My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law.
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 120 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning."
The Court on the aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of the aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law.
...........
23. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that:
(SCC p. 90, para 17) "17. ...The court 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 [appears] 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 accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
24. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 121 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
17. This Court held that abetment involves the mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Therefore, without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid a person in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. This Court further observed that the intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Abetment also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. However, this Court has cautioned that since each person reacts differently to the same provocation depending on a variety of factors, it is impossible to lay down a straightjacket formula to deal with such cases. Therefore, every such case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
18. More recently, in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat13, this Court has relied on S.S. Chheena (supra) to hold that the element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law, that is deliberate and conspicuous intention to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide, would remain unfulfilled. This Court observed as follows:
"18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea--the intention to abet the act--is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 122 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide."
19. It is, therefore, evident that the positive act of instigation is a crucial element of abetment. While dealing with an issue of a similar nature, this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh,14 laid down the parameters of what would be constituted to be an act of instigation. This Court observed as follows:-
"20. 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."
20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". It has been held that in order 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, however, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Applying the law to the facts of the case, this Court went on to hold that a word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
21. Relying on the decision in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), this Court in the case of Ude Singh and Others v. State of Haryana15 observed as follows:
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 123 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 124 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar
16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons; and so far a particular person's reaction to any other human's action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to the ill action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances."
22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It has been held that since the cause of suicide particularly in the context of the offence of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. This Court further observed that a mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide. This Court also emphasised that such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence.
It was further clarified that the question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused. It was further held that if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or a snap-show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide, however, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be tht of abetment of suicide. This Court held that owing to the fact that the human mine could be affected and could react in myriad ways and that similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons, each case is required to be dealt with its own facts and circumstances."
197. If the facts of the present case are examined considering State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 125 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar the settled law in respect of section 306 IPC, this Court is of the view that there is no direct evidence to prove that the accused persons had in any way instigated or provoked the victim to commit the suicide. The suicide note would suggest that the victim was not happy because of interference of her mother-in- law and sister-in-law in her matrimonial life. This is only a vague averment in the suicide note. No guilty intention or mens rea on the part of the accused persons has been established. Differences in the domestic life are quite common and unless and until some guilt intention on the part of the accused persons is established to show that the accused persons had abetted suicide of the victim, the accused persons cannot be convicted for offence u/s 306 IPC. The prosecution has failed to establish that accused persons had aided or abetted suicide of the victim. The ingredients of offence u/s 306 IPC are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
198. The prosecution has alleged that the victim was harassed by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law i.e. the accused persons in relation to dowry demands after her marriage and that the said harassment continued even on the day before her death.
199. As already discussed above, it has been proved that one complaint was lodged by the victim in October 2012 and 05.11.2012 during her lifetime for harassment and dowry demand against the accused persons which was marked to Crime Against Women Cell (CAW Cell) of Delhi Police. It has been proved that during CAW cell proceedings, the accused persons made counter allegations against the victim and her family. After counseling, State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 126 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar matter was amicably settled and the victim again started living with her husband separately from her parents in law on ground floor of the same building in which her parents in law were residing on the first floor. As per the case of the prosecution, even thereafter there was demands of dowry and the victim was subjected to harassment to meet those demands. It is also proved on record that the victim had lodged a complaint dated 26.12.2015 to SHO PS Mehrauli alleging threat, verbal abuse and manhandling by the accused at her parental house. In the said complaint, there is no specific allegation of any demand of dowry by the accused persons and any harassment by them to fulfill the demand of dowry. The prosecution has not brought on record any explanation as to why there was no mentioning of such demands and harassment if the victim was actually repeatedly harassed by the accused persons to fulfill their demands of dowry. It is not a case where the victim during her lifetime never made any complaint against her in-laws for any ill-treatment or demand of dowry. As already discussed, it had been proved that in the year 2012 i.e. after just about 2 years of her marriage, the victim made a complaint to the police regarding the demand of dowry and harassment by the accused persons. It has also been proved that even the parents of the victim has attended the proceedings related to said complaint of year 2012 before CAW cell which was later on compromised. Thus, the victim and her parents are shown to have been aware that a complaint of dowry demand could always be made to the police and that it was a serious offence to make demand of dowry and harassment in relation to the same. Therefore, the fact that the victim in the complaint State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 127 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar dated 26.12.2015 did not utter about dowry demand and harassment in relation to the same is sufficient to create reasonable doubt in the mind of the court regarding any demand of dowry by the accused persons after CAW cell settlement and any harassment in relation to the same. Further, it is also proved on record that after settlement in CAW cell, the victim had transferred an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- in the account of her mother and that the victim gave bearer cheques to her father which were encashed by him. The explanation given by the parents for receiving such money is that it was amount of LIC. However, this explanation does not inspire the confidence of the court in the facts and circumstances as discussed herein-above. There is a plausible explanation provided by the defence that the victim during her lifetime was helping her parents financially by giving them the amount which she was receiving in the matrimonial home. This fact also creates reasonable doubts regarding allegation of the victim being harassed for fulfilling the demand of dowry. Further, the conduct of the parents, as stated by them, after they were told on phone by the victim about alleged demand of dowry and harassment in relation to same, also create reasonable doubts on the allegation of dowry demand and harassment. No prudent parent would take it lightly when their daughter informed that her in-laws asked her either to ask for share in property of her parents or to face dire consequences. A prudent parent in such facts and circumstances would immediately reach at the matrimonial home of the daughter where the daughter was residing at that time and would make a complaint to the police or any other legal authority. No parent State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 128 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar would let such situation go only because it was a routine as stated by the father of the victim. Similarly, no prudent mother in such situation would tell her daughter that when the daughter would come after ten days, she would discuss about it. Therefore, the statements made by the parents of the victim during their testimonies in Court also create reasonable doubt in relation to charge of offence u/s. 304B IPC as stated herein-above. Further, it is also proved on record that on 22.10.2016, i.e. night when the victim committed suicide, at about 10.00 pm, the victim had called the PCR and told the PCR officials that her in-laws were beating her. It is also proved on record that the local police attended the said PCR call and reached at the house from where the PCR call was made. The testimony of police official, who attended the said PCR call, proves that the victim was inquired by not only male police official but also by female police official separately and she told them that she would give her statement later on in CAW cell. It could not be shown by the prosecution as to why the said PCR call was made on that day, however the above-mentioned facts are sufficient to show that the victim was not harassed for any dowry demand by any of the accused on that day otherwise she would have informed the police officials who had made inquiry from her. DW-1, accused Ricky, the husband of the victim has provided an explanation for the said PCR. In his testimony, he has deposed that on that night, Anita was talking to her boyfriend and when he tried to snatch the phone from her, she called PCR. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the said statement of DW-1. Further, recovery of one suicide note written and signed by the victim herself from the undergarment of the State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 129 of 130 FIR No. 964/2016 PS Vasant Vihar victim has been proved. The language used by the victim girl in the said suicide note suggests that she was in love with her husband but she was having some issues with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. The suicide note does not give even a hint that the victim was subjected to any dowry demand and that she was harassed by the accused persons in relation to such demands. In the suicide note, there is no allegation against the father-in-law of the victim. As already stated, the suicide note does not describe as to how the mother-in-law and sister-in-law were not allowing her to enjoy her matrimonial life and therefore, such vague averment in the suicide note against the mother-in-law and sister- in-law is not sufficient to show that the victim was instigated or abetted to commit suicide.
200. In view of the discussion herein-above, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused persons. Benefit of reasonable doubts is given to the accused persons and they are acquitted of the charges alleged.
Pronounced in the open Court today on 17th December, 2025 (NEHA) District Judge-06 / Additional Sessions Judge, South East, Saket Courts, Delhi.
Neha
Digitally signed
by Neha
Date: 2025.12.17
17:36:09 +0530
State vs. Rajbala & Ors. Page No. 130 of 130
FIR No. 964/2016
PS Vasant Vihar