Delhi District Court
Arora vs State, 2010 (3) Lrc 349 (Del) Wherein It on 29 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. R. KIRAN NATH
ASJ 01, SOUTH DELHI, SAKET COURTS
S. C. No. 135/07
STATE
Vs.
1. Balram
S/o B.L. Gautam
R/o Qtr. No. 344, Sector7
Pushp Vihar, New Delhi.
2. Dolraj
S/o B.L. Gautam
R/o Qtr. No. 344, Sector7
Pushp Vihar, New Delhi.
3. Kamlesh
D/o B.L. Gautam
R/o Qtr. No. 344, Sector7
Pushp Vihar, New Delhi.
4. Bhim Lal Gautam
S/o Khumanand
FIR No. : 864/07 1
R/o Qtr. No. 344, Sector7
Pushp Vihar, New Delhi.
FIR No. : 864/07
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
U/S : 498A/304B/34 IPC.
Date of Institution : 16112007
Date of Judgment : 29092011
J U D G M E N T
1. All the four accused persons have been charged for having committed offences u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 100807 DD no. 8 was recorded in PPPushp Vihar, PSMalviya Nagar from Modi Hospital that one lady Megha had been admitted in the hospital after consuming poison by one girl named Bobby (accused Kamlesh) and that the doctor had declared her brought dead. This information was received through PCR. The IO reached the hospital where Megha was found to be declared brought dead. It was learnt that the deceased had been married to FIR No. : 864/07 2 accused Balram on 22112000. Two children were born out of the said marriage. She had hanged herself with the duppata in the bed room. The family of the deceased was informed. IO reached the spot. Crime team was called; photographs of the spot were taken. Suicide note along with ball pen were found lying on the double bed. The dupatta with which she had hung herself was also found at the spot and was seized and sealed. The dead body was sent to mortuary. SDM was called who recorded the statements of the mother, father and sister of the deceased separately and then directed for registration of the case.
3. In his statement the father of the deceased had stated that he only came to know from other daughters after the marriage of the deceased that his deceased daughter was harassed and demands were raised by her inlaws. That when his daughter came to their house in the summer vacation in the year 2007 she informed them that house was allotted to her inlaws at Dwarka FIR No. : 864/07 3 and for this they had asked for Rs.1.00 lakh. He alleged that he could not arrange for the said amount after which the inlaws of the deceased started harassing her and that they received a call yesterday that she had died. That this was also disclosed only when they rang up around 7.00 pm to find out about the welfare of their daughter.
4. In her statement the mother of the deceased also stated on the same lines that she came to know about her daughter being harassed as her inlaws demanded money when Megha came to them in summer vacation. She was also aggrieved over the fact that they had not disclosed about the death of Megha on their own and hence they suspected that their daughter had been killed for dowry.
5. The statement of the sister of the deceased namely Rekha was also recorded, who stated that Megha used to tell her about the wrong behaviour of her inlaws towards her from the beginning of her marriage and had FIR No. : 864/07 4 asked her not to disclose about the same to their parents. Her sister's brother in law had once hit her, as disclosed to her by Megha, and that she was of firm belief that Megha had died due to the behaviour of her inlaws. She had been killed by her inlaws.
6. Inquest proceedings were conducted. The FIR was registered against the husband and father, brother and sister of the husband u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. Site plan was prepared. Accused persons were arrested. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Documents were collected. Particulars about the allotment of flat to the accused at Dwarka by DDA and its payment were also checked and verified. The postmortem report was obtained in which cause of death stated to be asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. The viscera was sent for examination and the poisoning was ruled out. As per the FSL report the signatures on the suicide note was matched with the admitted signatures of the deceased. Subsequently the statements of the children of the FIR No. : 864/07 5 deceased was recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC. After completing the investigation the chargesheet was filed in the court.
7. On the basis of the chargesheet charge u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. In support of its case the prosecution has examined 23 witnesses.
9. PW1 is Baby Shikha Gautam, six years old daughter of the deceased.
10. PW2 is Master Aniket, six years old son of the deceased.
11. PW3 is P.S. Jolly, the accountant from the school of Aniket Gautam, S/o deceased who had handed over the first page of diary of the deceased which contained the admitted signatures of the deceased. The said page of the diary was seized vide memo Ex.PW3/B and the first page of the diary was Ex.PW3/B1.
12. PW4 is Jagbir Singh, Assistant from DDA who FIR No. : 864/07 6 deposed that as per record of DDA flat no. 398, ground floor, Sector 18B, PhaseII, Dwarka was alloted to Shri Bhim Lal Gautam (accused & father in law of deceased) in the draw held on 030107 under the DDA housing scheme 2006. Ex.PW4/A was the letter sent by them to the IO of the case regarding giving this information.
13. In his crossexamination this witness had admitted that full and final payment of the plot was received by the department on 170404 (170407).
14. PW5 is WHC Xabaria, who was working as duty officer on the relevant date on 110807 and had recorded the formal FIR Ex.PW5/A.
15. PW6 is Shri O.P. Manwar, Senior Manager from Bank of India, East of Kailash Branch, who deposed as per the record of the bank that Rs.1.50 lakh was financed by their bank for booking the flat initially as mark PW6/A and that a loan of Rs.12.00 lakhs was sanctioned by them for the purchase of the flat when the same was allotted. A sum of Rs.3,55,022/ was debited FIR No. : 864/07 7 from the account of Shri Bhim Lal Gautam (accused) and thereafter the draft of Rs.15,55,022/ was prepared in favour of DDA on 170407.
16. PW7 is constable Girdhar, who had taken the photographs of the spot and had proved the same as Ex.PW7/P6 to P10 and the negatives as Ex.PW7/P1 to P5.
17. PW8 is SI Mahesh Kumar, who prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW8/A in the case.
18. PW9 is Dr. P. Sailesh who had exmained the deceased when she was brought to the hospital and had declared her brought dead as per Ex.PW9/A.
19. PW10 is Smt. Bindra Devi, the mother of the deceased.
20. PW11 is Smt. Rekha, the sister of the deceased.
21. PW12 is Shri Vishnu Prasad, the father of the deceased.
22. PW13 is Shri Amit Thakur, the cousin brother of the deceased, who had identified her dead body. FIR No. : 864/07 8
23. PW14 is Shri Alok Sharma, the Executive Magistrate who had recorded the statement of father, mother and sister of the deceased and had conducted the proceedings in the mortuary and after completing the inquest proceedings he recommended for registration of the case.
24. PW15 is Shri D.K. Sharma, Ld. MM, who had recorded the statements of both the children of the deceased u/s 164 Cr.PC and has proved the same as Ex.PW15/B and Ex.PW15/D.
25. PW16 is W/constable Rita Devi who had accompanied the IO to arrest accused Kamlesh from Pushp Vihar on 160807 and had taken her personal search.
26. PW17 is Dr. Sushil Sharma, who deposed with respect to the postmortem of the deceased and stated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to antemortem hanging.
27. PW18 is HC Amar Singh, who took the articles FIR No. : 864/07 9 from the malkhana and deposited the same in FSL Rohini.
28. PW19 is constable Kishore Singh, who also deposited some of the case property from the malkhana to the FSL Rohini.
29. PW20 is HC Rambir, who had reached the Modi hospital with constable Surinder on receipt of DD no. 8 and SI Arvind also reached there. He had testified on the lines of the prosecution case regarding the deceased having been brought dead to the hospital; regarding the seizure of suicide note and the dupatta etc.
30. PW21 is Inspector Parveen Kumar, who was incharge crime team and had directed for taking the photographs and had given his report Ex.PW21/A.
31. PW22 is HC Banwari Lal, who testified that case property was deposited on 100807 at Sl. no. 3172 and was sent to FSL on 300807 as per the entries Ex.PW22/A and Ex.PW22/B.
32. PW23 is Inspector Arvind Kumar, who had FIR No. : 864/07 10 reached the Modi Hospital on receipt of DD no. 8. He testified that from the preliminary inquiry he came to know that deceased was married in November, 2000, so he informed senior officers and SDM on telephone. He rushed to the spot; inspected the spot where he found one suicide note on the double bed head board, one stool on the bed and one dupatta was also lying near the stool on one side and one pen was lying on other side. He called the crime team along with photographer; the spot was inspected by the crime team and photographs were also taken. He also seized the exhibits from the place of occurrence i.e. one dupatta, suicide note and a ball pen vide memo Ex.PW20/A. The dupatta was Ex.A1; ball pen was Ex.A2 and suicide note was Ex.A3.
33. He further testified that he informed the parents of deceased Megha; went back to the hospital and sent the dead body of the deceased for preservation at AIIMS hospital. That thereafter parents and relatives of deceased came in the hospital. The inquest proceedings FIR No. : 864/07 11 were got conducted u/s 176 Cr.PC; after identification of the dead body the postmortem was got conducted and thereafter the dead body was handed over to the father of the deceased. The statements of the father, mother and sister of the deceased was recorded by the Executive Magistrate and thereafter the same were handed over to him with the directions to take legal action. He further testified that he got the case registered and investigation was handed over to him. He also seized the medical exhibits vide memo Ex.PW23/B. Site plan Ex.PW23/C was prepared; accused persons namely Balram and Dolraj were arrested on the identification of the complainant vide memos Ex.PW12/E and Ex.PW12/H respectively.
34. That on 120807 he arrested accused B.L. Gautam on the identification of the complainant vide memo Ex.PW12/F and his personal search was also prepared. That on 160807 he arrested accused Kamlesh @ Bobby vide arrested memo already Ex.PW12/G. Notice u/s 91 FIR No. : 864/07 12 Cr.PC was served on the complainant for the admitted handwriting of the deceased. The photographs of the marriage of deceased with accused Balram were Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. That the first page of the diary belonging to the son of the deceased from the school was seized and notice to this effect was also issued. He had also proved the FSL reports as Ex.PW23/D and Ex.PW23/E. That he also recorded the statements of Ankit and Ishika (children of deceased) during investigation and their statements u/s 164 Cr.PC were also recorded.
35. In their respective examination u/s 313 Cr.PC all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons, which they denied and stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case.
36. Accused Balram admitted having been married in the year 2000 but denied all the evidence and stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He or any of his family members had never demanded anything from deceased. The mother and sister of FIR No. : 864/07 13 Megha wanted that his name (name of the husband of the deceased) be also added in the flat loan papers and in DDA papers which his father refused as the flat was mortgaged with the bank. Further Megha was depressed due to the illness of her mother; the family of the deceased was in financial crisis and that it was infact the father of the deceased who had demanded Rs. 5.00 lakhs from them.
37. On the similar lines accused B.L. Gautam also denied all the evidence against him and reiterated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. He or his family members had never demanded anything from the family of the deceased. The payment of flat had been made by him in April 2007 after getting loan from the bank and his employer and friends. He also reiterated that the mother and sister of Rekha had come to Delhi in July 2007 and pressurized him to add the name of Balram (husband of the deceased) in the flat loan papers and DDA but he refused as the flat was FIR No. : 864/07 14 mortgaged with the bank. He reiterated that he and his family members had never demanded dowry from the deceased or harassed her to bring dowry. He further stated that father of the deceased had demanded Rs. 10.00 lakhs from him through his employer Mohan Pandey and subsequently demanded Rs.7.00 lakhs through his brother Ram Prasad and then demanded Rs. 5.00 lakhs through his son Balram and that this false report had been lodged against them because he and his family members were not in a position to pay the said demand.
38. Similarly, accused Kamlesh had denied all the averments against her. She had also taken the same stand as that taken by other accused and reiterated that she was innocent. She stated that she was residing at Nepal with her husband and inlaws after her marriage and that even after the death of her husband she resided at Nepal with her inlaws; gave birth to her daughter at Nepal and came to Delhi for her treatment as it was not FIR No. : 864/07 15 available in Nepal; that she was student at the time of marriage of her brother Balram and had never demanded anything from the deceased or her family members.
39. Accused Doleraj also denied all the evidence against him and reiterated on the same line that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated merely because he and his friend had signed as the attesting witness of the marriage of Amit Thakur @ Sonu, who was married to the daughter of his maternal uncle against the wishes of his family members. That the parents of the deceased wanted to marry their younger daughter Savita with him but he refused. That he was student at the time of marriage of his brother Balram.
40. Accused persons also chose to lead evidence in defence.
41. DW1 is Shri Mohan Pandey, the employer of accused B.L. Gautam, who deposed on the lines that the accused B.L. Gautam and Doleraj Gautam were working FIR No. : 864/07 16 with him two years prior to the incident i.e. prior to that they were working together as colleagues and then he took over the said firm. He testified having stood guarantee for payment of loan taken by accused B.L. Gautam from Bank Of India for meeting the cost of the payment of flat to DDA. He also testified that the accused persons had never demanded anything from the parents of the deceased and he could depose about these facts as he was very close with the accused persons. That the parents of the deceased had come to Delhi with their relatives in the year 2007 when Megha committed suicide and then the father of the deceased demanded Rs.10.00 lakhs for not lodging the complaint and the accused persons were not in a position to pay the same.
42. DW2 is Shri Ram Prasad, who was the middlemen between the marriage of Megha and Balram and had testified that there was no demand by the accused persons at the time of marriage or thereafter. He testified that the parents of the deceased requested him FIR No. : 864/07 17 to get arrange marriage of their younger daughter to Doleraj (accused), who was brother of Balram but Doleraj did not agree as the girl was only 10th pass. He also testified that after the incident the father of the deceased had demanded Rs.10.00 lakhs from Mohan Pandey but when he informed that they were not in a position to pay Rs.10.00 lakhs he asked him to arrange for Rs. 7.00 lakhs instead of Rs.10.00 lakhs. Accused Balram was working as a driver and was not in a position to pay the said amount and hence this false was lodged against them.
43. DW3 is Shri Ram Bahadur, the nephew of accused B.L. Gautam, who testified that he had delivered money to the inlaws of Balram at H. No. 257, Adarsh Nagar, Yamuna Nagar Camp, Haryana at the asking of the accused persons on several occasions i.e. he delivered Rs. 5,000/, then Rs.10,000/ and lastly he delivered Rs. 20,000/ in the month of June, 2006 to the parents of Megha on account of operation of mother of deceased FIR No. : 864/07 18 Megha and that this money was handed over to him by accused Balram.
44. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the counsel for the accused persons and have also gone through the record carefully.
45. At the outset, certain facts need to be noted. It is an admitted fact that deceased committed suicide. She left behind a suicide note which was Ex.A3 which was proved to be bearing her signatures. In the said suicide note Ex.A3 she does not complain against anybody, does not speak of any harassment or torture by anyone. She does not blame anyone but herself for her death. She categorically states that she is committing suicide as she had lost faith in life and just wanted to die and was thus hanging herself. In the suicide note she also speaks of not saying anything about mother. It is not clear whether she was speaking of her mother in law or her mother. Her mother in law is not the accused before the court. The suicide note does not speak of any ill FIR No. : 864/07 19 treatment to her soon before her death.
46. The marriage took place in November, 2000. The incident took place in August, 2007 only about three months were left to seven years of marriage. In all these seven years of marriage there has never been any complaint nor there has been any demand. The prosecution has not been able to place any evidence on record to show that the dowry demand was ever raised by the accused persons. Even the parents and brother of deceased have not given a single instance when dowry was demanded. There is the statement of DW2 who states that he was middlemen in the said marriage between the deceased and accused Balram and that the accused persons had never raised any demand of any kind at the time of marriage of thereafter. The prosecution has also not shown any demand having been ever raised.
47. My attention is also drawn to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Narender Singh FIR No. : 864/07 20 Arora Vs State, 2010 (3) LRC 349 (Del) wherein it was held that every suicide committed by a married woman in her inlaw's house cannot be presumed as dowry death. It was observed by Hon'ble High Court that:
This case is a reflection of mentality which is now taking grip of parents of a deceased wife in the criminal cases. Whenever a woman dies an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage at inlaw's house, whatever be the cause of death, the inlaws must be hanged. This case also shows how truth is losing significance because of the ego of the litigants to see that inlaws should be hanged.
Suicide is a known phenomenon of human nature. Suicides are committed by living human beings for various reasons, some are not able to bear the normal stresses which are common in life. Some are not able to cope up with the circumstances in which they are placed. Some commit suicide because of frustration of not FIR No. : 864/07 21 achieving the desired goals. There are many cases where students commit suicide because they failed to achieve certain percentage of marks. Some commit suicide because they are not able to retain top position, some commit suicide because they are not able to cope with the demands of life. Some commit suicide because they suffer sudden loss, some commit suicide out of fear of being caught. There are various reasons for which suicides are committed by men and women. All suicides are unnatural deaths. Suicide is a complex phenomenon. One, who commits suicide, is not able to disclose as to what was going on in his or her mind when he or she committed suicide. There is no presumption that every suicide committed by a married woman in her inlaws' house or at her parents' house has to be because she was suffering harassment at the hands of her husband or her inlaws."
48. The material witnesses in this case from the family of the deceased, deposing about the alleged cruelty and FIR No. : 864/07 22 harassment to the deceased are the mother, sister and father of the deceased, who have been examined as PW10, PW11 and PW12 respectively.
49. PW10 is Smt. Bindra Devi, the mother of the deceased who had testified that her daughter Megha (deceased) was married to the accused Balram in the year 2000. That before marriage there was no demand from the accused persons but after sometime Devar (accused Doleraj) and Nanad (Kamlesh) had started torturing her for demand of dowry. She further testified that when Megha came to them in summer vacation they had demanded Rs.1.00 lakh. She also deposed that accused persons did not inform him about the death of Megha when she expired. She further testified that accused Doleraj used to harass her daughter and whenever she told about this fact to her husband, he used to favour his family members and did not support her daughter. That the father of deceased i.e. accused B.L. Gautam also used to torture her in respect of FIR No. : 864/07 23 demand of money.
50. PW11 is Smt. Rekha, the sister of the deceased, who had testified that after marriage her sister Megha used to tell her that her inlaws did not behave properly with her and used to harass her and used to treat her as servant. That accused persons were harassing her for bringing money. She testified that whenever her sister came to their house her Devar (Doleraj) and Nanad (Kamlesh) used to torture her. She further testified that her sister was kept well upto one year of her marriage and thereafter her inlaws started harassing her for fulfillments of demand of dowry. She testified that her sister used to inform frequently about this behaviour but she never showed her willingness to take any action and last time her sister met her in June, 2007 after the vacations when she informed that her her Devar and Nanad were harassing her and she used to remain disturbed due to their behaviour. That her devar was also giving beatings to her on the pretext of her not FIR No. : 864/07 24 performing the domestic work properly and her father in law used to treat her like maid servant. That she also informed that her inlaws were demanding money for paying installment of loan amount for a plot which was alloted to her inlaws in the month of February or March, 2007 and that they were beating due to non fulfillment of this demand. She further testified that even her husband had given a sum of Rs.45,000/ to accused B.L. Gautam to make payment of this plot.
51. PW12 is Shri Vishnu Prasad, the father of the deceased, who had also deposed on the lines of the prosecution. He had testified that his daughter did not disclose anything to them when she visited his house and her daughter was well for all the times whenever she used to come to their house. That during summer vacations of 2007 when she visited, she informed that her inlaws have been alloted house and for that purpose her inlaws had demanded Rs.1.00 lakhs. He testified that he was not having any money so he refused and FIR No. : 864/07 25 after about one month and 10 days her daughter was killed. He also testified that his elder daughter Rekha had told him that Megha used to tell her about her in laws harassing her and not keeping her well.
52. Thus from the statements of these three witnesses it emerges that initially there was no demand of money by the accused persons at the time of marriage. That for sometime after the marriage everything was fine. It is alleged that thereafter the inlaws of the deceased started harassing and torturing her and raising demands of dowry. However, none of these three witnesses have stated of any incident of dowry i.e. all three of them only state of the demand of Rs.1.00 lakh raised by the accused persons through deceased when she came to the house of the complainant during summer vacation in June, 2007 and do not mention of any specific instance of demand before that date even as per the complainant and other family members of deceased, there was no specific demand of dowry from FIR No. : 864/07 26 2000 to 2007. These witnesses also seem to be perturbed by the fact that they were not informed about the death of Megha directly by the accused persons. Reading of these statements given by these three witnesses (PW10, PW11 and PW12) shows that only general sweeping allegations about the demand of dowry have been made by the accused persons. No specific incident uptill June, 2007 of any harassment or any demand has been specifically asserted by any of the witnesses. The statement made by all these three witnesses is very sweeping, general and mechanical about the torture or harassment.
53. It is also noted that the neither of them have made any allegations of torture or harassment by the husband of the deceased namely accused Balram. The only grievance is that he did not take her (deceased) side when she complained. However, there is no direct evidence of torture or harassment (till June, 2007).
54. From the crossexamination of these witnesses it FIR No. : 864/07 27 also emerges that the family of the complainant was weak financially as compared to the accused persons. Rather in the crossexamination PW10 had admitted that her husband had been suspended from the factory in August, 2007 and was getting suspension allowances. She admits that she was operated for Cyst in June, 2006 and was continuously ill thereafter. That doctor had asked for Rs.10/20,000/ but it was not possible for them to afford. It is also observed that this witness had made total improvements in her statement in the court compared to the statement given by her before the SDM. She was confronted with the statement Ex.PW10/A given by her before the SDM, wherein she had not stated anything about the devar or Nanad of Megha (deceased) started torturing her for the demand of dowry or about Megha having asked for Rs.1.0 lakh when she came in summer vacation or about accused Balram not taking her side whenever her daughter informed him of the harassment by other accused Doleraj nor there is any FIR No. : 864/07 28 statement given by her to the SDM that the father in law i.e. accused B.L. Gautam used to torture her for dowry demand. These facts are not mentioned even in the statement u/s 161 Cr.PC recorded by the police except for the fact of the payment of Rs.1.00 lakhs in June, 2007 by accused Balram through Megha.
55. Similarly, it is observed that the sister of the deceased namely Rekha, who has been examined as PW11 made total improvements in the court from the statement given by her before the SDM. She was confronted with the statement Ex.PW11/A before the SDM, wherein she had not stated that Megha used to tell her that her inlaws did not behave properly with her and treat her as maid servant and accused persons were harassing her for not bringing money and that Megha used to tell her that her brother in law and sister in law used to torture whenever her sister used to come to their house. Similarly, when she was further confronted with the statement Ex.PW11/A, wherein she FIR No. : 864/07 29 had not stated that Megha had informed her and her devar and nanad were harassing her and that she used to remain disturbed due to their behaviour or that accused Balram used to ignore the behaviour of his brother or that accused Doleraj used to beat her for not doing the household work properly or that her father in law was treating her like maid servant or that her in laws were demanding money for paying the realization of amount of plot. She had not even stated to the SDM that her husband had given Rs.45,000/ to accused B.L. Gautam to make the payment of plot.
56. As regards the statement of the father of the deceased, he has stated that his daughter had not disclosed anything to him and was well for all the times whenever she used to come to their house except when in summer vacation in the year 2007 when she informed about the allotment of the house to her inlaws and for this purpose her father in law had demanded Rs.1.00 lakh. He further stated that his elder daughter Rekha FIR No. : 864/07 30 informed him that Megha was informing her about her inlaws harassing her and not keeping her well and treated her like a servant but she did not say anything about the behaviour of the husband of the deceased i.e. accused Balram.
57. Thus from the evidence of these three witnesses (family members of deceased) it transpires that even the statements about the harassment, torture and beatings etc. to the deceased are all after thought from the statements made by the complainant party immediately after the incident to the SDM. One has to also keep in mind that all these three witnesses are interested witnesses. No doubt, their testimony cannot be discarded as they would be the best persons who could disclose the facts which happened withing the four walls of the house. However, their testimony has to be read with great caution and all the attending circumstances have to be considered carefully in light of the fact that this statement is made by the witnesses who are FIR No. : 864/07 31 aggrieved by the death of their dear one and are making the statement to the SDM and to the police in a state of grief and shock. The fact remains that the deceased had not disclosed about any harassment (if at all) to her by her inlaws to her parents. Even if we were to believe the statement of her sister PW11, she (deceased) only informed her about the harassment and asked her (PW11) not to disclose the same to her parents. PW11 has also categorically deposed that deceased did not want any action to be taken against any of her inlaws. In its proper perspective it cannot thus be ruled out that the deceased was only venting her feelings to her sister when she meet her in her parental home.
58. For seven years of age she had been going to her parents house and meeting her sister and obviously one tends to discuss about the family affairs (of her matrimonial home) and also give her opinion and feelings about the behaviour of her inlaws. All such statements made by the deceased to her sister describing FIR No. : 864/07 32 about her family affairs cannot be said to be complaints made for harassment or torture to her for demands of dowry or otherwise. Even if it was true it was only the perspective of the deceased herself that she was treated like servant. There are no boric details being given to show that she was treated inhumanly. There is no evidence of any beating or torture on the deceased.
59. The relations between the two families were cordial can also be seen from the fact that when the children (twins) were born to the deceased the parental family members of the deceased came to Delhi to attend the function arranged by the accused persons and at that time they stayed in the house of the accused for one day (as disclosed by PW10 in her crossexamination). She also herself states that they so stayed as they were poor people and could not afford to come to Delhi. So it was accused persons who arranged for their stay in Delhi for the function and festivities in their house.
60. The witnesses are also aggrieved by the fact that FIR No. : 864/07 33 they were not informed about the death of the deceased by the accused persons. In this respect PW12 Vishnu Prasad had stated that he had received information from the side of inlaws that daughter of B.L. Gautam had met with an accident and they had called him immediately. Thus it shows that the relations between the two were cordial. Rather the accused was so sensitive to break this news to the father of the deceased that it may cause mental shock to him to know about the death of his daughter and thus may be thought of calling him in a mild manner so that he is not alarmed or too shocked to be able to come there normally. In my opinion it only reflects the sensitivity of the accused persons to the said situation and the sensitivity of breaking the said news to the parents of the deceased in a mild manner so that they are not alarmed.
61. As regards accused Kamlesh, she is married sister in law of the deceased. It is argued by the counsel for the accused that she was already married when the FIR No. : 864/07 34 marriage of the accused took place and was staying at Nepal after her marriage, which fact is admitted by all these three witnesses (PW10, PW11 and PW12). It has also come in the evidence that the marriage of accused Kamlesh took place at Nepal and she was residing there at Nepal after her marriage. It has also come in the crossexamination of PW10 that Megha had stayed in Nepal for about one and a half year or two years. The prosecution has not been able to show that there was any day to day interference by her in the family life of the deceased.
62. As regards accused Doleraj, it is the stand of the accused persons that they had falsely implicated accsued Doleraj as he had witnessed the marriage of one Amit Thakur @ Sonu, who was cousin brother of the deceased (being Massi's son) and had got married to the daughter of maternal uncle of her mother. It is also alleged by the accused persons that complainant party was also angry as they wanted that Doleraj should get married to the FIR No. : 864/07 35 younger sister of the deceased but Doleraj had refused as the said girl was only 10th pass. This stand was put to the witnesses in the crossexamination but was denied by them. However, it was admitted that the court marriage of Amit Thakur @ Sonu did take place and none of the family members had attended that marriage despite the same being such a close relation. It is admitted by PW12 in his crossexamination that this marriage of Amit Thakur @ Sonu was performed against the wishes of the family. This Amit Thakur @ Sonu has also been examined as PW13 and had admitted this fact and that Doleraj and his friend were the attesting witnesses to their marriage registered at Delhi.
63. The daughter baby Shikha had given her statement to the police on 311007, that her chachu (accused Dolram) used to fight with her mother and beat her and that her chachu had slapped her mother one day before the day when her mother went to the hospital and had pulled her hair and kicked her in the stomach in the FIR No. : 864/07 36 abdomen and that her mother while crying was saying that Nanu (her maternal grandfather and father of the deceased) did not have money and he could not bring the same. She had also stated to the police that at that time her father (accused Balram) bhua and dadu (Kamlesh and B.L. Gautam) were also at home.
64. The statement of son Aniket is also to the same effect. However, he stated that the fact of his mother being beaten up was told to him by his sister Ishika. He further stated that they (accused) all used to make his mother sleep on the floor and all of them used to fight with her. His statement was also recorded on 311007.
65. The statement of these children was also recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC before the Ld. MM on 021107, wherein also both the children had testified to the same effect stating that Raj chachu had beaten their mother and when she fell down, chachu had repeatedly beaten while she was lying on the ground by slapping her and by pulling her hair. She became unconscious and she had FIR No. : 864/07 37 seen all this from the slightly open door. The son, however, stated that he had not seen anything but he was woken up by his sister Ishika who told him that chachu had beaten mother.
66. These children were also examined in the court. Baby Ishika was examined as PW1 and Master Aniket was examined as PW2. However, both of them turned hostile in the court and have stated that nobody used to beat their mother and they did not know what had happened to their mother. Even on being cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP, the daughter stuck to her statement that she had not told the police that chachu used to beat her mother and rather categorically stated that police uncle was speaking a lie. She denied having told the police that prior to the death of her mother her chachu had given beatings to her mother or that mother was stating that Nanu had no money. Rather she admitted that before her statement was recorded before the Ld. Magistrate in the court her maternal FIR No. : 864/07 38 grandfather and her maternal uncle had threatened her to complain against chachu or else they would not provide her food.
67. I have no hesitation in believing this part of the statement of the child as it is to be seen that this statement of the children u/s 161 Cr.PC was recorded on 311007 and u/s 164 Cr.PC was recorded on 021107, whereas the incident is of 100807 i.e. statement is recorded after more than 2 ½ months of the incident. It has also come in the evidence that the children were staying with their maternal grandparents (as their father and paternal grandparents and uncle were in judicial custody in this case). The possibility of children having been influenced or so threatened cannot be ruled out specially in view of the other evidence as discussed above which makes one doubt the statement of the parents of the deceased.
68. Then there is the demand of Rs.1.00 lakhs by the inlaws through the deceased from the complainant. It FIR No. : 864/07 39 is admitted fact that the father in law i.e. accused B.L. Gautam was alloted a flat at PhaseII, Dwarka in a draw flat by DDA in the month of February and March, 2007 and the payment for the same had to be made. The allegations of these witnesses is that they had forced the deceased Megha to get Rs.1.00 lakh from her father to make the payment for purchase of the flat. All these three witnesses have testified to this effect. However, the stand of the accused persons is that the payment of this flat had already been made/arranged for by the accused persons by May, 2007 itself i.e. before Megha went to her parental home for the summer vacations in the year 2007. For this purpose the accused persons have produced DW1 Shri Mohan Pandey, who had stated that accused B.L. Gautam had obtained loan from the Bank of India at East of Kailash for making the payment of cost to the DDA and that he stood guarantor for the payment of the loan.
69. The witness of the prosecution itself also proves FIR No. : 864/07 40 this fact i.e. PW4 Shri Jagbir Singh, Assistant from DDA has deposed that DDA flat no. 398, ground floor, Sector - 18B was allotted to the accused B.L. Gautam in a draw held on 030107. In his crossexamination he admitted that as per records the full and final payment of the plot was received by the department vide challan no. 735879 dated 170404. The case of the prosecution, as transpires from the statement of the parents of the deceased is that the demand for making the payment of loan was made (for the first time) to them through the deceased when she came for summer vacation in 2007. This obviously would be somewhere in May or June, 2007. As per this witness of the prosecution itself, the demand had already been made in April i.e. before the said summer vacation and hence the question of demanding the said payment for being made to DDA does not arise.
70. Then there is the statement of PW6 Shri O.P. Manwar, Senior Manager from Bank of India, who had FIR No. : 864/07 41 financed the initial sum of Rs.1.50 lacs for booking the flat by accused B.L. Gautam and that after allotment of the flat Rs.12.00 lacs was sanctioned for purchase of the flat and that Shri Mohan Chander Pandey (DW1) had stood guarantor for the said loan. That sum of Rs. 3,55,022/ was debited from the account of accused B.L. Gautam and thereafter draft of Rs.15,55,022/ was prepared in favour of the DDA on 170407. This shows that accused persons on their own and out of their resources had made arrangements for payment of the purchase of DDA flat much before the said summer vacations. Hence, there was no question of demand being raised during the summer vacation by the accused persons through the deceased. It is thus hard to believe that there was any demand by the accused persons soon before the death (of deceased Megha).
71. Last but not the least, it is seen that it was the stand of the accused that the parental family of the deceased was not so sound financially as the family of FIR No. : 864/07 42 the accused and that after the death of their daughter they only thought of encashing the situation and for this reason they had been demanding money from the accused persons and on their failure to accept their demand, the police had made this false case against them.
72. For this purpose counsel for the accused confronted the father of the deceased i.e. PW12 Shri Vishnu Prasad with the CD in the court. This CD was stated to be the recording of the telephonic conversation between accused Balram and father of the deceased after the death of Megha. The said CD was played in the court which run for about more than half an hour. The witness PW12 - father of the deceased admitted that this was the recording of the conversation between him and accused Balram which conversation took place on 030209, 270509 and 280509. The audio CD was Ex.PW12/DC and the transcription of the same was placed on record as Ex.PW12/DD. On hearing the said FIR No. : 864/07 43 CD it is seen that the conversation between them was cordial where accused Balram had told him that they had never made any demands from them nor asked for anything then why where they doing this, the witness had not denied his accusation and had only brushed them aside by saying that they will look into it. He also did not deny the advances of the settlement of the matter and talks of compromise by accused Balram on phone and also admitted that the matter had to be compromised in the end and let the date of hearing in the court passby stating that it would not take much time to settle the matter. Rather the perusal of the transcription and listening to the CD shows that the witness i.e. PW12 was interested in settlement and was only trying to negotiate for the same discreetly.
73. For the reasons given above, I thus hold that though the deceased Megha had died in abnormal circumstances (by hanging herself) within seven years of marriage; the prosecution has failed to show that soon FIR No. : 864/07 44 before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons for, or in connection with any demand of dowry. The accused persons are thus acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Announced in the open court on 29th September, 2011.
(R. Kiran Nath) ASJ01/South New Delhi.
FIR No. : 864/07 45 State Vs Balram & Ors.
FIR no. 603/06PS Defence Colony 29092011 Present: Shri Manoj Chaudhary, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
All accused on bail along with counsel. Vide separate judgment of the date, accused persons are acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
Accused persons are directed to furnish bail bond in the sum (Rs.30,000/ by accused Kamlesh; Rs. 50,000/ by accused Dolraj; Rs. 25,000/ by accused B.L. Gautam and Rs. 50,000/ by accused Balram) with one surety each in the like amount in terms of section 437A Cr.PC on 011011.
(R. Kiran Nath) ASJ01/Saket Court 29092011 FIR No. : 864/07 46 State Vs Balram & Ors.
FIR no. 603/06PS Defence Colony 01102011 Present: Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
All accused present along with counsel. Bail bond u/s 437A Cr.PC furnished by the accused persons and accepted.
File be consigned to record room.
(R. Kiran Nath) ASJ01/Saket Court 01102011 FIR No. : 864/07 47