Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Babloo on 27 January, 2025

         IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA: ADDL.
          SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST DISTRICT:
               KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI

SESSIONS CASE NO. 79/2018
CNR No. DLNE01-000864-2018
FIR No. 644/17
P.S.: Seelampur
U/s : 498A/304B IPC

STATE

                                 Versus

BABLOO
s/o late Sh. Mushtak Ahmed
r/o H. No. E-16/A-12, Jhuggi K-Block,
New Seelampur, Delhi

Date of Institution :     09-03-2018
Date of Argument :        22-01-2025
Date of Judgment :        27-01-2025

JUDGMENT

1. Brief facts of the case are that on 21-10-2017, at about 10:04 AM, an information was received at PS Seelampur through Wireless Operator that at H. No. E-16/A-12, K-Block, Seelampur near Madarsa, wife of caller hanged herself. The information was reduced into writing vide 8A (PW9/A) and the same was marked to SI Devender, (hereinafter referred to as first IO/Investigating Officer). Thereafter, IO along with Ct. Santosh went to the spot where they found one lady namely Sana lying dead on the bed in the room on first floor. One white colour chunni was tied around her neck.

On inquiry, it was found that marriage of deceased had taken place about 3 years back. Therefore, brother of deceased FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 1 of 34 and SDM concerned were informed. Crime team was called. The crime team along with photographer came at the spot, inspected the scene of crime and took photographs from all angles. On the next day i.e. 22.10.2017 , the IO brought the mother and brother of deceased in the office of SDM. The mother of the deceased namely Shahjahan, stated before the SDM concerned that she got her daughter married with accused Babloo on January 2014. During marriage her family had given sufficient dowry articles. Accused Babloo always used to harass his wife Sana. He used to indulge in gambling and was in the habit of drinking liquor; used to physically assault her daughter; lost all of his jewellery articles while playing gambling; used to pressurize his wife to bring dowry. She claimed that accused Babloo killed her daughter Sana. She further stated that other family members which includes the brother, their wives are not involved in beatings given to her daughter. She claimed that she along with Imran reached at the matrimonial house of her daughter on being informed about the death of her daughter by their relative namely Tahir , who also informed her that the ventilator of the room, in which her daughter was found hanging, was also found to be broken thereby enabling anybody to enter and escape from that ventilator.

She added that during marriage she had given Fridge, T.V, Cooler, Almirah,Double bed,Table, chair, Press, makeup box, Some utensils, box, mattress etc. On the basis of her statement, the present FIR came to be registered for the offences punishable U/s 498A, 304B of IPC. On the request of SDM concerned, the Post mortem of the deceased was conducted. The dead body was sent to mortuary through Ct. Kulwant. On 22.10.2017, accused FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 2 of 34 Babloo came to PS. He was interrogated and during interrogation, he accepted his involvement in the present case. He was arrested. His disclosure statement was recorded. On 23.10.2017, site plan of the spot was prepared. On 20.12.2017, PCR form was collected from PCR, PHQ Delhi. On 21.12.2017, the document pertaining to marriage(nikah) of the deceased with accused Babloo were collected. The Nikhanama was got translated from Urdu language to English from Advocate Sh. Inayat Ullah Khan. On 16.01.2018, PM report of deceased was obtained wherein the cause of death of deceased was opined as "Asphyxia as a result of Antemotem hanging". After completion of necessary formalities, chargesheet u/s 498A/304B of IPC was filed against accused persons.

COMMITTAL

2. After taking cognizance and compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C., the present case was committed to the Courts of Sessions vide order dated 23-02-2018 by the Ld. MM/NE/KKD. The same was allocated by the then Ld. District and Sessions Judge to the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.

CHARGE

3. After hearing the arguments and finding that prima facie case was made out against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 498A/304B of IPC, charge was framed by ld. Predecessor against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution got examined as many as 18 witnesses.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

4. (i) PW1 ASI Satish was the Duty Officer posted at PS Seelampur at the relevant time. He has proved the rukka prepared FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 3 of 34 by SI Manoj Tomar as Ex. PW1/A; endorsement made by him on the rukka as Ex. PW1/B; copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/C and certificate regarding correctness and proper maintenance of computer system as Ex. PW1/D. He was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

(ii) PW2 Smt. Shahjahan deposed that she is mother of Sana Bee, deceased. On 24.01.14, Nikah/marriage of her daughter was performed at their house according to muslim rites and customs with Babloo, accused present in court (correctly identified). Mediator for the said marriage was one Ghani who was resident of their locality. However, in the year 2014 and before, he was residing at Seelampur, Delhi. She and her relative had spent approximately Rs.3 lacs in the marriage of her daughter. They had given dowry articles on the day of marriage to her daughter as under:

1 6 gold jewellery items 2 1 silver item 3 Refrigerator 4 Double bed 5 Almirah 6 Chairs 7 Iron box 8 Some utensils 9 Clothes She further deposed that after marriage, her daughter started to reside with her husband, mother in law Smt. Zareena, jeth Chhota Munna, his wife Ruksana and Devar Ishan and his wife whose name she did not remember at E-16/A-12 juggi of K FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 4 of 34 block, New Seelampur, Delhi. Other two brothers of accused Babloo were residing in a separate accommodation. Her family had taken her daughter from their matrimonial house after two days of marriage and accused Babloo also accompanied them.

They had stayed at their house for 2 days and thereafter accused Babloo took her daughter at her matrimonial house. Accused was indulged in gambling (jua) as told to her by her daughter over phone. It was also told to her by her daughter that the accused used to consume liquor and smack. Accused used to harass her daughter under influence of liquor and smack. Accused had demanded dowry from her daughter as she had told her over phone that accused had demanded a m/cycle. There was quarrel between her daughter and her husband on the point of gambling and consuming liquor and smack. Accused had sold out jewellery of her daughter which had been gifted by her and relatives to her. Other dowry articles were also sold out by the accused for gambling.

She added that it was also told to her by her daughter that accused had borrowed her from several persons for gambling. Lastly, her daughter had stayed at her house for one month and 15 days prior to day of incident, accused reached at their home and he took her daughter at her matrimonial house. During aforesaid stay at her house, her daughter told her that accused used to quarrel with her on account of consuming liquor and smack and gambling. It was also told to her that accused had demanded money for gambling. It was not told to her by her daughter that she was harassed by her husband and her in-laws for want of demand of dowry. Only once her daughter had told her that her husband had demanded m/cycle from her daughter FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 5 of 34 and her daughter had passed on aforesaid information to her, but she did not remember the month and year when accused had demand m/cycle from her daughter. She had visited matrimonial house of her daughter for 4-5 times. On her first visit, accused had demanded m/cycle from her. She had shown her inability to fulfill his demand as she is a poor lady.

She further deposed that one relative namely Smt. Sabra (sister in law of jeth Kamal of her daughter) had informed at 9 a.m. on 22.10.17 over phone that her daughter had committed suicide (Sana Bee fansi par latki hui hai). She alongwith her son Amir and Talib (who is son of her jeth) and some other mohalla people came at the matrimonial house of her daughter from their native place. On the same day evening, she had seen the dead body of her daughter after postmortem examination. Her statement was recorded by SDM which is Ex.PW 2/A (running into 2 sheets). Her son Amir and his cousin Talib had received dead body after postmortem and they had taken the same to their native place where they completed burial proceedings. She has suspicion that her daughter was killed by her husband and in- laws. She did not know other facts of the case. With the permission of the court, she was cross-examined by Ld.APP for state.

During her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, she affirmed that SDM had recorded her statement on 22.10.17 and same was read over to her by him. It is affirmed that her son Amir was also given consent to her aforesaid statement and he had also signed the same at point B. She denied the suggestion that her daughter used to tell her on each and every visit that she was being harassed and tortured by her husband on account of FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 6 of 34 demand of dowry. She denied the suggestion that during one month's stay of her daughter at her home, about 15 days prior to day of incident, she had told her that she was harassed and tortured by her husband and in-laws for demand of dowry. She volunteered that her daughter had told her that her husband had demanded motorcycle.

She denied the suggestion that she had stated before SDM in her statement that in-laws are not involved in this matter. It is affirmed that it was told to her by her relative Tahir and Imran that window of the room in question was lying broken and one person can easily enter in the room through space of window. It is affirmed that she had stated to SDM in her statement that her daughter was killed by her husband. It is affirmed that she had stated to SDM in her statement that strong legal action be taken against accused Babloo. It is affirmed that police had not recorded her statement in this case. However, the police had recorded statement of her son Amir and his cousin Talib.

She deposed that she is an illiterate lady and not in a position to disclose the date of her visit at matrimonial house of her daughter and date of her visit at her house. She was not in a position to tell the date when accused had demanded motorcycle from her daughter and date when her daughter told her that demand of motorcycle was made by accused Babloo.

In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, she deposed that she had not delivered any bill against purchase of dowry articles to police. As far as she remember, she had visited matrimonial house of her daughter for 4-5 times, but she did not remember the date. She also did not remember the date, month and year when she had gone to PS to make complaint against FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 7 of 34 accused on behalf of her daughter as accused had given beatings to her daughter on account of demand of dowry. She had not moved any complaint against accused after registration of the case. She again said, she had moved complaint against accused once after registration of present case. The Ld. Defence counsel drawn attention of the witness towards attested copy of complaint dated 16-01-2018 and the witness submitted that complaint Ex. PW2/DA bore her thumb impression at point A-1 and A-2. The complaint Ex. PW2/DA was not delivered by her to SHO at PS Seelampur at any point of time. She volunteered that her counsel must have sent the said complaint to SHO either by someone or by post. She denied that she had demanded a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs before registration of present FIR to settle the matter or that whenever aforesaid demand was not fulfilled by accused Babloo and his family then, she approached the police and got registered present case. She denied that after arrest of accused Babloo, she had moved complaint case by way of application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. against in-laws of her daughter for getting Rs. 3 lakhs.

(iii) PW3 HC Ramvir was the MHCM posted PS Seelampur at the relevant time. He proved the entry of register no. 19 regarding deposit of one sealed envelope containing ligature material as Ex. PW3/A. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

(iv) PW4 HC Shri Bhagwan was the photographer of Crime Team who inspected the spot on 21-10-2017. He has proved the photographs which were clicked by him as Ex.

PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A-35, which were clicked with his digital camera. He has also proved the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding proper maintenance of his digital camera as Ex. PW4/B. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he affirmed that there was no external injury noticed on the person of deceased except ligature mark on her neck. Before their reaching in a room, the dead body had already been got down by someone. One ventilator of the room was used to enter inside the room to get down the dead body and he came out from the room after opening the door of the room from inside as it was told to them by the person present there.

(v) PW5 SI Rajender Singh was the in-charge of Mobile Crime Team which inspected the spot. He has proved the scene of crime report prepared by him as Ex. PW5/A. During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that he did not notice any external injuries on the body of deceased except ligature mark on her neck.

(vi) PW6 Amir deposed that he is brother of Sana Bee. They had solemnized marriage/nikah of Sana Bee according to Muslim rites and ceremonies on 24.01.2014 at Anwla Town with Babloo (accused). His mother and other relatives had spent money as per their capacity on the marriage. He did not have any idea as to how much cash was spent in the marriage. He also did not have any idea as to how many jewelery articles were given in the marriage. However, double bed, almirah, chairs, iron box, clothes and some utensils were given in the marriage.

He further stated that after marriage, her sister started to FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 9 of 34 reside with her husband and in-laws i.e. Zarina (mother in law), Munna(jeth) and Ehsan (brother-in- law) and jethani whose name he do not remember at K block, Seelampur, Delhi. Two brothers of accused Babloo were residing in a separate accommodation. Accused used to take liquor and he used to visit his house with bad character persons. Accused Babloo had demanded m/cycle only. No cash was demanded by the accused Babloo. Again said, once accused Babloo had demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- from his mother, but he is not aware as to whether aforesaid demand was fulfilled or not. His sister Sana Bee had made complaint against her husband that she was being harassed by her husband, but he did not remember as to on which date, she made a complaint to him.

He further deposed that on 21.10.2017, in the morning hours, it was told to him by her mother that her sister Sana Bee was killed by hanging at her matrimonial house in Delhi. He alongwith his mother and other relatives visited at the house of her sister in law(bhabi) and thereafter, they visited GTB hospital where they identified dead body of their sister before police. They had not visited the matrimonial house of deceased on the said date and on next day, he and his mother were produced before SDM at Seelampur where statement of his mother Ex.PW 2/A (running into 2 sheets) was recorded in his presence and he had signed the same at point B confirming the same to be his version. On 22.10.2017 inquest papers were completed by the police and his statement regarding identification of dead body was recorded vide Ex.PW 6/A. His cousin Talib had also identified the dead body and he had also signed his aforesaid statement at point B. On the same day, i.e 22.10. 2017, FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 10 of 34 postmortem examination was conducted and he had received dead body for burial against receipt, carbon copy of which is Ex.PW 6/B. They had taken the dead body to their native village where she was buried. Police officials also recorded his statement in this case. Copy of nikahnama of deceased sister with accused was delivered to IO which is Ex.PW 6/C and at that time English translation of aforesaid nikahnama Ex.PW 6/D was also delivered. Witness has correctly identified the accused Babloo, present in court.

He did not know other facts of the case. With the permission of the court, he was cross-examined by Ld.APP for state.

During his cross-examination, he affirmed that accused used to consume liquor as told by him to the SDM. It is affirmed that accused used to give beatings to her sister. It is affirmed that accused had put the jewelery articles in the betting and he lost the same in the same. It is affirmed that his sister was killed by the accused as stated by him to SDM in his statement Ex.PW 2/A. It is affirmed that their relative namely Tahir alongwith Imran had visited the place of incident or that Tahir had passed on information to them saying that he had seen hanging dead body of his sister at the matrimonial house. It is affirmed that Tahir had also passed on information to them that window of the room was lying broken and he had passed on information that one person may go through the space of window. He denied the suggestion that wearing 16 bangles, one nose pin, 6 ear rings, one pair of bichua were delivered to his mother in his presence. He denied the suggestion that police had prepared one document to this effect. At that stage, one seizure memo cum handing over FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 11 of 34 memo of items was shown to the witness wherein he admitted his signatures on Ex.PW 6/E. He voluntarily stated that he was not aware whether aforesaid jewelery articles were delivered to his mother in his presence or in presence of Talib. It is affirmed that police/IO had recorded his statement on 21.10.2017. He denied the suggestion that his sister used to make complaint that her husband used to harass her on account of demand of m/cycle from her parents. He denied the suggestion that it was told to him by his sister (deceased) that she was pressurized to bring money from parental side or that accused used to taunt her that she can not deliver a child. It is affirmed that their relative namely Tahir alongwith Imran had visited the place of incident or that Tahir had passed on information to them saying that he had seen hanging dead body of his sister at the matrimonial house. It is affirmed that Tahir had also passed on information to them that window of the room was lying broken and he had passed on information that one person may go through the space of window. He denied the suggestion that on 15.09.17, his sister was kicked out by accused from her matrimonial home. It is affirmed that accused had taken back to his sister on 05.10.2017 with a promise that he would not torture her in future. It is affirmed that on 18.10.2017, his aforesaid sister made a phone call by using phone of other person and that she had informed him that accused had given beating under influence of liquor or that she had also informed him that his sister was hungry for last 2 days and no eatables were provided to his sister by her husband. He denied the suggestion that his sister had told him on phone that she wanted to finish her life due to torture which was being received by her. It is affirmed that information regarding FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 12 of 34 death of his sister was passed on to his family by one Imran.

It is affirmed that statement Ex.PW 2/A had been read over to him by the SDM prior to obtaining his signatures on it. It is affirmed that he is intentionally refusing to identify the bangles etc. of his deceased sister. It is affirmed that his mother has not brought the bangles etc. before the court that day. He denied the suggestion that accused had made demand of m/cycle when his sister had stayed at her parental house some days prior to day of incident.

He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not supporting the prosecution case as he has been won over by the accused or that he deposed falsely on the material facts of demand of dowry and harassment etc. In his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel, it is affirmed that his sister Sana Bee did not make complaint to him about harassment and torture and demand of dowry. He did not remember as to how many times, his sister had visited her parental home during her life time. He also did not remember the month and year when his sister had visited her parental home. He had visited three four times at the matrimonial home of his sister, but he did not remember the date, month and year of the same. His sister sometimes used to stay at their home for a week or sometimes for 15 days. Most of the times, his sister used to talk with her mother. He voluntarily stated that his sister did not make any complaint against her husband and in-laws directly to him at any point of time. His sister did not make a call to him at any point of time with regard to demand of dowry or harassment. He voluntarily stated that once his sister had made a call to this effect to him, but he did not remember the date, month FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 13 of 34 and year of the said call. He denied the suggestion that accused never demanded m/cycle or a sum of Rs. 10,000/- at any point of time. He denied the suggestion that his sister wanted to live at her parental home at Bareilly as she had deep affection with her mother and sisters .

He denied the suggestion that his sister wanted to lead her life according to her wishes. He denied the suggestion that 4-5 days prior to the day of incident, his sister had ousted accused Babloo from her matrimonial home as she was not taken to the house of her sister namely Taranum to attend the last cremation of her newly born child. He denied the suggestion that accused Babloo made every possible efforts to take his daughter to the house of Taranum, after the death of newly born child. He was not able to tell the date, month and year whenever his sister was beaten by the accused. During the stay of 15 days of accused at his home with his sister, accused Babloo had consumed liquor twice or thrice. He denied the suggestion that present criminal case was got registered against accused to get a sum of Rs.3 lacs.

He denied the suggestion that his sister was never harassed, tortured or beaten by accused persons on account of demand of dowry. He denied the suggestion that his sister used to put pressure upon her husband to pressurize him to live at her parental home or that when accused did not agree to the same, his sister finished her life. He denied the suggestion that police had recorded his statement on 21.10.2017 or that he had put his signatures on two three blank papers at PS on the asking of IO. He denied the suggestion that he never visited PS. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.

(vii) PW7 SI Harish Chander Pathak was the official from FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 14 of 34 CPCR/PHQ. He has proved the PCR form in connection with PCR call made in this regard as Ex. PW7/A and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding proper maintenance of computer system from which printout was taken out as Ex. PW7/B. The witness was not cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.

(viii) PW8 Dr. K. P. Singh deposed that on 22-10-2017, he was posted as PG student at GTB hospital at Forensic Medicine Department. On that day, on the request of SDM Anil Sirohi, he conducted postmortem of deceased Sana and prepared a detailed report vide Ex. PW8/A. He opined the cause of death as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging and death was about one day prior to the postmortem. He proved his PM report as Ex. PW8/A and inquest papers as Ex. PW8/B. The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.

(ix) PW9 Retd. SI Vinod Kumar Tyagi was the Duty Officer posted at PS Seelampur at the relevant time. He has proved DD no. 8A regarding information received at PS regarding commission of suicide by the PCR caller as Ex. PW9/A. He has also proved departure entry for SDM office and arrival entry at PS after conducting inquest proceedings by SI Devender Prasad as Ex. PW9/B and Ex. PW9/C respectively.

The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

(x) PW10 Sh. Anil Sirohi was the SDM Seelampur, who FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 15 of 34 conducted inquest proceedings in the present case on 22-10- 2017. He has proved the statement of mother of deceased recorded by him as Ex. PW2/A; request for conducting postmortem of deceased made by him as Ex. PW8/B; dead body identification statement of brothers of deceased as Ex. PW6/A. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

(xi) PW10 Imran was also examined as PW10. He deposed that he is permanent resident of mohalla Bajariya, Town- Anwla, District- Bareilly, UP. In the year 2017, he was residing in the area of gali No.1, Brahmpuri, Delhi. Deceased Sana was his niece (Bhanji). She was married with Babloo. Accused Babloo is present in the court (correctly identified by the witness). On 21.10.2017, he received a phone call of his wife who informed him about the death of Sana. He did not know about the cause of death of Sana. Thereafter he along with Tahir( cousin brother of Sana) went to the matrimonial house of accused Babloo situated in the area of Seelampur. He found Sana lying dead on bed. Police officials were also present there. Police never called him in the PS nor recorded his statement in the present case.

He did not know how accused Babloo behaved with Sana. After marriage of Sana, whenever she met him, she never disclosed about any quarrel or beatings given by accused to her. He came to know from her mother that accused Babloo used to give beatings to Sana. Mother of Sana also told him that accused used to harass Sana.

With the permission of the court, he was cross-examined FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 16 of 34 by Ld.APP for state.

During his cross-examination, he affirmed that police had called him in PS Seelampur on 21.12.2017 and recorded his statement after making inquiries from him which is Ex. PW10/A. He was working in a factory in the area of Seelampur and due to this reason, perhaps in his statement Ex. PW10/A, it was written that he was residing in the area of Seelampur on rent.

He denied the suggestion that he had told the police in his statement Ex. PW10/A and it so happened that whenever he met Sana, she used to weep on her fortune. He denied the suggestion that he has intentionally and deliberately denied this incriminating facts of his statement Ex.PW10/A. It is affirmed that when he reached at the matrimonial house of Sana on 21.10.2017 with Tahir, he came to know that Sana had committed suicide. He denied the suggestion that he had told the police in his statement Ex. PW10/A and it so happened that thereafter, he informed the parents of Sana.

In his cross examination done by Sh. Keshav Vats, Ld. Counsel for accused, PW10 affirmed that he was residing in the factory of one Guddu in which he was working in the area of Gali no.1, Brahmpuri. The distance between the aforesaid factory and the matrimonial house of Sana is about two kilometers. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the instance of mother of Sana.

(xii) PW11 Sh. Tahir deposed that in the year 2017, he was residing in the area of gali No.1, Brahmpuri, Delhi in a factory where he was employed. Deceased Sana was his cousin sister. She was married with Babloo and she was residing in the area of Seelampur in her matrimonial house. Accused Babloo is present FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 17 of 34 in the court (correctly identified by the witness). It is further submitted that on 21.10.2017, he was sleeping in his aforesaid factory. He received a phone call of his brother who informed him that Sana had committed suicide Thereafter, he along with Imran went to the matrimonial house of Sana in the area of Seelampur. He found Sana lying dead on bed and dupatta was lying on her body. The grill of the window was found broken.

He did not know how accused Babloo behaved with Sana. After marriage of Sana, he never talked with Sana either face to face or through phone. He did not know anything about the behavior of accused Babloo towards Sana. Mother of Sana had also never informed him about the ill- behavior of accused Babloo towards Sana. Police met him on 21.10.2017 and made inquiries from him but he did not remember whether his statement was recorded or not.

With the permission of the court, he was cross-examined by Ld.APP for state.

During his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that on 21.12.2017, the police called him at PS Seelampur or that on that day his statement was recorded which is marked as Mark PW11/PA. He denied the suggestion that he had told the police in his statement mark PW11/PA and it so happened that he had told the police that Babloo used to harass Sana or that he used to beat Sana or that whenever he met with Sana, she used to weep on her fortune or that she used to tell him that she was married with Sattebaz and thief. He denied the suggestion that he had told the police in his statement mark PW11/PA and it so happened that one day prior to suicide of Sana, she met him and told to him that she was hungry since three days as Bablu had not provided food FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 18 of 34 to her or that she also told to him that in these circumstances she must die or that he had not taken these facts seriously at that time, confronted with portion B to B1, of mark PW11/PA, wherein it is so recorded. He denied the suggestion that he has intentionally and deliberately suppressed the true and incriminating facts of his statement mark PW-11/A as he has been won over by the accused.

He was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite having given an opportunity.

(xiii) PW12 Ct. Santosh deposed that on 21.10.2017, he was posted at PS Seelampur. On that day, he was on emergency duty with SI Devender Prasad. On that day after receipt of DD No.8A, he along with SI Devender Prasad reached at the first floor of the H. No. E-16/A-12, Jhuggi New Seelampur, Delhi. They found one lady namely Sana lying dead on a bed in a room of the first floor. They observed that one white colour chunni having prints was tied around her neck (Gale me chunni ka Fanda bandha hua tha). On inquiry, it was found that marriage of Sana took place about three years back. Thereafter SI Devender Prasad informed the brother of deceased Sana and SDM, Seelampur namely Anil Sirohi regarding the incident. SI Devender Prasad also informed Crime Team Office, North East District and made request to send Crime Team at the spot. Crime Team reached at the spot. The photographer of the crime team took the photographs of scene of crime and In-charge crime team SI Rajender Singh inspected the scene of crime. SI Devender Prasad also informed Incharge Crime team that SDM will conduct the inquest proceedings in this case, hence he should provide the photographs and inspection report to the SDM. Thereafter, the FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 19 of 34 dead body of deceased Sana was sent to GTB through Ct. Kulwant and the dead body was preserved for 72 hours. Thereafter, he along with SI Devender Prasad returned to PS. On 10.2017, IO SI Manoj Tomar recorded his statement.

PW12 claimed that he could identify the aforesaid said chunni, if shown, to him. He has correctly identified the chunni produced by MHC(M) as Ex. PW-12/Article-1.

In his cross examination conducted by Sh. Keshav Vats, Ld. Counsel for the accused, he stated that he did not know the mobile number from which the call was received by the control room. He did not know the name of the person who had called at 100 number. He was informed about the incident by the IO around 10:10 AM. They reached the spot within 5-10 minutes. The distance between PS and spot is around 800 to 900 meters. The address where they reached is E-16/A-12, Jhuggi, New Seelampur. When they reached there, several person were present there. However, he did not remember as to how many persons were present there. No family member of the deceased was present at the time till they stayed at the spot. IO did not record any statement or details of the persons who were present there in his presence. It is affirmed that the aforesaid chunni was not seized in his presence. IO did not prepare any documents in his presence at the spot.

He did not remember whether the said chunni was having any stains. He denied the suggestion that the said chunni is not the one which was recovered from the spot. He denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation and his is making a false statement at the behest of IO in order to falsely implicate the accused. He denied the suggestion that he never went to the FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 20 of 34 spot and his statement was recorded in the PS only.

(xiv) PW13 Sh. Talib deposed that deceased Sana was his cousin sister. She was married with accused Babloo, who was present in the court (correctly identified by the witness). She was residing in her matrimonial home at Seelampur, Delhi. My cousin sister Sana repeatedly came to her parental house as accused Babloo used to quarrel with her and gave beatings to her. Accused Babloo used to consume liquor and he also used to play cards( Juaa Khelta Tha). Accused used to visit the parental house of deceased Sana and used to convince her and family members to accompany him to her matrimonial home on the pretext that he would not repeat the quarrel and beatings again. Lastly, on 05.10.2017, accused Babloo brought Sana to her matrimonial home on promise that he will not torture her. On the next day of her death, he came to know about the incident. Thereafter he reached Delhi and met with the mother of Sana. He had also gone to the SDM office with mother of Sana where SDM had made inquiries from her. He never met the Police. His statement was not recorded by the police in the present case. He never visited the PS Seelampur, Delhi. He know Tahir, Imran and Aamir.

With the permission of the court, he was cross-examined by Ld.APP for state.

During his cross-examination, he affirmed that his statement was recorded on 21.12.2017 when he along with Tahir, Imran and Aamir reached PS Seelampur on the instructions of police officials. It is affirmed that due to lapse of time, he could not remember this fact earlier.

In his cross examination done by Sh. Keshav Vats, Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that he had visited PS Seelampur FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 21 of 34 where his statement was recorded. On 21.12.2017, statement of one Izhar (maternal uncle of Sana) was also recorded at PS Seelampur. He did not remember the name and rank of police official who recorded his statement. He had visited the PS Seelampur at around 11.00-11.30 am. He did not remember whether he had signed his statement or not.

(xv) PW14 Rashid Ansari was the Qazi in Nai Mosque situated at Bazaria in village Aonla. He has proved the Nikahnama of deceased with accused as Ex. PW6/C. The witness was not cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel despite having given an opportunity.

(xvi) PW15 HC Anil Kumar was the investigating police official who had joined the investigation of the present case with IO SI Manoj Tomar on 22-10-2017 and 21-12-2017. he deposed on the same lines on which SI Manoj Tomar (PW17) has deposed, whose testimony shall be dealt with later on.

The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

(xvii) PW16 HC Kulvant, deposed that on 21.10.2017 he was posted as Constable at PS Seelampur. On that day he was on patrolling duty. At about 12:10 PM he reached at house no. E- 16/A-12 Jhuggi, New Seelampur, Delhi where IO/SI Devender Prashad send him along with dead body of Sana and request letter to GTB Hospital Mortuary via Harsh Van. Accordingly, he got preserved the said dead body. On 22.10.2017, at about 9 AM IO came to the GTB Mortuary and therefore SDM Seelampur also came there. The SDM got identified the dead body through her brother. SDM recorded identification memo in this regard which is already Ex.PW6/A. The IO handed over the wearing FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 22 of 34 articles of the deceased to the family members of the deceased vide memo already Ex.PW6/E bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter the SDM got the PM conducted of the dead body of Sana. The SDM has directed to IO via request letter that the body shall be handed over to the relatives of the deceased after the postmortem. Thereafter the SDM handed over statement of mother of deceased which was of two pages to the IO. After the postmortem the dead body was handed over to the brother of the deceased vide memo already Ex. PW6/B bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter the doctor handed over sealed exhibits to the IO which were duly seized by the IO vide memo which is now Ex. PW16/A bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter they returned to the PS where IO deposited the exhibits in the malkhana. Thereafter IO recorded his statement.

He was cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

(xviii) PW17 SI Manoj Kumar Tomar was the second IO of the present case. He deposed that on 2210.2017, he was posted as SI at PS Seelampur. On that day the concerned SHO had marked him the statement recorded by SDM Seelampur of the complainant Shahjahan for necessary action. He prepared a tehrir on the said statement which is already Ex. PWI/A. Thereafter he got an FIR registered through DO. Thereafter, he interrogated accused Babloo in the PS itself. Thereafter, he arrested the accused Babloo vide arrest memo already Ex. PW15/A bearing his signature at point B. He personally searched the accused vide memo already Ex. PW15/B. He recorded disclosure statement which is already Ex. PW15/C bearing his signature at point B. On next day ie 23.10.2017 he prepared a site plan at the instance FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 23 of 34 of SI Devender Prasad which is Ex.PW17/A . It also bore the signatures of SI Devender at point B. He has worked with SI Devender and seen him write and sign. Thereafter the accused was produced before the court from where he was sent to JC. Thereafter he collected the photographs and SOC report from the Crime Team. Thereafter, he collected the PCR form.

He claimed that on 22.12.2017, the brother of the deceased had handed over one nikha nama pertaining to deceased Sana and accused Babloo. The same was seized by him vide seizure memo which is now Ex. PW17/B. The said nikhanama is already Ex. PW6/C. Thereafter, he got the said nikhanama translated from Urdu to English through Ayub Khan, Advocate (notary) which is already Ex. PW6/D. Thereafter, he collected the PM report of the deceased where in the cause of death was shown as hanging. During investigation he recorded the statement of several witnesses from time to time. During investigation SI Devender Prasad had handed over him certain documents including seizure memos which is already Ex. PW16/A and Ex. PW6/E. PW16/A bears the signatures of SI Devender Prasad at point B. Thereafter, he prepared the chargesheet and filed it before the Court.

PW17 correctly identified the accused.

In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that before this incident, the deceased or her family members and relatives had never given any written complaint in the PS regarding demand of dowry and harassment in this regard. Till the filing of the chargesheet, no such complaint from the side of deceased or her family members was received in the PS. He affirmed that all the public witnesses are relatives of the deceased and there was no independent public witness.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein incriminating facts were put to the accused, which were denied by him. He stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. He stated that witnesses are relatives of the deceased and no independent witness was joined by the IO. The mother of deceased was demanding a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from him for not filing the case against him. He opted to lead defence evidence however, no defence witness was examined and therefore, DE was closed vide order dated 28-10-2024.

FINAL ARGUMENTS

6. This court has heard the arguments and perused the record.

The Ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses is sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences punishable u/s 498A IPC and u/s 304B IPC beyond reasonable doubts. There is no major discrepancy or contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. PW2 Smt. Shahjahan, mother of deceased has specifically deposed in her examination in chief that accused had demanded dowry from her daughter as her deceased daughter told her over phone. Accused used to indulge in gambling and was a habitual drunkard. PW6 Amir, brother of deceased, and PW13 Talib, cousin of deceased, too had taken similar stands. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act as no defence evidence was led by him.

On the other hand, Sh. C. B. Singh, Ld. Amicus Curie of accused has submitted that the family members of the deceased FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 25 of 34 have made only omnibus allegations against the accused without referring date, time and place. PW-2 Shahjahan, mother of deceased, had specifically denied the suggestion put by Ld. Addl. PP for State that her daughter used to tell her on each and every visit that she was being harassed and tortured by her husband on account of demand of dowry. There are several discrepancies and contradictions in the depositions of family members of deceased namely PW2 Shahjahan, PW6 Amir and PW10 Imran, PW11 Tahir and PW13 Talib. No complaint was ever made by deceased or her parents during the matrimonial life of deceased alleging harassment on the part of in laws at any time prior to the date of incident.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

7. Before analyzing the evidence led by the Prosecution in the present case, this court deems it proper to refer to some provisions of law and citations of Superior courts, which are found to be applicable to the facts of the present case.

Sections 304B, 498A, and 113B Indian Evidence Act read as under:-

"304B. Dowry death--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 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.

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty--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. Explanation--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 26 of 34 or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

113B. Presumption as to dowry death--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 has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, on in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation--For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

8. It is pertinent to note that the principles governing the cases u/s 304B of IPC have been culled by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a landmark case titled Sudhakar Singh Vs. State on 18-07-2014 in Crl. Appeal No. 240/1998 as follows:

17.1. To attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC the main ingredient of the offence to be established is that soon before the death of the deceased she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. 17.2. The death of the deceased woman was caused by any burn or bodily injury or some other circumstance which was not normal.

17.3. Such death occurs within seven years from the date of her marriage.

17.4. That the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.

17.5. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.

17.6. It should be established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death.

17.7. The expression "soon before" is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. 17.8. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

17.9. Therefore, the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate or live link between the effect of FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 27 of 34 cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. In other words, it should not be remote in point of time and thereby make it a stale one.

17.10. However, the expression "soon before" should not be given a narrow meaning which would otherwise defeat the very purpose of the provisions of the Act and should not lead to absurd results.

17.11. Section 304-B is an exception to the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence that a suspect in the Indian law is entitled to the protection of Article 20 of the Constitution, as well as, a presumption of innocence in his favour. The concept of deeming fiction is hardly applicable to criminal jurisprudence but in contradistinction to this aspect of criminal law, the legislature applied the concept of deeming fiction to the provisions of Section 304-B. 17.12. Such deeming fiction resulting in a presumption is, however, a rebuttable presumption and the husband and his relatives, can, by leading their defence prove that the ingredients of Section 304-B were not satisfied.

17.13. The specific significance to be attached is to the time of the alleged cruelty and harassment to which the victim was subjected, the time of her death and whether the alleged demand of dowry was in connection with the marriage. Once the said ingredients are satisfied it will be called "dowry death" and by deemed fiction of law the husband or the relatives will be deemed to have committed that offence."

9. In Kanwar Pal vs. Shakuntala And Ors. Crl. Rev.P. 345/2006, it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 29-01-2015, that:-

"In our view, onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient of Section 498A, IPC and the essential ingredient of offence under Section 498A is that the accused, as the husband of the deceased, has subjected her to cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A IPC. Similarly, for the Court to draw the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act that the appellant had caused dowry death as defined in Section 304B, IPC, the prosecution has to prove besides the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty caused by the accused to the deceased soon before her death. Since the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt this ingredient of harassment or cruelty, neither of the offences under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC has been made out by the prosecution."

The concluding para read as under:

"40. I am of the considered opinion that to establish the offence under Section 304B IPC of dowry death, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be raised against an accused until independently the offence under Section 498A IPC is proved by leading FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 28 of 34 evidence to the specific allegation with regard to time and date of such demand and cruelty and furthermore establishing the proximity live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand (offence under section 498A IPC) and the death of the victim."

10. Now, let this court apply the above-mentioned principles to the facts of the present case. Indisputably, the alleged incident has taken place within seven years of marriage; the factum of commission of suicide was intimated to the police by the accused himself. It is pertinent to note that the entire police machinery was set into motion by PW2 Smt. Shahjahan, mother of the deceased, who had stated before the SDM Sh. Anil Sirohi during inquest proceedings that accused Babloo used to commit torture upon her daughter. He used to indulge in gambling and was a habitual drunkard. He lost all the jewellery given during marriage while playing gambling. He used to pressurize his daughter to bring money. She categorically claimed that accused Babloo had killed his daughter Sana. Only on the basis of the above-stated allegations, present FIR came to be registered.

11. In order to establish the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death for or in connection with demand of dowry, the prosecution has got examined five witnesses i.e. PW2 Smt. Shahjahan (mother of the deceased), PW6 Amir, (brother of the deceased), PW10 Imran (paternal uncle of the deceased), PW11 Tahir (cousin of the deceased) and PW13 Talib (cousin of the deceased). Out of these five witnesses, PW10 Imran, PW11 Talib and PW13 Talib have failed to support the case of the prosecution in entirety and therefore, they were declared hostile. PW2 Shahjahan in her deposition dated 06-06-2018 had claimed that accused was indulged in gambling, used to consume liquor and smack, used to harass her FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 29 of 34 daughter under influence of liquor and smack, had demanded dowry in the form of motorcycle and had sold out jewellery of her daughter, which had been gifted by her and relatives. However, in her cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for State, she denied that her daughter used to tell her on each and every visit that she was being harassed and tortured by her husband on account of demand of dowry. She further denied that during one month's stay of her daughter at her home, 15 days prior to the incident, her daughter told her that she was harassed and tortured by her husband and in-laws for demand of dowry. PW6 Amir too had claimed that the accused used to take liquor; used to visit the houses of bad character persons and had demanded motorcycle. It is pertinent to note that all the allegations levelled by PW2 and PW6 are general in nature and does not show existence of a proximate or live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death in question as there is no reference to any particular date and time. Both PW2 and PW6 were confronted with various contradictions made by them in their previous statements recorded during investigation but no cogent explanation came from their side. The testimonies of both PW2 and PW6 are not of sterling quality which the prosecution is supposed to present.

12. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer the case of Rai Sandeep Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. Appeal no. 2486/09 decided on 07-08-2012, wherein it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that:

"In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 30 of 34 witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. In can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such test to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."

13. On careful analysis of evidence, it is evident that there is no evidence of demand of dowry subjecting the deceased to cruelty or harassment 'soon before her death', for or in connection with demand of dowry. Presumption u/s 113B of the Indian Evidence Act can be drawn only when the prosecution first establishes essential ingredients of Section 498A of IPC. In view of judgment of Kanwar Pal Vs. Shakuntala & Ors., (Supra), presumption u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act cannot be raised FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 31 of 34 against an accused until independently the offence under Section 498A of IPC is proved by leading evidence to the specific allegation with regard to time and date of such demand and cruelty and furthermore establishing the proximity live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand (offence under section 498A IPC) and the death of the victim.

14. As already noted above, both PW2 and PW6 have only levelled general and omnibus allegations against both the accused persons of subjecting the deceased to cruelty during her marriage between 24-01-2014 to 21-10-2017. There was no complaint against the accused either from the side of deceased or her family members at any time prior to the date of incident indicating allegations of subjecting the deceased to cruelty. The investigating officer of the present case i.e. PW17 SI Manoj Kumar Tomar had also admitted this fact in his cross- examination.

15. In Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 3363, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India stated that, "the tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. Hence, the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases."

16. In Anju Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., Crl. Rev. P. 730/2016 decided on 04-02-2019, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that, "9. Revisional Court has in my view committed no error in coming to the conclusion that apart from general and omnibus allegations roping in all the relations, there is no material on record to justify framing of charge under Section 498A/34 IPC. It may be noted that charge has already been framed against the husband and he is facing trial.

10. For a charge to be framed, the evidence gathered by the FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 32 of 34 prosecution should not only give rise to suspicion but there should be grave suspicion that the accused have committed the offence.

11. In the present case apart from bald, omnibus allegations without their being any specifics about date time or place, there is no incriminating material found by the prosecution even during investigation to give rise to grave suspicion against the respondents."

17. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, Crl. Appeal no. 195/22, Arising out of SLP (Crl.) no. 6545/20 dated 08-02-2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that, "18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general ombibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."

In light of the above-mentioned findings of the Superior Court, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge for the offence punishable u/s 498A of IPC against accused.

18. Since the prosecution could not prove the essential ingredients of Section 304B of IPC, the question of drawing presumption against the accused u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act does not arise.

19. Perusal of postmortem report Ex. PW8/A would show that it was a case of suicide by hanging. According to postmortem report, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante- mortem hanging. A reddish abraded dry hard parchmantised FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 33 of 34 ligature mark present incompletely and obliquely above the thyroid cartilage present around the neck. PW8 Dr. K. P. Singh did not give any definite opinion as to whether the hanging was suicidal, homicidal or accidental. No question was put to the autopsy surgeon to ascertain whether it was a case of murder or suicidal death. There were no injury or struggle mark on the body of deceased. There is no evidence to show that it was not a case of suicidal hanging. From the pattern of ligature mark around the neck of the deceased, it can be safely concluded that it was a case of suicide by hanging. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge u/s 498A and 304B of IPC against the accused. DECISION OF THE COURT

20. It is well settled that it is the duty of the prosecution to establish the foundational facts i.e. the deceased was subjected to cruelty 'soon before her death' for or in connection with demand of dowry beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, on the basis of the material available on the record, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and the benefit of doubt certainly goes in favor of the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused. Accordingly, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, accused Babloo is hereby acquitted of the charges punishable u/s 498A and 304B of IPC. File be consigned to record room after compliance of section 437A of Cr.P.C.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27-01-2025 (PANKAJ ARORA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/ KARKARDOOMA/27-01-2025 FIR No. 644/17 State Vs. Babloo Page 34 of 34