Delhi District Court
State vs Anwar Page 1/33 on 14 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SAMAR VISHAL ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- 08 WEST DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI Session case no. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 Under Section 498-A/304-B/34 IPC Police Station : Ranhola In the matter of : State Versus 1. ANWAR S/o Abdul Rashid 2. FAZLIN W/o Abdul Rashid Both are resident of:- R/o H. No. C-555, Gali No.12, Near Barkitya Masjid, Shiv Vihar, Vikas Nagar, Delhi Date of Institution : 22.05.2018 Date of reserving Judgment : 13.02.2020 Date of pronouncement : 14.02.2020 Appearances For the State : Shri Santosh Kumar, Ld Additional Public Prosecutor. SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 State vs Anwar Page 1/33 For the accused : Shri A.K. Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused. JUDGMENT
1. Accused namely Anwar and Fazlin were sent for trial on the basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) upon conclusion of investigation into First Information Report (FIR) No.192/2018 of Police Station Ranhola for offence punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Prosecution Version As per the prosecution story, DD No.49-A was recorded on PCR call regarding suicide by a girl at C-555, near Barkatiya Masjid, Shiv Vihar, Hastsal, Delhi, which was marked to ASI Surender Singh and he along with Constable Sonu reached the aforesaid house i.e. house bearing No. C-555, where he came to know that on the first floor of the said property deceased Afsana @ Soni wife of accused Mohd. Anwar has committed suicide by hanging herself with a chunni. It was also found that the deceased was married to accused Mohd. Anwar about a year ago, hence, SI Brahm Prakash was sent to the spot for further investigation who called the Crime Team, Outer District which inspected the spot and took photographs. SI Brahm Prakash seized the ligature material / chunni (multi colour), which was tied to the fan in the room and sealed it with the seal of BP. Thereafter, SI Brahm Prakash sent the body of the SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 State vs Anwar Page 2/33 deceased to DDU Hospital for preservation through Constable Sonu and informed the SDM for further proceeding of Inquest under Section 176 Cr.P.C. Puneet Kulshreshta, Executive Magistrate, Dwarka was authorised to carry out Inquest proceedings under Section 176 Cr.P.C. and on the next date i.e. 08.03.2018 ASI Surender Singh reached SDM Officer, Nazafgarh where parents of deceased Mohd. Adham and Sahida gave statement to the Executive Magistrate which was recorded by him. The Executive Magistrate also handed over a letter to SI Surender Singh for conducting the postmortem. ASI Surender Singh along with the parents of the deceased went to DDU Hospital, where after identification of the dead body, the postmortem was conducted vide PM No.417/2018.There the Autopsy Surgeon handed over the cloths, Viscera and blood in gauze sealed with the seal of PMDDUH to ASI Surender Singh. ASI Surender Singh handed over the same to SI Brahm Prakash and on the statement of Sahida, the mother of the deceased, the present FIR was registered on 08.03.2018 under Section 498-A/304-B/34 IPC. The investigation was marked to Inspector Rajesh Kumar. Accused Anwar and Fazlin were arrested by Inspector Rajesh Kumar on 11.03.2018, however, no recovery was made at their instance. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused persons on 22.05.2018. The charge sheet was committed to the Court of Session by learned Metropolitan Magistrate on the same day and it was received by this court after assignment on 28.05.2018.
SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 State vs Anwar Page 3/333. Charge in the present case was framed on 25.07.2018 against both the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 498-A/304-B/34 IPC to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove the aforesaid charge against the accused, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses in all. For the sake of convenience, a brief description of all the prosecution witnesses as well as their testimonies and the documents relied upon them is stated herein below, in tabular form:-
S. Name Exhibits Detail of exhibits Nature of deposition NO.
PW-1 HC PW-1/A Copy of DD No. 49A He is the duty officer
Deepak (OSR) dated 07/03/2018 who recorded DD
Kumar PW-1/B Copy of DD No. No.49-A on 07.03.2018
(OSR) 51A dated as well as the FIR on
07/03/2018 08.03.2018.
PW-1/C Copy of DD No. 42 A
(OSR) dated 08/03/2018
PW-1/D FIR
PW-1/E Certificate U/S 65 (B)
of Indian Evidence Act
PW-2 Smt. PW-2/A Statement recorded by She is the complainant
Sahida W/ the executive and mother of
o Sh. magistrate deceased, who testified
Mohd. PW-2/B Statement U/s 161 Cr. regarding the cause of
Adham PC death of the deceased.
PW-3 W/Ct. PW-3/A Arrest memo of She being woman
Reena Accused Fazlin constable joined
PW-3/B Personal search memo investigation on
of accused Fazlin 11.03.2018 with
SC No. 333/2018
FIR No. 192/2018
State vs Anwar Page 4/33
PW-3/C Disclosure statement respect to arrest of
of accused Fazlin female accused Fazlin.
PW-4 Mohd. PW-4/A Statement recorded by He is father of the
Adham S/o the executive deceased and he also
Sh. Mohd. magistrate testified with respect to
Hanif PW-4/B Statement U/S 161 Cr. the cause of death of
PC deceased.
PW-4/C Notice dated
09/03/2018 issued by
SHO PS Ranhola
PW-4/D Reply of the abovesaid
notice
PW-4/E List of dowry articles
PW-4/E1 Receipt of bed.
Almirah, cooler and
music player(JMG)
PW-4/F Seizure memo of list of
dowry articles
PW-4/G Original Nikahnama
PW-4/H Seizure memo of
Nikahnama
PW-4/I Statement U/S 161 Cr.
PC
PW-5 HC Om PW-5/A Arrest memo of He joined investigation
Prakash accused Anwar on 11.03.2018 and
PW-5/B Personal search memo testified with respect to
of accused Anwar arrest of accused
Anwar.
PW-5/C Disclosure statement
of accused Anwar
PW-6 Sh. Amir He is uncle of deceased
Khan S/o and testified about the
Tabir Khan marriage between the
deceased and accused
Anwar.
PW-7 ASI PW-7/A Statement for He is the first police
Surender identification of dead official to reach the spot
Singh body by Mohd. alongwith Constable
SC No. 333/2018
FIR No. 192/2018
State vs Anwar Page 5/33
Mushrlin Sonu and he was
PW-7/B Statement for present when the
identification of dead ligature material /
body by Irfan chunni was seized by
SI Brahm Prakash and
PW-7/C Request for post he also got statement of
mortem parents of deceased
PW-7/D Death report recorded at SDM Office
on 08.03.2018. He also
PW-7/E Seizure memo of
got the postmortem
sealed viscera and
conducted on
sealed pullanda
08.03.2018 at DDU
containing wearing
Hospital and handed
clothes of the
over the exhibits
deceased alongwith
received from Autopsy
the blood in guaze in
Surgeon to SI Brahm
sealed condition and
Prakash.
three sample seals
PW-8 Mohd. PW-8A Statement U/S 161 Cr. He is the brother of the
Izaad PC deceased and testified
Khan S/o with respect to the
Mohd. marriage as well as the
Adham relationship between
the accused and the
deceased.
PW-9 Mohd. He is the cousin brother
Sakim S/o of deceased, who
Mohd. testified as to how he
Shahzad reached at the spot
after accused Anwar
called him on the date
of incident and
thereafter he made call
at 100 number.
PW- Ct. Sonu PW-10/A Seizure memo of He had joined
10 chunni investigation with ASI
Surender Singh on
07.03.2018 and
reached at the spot and
he also shifted the dead
body of the deceased to
DDU Hospital.
SC No. 333/2018
FIR No. 192/2018
State vs Anwar Page 6/33
PW- Ct. Rahul He is witness to the
11 document seized by the
IO from father of
deceased namely
Mohd. Adham on
14.03.2018.
PW- SI Braham PW-12/A Endorsement on the He is the first IO of the
12 Prakash statement of Sahida case, who had called
the Crime Team at the
spot on 07.03.2018 and
had also seized the
ligature material /
chunni. He also
prepared rukka on the
statement of
complainant Sahida on
08.03.2018 and also
received the VISCERA
clothes etc. From ASI
Surender.
PW- HC PW-13/A Copy of entry in He is the MHC(M) who
13 Mohinder (OSR) register no. 19 vide received the case
Singh Mud No. 1833 property on 07.03.2018
PW-13/B Copy of entry in and 08.03.2018 and he
(OSR) register no. 19 vide also testified that on
Mud No. 1834 26.03.2018 the
VISCERA was sent to
PW-13/C Copy of FSL through Constable
(OSR) Acknowledgement Vinod.
issued by FSL Rohini
bearing no. 2018/CHE-
2415
PW-13/D Copy of road certificate
(OSR)
PW- Sh. Puneet PW-14/A Authorisation for He is the Executive
14 Kulshresht getting the post Magistrate who
ha, mortem conducted proceedings
Executive under Section 176 Cr.
Magistrate, P.C. on 08.03.2018 and
Dwarka he recorded statements
of parents of the
SC No. 333/2018
FIR No. 192/2018
State vs Anwar Page 7/33
deceased and got the
postmortem conducted
through ASI Surender.
PW- Sh. He is the last IO of the
15 Jasmhinde case who filed charge
r sheet and during the
Chaudhary course of investigation
S/o Sh. he had recorded
Shamsher statement of Mohd.
Singh Sakim.
Chaudhary
PW- Inspector PW-16/ Statement U/S 161 Cr. He is the second IO of
16 Rajesh A1 PC of Mohd. Izad the case, who arrested
Kumar both the accused
PW-16/ Statement U/S 161
persons, seized the
A3 Cr. PC of Anwar
documents from father
Khan of deceased, got site
PW-16/ Statement U/S 161 plan prepared and
A4 Cr. PC of Aamir Khan collected other
documents and also
PW-16/ Statement U/S 161 sent the VISCERA to
A5 Cr. PC of Mohd. FSL.
Ansarul Haq
PX-1 Scaled Site plan
PX-2 Crime team report
PX-3 16 Crime team
(Colly) photographs
PX- PCR Form with
4(Colly) certificate u/s 65 of
Evidence Act
PX-5 MLC of deceased
Afsana
PX-6 Postmortem report
No. 417/2018 of
deceased Afsana
PX-7 Copy of FSL
(Colly) acknowledgement
and FSL forwarding
SC No. 333/2018
FIR No. 192/2018
State vs Anwar Page 8/33
letter
PX-8 Copy of RC No.
97/21/18 dated
26/03/2018
PX-9 FSL Report dated
26/04/2018
PX-10 Susequent opinion of
Dr. Neeraj Kumar
dated 22/06/2018
5. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded on 12.09.2019, wherein the accused persons stated that they were innocent and that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and that is why no prosecution witness has deposed against them. The accused persons admitted that the deceased got married to accused Anwar on 12.07.2017 and that she died on 07.03.2018 by hanging herself with chunni in House No. C-555, Gali No.12, Shiv Vihar, Delhi. They also admitted that deceased Afsana is daughter of Mohd. Adham and Sahida and real sister of Mohd. Izad Khan and cousin sister of Mohd. Sakil, but they categorically denied that they demanded dowry from the deceased and that they used to harass or taunt the deceased with respect to dowry.
6. Accused Anwar stated in answer to question No.38 : "I am innocent and neither I and nor my mother ever demanded any dowry from the deceased or her family member, nor we have harassed the deceased or taunted her on dowry.SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 State vs Anwar Page 9/33
Accused Fazlin in answer to question No.38 stated "no dowry was ever demanded or given in the marriage of my son Anwar and I have been falsely implicated as the deceased committed suicide. Neither me nor my son ever harassed the deceased or taunted her with respect to dowry."
7. The accused persons did not lead evidence in their defence and accordingly DE was closed on 12.09.2019.
8. Final Arguments Arguments were advanced by Shri Santosh Kumar, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for both accused persons.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
9. The accused in the present case have been charged for offences punishable under Section 498-A/304-B/34 IPC and in order to prove the ingredients of the said sections the prosecution is required to prove that the accused being husband and mother in law of the deceased respectively subjected her to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC and also that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons for or in connection with any demand for dowry.
SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018State vs Anwar Page 10/ 10/33
10.The fact that the accused Mohd. Anwar got married to deceased Afsana @ Soni on 12.07.2017 i.e. less than seven years from the date of her death i.e. 07.03.2018 is not disputed. The said fact is categorically admitted by both the accused persons in their statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and the me is also proved by the testimony of PW-2 Sahida, PW-4 Mohd. Adham, PW-6 Aamir Khan and PW-8 Mohd. Izaad Khan.
11.The fact that the death of deceased namely Afsana @ Soni was took place otherwise than under normal circumstances is also not disputed, as it is admitted by both the accused persons that the deceased died on 07.03.2018 by hanging herself with a chunni (MO1). The said fact is also proved by the postmortem report x. PX6, in which only one ligature on the neck is ound to be present and as per the subsequent opinion x. PX10 given by the Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of eath is asphyxia and the manner of the death is tated to be suicide.
12.Therefore, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Afsana @ Soni died in unnatural circumstances (by hanging herself) on 07.03.2018 i.e. within seven years from the date of her marriage with accused Mohd. Anwar.
13.In order to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, the prosecution examined complainant Sahida (mother of deceased) as PW-2, Mohd. Adham (father of deceased) as SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 State vs Anwar Page 11/ 11/33 PW-4, Mohd. Izaad Khan (real brother of deceased) as PW-8 and Mohd. Sakim (cousin brother of deceased) as PW-9.
14.PW-2 and PW-4 i.e. parents of the deceased in their statement recorded by PW-14 Ex. PW2/A and PW 4/A made allegations against the accused persons that they used to taunt the deceased that her parents had not given enough dowry in her marriage and they also gave beatings to deceased. They also stated that the deceased had come to their house as she was unwell and she went back to her house on 25.02.2018 and within few days on 07.03.2018 they came to know that their daughter has expired. They also alleged that accused Mohd. Anwar had also demanded gold chain and ring and a gold ring was also given to accused Mohd. Anwar but despite that accused Mohd. Anwar and his mother used to harass the deceased.
15.Coming to the testimony of the parents of the deceased before the court it is found that PW-2 / complainant Sahida in her examination in chief before the court did not testify regarding any cruelty or harassment being caused to the deceased prior to her death at her matrimonial home. The relevant portion of her testimony is as under:-
"For 4-5 months after the marriage, Afsana was living at her matrimonial house peacefully. Thereafter, she used to remain unwell and there used to be quarrel SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 State vs Anwar Page 12/ 12/33 between her and her husband. One day, accused Anwar made telephone call to me and asked me to take Afsana with me to my house. I went to house of accused Anwar. I asked Afsana not to become angry and to live with her husband peacefully. Afsana insisted me to take her with me. I asked accused Anwar to sent Afsana with me to my house for 2-3 days. I took Afsana to my house after accused Anwar had agreed for the same. This incident had taken place after about six months of the marriage of Afsana.
As Afsana was ill, I got her treated in a government hospital. During the blood test of Afsana, she was found suffering with Thyroid. During her medical treatment, her Thyroid level was about to be within normal range. Despite this, Afsana was suffering from continuous fever. She was diagnosed with Jaundice. Accused Anwar used to continuously visit my house uring illness of Afsana and used to ask me to send sana with him. I had asked accused Anwar to wait or s metime so that Afsana would recover from her ease.
On 25.02.2018, I had taken Afsana to her matrimonial house as there was improvement in her health. I used to ask from Afsana about her well being telephonically and she used to tell me that she was getting proper food.SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018
State vs Anwar Page 13/ 13/33 On 07.03.2018 at about 3.00 PM, accused Anwar made telephone call to me and asked me to come to his house. When we reached at his house, we saw that Afsana was lying there and her body was cold. Accused Anwar and accused Fazlin who is mother-in- law of Afsana were crying.
Accused Anwar and accused Fazlin are present in the Court today (witness has correctly identified both the accused persons Anwar and Fazlin).
It seems that my daughter had committed suicide due to anger. I do not want to say anything more."
16.As the witness did not testify on the same lines as she alleged in her statement made to the Executive Magistrate Ex. PW 2/8A, hence, the witness was cross examined at length by learned Prosecutor with the permission of the Court, in which she admitted several facts as under:-
"It is correct that I had given my statement to the Executive Magistrate on 08.03.2018. (Vol. On that day, my mind was not working properly).
It is correct that after marriage, accused Anwar and her mother used to taunt Afsana that "what your parents had given in the marriage". (Vol. They used to say this thing sometimes when they used to be angry). It is correct that I had stated this fact to the Executive Magistrate in my statement.SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018
State vs Anwar Page 14/ 14/33 It is correct that my statement to the Executive Magistrate is Ex. PW-2/A bearing my thumb impression at points 'A'.
It is correct that one month prior to the incident, a quarrel had taken place between accused Anwar and Afsana and I was asked by the accused persons to take my daughter back. It is correct that Afsana was given beatings by accused Anwar and I had taken Afsana with me. It is correct that I had stated these facts in my statement to the Executive Magistrate Ex. PW-2/A. It is correct that accused Anwar used to make telephone calls and used to call Afsana back to his house but Afsana used to say that she will go back to her matrimonial house only after she becomes healthy. It is correct that I had stated this fact in my statement to Executive Magistrate.
It is correct that despite of the fact that Afsana was unwell, accused Anwar came to my house for taking her back to her matrimonial house and stated that he will take her back in any case and despite our request, he was not ready to leave Afsana at our house. It is correct that I had stated this fact in my statement to Executive Magistrate."
SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018State vs Anwar Page 15/ 15/33
17.The witness therefore admitted that the accused persons used to taunt the deceased as regards what was given to her in her marriage by her parents and that accused Anwar used to give beating to deceased that she had taken her daughter to her parental home and that despite their request accused Anwar was not ready to leave deceased at her parental home. However, she also denied several other facts in the said cross examination as under:
"It is wrong to suggest that when we said that we will not allow Afsana to go back to her matrimonial house unless she becomes well, accused Anwar stated that if she will go back to her matrimonial house, she will not be able to return to her parental house. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this fact in my statement to Executive Magistrate. The witness is confronted with her statement Ex. PW-2/A from point A to A where it is so recorded but she is still denying.
It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the Executive Magistrate in my statement Ex. PW-2/A that as per my knowledge, she (Afsana) has been killed and thereafter, hanged or that even after death of my daughter, nobody has taken care of her. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this fact in my statement to Executive Magistrate. The witness is confronted with her statement Ex. PW-2/ A from point B to B where it is so recorded but she is till denying.
It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the Executive Magistrate in my statement Ex. PW-2/A that accused Anwar used to give beatings to my daughter or that he had demanded chain and ring on which we had given ring to him despite that accused Anwar and mother-in- law of my daughter used to harass my daughter or that they used to say that what she has brought from her parental house and what has been given to her by her parents. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated these facts in my statement to Executive Magistrate. The SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 State vs Anwar Page 16/ 16/33 witness is confronted with her statement Ex. PW-2/A from point C to C where it is so recorded but she is still denying.
It is correct that on 09.03.2018, IO/Inspector Rajesh Kumar had recorded my statement in this case."
It is wrong to suggest that whenever Afsana used to visit my house, she used to tell us that after 2-3 months of her marriage, accused Anwar and accused Fazlin had started giving her beatings or that they were harassing her for dowry. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated these facts in my statement to IO. The witness is confronted with her statement Ex. PW-2/B from point A to A where it is so recorded but she is still denying. It is wrong to suggest that after 3-4 months of the marriage, both the accused persons used to tell my daughter Afsana that her parents had not given anything in the marriage and they want to purchase new E- rickshaw for accused Anwar, for which, they need Rs.1,00,000/-. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated these facts in my statement to IO. The witness is confronted with her statement Ex. PW-2/B from point B to B where it is so recorded but she is still denying. It is wrong to suggest that my daughter Afsana had told us that accused Anwar had given beating to her after consuming liquor when she had told the accused persons that her family members cannot give Rs. 1,00,000/- to them being poor and that in the night, my daughter was turned out of the house by the accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated these facts in my statement to IO. The witness is confronted with her statement Ex. PW-2/B from point C to C where it is so recorded but she is still denying.
It is wrong to suggest that my daughter had come to my house in the night and stayed there for about one month. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated these facts in my statement to IO. The witness is confronted with her statement Ex. PW-2/B from point D to D where it is so recorded but she is still denying.
It is wrong to suggest that my daughter Afsana used to tell me on phone that her husband and mother-in-law SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 State vs Anwar Page 17/ 17/33 were harassing her by beating her and not providing food to her for the fulfillment of their demand of dowry (Rs.1,00,000/-) It is wrong to suggest that I had stated these facts in my statement to IO. The witness is confronted with her statement Ex. PW-2/B from point E to E where it is so recorded but she is still denying. It is wrong to suggest that on 07.03.2018, I and my son had gone to her matrimonial house at 9.00 AM in order to make accused Anwar understand but accused Anwar was not in the house and Afsana was crying who told me that in the morning, Anwar had given her beatings for demand of money to purchase rickshaw. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated these facts in my statement to IO. The witness is confronted with her statement Ex. PW-2/B from point F to F where it is so recorded but she is still denying.
It is wrong to suggest that Afsana had told us that her husband and mother-in-law were harassing her, therefore, she wants to commit suicide, on which, I and my son had tried to make her understand not to kill herself and had told her that we will make accused Anwar understand. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated these facts in my statement to IO. The witness is confronted with her statement Ex. PW-2/B from point G to G where it is so recorded but she is still denying. It is wrong to suggest that my daughter Afsana was harassed by the accused persons due to which she committed suicide and I had sought strict action against the accused persons from the police. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated these facts in my statement to IO. The witness is confronted with her statement Ex. PW-2/B from point H to H where it is so recorded but she is still denying.
It is wrong to suggest that I had stated the true and correct facts in my statements Mark PW-2/A and Mark PW-2/B and that today I am deposing falsely being won over by the accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that I have given false statement in the Court today."
SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018State vs Anwar Page 18/ 18/33
18.The witness was also cross examined by learned counsel for both the accused in which she stated that she had given her statement to Executive Magistrate in anger and that in anger she had stated in her statement that the accused persons used to taunt her daughter. The cross examination is reproduced as under:-
"It is correct that while my statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, I was in anger due to sudden death of my daughter. It is correct that due to anger, I had stated to the Executive Magistrate that the accused persons used to taunt my daughter.
It is correct that whenever accused Anwar used to call us on telephone, he used to ask about the well being of my daughter and about her medical condition. It is correct that accused Anwar had asked about well being of my daughter and thereafter, had requested us to take Afsana with him, when he had come to my house."
19.Coming to the testimony of father of deceased namely Mohd.
Adham, he in his examination in chief categorically stated that while the deceased was living in her matrimonial home, she was not facing any problem and used to call her parents telephonically on regular basis. The relevant portion of his examination in chief is as under:-
"Afsana was married to accused Anwar, who is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness), on 12.07.2017 though I do not remember the name of father of accused Anwar. After marriage, Afsana used to visit my house. After 4-5 months of her marriage, Afsana became ill. She was getting medical treatment at her matrimonial house. After 4-5 months of marriage of Afsana, I had taken her from her matrimonial house to my house. She stayed at my house for 15-20 days. She SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 State vs Anwar Page 19/ 19/33 was getting medical treatment while she was living at my house. When Afsana recovered from her illness, accused Anwar came to my house and took her back to her matrimonial house. While she was living at her matrimonial house, she was not facing any problem and used to make telephone call to us regularly. After 10-20 days, we received a telephone call of accused Anwar who asked us to come to his house immediately. When we reached at the house of accused Anwar, we saw that Afsana was lying on a cot and one chunni was hanging from the ceiling fan. I made enquiry from accused Anwar and he told me that he had come back to the house after driving the vehicle and had seen Afsana lying on the cot. He told me that he had immediately made telephone call to us on seeing Afsana. We started crying on seeing that Afsana was no more. Police case was registered. I do not know what was written by the police officials and what documents were prepared. Accused Anwar was arrested by the police in this case. I was called by police in police station where I came to know that accused Anwar has been sent to Tihar Jail and my case has been sent to the court."
20.The said witness was also cross examined by learned Additional Prosecutor, in which he admitted that his statement was recorded by Executive Magistrate and as regards relationship between the deceased and the accused persons, he testified as under:-
It is correct that after 2-3 months of marriage, there used to be quarrel between husband and wife on house-hold issues. (vol. Those were minor quarrels between Afsana and accused Anwar as stated to me by my daughter Afsana).
It is correct that Anwar used to ply battery rickshaw. It is correct that there used to be nauk jhonk between my daughter and her mother-in-law. (Vol. The said SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 State vs Anwar Page 20/ 20/33 altercations used to be in joyful mood and my daughter had not made any complaint in this regard). It is wrong to suggest that after marriage, the accused persons used to say to my daughter as to what she had brought in the marriage and what has been given to her by her parents and thereafter Anwar had started giving her beatings. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this fact in my statement given to the executive magistrate. Witness is confronted with statement Ex.PW-4/A from point A to A where it is so recorded but witness still denies.
It is correct that Anwar used to beat my daughter and when I used to make him understand, Anwar used to say as Afsana indulges in arguments with him, he beats her.
It is correct that one month ago, my daughter had become ill and Anwar called us by making telephone call and asked us to take her back due to the reason that she was not obeying them (wo hamre kehnai me nahi hai). (Vol. After we had brought her back to our house and had provided her medical treatment, she has become well and was sent back to her matrimonial house by us).
It is wrong to suggest that at that time, accused Anwar had also stated that he will take Afsana back "jab dimag sahi ho jayega". It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this fact in my statement given to the executive magistrate. Witness is confronted with statement Ex.PW- 4/A from point B to B where it is so recorded but witness still denies.
It is wrong to suggest that when we asked from Afsana she had stated that she will not reside at her matrimonial house. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this fact in my statement given to the executive magistrate. Witness is confronted with statement Ex.PW-4/A from point C to C where it is so recorded but witness still denies. It is correct that when we got Afsana medically checked up we came to know that she was suffering from typhoid and some internal disease. It is correct that Afsana was also suffering from jaundice and she was appearing SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 State vs Anwar Page 21/ 21/33 pale and yellow on which we got her medically treated and after she had become healthy, my wife and a neighbour had taken her to her matrimonial house and left her there though her medicines were still going on. Evidence dated 09.10.2019 "It is wrong to suggest that accused Anwar had told me on 07.03.2018 that he had given beatings to Afsana before going to his work. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this fact to the Executive Magistrate in my statement. Witness is confronted with Ex.PW-4/A from point D to D where it is so recorded but the witness still denies.
It is wrong to suggest that my daughter used to tell me that Anwar used to give her beatings at the instance of his family members. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this fact to the Executive Magistrate in my statement. Witness is confronted with Ex.PW-4/A from point E to E where it is so recorded but the witness still denies.
It is wrong to suggest that accused Anwar used to say to Afsana that if she will return back to his house, she would be taken to a place where she will not be able to see her parents. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this fact to the Executive Magistrate in my statement. Witness is confronted with Ex.PW-4/A from point F to F where it is so recorded but the witness still denies. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated in my statement to Executive Magistrate that mother of accused Anwar is dangerous though she appears to be simple or that none had shown sympathy after death of my daughter. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this fact to the Executive Magistrate in my statement. Witness is confronted with Ex.PW-4/A from point G to G where it is so recorded but the witness still denies. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated in my statement to Executive Magistrate that I want justice and the boy side should be punished. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this fact to the Executive Magistrate in my statement. Witness is confronted with Ex.PW-4/A from SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 State vs Anwar Page 22/ 22/33 point H to H where it is so recorded but the witness still denies.
It is wrong to suggest that I had made my true and correct statement to the Executive Magistrate or that I have given false statement in the court due to the reason that I have compromised the matter with the accused persons.
My statement was not recorded by the police on 09.03.2018. It is wrong to suggest that on 09.03.2018, Inspector Rajesh Kumar IO/SHO of PS Ranhola had made enquiry from me and recorded my statement.
It is wrong to suggest that whenever my daughter Afsana used to visit my house she used to tell us that after 2-3 month of the marriage, the accused persons had started giving her beatings and both the accused persons used to harass her for dowry. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this fact to the IO in my statement dated 09.03.2018. Witness is confronted with Ex.PW-4/B from point A to A where it is so recorded but the witness still denies.
It is wrong to suggest that 4-5 months back the accused persons used to say to Afsana that her family member had not given anything in the marriage and a new e- rickshaw is to be purchased for Anwar for which they needed Rs. 1 lac. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this fact to the IO in my statement dated 09.03.2018. Witness is confronted with Ex.PW-4/B from point B to B where it is so recorded but the witness still denies.
It is wrong to suggest that my daughter Afsana had told me that when she had told the accused persons that her parents are poor and cannot give Rs. 1 lac, she was given beatings by accused Anwar and was turned out of the house in the night. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this fact to the IO in my statement dated 09.03.2018. Witness is confronted with Ex.PW-4/B from point C to C where it is so recorded but the witness still denies.
It is wrong to suggest that my daughter Afsana had come to my house in the night and had remained there SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 State vs Anwar Page 23/ 23/33 for about a month. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this fact to the IO in my statement dated 09.03.2018. Witness is confronted with Ex.PW-4/B from point D to D where it is so recorded but the witness still denies.
It is wrong to suggest that my wife had taken Afsana to her matrimonial house and had left her there. (Vol. Afsana was taken back to her matrimonial house when she had become well).
It is wrong to suggest that my daughter used to tell me telephonically that both the accused persons were harassing her for bringing dowry of Rs. 1 lac, beat her and did not provide her food on time. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this fact to the IO in my statement dated 09.03.2018. Witness is confronted with Ex.PW-4/B from point E to E where it is so recorded but the witness still denies. (Vol. My daughter had never made telephone call to me to tell me about any harassment, she used to tell about her well being during telephonic conversation).
It is wrong to suggest that on 07.03.2018, my wife and my son had gone to the matrimonial house of Afsana at about 9 a.m in order to make accused Anwar understand but Anwar was not found at his house as he had gone outside to ply his rickshaw but Afsana was crying. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this fact to the IO in my statement dated 09.03.2018. Witness is confronted with Ex.PW-4/B from point F to F where it is so recorded but the witness still denies.
It is wrong to suggest that Afsana had told my wife and son that in the morning accused Anwar had given her beatings on issue of bringing money for purchasing rickshaw and had given her beatings. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this fact to the IO in my statement dated 09.03.2018. Witness is confronted with Ex.PW-4/B from point G to G where it is so recorded but the witness still denies."
Dated 10.10.2018 "My wife had not told me that Afsana had said that her husband and mother-in-law harass her and therefore SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 State vs Anwar Page 24/ 24/33 she wants to end her life on which she had tried to convince Afsana that Afsana should not commit suicide as they would make Anwar understand. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this fact to IO Inspector Rajesh Kumar in my statement Dated 09.03.2016. Witness is confronted with his statement already Ex.PW-4/B from point H to H where it is so recored but the witness still denies.
My daughter may had committed suicide due to getting annoyed from her husband and mother-in-law (shyad meri beti ne apne pati aur saas se pareshan hokar apne aap ko khatam kar liya). (Vol. My daughter was not having any problem). It is wrong to suggest that I had demanded strict action against both the accused persons while recording of my statement by the IO on 09.03.2018. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this fact to IO Inspector Rajesh Kumar in my statement Dated 09.03.2016. Witness is confronted with his statement already Ex.PW-4/B from point I to I where it is so recorded but the witness still denies."
21.It may be noted that in light of his aforesaid deposition during the cross examination by learned Prosecutor, the witness was lastly suggested in the said cross examination that he was won over by the accused persons and that he was not stating the true and correct facts in the court in order to save the accused persons from punishment, which suggestions the witness denied.
22.The witness was also cross examined by learned counsel for both the accused persons and the same being relevant is reproduced as under:-
SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018State vs Anwar Page 25/
25/33
23.
"It is correct that no quarrel had taken place between my daughter Afsana and her husband and mother-in-law on any issue. It is correct that there had been no nauk jhonk between my daughter Afsana and accused Anwar as well as mother-in-law. It is correct that Anwar had not given beatings to my daughter Afsana.
It is correct that my daughters had made telephone call to us and I had taken her to my house from her matrimonial house. It is correct that Afsana was getting medical treatment at her matrimonial house. It is correct that Afsana and accused Anwar used to obey each other. It may be correct that Afsana committed suicide due to her illness. It is correct that she had not committed suicide due to annoyance. It is correct that during the period Afsana resided at my house, her well being was regularly asked by the accused persons. It is correct that house of accused persons is at a distance of about 500 mtrs from my house. It is correct that we used to visit the matrimonial house of Afsana regularly. It is correct that Afsana was not having any problem during her stay in her matrimonial house. It is correct that I had visited the police station only once and I do not know on which documents police had taken my thumb impression. It is correct that police had not read out to me any document. It is correct that accused persons had not demanded any dowry from me at any point of time. It is correct that at the time of recording of statement by Executive Magistrate, only statement of my wife was recorded and I was present there. It is correct that I do not know the contents of the documents on which I had put my thumb impression in presence of the Executive Magistrate."
24.The son of the aforesaid witnesses (i.e. PW-2 and PW-4), namely Mohd. Izaad Khan testified as PW-8 and stated in his examination in chief that he used to reside separately from his parents along with his wife and that after the marriage of SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 State vs Anwar Page 26/ 26/33 deceased whenever he had telephonic conversation with the deceased, she used to say that she was happy in her matrimonial home and she never made any complaint to him. The witness testified regarding visited the place of incident and also regarding the postmortem at DDU Hospital but he did not testify anything with respect to the alleged harassment / cruelty caused by the accused persons upon her deceased sister. The witness was cross examined by the learned Additional PP in which he categorically denied the suggestion that he had told the IO that accused Anwar and Fazlin started beating her sister 2-3 month of her marriage and used to harass her for dowry. He also denied the suggestion with respect to the other demands allegedly made by the accused persons and the relevant portion of his cross examination is as under:-
25. It is wrong to suggest that I told IO that after marriage, the accused persons used to say to my daughter as to what she had brought in the marriage and what has been given to her by her parents and thereafter Anwar had started giving her beatings or that accused Fazlin and Anwar had demanded Rs. 1 Lac from my sister for purchasing a new e-rickshaw or that when my sister refused to bring Rs. 1 lac, accused Anwar gave her beatings and throw her out of her matrimonial home during night hours. Confronted with statement Mark PW-8/A from point C to C where it is so recorded but the witness still denies.
It is wrong to suggest that I had told the IO that after throwing my sister from her matrimonial, she reached at our house during night hours and remained there for about one month or that after sometime, my mother had taken my sister Afsana to her matrimonial house and left her there.
SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018State vs Anwar Page 27/ 27/33 Confronted with statement Mark PW-8/A from point D to D where it is so recored but the witness still denies. It is wrong to suggest that I told to IO that my sister Afsana used to tell us that her mother-in-law and husband (present accused persons) were demanding Rs. 1 lac as dowry and used to harass her or that both the accused used to beat her or that both accused had not given meals to her. Confronted with statement Mark PW-8/A from point E to E where it is so recorded but the witness still denies. It is wrong to suggest that I told the IO that on 07.03.2018, I alongwith my mother reached at matrimonial house of my sister Afsana or that we reached there at 8 a.m but accused Anwar was not present there and he left for plying the e- rickshaw or that my sister Afsana was weeping at that time or that my sister Afsana told me and my mother that on 07.03.2018, in morning hours accused Anwar demanded rupees from her for purchasing e- rickshaw and also gave beatings to her or that my sister told me that her husband and mother-in-law had continuously tortured her for dowry. Confronted with statement Mark PW-8/A from point F to F where it is so recored but the witness still denies. It is wrong to suggest that I told to IO that my sister Afsana had told me and my mother that due to the afore-said torture of both the accused, she wanted to die or that I and my mother had tried make her understand "ki tum nahi marogi aur hum anwar ko samjha denge". Confronted with statement Mark PW-8/A from point G to G where it is so recorded but the witness still denies.
It is wrong to suggest that I told the IO that my sister Afsana had committed suicide due to cruelty of her husband and mother in law. Confronted with statement Mark PW-8/A from point H to H where it is so record recorded but the witness still denies."
26.Because of the aforesaid denial of several suggestions given by the learned Prosecutor, this witness was also lastly suggested that he had been won over by the accused persons and that he SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 State vs Anwar Page 28/ 28/33 was deposing falsely in order to save the accused persons from punishment. These suggestions were denied by this witness.
27.The prosecution had also examined cousin brother of deceased as PW-9 Mohd. Sakim. The said witness was not examined with respect to cruelty or harassment allegedly caused to the deceased by the accused persons, rather he was examined primarily because he reached the spot after accused Anwar called him and he had made call at 100 number as well as informed PW-4 Mohd. Adham about the death of deceased. However, the said witness was cross examined by learned defence counsel in which he admitted that whenever he had conversation with his deceased cousin sister Afsana, she used to tell him that she was happily residing in her matrimonial home and that she had no issue with accused Anwar. He also admitted that the deceased never complained regarding her husband or in laws either to him or in his presence, to anyone else.
28.The question before the Court is : Whether the testimony of aforesaid witnesses is sufficient to conclude that the deceased soon before her death was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons for or in connection with any demand for dowry?
SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018State vs Anwar Page 29/ 29/33
29.From the examination in chief of the aforesaid three witnesses, it is clear that none of them testified with respect to any cruelty or harassment being caused by any of the two accused persons to the deceased after her marriage and till her death. Though PW-2 stated that there were quarrels between the deceased and her husband but she never stated that the said quarrels were in respect of demand of dowry and she also did not specify as to what was reason behind the said quarrels and whether they were more than the normal quarrels that take place between husband and wife in a married life specially in the initial years of marriage.
30.Coming to the cross-examination of these witnesses by the Ld. Addl. PP, it is found that PW-2 stated in her cross examination that the accused persons used to taunt Afsana regarding what was given to her by her parents in marriage but she clarified that the said taunting was done when they used to be angry and she also stated that one month prior to death a quarrel had taken place between accused Anwar and deceased and the accused persons had asked her to take the deceased to her parental home and accused Anwar had also given beatings to the deceased.
31.In the opinion of the court the admission of the said facts in form of suggestions during cross examination by the learned Prosecutor, does not prove that the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty by the accused persons for the reason that there is no mention of any demand of dowry by any of the SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 State vs Anwar Page 30/ 30/33 aforesaid three witnesses in their entire testimony including their cross examination by the learned Prosecutor and merely because the deceased was taunted during quarrels that as to what was given to her by her parents in her marriage, the said taunt by itself do not fall within the ambit of term 'cruelty or harassment'. It may be noted that the quarrels do take place between husband and wife and what is said during the said quarrels by itself would not amount to harassment because of demand of dowry unless there is specific demand in this regard or unless the very reason for the quarrels is non fulfillment of any demand for dowry. It may be noted that none of the aforesaid three witnesses stated that there was any demand of dowry from any of the two accused prior to marriage or even after marriage and in absence of any such specific demand, merely a single incident of taunt regarding what was given to the deceased by her parents in marriage during quarrel between the deceased and the accused persons would not amount to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry as mentioned in Section 304-B IPC. It may be noted that the three witnesses categorically denied in their cross examination by the learned Prosecutor that the accused persons used to give beatings to the deceased for dowry or that accused Anwar had demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for purchasing a new E- Rickshaw. The witnesses categorically denied the suggestion that accused Anwar gave beatings to the deceased when she stated that her family members were not able to meet the SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 State vs Anwar Page 31/ 31/33 demands of Rs.1,00,000/- as they were poor. In the cross examination all the three witnesses have been confronted with their previous statements recorded by the Executive Magistrate as well as by the IO and despite the said suggestions the witnesses did not support the prosecution story either to prove any demand of dowry or to prove that the deceased was being harassment for or relation to any demand of dowry.
32.At most it can be said that after marriage there was some quarrels between the deceased and the accused persons, specially the accused husband, but the said quarrels by themselves do not amount to cruelty or harassment that to in relation or in connection with any demand of dowry. It may further be noted that the father of deceased in his cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused persons categorically stated that no quarrel had taken place between the deceased and the accused persons on any issue and that accused had not given any beatings to the deceased. The father of the deceased was further admitted that when the deceased was at her parental home for treatment, accused Anwar used to asked about her well being. The witness also categorically admitted that the accused persons had not demanded any dowry at any point of time and that the deceased was not facing any problem during her stay at her matrimonial home.
33.Accordingly, in the opinion of the court the prosecution failed to prove through the testimony of these witnesses the fact that the SC No. 333/2018 FIR No. 192/2018 State vs Anwar Page 32/ 32/33 deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons at her matrimonial home and that she was harassed soon before her death by the accused persons, for or in connection with any demand for dowry.
Final Order:
34.Accordingly, in view of above-discussed propositions of law, facts and circumstances, both the accused are acquitted from all the charges.
Digitally signed by SAMAR SAMAR VISHAL
(Pronounced in the open
VISHAL Date: 2020.02.14
16:03:25 +0530
Court on 14.02.2020) (Samar Vishal)
Additional Sessions Judge -08
(West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi
SC No. 333/2018
FIR No. 192/2018
State vs Anwar Page 33/
33/33