Delhi District Court
State vs . Sachin Taneja Etc. on 16 May, 2012
State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GURVINDER PAL SINGH
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE(FTC), SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Session Case No. 19/2011
State Vs. : 1. Sachin Taneja
S/o Sh Om Parkash Taneja
2. Om Parkash Taneja
S/o Late Sh Tara Chand
3. Kamla Devi
W/o Sh Om Parkash Taneja
All R/o L52, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi
Present address:
307, Sector9, Gurgaon, Haryana
FIR No. 391/2004
P.S. Sarojini Nagar
U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC
Date of Institution : 24/09/2004
Date when arguments
were heard : 01/05/2012
SC No. 19/2011 1/63
State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc.
Date of Judgment : 16/05/2012
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS:
Adumbrated in brief the facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
Mona (herein after referred as deceased) was married to accused Sachin Taneja (accused) on 29/11/03. Initially for about one or two months of the marriage, everything was going normal, thereafter Sachin Taneja (accused)(husband of deceased Mona), Om Parkash Taneja (accused) and Kamla Devi (accused), the parents of husband Sachin Taneja (accused) starting harassing Mona (deceased). Neeraj, sisterinlaw of deceased used to interrupt and said things bad and good to her. The deceased used to tell her sister Anu Kalra (complainant PW1) that she was being harassed by the accused persons on trivial issues. The accused used to take cudgels on small things. The gifts and articles given to deceased in her marriage were not liked by the accused persons. The deceased was not given proper food and expenses for her personal requirements. The deceased had to take job in a school because she was kept deprived of money and SC No. 19/2011 2/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. expenses. Whenever deceased used to get late in reaching home even slightly, accused used to take her to task. The deceased was threatened by the accused that she would be left at her parents house. The deceased was harassed and tortured to bring money for construction of building/kothi of accused in Gurgaon.
Information from wireless operator was received at 10 pm on 25/07/2004 at police station Sarojini Nagar that at L52, Sarojini Nagar house there was fire and injured. Said information was recorded in DD No. 41A. SI Mahesh Prakash (PW17) with Ct Robert (PW11) reached at the place of occurrence, aforesaid whereon they saw smoke coming out from the kitchen at the first floor of the premises; the kitchen was also found flooded with water. Smell of kerosene was also coming out from the kitchen. On an inquiry it was revealed that injured Smt Mona (deceased) had already been removed to Safdarjung Hospital by PCR van alongwith Sachin Taneja (accused). SI (now Inspector) Mahesh Prakash (PW17) also reached Burn Casualty, Safdarjung Hospital leaving behind Ct Robert (PW11) at spot to protect the scene of crime. At hospital injured Mona had already been declared brought dead. Sachin Taneja (accused) was also SC No. 19/2011 3/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. found present at the hospital and he revealed to SI (now Inspector) Mahesh Prakash (PW17) that he had married with deceased on 29/11/2003 but could not give any satisfactory reply regarding burn injuries sustained by the deceased. SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) was informed who in turn informed of coming on next morning.
After reaching the scene of crime, SI (now Inspector) Mahesh Prakash (PW17) called the Crime Team and got the scene of crime photographed. Kitchen and bedroom wherein deceased with her husband (accused Sachin Taneja) used to live were locked. In the morning of 26/07/2004 on instruction of SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4), SI (now Inspector) Mahesh Prakash (PW17) took Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) and Manju Kalra (PW2), the parents and other family members of deceased to Safdarjung Hospital. SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) reached there and inspected the body of deceased, prepared death report. Statements of parents of deceased, , sister Anu Kalra were recorded by the SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4). Postmortem on the body of deceased was conducted. On directions of the SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) FIR No. 391/2004, under Sections 498A/304B IPC was recorded. SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra SC No. 19/2011 4/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. (PW4) inspected the scene of crime, the kitchen and the room of deceased and her husband (accused Sachin Taneha). Green colour plastic can containing some kerosene oil with its lid, blue coloured cloth having zari design with burnt matchstick attached, match box containing burnt and unburnt matchsticks, some water mixed with kerosene oil, bunch of ladies hair were seized. Site plan was prepared. Manju Kalra (PW2), Anu Kalra (PW1) met SI (now Inspector) Mahesh Prakash (PW17) told him that since they were in perplexed condition after the occurrence so they could not give their statements to the SDM. Also PW2 stated she could not give correct statement to SDM since there somebody told her that if they give statement against accused, they would not get the body of their daughter for cremation. Their subsequent statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C were recorded. Accused persons were arrested. List of dowry articles and photographs were seized. Exhibits were sent to FSL for expert opinion. On completion of investigation, charge sheet for offences under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC was filed.
2. After completion of requirements under Section 207 SC No. 19/2011 5/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. Cr.P.C., matter was committed to the court of Sessions. CHARGE
3. On 16/11/2004, charge for offences under Sections 498A IPC read with Section 34 IPC and 304B IPC read with Section 34 IPC was framed against all accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
WITNESSES:
4. To connect the accused with the offences charged, prosecution has examined in all 18 witnesses.
5. Ms. Anu Kalra (PW1); Mrs. Manju Kalra (PW2); Sh Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3); Sh Ankush Kalra (PW6) and Smt Neha (PW7) are the sister, mother, father, brother and aunt of deceased Mona.
6. Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) was the then SDM who recorded statements of sister, parents of deceased as well as Sachin SC No. 19/2011 6/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. (accused), the husband of deceased. Also Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) went with the police officials to the scene of crime and had got seized articles a green colour plastic cane with its lid containing some kerosene oil, Ex. P1, blue colour cloth having Zari design having burnt matchstick attached with the same Ex. P2, Home Light matchbox containing burnt and unburnt matchsticks Ex. P3, some water mixed with kerosene oil found on the floor of the kitchen filled in a small bottle Ex. P4 and a bunch of ladies hair Ex. P5 found lying on the staircase of the house vide seizure memos Ex. PW4/G and Ex. PW4/F.
7. Sh Madan Mohan Lal (PW5) is the neighbor of accused persons whose wife heard noise of Bachao Bachao from the balcony and PW5 had rushed to the scene of crime and participated in forcing open the bolted door of kitchen in which deceased was lying in burnt condition.
8. WHC Vandana (PW8) accompanied SI (now Inspector Mahesh Prakash (PW17), the investigating officer and Ct Rakesh SC No. 19/2011 7/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. Kumar (PW11 A) to the spot on 09/09/2004 and is witness to the arrest of accused Om Parkash and Kamla. Also WHC Vandana (PW8) took personal search of accused Kamla vide memo Ex PW8/A.
9. ASI Dharam Pal (PW9) is the duty officer who recorded FIR No. 391/04, under Section 498A/304B IPC on 26/07/2004, copy Ex PW9/A.
10. Ct Jai Mohan (PW10) took exhibits from Malkhana to FSL vide RC No. 69/21 on 22/09/2004.
11. Ct Robert (PW11) had accompanied investigating officer SI (now Inspector) Mahesh Parkash (PW17) to the spot on 25/07/2004.
12. Dr. Deepak Mathur (PW12) is the autopsy surgeon who conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Mona on 26/07/2004 and submitted his report Ex PW12/A. SC No. 19/2011 8/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc.
13. Dr. S.K Chandan (PW13) deposed of the facts that MLC Ex PW13/A, dated 27/07/2004 of Sachin (accused) was in the writing of Dr M.D Rayees Akhtar who had left the services of the hospital and his present whereabouts were not known while PW13 identified the writings and signatures of said Dr M.D Rayees Akhtar having seen him writing and signing during course of duties.
14. Inspector Ashok Kumar (PW14) received investigation on 17/04/2004 and deposed of result of FSL Ex PZ1, dated 29/05/2006 was filed in the court; also that after the charge sheet was filed on the orders of the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate dowry articles were recovered and given to the complainant. Copy of the seizure memo of dowry articles, dated 03/10/2004 was placed on record as Mark PW14/A.
15. Dr. Deepak Nanda (PW15) deposed of MLC Ex PW15/A, dated 25/7/2004 of patient Mona (now deceased) was in the writing of Dr. L.K Mishra (PW16).
SC No. 19/2011 9/63
16. Dr Laxmi Kant Mishra (PW16) had examined patient Mona (now deceased) on 25/07/2004 in Burn & Plastic Surgery Department at Safdarjung Hospital vide MLC Ex PW15/A.
17. SI (now Inspector) Mahesh Prakash (PW17) is the investigating officer.
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED:
18. Thereafter accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating material in evidence was put to the accused persons. Accused persons admitted that Sachin Taneja (accused) got married to deceased on 29/11/2003. All the accused persons denied of having demanded any sum from deceased or her family members on any count much less for construction of their alleged premises at Gurgaon. All accused persons denied of having ever harassed deceased Mona or having subjected her to cruelty.
19. Accused Sachin Taneja stated that he had gone to the hospital with the PCR alongwith one of his neighbor, with his wife SC No. 19/2011 10/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. Mona (deceased), unconscious in burnt condition. Also accused Sachin Taneja stated that police officials of P.S Sarojini Nagar took him to Safdarjung Hospital handcuffed and before entering into S.J Hospital mortuary they removed his handcuffs and he was let in where IO was sitting and said IO told him that person sitting beside him was SDM and the IO forwarded him a statement stating to sign that statement given in appropriate condition upon which he signed the statement Ex PW4/A though the said statement was not given by him. Also accused Sachin Taneja stated that deceased Mona was B.Ed and pursuing her second year of M.A (Maths); deceased Mona did go to her parents house from May, 2004 to June, 2004 intermittently as she took her exams while she was at her matrimonial house at Sarojini Nagar; deceased was never compelled by them to do the job as she even earlier before marriage was doing job; deceased never fainted in school; deceased was not deprived of any money or expenses as at their home they had common almirah and they used to take out money as and when required; Mona used to commute by her own car and in M.A first year that was before marriage, Mona scored less than 60% and in second year i.e after marriage, she SC No. 19/2011 11/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. scored more than 70% marks. Also accused Sachin Taneja stated that the neighbors Dayanand Dabbas and Radhey Shyam had come for help and thereafter Madanmohan Lal also came there; his father as well as the neighbors Dayanand Dabbas and Radhey Shyam were trying to open the door of kitchen which ultimately got opened by applying the force and water was being thrown and smell of kerosene was there; smoke was also there. Accused Sachin Taneja stated that he had taken Mona (deceased) in burnt condition to hospital alongwith Madanmohan Lal in the PCR van. Accused Sachin Taneja also admitted that he had given the alleged history of burns sustained by injured Mona that deceased (Mona) was cooking on LPG stove and got burnt and sustained burn injuries while he (Sachin Taneja) was watching TV and she (deceased) sustained burn injury. As per accused Sachin Taneja his relations with his wife Mona were very good; he never harassed her nor had demanded anything from her or her family while deceased was career oriented and independent and used to drive her own vehicle besides which deceased was religious as well.
20. Accused Om Parkash stated that the kitchen door had SC No. 19/2011 12/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. already been opened with the help of neighbors when Inspector Mahesh Prakash (PW17) came there; his son Sachin (accused) took deceased in PCR van with neighbor to hospital; they were asked to remain in the house while he (accused Om Parkash) had not enquired how Mona had received the burn injuries. Also accused Om Parkash stated that they were asked to sit in a room and they do not know what police officials did there at the spot. Also accused Om Parkash stated that on 09/09/2004 he went to police station to lodge report of theft but instead was arrested in this case and on the same day his wife was taken by police and arrested. Accused Om Parkash stated that they gave more love and affection to deceased (Mona) than they had given to their children. Accused Om Parkash admitted that he had made the call to inform Manohar Lal Kalra (father of deceased) for burning of deceased.
21. Accused Kamla Devi stated that her son had taken deceased in burnt condition to hospital in a PCR van with neighbor. Accused Kamla Devi also stated that she used to treat her daughterin law Mona (deceased) better than her own children. Accused Kamla SC No. 19/2011 13/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. Devi stated that she was not knowing how the deceased got burnt. DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
22. Accused persons entered upon their defence and examined Sh Dayanand Dabas and Sh Tek Chand Ahuja as defence witnesses DW1 and DW2 respectively.
ARGUMENTS
23. I have heard the arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the defence counsels and have perused the record including the evidence led and given my thoughts to the rival contentions put forth.
24. Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that there was over whelming and clinching evidence against all the accused for commission of the offences under Section 498A IPC read with Section 34 IPC and 304B IPC read with Section 34 IPC for subjecting the deceased to cruelty and causing her dowry death. It was argued that the evidence led is to be appreciated in a realistic manner, the attending circumstances, the scene of crime witnessed by those SC No. 19/2011 14/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. witnesses who reached there, brought on record the material suggesting the death of deceased to be not in normal circumstances. It was argued that initially the parents of the deceased did not whisper any allegation against any of the accused persons since they were made to believe that if they did so then they would not be given the body of the deceased while the sister of deceased namely Anu Kalra (PW1) had thrown some light on torture and harassment meted to deceased in the period of subsistence of her marriage, as per what she told to the SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4). It was argued that in the short span of eight months of subsistence of marriage, the highly educated deceased having three months pregnancy was driven to commit suicide. It was argued that the parents of deceased were under trauma, shock, agony while the relatives of the accused in the hospital after occurrence, tried to persuade the parents of deceased to not to give statement against accused. It was also argued that the conduct of the accused reflected their guilty mind. Also on record were the allegations qua demand of dowry and cruelty subjected to the deceased sufficient to invoke the presumption embodied under Section 113B of the Evidence Act which has not been rebutted by the SC No. 19/2011 15/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. accused. Ld Addl. PP for the State has prayed for conviction of the accused persons.
25. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons argued that the investigation was tainted, dishonest, unfair and malafide. Also was argued that even at first instance, no case was made out requiring registration of the FIR and none of the parents of deceased did tell to SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) in their statement any act qua dowry demands while later on not only the relatives of deceased made considerable improvements but introduced concocted facts by exaggeration, embellishment alleging different versions of dowry demands inter se contradictory. It was argued that the deceased was a bold, independent, carrier oriented woman who used to drive her own vehicle and as per own version of prosecution witnesses, for considerable period prior to her expiry, she remained at her paternal home for education purposes and even had secured excellent marks. It was argued that neither any kind of cruelty was subjected to deceased nor any demands of dowry were made in respect of which vague charges have been alleged by the prosecution witnesses and it SC No. 19/2011 16/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. were the police officials who made parents of deceased give embroidered version and after thought. Also was argued that the defence evidence led has proved on record the innocence of the accused and their false implication since inter se Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2), close relative of the deceased and her parents demolished the case of prosecution by his testimony saying neither the deceased was subjected to any harassment nor any dowry demand was made by any or all accused which was so initially stated by the parents of the deceased at the outset to the SDM in their statements but later on father of deceased due to incitement of his relatives and Police Inspector become infuriated and made false assertions in subsequent statements to officers of investigating agency alleging harassment, cruelty to deceased and her dowry death besides demand of dowry. It was also argued that there was no live link between the death of deceased and any alleged demands of dowry nor were such demands allegedly soon before her death. Also it was argued that there would be variety of reasons for incompatibility between the spouses or differences with others which may have led the deceased to take extreme step of suicide. Also was argued that, though not admitted, SC No. 19/2011 17/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. but even for the sake of arguments, if it is presumed that any money was demanded by the accused for raising any construction of their premises at Gurgaon, even then such demand of money on account of some financial stringencies cannot be termed as demand of dowry. It was argued that prosecution has failed to prove that the death of deceased was a suicide or an accident, which both facts were possible and the investigating agency had not reconstructed the scene of crime and even the site plan prepared by the investigating officer was not showing the position of the articles kept in the kitchen where the deceased burnt. It has been argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were unreliable, untrustworthy, inter se contradictory which cannot be made basis for the conviction of the accused persons. It was argued that the marital discord and differences between the spouses per se would not be sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC and/or 304B IPC. Reliance was placed upon:
1. Vinita & Anr vs State of NCT of Delhi, 2012 (1) C.C Cases (HC) 428;
2. Raman Mahajan vs State, 2012 (1) C.C Cases (HC) 415; SC No. 19/2011 18/63
3. Durga Prasad & Anr. Vs State M.P, 2010 (3) JCC 1852;
4. State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M. Madhusudan Rao, JT 2008 Vol. 11 SC 454;
5. Appasaheb & Anr. Vs State of Maharastra, SC, 2007 (1) JCC 147;
6. Hazarilal vs State of M.P, SC, 2007 (3) JCC 1988;
7. State of Karnataka vs T. Balu, 2000 Cri.L.J 2165;
8. Tarsem Singh vs State of Punjab, 2009 (1) C.C Cases SC 156;
9. Sunil Bajaj vs State of M.P, 2001 (9) SCC 417;
10.Harjeet Singh vs State of Punjab, 2006 (1) JCC 1;
11.Tirath Kumar @ Raj Rani & Anr vs State of Haryana, 2005 (3) JCC 1740;
12.State of Kerala vs Babu & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2161;
13.Tahsildar Singh & Anr vs State of UP, AIR 1959 SC 1012;
14.State of Andhra Pradesh vs Punati Ramulu, AIR 1993 SC 2644.
SC No. 19/2011 19/63
State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. RELEVENT LAW
26. Section 498A IPC has two limbs. The first limb of Section 498A provides that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished. 'Cruelty' has been defined in clause (a) of the Explanation to the said Section as any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive to a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. When there is harassment of the woman for demand of dowry, any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand then the case comes under clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 498A.
Substantive Section 498A IPC and presumptive Section 113B of the Evidence Act have been inserted in the respective statutes by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. It is to be noted that Sections 304B and 498A, IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a common essential to both the Sections and that has to be proved. The Explanation to Section 498A gives the meaning of SC No. 19/2011 20/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. 'cruelty'. In Section 304B there is no such explanation about the meaning of 'cruelty'. But having regard to common background to these offences it has to be taken that the meaning of 'cruelty' or 'harassment' is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to Section 498A under which 'cruelty' by itself amounts to an offence. Under Section 304B it is 'dowry death' that is punishable and such death should have occurred within seven years of marriage. No such period is mentioned in Section 498A. A person charged and acquitted under Section 304B can be convicted under Section 498A without that charge being there, if such a case is made out. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections. (See Akula Ravinder and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1991 SC 1142). Section 498A IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act include in their amplitude past events of cruelty. Period of operation of Section 113B of the Evidence Act is seven years, presumption arises when a woman committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of marriage. The above position was highlighted in Balwant Singh and Ors. v. State of H.P. [2008(10) JT 589. 2008 AIR SCW 6372].
SC No. 19/2011 21/63
State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. The Courts cannot ignore one of the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence that a suspect in the Indian law is entitled to the protection of Article 20 of the Constitution of India as well as has a presumption of innocence in his favour. In other words, the rule of law requires a person to be innocent till proved guilty. The concept of deeming fiction is hardly applicable to the criminal jurisprudence. In contradistinction to this aspect, the legislature has applied the concept of deeming fiction to the provisions of Section 304B. Where other ingredients of Section 304B are satisfied, in that event, the husband or all relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death. In other words, the offence shall be deemed to have been committed by fiction of law. Once the prosecution proves its case with regard to the basic ingredients of Section 304B, the Court will presume by deemed fiction of law that the husband or the relatives complained of, has caused her death. Such a presumption can be drawn by the Court keeping in view the evidence produced by the prosecution in support of the substantive charge under Sec. 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
Of course, deemed fiction would introduce a rebuttable presumption and the husband and his relatives may, by leading their SC No. 19/2011 22/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. defence and proving that the ingredients of Section 304B were not satisfied, rebut the same. While referring to raising of presumption under Section 304B of the Code, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu [AIR 2003 SC 3828]: (2003 AIR SCW 4387)stated the following ingredients which should be satisfied :
"4..................
1) The question before the Court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304B, IPC).
2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death."
In light of the above essential ingredients, for constituting an offence under Section 304B of the Code, the Court has to attach SC No. 19/2011 23/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. specific significance to the time of alleged cruelty and harassment to which the victim was subjected to and the time of her death, as well as whether the alleged demand of dowry was in connection with the marriage. Once these ingredients are satisfied, it would be called the 'dowry death' and then, by deemed fiction of law, the husband or the relatives would be deemed to have committed that offence. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
27. Madan Mohan Lal (PW5), resident of L75 Sarojini Nagar testified that on 25/07/2004 when he was ironing clothes in the varandah of his house, his wife heard noise of Bachao Bachao from the balcony and he (PW5) rushed outside, heard noises outside as "Thak Thak" when he was climbing stairs and saw two neighbors namely Daya Nand Dabbas (DW1) and Radhey Shyam who were trying to push open the kitchen door of the accused persons alongwith accused Om Parkash and Sachin. By applying of force, door of the kitchen was opened and as per PW5, they all started throwing water in the kitchen, meanwhile other people also came, deceased was lying in burnt condition. Someone had informed the police, police SC No. 19/2011 24/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. then came there and PW5 accompanied Mona and police to Safdarjung Hospital. Sh Madan Mohan Lal (PW5) also submitted that smoke was emitting out of the kitchen but could not remember whether any kerosene smell was there.
28. Dayanand Dabas (DW1) testified that at 8.45 pm on 25/07/2004, Sunday, he parked his scooter after coming from market, saw accused Sachin and his wife Mona (deceased) who then passed from there and they wished him. The couple went to their house, so did DW1. As per DW1 when the said couple met him, they were happy. After having meal, Dayanand Dabas (DW1) was in his house at 9.30 pm when he heard noise of 'bachao bachao' coming from side of house of accused. Dayanand Dabas (DW1) ran downstairs, went to house of accused, Radhey Shyam accompanied him. Said Radhey Shyam was resident of the flat below the flat of accused. Dayanand Dabas (DW1) saw that accused Om Parkash and his son Sachin were applying force to open the kitchen door. Dayanand Dabas (DW1) as well as Radhey Shyam also helped these accused in pushing the door of kitchen. Meanwhile Madan Mohan Lal (PW5), their neighbor also SC No. 19/2011 25/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. reached there. The door of the kitchen was got opened by force. They saw Mona (deceased) burning and a metal jyot fallen on the ground. Dayanand Dabas (DW1) stated that they ran towards the bathroom and brought water. In the meantime accused Sachin made a call to police. Dayanand Dabas (DW1) also stated that after putting off the fire, they were taking out Mona (deceased), police reached there and he (DW1) came down. DW1 also told to the investigating officer Inspector Mahesh Parkash (PW17) that the door of the kitchen was bolted from inside . Police took Mona (deceased) to hospital. Accused Sachin and Madan Mohan Lal (PW5) accompanied them. Dayanand Dabas (DW1) also did not observe any smell of kerosene at the scene of crime i.e kitchen or even smoke coming out of kitchen.
29. Perusal to call vide DD No. 41A, Mark X on 25/07/2004 SI Mahesh Parkash (PW17) with Ct Rakesh Kumar (PW11) reached the spot i.e L52, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi whereon they saw smoke coming out from the window of kitchen; kitchen was found flooded with water; smell of kerosene also coming out of the kitchen; on enquiry it was revealed to them that injured Mona was removed to SC No. 19/2011 26/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. hospital by PCR van alongwith accused Sachin Taneja. SI Mahesh Parkash (PW17) also reached Burn Casualty, Safdarjung Hospital leaving behind Ct Robert to scene of crime whereon the injured (Mona) had been declared brought dead; accused Sachin Taneja was found present in the hospital. It was revealed to PW17 that he (accused Sachin) had married deceased on 29/11/2003. SI Mahesh Parkash (PW17) deposed that the accused could not give any satisfactory reply regarding burn injuries sustained by the deceased.
30. SI Mahesh Parkash (PW17) informed the SDM of the area Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) and the SDM told SI Mahesh Parkash (PW17) that he would be coming on the next morning. Again PW17 reached the spot, called the crime team and got the scene of crime photographed by the member of the crime team. SI Mahesh Parkash (PW17) also locked the said kitchen and bed room wherein deceased Mona and accused Sachin used to live, with locks provided by accused Om Parkash. Keys of the locks were kept by SI Mahesh Parkash (PW17) SI Mahesh Parkash (PW17) saw parents of the deceased namely Manju Kalra (PW2) and Sh Manohar Lal Kalra SC No. 19/2011 27/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. (PW3) standing downstairs and weeping.
31. In the morning of 26/07/2004 SI Mahesh Parkash (PW17) again talked with the SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) who told PW17 to take the parents of deceased to Safdarjung Hospital. SI Mahesh Parkash (PW17) took parents and other family members of deceased to police station Sarojini Nagar. SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4), also reached there, inspected the body of deceased alongwith parents of deceased. SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) prepared death report Ex PW4/B and examined the parents of deceased and other members of deceased namely Anu Kalra (PW1) and recorded their statements Ex PW2/A, Ex PW3/A and Ex PW1/A. SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) also examined accused Sachin and recorded his statement Ex PW4/A.
32. Application Ex PW4/D was given by Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) to the doctor with the brief facts Ex PW4/C, death reports Ex PW4/D and Mark X, death summary Mark X3 , MLC Ex PW15/A for conducting the postmortem on the body of deceased. SC No. 19/2011 28/63
33. Dr Deepak Mathur (PW12) had conducted autopsy on the body of deceased on 26/07/2004 and found the following external injuries:
"Epidermal and dermo epidermal burns involving the whole body showing line of redness, blackening and redness and total burns were 100% of body surface. On external examination of the body, it showed all the internal organs were pale and there was mucosal oedema in the trachea and bronchial mucosa and uterus was gravid with one female fetus of 16 cm length, corresponding to about 34 months of pregnanay. The cause of death in this case was due to shock caused by ante mortem thermal burn injuries and the time since death was approximately 17 hours".
34. Also it was observed by Dr Deepak Mathur (PW12) that there was presence of rigor mortis being developed all over the body, postmortem staining was not appreciable due to burns. Both the eyes were closed and cornea was hazy and conjunctiva was congested, facial and scalp hair showed singeing and smell of kerosene was SC No. 19/2011 29/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. present in scalp hair. Scalp hair was also burnt.
35. Also Dr Deepak Mathur (PW12) testified that carbon soot particles were not present in isolation; no significant level of carbon soot was present in the respiratory passages. Also PW12 admitted that in case of burn with kerosene oil, carbon soot will be present in the mouth, throat, nose of the deceased i.e the complete respiratory track of the deceased. In the opinion of PW12, the physical findings were suggestive of ante mortem burns. No test was performed to assess the quantum of carbon soot in the respiratory track of the deceased as PW12 found there being no need to perform such test. In FSL report Ex PZ1, the result of examination was that Ex P1 to Ex P5 were found to contain residue of Diesel.
36. Dr Laxmi Kant Mishra (PW16), Senior Resident of Safdarjung Hospital examined patient Mona (now deceased) on 25/07/2004 at 8 pm vide MLC Ex PW15/A. Dr Laxmi Kant Mishra (PW16) had observed the said patient having 100% third degree thermal burns; the smell of kerosene was observed on whole of the SC No. 19/2011 30/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. body. On examination it was found that the patient was brought dead to the Burn Casualty. In Ex PW15/A also there is mention at point B to B that "according to the patient's husband Sachin, alleged history of burn while she was cooking on LPG stove and patient's husband was watching TV and found his wife sustained burn injury; exact history of burn not known".
37. By testimonies of neighbors i.e PW5 and DW1, it is proved on record that the door of the kitchen at the scene of crime was bolted from inside and by use of force was pushed open by PW 5 and DW1, another neighbor Radhey Shyam as well accused Sachin Taneja and Om Parkash Taneja. Dr Deepak Mathur (PW12), pursuant to autopsy, had given the finding of the cause of death of deceased was due to shock caused by antemortem thermal burn injuries. SI (now Inspector) Mahesh Parkash (PW17) testified that he got the kitchen photographed from member of crime team, which photographs were not received during his tenure as investigating officer. No photographs of the scene of crime have been placed on record nor proved. Site plan Ex PW17/D just shows the kitchen as a SC No. 19/2011 31/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. small square at point A in premises no. L52, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, a bigger square shown there. In the corner of the said kitchen, Mark X has been shown where the cane of kerosene oil in burnt condition was recovered. No scaled site plan has been got prepared nor placed on record nor proved. Even the unscaled site plan Ex PW17/D is non descriptive as to what was the situation at the scene of crime observed by the officers of investigating agency pursuant to occurrence i.e the status of the bolt of the door, dimension of the kitchen, slab, if there, temple or Jyot, if there, situation of the articles placed there in the kitchen, whether or not any cooked or semi cooked food was there and if so there, about the utensils there. No such scene of crime was reconstructed by the officers of investigating agency in the course of investigation of the heinous crime allegedly of the dowry death. Non placing on record the photographs of the kitchen got taken by SI (now Inspector) Mahesh Parkash (PW17) from the member of the crime team impel me to take adverse inference for with holding one of the best evidence, against the prosecution and investigating agency. SI (now Inspector) Mahesh Parkash (PW17) deposed that inner side of door of kitchen was burnt but he did not SC No. 19/2011 32/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. show it in the site plan.
38. When the door of the kitchen was closed from inside, while in the kitchen the deceased was alone, the circumstances point towards the existence of the probability of deceased committing suicide in comparison with the alternative possibility of an accident having taken place. Fact remains, in the case at hand, it is proved on record that the deceased expired due to antemortem thermal burn injuries, had so died in circumstances other than natural.
39. Following are facts brought in evidence of prosecution witnesses and admitted by the accused persons:
(1) the deceased was married on 29/11/03 with accused Sachin Taneja;
(2) after marriage, the deceased started living with her husband in the matrimonial home L52, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi;
(3) the deceased suffered burn injuries in the kitchen of L52, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi at night time on SC No. 19/2011 33/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. 25/07/2004;
(4) the deceased was taken by accused Sachin Taneja to Safdarjung Hospital in PCR van with police officials where the deceased was declared brought dead.
40. Anu Kalra (PW1), the sister of deceased testified that after marriage deceased told her that she was being harassed by accused persons on trivial matters and accused persons used to take cudgels on small things; the gifts and articles were given in marriage were not liked by accused persons; when deceased become pregnant after marriage, she (deceased) told PW1 that she was not being given proper food or expenses or money for her personal requirements due to which she had to take job in a school but yet deceased was threatened by accused persons that she would be left at the house of her parents; the deceased told PW1 that accused had demanded money for construction of their building/kothi in Gurgaon while no body used to support and listen to deceased. All aforesaid facts deposed by Anu Kalra (PW1) on 16/12/2004 before my Ld. Predecessor were not told by Anu Kalra (PW1) in her statement Ex SC No. 19/2011 34/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. PW1/A, dated 26/07/2004 to SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) regarding which she was confronted and contradicted with said statement. In Ex PW1/A, Anu Kalra (PW1) stated to SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) that the deceased was a girl of wisdom and tolerance, she was eagerly waiting for the coming child (deceased was pregnant). Also was stated there that in the beginning of February, 2004, arguments had started between her (deceased) and her in laws; her (deceased) sister in law Neeraj, who was very ill, used to poke her nose time and again and used to say 'bhalabura' (goodbad) to deceased while mother of accused Sachin Taneja used to take side of her daughter Neeraj. Also was stated therein that in the beginning, Sachin (accused) used to support Mona but later on, at the complaints of his sister and mother, he (accused Sachin Taneja) also used to say 'bura bhala' to deceased and several times gave threats to deceased for leaving her at the house of her parents. Anu Kalra (PW1) also mentioned in Ex PW1/A that deceased was educated and she (PW1) did not understand that deceased could burn herself or commit suicide, neither could she (PW1) believe that the deceased had closed the door from inside and burnt herself; from childhood till date SC No. 19/2011 35/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. deceased had never expressed thoughts of suicide. In the end of Ex PW1/A, it is mentioned by Anu Kalra (PW1) that she had given said statement, as per her own will without any pressure. Mere taunts and some altercations, short of physical and mental harassment, by no figment of imagination can be construed as subjecting the wife to cruelty by her husband or relatives of husband, nor the elicited facts can be construed as any willful conduct which is of such a nature as was likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of the woman. Nor in Ex PW1/A, there is any allegation of harassment of the woman (deceased) for demand of dowry, any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand, so the case at hand did not come in the ambit of Section 498A IPC. The allegations borne out of Ex PW1/A laid suspicion of unnatural death of deceased but were lacking the allegations of subjecting the deceased to either cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives or demand of dowry or such cruelty or harassment to be soon before her death or being the proximate cause of her death. No reason existed for the SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra SC No. 19/2011 36/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. (PW4) or officers of investigating agency to get the case FIR registered for offences either under Section 498A IPC or Section 304B of IPC, on said statement Ex PW1/A.
41. It is so said, as aforesaid, as not only the version of Anu Kalra(PW1) contained in Ex PW1/A was lacking essential ingredients, elicited above, for commission of offences under Section 498A IPC and 304B IPC, but also considering the fact that the statements dated 26/07/04 as Exts PW2/A and PW3/A of the parents of the deceased exonerated accused husband and her relatives saying never did the deceased tell them of any demand of dowry by any of accused or even having complained against any of her in laws. Instead in their statements, what is mentioned is, that the deceased used to tell her mother Manju Kalra (PW2) that she was happy in her matrimonial home. Even the said statements find mention that on 23/07/2004 in the night at 10 pm deceased had talk on telephone for half an hour with her parents, enquired their well being and told herself to be alright and was found happy. In both these statements Exts PW2/A and PW3/A, at the fag end, there is mention of such statements given SC No. 19/2011 37/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. without pressure and in senses.
42. SI (now Inspector) Mahesh Parkash (PW17) stated that he informed SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) at 10.45 pm on 25/07/2004 on his mobile number about the incident and requested him to come to the spot; SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) had asked PW17 to get the scene of crime preserved and that he will be coming on the next morning. As per SI (now Inspector) Mahesh Parkash (PW17) on the next morning he again talked with the SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) who instructed SI (now Inspector) Mahesh Parkash (PW17) to take the parents of deceased to Safdarjung Hospital. Since the parents of the deceased i.e., PW2 and PW3 and the members of her (deceased) family including Anu Kalra (PW1) and other family members had come at police station, then at 10.30 am SI (now Inspector) Mahesh Parkash (PW17) took them to Safdarjung Hospital. On their reaching there aforesaid statements Ex PW1/A, Ext PW2/A and Ex PW3/A were given to the SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) by the sister and parents of deceased. SC No. 19/2011 38/63
43. Manju Kalra (PW2) testified that they had given all dowry as per the demand of accused persons but her daughter (deceased) after marriage told her (PW2) that despite sufficient dowry to her (deceased) in laws, she was harassed and it was said to her that dowry articles were of cheap quality, she (deceased) was compelled to take job. Also Manju Kalra (PW2) deposed that during her (deceased) second year's examination, deceased lived at her parental house for two months i.e., May and June, 2004 and during this period of two months on the date of examination, she (PW2) used to send her (deceased) to her in law's house but finding that there was no atmosphere of study, deceased used to come to her (PW2) house. Manju Kalra (PW2) also stated that the deceased went to her matrimonial home in June, 2004 itself. Even Manju Kalra (PW2) stated that the deceased was enormously compelled to take job as she was kept deprived of money and expenses while working in private school in Tilak Nagar, where she (deceased) fainted twice; even if deceased used to get late in reaching home even slightly accused persons used to take her to task as to why she had come late, so she used to come to home from school in time. Also Manju Kalra SC No. 19/2011 39/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. (PW2) deposed that in her (deceased) dowry, at the time of marriage, PW2 had given one AC to her daughter. PW2 further stated that deceased had told her that whenever she (deceased) used to run AC, accused persons used to tell that the bill of AC has not to be paid by her father so deceased should not run AC. Also Manju Kalra (PW2) deposed that at the time of her death, deceased was pregnant of three months but the accused persons were not taking care of deceased properly and deceased was not given nutritious food, so PW2 used to send food from her (PW2) home. Also Manju Kalra (PW2) deposed that when she talked to deceased on 23/07/2004 and enquired from her about the nature of accused Sachin and his attitude then the deceased told that the nature of accused Sachin was not good; she (PW2) invited the entire family of accused Sachin on 25/07/2004 for dinner. All aforesaid facts did not find mention in statement Ex PW2/A given to SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) and she (PW2) was confronted and contradicted with the said statement.
44. Manju Kalra (PW2) also deposed that they received telephone call from accused Om Parkash at 10 pm on 25/07/2004 that SC No. 19/2011 40/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. the deceased had got burnt while lighting Jyot, which information was received by her husband (PW3) who did not inform the said facts immediately but took her (PW2) to matrimonial home of deceased where they reached there at around 11 pm. Manju Kalra (PW2) further deposed that when they reached and saw blood in the staircase and hair scattered, went upstairs and enquired from accused Kamla as to how this had happened. Accused Kamla told PW2 that deceased had bolted kitchen from inside in the kitchen and she got burnt while lighting Jyot in the temple in kitchen. Manju Kalra (PW2) deposed that they went to kitchen but did not find any Jyot as stated by accused Kamla but found smell of kerosene oil there and came to know that deceased was removed to Safdarjung Hospital. Manju Kalra (PW2) further deposed that on reaching Safdarjung Hospital, they found their daughter Mona having already died. Manju Kalra (PW2) also deposed that accused were constructing a house in Gurgaon and deceased told PW2 that money was being asked from her for construction of that house and her husband (PW3) had sent electricity material and money for construction of house but PW2 did not know how much money was sent by her husband; the in laws of SC No. 19/2011 41/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. deceased used to keep on demanding money and they used to pay money. Further Manju Kalra (PW2) stated that for the first time the in laws of deceased demanded money in April, 2004 and at that time she was told that Rs 45,000/ was demanded and they had given Rs 45,000/ to in laws of deceased. Manju Kalra (PW2) stated that when her statement Ex PW2/A was recorded by SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) then there were persons from the side of accused and they were saying that dead body would not be given to her (PW2), so PW2 gave statement to the SDM without any allegation against the accused persons, while later on in her statement to police, she (PW2) stated of having given details.
45. Even in statement of PW2 to police under Section 161 Cr.P.C,dated 26/07/04,there were no allegations of (1) deceased having been compelled to take job as she was deprived of money and expenses; (2) deceased having fainted in school twice; (3) if deceased used to get late in reaching home and even slightly, accused used to take her to task as to why she came late;(4) that PW2 used to send food for her daughter;(5) that on 23/7/04 PW2 enquired from deceased SC No. 19/2011 42/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. about nature of accused Sachin and his attitude towards her, upon which deceased told that the nature of accused Sachin was not good; (6) accused Om Parkash having informed husband of PW2 that deceased had got burnt while lighting Jyot; (7) after reaching the house of accused, they had noticed the blood in the staircase and hairs scattered in the staircase; (8) that after reaching the house of accused, PW2 asked accused Kamla as to how this had happened, upon which accused Kamla stated that deceased had bolted the door of kitchen from inside and she got burnt while lighting Jyot; (9) when PW2 went inside the kitchen, she did not find any sign of Jyot and they found smell of kerosene oil; (10) that her (PW2) husband had sent electricity material and money for construction of house of accused; (11) that the in laws of her daughter used to keep demanding money and they used to pay money; (12) that for the first time the in laws of deceased demanded Rs 45,000/ in April, 2004 and sum of Rs 45,000/ was paid to the in laws of deceased by them; (13) when PW2 was making statement to the SDM then several persons from the side of accused were present.
SC No. 19/2011 43/63
46. Manju Kalra (PW2) elicited that in the night of 25/07/2004 they remained in the hospital for about one hour and after seeing the dead body of deceased, a small necklace and ear tops were removed from the body of deceased in the hospital and given to them; they came to the house of accused to enquire where they remained through out night. Manju Kalra (PW2) further stated that some of their relatives were also at the house of accused. Manju Kalra (PW2) also stated that in the said night at about 11/11.30 pm, they went to police station and lodged her report with the police. Manju Kalra (PW2) further elicited that they went on going to the house of accused as well as coming to the police station. PW2 deposed that when in the morning of 26/07/2004, SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) had met them and made enquiries then at that time their relatives were also with them. PW2 elicited that when SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) , made enquiries, she was not feeling well, was not in her senses, so could not talk to SDM and SDM asked PW2 to sign and PW2 put her signatures and as such she cannot say what was written by the SDM. Manju Kalra (PW2) also stated that after the cremation of her daughter in the evening all her relatives SC No. 19/2011 44/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. accompanied to their house at near about 7/8 pm, while the body of deceased was received at 4/5 pm.
47. Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) testified that after one or two months of marriage everything was going on normal and thereafter accused persons started harassing deceased; deceased was used to be rebuked by the accused that deceased had brought the dowry articles of inferior quality. Also Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) deposed that accused persons demanded sum of Rs 2 lakhs and they started torturing the deceased mildly. Also Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) deposed that in the month of FebruaryMarch, 2004 he (PW3) called all the three accused persons at his house, had talked with them and told them that he (PW3) spent money in the marriage which has recently taken place and was not having more money but accused yet insisted that they were in urgent need of money as their house was under construction at Gurgaon. Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) further deposed that, thereafter, after few days he arranged a sum of Rs 45,000/, gave to the accused after which for few days the things continued in a better manner but thereafter again the accused persons SC No. 19/2011 45/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. started harassing deceased. Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) further deposed that after few days thereafter he (PW3) told the accused that since he was not having money as such he shall provide them with electricity goods and thereafter provided them the electricity goods for their house under construction at Gurgaon. Yet again for few days things continued to be normal. All aforesaid assertions in the testimony of Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) do not find mention in the statement Ex PW3/A given by Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) to the SDM. Even in his statement Ex PW3/D1, dated 31/07/2004, under Section 161 Cr.P.C to the IO, there was no mention of Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) having called accused at his house in FebruaryMarch, 2004 or had talk with them or having told that he had spent money in the marriage which had recently taken place was not having more money; yet accused insisted that they were in urgent need of money as their house was under construction at Gurgaon. Even in his statements Ex PW3/PX (having endorsement of PW4 for its delivery on 23/08/2004) and PW3/A, Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) did not state therein of having told the accused as he was not having money, he will provide them with electricity goods and thereafter provided SC No. 19/2011 46/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. them the electricity goods for their house under construction at Gurgaon. Even Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) testified that he had told to the SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) that all the accused persons with their relatives had pressurised them that if they will make statement against them in that case the dead body will not be given to Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) and his family. For that matter Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) was confronted with his statement Ex PW3/PX and Ex PW3/A where it was not so recorded. As per Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3), the demand of Rs 2 Lakhs was made in the month of February/March, 2004 and her daughter had communicated to him (PW3) about such demand. Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) also deposed that the accused persons did not initially ask for money, however, when he (PW3) enquired from the accused persons about the demand, they endorsed the same. Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) elicited that he (PW3) had spoken to accused Om Parkash and Sachin in this regard but not to accused Kamla Devi. Regarding giving of cash of Rs 45,000/, Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) stated that he collected it from his family members and relatives as he was not having said cash. Per contra to version of Ex PW3/A, Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) in his SC No. 19/2011 47/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. cross examination inter alia stated that at about 10 pm in the night of 23/07/2004, he (PW3) had telephonic conversation with the deceased about her well being but deceased was weeping, then Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) asked the reason of her weeping and told deceased that everything will be all right. For that matter Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) stated that he told the SDM in statement Ex PW3/A that his daughter told that she was all right when he spoke in the night of 23/07/2004, since then he (PW3) was under the pressure of accused persons and their relatives standing outside. Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) despite asking could not tell the names of such relatives of the accused persons standing out side room where he made statement to the SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4). Regarding demand of money, version of Manju Kalra (PW2), elicited herein before is in variation to version of Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3). Per contra to version of Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3), Manju Kalra (PW2) stated that for the first time the accused persons demanded money in April, 2004 and Rs 45,000/ was paid to the accused. Manju Kalra (PW2) nowhere in her testimony testified of any demand of Rs 2 Lakhs by the accused persons or that her husband ever told the accused persons SC No. 19/2011 48/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. of his inability to pay money or saying them that he will give electricity material for their house under construction at Gurgaon. Even Anu Kalra (PW1) was put a court question by my Ld. Predecessor as to how much money was demanded by the accused persons, as told to her by her sister (deceased). Answer of Anu Kalra (PW1) was that no specific amount was told by her sister. In her entire testimony, Anu Kalra (PW1) did not whisper of any demand of Rs 2 Lakhs at any moment of time or giving of Rs 45,000/ to the accused persons by her parents in the months of February, March and April, 2004 or before. Also Anu Kalra (PW1) did not whisper of any giving of electricity goods by her father Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) to any of the accused persons for construction of their house at Gurgaon. It was so, despite the fact that being daughter, PW1 resided under same roof with her parents PW2 and PW3.
48. Ankush Kalra (PW6) inter alia testified that deceased informed him that accused had been demanding money for their construction business from his father Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3). Ankush Kalra (PW6) did not say that such demand was made by SC No. 19/2011 49/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. accused for raising construction of their place of abode at Gurgaon. As per Ankush Kalra (PW6), he had spoken to deceased in February, 2004 on telephone when she had informed him (PW6) regarding demand of money and harassment regarding low quality of dowry articles. Also Ankush Kalra (PW6) stated that the deceased had come to their house at Rohini, informed regarding harassment and demand of money, where she cried but was sent back to her (deceased) matrimonial house after consoling her by his (PW6) parents. Ankush Kalra (PW6) further stated that again in the month of April, 2004 his sister (deceased) again told them on telephone regarding the demand of money and her harassment and deceased was driven out of her matrimonial house upon which she came to their house; accused were demanding Rs 2 lakhs from his father but his father (PW3) had arranged some amount of money and gave to the accused persons, the accused namely Sachin and his father Om Parkash had come to their house when the payment was made and they had assured to keep deceased well. Ankush Kalra (PW6) was not knowing the exact amount of money given by his father (PW3). Ankush Kalra (PW6) further deposed that deceased used to tell him that she was given SC No. 19/2011 50/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. beatings and harassed by the accused persons, was not allowed to run AC etc. Regarding deceased having been driven out of her matrimonial home, coming back to parents house, not allowed to run AC etc. Ankush Kalra (PW6) was confronted with his previous statement Ex PW6/DA, dated 01/08/2004, under Section 161 Cr.P.C, given to IO, where he had not said so. Ankush Kalra (PW6) also deposed that he met the police for the first time either on 1st or 2nd August, 2004. Aforesaid assertion of Ankush Kalra (PW6) of all accused persons having come at the house of Ankush Kalra (PW6) where payment was made to them upon which accused assured to keep deceased well; the deceased having driven out of her matrimonial house, does not find mention in the version of other material witnesses contained in testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 nor in their previous statements Ex PW1/A; Ex PW2/A; Ex PW2/DA, Ex PW4/H; Ex PW4/I and Ex PW3/A (of PW3).
49. Neha (PW7), the aunt of deceased, testified that after marriage when deceased came to her house she told her (PW7) that SC No. 19/2011 51/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. the accused persons and her sister in law used to harass her (deceased) for dowry; her (deceased) husband (accused Sachin Taneja) threatened her that he would kill her (deceased) and no body would come to know about her murder but they sent deceased to her in laws house by persuading her. Neha (PW7) in the course of her cross examination stated that she had gone to the house of parents of deceased in the night of 25/07/2004, met them in the morning of 26/07/2004; admitted that she had not stated to parents of deceased all aforesaid facts. Also PW7 admitted that police officials were making enquiries from relatives and parents of deceased in her presence but PW7 did not tell anything aforesaid to police on that day. Also PW7 admitted that she did not tell aforesaid facts to the SDM (PW4). So there was every likelihood of her version to be embroidered, exaggerated, introduced, tutored and/or concocted to suit the case of prosecution.
50. Sh Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2) deposed that his (DW2) wife and wife of Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) were real sisters. DW2 stated that his (DW2) wife had donated her one kidney to him (DW2). SC No. 19/2011 52/63
State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. Further DW2 stated that Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) got married in 1980, since then the family of Manohar Lal (PW3), his family and the family of accused Om Prakash Taneja were known to each other. Relationship between family of Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) and that of accused Om Prakash Taneja steadily grew and these two families were quite close to each other due to DW2. As per Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2), both these families on their own had agreed for the marriage of Sachin (accused) with Mona (deceased) while Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2) was thumb stone (Karandhar) of the marriage of accused Sachin with Mona (deceased); in all family functions Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2) had participated and as per Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2) none amongst accused or any one of their side made any type of dowry demand as accused Om Prakash Taneja and his family were not people of such breed, since they were very noble people, only because of which Manohar Lal (PW3) agreed and rather proposed for marriage because of their being noble people. Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2) stated that he had been visiting the families of both Manohar Lal (PW3) as well as of accused Om Prakash Taneja while Manohar Lal (PW3) and his family never made any complaint of harassment of SC No. 19/2011 53/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. any kind of Mona (deceased) or of demand of dowry or having made any payment to accused persons. Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2) also stated that even he had the occasion to meet deceased after her marriage who was very happy with the marriage and never made any complaint to him. In fact deceased had appeared in the examination after marriage, had secured 75% marks.
51. As per Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2), in the night of 25th of July he had received information from Manohar Lal (PW3) that deceased got burnt in the kitchen, so he (DW2) made telephone call to his son who was residing in Gurgaon, upon which his son came on bike to the house of accused persons where he (DW2) was also called. Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2) with family went there. Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2) also stated that they directly went to Safdarjung Hospital where the statements were being recorded by the SDM and at that place Manohar Lal (PW3) and his wife (PW3), both told him (DW2) that whatever was acceptable to God had happened and they (PW2 and PW3) have not named anybody as no one was at fault, as their daughter had been happy. Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2) stated that he SC No. 19/2011 54/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. (DW2) had attended the cremation and subsequent ceremonies namely Chautha and when later while sitting tin house of Manohar Lal (PW3), their all relatives were sitting; some relatives of Manohar Lal (PW3) were asking PW3 why he had given such statement and then Manohar Lal (PW3) stated that whatever was truth he had said that to SDM. As per Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2), the relatives of Manohar Lal (PW3) were infuriated and Manohar Lal (PW3) even said to Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2) that despite incitement of his relatives he will be in his senses. As per Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2), even a telephone call of an Inspector came who incited Manohar Lal (PW3) and due to such incitement and even incitement of his relatives, Manohar Lal (PW3) became infuriated. Yet, when Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2) left, Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) assured him that he will follow the path of truth; in the morning of 15/08/2007 Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2) went to house of Manohar Lal (PW3) with his wife, he (DW2) saw PW3 infuriated. Manohar Lal (PW3) said to Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2) that his relatives and the police Inspector have drunk his blood and asked him to accompany to SDM. Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2) did not accompany Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) but even asked him to remain steady on his SC No. 19/2011 55/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. earlier statement. Yet despite on the asking of Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2), Manohar Lal (PW3) did not follow his advice. In the evening Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2) left the house of Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) and did not go there again.
52. The testimonies of the relative witnesses namely Anu Kalra (PW1), Manju Kalra (PW2), Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3), Ankush Kalra (PW6), Neha (PW7) embody in themselves material contradictions, severe infirmities and inherent improbabilities casting shadow over their reliability, credibility and trustworthiness. Elicited material contradictions inter se testimonies of these material witnesses as to the alleged dowry demands, alleged harassment meted to the deceased during subsistence of her marriage; when and how much sum of money was demanded; when, how much and where the same was delivered, by which person, to which accused; demonstrates the inconsistent, variant versions which per se are neither cogent nor credible.
53. In the intervening night of 25th and 26th, July 2004 the SC No. 19/2011 56/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. parents and relatives of deceased continued coming and going to and from the house of accused persons and the police station. In the morning of 26/07/2004 at around 10.30 am it was investigating officer SI (now Inspector) Mahesh Prakash (PW17) who had taken the parents and relatives of deceased from police station to Safdarjung Hospital where SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4) had recorded the initial statements Ex PW1/A, Ex PW2/A and Ex PW3/A of Anu Kalra (PW1), Manju Kalra (PW2) and Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) which were bereft of any element of deceased having been subjected to any willful conduct in the period of her subsistence of her marriage, likely to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of her; or deceased being subjected to any harassment for demand of dowry, any property or valuable security or any such demand of accused having been conveyed by deceased to these witnesses or their relatives.
54. In the case of State of Haryana vs Ram Singh, 2002 (1) JCC 385, it was inter alia held that the evidence tendered by the defence witness is entitled to equal treatment and equal respect as SC No. 19/2011 57/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. that of the prosecution and cannot always be termed to be a tainted one and the trustworthiness ought also to be attributed to the defence witnesses at par with that of the prosecution.
55. Testimony of Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2), the uncle (Mausa) of deceased who also happened to be working with accused Om Parkash earlier in FCI, who also was thumb stone (karandhar) of marriage of accused Sachin Taneja with deceased, demolished the version set up by the parents and relatives of the deceased in their testimonies in court. Tek Chand Ahuja (DW2) termed the accused persons as the noble persons, having never demanded any dowry, nor having harassed deceased on any count but made it vivid and clear that on account of incitement of his relatives and police inspector, Manohar Lal Kalra (PW3) somersaulted from his version contained in Ex PW3/A, introduced the coloured version, concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation, so as to get the accused falsely implicated.
56. Dayanand Dabas (DW1), the neighbor of accused also SC No. 19/2011 58/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. testified that relations of accused Sachin with deceased were good and they appeared to be happy to them and he had not heard about the harassment or maltreatment or any kind of demand of dowry by accused persons from deceased or from her family members.
57. In the case of Prem Singh Yadav vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 178 (2011) DLT 529, it was held that where it is possible to have both the views, one in favour of the prosecution and the other in favour of the accused, the latter should prevail. Pronouncements in case of Dilip v. State of M.P., 1 (2007)CCR 354 (SC)=II (2007) SLT 60=[2009] 1 SCC 450 and Gagan Kanejia v. State of Punjab, I (2007)CCR 89 (SC)= IX (2006) SLT 406=[2006] 13 SCC 516 were relied.
58. The substratum of the prosecution case has several holes which cannot be plugged. No new story can be reconstructed by this court.
The elicited intrinsic circumstances speak volumes against the prosecution case and raise considerable amount of SC No. 19/2011 59/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. suspicion in mind regarding the complicity of the accused in the commission of alleged offences.
Even falsehood is sometimes given an adroit appearance of truth, so that truth disappears and falsehood comes on the surface. This appears to be one of those cases.
The aforesaid infirmities in the background of reasonable possibility of false implication of the accused persons, elicited above, renders the prosecution version not proved, beyond reasonable doubt.
59. The aforesaid infirmities, material contradictions inter se testimonies of material prosecution witnesses coming into fore after somersault of PW2 and PW3 from their initial version of exonerating the accused for death of deceased in terms of their statements Ex PW2/A and Ex PW3/A to SDM Sh Rajesh Chopra (PW4), in the background of reasonable possibility of false implication of the accused persons, elicited above, renders the prosecution version not proved, beyond reasonable doubt in respect of any dowry demand or harassment of deceased at hands of accused persons or death of deceased having any live link with any kind of dowry demand or SC No. 19/2011 60/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. cruelty or harassment of deceased, soon before her death. Reliance placed upon the cases of (1) Tarsem Singh (Supra); (2) Sunil Bajaj (Supra); (3) Durga Prasad (Supra); (4) Raman Mahajan (Supra) and (5) Vinita & Anr. (Supra).
60. In the case of Appasaheb & Anr vs State of Maharashtra (Supra), it was held that "A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. Since an essential ingredient of Section 304B IPC viz. demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained."
61. In the case of Vinita & Anr vs State of NCT of Delhi (Supra), it was held that "If it is to be presumed that money was demanded by the appellants for the construction of one portion on the terrace of the house, then that demand for money on account of some financial stringencies or meeting some urgent domestic manure cannot be SC No. 19/2011 61/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. termed as demand of dowry, as is decided in Appasaheb & Anr (supra)"
62. Though not admitted by defence, yet even for sake of arguments if it is presumed that accused made any demand of money of either two lakhs rupees or forty five thousand rupees or accepted forty five thousand rupees for construction of their house or received electrical goods for construction of their house at Gurgaon, even then such a demand for money for construction of house cannot come under the ambit of demand for 'dowry', as had been held in cases of Appesaheb (Supra) and Vinita (Supra).
63. Relying upon the law laid and elicited in the preceding paragraphs, since two views are possible on the evidence adduced in this case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to their innocence, view which is favourable to the accused is being adopted. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accused persons are held not guilty and acquitted for the offences charged. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Case properties be confiscated to the State after expiry of period of SC No. 19/2011 62/63 State Vs. Sachin Taneja etc. appeal. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (GURVINDER PAL SINGH)
on date 16/05/2012 ASJ (FTC)/SD/ NEW DELHI.
SC No. 19/2011 63/63