Delhi District Court
State vs . Ankit Rathore & Ors. on 28 July, 2023
State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF ARUN SUKHIJA, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-03 (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
SC No. 749/2018
State Vs. 1. Ankit Rathore
S/o Sh. Tara Chand Rathore
R/o X-2605, Gali No. 7,
Raghubarpura II, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi.
2. Tara Chand Rathore
S/o Sh. Nara Singh Rathore
R/o X-2605, Gali No. 7,
Raghubarpura II, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi.
3. Kiran Rathore
W/o Sh. Tara Chand Rathore
R/o X-2605, Gali No. 7,
Raghubarpura II, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi.
4. Divya Rathore
D/o Sh. Tara Chand Rathore
R/o X-2605, Gali No. 7,
Raghubarpura II, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi.
FIR No. : 30/2018
Under Sections : 498-A/304-B/34 IPC
Police Station : Gandhi Nagar
Charge-sheet Filed on : 20.04.2018
(Qua accused Ankit Rathore)
09.08.2018
(Qua remaining accused persons)
Charge-sheet Allocated on: 01.05.2018
(Qua accused Ankit Rathore)
24.08.2018
SC No. 749/2018 Page - 1 of 31
State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
(Qua remaining accused persons)
Presided over this Court on : 22.07.2021
Judgment Reserved on : 19.07.2023
Judgment Announced on : 28.07.2023
::- J U D G M E N T -::
1.Succinctly, necessary facts as per the report filed under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in Short "CrPC"), are that on receipt of DD No. 11A dated 28.01.2018, police party reached House No. X-2605, Gali No. 7, Raghubarpura II, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, where, it was noticed that on the ground floor of the said property, a lady was seen lying there in unconscious condition and on inquiry, it was revealed by Ankit Rathore that said lady is his wife and even an information was given to his in-laws. For the same, intimation was given to senior police officers and even SDM Vivek Vihar, Delhi. Exhibits were lifted from the spot and seized. Other formal proceedings were also conducted.
2. During the course of investigations, Smt. Nisha Chauhan, mother of deceased, made statement alleging therein that Shalu, her daughter, was married to Ankit on 28.01.2011 and since after the said marriage, she was being harassed for more dowry at the hands of all members of her in-laws. It is also alleged in the said statement made by mother of the deceased that father-in-law of the deceased used to threaten her at the point of pistol and even husband of the deceased was having extra marital affairs and prayed for legal action against all the in-laws of the deceased stating SC No. 749/2018 Page - 2 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
that they are responsible for death of the deceased. Statements of other members of the parental family of the deceased were also recorded and then, the present FIR under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC was registered.
3. Accused Ankit Rathore was arrested and other formal proceedings were also conducted. During the investigations of this case, father of deceased produced photographs and some other documents. Earlier, accused persons Tara Chand Rathore, Kiran Rathore and Divya Rathore were kept under Column no. 12 but later on, Supplementary Charge Sheet was also filed against them, however, much prior to them, the Charge Sheet was already filed against accused Ankit Rathore.
4. After compliance of provisions of Section 207 of CrPC by the Court of ld. MM, Charge Sheets were committed to the Court of Sessions as Section 304-B IPC, involved in the present matter, is exclusively triable by it.
5. Vide order dated 10.09.2018, passed by ld. predecessor of this Court, Charge under Section 498-A/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons; Charge under Section 304-B IPC and in the alternative, under Section 306 IPC, was framed against accused Ankit Rathore while separate Charge under Section 506 IPC was also framed against accused Tara Chand Rathore. To the said charges, all these accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial.
6. In order to prove its case, prosecution had examined in total thirty five witnesses and out of them - PW-1 Pooja SC No. 749/2018 Page - 3 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
Chauhan; PW-2 Maan Singh; PW-4 Nisha Chauhan; PW-5 Vijay Chauhan; PW-6 Seema Chauhan; PW-7 Manju Handa; PW-8 Sonia Chauhan; PW-10 Bharti Saxena; PW- 11 Dooj Kanwar; PW-13 Gomati Bai and PW-30 Mst. Sultana are either members of the parental family of the deceased or related to the deceased while PW-20 Hemant Kumar and PW-25 Dr. A.C. Bajwa are link witnesses and all remaining witnesses are either formal in nature or joined the investigations of this case.
7. During prosecution evidence, accused persons made statement under Sec. 294 of CrPC and admitted FSL reports and record of SBI as Ex.CX1 to Ex.CX3.
8. Detailed testimony of the witnesses concerned will be discussed at relevant time of judgment.
9. All the incriminating evidence, which has come on record, has been put to the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC. All these accused persons admitted the relations between the parties but denied all the incriminating evidence put to them.
10. All these accused persons, in one tone, stated that they did not commit any crime, as alleged. Accused Ankit Rathore further pleaded that he and his wife with their children were residing as a happily married couple. In the year 2013, Shalu - his deceased wife, along with him visited to her parental house to attend the marriage of her sisters and on account of marriage of her sisters, she had taken all her jewellery items with her and after dropping his wife to her parental home, he came back to Delhi on account of his SC No. 749/2018 Page - 4 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
business meetings. He also pleaded that said marriage was attended by his father and when, after the marriage, he (accused) visited to his in-laws house to take back his wife, under the influence of liquor, Sh. Vijay Chauhan, his brother-in-law (Saala) started misbehaving with him as to why he (accused) had not attended the marriage. The said issue and conduct of Vijay Chauhan was opposed by deceased taking the side of his (accused) and on account of said episode, he along with his wife came back to Delhi immediately. Accused further pleaded that about three months of the same, it was informed to him by his wife that she had forgotten to take back her jewellery from her parental home and same is still lying with her mother and when she phoned her mother for the same, her mother told her that she should come after about 2-3 months and she would hand-over the same to her. Further, plea of this accused is that later on, in the year 2016, his wife informed him that jewellery items are not with her mother and she came to know that her jewellery had been pawned by her parents and that in order to maintain relations, he made his wife understand that she should forget for the same and he (accused) would provide her necessary jewellery with passage of time. One of the pleas of the accused is also that even before the marriage of his sisters- in-law, on request by his father-in-law, he had given a sum of Rupees Seven Lakhs to his father-in-law through bank transfer for the arrangement of scheduled marriage of his (accused) sisters-in-law and that on account of all these SC No. 749/2018 Page - 5 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
issues created by parents of deceased, deceased remained under depression and even stopped to talk with her parents. Accused further pleaded that on 26.01.2018, his (accused) father threw a party on account of Republic Day and a number of persons attended the said party and said party was enjoyed by him and his wife along with children but as deceased was not having jewellery, she was depressed. Even deceased requested his father not to invite her parents for the said party because of conduct of her parents. Accused further pleaded that after committing suicide by deceased, friend of his wife informed him (accused Ankit) that his wife committed suicide as she was under depression on account of conduct of her (deceased) parents. Besides the above, accused further pleaded that when his father came to know that he (accused) used to give money to his in-laws, his father got annoyed on this issue and scolded him for the same and one spur of moment, he got issued notice for debarring him to save his assets. Moreover, further plea of the accused is that his father-in-law and mother-in-law came to meet him while he was in custody and demanded a sum of Rupees Three Crores from him with undertaking that they would not depose against him further and would tell true facts before the Court and even again came there to meet him in jail for affirmation of said deal but when the said deal was not accepted, threat was extended that they would teach him a lesson for the same. Accused further pleaded that he was a resident of X-2604, Second floor, Gali No. 7, SC No. 749/2018 Page - 6 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
Raghubarpura No. 2, Delhi and his parental aunt (Tai), who is also Bua of his wife, was also resident of ground floor of the same property. It is further submitted that on account of renovation of his floor, he temporarily shifted to ground floor of X-2605, Ground floor, Gali No. 7, Raghubarpura No. 2, Delhi. Plea of remaining accused persons is almost also on the same grounds.
11. Accused persons Ankit Rathore and Tara Chand Rathore opted to lead DE while remaining accused persons did not wish for the same.
12. I have heard the submissions of ld. Addl. PP for the State and ld. defence counsel for accused persons. I have also perused the material available on record with the law on the issues in question.
13. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State argued that there is no dispute to the relations between the parties and that in the present matter, a young lady lost her life on the day of marriage anniversary of the couple and that too, after leaving two minor baby girls. One of the contentions of ld. Addl. PP for the State is that in case, she was happy in her matrimonial home, there was no reason for committing suicide and all this puts stamp on the prosecution case. It was also stated that mostly, all the members of the parental family of the deceased supported the prosecution case and some of them did not support the prosecution case but there may be various reasons for not supporting the prosecution case. It is also submitted that defence of the accused persons is that deceased committed suicide only SC No. 749/2018 Page - 7 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
because of pawning of her jewellery by her parents and on that count, firstly, accused persons have failed to prove that said jewellery was of deceased and secondly, if husband and other in-laws of deceased were with her, there was no reason for leaving this world and that too, after leaving two minor girls. Moreover, defence has failed to prove that said voice was of deceased, which was produced by them. On the issue of FIR and case lodged by sister of the deceased, ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that it may be destiny of the parents and also of the girl that her married life was not going well and it has no bearing on the merits of this case. Ld. Addl. PP for the State prayed for conviction to the accused persons, for the offences, for which, they have been charged with.
14. Per contra, first and foremost contention of the ld. defence counsel is that there is undisputed fact that PW-8 Sonia Chauhan; PW-11 Dooj Kanwar; PW-13 Gomati Bai and PW-30 Mst. Sultana were declared hostile by prosecution and it casts doubt on the prosecution case. Ld. defence counsel further contended that PW-11 Dooj Kanwar is real Bua of deceased and used to reside in the same premises on ground floor, where, deceased along with her husband and children used to reside and despite lengthy cross- examination conducted on her by the State, nothing has come on record, which may remotely connect any of these accused persons with any crime. Ld. defence counsel further contended that the same is the position as far as witnesses PW-13 Gomati Bai and PW-30 Mst. Sultana are SC No. 749/2018 Page - 8 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
concerned and despite cross-examination conducted on them on behalf of the State, nothing has come on record against any of these accused persons for any of the offences and this all is clear that prosecution case is only made on sand.
15. Apart from that, one of the contentions of ld. defence counsel is that PW-1, father of deceased, admitted during his cross-examination that he had received amount of Rupees Seven Lakhs from family of accused but PW-2, mother of deceased denied this fact and all this shows the conduct of witnesses. Ld. defence counsel also drew the attention of the Court towards the cross-examination of PW-1, wherein, he admitted that even after the death of deceased, he visited the shop of accused Tara Chand many times and even he was served with tea etc. and even PW-2 Nisha Chauhan, mother of deceased, during her cross- examination, admitted that she and her husband visited jail to meet Ankit and all these strengthens the defence of the accused that prosecution case was got registered only to extort money and even shows the conduct of the witnesses that they are not reliable witnesses. Moreover, ld. defence counsel also drew the attention of the Court towards the fact that witnesses are giving contradictory statements even to the facts just like dispute of other daughter with her in-laws etc. and even this shows that witnesses are not reliable.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS SC No. 749/2018 Page - 9 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
16. It is an admitted fact that the deceased along with her husband Ankit Rathore and two minor daughters used to reside separately from her in-laws having separate kitchen at the Second Floor of the property bearing No. X/2604, Gali No. 7, Raghubar Pura No. 2, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and the real Bua of the deceased used to reside on the Ground Floor of the same property since the marriage of the deceased till 2015-2016.
17. The accused persons Tara Chand Rathore, Kiran Rathore and Divya Rathore were permanently residing separately from deceased and her family at Second Floor of Property No. X/2605, Gali No. 7, Raghubar Pura No. 2, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. Because of renovation work at the floor of the deceased, the deceased temporarily shifted to the Ground Floor of the property bearing No. X/2605, Gali No. 7, Raghubar Pura No. 2, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, only three/four months prior to her death and she had separate kitchen on the said floor from her in-laws.
18. The first IO Inspector Mohinder Singh and 2nd IO Inspector Anuj have not found any evidence against the accused persons namely Tara Chand Rathore, Kiran Rathore and Divya Rathore and only for such reason, both the IOs have not filed the Charge Sheet against these accused persons while filing the main Charge Sheet and it is specifically mentioned in the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. that there is no evidence against these accused persons, so, only accused Ankit Rathore is charge- sheeted. These IOs have also replied during their cross-
SC No. 749/2018 Page - 10 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
examination that they have not found any evidence against the said accused persons, so, only for such reason, they have filed the Charge Sheet against the accused Ankit Rathore only. But after filing of the main Charge Sheet by Inspector Anuj, the 3rd IO Inspector Harkesh Gaba, without collecting any evidence against these three accused persons, has put their names in the Column No. 11 as accused persons in the present case, which is totally illegal and the said IO could explain as to what evidence he had collected during the course of further investigation against the said accused person, which compelled him to put the name of these persons in Column No. 11 as accused persons.
19. The material witnesses are the family members of the deceased and the same are examined by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused persons. They have neither leveled any allegation of demand of dowry or harassment for the sake of dowry or for any reason, whatsoever, by any of the accused persons or any such incident, which occurred soon before the death to abet the deceased to commit suicide. It is further argued that the said witnesses have admitted that the dead body was handed-over to Maan Singh and accused Tara Chand Rathore and also admitted that the dead body was taken to the house of the accused persons and the accused persons had performed all the last rites and rituals on their own cost and had also given the fire to the dead body of the deceased and they all have attended the same. None of the SC No. 749/2018 Page - 11 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
above named witnesses/family members have deposed/clarified as to when he/she/they had met with the deceased lastly before the death of the deceased and if, the deceased had told him/her/them about any of the harassment given by the accused persons for any reason.
20. The father of the deceased namely Maan Singh PW-2 has admitted in his cross-examination that he came to the shop of the accused Tara Chand, where, he used to take the meals and Chai Pani after death of the deceased Shalu and he has further admitted that on 13.6.2018, 31.7.2018, 23.8.2018, 6.9.2018 and 27.9.2018, he had gone to the shop of Tara Chand and sometimes, he had come alone and sometimes, he came along with his wife and daughter.
21. On the one side, the said Maan Singh and his family have leveled the allegations against the accused persons to kill the deceased and on the other side, they used to visit the house and office of the accused and used to take meals and Chai Pani not only once but a number of times, as per his own admission and it is also admitted by Maan Singh during the cross-examination that he used to make the telephonic calls to the accused Tara Chand and had talks with him after the incident and further admitted that during the said conversation, he had told to accused Tara Chand to talk with his family to settle this issue. PW-2 has further admitted during the cross-examination that he has visited Jail and met with accused Ankit twice. The said conduct of the complainant and witnesses clearly prove that the accused persons are innocent and only for such reason, the SC No. 749/2018 Page - 12 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
complainant and witnesses used to visit the house and office of the accused persons and used to take the Chai Pani and also used to had words with the accused to settle the issue. The deceased was blessed with two daughters, however, the complainant or the family members of the deceased never tried to take care of these female child since the date of death of the deceased and only the accused persons are looking after the two minor daughters of the deceased and have given all their love and affection to them.
22. PW-2 and PW-4 have firstly clearly refused that they have not taken any money from the accused Ankit Rathore through bank transfer for the arrangement of the marriage of their daughters namely Sonia and Nishi but later on, when they were cross-examined, PW-2 has admitted that he had taken Rs 7.00 Lakhs from accused Tara Chand and had returned Rupees 5.00 Lakhs and Rupees 2.00 Lakhs were paid in cash to accused Tara Chand. PW-2 and PW-4 (father and mother of the deceased) had borrowed/taken the money from the accused persons and hence, the question of demand of dowry or cash from them does not arise at all and there was/is no question to harass the deceased for any reason.
23. It is admitted fact that the marriage was solemnized at Delhi at the cost of the accused Tara Chand because the father of the deceased was not doing anything at that time and PW-11 Dooj Kanwar, the paternal aunt of the deceased, has deposed the same in her cross-examination.
SC No. 749/2018 Page - 13 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
24. The complainant/PW-4 Smt. Nisha Chauhan (mother of the deceased) has replied during her cross-examination that she had not attended the function organized by accused family on the occasion of marriage anniversary (28.1.2017) and also on the occasion of birthday of minor children of deceased. She has further replied that she personally did not attend the function of birthday celebration on 10.3.2017 and 3.9.2017. The said witness has also replied that she, her family and relatives had stayed at Delhi in the house of accused from 28.1.2018 to 30.1.2018 and she had attended pooja and social prayer meeting organized by parents in law of deceased. The facts of attending pooja and social prayer are not correct and witnesses have given contradictory statements to each other.
25. The complainant/PW-4 Smt. Nisha Chauhan (mother of the deceased) has replied during her cross-examination that she and her husband personally visited Tihar Jail to meet accused Ankit Rathore after the death of deceased but PW-2 has not disclosed her name while admitting the fact of visit to Jail to meet the accused Ankit.
26. The family members of deceased have specifically replied that sister of the deceased namely Nishi has not filed any case against her in-laws and is residing with her in-laws happily but the same is not correct and the same can be verified from the certified copy filed by DW-3 i.e. certified copy of the Charge Sheet in the case/FIR filed by the said Nishi against her in-laws in the year 2017.
SC No. 749/2018 Page - 14 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
27. The witnesses in the present case namely Manju Handa and Bharti Saxena are also cited as prosecution witnesses in the case/ FIR/Charge Sheet filed on the complaint of Smt. Nishi (sister of the deceased) against her in-laws at Kota, Rajasthan. These witnesses have falsely deposed during their cross-examination saying that Nishi has not filed any complaint/case against her in-laws and she is residing at the house of her in-laws. Certified copy filed by the DW-3 i.e. certified copy of the Charge Sheet in the case/FIR filed by the said Nishi against her in-laws in the year 2017 proves that the very same witnesses were cited as witnesses in the said case. So, the same are the stock/interested witnesses and have deposed as per dictation of the complainant.
28. PW-11(Bua of deceased, who used to reside in the same premises where the deceased resided on the separate floor and PW-13, who is grandmother of the deceased and residing with Maan Singh at Kota) have not supported the prosecution story and demolished all the concocted story of the complainant/prosecution. The witnesses have admitted in the cross-examination that they have not stated most of the facts in their respective previous statements to the IO/SEM, which they deposed before this Hon'ble Court in their respective examinations-in-chief. The same is the improvement of statement, which is not permissible under the law and the verdicts of Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India are very clear on this issue.
SC No. 749/2018 Page - 15 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
29. The conduct of the parents and family members of the deceased is very much clear from their statements/cross- examinations that they did not care to visit the house of the deceased even once after the birth of the second child in the house of the deceased neither cared to gift a small toy to the newly born baby nor care to visit to her house to attend the Namkaran ceremony of the minor nor cared to invite the deceased to their house to wish her and her minor baby. The conduct of the mother of deceased is also very clear from the Charge Sheet that she did not care to visit the house of her daughter after delivery to know the welfare of the child and her daughter. The strange relationship between the deceased, her parental family and her brother, before the death, is very much clear that the deceased did not like to invite them on the occasion of the birthday of her second child on 3rd September, 2017 and the same is very much clear from the conversation of the deceased with one of her friends namely Sarojini (DW-1).
30. The prosecution does not present any picture of abetment allegedly committed by deceased and the suicide committed by victim cannot be said to be the result of any action on the part of accused nor can it be said that commission of suicide by victim was only course open to her due to action of the accused persons and there was no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of the accused persons to the victim, to commit suicide. It is also the duty of prosecution to establish overt act on the part of accused and mere allegation of harassment of deceased, by SC No. 749/2018 Page - 16 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
another person, would not suffice unless there was/is such action on the part of accused, which compels her to commit suicide; and such an offending action out to be proximate to time of occurrence. It is also very well settled law that accused of Section 306 IPC cannot be convicted only on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide.
31. It is also very well settled law that in case of Section 306 IPC, when the deceased has committed suicide at the place of her in-laws/ matrimonial home, the same would not itself lead to presumption that deceased was subjected to physical-mental cruelty, so as to force her to commit suicide. In such cases, it is the duty of prosecution to prove, through cogent or positive evidence that accused has subjected the deceased to any such mental or physical cruelty, so as to force her to commit suicide.
32. In order to buttress the aforesaid arguments, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has relied upon the following judgments: -
1. Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr. Vs. The Inspector of Police 2022 (SC) 4994.
2. Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2021 AIR (SC) 2627.
3. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra 2021 AIR (SC) 1.
4. Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Pb. 2020 AIR (SC) 4714.
SC No. 749/2018 Page - 17 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
5. Gurjit Singh Vs. State of Pb. 2020 AIR (SC) 1785.
6. M. Mohan Vs. State Crl. Appeal No. 611/2011(SC).
7. Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal VIII (2009) SLT 349.
8. State Vs. Ramesh Sharma & Ors. 2012 (3) JCC 2135.
9. Heera Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan VI (2017) SLT 193.
10. Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab And Others AIR 2000 SC 2324.
11. Rani Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2010 X AD (DELHI) 401.
12. Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of Haryana IX (2013) SLT 393.
13. Sushil Kumar Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2014 X AD (Delhi) 65.
14. State Vs. Ramesh Sharma & Ors. 2012 (3) JCC 2135.
15. Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana, II (2019) SLT 504.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE COURT
33. Marriage between deceased and accused Ankit Rathore and relations between the parties i.e. deceased and accused persons are admitted fact and even birth of two baby girls, out of this wedlock, is not under dispute. Factum of death of deceased on 28.01.2018, on account of hanging at her matrimonial home, is not under dispute.
34. Firstly, Court will deal with the issue of defence witnesses.
In the case reported as 2002 (1) JCC 385 (Supreme Court of India) titled as State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh, Hon'ble Apex Court clearly observed that defence witnesses cannot always be termed to be a tainted one and they are entitled to equal treatment and equal respect as SC No. 749/2018 Page - 18 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
that of the prosecution and that the issue of credibility and the trustworthiness ought also to be attributed to be at par with that of the prosecution witnesses. In the cases reported as Anil Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand [2004 (3) RCR (Cri) 774]; Ajay Goswami Vs. State 2011 (2) 1279 and Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of UP AIR 1981 Supreme Court 911, it was also observed that defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution and Courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses. Quite often, they tell lies but so do the prosecution witnesses.
35. In the present matter, as mentioned above, DW-1 Mrs. Sarojini, in clear words, stated that deceased talked to her at length on the issue of her stress and even discussed the matter about pawning of her jewellery by her parents. There was detailed conversation between DW1 and deceased and that too, just two days prior to the death of the deceased. The said conversation actually reveals that the deceased was too much annoyed from her parents as they have pawned her entire jewellery. The said conversation also shows that the deceased was having cordial relationship with her husband. DW-2 is another independent witness and proved various documents stating that Maan Singh took loan against jewellery articles. DW-3 Tara Chand is one of the accused, who proved various documents including the documents showing that sister of the deceased also filed case against her in-laws SC No. 749/2018 Page - 19 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
with same allegations and with same witnesses. However, leaving aside all these issues and not commenting much on the defence of the accused persons, this Court will now deal with the evidentiary value of the prosecution witnesses on touch stone of its value.
36. In the present matter, all these four accused persons have been charged for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC; accused Tara Chand was additionally charged for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC while accused Ankit Rathore was charged with for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and in the alternative, under Section 306 IPC.
37. As per settled law, the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B IPC are as follows:-
1. The death of a woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;
2. Such death should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage;
3. The deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband;
4. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and
5. To such cruelty or harassment, the deceased should have been subjected to soon before her death.
38. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "Indisputably, in order to attract Section 304B, it is imperative on the part SC No. 749/2018 Page - 20 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
of the prosecution to establish that the cruelty or harassment has been meted out to the deceased 'soon before her death' and there cannot be any doubt or dispute that it is a flexible term. Its application would depend upon the factual matrix obtaining in a particular case." It is further held that even if, one of the ingredients is not made out, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act is not available to the prosecution and the onus would not shift to the defence.
39. Present case rests upon the testimonies of PW-1 Pooja;
PW-2 Maan Singh; PW-4 Nisha Chauhan; PW-5 Vijay Chauhan; PW-6 Seema Chauhan; PW-7 Manju Handa; PW-8 Sonia Chauhan; PW-10 Bharti Saxena; PW-11 Dooj Kanwar; PW-13 Gomati Bai and PW-30 Mst. Sultana qua atrocities committed upon the deceased at the hands of accused persons.
40. Undisputedly, PW-11 Dooj Kanwar is the Tai of accused Ankit Rathore while Bua of the deceased. She was residing in the same building, where, deceased along with her husband and children used to reside on another floor. She can be the best person, with whom, deceased can share her problems and even can mediate through her being well known to both the parties and real relative of both sides. Even any member of parental family of the deceased ever discussed the same with PW-11, prior to her death. It was seventh marriage anniversary and there is nothing on the record, which remotely suggests that there was any complaint, which was made by the deceased or SC No. 749/2018 Page - 21 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
any of her family members either against the accused Ankit Rathore or his other family members.
41. Perusal of the record is also clear to the effect that PW-13 Smt. Gomati Bai is the parental grandmother of deceased and this witness too did not support the prosecution on the issues in question and even stated that Ankit is good boy. Despite cross-examination conducted on this witness by the State, nothing incriminating has come on record to implicate any of these accused persons. Same is the fate with PW-30 Mst. Sultana. During cross-examination conducted on this witness for defence, she admitted that during the year 2018, where, she and PW Maan Singh used to reside, were separate and at some distance.
42. PW-1, who is father of the deceased, admitted during his cross-examination that- he came to the shop of the accused Tara Chand, where, he used to take meals and Chai Pani after the death of deceased Shalu and he has further admitted that on 13.6.2018, 31.7.2018, 23.8.2018, 6.9.2018 and 27.9.2018, he had gone to the shop of Tara Chand and sometimes, he had come alone and sometimes, he came along with his wife and daughter. Date of incident is 28.01.2018. Meeting by father of deceased at the business place of father-in-law of deceased and that too, on many times and even taking tea and meals etc., creates doubt on the prosecution case.
43. During cross-examination conducted for accused persons, this witness also admitted that one of the accused persons SC No. 749/2018 Page - 22 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
had given a sum of Rupees 7.00 Lakhs but PW-2 mother of the deceased denied the said suggestion smells fishy.
44. Besides the above, PW-2, who is the mother of deceased admitted that she visited Tihar Jail to meet Ankit. If, daughter of any lady dies on account of atrocities committed upon her at the hands of her husband and in- laws and even criminal case is registered for the same, what is the fun to meet husband of the deceased and that too, in jail. No mother would do like this and the same appears to be fishy. Further, it may suggest that the said meetings were done in order to settle down their scores with monetary terms or otherwise and benefit of the same must be given to the accused persons. Furthermore, PW-1 Maan Singh has admitted that he has received an amount of Rs.7.00 Lakh from the side of accused persons, however, he submitted that he had paid back the said amount but this shows that accused persons were always willing to help parental family of the deceased at the time of their financial crunches.
45. There is much distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and prosecution has to cover this distance by producing reliable evidence.
46. This Court is in complete agreement with the aforesaid arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. The conduct of the family members i.e. parents and sisters of the deceased was totally unusual and it appears that the accused persons were roped only on the count that they have lost one of their family members. The SC No. 749/2018 Page - 23 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
conversation between DW1 and deceased, just two days prior to the day of incident, further fortifies the conduct of the parents of deceased.
47. In view of the above observations, this Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against any of these accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/34 IPC and as such, all these accused persons are acquitted for the said offences, for which, they have been charged with. With the above observations, as mentioned above, the prosecution has also failed to prove the ingredients of offence under Section 304-B IPC. As such, accused Ankit Rathore is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC as well.
48. For the said offence, in the alternative, the said accused Ankit Rathore was also charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.
49. Now, this Court will evaluate the material available for the said offence.
50. The governance of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is abetting suicide. Section 107 IPC defines abetment as comprising -
1. Instigation to commit the offence;
2. Engaging in conspiracy to commit the offence and
3. Aiding the commission of an offence.
51. In the judgment reported as M. Mohan Vs. State AIR 2011 SC 21238, it is clearly observed that in order to SC No. 749/2018 Page - 24 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear "mens rea" to commit the offence. It also required an "active act or direct act", which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.
52. In the case reported as Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal (supra), it is observed that ".....Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for doing or that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Sec. 107. xxxxxxx In order to bring a case within the purview of Sec. 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide."
53. In Ramesh Kapoor Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2001(9) SCC 618, it was held that where the accused, by his acts or SC No. 749/2018 Page - 25 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
by a continued course of conduct, creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option but to commit suicide, an 'instigation' may be inferred. In order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that - (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or willful omission or conduct, which may even be a willful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words of willful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction, and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of 'mens rea' is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
54. The intention of the legislature and ratio of the cases decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear 'mens rea' to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that committed suicide - S.S. Chhena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another 2010 (12) SCC 190: 2010 AIR SCW 4938.
55. There should be some live link or a proximate link between the act of accused and the act of committing of suicide. If the live link is missing, it cannot be said that the SC No. 749/2018 Page - 26 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
accused has instigated or intentionally aided the commission of suicide M. Mohan Vs. State 2011 (3) SCC
626.
56. In Sanjay Jain Vs. State of MP 2013 CrLJ 668 (Chh), it has been observed as - "...Mere stray instances of quarrel between husband and wife or the evidence that at the times appellant used to consume liquor cannot be termed as abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC and in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused/appellant instigated or abetted the deceased to end her life and that being the position his conviction under Section 306 IPC is not justified..."
57. Before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it, in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment, metered out to the victim, had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. In the cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the basis of allegations or harassment, without there being any positive action, proximate to the time of offence, on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. - Ref. Amalendu Pal Vs. State of WB (supra).
SC No. 749/2018 Page - 27 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
58. In Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr. Vs. The Inspector of Police (supra), in para no. 16.1, said Court observed as -
"16.1 For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained 8 (2019) 17 SCC 301 and reiterated by this Court in the decision above - referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snapshow of anger, a particular case, may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on SC No. 749/2018 Page - 28 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."
59. In Rani Vs. State (supra), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in clear terms, in para 12 of the said judgment, observed as -
"Every suicide after marriage cannot be presumed to be a suicide due to dowry demand. The tendency of the Court should not be that since young bride has died after marriage, now somebody must be held culprit and the noose must be made to fit some neck."
60. A woman may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons, such as, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment. The reasoning of Hon'ble High Court that no prudent man will commit suicide unless abetted to do so by someone else, is a perverse reasoning. Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana 2014 CrLJ 2425.
61. No doubt, in the present matter, a lady leaving behind her two minor daughters, left this world with unnatural death by hanging herself at her matrimonial home but it is to be seen that in case, reported as Bishan Dass Durga Vs. State, MANU/DE/4134/2013 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 19.11.2013, it was well observed that SC No. 749/2018 Page - 29 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
"suicide is a known phenomenon of human nature. Suicides are committed by living human beings for various reasons, some are not able to bear the normal stresses which are common in life; some are not able to cope up with the circumstances in which they are placed and some commit suicide because of frustration of not achieving the desired goals xxx there is no presumption that every suicide committed by a married woman in her in-law's house or at her parents' house has to be because she was suffering harassment at the hands of the her husband or her in-laws."
62. Nothing has come on record that deceased was ever abetted or instigated to commit suicide and on this count too, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt and as such, accused Ankit Rathore is also acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.
63. Besides the above, accused Tara Chand has also been charged for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Though, the witnesses stated to the effect that the said accused criminally intimidated to deceased but no specific date, even month or year is mentioned for the same. After the death of deceased, those allegations were levelled and prior to that, no such report was there or as mentioned above, even no such matter was brought to the notice of real Bua of the deceased, who was elder in the family being Tai of accused Ankit Rathore. Now, it is seen that SC No. 749/2018 Page - 30 of 31 State Vs. Ankit Rathore & Ors.
after the death of any girl, after their marriage, husband and in-laws were made as culprits with various allegations.
64. For the sake of brevity, it is also mentioned again that as mentioned above, prosecution witnesses are not reliable, this Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt for the said offences as well and benefit of the same must be given to the accused Tara Chand Rathore. With these observations, accused Tara Chand Rathore is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC as well.
65. Gist of the above discussion is that:
(a) All accused persons are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/34 IPC;
(b) Accused Ankit Rathore is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and also under Section 306 IPC; and
(c) Accused Tara Chand Rathore is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC.
66. Case property, if any, be confiscated to the State after the period of appeal/revision, if any.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Announced in the open Court on this 28th day of July, 2023.
(ARUN SUKHIJA) Additional Sessions Judge-03 (East):
Karkardooma Courts: Delhi.
SC No. 749/2018 Page - 31 of 31