Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Dushyant Dixit S/O Virendu Dixit on 21 July, 2010
:1:
In the Court of Ms. Shalinder Kaur
Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. :127/09
State versus 1. Dushyant Dixit S/o Virendu Dixit
R/o 24, Sunheri Nagar, Sikahabad Road,
Ettah, UP.
Also At: T583/1, Gali No.2,
Baljeet Nagar, Delhi.
2. Nirmala Devi W/o Virendu Singh
R/o 24, Sunheri Nagar, Ettah, UP.
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 191/02
Police Station : Patel Nagar
Under Section : 498A/306/304B/34 IPC
Judgment reserved on :07.07.10
Judgment pronounced on : 21.07.10
SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:2:
JUDGMENT
Case History
1. Accused persons namely; Dushyant Dixit and Nirmala Devi have been charge sheeted for offence punishable U/s 498A/306/304B/34 IPC.
2. The relevant facts are that deceased Kamini was married with accused Dushyant Dixit on 09.07.00 at Village Jasmai, Post Panchpukhla, PS Mau Darwaja, District Faruqabad, UP. After marriage, deceased Kamini went to reside in her matrimonial home at Shipohabad Road, Ettah, UP where her parents inlaw and brother inlaw were also living. After about six months, deceased Kamini along with accused Dushyant Dixit shifted to Delhi and for sometime resided with the brothers of the deceased. Thereafter they resided in Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi in a rented accommodation. On 14.04.02 at 6.40 AM, Sh. Kripa Shankar Dubey, father of the deceased informed in police station, Patel Nagar that his daughter Kamini has hanged herself, police be sent. On the basis of this information, SI Jagdish Rai along with Constable Rajiv reached the first floor at T583, Gali No.2, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi. He found that the room was bolted from inside and from the window of the room, he saw that one woman aged about 30 years had hanged herself from the ceiling fan. On the bed, inside the room, one black diary with a SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:3:suicide note and a pen was found. SI Jagdish Rai sent information for SDM, Punjabi Bagh and also called the photographer. The SDM, Sh. E. Raja Babu came, conducted the inquest proceedings and recorded the statement of the parents of deceased Kamini. From their statements, it appeared that deceased was harassed on account of dowry demands and as she was grieved with the ill treatment and beatings given to her by her husband, so she committed suicide. Accused Nirmala, mother inlaw of deceased Kamini instead of advising her son used to instigate him, thus, they demanded legal action against the culprits. FIR for offence punishable U/s 498A/306/34 IPC was ordered to be registered against both the accused persons. The diary Ex.P1 and suicide note Ex.P2 were seized. The postmortem was got conducted. On conclusion of the investigations, charge sheet for offence punishable U/s 498A/306/304B/34 IPC was laid.
3. After the case was committed for trial to the Sessions, vide order dated 03.05.03, Charge for offence punishable U/s 304B/306/34 IPC and 498A/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty.
Evidence
4. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses in order to substantiate the charge against the accused persons.
SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:4:
5. PW1 Sh. Rohtas Singh, Record Clerk from DDU Hospital has proved the postmortem report of deceased Kamini Dixit as Ex.PW1/A, prepared by Dr. John Verghese. He deposed that Dr. John had left the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known. The testimony of this witness is unchallenged.
6. PW2 Sh. Kripa Shankar Dubey and PW3 Smt. Munni Devi are the parents of the deceased. PW12 Sh. Amit Dubey and PW14 Sh. Rajan Dubey are the brothers of deceased. Their testimony in detail shall be adverted to in detail subsequently.
7. PW4 Constable Rajiv had accompanied PW13 SI Jagdish Rai at the place of occurrence on 14.04.02 on receipt of DD No.49A. He has deposed about the investigations conducted at the place of occurrence by PW13. Both these witnesses have deposed that the diary containing the suicide note with pen which were lying on the bed were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. The saree with which the deceased had hanged herself from the ceiling fan was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. The dead body after postmortem was handed over to PW2 her father vide receipt Ex.PW4/C. The testimony of PW4 is unchallenged. PW13 though was crossexamined on behalf of accused persons but nothing much could be brought forth from his testimony.
SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:5:
8. PW5 Sh. Murari Lal is the landlord of the house where 34 days prior to the incident, deceased Kamini and accused Dushyant Dixit had started living as tenants. As per the deposition of this witness, he was the first who noticed at around 6.15 AM, Kamini hanging from ceiling fan. He raised alarm and people of the locality gathered there and parents of deceased & police were informed. The witness was cross examined only with respect to one query and the witness admitted that the parents of deceased Kamini took the articles of the room after vacating the same.
9. PW6 Sh. Ramesh Chopra was the Photographer who had photographed the place of occurrence and identified the photographs on record as Ex.PW6/1 to Ex.PW6/14. The witness was crossexamined but nothing material came out from his crossexamination.
10. PW7 ASI Satya Devla is the Duty Officer who had recorded the FIR of the case and proved the same as Ex.PW7/A. In cross examination, the witness deposed that the SHO had handed over the statement of Smt. Munni Devi and he immediately lodged the FIR.
11. PW HC Ram Niwas was given up as a witness by Learned APP as being an unnecessary witness.
SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:6:
12. PW8 Constable Ram Lal deposed that on 14.04.02 after registration of the FIR, the copy of the FIR and original Tehrir were handed over to him by Duty Officer which he delivered to SI Jagdish Rai at Mortuary, DDU Hospital. The testimony of this witness is unchallenged.
13. PW9 Sh. Ombir Singh deposed that on 14.04.02, he was working as Nursing Orderly at DDU Hospital. He had handed over one pulanda, sealed with the seal of 'LKV' containing a saree which was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW4/B. In crossexamination, he deposed that the said pulanda was handed over to him by Doctor Incharge.
14. PW10 Sh. E. Raja Babu, Assistant Commissioner (Excise & Entertainment) deposed that on 14.04.02, he was working as SDM, Punjabi Bagh. On that day, on the request of Investigating Officer SI Jagdish Rai, he had reached the spot at Baljeet Nagar and had found the dead body lying on the floor. He had conducted the inquest proceedings. The witness proved the application for postmortem as Ex.PW10/A. The brief facts, prepared by the witness are Ex.PW10/B. Ex.PW10/C is the Form No.2535(1)(B) filled by the witness. He also deposed that he had attested the statement Sh. Kripa Shankar, father of deceased and Sh. Amit Dubey, brother of deceased regarding the identification of dead SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:7:body which are Ex.PW2/B & Ex.PW4/A respectively. He had also recorded the statement of Smt. Munni Devi and Sh. Kripa Shankar parents of deceased vide Ex.PW3/A & Ex.PW2/C respectively. He had seized the suicide note vide Ex.PW2/A and on the basis of the statements of the witnesses, he had directed the SHO to register a case vide his noting Ex.PW10/D. During crossexamination, the witness deposed that he had recorded the statements Ex.PW2/C & Ex.PW3/A of parents of deceased in his office and Ex.PW10/D, directing the police to register a case was also prepared in his office.
15. PW11, Inspector Ishwar Singh had partly conducted the investigations as he had recorded the statements of some witnesses and had filed charge sheet against accused Dushyant Dixit. He deposed that he had also arrested accused Nirmala against whom the proceedings U/s 83 & 83 Cr.P.C. were initiated. He proved the arrest memo of the accused Nirmala as Ex.PW11/A and had conducted her personal search vide Ex.PW11/B. The witness also filed the supplementary charge sheet against accused Nirmala in this case. Nothing much was brought forth in the crossexamination of the witness.
16. In the statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons have denied the case of prosecution and claimed to be innocent. The accused persons submitted that they have been falsely implicated in this SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:8:case at the instance of family members of deceased Kamini and they had never made any dowry demand from the deceased or her family members and that she was short tempered. Accused persons have not led any evidence in their defence.
Contentions
17. Learned APP addressed arguments on behalf of State and submitted that the deceased Kamini met with an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage which fact is unrebutted. PW2 & PW14, the father and brother of the deceased have consistently testified that soon before her death i.e two days before, dowry demand was raised by the accused persons to the deceased. PW2 & PW3, parents of deceased and PW12 & PW14, brothers of deceased have narrated in detail about the dowry demands, raised to the deceased by both the accused persons. Moreover, the suicide note, written by the deceased, handwriting of which has been identified by PW14, has proved that the deceased was constantly harassed and taunted on account of dowry demands which ultimately led to her death. The conduct of the accused Dushyant Dixit was also pointed out by submitting that when the deceased was found hanging, the accused was not present there and thereafter he had fled to his native village. So much so, accused Nirmala was also arrested after the proceedings U/s 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. were initiated against her and the accused persons have not been able to show any reason for which they SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:9:went missing after the incident. The accused persons have not raised any defence that prior to commission of suicide, the deceased was mentally unwell. The contradictions if at all appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses are immaterial being minor in nature and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
18. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the accused persons that the testimony of PW2 i.e the father of the deceased cannot be relied upon as his entire testimony is wavering and inconsistent. He did not even identify the handwriting of his daughter on the suicide note. There was lot of disparity in the financial status of family of the accused persons and the family of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased belonged to a very poor family. Whereas the accused persons were well off. Thus, it is not believable that they could have raised dowry demands from the deceased knowing well that she belonged to poor family. Various contradictions were pointed out in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and it is submitted that same are major which destroy the substratum of the prosecution case.
19. Learned Defence Counsel urged that the deceased was short tempered like her mother and thus, the prosecution has given the colour of dowry demands and taunts to trivial household bickering. The deceased was unable to take these titbits occurrences which happen in SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:10:every household and took the extreme step of ending her life. It was also submitted that the relations between both the parties were cordial which could be seen from the evidence of the brothers and parents of the deceased that after six months of her marriage, the deceased with her husband had resided with her brothers and later on her parents had also joined them in the same house. Had there been any dowry demands, the same would have been come to the notice of these relatives of the deceased and they would have complained about the same to the authorities. But the brothers of deceased have admitted that they did not file any complaint anywhere. Moreover, PW2 has admitted that during the initial six months, there were no complaints made by deceased to them.
20. Lastly, it was pointed out that the testimony of SDM completely shatters the prosecution case as he has deposed in contradiction to the testimony of Investigating Officer and other police witnesses. According to witness PW10, SDM, Sh. E. Raja Babu, all the proceedings were conducted in his office which is in complete contrast to the prosecution case as per which the statements of the parents and brothers of the deceased were recorded at the spot. Therefore, the prosecution case suffers from major defects benefits of which should be given to the accused persons. Learned APP rebutted the said argument and submitted that the contents of the statements of witnesses are SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:11:material and the place where the same were got recorded is of no consequence when these witnesses have totally support the prosecution version. It was also stated that father of the deceased was an old man being 60 years of age, therefore, due to short memory and lapse of time, he may have forgotten certain facts but otherwise, he had supported the prosecution case completely. It was the second marriage of accused Dushyant Dixit with deceased and she was constantly harassed on account of dowry demands.
Findings
21. Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with dowry death. In order to attract the application of this Section, the essential ingredients are as follow :
(i).The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance.
(ii).Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.
(iii).She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry by her husband or any relative of her husband.
(iv).Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:12:
22. For "Dowry Death", Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, 1873 also becomes relevant. Dowry demand in Section 304B IPC and for the presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, one of the essential ingredient amongst others in both the provisions is that the deceased woman must have been "soon before death" subjected to cruelty or harassment "for or in connection with demand of dowry". Thus, the prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or an accidental death so as to bring the death of deceased within the purview of Section 304B IPC.
23. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 defines dowry as follows : 'Dowry' means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly :
(a). by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b). by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not included dower or mehr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim personal law (Shariat) applies.
SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:13:Explanation I - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any presents made at the time of a marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this Section, unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the said parties.
Explanation II - The expression 'valuable security' has the same meaning in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
24. In view of the above provisions of law, let us examine the evidence on record.
25. The case of the prosecution rests on the oral testimony of PW2, PW3, PW12 & PW14 and suicide note Ex.P2. From the testimony of PW2, PW3, PW12 & PW14, it emerges that the accused persons used to demand a scooter and a gold chain and Rs.40,000/ was given to accused Dushyant Dixit for purchase of Maruti van. On account of these dowry demands, coupled with taunts that deceased was from a poor family, she was harassed. Although during crossexamination on behalf of State, PW2 denied the suggestion of Learned APP that accused Dushyant Dixit also used to demand scooter along with gold chain after purchase of Maruti van, he specifically volunteered that the accused did not demand scooter from him and he did not meet him after the purchase SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:14:of Maruti van. PW2 has also deposed that his daughter Kamini used to tell him that her husband and motherinlaw used to taunt her that her parents were tea vendors and poor people who belonged to lower class. Sometimes, he used to give Rs.5,000/ or Rs.10,000/ for happiness of his daughter. Accused Dushyant Dixit had purchased a Maruti van in the name of son of his uncle and the witness had paid Rs.15/20,000/ to him for the same one month prior to death of Kamini. The witness was found resiling from his previous statement and thus, was got declared hostile. But during crossexamination by Learned APP, he denied that he gave Rs.40,000/ to accused Dushyant Dixit for purchase of Maruti van. He volunteered that he had paid Rs.20,000/ and that he paid the money to his daughter from his own savings which was paid to accused Dushyant Dixit. He admitted that he had paid the said amount so that his daughter may live peacefully and would not have to listen to the taunts of accused Dushyant Dixit.
26. PW2 has also deposed that after marriage, his daughter went to her matrimonial home at Shikohabad Road, Ettah, UP where the parents and brother of her husband were living. She lived there for six months and thereafter she and her husband shifted to Delhi where they lived for about one and a half year. During this period, whenever his daughter came to his house, she used to tell that there used to be quarrel between her and her husband. He used to beat her and harass her. During SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:15:crossexamination, on behalf of State the witness admitted that his daughter had told him that her husband used to taunt her by saying her that her parents belonged to lower class and were not economically supporting them and had not given sufficient dowry. He also admitted the suggestion of the Learned APP that his daughter used to tell him that her husband and mother inlaw used to harass her for dowry to such an extent that she felt like committing suicide. He deposed that it may be that his daughter committed suicide due to taunting, beatings and demands of dowry made by the accused persons.
27. From the testimony of PW2, it emerges that both the accused persons used to taunt the deceased on the poor financial status of her parents. Accused Dushyant Dixit used to beat and harass her. Both the accused persons used to harass the deceased for dowry to such an extent that she felt like committing suicide. As per his testimony, the accused Dushyant Dixit did not demand scooter and gold chain as he has specifically deposed that accused did not meet him after the purchase of Maruti van for which he had given Rs.20,000/ one month prior to the death of his daughter.
28. PW3 Smt. Munni Devi has deposed that they had paid Rs.40,000/ to accused Dushyant Dixit out of which Rs.20,000/ was given by her husband whereas she gave Rs.20,000/ from her savings.
SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:16:Her daughter used to complain to her that accused Dushyant Dixit used to taunt her that she was from a kangla family. He used to beat her to bring dowry. He had demanded scooter and gold chain. Accused Nirmala used to instigate accused Dushyant Dixit to beat her daughter. In crossexamination, the witness testified that her daughter used to complain to her when she visited her house or whenever she went to the house of her daughter. When she was in Delhi, her daughter used to visit her house after a gap of 36 days. She could not tell that whether her daughter while living in village was happy or not. But stated that her daughter did not complain about the accused persons on telephone while she was in village. The witness also testified that her daughter never wrote any letter to her complaining about the accused persons. PW12 Sh. Amit Dubey and PW14 Sh. Rajan Dubey, brothers of deceased Kamini have corroborated the testimony of PW3 qua the demands of scooter and gold chain and having paid Rs.40,000/ to the accused Dushyant Dixit. They have corroborated the testimony of PW2 on all other aspects.
29. From the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it also emerges when they had reached the house of deceased on hearing the news they had found her hanging from the ceiling fan and door of the room was closed from inside. This scene they had witnessed from the window of the room. PW5, landlord of the house, deposed that on SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:17:14.04.02 at about 6.15 AM he had noticed that the lights of the first floor were on where the deceased was residing with her husband were on. When he went upstairs, he found that the door of the room was closed from inside. When he peeped through the window into the room, he saw Kamini was hanging from the ceiling fan. He raised alarm and someone from the locality informed the parents of the deceased. PW2, father of the deceased then informed the police which came to the place of occurrence. The relatives of the deceased as well as the police had found the door of the room locked from inside and they had seen deceased Kamini hanging from ceiling fan. After the door was got opened the body of the deceased was placed on the floor.
30. From the evidence on record, it is, thus, proved that deceased Kamini had committed suicide in her matrimonial home in Delhi where she was living with accused Dushyant Dixit. Ex.PW1/A is the postmortem report in which the death is opined to have occurred due to hanging. The factum of marriage between deceased Kamini and accused Dushyant Dixit on 09.07.00 is not disputed. Both the husband and wife had lived in the joint family of accused Dushyant Dixit in Ettah, UP after their marriage for six months and then they shifted to Delhi is also admitted. It is further not disputed that after coming to Delhi, they had lived with the brothers of deceased and then shifted in a rented room in the same area. Although the fact that deceased had committed suicide is SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:18:not disputed by accused Dushyant Dixit but he has explained the same by stating in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. that on the said day, he was on duty from 8 PM to 8 AM in Hotel Rahul Palace, Karol Bagh. The neighbour of his landlord informed him that his wife had committed suicide. But he has not proved this part of his defence. Accused Dushyant Dixit further stated in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. that family members and parents of Kamini had reached at the place of occurrence and FIR was registered against him. Therefore, due to fear, he left Delhi for Ettah and was falsely implicated in this case. Thus, the prosecution has established that the death of Kamini had occurred within seven years of her marriage while she was residing with her husband and same was not in normal circumstances.
31. To ascertain whether she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons, the suicide note Ex.P2 written by the deceased is most relevant besides the oral testimony of her relatives. The suicide note Ex.P2 is in the handwriting of the deceased has been proved by PW12 Amit Dubey and PW14 Rajan Dubey. PW12 has deposed that he had seen handwriting of the suicide note which was of his sister. He could identify her handwriting being conversant with the same. The witness has not been crossexamined on this fact. PW14 has testified that he had told the police that the suicide note was in the handwriting of his sister as he had seen his sister writing and signing SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:19:since she had studied with him and she also used to write at home. This witness is also not been crossexamined on this fact. PW2 Sh. Kripa Shankar, father of the deceased has also admitted in his cross examination, held by Learned APP that he had told the SDM that the suicide note Ex.P2 was written by his daughter. The testimony of PW2 is also unchallenged on this count. Even in the statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons have simply denied that Ex.P2 has been proved by the witnesses as the suicide note in the handwriting of the deceased. Thus, there is no force in the argument, raised by the Learned Defence Counsel that as the prosecution did not seize any admitted handwriting of the deceased, thus, Ex.P2 does not stand proved or that PW14 being 89 years younger to deceased so they both could not have studied in same school. But the testimony of PW14 can not be ignored to the extent that he had also seen the deceased writing at home.
32. Prosecution witnesses have further deposed that inside the room, on the bed, a diary Ex. P1 containing suicide note Ex. P2 and a pen Ex. P4 were found. PW2 has deposed that the diary was lying in the center of the bed. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is established that the suicide note Ex.P2 was found from inside the room of the deceased on the bed which was locked from inside. Her handwriting has been identified by her brothers PW12 Amit Dubey and PW14 Rajan SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:20:Dubey and the authenticity of the handwriting has not been challenged in crossexamination by the accused persons. The prosecution has been able to prove that suicide note Ex.P2 was written by the deceased. Learned APP had correctly submitted that apparently the said suicide note is undated but from the contents of the same, it can be gathered that it was written by the deceased on the same day before committing suicide.
33. The next question which now requires consideration is that whether from Ex.P2 it can be gathered that deceased Kamini was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons, in connection with any demand for dowry and whether the oral testimony of her relatives corroborate Ex. P2.
34. In suicide note Ex.P2, the deceased has written that ''she was committing suicide as she was very distressed as these people were threatening her a lot. Her husband always used to threaten her, to leave her and with his family members used to revile her. His mother also used to tell her that she has come from a poor (naked) family who has not seen anything and no dowry has been given. She was receiving good marriage proposals for her son but deceased came from a poor family and has started behaving smart. The deceased has further written that "she was totally distressed with her life and was committing suicide.
SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:21:These people used to tell her again and again that if she is a true daughter of her father, she should not show her face. After the marriage, the matrimonial home is the home of a girl and above all it is her husband but in case, the husband becomes dishonest then on whose support she should live". It is further mentioned that when "she was living in Delhi and suffering, nobody gave any support but when some money came, her husband started behaving as per the wishes of his family members. She was committing suicide as she was totally grieved." The deceased has also mentioned that "everybody talked bad about her father that he is poor and he does not have anything except a room, neither he has anything nor he has given anything. But she did not think so about her father though he is poor............"
35. From the suicide note Ex.P2, it is gathered that the accused persons were not happy with the poor financial status of the parental family of the deceased. Although accused Dushyant Dixit had married her but they had expectations for dowry also. As no dowry was given, they were not satisfied with the deceased and they used to harass, threaten and taunt her. Probably, the accused persons did not expect that it would be a dowry less marriage. The threats were to such an extent that accused Dushyant Dixit told her that he would leave her and she was asked not to show her face again. The plight of the deceased can be understood that being from a poor family, it would have been difficult SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:22:for her to go back to parental house, in case, her husband would have le ft her. It is sufficiently clear from Ex.P2 that deceased was being made to suffer only because of her poor financial background and as she was not given any dowry whereas accused persons had expectations for the same.
36. PW2 has corroborated the fact that deceased was from a very poor family. He has deposed that he had told the family of the accused persons that his family was poor and he would not be able to give dowry in the marriage. Deceased was the daughter only that he had to give in marriage. He has also deposed that he was having two bighas of land in Village Jasmai and had only one room and courtyard in his house. Learned Defence Counsel had sterneously argued that the accused persons were enjoying a better financial status and were well of than the family of the deceased, therefore, no question arises that they could have demanded any dowry as they were aware about the financial condition of PW2. But there is not much force in the said argument, as from the suicide note Ex.P2, it is proved that the accused persons had expectations for dowry for which she was harassed and taunted also. Moreover, the parents and brothers of the deceased have specified those demands. Even though there is contradiction in the testimony of PW2 on one hand and PW3, PW12 & PW14 on the other hand, about the quantum of amount paid to accused Dushyant Dixit for purchase of SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:23:Maruti Van. But PW2 has very truthfully deposed that the amount he had paid was Rs. 20,000/ and not Rs. 40,000/. PW3, PW12 & PW14 have also categorically deposed that besides this money, accused Dushyant Dixit had been demanding a scooter and a gold chain. Although, these specific items do not find mention in the suicide note Ex.P2. Nevertheless, same is self explanatory as the deceased would not have been in such a state of mind while planning to commit suicide to pen down each and every demand raised by the accused Dushyant Dixit. In the suicide note she has written about her unhappiness and the behaviour of the accused persons on account that no dowry was given to her. Poor and weak financial status of her parents as they could not give anything in her marriage.
37. From the testimony of prosecution witnesses, and suicide note Ex.P2, thus, it emerges that accused Dushyant Dixit had raised specific demands of scooter and gold chain and had accepted Rs.20,000/ from the relatives of the deceased besides torturing her on the poor financial status of the parental family. Whereas accused Nirmala used to taunt the deceased due to poor financial status of her family. Thus, it is established from the testimony of witnesses that deceased was treated with cruelty and was harassed on account of dowry demands.
SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:24:
38. In the end, the prosecution has also to establish that such cruelty or harassment was meted out to the deceased "soon before her death". The parents of the deceased i.e PW2 Kripa Shankar and PW3 Munni Devi have consistently deposed that after marriage, the deceased had lived for six months in her matrimonial home in Ettah where accused Nirmala had lived and thereafter she and accused Dushyant Dixit had shifted to Delhi. For sometime, they had stayed with her brothers in their house and later they shifted in a rented accommodation in the same locality. The prosecution has not shown that after coming to Delhi, accused Nirmala had ever visited her son accused Dushyant Dixit and her deceased daughter inlaw in Delhi, either in the house of her brothers or in the rented room where they had started living together. No evidence has been led that during the period of almost about one and a half year, the deceased had visited her mother inlaw in Ettah. Although PW14 has deposed that deceased had told him that as and when deceased and accused Dushyant Dixit used to visit his native village accused Nirmala used to instigate accused Dushyant to harass the deceased and to make dowry demands. But this part of his testimony is an improvement as he did not state this fact to the police.
39. The prosecution in an endeavour to prove that the deceased was also harassed and treated with cruelty by accused Nirmala, has relied upon the testimony of PW2 and PW14. PW2 has deposed that on SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:25:11.04.02, the deceased, her husband and PW14 had gone to Ettah where both the accused persons gave beatings to the deceased and had taunted her in presence of PW14 who told him about it when they came back to Delhi. This fact was deposed by PW2 after he was got declared hostile by the Learned APP and the witness admitted the suggestion that on 11.04.02 in the night, he had send his son Rajan along with Kamini and accused Dushyant Dixit to Ettah and his son told him that in his presence, accused Nirmala and accused Dushyant Dixit had given beatings to deceased Kamini. In the night intervening 13/14.04.02, his son Rajan returned to Delhi with Kamini and accused Dushyant Dixit. He also admitted that on the same night, accused Dushyant Dixit had quarreled with his daughter which was told to him by Rajan.
40. Interestingly, the witness has also admitted that on the same night, he had met accused Dushyant Dixit and Kamini when they had returned from Ettah but it is surprising that his daughter did not tell him at that time about the beatings given to her. Even after his son had told him about it, PW2 was not disturbed about the behaviour of the accused persons and did not seek clarification from accused Dushyant Dixit. PW3, mother of the deceased and PW12 Amit Dubey, brother of the deceased have not deposed about this important fact. PW14 though has deposed that two days prior to death of his sister, he along with his sister and accused Dushyant Dixit had gone to Ettah in the house of accused SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:26:Dushyant Dixit but he has not stated so in his statement, made to the police on 14.04.02. He has specifically deposed that after the day of incident, his no other statement was recorded. Police had recorded the statement of PW2 on 14.04.02 and prior to that, Ex.PW2/C, statement of PW2 was recorded on the same day by the SDM. In both these statements, there is no mention about the fact that PW14 along with deceased and accused Dushyant Dixit had gone to his village Ettah and about the harassment caused to the deceased by the accused persons. This fact has been stated for the first time in a supplementary statement of PW2 recorded on 27.11.02 by the police which is nothing but an after thought. So going to Ettah on 11.04.02 by deceased, PW14 and accused Dushyant Dixit and harassment caused to deceased by accused persons is a major improvement made by the prosecution witnesses.
41. The entire evidence thus on record, shows that the accused Nirmala had treated the deceased with cruelty only when she had resided with her in Ettah for six months after the marriage. Thereafter till death, the deceased was residing in Delhi with accused Dushyant Dixit and accused Nirmala was living in Ettah. It is also not brought on record that accused Nirmala and deceased Kamini had been meeting with each other or conversing on telephone while deceased was living in Delhi. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Nirmala had harassed and treated the deceased with cruelty on account of dowry "soon before SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:27:her death" and there has been a lapse of more than one year in between. Whereas it has been established that accused Dushyant Dixit had been harassing her and treating her with cruelty on account of dowry till she committed suicide. The other contradictions pointed out in testimony of prosecution witnesses are not major. But these are such as would naturally occur due to lapse of time, thus not fatal to prosecution case.
42. Both the accused persons have also been charged for offence punishable U/s 306 IPC. Now, it is to be seen whether the prosecution has been able to prove the allegations U/s 306 IPC against accused Nirmala as charge U/s 304 B IPC has been proved against accused Dushyant Dixit only and not against accused Nirmala.
43. To sustain a conviction U/s 306 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that accused Nirmala had abetted the suicide of deceased Kamini. Section 107 IPC defines abetment, according to which a person abets the doing of a thing who instigated any such person to do that thing. The explanation to the Section lays down whoever either prior to or at the time of commission of an act does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act and thereby facilitate the commission thereof is said to aid the doing of that act.
SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:28:
44. PW3, the mother of the deceased has testified that accused Nirmala used to instigate accused Dushyant Dixit to beat her daughter but has not specified that whether it was being done even after the deceased had started living in Delhi with accused Dushyant Dixit. Although U/s 113A of Indian Evidence Act, a presumption may be drawn in case of suicide by a woman within seven years of her marriage where the suicide has been abetted by the husband or his relatives and they had subjected her to cruelty.
45. However, as already observed herein above that deceased had lived in Ettah with accused Nirmala only for initial six months after her marriage and thereafter for more than one year before her death, she was living in Delhi. No evidence has been led to show there was any communication between accused Nirmala and deceased Kamini by which the accused could have facilitated and instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The law is also well settled that even if the prosecution is able to establish that the deceased was treated with cruelty on account of dowry demand by the husband or his relatives but it does not necessarily mean or may be presumed that they had abetted her suicide also. In the absence of subsequent contact between deceased and accused Nirmala, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Nirmala had abetted the suicide of Kamini. No doubt, it has proved that SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:29:she had subjected the deceased to cruelty by taunting her on her behaviour and the poor financial status of her family.
46. To sum up, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Dushyant Dixit who is held guilty for offences punishable U/s 498A/34/304B IPC and is convicted accordingly. The prosecution has also been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Nirmala for offence punishable U/s 498A/34 IPC who is convicted accordingly. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Nirmala for offence punishable U/s 306/304B/34 IPC. She is acquitted from the charge of said offence after giving her benefit of doubt. Announced in the Open Court On 21.07.10.
(Shalinder Kaur) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:30:State Vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
FIR No. 191/02PS : Patel Nagar SC No. : 127/09 21.07.10 Present : Sh. Mohd. Iqrar, Learned APP for State.
Accused Dushyant Dixit from JC.
Accused Nirmala on bail.
Sh. Ranbir Singh - Amicus Curiae for accused Dushyant and Counsel for accused Nirmala.
Vide judgment announced of even date on separate sheets, the accused Dushyant Dixit is convicted for offences punishable U/s 498A/34/304B IPC. Accused Nirmala is convicted for offence punishable U/s 498A/34 IPC. Accused Nirmala is acquitted offence punishable U/s 306/304B/34 IPC after giving her benefit of doubt.
Put up for order on sentence on 23.07.10.
(SHALINDER KAUR) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:31:In the Court of Ms. Shalinder Kaur Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. :127/09 State versus 1. Dushyant Dixit S/o Virendu Dixit R/o 24, Sunheri Nagar, Sikahabad Road, Ettah, UP.
Also At: T583/1, Gali No.2, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi.
2. Nirmala Devi W/o Virendu Singh R/o 24, Sunheri Nagar, Ettah, UP.
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 191/02 Police Station : Patel Nagar Under Section : 498A/306/304B/34 IPC Judgment pronounced on : 21.07.10 ORDER ON SENTENCE 1. Heard on the point of sentence.
2. It is submitted that convict Dushyant Dixit is 44 years of age and during trial, he had suffered paralysis of his left arm. He had been taking treatment for the same which has not been permanently cured. It is further submitted that during the entire trial period, he had been in SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:32:custody except twice, when he was granted interim bail. Once, due to the treatment which he was undergoing and he could not surrender on time. It is submitted that a lenient view be taken against him. For convict Nirmala Devi, it is submitted that she is 65 years of age and there are not much allegations against her. Thus, lenient view be taken against her.
3. However, Learned APP has submitted that this was the second marriage of convict Dushyant Dixit and the deceased had died within two years of the marriage while she was living with convict Dushyant Dixit, thus, he does not deserve any leniency. Qua convict Nirmala Devi, it is stated that she also does not deserve any leniency as the deceased had mentioned about the cruelty caused to her by the convict in the suicide note.
4. Learned Defence Counsel submits that the previous wife of convict Dushyant Dixit had died in child birth and that too ten years before his marriage with deceased Kamini.
5. In view of the submissions made, on behalf of the convicts and by the Learned APP on behalf of the State, keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the case and the age and ailment of convict Dushyant Dixit as well as the fact that during most of the time of the trial, he had been in custody, he is sentenced for offence punishable under Section SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:33:304B IPC to RI for seven years and RI for three years for offence punishable U/s 498A IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/, in default SI for two months. The sentences to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC be given.
6. It has come on the record that the deceased had lived with convict Nirmala Devi only for a period of six months after her marriage and during which period, she was treated with cruelty. Accordingly, convict Nirmala Devi is sentenced for offence punishable U/s 498A IPC to RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/, in default SI for two months. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC be given. Copies be given free of cost to the convicts.
Announced in the Open Court On 24.07.10.
(Shalinder Kaur) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:34:State Vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
FIR No. 191/02PS : Patel Nagar SC No. : 127/09 24.07.10 3:20 PM Present : Sh. Mohd. Iqrar, Learned APP for State.
Accused Dushyant Dixit from JC.
Accused Nirmala on bail.
Sh. Ranbir Singh - Amicus Curiae for accused Dushyant and Counsel for accused Nirmala.
Arguments heard on point of Sentence.
Vide Order on Sentence announced of even date on separate sheets, convict Dushyant Dixit is sentenced for offence punishable under Section 304B IPC to RI for seven years and RI for three years for offence punishable U/s 498A IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/, in default SI for two months. The sentences to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC be given.
Convict Nirmala Devi is sentenced for offence punishable U/s 498A IPC to RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/, in default SI for two months. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC be given.
SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.
:35:An application U/s 389 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of convict Nirmala. Heard. It is stated that an appeal has to be preferred. Thus, she is admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety in the like amount upto 23.08.10.
Reader has reported that fine has been deposited on behalf of both the convicts.
Copies be given free of cost to the convicts.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Shalinder Kaur) ASJ FTC (Central) : Delhi.
24.07.10 SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.