Delhi District Court
Sc No. 6618/16, State vs . Rimpy, Fir No. 36/13, Ps Neb Sarai, ... on 17 October, 2017
In the Court of Sh. Ajay Kumar Jain, Additional Sessions Judge02, South
District, District Court Saket, New Delhi.
Session Case No. 6618/16
In the matter of :
State
Versus
Rimpy W/o Sh Yogesh Jain
R/o H.No. 373, Shubham Complex,
Sector22, Faridabad,
Haryana.
FIR No. : 36/13
Police Station : Neb Sarai
Under section. : 306 IPC
Date of assignment : 02.07.2013
Reserved for judgment : 12.10.2017
Date of decision : 17.10.2017
JUDGMENT
1. On receiving DD no. 19A dated 29.08.2009, ASI Shabbir Ahmed alongwith Ct. Surender reached the spot and found the deceased committed suicide by hanging and thereafter seized the suicide note, the ropes and the ball pen and further made inquiries from the witnesses, however not found to have commission of any offence, therefore no FIR was registered. Thereafter, a criminal complaint u/s 200 was filed by Harcharan Dass pursuant to which vide order dated 15.01.2013 on the direction of Ld. MM on application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C, FIR was ordered to be registered.
2. The FIR was registered on the basis of complaint dated 16.10.2009. The allegations in brief as per the complaint dated 16.10.2009 filed by SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 1/20) Harcharan Dass father of the deceased Sohan Lal that he married his younger son Sohan Lal on 09.05.2009 with accused Rimpy and after marriage his son alongwith accused Rimpy used to reside at second floor at their house and on 13.05.2009 immediately after the marriage she went to her parental home at Palwal, thereafter his son on 15.05.2009 brought her back to her matrimonial house, thereafter she again left to her parental house on 20.05.2009 and remained there till 14.06.2009 then again brought back on 15.06.2009 to matrimonial house and during her stay at the matrimonial house she was found negligent and careless in performing matrimonial obligations. On 22.06.2009 she was found talking with one young man and also handed over one typed paper to this man and the said incident was noticed by his other daughter in law Preeti and Radha, and on inquiry she got annoyed with the deceased and stated that he was her school mate at Palwal and gave the letter to him to deliver to his mother. Thereafter, on 01.07.2009 without the consent of the family went to her parental home alongwith all belongings including gold jewellery and then she was brought back by deceased to matrimonial home on 18.07.2009 but she had not brought the jewellery and since then she started to cook food separately and was not ready to share the kitchen with other family members. He further alleged that on 19.07.2009 she forced his deceased son to get separate from the family and asked share from his family in movable and immovable property and further asked the deceased to transfer all his share in her name otherwise she will not live with him. Thereafter on 20.07.2009 she went to her parental home at 11 am without informing and returned back at around 5 pm and only stated that she went to market. Thereafter, in the night all family members advised her to live with love and affection however she did not pay any heed to this advice and asked entire family members to transfer in her name all the property/share and also took Rs. 20,000/ as expenses. Then on 23.07.2009, accused left the house with her brother without consent of the family with warning that she SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 2/20) will not return if her demands were not met. Thereafter, on 15.08.2009 accused pressurized his son as well as the family to meet her demand and also threatened to implicate the entire family in false cases. Thereafter, on 17.08.2009 and 20.08.2009 his son again went to his in laws home to bring her back, however she put the same condition. Thereafter, on 25.08.2009 accused made call to deceased and called him to her parental house, and on 26.08.2009 all accused again pressurized his son to fulfill all the conditions, however he returned back alone to his house. Thereafter on 28.08.2009, accused no.2 came to his house and met the deceased and stayed with deceased for two hours and discussed with the deceased the demands already made and called him at his house on 29.08.2009. Thereafter on 29.08.2009 deceased went to Palwal alongwith his Jija Praveen Garg where accused put the conditions to fulfill the demands and also not even served the glass of water and insulted the deceased and Praveen. Thereafter, the deceased came to house at around 5 pm straightaway went to second floor, then his brother in law Rajender also came to their house and discussed the matter and he left the house at around 8.30 pm. Thereafter, he went to second floor to call the deceased and his room was closed from inside, however light and TV were on but on repeated knocking it was not opened, thereafter he peeped through the window and found him hanging. Then, he made hue and cry thereafter, all the nearby relatives, family members and neighbours collected and after applying force door was opened then he was brought down and call was made at 100 number. Police searched the suicide note in which it was written that the accused Rimpy was responsible for his suicide. Thereafter deceased was taken to AIIMS hospital where he was declared brought dead. Thereafter, the police did the investigation and assured the appropriate legal action, however repeated requests no action was taken by the police. Thereafter, the present complaint was made to police to take immediate legal action.
SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 3/20)
3. During investigation, it is also found that on receiving DD no.19A dated 29.08.2009, ASI Shabbir Ahmed reached the spot and found the dead body of deceased lying on the bed, and on inquiry found that deceased and his wife were not having good relations and for last one and half year accused Rimpy was living at her parents house and a suicide note was also found in which it is written that his share of property be transferred in the name of his brother Gopal Prashad and he is committing suicide because of his wife Rimpy. As per postmortem report the cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging. The suicide note was also sent to FSL. As per expert opinion only sign could match and on other contents it is silent and conclusive. During investigation no necessity was found to arrest accused Abha Gupta, Deen Dayal and Smt. Sushma and as per investigation the evidence came on record to prosecute accused Rimpy u/s 306 IPC.
4. On committal, vide order dated 07.08.2013, charge u/s 306 IPC was framed against accused Rimpy to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution for substantiating its case examined 18 witnesses. Shanti Devi, Harcharan Dass mother and father of the deceased Sohan Lal deposed as PW2 and PW3. Narottam Prashad maternal uncle, Gopal Prashad brother of deceased, Rajender Aggarwal another Uncle, Roop Kishore brother of deceased and Praveen Kumar Garg jija of deceased are examined as PW6, PW8, PW11, PW12 and PW13. The initial IO SI Shabbir Khan is examined as PW15, however IO SI Rakesh Kumar could not be examined as expired. The summary details of the prosecution witnesses is reproduced as under.
6. PW2 Shanti Devi mother of deceased Sohan Singh stated that accused Rimpy after marriage left to parental home after 56 days and came back after about one and half month, thereafter again stayed for 56 days and went back with all the jewellery. On 25.07.2008 his son was called at Palwal where he was humiliated, beaten by his inlaws ie Sushma, Deen Dayal and Kalu and then he came back from Palwal. Thereafter, on SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 4/20) 28.07.2008 Sushma came to their house and took his son to second floor and talked with him for two hours thereafter on 29.07.2008 his son was called by Sushma then he went to Palwal alongwith his Jija Praveen where they were humiliated and beaten then his son left his Jija in Faridabad and came to house and went to second floor. Thereafter, when her husband called him for dinner at around 8.30 pm he found his son hanging. She further stated that during her stay with her son she used to fight to have property transferred in her name which was owned by her son Sohan Lal. Then she again stated that date of hanging is 29.08.2008 and wrongly state dthe month of July. She further stated that Rimpy, Sushma, Deen Dayal and Kalu are responsible for death.
7. In crossexamination stated that she had six children and stay at ground floor alongwith two daughters and deceased used to work in grocery shop alongwith his brothers and they have three shops, one at Govind Puri, Sanjay Colony and Madangiri. She further stated that she do not know in whose name property no. B2/153 and they do not have any other property except B83 and B1/83. She further stated that property at Madangiri was in the joint name of Sohan Lal and Bhagwan Dass and there was no other property in the name of Sohan Lal and previously this property is in the name of her husband who transferred it in the name of children. She further stated that she do not know when it was transferred and also do not have any document to show the ownership of the property. She further stated that after hue and cry by her husband her neighbours reached, however at that time Gopal was at the shop and her daughter Preeti told him about the incident. She further stated that she did not go to the spot of incident for about 12 days from date of incident and police also not recorded her statement on the date of incident. However, further stated that she do not remember as the matter is 5 years old. She again stated that her son went to Palwal on 29.08.2009 and police remained at their house for about 30 minutes and on the date of incident her husband supplied the food to Kamal SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 5/20) Kishore at first floor prior to calling the deceased. She further stated that there were differences between her son and his wife on the issue of property. She also stated that no police complaint was made in respect of beatings given at Palwal. She denied suggestion that she was not present at spot on the day of incident. Thereafter, she was confronted with her statement dated 29.01.2013 mark DX.
8. PW3 Harcharan Dass father of the deceased stated that accused Rimpy was not ready to do the household work and requested to separate her from joint family and directed them to transfer the property in her name which was in the name of her husband and he did not agree to the same. He also not agreed to give Rs.20,000/ as pocket money. In the month of May she went to her parental home and when his son went to take her back her family pressurized to transfer the property in her name. Thereafter in the month of June she was brought to the matrimonial home and one boy also came and talked to Rimpy for about two hours at the gate. In the month of July 2009 mother of Rimpy came to their house and talked to his son in his room thereafter put pressure on him to transfer the property in the name of Rimpy and to give Rs. 20,000/ as pocket money. Rimpy also put pressure on his son to separate the joint family business. Thereafter, two days her brother Kalu took Rimpy to their house with jewellery, clothes and cash. Thereafter, on 25.08.2009 accused made a call to his son and next day his son went to Palwal where she again demanded the share otherwise threatened to get the entire family imprisoned. He further stated that on 28.08.2009 his wife received call from Sushma mother of Rimpy who told that she is calling his son at Palwal to sent Rimpy thereafter within 2 hours she came to his house and met his son at his room. However, his son did not tell anything about the conversation. Thereafter on 29.08.2009 his son went to Palwal to bring Rimpy with his Jija thereafter he returned back on the same day then he told him that he was terrorized at parental home and then went to his room and when he went to his room for calling him for SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 6/20) dinner then he found room bolted from inside and TV was on then he peeped inside the room fron window and found him hanging from hook of ceiling thereafter he raised hue and cry and the neighbours collected and opened the door by pushing. His son Gopal also came and called police. Police brought down the dead body and photographs were also taken. Police also lifted one suicide note and pen from the table. He stated that his son committed suicide due to demands of his share raised by his wife and his inlaws in the name of accused Rimpy and demand of Rs. 20,000/ pm by Rimpy. He also identified the suicide note and stated that it was in writing of his son.
9. In crossexamination stated that he went to call deceased at around 8.30 pm for dinner and his son came from Palwal at around 7 pm. He further stated that he did not tell in Ex. PW3/C that his son came at around 5 pm. He further stated that he do not know who drafted Ex. PW3/C. He further stated that on the date of incident he went upstairs at second floor and he called his son 24 times when he not responded then called his son Gopal through his daughter in law then waited till arrival of Gopal and did not call anybody till Gopal reached and Gopal called the police and police reached around after 15 minutes. The neighbours came and pushed the door and door was broken down and door was fallen before arrival of PCR officials. He further stated that he cannot tell the name of neighborus who reached at the spot. He further stated that he filed private complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C and he was confronted with the fact that Rajender Aggarwal left at around 8.30pm. He further stated that police remained at the spot till around 10.30 pm for one hour and television was on when he entered the room. He further stated that he cut the rope and pulse of the deceased was checked and doctor was called. He further stated that doctor came and stated that his son already died. He further stated that he do not know the name of the doctor. He further stated that when he entered the room fan was on and police took the photographs after entering the room. He stated that doctor SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 7/20) came after the local police arrived. Police taken into possession the pen, rope and paper and no other articles were lifted by the police.
10. PW6 Narottam Prasasd maternal uncle of the deceased stated that after some day of the marriage he came to know that relations between Sohan Lal and his wife were not cordial and behaviour of accused Rimpy was not well.
11. PW8 Gopal Prasad brother of deceased stated that accused Rimpy did not wish to live with joint family and wanted to lead her life according to her own wishes and the parents and brother of the accused used to misbehave with his brother when he went to bring his wife from matrimonial home and on 29.08.2009 he came to house on receiving the telephone call from his wife Preeti. Thereafter on reaching the house he found the door locked then called 100 number . Neighbours also called who broke the door, then his father cut the rope and made him lying on bed thereafter police was also called. Police took the suicide note, ball pen, plastic rope etc. He further stated that deceased used to tell him that his wife used to demand Rs. 15000/ to 20,000/ pm as pocket expenses.
12. PW11 Rajender Aggarwal stated that deceased was his nephew and after some days of marriage the differences arose with the accused and she used to pressurize him to live separately. He further stated that the deceased used to misbehave with the accused and he tried to understand the accused number of time but of no avail.
13. PW12 Roop Kishore brother of the deceased stated that his brother usually remained mentally disturbed due to constant demand of separation by accused and her desires to live lavishly. Accused Rimpy also used to demand Rs. 20,000/ for her enjoyment and even refused to cook food for family and even for the deceased. He further stated that on 25.08.2009 when deceased was at her parental house made a call to his brother Sohan Lal, thereafter he got tensed and committed suicide on 25.08.2009.
SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 8/20)
14. PW14 Praveen Kumar Garg jija of the deceased stated that after few days of marriage accused Rimpy returned back to her parental house and deceased went number of times to take her back on which accused demanded Rs. 20,000/ and also pressurized for share in family property and in July 2nd week she again went back with jewellery and not returned back. He further stated that deceased used to share his problems and stated that deceased told that the accused used to demand money and pressurized him for property in her name and she also threatened to implicate him and his family members in false criminal case. He further stated that 29.08.2009 he alongwith deceased went to parental house of accused Rimpy where he had discussion with Rimpy as well as her parents to get them understand and also requested Rimpy to accompany them for joining the matrimonial house but she refused. Thereafter they came back and on the same day in the night his wife received information that deceased hanged himself. In crossexamination he was confronted with his statement where he had not stated that deceased asked him to go to Palwal on 28.08.2009.
15. PW15 SI Shabbir Investigating Officer stated that on 29.08.2009 on receiving DD no. 19A regarding hanging he alongwith Ct. Surender reached the spot and on inquiry found deceased hanged himself and at spot found two pieces of rope on the floor and one suicide note on the slab near the bed. Then he called the crime team and he also found one blue coloured pen then recorded the statement of Harcharan Dass, Rajender Aggarwal, Shanti Devi, Narottam Prasad, seized the suicide note, pen etc., sent the dead body to AIIMS mortuary, postmortem was conducted, issued notice to accused Rimpy, Sushma, Deen Dayal. In crossexamination stated that he reached the spot at around 9.30 pm and no doctor was found at the spot and he found rope and suicide note at the spot and these were not handed over by anybody. He further stated that crime team took the photographs and he had seized the two pieces of rope in the polythene. He further stated that he had not measured the length of the rope. He further stated that he had SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 9/20) not made inquiry who had opened the door. He further stated that he had shown the ropes to doctor who conducted the postmortem. He further stated that he had not seized the CDR details and also not noted the mobile numbers of the family members and also not sent the rope and pen to FSL.
16. PW13 Ct. Surender went to the spot alongwith ASI Shabbir Khan and further stated that crime team was called and on the direction of IO he medically examined the deceased and dead body was sent to mortuary thereafter. Two pieces of rope, one pen and a suicide note was seized. PW1 HC Hari Om stated that on 29.08.2009 on receiving the information at sl. no. 19 which was assigned to ASI Shabbir then he alongwith Ct. Surender reached the spot. PW4 Ajit Singh medical record clerk exhibited the MLC of the deceased. PW5 Dr. Satya Prakash stated that deceased was brought dead and noticed ligature mark on the neck. PW7 Anurag Sharma Assistant Director documents FSL stated that the signatures of the questioned writing and the admitted writings are of one and the same person, however not able to link the authorship of questioned writing with the specimen writings. PW9 Dr. Manish Goyal conducted the postmortem of the deceased and stated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging and further not noticed any other ante mortem external injuries. In crossexamination stated that ligature mark was not shown to him. PW10 Raja Ram deposited the suicide note, account opening form and specimen handwriting of Harcharan Singh, Kamal Kishore, Bhagwan Dass, Gopal Dass and Roop Kishore to FSL. PW16 ASI Babu Lal Duty officer who registered the FIR on 26.01.2013. PW17 HC Hari Singh stated that on 29.08.2009 ASI shabbir deposited one rope and ball pen in the malkhana and in crossexamination stated that he had no knowledge whether any other article was deposited or not. PW18 HC Mahender exhibited the DD no. 2B dated 30.08.2009.
Material Exhibits SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 10/20)
17. Ex.PW3/C is the complaint dated 16.10.2009 to DCP South lodged by Harcharan Dass. Ex.PW6/A is the endorsement on the said complaint. Ex.PW16/B is the FIR u/s 306 IPC dated 26.01.2013. Ex.PW1/A is DD no. 19A dated 29.08.2009 recorded at around 9.10 pm. Ex.PW18/A, DD no.2 dated 30.08.2009 wherein it is mentioned that at spot one suicide note and ropes were found and taken into possession. Ex.PW4/A is the MLC of the deceased showing that he was brought dead. Ex.PW13/B is seizure of suicide note in DD no.19A. Ex.PW13/A seizure memo of rope in DD no. 19A. Ex.PW3/B is the statement of Harcharan Dass. Ex.PW15/A is statement of Shanti Devi. Ex.PW15/B is statement of Narottam Prasad. Ex.PW11/A is the statement of Rajender Aggarwal. Ex.PW9/A is the postmortem report. Ex.PW15/C, Ex.PW15/D, Ex.PW15/E and Ex.PW15/F are the notices given to accused Rimpy, Sushma, Deen Dayal and Harcharan Dass by SI Shabbir Ahmed. Ex.PW7/B is the FSL report over the handwritings and signatures on the suicide note. Mark DX is the statement of Shanti Devi u/s 161 Cr.P.C. S1 to S10 are the specimen handwritings. A1 to A11 are the admitted handwritings of the deceased. Q1, Q2 and Q3 is the questioned writing on the original suicide note. Ex.PW17/A is the entries of malkhana register showing the deposit of one ball pen and the ropes. Ex.PW3/H is the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW3/G is the list of witnesses in the complaint.
18. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the statement of PW2 and PW3 on the factum of transfer of share of the deceased in favour of the accused and demand of Rs. 20,000/ pm is duly proved and this is the basis of harassment of the deceased and due to this deceased committed suicide. Ld. Addl. PP submits that the harassment on this account is also duly corroborated by the suicide note in which deceased has specifically mentioned that he is committing the suicide because of the accused. Ld. SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 11/20) Addl.PP submits that the prosecution able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused is liable to be convicted for commission of offence u/s 306 IPC.
19. Ld. Counsel for the accused on the other hand submitted that all the allegations against the accused are vague and all afterthought. Ld.counsel submits that the police during investigation do not found any cognizable offence, therefore not registered any case. Furthermore, as per FSL report the handwriting over th suicide note could not be verified therefore the said suicide note cannot be read against the accused. Ld. Counsel submits that testimony of the prosecution witnesses are contradictory on material allegations and therefore cannot be relied upon. Hence, accused entitled to be acquitted in this case.
20. Arguments heard. Record perused.
21. As per prosecution case, the marriage is solemnised between accused Rimpy and deceased Sohan Lal on 09.05.2009 and thereafter, the deceased committed suicide on 29.08.2009 within 4 months of the marriage. The intimation of the suicide was recorded at police station vide DD no. 19A dated 29.08.2009 at around 9.10 pm pursuant to which PW15 ASI Shabbir Ahmed alongwith Ct. Surender (PW13) reached the spot. PW15 on reaching the spot found the deceased hanged himself and seized two pieces of rope, one suicide note and a blue coloured pen, thereafter sent the body of deceased for postmortem. PW15 during inquiry of DD no.19A also recorded the statement of Harcharan Dass (Ex.PW3/B), Shanti Devi (Mark A it should be Mark B/ Ex.PW15/A), Narottam Prashad (Ex.PW15/B), Rajender Aggarwal (Ex.PW11/A). Harcharan Dass in his statement Ex.PW3/B alleged that since marriage the behaviour of the deceased not good and used to visit his in laws house frequently and her mother also used to say deceased that he is not in accordance to the accused (uske layak nahi hai). It is further alleged in his statement that on 25.08.2009 at around 10 pm his son received call from the accused and since then he was SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 12/20) disappointed and the same is the cause of his death. Smt. Shanti Devi mother of the deceased in her statement (Mark B/ ExPW15/A) also stated on the same lines and stated that accused one and half months prior to incident went back to her parental house and one day in between she alongwith her mother and brother came and quarreled with them and thereafter on 25.08.2009, her son received a call from the accused, thereafter he got disappointed and committed suicide on 29.08.2009. Narottam Prashad mama/uncle of the deceased in his statement Ex.PW15/B stated that after the marriage there was bitter relationship between husband and wife, however despite making understand accused Rimpy, her behaviour was not changed. On 25.08.2009 deceased received a call from accused, since then he was disappointed and thereafter committed suicide on 29.08.2009. Rajender Aggarwal another uncle of deceased in his statement Ex.PW11/A also stated that the behaviour of accused was not good and the deceased received a call from the accused Rimpy on 25.08.2009 since then he was disappointed and therefore committed suicide. Police during inquiry of DD no.19A do not found any cognizable offence therefore not registered any FIR.
22. However, due to inaction of police, PW3 Harcharan Dass father of the deceased lodged a complaint dated 16.10.2009 (Ex.PW3/C) to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, however as no action was taken by the police, therefore filed a criminal complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C against accused Rimpy, her mother Sushma and father Deen Dayal before the concerned Magistrate on 31.10.2009 alongwith an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C for registration of FIR. Thereafter vide order dated 15.01.2013 Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate directed the police to register the FIR pursuant to which on the basis of Ex.PW3/C, FIR was registered, then after investigation chargesheet was filed against accused Rimpy and not against any other family member of accused Rimpy.
23. As per complaint Ex.PW3/C, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW16/B was SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 13/20) registered, it is alleged that marriage was solemnised on 09.05.2009 and thereafter on 13.05.2009 accused Rimpy went back to her parental home, then on 15.05.2009 she was again brought back and stayed in the matrimonial home till 20.05.2009, thereafter on 15.06.2009, deceased brought her again to the matrimonial home. Thereafter, on 01.07.2009 again went to the parental home without consent with all belongings including gold jewellery, then she was again brought back by deceased on 18.07.2009, thereafter on 19.07.2009 she forced deceased to separate from family and asked his share from the family and transfer the said share in her name. Thereafter, on 20.07.2009 at around 11 am, she left the home by saying that she was going to market, however visited her parental home and came back by 5 pm. Thereafter all the family members advised her to live with love and affection, however the accused demanded share in family property and sum of Rs. 20,000/ pm. Thereafter, she left home on 23.07.2009 with her brother. Then on 15.08.2009 she and her mother came and demanded to fulfill the conditions . Thereafter, the deceased went to her parental home on 20.08.2009, however the accused refused to come back, then on 25.08.2009 accused made a call to the deceased then the deceased went to the parental house on 26.08.2009 where again the demands were made . On 28.08.2009 mother of the accused came to meet deceased at their house and again forced to comply the above conditions. Accordingly, on 29.08.2009 deceased alongwith his jija went to Palwal where also they pressurised to fulfill their demands. Thereafter, after coming to Delhi in night deceased committed suicide.
24. The main allegations as per this complaint is the accused wanted the deceased to completely transfer his share in her name and further to give Rs. 20,000/ pm for expenses due to which he was disappointed and committed suicide. In the complaint, it is also mentioned that lastly on the day of committing suicide ie on 29.08.2009 deceased alongwith his jija PW14 Praveen Garg went to the accused house at Palwal where again SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 14/20) accused and her family pressurized deceased to fulfill the demands and also threatened to implicate the entire family in false cases. At this stage, it is pertinent to go through the testimony of PW14 Praveen Garg. PW14 praveen Garg in his testimony stated that on 29.08.2009, he alongwith deceased Sohan Lal went to the parental home of the accused where he had a discussion with Rimpy as well as her parents and requested Rimpy to accompany them for joining the matrimonial home but the accused refused. Thereafter, they both came back to Delhi and deceased Sohan Lal dropped him at Faridabad. In this statement this PW14 who is the direct witness of the alleged incident dated 29.08.2009, nowhere stated that when he went to Palwal at accused parental home, the accused or his family members have pressurized them to transfer the share of deceased in the name of accused or to give sum of Rs. 20,000/ pm to the accused or the threatenings regarding false implication of the deceased and his family in false cases. This witness had not supported the prosecution case on these allegations which are crux of the complaint Ex. PW3/C and the immediate reason for committing of the suicide on 29.08.2009 by the deceased.
25. Now, It is pertinent to mention that during investigation of DD no.19A, PW15 recorded the statement as discussed above of the family members of the deceased and none of the family members stated that deceased was harassed by accused on account of transfer of shares, demand of Rs. 20,000/ as expenses or false implication of the accused family. PW14 Praveen Garg during crossexamination was also confronted over the fact that they never went to house of accused at Palwal on 29.08.2009. In this regard, PW14 was confronted with his statement given to the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C dated 29.01.2013 mark DX where he nowhere stated that he alongwith the deceased went to Palwal ie parental house of the accused on 29.08.2009. Therefore, the prosecution not able to prove the incident of 29.08.2009 regarding the fact that deceased alongwith PW14 visited the parental home of the accused where the demands of transfer of share of SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 15/20) property, demand of Rs. 20,000/ pm or false threatenings were made. PW2 Shanti Devi in her testimony nowhere stated that such demands were made by the accused or her family on 29.08.2009, however only stated that both are humiliated and beaten and as discussed, this fact is also not corroborated by PW14 Praveen Garg who accompanied the deceased to the matrimonial home.
26. As per complaint Ex.PW3/C which on the face of it suggest lodged on legal instructions suggests after marriage on 19.07.2009 deceased first time asked to get the entire share from the family. Whereas, PW2 in her statement stated that during the entire 3 months of her matrimonial life deceased fight to have the property transferred in her name. At this stage, it is also pertinent to go through the crossexamination of PW2 in which she stated that the property at Madangir was in the joint name of Sohan Lal and Bhagwan Dass ( ie around 25 sq. yards) and there was no other property in the name of the deceased and the said property was transferred by her husband in the name of the children. However, not able to state whether any transfer document was prepared or not. PW3 Harcharan Dass the father of the deceased also not stated that he transferred any property in the name of the deceased. Therefore, the allegations that accused was demanding the transfer of share of property do not as such appear to be convincing.
27. It is also alleged that the accused was also demanding Rs. 20,000/ pm for expenses. PW2 Shanti Devi nowhere in her testimony had stated that the deceased was demanding such money. Though, other family witnesses of the deceased ie PW3, PW8, PW12 and PW14 stated that accused demanded Rs. 20,000/ for expenses but their testimony appears vague and not credible in overall facts and circumstances.
28. It is also alleged in complaint dated 16.10.2009 Ex.PW3/C that on 22.06.2009 when the deceased came to the house to take lunch, he found that the accused was talking to young man and given one typed letter to that young man and this incident was also seen by her daughters namely Preeti SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 16/20) and Radha, and when his son inquired the said fact from the deceased she replied rudely and stated that said young man is her school mate and came from Palwal, and she had given a letter to him for her mother. In this complaint PW3 nowhere written that he had seen that said boy alongwith the accused and admittedly the daughter in law Preeti and Radha have not been examined, PW3 in crossexamination nowhere stated that the deceased had seen the accused talking to that boy . On the other hand only stated that her daughter in law told him that fact and then he asked the accused about that boy. He alleged that he had asked the accused about that boy, however in his written complaint Ex.PW3/C only stated that his son told him that fact.
29. From overall appreciation of the evidence of PW2 Shanti Devi, PW3 Harcharan Dass, PW6 Narottam Prashad, PW8 Gopal Prashad, PW11 Rajender Aggarwal, PW12 Roop Kishore and PW14 Praveen Kumar Garg it do not appear credible that deceased was harassed by accused or her family over demand of share in family property, expenses of Rs. 20,000/ pm or the threatenings to implicate in the false cases, however it could be inferred from these testimonies that relations between accused and deceased were not cordial and despite the conciliations through relatives etc the said relations could not be normalised and the deceased therefore committed suicide.
30. Now, it is pertinent to look at the suicide note Ex. P1, in which the deceased has written that all his property to be given to his brother Gopal Prashad and reason of his death is his wife Rimpy. This suicide note was sent to FSL for examination. As per FSL report Ex. PW7/A only the signatures could be matched however the other portion of the authorship could not be linked. The specimen handwriting of the family members of the deceased namely Harcharan, Kamal Kishore, Bhagwan Dass, Gopal Dass, Gopal Prashad, Roop Kishore was sent and same was found not to be matched with the contents of the suicide note, therefore it can be concluded SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 17/20) that the said suicide note was not manufactured by the family members of the deceased. As no credible material could be collected by the prosecution during investigation regarding the admitted handwriting of the deceased, therefore the handwriting over the contents of the suicide note could not be matched though the signatures were matched. As far as evidence of recovery of suicide note is concerned the same was recovered by the police at the first instance as clear from the testimony of PW15 SI Shabbir and PW13 Ct. Surender. The seizure memo of the suicide note also confirms its recovery from the room of the deceased on the day of the incident. Nothing material came in crossexamination of any of the witnesses that the said suicide note was not recovered on that day. Therefore, the recovery of the suicide note appears genuine and furthermore the signatures on the suicide note also found matched in FSL report with that of the deceased, thus in entire facts and circumstances, it can be held that the said suicide note was written by the deceased.
31. However, in the said suicide note, it is nowhere mentioned that he is committing suicide due to the illegal demands of his wife and only written that the cause of his death is his wife. There is no averment in this suicide note regarding any intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit the suicide. In order to convict a person u/s 306 IPC, there has to be clear mensrea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which lead 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 commit a suicide (referred M. Mohan Vs. State, AIR 2011 SC 1238). The evidence on record do not suggest any active abetment at the instance of the accused.
32. As far as the cause of death is concerned, PW5 Dr. Satya Prakash stated that deceased Sohan Lal was brought dead and noticed ligature mark on the neck. PW9 Dr. Manish Goyal who conducted postmortem report stated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging and further not noticed any SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 18/20) ante mortem external injuries. The statement of this witness is duly corroborated by the postmortem report (Ex.PW9/A). Therefore, it is not in doubt that deceased committed suicide. As per the postmortem report, there were no external injuries on the dead body of the deceased which suggest that he was not beaten prior to his death. This also suggests that deceased was not beaten at his inlaws house on the day of incident which also create question on the statement of PW2 who stated that on the day of incident he was beaten at in laws house.
33. It is also alleged in complaint Ex.PW3/C that on 25.08.2009 at 10 pm, accused called the deceased to her parental home, thereafter his son went to parental home on 26.08.2009 where the accused and her family pressurized him to fulfill the conditions thereafter again on 28.08.2009 Ms. Sushma mother of the accused came to the deceased house and discussed the matter with deceased for around two hours. PW2 Shanti Devi stated that on 25.07.2009 deceased was called at Palwal where he was beaten and humiliated, nowhere stated that the demands of transfer of share etc were made. She also stated that deceased motherinlaw also visited their house on 28.07.2009, however not stated what transpired between the two. PW3 Harcharan Dass on the other hand stated that on 25.08.2009 the call was made and next day his son went and was threatened. Thereafter, on 28.08.2009 her mother came and having conversation, however his son could not tell anything about the conversation. Nothing credible can be inferred from these allegations that the deceased was harassed by the accused or her family for transfer of shares and demand of Rs. 20,000/pm as expenses or threatenings of false implications.
34. From overall appreciation of evidence on record,it transpires that the deceased was not residing with the accused and most of the time in the short matrimonial period remained at her parental home, however no credible evidence found on record which could suggest that accused or her family had harassed the deceased to transfer his share in her name or SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 19/20) demand of Rs. 20,000/ pm as expenses or false implication in dowry cases. Mere feeling of harassment by deceased that the accused behaviour is not cordial and do not discharge her duty as a wife do not bring the case in the ambit of offence u/s 306 IPC.
35. In view of above discussion, prosecution not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, hence the accused Rimpy stands acquitted for charges framed against her. Accused Rimpy is directed to furnish a bail bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/ in compliance of section 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room after compliance of section 437A IPC.
Announced in the open Court (AJAY KUMAR JAIN)
On 17th day of October, 2017 ASJ02 (South)
District Court Saket / New Delhi
SC No. 6618/16, State Vs. Rimpy, FIR No. 36/13, PS Neb Sarai, dated 17.10.2017 (Page 20/20)