Delhi District Court
Kumar vs . State Of Haryana", Air 2010 Sc 2839. To ... on 29 March, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03
OUTER DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. : 546/07
PS : S. P. Badli
U/s : 498-A/304-B/34 IPC
Unique Case ID : 02404R0 658892007
In the matter of
The State
Versus
1. Kuldeep s/o Sh. Jawahar Singh
R/o A-118, Khera Garhi
VPO Khera Kalan
Delhi.
2. Smt. Minoti Devi W/o Sh. Jawahar Singh
R/o A-118, Khera Garhi
VPO Khera Kalan
Delhi.
3. Smt. Kamlesh W/o Sh. Shiv Kumar
R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Murthal Sonepat
Haryana.
...ACCUSED
Session Case No. : 31/08
Date of Institution : 09.10.2007
Date of Committal : 06.11.2007
Date of reserving judgment/order : 23.03.2012
Date of pronouncement : 29.03.2012
J U D G M E N T
1. Accused Kuldeep was sent up by police of PS S. P. Badli to stand trial for offence punishable u/s 498-A/304B/34 IPC. Subsequently Smt. Minto Devi and Smt. Kamlesh, who are mother-in-law and FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 1 of 44 2 sister-in-law respectively of deceased, were also sent to stand trial by way of supplementary charge sheet.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 6.6.2007, case was registered on the basis of rukka prepared on the statement of Sadhu Ram s/o Sh. Daya Ram, aged about 70 years, who stated that on 25.04.2002 he had done engagement of her daughter with accused Kuldeep Singh and gave articles according to their status and when he came back to his house after engagement ceremony, Prem Singh who is relative of accused Kuldeep Singh made call to him and stated that now-a-days no one gives scooter, it is time of motorcycle and asked as to why he gave scooter. On this, he stated that he will give Rs.15,000/- in cash. On 26.04.2002, barat came and he got married her daughter with the accused in accordance with Hindu customs and rites and on 27.04.2002 his son-in-law came to his house alongwith his daughter and went to their home after meeting them. On the intervening night of 27/28.04.2002, Devender who is elder brother-in-law of his daughter, called him that Lata is not well and they are at Swaroop Nagar Nursing Home and asked him to come quickly. He asked his daughter as to what happened, to which she replied that nothing and now she is well and thereafter they went to their house. On the next day, her sister-in-law Kamlesh saw clothe of her daughter and stated that tere maa-baap ne ye kya kapre diye, aise kapre to bhikhari bhi nahi pahante (what type of clothe were given by your parents, even beggar does not wear such type of FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 2 of 44 3 clothes). He also stated that Kamlesh taunted her daughter so much that her daughter did not speak anything on account of shame. He further stated that after two/four days, his son-in-law Kuldeep gave injection on the private part of her daughter after taking her in confidence which resulted in bleeding and on account of which she became weak and used to remain ill. Accused Kuldeep Singh and her daughter hide the fact of injection. He also stated that accused Kuldeep Singh did not say anything to her daughter but he acts according to her mother Manto who used to taunt her daughter that tere maa-baap ne hamare gale me bimari bandh di hai (your parent got married an ill woman). Her mother-in-law also taunts to Jawahar Singh and Kuldeep that tum kya dekh kar larki ko laye, bimari ki ghar le aye jo hamesha bimar rahti hai). Apart from them, sister-in-law Kamlesh also used to taunt her daughter. After five/seven days of injection given to her daughter, on account of much bleeding, her daughter became unconscious. His son-in-law called him to take her and he had taken her to home and she became well and on the next day he took her to private clinic at Swaroop Nagar, and doctor after examining her told that she is administered injection and asked to bring the person who had administered injection and also stated that her treatment will take 8/10 months and thereafter she will become well. During 8/10 months she lived with him. Her treatment continued till 8/10 months and thereafter she became well. His son-in-law and daughter both admit their wrong doing of injection. He spent about Rs.80,000/- on the treatment of FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 3 of 44 4 her daughter. Thereafter his relative Jawahar Singh alongwith three-four persons came to his house and admitted the guilt of his son and thereafter he sent his daughter to her matrimonial home.
3. Thereafter after 15/20 days, his son-in-law asked her daughter to bring Rs.1 lac from her parent to open a laboratory, which pinched her daughter and on account of which she became again unwell. Again her mother-in-law and sister-in-law started taunting her daughter. Thereafter they also started beating her daughter and he took her daughter to his home and on account of beatings and illness she becomes unconscious, but found peace in his house she becomes well and on account of which she was having tension. On his asking, his daughter told that her husband is asking Rs.1 lac for opening laboratory. He showed his inability and stated that they will trouble them throughout their life and tried to make understand her daughter to leave her matrimonial house and they would get her married again but she did not understand and stated that marriage does not take place time and again. He kept her for about one and half months and gave Rs.50,000/- to her daughter and sent her alongwith her husband. She gave Rs.50,000/- to her mother-in-law and stated that her father has only managed Rs.50,000/-. After sometime, they again started taunting her. After 15/20 days, when her daughter was going to make call to him, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law caught hold her and dragged her inside and her mother-in-law pulled her chunni in front of all and no one intervene on account FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 4 of 44 5 of which she got enraged and stated to them that they are no more concerned with her and then her husband pacified her and took her inside the home and after some days she again become unconscious and left eating and drinking. Her husband informed them and he again took her to his house and kept her for about 5/6 months. He tried to make understand his daughter but she did not understand and stated that she would live in their matrimonial house and used to stop them to take any legal action as she had apprehension that her matrimonial house may get destroyed. He further stated that her pregnancy of about 1 ½ months got spoiled because of Kamlesh and her (deceased) mother immediately taken her to Dr. Sushala Kuhar Nursing Home at Pitam Pura and got her treated. Her treatment continued till 5/6 months and she remained at their house for five/six months and thereafter they sent her to matrimonial home and she used to come and go but never came happy to their house. In Pitampura she gave birth to one boy and they spent Rs.15,000/20,000/- on her child and said boy is of 2 ½ years of age now. They gave information to her in-laws that her daughter and the child are alright and asked them to take them and on this mother-in-law said that you keep her for about 1-1 ½ months for her child period. Thereafter they sent her back to her matrimonial home. Thereafter elder brother-in-law Devener brought bhaili to their house on account of birth of boy and on this they took peelia and gave clothe according to their capacity and stated that mother-in-law had no attachment with the grand son and said that grand son is not their's and father-in-law also said FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 5 of 44 6 that he is not their grand son and continued to harass her daughter as a result of which she again fell ill and become unconscious. They used to bring her and when she used to recover she used to return to her matrimonial. He further stated that about one and half years ago, their son-in-law fell ill and on account of that they sent her daughter to matrimonial home and that time one girl namely Kavita resident of Jharoda Village also used to come to his son-in-law and stated that both had opened readymade garment shop in the partnership and later on they closed the same when he tried to know about Kavita. He stated that his son-in-law had no attachment with his daughter and even did not eat food cooked by her daughter. He also stated that he (son-in-law) used to give injection to her and she continued to remain ill. She remained with him for seven/eight months and she was given all type of treatment but son-in-law did not come to take her back. Thereafter he sent his neighbour Sh. Jawahar Singh to them but they refused to take her back. One Bhupinder of Village Khera Kala alongwith Kuldeep came about five/six months ago to take his daughter and thereafter they had sent her daughter with them and thereafter she kept well for about one to one-and-half months and thereafter again they began beatings his daughter and then her daughter called her and thereafter he went and brought her back and after one week they sent her to her matrimonial house but she continued to remain ill there.
4. He further stated that on 18.06.2007, she suddenly became unwell FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 6 of 44 7 and was taken to Chadha Nursing Home where doctor stated to take her to big hospital and accused Kuldeep brought her daughter to them and at about 1:30 a.m. in the night, one Rohtas, brother Bhim Singh and mother took her to St. Stephen Hospital where she was admitted. Her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law (jeth) used to come and they (witnesses) and husband were getting her treated and last bill was paid by son-in-law and during treatment she died on 24.06.2007 and they gave expenses of Rs. 15,000/20,000 for her treatment. He stated that on 22.06.2007 her daughter told him that her husband had given some injection and she will disclose the same after she recovers. They thought that the daughter would recover and thereafter she will tell everything, therefore, they did not report the matter to the police and thereafter they had called the police after she expired.
5. Thereafter on the basis of the statement case u/s 304-B/498A was registered. The postmortem on the dead body was got conducted and the doctor gave the cause of death in this case as hepatic and renal failure as a result of ingestion (consumption) of aluminium phosphide. During the course of investigation, the father of the deceased also handed over the diary allegedly written by his daughter where she had mentioned the details of her ordeal. After completion of the investigation accused persons were chargesheeted.
6. After supplying the necessary copies, the case was committed to FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 7 of 44 8 the court of session vide order dated 06.11.2007 by Ld. MM.
7. My Ld. Predecessor, after finding prima-facie case, charged accused Kuldeep for offences punishable U/s 498-A/304-B IPC vide order dated 24.01.2008 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently on the supplementary charge sheet, accused Manti Devi and Kamlesh were also charge for same offence vide order dated 11.05.09, to which they also pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. The prosecution in support of their case examined as many as sixteen (16) witnesses.
9. The prosecution examined following material witnesses :
i) PW-2 Sh. Sadhu Ram, father of the deceased, is the complainant. He proved his statement made to SDM as Ex.PW-2/A, his statement regarding identification of dead body as Ex.PW-2/B and receipt of receiving dead body after the postmortem as Ex.PW-2/C. He also proved the diary (note book) as Ex.P1 and identified handwriting of his daughter.
ii) PW-6 Ms. Mamta Sharma, friend of deceased being classmate from 6th class to 10th class. She is witness of identifying handwriting of deceased in note book Ex.P1.
iii) PW-7 Sh. Rohtas Kumar is brother of deceased. He proved seizure memo of diary as Ex.PW-7/A. FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 8 of 44 9
iv) PW-9 Sh. Vijay Dogra, the then SDM, is witness who recorded statement of father of deceased Sh. Sadhu Ram.
He proved inquest proceedings and form no. 25.35 as Ex.PW-9/A and Ex.PW-9/B, brief facts as Ex.PW-9/C and his endorsement as Ex.PW-9/D.
10. The prosecution also examined following formal witness :
i) PW-1 HC Azad Singh is the duty officer who recorded DD No. 13 A regarding information that Lata wife of Kuldeep Singh was admitted in sick condition on 20.06.2007 and she had expired on 24.06.2007 on the information of Security Officer namely Joy from St. Stephen's Hospital and proved the said DD as Ex.PW-1/A.
ii) PW-3 Dr. Sushila Kohar, Gynaecologist, who treated the deceased and proved her discharge cards as Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B.
iii) PW-4 Dr. B. K. Sinha, Specialist, is the doctor who gave report on samples and opined that examination of part of kidney, liver, lungs, and spleen was consistent with toxin induced injury in kidney and liver and proved the report as Ex.PW-4/A.
iv) PW-5 HC Suresh Kumar is the the duty officer who on the basis of rukka recorded FIR of this case and proved the computerized copy of the same as Ex.PW-5/A. He also recorded DD No. 18A regarding registration of FIR.FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 9 of 44 10
v) PW-8 Dr. Upender Kishore is the doctor who conducted postmortem upon the dead body of deceased and proved the report as Ex.PW-8/A and gave final opinion that cause of death in this case as hepatitis and renal failure as a result of ingestion/consumption of aluminium phosphide and proved the final opinion as Ex.PW-8/B.
vi) PW-11 Jitender Kumar, Senior Scientific Assistant, Chemistry, FSL Rohini is the witness who examined the viscera and opined that it found containing aluminium phosphide and proved his report as Ex.PW-11/A.
vii) PW-12 HC Jagbir Singh is the witness who deposited the pullanda at pathology department SGMH Hospital, Mangolpuri vide RC No. 234/21/7 on the direction of IO.
viii) PW-13 Ct. Ranjeet Singh is witness of formal arrest of accused and proved his arrest memo and personal search memo as Ex.PW-13/A and Ex.PW-13/B respectively.
ix) PW-14 HC Chander Mohan is the MHC(M) with whom the case properties were deposited and who got deposited the same at FSL Rohini, SGM Hospital for examination and received the result and proved the extract relevant entries as Ex.PW-14/A, Ex.PW-14/B, photocopy of RC No. 217/21 as Ex.PW-14/C, receipt as Ex.PW-14/D, photocopy of RC No. 234/21 as Ex.PW-14/E and receipt as Ex.PW-14/F. FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 10 of 44 11
11. The prosecution also examined following witnesses of investigation :
i) PW-15 SI Sugan Lal proved his request for preservation of dead body as Ex.PW-15/A, dead body identification statement of Rohtas as Ex.PW-15/B, seizure of wooden box containing viscera as Ex.PW-15/C.
ii) PW-16 Inspector Sanjeev Kumar is the investigating officer. He is also witness of arrest of accused Kuldeep, seizure of photocopy of invitation card and one photographer of marriage vide seizure memo Ex.PW-16/A, proved the photograph as Ex.PW-16/B and invitation card as Ex.PW-16/C. He is also witness of seizure of diary vide seizure memo Ex.PW-7/A and proved the diary as Ex.P1. He also witness of arrest of accused Munti Devi and Kamlesh Devi and proved their arrest memos as Ex.PW-16/D and Ex.PW-16/E.
12. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons was recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC. Accused Kuldeep denied the allegation of harassment and injection, however, admitted the marriage. As regards the allegation of 27.04.2002, he stated that Lata had experienced a sudden sharp illness, and therefore, she was taken to the hospital by them for examination and treatment. However, she refused to disclose any detail about her medical history. He further stated that Lata was suffering FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 11 of 44 12 from weakness due to some chronic disease existing from prior to her marriage with him. He and other members of his family were concerned about her weakness and general ill health and were repeatedly requesting her to disclose her medical history, so that, proper treatment could be arranged for her, and, if she was already under some treatment, since prior to her marriage, the same may be monitored and continued. However, Lata did not take him into confidence. And his mother never expressed any displeasure. He stated that Lata suffered no miscarriage or other complications of that nature attributable to him or any other member of his family. As regards the incident of 18.06.2007, he admitted the same that condition of Lata was serious and she had been admitted in Chadha Nursing Home and thereafter on the advise of doctor she was shifted to St. Stephen's Hospital after getting his patents and brother informed. He denied that he had administered any injection. He stated that he is innocent and however he chose not to lead evidence.
13. Accused Minoti Devi denied the prosecution evidence and denied harassment. She admitted the marriage. She stated that Lata was suffering from weakness due to some chronic disease existing from prior to her marriage with her son and he and other members of her family were concerned about her weakness and general ill health and were repeatedly requesting her to disclose her medical history, so that, proper treatment could be arranged for her, and, if she were already under some treatment, since prior to her FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 12 of 44 13 marriage, the same may be monitored and continued. However, Lata did not take her into confidence. She never expressed any displeasure against Lata as alleged. As regards the diary, she stated that the same is fabricated by brother and father of deceased. She, also, chose not to lead defence evidence.
14. Similarly accused Kamlesh denied the prosecution evidence and denied harassment to the deceased. She stated that she is innocent and her marriage took place 23 years prior to the marriage of his brother Kuldeep and since her marriage she has been living at her matrimonial house with her husband and children. She visits her father's family only rarely, and do not interfere in what happens there. She, however, also chose not to lead evidence in his defence.
15. I have heard Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for the state and Sh. Mukul Sharma, Advocate for accused persons. I have also gone through the record.
16. In order to attract the offence punishable u/s 304-B IPC the following ingredients must be proved i. The death of woman should be caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances;
ii. such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; and iii. it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 13 of 44 14 of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
17. As regards the first ingredient, PW-8 Dr. Upender Kishore conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Lata. According to the postmortem, no external antemortem injury was found. He preserved viscera and tissues for histo-pathological study and chemical analysis and kept pending cause of death till receipt of report of chemical analysis viscera and histo-pathological study of tissues and proved his report as Ex.PW-8/A. He gave final opinion on the basis of chemical analysis of viscera and report of histopathological study that cause of death was hepatitis and renal failure as a result of ingestion/consumption of aluminium phosphide and proved the final opinion as Ex.PW-8/B. PW-11 Sh. Jitender Kumar is the Senior Scientific Assistant, who had examined the viscera and reported that the same was found containing aluminium phosphide.
18. PW-8 Dr. Upender Kishore in his cross-examination stated that by the expression 'ingestion/consumption' of a substance, he means only oral ingestion or consumption of a substance and admitted that aluminium phosphide is a commonly used as agricultural pesticide and the same is not available in injection form. In reply to question that aluminium phosphide is sharp, having pungent smell and taste, therefore, cannot be used as a homicidal poison, he stated that primarily it is a suicidal poison, however, it is FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 14 of 44 15 possible to use this poison as a homicidal agent. He also observed that as per the findings on the body the deceased could have also been produced due to her suffering from some infectious disease. However, as per the findings of the doctor, as well as his cross-examination, it is apparent that either it was homicidal or suicidal, but in both the cases it was unnatural death. Although, it is true that the doctor has said the findings on the dead body could have been produced due to her suffering from some infectious disease but after chemical analysis of parts of the body, it is amply clear that it was aluminium phosphide which has become the cause of the death. Accordingly it is proved on record that the death was unnatural.
19. In order to prove the second ingredients prosecution examined PW-2 Sh. Sadhu Ram and PW-7 Rohtas, who are father and brother of the deceased respectively. PW-2 father of deceased stated that her daughter was married with the accused Kuldeep Singh on 26.04.2002 as per Hindu Rites (sic) and she died on 24.06.2007 during treatment. PW-7 corroborated his father. There is no cross-examination of these witness on this aspect. Moreover, the accused persons admitted the date of marriage i.e. 26.04.2002 in their statement u/s 313. Therefore, indisputably deceased Lata died within seven years of her marriage with accused Kuldeep.
20. Therefore, as per discussion above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved first two above said ingredients i.e. the FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 15 of 44 16 death was caused on account of circumstances other than normal circumstances and within seven years of marriage.
21. Now, the prosecution is required to prove, the other ingredient and, if, prosecution, succeeds in proving and showing that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that accused persons have caused dowry death and shall raise presumption u/s 113-B Indian Evidence Act.
22. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined PW-2 Sh. Sadhu Ram, who is father of deceased; PW-7 Sh. Rohtas, who is brother of deceased.
23. PW-2 Sh. Sadhu Ram, who is father of deceased and complainant, testified that on 25.04.2002, he alongwith the other relatives went to the Sagan ceremony of his daughter to the house of accused at Khera Garhi and all the articles including the scooter was given to the accused on that day and when they came back, he received a telephone call from Prem Singh, Jija (brother-in-law) of accused Kuldeep Singh that why they had given a scooter when the fashion was of motorcycle and having no other option, he replied that at the time of marriage, he will give a sum of Rs.15,000/- to them. On the next day, the marriage was solemnized and the barat was welcomed and had also given Rs.15,000/- as told earlier and his daughter went to her matrimonial house.
FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 16 of 44 1724. He stated that on the next day i.e. 27.04.2002, his daughter Lata and accused Kuldeep Singh visited their house as per custom and they went to the house and on the same evening at about 1:30 a.m. (night), he received a telephonic call of Devender (jeth of his daughter) that condition of Lata is not well and they are at Swaroop Nagar Nursing Home and accordingly he alongwith his wife reached there. They inquired from their daughter and she told that now she is well and from the hospital she was discharged and went to her matrimonial house. After 2-3 days, nanad(sister in law) of Lata, namely, Kamlesh had seen the clothes given by them at their residence and taunted her daughter that they had given the clothes of inferior quality (aise kapde to bhikhari bhi nahi pahante) and her daughter kept quite. Thereafter after 2-3 days accused Kuldeep Singh by taking his daughter into confidence had injected an injection in her private parts and she started bleedings. Thereafter she became weak and ill and the bleedings continued and her daughter had concealed this thing from them and she started remaining silent. He stated that her mother-in-law used to harass her and taunt her that one sick girl had been tied with them and stated that within 5-7 days, she became so weak and she bore all harassment and torture and even she became unconscious. Accused Kuldeep telephoned them and they went to their house and keeping in view of the health of his daughter Lata, they brought her back to her house at Swaroop Nagar and she was treated in a private nursing home at Swaroop Nagar and on her examination, the doctor had told us that she had FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 17 of 44 18 been injected one injection and a person, who had injected her may be called and doctor had also told that it will take about 8-10 months for her treatment. The doctor had also advised her bed rest and she should not be sent to her matrimonial house. The accused Kuldeep Singh and his daughter admitted their mistake and his daughter was treated for about 8-10 months and expenses about Rs.80,000/- were incurred by him and when his daughter become well, father of accused Kuldeep Singh along with accused and two-three persons came to their house and admitted their mistake (galti maan li aur baap ne mafi mangi) and the sent their daughter with them.
25. He further stated that after 10-20 days, accused Kuldeep had asked his daughter Lata to bring Rs. 1 lac from him as he has to open a laboratory. His daughter showed her inability that she cannot forward this demand to her parents as they had already incurred the expenses on her marriage and treatment. She became ill and nervous. Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law again started harassing her and taunting her. They even abused and beaten her. She used to become unconscious. She also used to live in tension and she became unconscious. They were again informed and they again brought her to her house. At that time, she had not told them anything being nervous. After reaching their house and having a normal atmosphere, she told them that her husband had demanded a Rs.1 lac for laboratory, on not giving the said amount they used to harass her daughter. He tried to make her understand to forget FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 18 of 44 19 the past and he will get her remarry in another respectable house. His daughter had not told him anything, but she told her mother that she did not agree to her suggestion. She remained at his house for about 1 ½ months and he gave Rs.50,000/- and sent his daughter. He stated that for about 15 days, she remained at the matrimonial home (15 din theek thak rahi) and after that, again mother-in-law and sister-in-law of his daughter started harassing her.
26. He stated that after that, on one evening, when his daughter tried to call them on telephone then her mother-in-law and sister-in-law caught hold her hand and dragged her back to the matrimonial house and even the chunni of his daughter was taken away and thrown by her mother-in-law. On this, his daughter also stated to them that they are no more concerned with her as they had even humiliated her by throwing her chunni. Then, her husband tried to pacify her and took her inside the house. He also stated that she left eating (khana pina chhod diya) and also became unconscious and on becoming unconscious, her husband called them and they went to her matrimonial home and taken her back to their house and he also stated that even at that time, she was also not in her proper senses.
27. She was taken to a clinic at Pitampura, where Dr. Sushila Kohar had treated her and her daughter had a miscarriage due to the harassment and abovesaid acts of the accused persons. Accused FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 19 of 44 20 Kuldeep was also informed. His daughter remained at their place for 5-6 months, and she was treated from the doctors.
28. He stated that after 5-6 months, his daughter was again sent back to her matrimonial home. He stated that she used to visit them within 20-25 days and wherever she was tortured and harassed by the accused persons, she used to visit them and tell them and again she used to return back to save her matrimonial life.
29. He stated that she delivered a male baby at the clinic of Dr. Sushila Kohar, Pitampura Nursing Home and at that time, she was staying with them. They informed her in-laws about the birth of the child and also bear the expenses of the clinic. Accused Kuldeep and his mother refused to take her. After 1½ month, accused Kuldeep came to our house and took his daughter and the little child.
30. The Jeth of his daughter, namely, Devender visited their house for the ceremony of bheli and they also as per their status obliged him with the customary items but the accused persons had not showed any respect to them on receiving those items as they were greedy for the dowry. The Kamlesh had polluted the minds of mother-in-law and father-in-law of his daughter that even they had not shown any love or affection to the little child.
31. They used to harass his daughter again and again and she was tortured by them. Due to the harassment and tortured again she FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 20 of 44 21 was not well and she came to their house. When they visited her at her matrimonial home, she was not well at that time and she was not in her proper senses. Nobody was taking care of her and of her child and then she came with them to their house. He stated that nobody from the side of the accused persons came to see her or take her back. He stated that he sent his neighbour namely Tahar Singh to the matrimonial home of his daughter in order to ask them to take his daughter back in her matrimonial home and on visiting the matrimonial house of his daughter, Tahar Singh informed them that her in-laws are adamant not to bring her back and Kuldeep had stated that he would rather go to prison then bring her back.
32. He further stated that accused Kuldeep fell ill due to typhoid and one jaithani (sister-in-law) of his daughter Lata, telephonically informed them about the illness of the Kuldeep and also asked them to send Lata to her matrimonial house due to the illness of Kuldeep. His son went with Lata and her child to drop her at her matrimonial house but no body at her matrimonial welcome her.
33. He also stated that one girl Kavita also visited her matrimonial home and accused Kuldeep warned his daughter not to inquire anything about Kavita and during the stay of his daughter at her matrimonial home, no body was interacting with her and even the accused persons were not taking meals from her hand. On being harassed, she again came back to their house. On inquiry, he came FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 21 of 44 22 to know that accused Kuldeep and Kavita had opened a readymade garments shop at Burari and they also came to know that accused Kuldeep and Kavita stayed there during the odd hours and he stated that they (witness) observed that they are having illicit relations.
34. He stated that after 5-6 months accused Kuldeep and Bhupender came to their house and taken his daughter and her child to matrimonial house. They sent back their daughter and her child to matrimonial home on the persuasion of Bhupender. For about 1 ½ month his daughter stayed there but Kuldeep had not showed any love and affection to her. Even his daughter was again harassed and tortured by the accused persons.
35. He stated that on 18.06.2007, the health of his daughter Lata was so bad that she was taken to Chaddha Nursing Home by accused Kuldeep and his brother Devender. The doctors referred his daughter to some hospital having more facilities. Kuldeep came to their house and informed about the health of his daughter. Thereafter, his daughter was taken to St. Stephen Hospital at about 1:30 a.m. at night by Kuldeep, his son Rohtash, Bhim Singh and his wife, where she was admitted and she was treated in that hospital.
36. He also stated that on 22.06.2007, in the hospital, his daughter told him that Kuldeep had injected her two injections and the other thing she will narrate them after she recovers and stated that FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 22 of 44 23 he inquired from the Kuldeep about the injections, but he replied that he had injected the injections for betterment of health. He further stated that on 24.06.2007, his daughter died in hospital and they reported the matter to Police. His statement was recorded by SDM.
37. He also stated that during the investigation, he had also handed over to the police the copy of diary, written by his daughter, wherein she had mentioned the details of her ordeal which is is Ex.P1 and he identified (sic) her hand writings in the copy Ex.P1 at pages 1 to 22 pages.
38. PW-7 Sh. Rohtash Kumar is the brother of the deceased Lata. He corroborated his father PW-2 regarding marriage , scooter instead of motorcycle was given and Rs.15,000/- cash was given at the time of marriage. He stated that on 27.04.2002 in matrimonial house of his sister, the in-laws of his sister taunted them on the dowry articles and they were not happy with the dowry given by them and they were harassing his sister by taunting her. Accused Kuldeep used to demand motorcycle and accused Kuldeep went to the dealer for exchanging the scooter with the motorcycle, but the dealer refused. Accused Kuldeep is a Lab-Technician by profession and he used to give injections and medicines to his sister himself and accused Kuldeep also used to say to his sister that your parents had not given the motorcycle despite our demands. He stated that due to the medicines and injections given FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 23 of 44 24 by the accused Kuldeep, his sister used to remain ill and 2-3 times, they had also taken his sister to their house in unconscious condition and her sister never remained sick before her marriage. The accused Kuldeep used to demand money from my sister for opening a laboratory. The said demand was made from my father and again stated, the accused Kuldeep used to demand from his sister, who in turn used to pass on the demand to my father. The accused Kuldeep was having relation with one girl, namely, Kavita, who was also employed in the same lab. He used to quarrel with his sister and threatened her to get rid from her, so that he can live with Kavita. Even, accused Kuldeep had also opened a ready made cloth shop with Kavita at Sant Nagar and they used to sit in that shop after finishing their duties. His sister used to remain disturbed and accused Kuldeep also used to beat his sister and even due to beating she had miscarriage and was treated at Dr. Kuhar's Clinic.
39. He further corroborated his father that on the intervening night of 18.06.2007, accused Kuldeep came to their house at around 1:00 (night) and told them that the condition of Lata was serious and she had been admitted in Chadha Nursing Home, which was near their house. He along with his brother, namely, Bhim Singh and his mother Gyan Wati went to Chadha Nursing Home along with Kuldeep. There doctor advised them to shift his sister Lata to some bigger hospital. Thereafter, accused Kuldeep proposed that Lata be removed to St. Stephon's Hospital, as he knew one-two FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 24 of 44 25 doctors there. Thereafter, they removed his sister to St. Stephon's Hospital for further treatment. He along with his mother used to remain in the hospital as attendant. On 22.06.2007, his sister Lata told him that accused Kuldeep had given her injections on 17/18.06.2007, due to which she had become so much ill and she also said that probably she would not survive. She also told that accused Kuldeep had done so deliberately, since he wanted to marry Kavita and also because his demand had not been met by them. She also stated that she had not told these facts to them earlier, as she never wanted to burden her parents. Thereafter, he told the doctor on duty that his sister had been given injections by the accused Kuldeep and the doctor called the accused Kuldeep and asked him why and which kind of injections he had given, to which he stated that the said injections for rejuvenation of health. He stated that his sister had also told him that on the evening of 18.06.2007, Kuldeep had also given her banana, mango and tea, after his arrival from lab, as she was not feeling well. On that day, his sister was on fast. On 24.06.2007, his sister expired in the hospital.
40. PW-3 Dr. Sushila Kuhar, Gynaecologist was also examined. She stated that Lata Sharma was treated by her and discharge card Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B were prepared in this regard. She stated that on 13.10.2004, the patient Lata Sharma came to his clinic and she diagnose her. She was having eight months pregnancy and was having a problem of leaking per-vaginal. She FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 25 of 44 26 was admitted and on recovery she was discharged on 15.10.2004. She also stated that on 11.11.2004, she delivered a male baby at 1:15 a.m.
41. She was cross-examined. In her cross-examination she admitted that Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B are discharge cards in respect of the same patient and her same pregnancy. As per the history she was pregnant for the second time, had no live delivery and suffered one abortion (G2, P0, A1). In Ex.PW-3/A, the patient informed the history that she was pregnant for the third time, had no live delivery and had suffered two abortions. She stated that she had treated the patient Lata Sharma only for her pregnancy related documents vide discharge Cards Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B. She does not remember having ever treated her for any other ailment at any other time and whther she was under her treatment from May, 2002 onwards for the next 8-10 months.
42. One discharge summery of deceased of St. Stephen's Hospital is also placed on record, although the same is not proved by the prosecution. However, to understand the whole controversy, it is necessary to have view of the same. In the said discharge summary, she was admitted on 19.06.2007 and discharged on 24.06.2007 after she expired and she diagnosed sepsis with mods with ARF with hepatitis ? Pancytopenia. Complaint and history was written as C/o weakness X 3-4 days, headache X 4-5 days off and on, pain in epigastric region X1 day and history of loss of FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 26 of 44 27 appetite X1 week, history of vomiting X 2 episodes and history of passage of clots per vaginum. Course in the hospital is shown as patient was admitted in ward with sepsis and hepatic and renal dysfunction and she was shifted to MICU as she had hypotension. She had deteriorating liver and renal dysfunction not responding to IV fluids and antibiotics. She was dialysed due to increasing renal parameters and was ebing treated with IV antibiotics. She was given multiple platelet concentrate and 3 units of FFP. Her general condition deteriorated progressively and she had a cardiac arrest on 24.06.07 at 7:00 a.m. after which she was given inj atropine, adrenaline, soda bicarbonate, CPR was done . She revived and again developed a cardiac arrest at 8:15 p.m. DC shock was given to the patient. She revived and subsequently developed a cardiac arrest at 9:30 a.m. after which she could not be revived and declared dead on 24.06.2007 at 9:30 .a.m.
43. During the course of arguments, since death is shrouded in the mistry, the documents regarding treatment given in the St. Stephen's Hospital was also called from the hospital, which categorically stated that no history of ingestion of any poisonous substance when she was initially admitted.
44. Firstly it is to be analysed whether what kind of disease, she was suffering from and whether the said disease was noticed on account of alleged injection or on account of harassment given to her by her in-laws. As per statement of PW-2 father of deceased FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 27 of 44 28 she was marred on 26.04.2002 and on 27.04.2002 his daughter alongwith accused son-in-law visited to thier house and in the same night at about 1:30 a.m. she was admitted in Swaroop Nagar Nursing home and thereafter she became well and discharged and went to her matrimonial home. Meaning thereby the ailment was such that she had to be taken to the nursing home even during the night. After 2/3 days, the accused injected the injection on her private part, she started bleeding and became ill. Within 5/7 days she become so weak that she become unconscious. She was brought back when accused Kuldeep informed and she was treated in private nursing home at Swaroop Nagar where doctor told that she had been injected one injection and also told that person who had injected may be call and her treatment will take 8/10 months. She was treated for 8/10 months and Rs.80,000/- was spent. But neither the name of the doctor nor nature of treatment is given nor it could be ascertained as to what type of injection, if any, was administered by the accused Kuldeep. This might have happened in the year 2002 itself within 10/15 days of the marriage. After about 10/20 days of her said treatment, it may be in the year 2003, she again fell unconscious and was brought to their home. She remained for about one and half months and again went to her in-laws with Rs.50,000/- and thereafter after about few days she again fell unconscious. They were called and brought her back. Thereafter she was taken to Dr. Sushila Kuhar at Pitampura for treatment and she had suffered miscarriage. But as per Dr. Sushila Kuhar, she had not treated her for any miscarriage. Father stated FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 28 of 44 29 that she again remained for five/six months and treated by doctor it is also not disclosed as to who were the doctor who had treated her. It may be somewhere near 2004.
45. Thereafter she was blessed with male child. This period we can ascertain as this relate to treatment given by Dr. Sushila Kuhar. According to Dr. Sushila Kuhar, patient Lata had delivered child on 11.11.2004. It is again stated that when they (parents) visited her, she was not well and was not in her proper senses and thereafter she came with them. This period subsequent to birth of child. Thereafter she visited her matrimonial home when her husband fell ill and thereafter she again came back to her parental home and therafter after about 5/6 months again she went to matrimonial home. This appears to be period which six months prior to her last ailment. Therefore it appears to be in the last month of December, 2006. She fell sick.
46. Now it has come on record that at regular interval she fell unconscious and immediately after the marriage for long period i.e. about 8/10 she was given treatment but what was the ailment and who treated the same is not given as Dr. Sushila Kuhar has not treated her for any ailment other than child related problem and got child delivered. No other doctor has been named who had given her treatment for long ailment for about 8/10 months immediately after the marriage. Finally on 18.06.2007 she was taken to Chadha Nursing Home from where she was referred to FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 29 of 44 30 St. Stephen's Hospital and accused Kuldeep himself came to inform about her ill health and mother of deceased, brother and one Bhim Singh had gone alongwith them and got her admitted.
47. PW-2 stated that on 22.06.2007, in the hospital, his daughter told him that Kuldeep had injected her two injections and the other thing she will narrate them after she recovers and also stated that he inquired from the Kuldeep about the injections, but he replied that he had injected the injections for betterment of health. Whereas PW-7 brother of deceased who is other material witness has surprisingly silent about her illness immediately after the marriage and treatment given to her, however, he stated that she used to remain ill on account of medicines and injections given by accused Kuldeep.
48. He, however, has not stated about any other treatment. He stated about treatment at Dr. Sushila Kuhar Clinic. He also stated that he and his mother used to remain as attendant in the St. Stephen's Hospital and on 22.06.2007, his sister Lata told him that accused Kuldeep had given injection on 17/18.06.2007 due to which she had become so much ill and she also told that accused had done so deliberately, since he wanted to marry Kavita and also because their demand had not been met. Thereafter he told the doctor on duty that his sister had been given injection by the accused Kuldeep and doctor called the accused and enquired, which, however, father of deceased has not stated so. However, FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 30 of 44 31 allegations that sister had disclosed on 22.06.2007 this fact, which was not supported by her treatment record. The doctor, who had examined her on 22.06.2007 reports that the patient condition is poor, she was repeatedly seen by the doctor throughout day and blood was oozing from her mouth and nose till the night. There is no mention that any new history is given and her condition continued to be in the same and surprisingly as per the history throughout her death, the doctor were in fact groping in dark and were given treatment for symptomatically as the ailment does not diagnosed.
49. Even the discharge summery shows that doctor were not aware till her death that she has consumed poisonous substance. Meaning thereby neither deceased herself nor her parents or brother had disclosed that she has been injected any poisonous substance or she had been injected anything which is cause of her deteriorating health.
50. As per cross-examination, PW-7 Rohtas admitted that accused himself got admitted Lata to Chadha Nursing Home and at that time, she was in a position to speak and was talking to them and she was admitted to St. Stephen Hospital at 1:30 a.m. night on 18.06.2007. He also admitted that after the admission of Lata at St. Stephen's Hospita, he and his mother were constantly with her and voluntarily stated that accused Kuldeep also used to be present. He also admitted that whenever he used to visit her sister FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 31 of 44 32 at I.C.U. At St. Stephen Hospital, they used to talk to each other. He stated that he had told the doctor present at the ICU at St. Stephen Hospital, whatever Lata told in relation to the injection and medications given to her by the accused. The doctor had called Kuldeep and Kuldeep Singh had told him about the injection and medication, he had been given to Lata.
51. Father of deceased in his cross-examination stated that he himself visited her daughter in the morning on 19.06.2007 and her daughter was in a position to speak and was asking about her son. Between 19.06.2007 to 22.07.2009, the members of his family remained present with his daughter at the St. Stephen Hospital and kept on looking after her. His daughter was in a position to speak till 22.09.2007. He admitted that his daughter did not tell him that her husband had administered her two injection but this fact was told by her to her brother. However, he admitted that he had not stated so in his statement Ex.PW-2/A. He had come to know about this on 22.06.2007 itself. He did not bring it to the attention of the doctor treating his daughter at St. Stephen's Hospital. He stated that in fact he did not meet the doctors at all and he cannot say whether his son Rohtas told the attending doctors about the said injection. Mother and brother of deceased remained present through the period of her stay at St. Stephen Hospital.
52. Therefore there are material inconsistencies between father and FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 32 of 44 33 son with respect to the fact that daughter told that accused had administered her two injections to which they had disclosed to the doctor. The said fact also does not find mention in the treatment record which unfortunately prosecution has chosen not to bring on record. This fact only came to fore when her cause of death on account of ingestion of poisonous substance by way of examination of her parts meaning thereby the deceased neither herself told this substance has been consumed by her to the doctor who were treating her for her failing parameters. The doctor had also stated that aluminium phosphide cannot be injected by way of injection. Therefore the version that she was injected some poisonous substance is not believable. However, it has come on record that she had died on account of ingestion of aluminium phosphide which is common poison used as pesticide.
53. In the light of above discussion, we will examine the remaining evidence with respect to harassment and whether those harassment are covered the third ingredients.
54. In the present case the marriage took place on 26.04.2002 and the deceased expired on 24.06.2007 i.e. approx. about five years of her marriage.
55. The hon'ble Supreme Court held that term 'soon before death' is not fixed period and it will be dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case in recent judgment titled as "Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana", AIR 2010 SC 2839. To quote :
FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 33 of 44 3414. We have already referred to the provisions of Section 304-B of the Code and the most significant expression used in the Section is 'soon before her death'.
In our view, the expression 'soon before her death' cannot be given a restricted or a narrower meaning. They must be understood in their plain language and with reference to their meaning in common parlance. These are the provisions relating to human behaviour and, therefore, cannot be given such a narrower meaning, which would defeat the very purpose of the provisions of the Act. Of course, these are penal provisions and must receive strict construction. But, even the rule of strict construction requires that the provisions have be read in conjunction with other relevant provisions and scheme of the Act. Further the interpretation given should be one which would avoid absurd results on the one hand and would further the object and cause of the law so enacted on the other.
56. It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment that the concept of reasonable time is the best criteria to be applied for appreciation and examination of such cases. It was further observed that :-
"However, there must be existence of proximate link between the acts of cruelty alongwith the demand of dowry and the death of the victim. For want of any specified period, the concept of reasonable period would be application. Thus, the cruelty, harassment and demand of dowry should not be so ancient whereafter, the couple and the family members have lived happily and that it would result in abuse of the said protection."
57. Now in the light of law on the subject the same shall be examined.
Initially the demand is raised just before the marriage regarding FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 34 of 44 35 motorcycle. It is stated that jeeja of the accused asked as to why they had given scooter when it is fashion of motorcycle and father has given Rs.15,000/- in the marriage on that account. Thereafter other allegation is of after 2/3 days of marriage, with respect to the taunt regarding clothes and thereafter there is allegation of injection administered to her daughter due to which she fell sick and thereafter remained in the parental home for eight to ten months for the treatment. Thereafter there is allegation that when she returned after the treatment, after 10/20 days accused had asked his daughter to bring Rs.1 lac to open laboratory and on that account she was tortured and after sometime Rs.50,000/- was given and thereafter she given birth to child and customary articles were given. Thereafter there is allegation that thereafter they also harassed her. Thereafter accused fell ill and thereafter again she went and again returned back to her parental house. Thereafter accused Kuldeep and Kavita had opened one readymade garment shop and used to sit at odd hours and having illicit relation and thereafter Bhupinder of village Khera met and narrated the fact and he asked not to take legal action and thereafter 5/6 5/6 months Bhupinder alongwith accused came and taken her daughter. She stayed with him for about one and half months but accused had not showed any love and affection and even her daughter were again harassed and tortured by accused persons. There her condition became bad and she was admitted in the hospital. Therefore the crucial period of about one year is that when they came to know that accused Kuldeep and Kavita had FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 35 of 44 36 opened a readymade garment shop and were having illicit relation. She had stayed for about one and half months and allegations is that during that period accused did not show any love and affection and she was harassed and tortured by accused persons. Therefore the period when there was allegation of Kavita and Kuldeep were having illicit relation, the dowry related harassment had taken backseat as allegation is that she was not given love and affection and was harassed and tortured by accused persons.
58. In cross-examination, the father of deceased was confronted with respect to the demand of Rs.15,000/- as stated by him to be paid to the accused persons or by the brother of the witness to some relative of the accused persons. He was also confronted in his cross-examination with respect to Rs.50,000/- having been given by him in his statement made to SDM or investigating officer. As regard the episode of his daughter being dragged on the road in order to prevent her from making a telephone call was also confronted as he has not so stated in any of the statements. He had also stated that he had not stated either to the IO or SDM that he had observed that accused Kuldeep and Kavita were having illicit relation. But there is no cross-examination with respect to allegation of harassment given by accused persons one and half months prior to her death. But the said allegation is vague and not specific. It is not mentioned as to on what occasion she was being harassed or whether she was harassed on account of FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 36 of 44 37 non-fulfillment or insufficiency of dowry or demand of dowry or whether she was harassed otherwise. It is stated that she was not given love and affection by the accused and it appears that it has connection with the version that accused Kavita and Kuldeep had opened garment shop and had seen them sitting odd hours.
59. PW-7 brother of deceased has narrated that accused used to say his sister that parents had not given motorcycle despite their demand and he used to demand money from his sister to open laboratory and initially he stated that the said demand was made from his father and again stated that accused used to demand from his sister, who in turn used to pass on the demand to his father. He also stated regarding illicit relation with one girl Kavita employed in the same lab and has also opened readymade cloth shop with Kavita at Sant Nagar and used to sit in the said shop after finishing their duty. Therefore the allegations made by the brother of deceased are also general in nature and it is also not specific as to what and how much amount the demand was made. It is also totally inconsistent with the statement of father of deceased that accused had opened readymade garment shop with Kavita or sitting their at odd hours. Rather, brother of deceased explained that Kavita was working in the lab with accused and also used to sit in the shop after finishing their duty, meaning thereby they were working overtime and it is not intentionally they were sitting at odd hours. He was confronted with his portion of his statement where he stated that Rs.15,000/- cash was given in the marriage to FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 37 of 44 38 the accused persons. He even stated that he does not know exact address of the lab where accused was working and he never visited the same nor he accompanied the IO to the said lab. He had not told the address of readymade garment shop to the IO. Therefore even from his statement, it has not come that there was any dowry related harassment meted out to the deceased soon before her death.
60. There is yet another evidence relied upon by the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged offence by way of copy/diary, which is Ex.P1, allegedly written by the deceased prior to her death.
61. PW-6 Ms. Mamta Sharma has deposed that deceased Lata was his friend and she was his classmate from 6th class to 10th class. They were student of government senior secondary school, Samaypur, Delhi and she had seen her signing and writing in her daily routine class work and identify her handwriting in the copy Ex.P1. She had stated that police had shown the copy after the death of Lata, but she does not remember the exact date, when she had seen the same. Father of the deceased has stated that handed over the copy of the diary written by her daughter and she had mentioned the details of her ordeal. The same is Ex.P1 and identified handwriting of her daughter on the same. In his cross-examination, he stated that the copy/diary Ex.P1 was handed over by him to the investigating officer 15-20 days after FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 38 of 44 39 death of his daughter. His daughter did not used to write anything else at his house. He admitted that except Ex.P1 there is no other sample of his daughter's handwriting with him in his house. His daughter never wrote any letter to any of his relatives during her life time. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P1 is not in the handwriting of his daughter and he got it fabricated by some other members of his family upon some legal advice. The brother of deceased stated in his cross-examination that Mamta lives in the same gali, in which their house is located and her family is engaged in the business of making furniture and wood works. His father and father of Mamta Sharma were knowing each other for the last 15 years or so, as her father is a contractor of wood works and his father is a contractor of civil construction work in the buildings. He admitted that often when his father takes a building contract, the wooden work is done by the father of Mamta Sharma. He stated that there are other documents of Lata, containing her handwriting with them whereas father of deceased completely denied that that there are any other documents having handwriting of his deceased daughter. The brother of deceased also stated that he had also shown the handwriting of his sister in other documents to the police, including the IO but he had not accepted the same.
62. PW-6 Mamta Sharma stated in her cross-examination that she is not married. She does not remember when Lata was married and date thereof. The house of the parents of Lata was at a distance of FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 39 of 44 40 about 4/5 houses away from her house. She also does not remember date when Lata died. She also stated that she had no correspondence with Lata after 1997 and she also does not have any note or other paper even prior to 1997. She stated that she does not remember, how many students were there in class when she was studying in 10th standard and stated there may be 40-50 students in the said class. She stated that she shall not be in a position to identify as to who is the author, if a sample of writing of any of these 40-50 classmates were to be placed before him. She admitted that Ex.P1 was shown to her by the father of deceased, after she had passed away. She stated that she does not know exactly and stated the same was shown to her by father of deceased Lata after one or two months of her death. She is not conversant with what is written in Ex.P1. She stated that father is a carpenter and and father of deceased Lata was a mason. She stated she does not know whether father of deceased Lata was a contractor for building houses. Her father does not work as a carpenter in the houses built by the father of deceased Lata. She admitted that she never saw any document written by Lata between 1997 to 2007.
63. Ld. Counsel for accused submits that production of this diary is itself in doubt. As per the father he had given the diary to the police after 10/15 days whereas Mamta claims that she was shown the same by the father of deceased after one or two months of her death. They were also living in close neighbourhood and have FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 40 of 44 41 business relation and therefore she is procured witness and this document is fabricated and surprisingly there is no other handwriting of the deceased is produced which can compare with the diary.
64. Before adverting to the statement it is necessary to have look on the diary. Diary is small note book on which name Lata Sharma is written. It commences from 11.02.2006 mentions the date 26.04.2002 of marriage, mother-in-law said : point 1 - bahu bekar hai bimari hai bete se kaha teri bahi bimari hai jo gale dal di tere sasural walo ne. Point 2 - Saas dwara chalayee gayee sajis bahu ko marne ke liya bulaya gaya tantrik. Then May 2002, some incident, and it is mentioned that father-in-law and mother-in-law said that they will get his son remarry at good place and you leave Lata, filled the mind of son. Thereafter the event of 2004 and diary finds mention of Kavita and point 1 Kuldeep is destroying his house in connection with that girl and wants to finish her and dahej ke lalach me Lata aur uske bete ko marna (to kill Lata and her son on account of greed of dowry). It ends with Dhan Dhan Satguru and it also opens with Jai Mata Di, Dhan Dhan Satguru Tera Hi Asra. But in the entire narration there is no mention of Dhan Dhan Satguru. It appears that she has written all points of her life on 11.12.2006 in one go and after about six months she has died on 24.06.2007. It can neither be termed as diary nor it is written in the manner, a diary is written. The diary is never written in point form and it does not appears to be FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 41 of 44 42 natural. Every event narrated in the testimony of the father is a narration in writing in note book. It appears that all the points are written in the manner in which case of the prosecution would develop. The contents of diary firstly cannot be read of the facts narrated in the diary as in the manner it is written is not natural. Secondly although Mamta and father of deceased had claimed that it is her handwriting but we do not have sample handwriting or any other documents containing handwriting of Lata which could have been compared with some and could have said this is in her handwriting. Moreover, the Mamta had not seen her writing after 1997 till her death and there were several students in the same class and she candidly admitted that she cannot identify their handwriting. Further the production of note book/diary after a period of such gap i.e. 10/15 days as per her own father and one or two months as per Mamta Sharma, would further casts shadow of doubt on the same. Therefore the diary cannot be relied upon. Therefore I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove that soon before her death, Lata was subjected to cruelty or harassment by accused persons for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. However, it has come from the evidence that deceased was suffering from some ailment which her parents had not disclosed for the reasons best known to them, and it appears that on account of suffering from chronic disease she had chose voluntarily to end her life. Unfortunately the truth had been buried with her on account of her death.
FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 42 of 44 4365. Accordingly as per discussion above, I am of the opinion that offence punishable u/s 304-B IPC is not made out against accused persons.
66. Now we are left with the offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC. It is stated that mother-in-law and sister-in-law were harassing and taunting her for insufficiency of dowry. It is stated that sister-in-law Kamlesh has levelled vulgar allegation against deceased. Father in his cross-examination admitted that Kamlesh is eldest among brother and sister and she was married much prior to marriage of her daughter with the accused Kuldeep. She was married at Murthal, District Sonepath, Haryana and is having one children. He stated that he was not himself present when accused Kamlesh made the alleged comment about the clothes given to his daughter in the marriage and voluntarily stated that his daughter told him about the comments. He does not remember, the date on which his daughter told him about the said comments. The allegations against mother-in-law and sister-in-law are of general nature and not specific. As regards allegation of demand of dowry by the accused Kuldeep, it is already observed that witnesses are not consistent with each other and most of the parts are improvement made by them which have to be ignored. As per the discussion above, I am of the opinion that there are material inconsistency in the testimony of witnesses at material points, therefore the prosecution has failed to prove that there was cruelty or harassment committed on the deceased for or in connection FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 43 of 44 44 with demand of dowry. Therefore I am of the opinion that no offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC is not proved against accused persons.
67. Therefore, as per above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove their case against the accused Kuldeep, Kamlesh and Minto Devi beyond reasonable doubt. Hence they are entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the charges. Accused Kuldeep is in j/c, hence, he be set at liberty forthwith, if not, required in any other case. Bail bonds of other two accused persons stands cancelled. Their sureties discharged. Case property, if any, be destroyed after the expiry of period of appeal. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court today i.e. on 29.03.2012 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-03/Outer/Rohini/Delhi 29.03.2012 FIR No. : 546/07, PS : S. P. Badli Page 44 of 44