Delhi District Court
State vs Dinesh on 13 December, 2012
In the court of Sh. Atul Kumar Garg, Additional Sessions Judge,
South District, Saket Court, New Delhi.
Sessions Case No. 30/2012.
In the matter of :
State
Versus
1. Dinesh.
S/o Subey Singh,
R/o C139, Banjara Basti,
Savitri Nagar, Delhi.
2. Krishna,
W/o Subey Singh,
R/o C139, Banjara Basti,
Savitri Nagar, Delhi.
FIR No. : 10/2012.
Under section. : 304B/498A/34 IPC.
Police Station : Malviya Nagar.
Case received on : 22.03.2012.
Reserved for order on : 13.12.2012.
Date of decision : 13.12.2012.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide DD no. 43B, dated 10.01.2012, police was informed about killing of the sister of the caller who informed the police. The said State v. Dinesh and Anr. Page No.1/16 call was assigned to one SI Santosh Chauhan. She alongwith HC Vinod and Ct. Bharat reached at house no.C139, Banjara Basti, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi where a dead body of a lady was found lying at varamda of first floor of the house. It has been revealed to him that deceased had committed suicide on 09.01.2012 between 6.30am to 7.00am by hanging her on the first floor of the house. He examined the dead body of the deceased. No external injury except the ligature mark over the neck was found on the dead body. Crime team was called. In the meanwhile SHO reached at the spot. SDM was called. Crime team investigated the scene of crime. One Dillo, wife of Dalip Singh had made the statement to the SDM. She had stated in her statement that she has been residing at village Kharhar, Post Kharhar, PS Bahadurgarh, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajhar, Haryana and doing the business of selling the combs and needles. Her daughter Namta, aged about twenty five years, got married six years ago with accused Dinesh. Dowry had been given as per her status. Since marriage her daughter had not been kept well. The husband of her deceased daughter had usually beaten her after taking liquor. Her motherinlaw had taunted her for inadequacy of dowry and also demand of dowry. They sometime demanded Rs.10,000/ and sometime Rs.20,000/ and under pressure they also fulfilled the demand. She further stated to the SDM that today morning at about State v. Dinesh and Anr. Page No.2/16 7.00am, her daughter had received phone call from Rampal that Namta was not well. You people come immediately and she was admitted in the hospital. She further stated that she had doubt that husband and motherinlaw of her daughter had murdered her. The abovesaid statement was recorded by the SDM and the SHO was directed to register the case under relevant sections of law. Duty officer was directed by the SHO to register the case and the investigation was assigned to SI Santosh Chauhan. During the course of investigation, SI Santosh Chauhan had collected the evidence, recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused persons. After completion of the investigation, she had filed the chargesheet in the court.
2. After being heard, vide order dated 02.04.2012, both the accused were charged under sections 498A/304B IPC. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution has relied upon as many as thirteen witnesses namely, Smt. Dillo, Sanjay, Om Prakash, Leelu Ram, Sh. Rajeeva Shukla, SDM, Dr. Hans Raj Singh, Dr. Amit, Vinod Kumar, Bharat Kumar, Amit, Sushil Dan, Narender, MHC(M), Vandna, Jitender Kumar and Santosh. In fact, prosecution State v. Dinesh and Anr. Page No.3/16 has examined all its witnesses.
4. Prosecution evidence consists of three sets of evidence. First set of evidence consists of oral testimony of Sanjay Kumar, Smt. Dillo, Leelu Ram, Om Prakash examined as PW3, PW4, PW6 and PW7 respectively by the prosecution. The second set of evidence consists of the evidence of medical evidence of Dr. Hans Raj examined as PW10. The third set of evidence consists of police officials who had conducted the investigation of this case.
5. PW11 HC Vandna being the duty officer has scribed the FIR and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW11/A. PW13 Inspector Jitender Kumar being the Incharge of the mobile crime team South District visited the house no.139, Banjara Basti, Savitri Nagar, Delhi at the first floor and third floor and inspected the scene of occurrence and proved his report as Ex.PW13/A. PW9 Ct. Sushil was entrusted one sealed envelop and one viscera petty by the MHC(M) for depositing in the FSL, Rohini. During his custody the case property remained intact and has not been tampered with. PW8 Ct. Amit Malik was entrusted one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of AIIMS by the MHC(M) for depositing in the FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 31/21/12 and he deposited the same there. PW2 Ct. Bharat Kumar State v. Dinesh and Anr. Page No.4/16 had taken the dead body to the AIIMS mortuary from the spot and got it preserved. On the next day, doctor gave him viscera box, one sealed parcel and one sample seal and he handed over the same to the IO. He proved the seizure memo of the said articles as Ex.PW2/A.
6. PW1 HC Vinod Kumar and PW12 WSI Santosh Chauhan had visited the spot after registration of the case. At first floor of the house a dead body of a lady was lying. They came to know that the lady had died due to hanging. Thy also came to know that they lady was hanged at the third floor and that her husband had brought her to the first floor from the third floor. IO WSI Santosh Chauhan had inspected the dead body. There was a ligature mark on the neck of the dead body, however there was no external injury noticed by the IO. IO had called the crime team and also informed the SHO. SHO had come at the spot and inspected the spot and also called the SDM. SDM had inspected the spot. The SDM had conducted the inquest proceedings. The case was got registered on the order of SDM. IO had prepared the site plan of the place of incident i.e. the first floor and third floor. Sketch of the knife was drawn and measured. Dead body was sent to the mortuary. PW1 had again joined the investigation on 11.01.2012. In his presence IO interrogated Dinesh. Accused was also arrested in this case by the IO in his presence vide State v. Dinesh and Anr. Page No.5/16 memo Ex.PW1/D. He has also identified the case property i.e. the knife as Ex.P1 and two pieces of chunni as Ex.P2. PW12 had seized two pieces of chunni with which the deceased had hanged herself. Kitchen knife was also seized which was used in cutting the chunni. PW12 also proved the site plans as Ex.PW12/A and 12/B. On 11.01.2012 he had got the postmortem conducted on the deceased. She proved her request to autopsy surgeon for conducting the postmortem examination on the body of deceased as Ex.PW12/D. The dead body was also identified by the mother and brother of the deceased. Their statements were recorded by the SDM in this regard. He further deposed that Ct. Bharat handed over two pullandas alongwith sample seal of doctor and the same were taken into possession by him. PW12 had come back to the police station and deposited the exhibits in the malkhana. She further deposed that accused Dinesh was brought to the police station and at that time mother of the accused was not there. Accused Dinesh was interrogated in which he admitted that he used to beat deceased after consuming liquor and also makes demands of money. He also confessed that on the day of incident he had consumed liquor and beaten deceased and thereafter he had gone outside the house and when he return he found that his wife Namta had committed suicide by hanging herself from a T iron with her chunni and he used a State v. Dinesh and Anr. Page No.6/16 kitchen knife to cut the chunni and he lied down the deceased in the varanda and he disclosed this fact to his mother and also told that they were also going to dispose the body without informing the parents of the deceased. Accused was arrested by the police. She also made efforts to find coaccused Krishna but could not find her. On 23.01.2012 she obtained the postmortem report and submitted before the SDM and the SDM after going through it returned to her. Viscera was sent to FSL to rule out any intoxication. On 03.03.2012 she had gone to AIIMS mortuary and moved an application for obtaining subsequent opinion and also submitted exhibits and her request Ex.PW12/F in this regard. She also collected the photographs of marriage of deceased with accused Dinesh vide memo Ex.PW12/G. On 17.02.2012 coaccused Krishna surrendered herself before the court and she arrested her. She recorded the statements of the witnesses and filed the challan in the court through the SHO. She also filed the supplementary chargesheet after receiving the opinion and the FSL report. She proved the FSL report as Ex.PW12/J. She also identified the case property.
7. PW5 Sh. Rajeeva Shukla, SDM, has proved the detailed inquest report as Ex.PW5/A bearing his signature at point A. He enclosed the statements of Dillo and Sanjay and directed the SHO to State v. Dinesh and Anr. Page No.7/16 register a case under relevant sections of law. Form 25.35 Ex.PW5/B was filled up as the apparent cause of death was hanging. He had also recorded the statements regarding the identification of the dead body.
8. PW10 Dr. Hansraj had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of one Namta, wife of Dinesh, aged twenty five years female, height five feet three inches, built was average, on 11.01.2012 at about 2.30 pm. He deposed that rigor mortis was present over her lower limbs. Postmortem lividity was present over back and buttocks except pressure areas. No sign of decomposition was present. Blueish discolouration of nails and lips was present. Mouth and eyes were partially opened. Dribbling of saliva was present at right angle of mouth. Tongue clenched in between teeth and protruded. A dry brown parchmentised ligature mark which was running obliquely upwards and backwards was present over part of neck, incompletely encircling the neck. Ligature mark was situated 13 cm above sternal notch and 5.5 cm below mentum in anterior midline of neck. It was situated 3 cm below right mastoid tip and 2 cm below left mastoid tip over lateral aspect of neck. Width of ligature mark was 1 cm. Neck circumference over ligature mark was 30 cm. On dissection of neck, sub cutaneous tissues underlying ligature mark was pale and glistenig State v. Dinesh and Anr. Page No.8/16 without any associated haematoma or extravasation of blood. Underlying vessels and muscles were intact. Thyrohyoid complex was intact. Trachael mucosa was congested. A red colour contusion of size 1 x 1 cm was present over left leg just below knee in its anterior aspect. Skull, scalp and sub scalp are normal. Brain and meninges are congested. Weight of brain was 1200 gm. Ribs chest wall, diaphragm, oesophagus were normal. Pleural cavities was normal. Lungs were congested biletarlly. Weight right lung 450 gm and left lung 430 gm. Heart and pericardial sac were normal. Weight of heart is 310 gm. Large blood vessels were normal. Abdominal wall and peritoneal cavity were normal. Stomach contains partially digested food material about 50 cc in amount. Stomach mucosa was healthy. Small intestine, large intestine, appendix, mesentry and pancreas were normal. Liver was congested, weight 1600 gm. Spleen congested, weight 121 gm. Kidneys are normal, weight of right and left kidney were 110 gm and 100 gm respectively. Pelvic wall, urinary bladder and urethra were normal. Genital organs are normal. Uterus was empty. Spinal column was normal. Time since death was about two days. As per his opinion, the cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief was asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging, however, viscera sent to CFSL / FSL to rule out any concomitant intoxication. He preserved the clothes, sealed and State v. Dinesh and Anr. Page No.9/16 handed over to IO alongwith sample seal. He also proved the postmortem report as Ex PW10/A bearing his signature at point X.
9. PW3 Sanjay Kumar deposed that on 25.12.2005 his sister Namta got married to Dinesh. Married life of his sister was not satisfactory and he had given statement regarding the circumstances due to which the married life of his sister was nonsatisfactory. Accused Dinesh used to take liquor and used to beat his sister. Except this fact, the witness has not stated anything. Learned APP cross examined him. His cross examination was deferred because the behaviour of the witness was not found satisfactory. On the next date the witness had admitted that he had given statement Ex.PW3/A to the police in his writing. He further admitted that he had written in his statement that his sister was harassed and demands of household items were made. He denied that inlaws of Namta had prevented her and his mother from entering the matrimonial home of his sister on 10.01.2012. He has denied having made any such statements to the police. PW4 Smt. Dillo is another important witness. She also deposed the said fact mentioned in her statement given to the SDM. She further deposed that she used to supply atta, oil and other edible items to the house of Dinesh and she also used to bear the expenses for sending these items to his house.
State v. Dinesh and Anr. Page No.10/16
10. PW6 Leelu Ram and PW7 Om Prakash are other material witnesses. They are Uncles of the deceased. They had no supported the case of the prosecution.
11. In order to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence, both the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The entire incriminating evidence was put to both the accused persons. They claimed innocence and false implication, however they did not prefer to examine any defence witness.
12. On behalf of the State, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that the deceased was died within the seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances. Doctor conducting the post mortem has opined that the death was caused by asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. PW3 and PW4 categorically deposed that accused persons had demanded dowry on many occasions and they had fulfilled the demands, therefore, the prosecution has also proved the fact that soon before the death of deceased, she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. He has submitted that both the accused persons deserve to be convicted under sections 304B/406 IPC.
State v. Dinesh and Anr. Page No.11/16
13. On the other hand, counsel for the accused has advanced his arguments stating that in the present case there are four material witnesses. PW6 and PW7 being the Uncles had not supported the prosecution case. Learned APP has also not able to abstract anything substantial from the mouth of this witness. There is no specific allegations made by PW3 and PW4 that demands have been made. It is general allegation leveled by the prosecution. They have submitted that it is true that deceased was died unnatural circumstances but is also matter of fact that two real sisters were married to two real brothers. PW3, brother of the deceased, as well as PW5 SDM have not mentioned that real sister of deceased, residing in the same house, had even been harassed. If two sisters are married to two real brothers on the same day, which is admitted case of the prosecution, then it is not possible that a particular sister is harassed and the other sister is spared and has not been harassed on that account. He has submitted that both the accused deserved to be acquitted because the prosecution has failed to prove its case.
14. I have heard the arguments, analyzed the evidence and perused the record. Whenever harassment of a married woman by her husband and/or inlaws drives her to put an end to her life, law unfolds such State v. Dinesh and Anr. Page No.12/16 husband and/or inlaws within the mischief of the sanction provided by the provision of section 304B of the Penal Code, the offence enacted in the same sequence. Such act of suicide should have been brought about under the compulsion of adverse circumstances. The law punishes those persons who could be held responsible for bringing it about, directly or indirectly, either by active suggestion or by creating objective conditions which drive the victim to it, but, only if these are intended to achieve the desired object. Callous attitude, apathetic and continued hostile behaviour and cruel treatment towards the person committing suicide actively suggesting her that the only way out for her was to embrace death by committing suicide would attract the penalty provided by section 304B of the Penal code. Callousness and penalty in the extreme form would certainly go to show they a tense atmosphere was created which made the victim dropped down, thereby giving indication that persistent cruelty had driven the victim to commit suicide. Any of the such circumstances which led to an end to the life of a married woman, thereby bringing her death within the purview of abnormality, that too within a period of seven years, from the date of her marriage, would answer the ingredients of dowry death, made punishable by the aforesaid provisions of law.
State v. Dinesh and Anr. Page No.13/16
15. In order to bring home charge under section 304B IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients i.e. (1) the death of a woman is caused by way of burn or bodily injury or otherwise other then under normal circumstances (2) that such death was caused within the period of seven years from the date of her marriage (3) that it was shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment (4) it was her husband or relatives or her husband who subjected her to cruelty and such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand of dowry. Here in the present case, deceased got married on 25.12.2005. She died on 09.01.2012 i.e. within seven years of marriage. Doctor has opined that the deceased was died by asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. The prosecution has proved that it was the chunni which was cut into two pieces while the body was brought down. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the first two ingredients in the present case that the deceased was died in unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage.
16. Now the most important element is whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry just soon before her death is to be proved by the prosecution. There are four vital witnesses in the present case and out of them two witnesses turned State v. Dinesh and Anr. Page No.14/16 hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Prosecution could not extract anything what to say substantial from the mouth of these witnesses. PW3 and PW4 are the brother and mother of the deceased. They have not given any specific date and time when the demand was raised by the accused persons and when they fulfilled the same. Rather PW4 has deposed that her statement had been changed by the police and her thumb impression was obtained by fraud. It has also come on record that sister of the deceased was also married to the brother of the accused Dinesh and she was not made witness. The marriage of real sister of deceased also took place on the very same day with the marriage of deceased with accused Dinesh. The said sister has not been made witness nor any explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why the sister of deceased was not made witness. The sister of deceased has been residing in the same house in which the deceased was residing alongwith her husband. Only she can say whether the deceased was subjected to harassment on account of demand of dowry. Further the testimony of Sanjay is also full of doubts as also observed by this court. This testimony on the touch stone of cross examination is not found coherent and firm.
17. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove that ever any dowry demands were State v. Dinesh and Anr. Page No.15/16 raised and for that reason deceased had committed suicide Therefore, benefit of doubt is given to both the accused persons. Both the accused persons are acquitted from the offence punishable under section 498A/304B/34 IPC. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled and discharged. File is consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (Atul Kumar Garg)
On 13.12.2012. Additional Sessions Judge04,
South District, Saket Courts,
New Delhi.
State v. Dinesh and Anr. Page No.16/16