Delhi District Court
State vs . Dileep Verma Etc. on 12 July, 2012
State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc.
SC No. 06/10
FIR No. 473/09
PS: Dwarka
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : DWARKA COURTS:
NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
SC No. : 06/10
FIR No. : 473/09
Police Station : Dwarka
Under Section : 498A/304B/34 IPC
Received on assignment : 09.02.2010
Reserved for orders on : 08.06.2012
Judgment announced on : 12.07.2012
State Vs. (1) Dileep Verma
S/o Mr. Rama Chandra Raju
R/o B164, LIG Flats,
DDA Pocket2, Sector7,
Dwarka, New Delhi
(2) Krishna Vani K.
W/o Mr. Rama Chandra Raju
R/o Near Water Tank Pedapulleru Undi
Mandalam, West Godawari Distt. A.P.
J U D G E M E N T
1. The accused persons have been sent for trial for the offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC.
SC No.06/10 Page 1 of 67State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka
2. Brief facts in the nutshell are that on 16.11.2009, on receipt of DD No.26A, SI Mahesh Soni alongwith Ct. Dharampal reached at DDA Flat no. 164, LIG Pocket2, Sector7, Dwarka where a dead body of lady was lying whose name was revealed as Shravanti W/o Dileep Verma, aged about 21 years. It is further alleged that it was informed that deceased Shravanti was seen in the room at 9.00 a.m., from where landlord Shri Ashwani Kumar on the asking of accused Dileep Verma had removed her to Ayushman Hospital where doctor had declared her dead and at about 3.10 p.m., PCR was informed and SI Mahesh Soni called the Crime Team and photographer to the spot. Crime Team inspected the spot and photographer took the photographs from different angles. Shri Krishna Kumar, Executive Magistrate was also informed and the dead body was sent for preservation at DDU hospital. There was ligature mark on the throat of the deceased. It is further alleged that parents of the deceased were informed over phone and on 17.11.2009, Shri G. Samba Murty Raju, father of the deceased appeared before the Executive Magistrate. Executive Magistrate inspected the dead body of deceased and recorded the statement of Shir G. Samba Murty Raju, the father of the deceased. In his statement made before the Executive Magistrate, Shri G. Sambha Murty Raju/ complainant has SC No.06/10 Page 2 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka disclosed that he had identified the dead body his daughter Shravanti at DDU Hospital.
3. It is further alleged that he got his daughter married to accused K. Dileep Verma S/o Shri Ram Chander Raju, R/o Pedapulleru Village, Undi Mandal, West Godawari DT Andhra Pradesh on 16.12.2008 and that his daughter (since deceased) was aged about 20 years at the time of her marriage. Complainant/Father of the deceased further stated in his statement that he paid a sum of Rs. 5 lacs to the inlaws of his daughter (since deceased) at the time of her marriage and again he paid another sum of Rs.50,000/ but his daughter was still taunted by the accused persons for dowry. Complainant further stated that his daughter had confided to him that she was being harassed by her husband (accused Dileep Verma) and mother inlaw (accused Smt. Krishna Devi) and also suspected that the above named persons were responsible for this incident.
4. Complainant further alleged in his complaint that he had made his statement before the Executive Magistrate without any fear and that no police or any private person was present at the time of recording of his statement. Executive Magistrate sent the statement of complainant to the SHO SC No.06/10 Page 3 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka Dwarka for further perusal and for registration of the case against accused as per law. SI Mahesh Soni got the case registered and the investigation of this case was assigned to Insp. Sukhdev Meena. I.O./Insp. Sukhdev Meena got the postmortem conducted on the dead body of deceased at the mortuary of DDU Hospital and recorded the statement of witnesses regarding identification of dead body and handed over the dead body to her relatives.
5. Thereafter, accused Dileep Verma was arrested and his personal search was conducted during which a mobile phone and a sum of Rs.300/ were recovered and disclosure statement of accused was recorded. It is further alleged that in his disclosure statement, accused disclosed that on 16.11.2009 at about 99.30 a.m. he had gone out of his home when he received a call of his brotherinlaw, Chandu that his sister Shravanti (since deceased) was not picking up the phone. Then accused went to the house and observed that the room was bolted from inside and when accused peep into the room through window and he found the deceased hanging on fan. Accused Dileep Verma went to the other room and by breaking open the glass of ventilation, entered into the room with the help of ladder and after cutting the saree, which was tied to the SC No.06/10 Page 4 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka throat of Shravanti, he brought her down and concealed the saree under the drum meant for keeping flour. Accused Dileep Verma got the said saree recovered from beneath the flour drum which was taken into possession. During investigation, accused Dileep Verma got recovered the marriage card, five photographs, Statements of account of Andhra Bank and State Bank of India and two bills which were taken into possession. I.O. collected the Crime Report, photographs and postmortem report from the DDU Hospital. In the postmortem report, doctor had opined that the case of deceased was asphyxia from antemortem ligature hanging and the manner of death was suicidal. The Department of Forensic Medicine, DDU hospital has opined with regard to the saree that if the intact saree is used for hanging, it could be able to sustain the weight of the deceased during hanging and ligature mark present over the neck could be possible by the same saree. During investigation, I.O. got prepared the scaled site plan and also collected the computerized PCR form of PCR call and also got recorded the statement of witnesses time to time.
6. During investigation it was found that accused Krishan Veni K. W/o Shri Ramchandra Raju never came to Delhi during this period and remained in Andhra Pradesh and that SC No.06/10 Page 5 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka she was a patient of cancer at last stage and her treatment was going on in Yashodra Hospital, Hyderabad and that she was admitted in Aswini Nursing Home, Razoli533242 E.G. DT.(A.P) since 14.12.2009. On 07.12.2009, Accused Krishna Veni K. was admitted to anticipatory bail. On conclusion of the necessary investigation, chargesheet was prepared and the same was filed in the Court.
7. After supplying copies to the accused as per law, case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
8. After due deliberation, charge under Section 498 A/304B/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
9. Prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence to establish its case as per law. Prosecution has tendered 22 witnesses in all in support of its case namely:
PW1 Shri Ashwani Kumar Puri PW2 HC Devinder Kumar PW3 HC Ajeet Singh PW4 Shri Krishan Kumar Malik, Assistant VAT Officer.
SC No.06/10 Page 6 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka PW5 HC Shanti Ram PW6 Dr. Sushil Kumar Chaurasiya, Sr. Resident, Department of Forensic Medicines, DDU Hospital. PW7 Mrs. G. Padma PW8 Shri G. Manikanta Verma PW9 Shri S. Krishnappa Rao PW10 Ct. Dharam Pal
PW11 Captain Anuj Bhatia, Manager Nodal, Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd. PW12 Shri Sandeep Rawat PW13 Ct. Radhey Shyam PW14 Ct. Jitender Singh PW15 Shri Manish Kumar Sharma PW16 Shri D. Raghuram, Chief Manager, Personal Banking Division, State Bank of India, Vishakhapatnam.
PW17 Ct. Hardeep Singh.
PW18 Si Harender Singh PW19 SI Mahesh Soni PW20 Shri G. Sambamurty Raju PW21 Shri D. Ramaraju PW22 Insp. Sukhdev Meena.
10. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
SC No.06/10 Page 7 of 67State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka wherein they controverted the entire evidence as false and fabricated and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant.
11. Accused persons examined DW1 Shri Sataynarain Raju Jampana in their defence evidence.
12. Final arguments were advanced.
13. I have gone through the entire records and carefully considered the matter.
14. Before proceedings further, I would like to discuss the evidence led by the prosecution to prove the case.
15. PW1 Shri Ashwani Kumar Puri deposed that House no. B164, PocketII, DDA Flats, Sector7, Dwarka was allotted in the name of his wife and he alongwith with his family was residing on the first floor of the said house and accused Dileep Verma alongwith his wife was residing as a tenant on the ground floor. He further deposed that on 16.11.2009 at about 99.15 a.m. his neighbour Sandeep Rawat called him on the ground floor stating that wife of accused Dileep Kumar Verma had become SC No.06/10 Page 8 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka unconscious and on hearing the same, he (PW1) alongwith his wife rushed downstairs where Smt. Shravanti, the deceased was lying on the floor. PW1 further deposed that his wife started rubbing her hands and in the mean, accused Dileep Kumar Verma asked him (PW1) to call the doctor. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, he with the help of Sandeep Rawat and accused Dileep Kumar Verma, took Smt. Shravanti, the deceased to Ayushman Hospital, Sector12, Dwarka in his car where he came to know that Smt. Shravanti was declared brought dead. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, they brought the deceased back to home.
16. PW2 HC Devinder Kumar deposed that on17.11.2009 he was working as duty officer and had registered the DD No. 32A as Kyami on the basis of rukka sent by SI Mahesh Soni He proved the same vide Ex.PW2/A. He further proved the computerized copy of same as Ex.PW2/B and endorsement made on the rukka vide Ex.PW2/C.
17. PW3 HC Ajeet Singh deposed that on 16.11.2009 he was posted with Crime Team, South West, Delhi and on that day he alongwith SI Harinder, Incharge, Crime Team and other staff reached the spot and he took ten photographs of the spot from SC No.06/10 Page 9 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka different angles. PW3 proved the said photographs vide Ex.PW3/A1 to Ex.PW3/A10 and their corresponding negatives vide Ex.PW3/B1 to Ex.PW3/B10.
18. PW4 Shri Krishan Kumar Malik deposed that on 16.11.2009 he was posted as Executive Magistrate, Palam Najafgarh and on that day he received a call at police station Dwarka regarding hanging of a female in DDA Flats, near Ramphal Chowk, Dwarka and on enquiry he came to know that parents of the deceased had not reached Delhi. He further deposed that on next day, he went to DDU hospital where he met Shri G. Shambhamurthy Raju, father of the deceased and he recorded his statement vide Ex.PW4/A. PW4 further proved on record the direction issued to the SHO for proceeding further and registration of case vide Ex.PW4/B and a letter addressing to CMO, DDU hospital for conducting the postmortem on the dead body of deceased vide Ex.PW4/C. PW4 further proved on record the brief fact vide Ex.PW4/D and inquest proceedings vide Ex.PW4/E.
19. PW5 HC Shanti Ram depoed that on 16.11.2009, he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Dwarka Sector23 and on that day SI Mahesh Soni had deposited one sealed parcle in the SC No.06/10 Page 10 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka malkhana and he had made an entry in this regard in register no. 19 at serial no. 702. He proved the said entry vide Ex.PW5/A.
20. PW5 further deposed that on 18.11.2009, Insp. Sukhdev Meena had deposited two sealed parcel with the seal of DFMT, DDU Hospital alongwith two sample seals in malkhana and he made the entry in this regard in register no. 19 at serial no. 713. He proved the said entry vide Ex.PW5/B.
21. PW5 further deposed that on 19.11.2009, Insp. Sukhdev Meena had deposited one sealed parcel with the seal of SM in the malkhana and he made the entry in this regard in register no. 19 at serial no. 721. He proved the said entry vide Ex.PW5/C.
22. PW5 further deposed that on 15.12.2009, on the direction of Insp. Sukhdev Meena he sent one sealed pulanda bearing seal of SM to DDU Hospital through Ct. Radhey Shyam vide RC No. 73/21. He further deposed that the said parcel was received back in the malkhana on 16.12.2009 bearing seal of CMO DDU hospital through Ct. Radhey Shyam for which he made an endorsement at point 'X' in front of entry no. 721 in SC No.06/10 Page 11 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka register no.19. He proved the RC vide Ex.PW5/D.
23. PW6 Dr. Sushil Kumar Chaurasiya deposed that 18.11.2009 he had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased sent by Shri Krishan Kumar, Executive Magistrate and given his findings vide Ex.PW6/A.
24. PW6 further deposed that on 15.12.2009 a parcel was sent to him by Insp. Sukhdev Meena containing saree in three pieces and query had been raised by the I.O. to which he gave reply vide Ex.PW6/B stating that the intact saree if used for hanging could be able to sustain the weight of the deceased during hanging and the ligature mark present over the neck could be possible by the same saree.
25. PW7 Mrs. G. Padma was the mother of the deceased and her evidence will be discussed in detail in the later part of judgment.
26. PW8 Shri G. Manikanta Verma was the brother of deceased Shravanti his evidence will be discussed in detail in the later part of judgment.
SC No.06/10 Page 12 of 67State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka
27. PW9 Shri S. Krishnappa Rao had brought the certified statement of account in respect of saving bank account no. 063110025660440 in the name of Ganpat Raju Sambamurthy Raju and Smt. G. Padma (joint account) for the period from 15.11.2008 to 21.06.2010. He proved the statement of account duly certified as per Banker's Book of Evidence Act vide Ex.PW9/A.
28. PW10 Ct. Dharam Pal deposed that on 16.11.2009, on receipt of DD No. 26A he alongwith SI Mahesh Soni went to the scene of incident. PW10 proved on record the seizure memo of chunni vide Ex.PW10/A. PW10 further deposed that on 18.11.2009, postmortem on the dead body of deceased was conducted and after the postmortem, dead body was handed over to the father of the deceased. PW10 further deposed that doctor had handed over to him two sealed parcels alongwoth two sample seals having seal of DFMT DDU which he handed over to the I.O., who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/B. PW10 further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith father of the deceased went to flat of the accused where he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW10C and personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW10/D and accused also made his disclosure statement.
SC No.06/10 Page 13 of 67State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka
29. PW11 Captain Anuj Bhatia had proved the call record of mobile phone number 9999731269 and 9999658893 for the period 15.11.2009 to 16.11.2009 vide Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B respectively and certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act vide Ex. PW11/C and Ex.PW11/D respectively. PW11 proved on record the Customer Application Form vide Ex.PW11/E and the copy of Voter I card vide Ex.PW11/F and declaration of address vide Ex.PW11/G. PW11 further deposed that the mobile number 9999731269 was issued in the name of Dilip Verma K and proved the Customer Application Form with respect to this mobile number as Ex.PW11/H, Driving Licence as Ex.PW11/I and declaration for address as Ex.PW11/J.
30. PW12 Shri Sandeep Rawat deposed that on day accused Dileep came to him and stated that something has happened to his wife and PW13 accompanied him to his house where wife of accused was lying on the floor. PW13 further deposed that he then asked the accused to call his landlord and he (PW12) helped the accused Dileep in putting his wife in the car of landlord who took her to the hospital.
SC No.06/10 Page 14 of 67State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka
31. PW13 Ct. Radhey Shyam deposed that on 15.12.2009, he had collected one sealed parcel from MHC(M) and deposited the same with CMO DDU hospital and on 16.12.2009 he had collected the opinion and one sealed parcel from DDU hospital and handed it over to the MHC(M) at police station.
32. PW14 Ct. Jitender Singh proved on record the PCR Form as Ex.PW14/A vide which he had recorded the call regarding suicide committed by the wife of accused Dileep Verma.
33. PW15 Shri Manish Kumar Sharma proved on record the salary certificate of accused Dileep Verma vide Ex.PW15/1.
34. PW16 Shri D. Raghuram proved on record the Account Opening Form in respect of Saving Bank Account number 30356232988, which was in the name of Ms. Ganpatiraju Padma, vide Ex.PW16/A. He further proved on record the original Statement of Account in respect of abovesaid account for the period 27.03.2008 to 01.03.2011, vide Ex. PW16/B. SC No.06/10 Page 15 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka
35. PW17 Ct. Hardeep Singh proved the scaled site plan vide Ex.PW17/A.
36. PW18 SI Harender Singh was the Incharge Crime Team who proved his report vide Ex.PW18/A.
37. PW19 SI Mahesh Soni deposed that on 16.11.2009, on receipt of DD No. 26A, he alongwith Ct. Dharampal went to MIG Flat no. B1/64, Pocket2, Sector7, DDA Flats, Dwarka, where he found a dead body of a lady namely Shrawati, wife of Dileep (accused). He further deposed that he came to know that the deceased had died in the morning at about 9.30 a.m. and that she was taken to Ayushman Hospital with the help of landlord of husband (accused Dileep Verma) of the deceased where she was declared dead and the dead body was taken back to the flact. PW19 further deposed that he informed Shri Krishan Kumar, Executive Magistrate about the incident and he had noticed the ligature mark around the neck of deceased. He further deposed that dead body was then sent to DDU Hospital mortuary through Ct. Dharampal. PW19 further deposed that on 17.11.2009, he had gone to DDU hospital where Shri Krishan Kumar, Executive Magistrate had recorded the statement of parents of deceased and on the direction of Executive SC No.06/10 Page 16 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka Magistrate, he (PW19) prepared rukka (Ex.PW19/A) vide which the FIR was got registered and on the direction of the SHO, the investigation was marked to Insp. Sukhdev Meena. PW19 further deposed that on 18.11.2009, he alongwith the I.O. went to DDU hospital where the dead body of deceased after post mortem was handed over to the father of the deceased and thereafter, at the instance of Shri G. Sambha Murti Raju, accused Dileep Verma was arrested from his house. PW19 further deposed that on 19.11.2009, accused Dileep Verma led them to his house and got the saree recovered. The said saree was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/B. PW19 further proved the seizure memo vide Ex. PW19/C of ATM card of Andhra Bank alongwith four charge slip recovered from the briefcase of the accused. Belongings of the deceased are also proved vide Ex.PW19/D. PW19 further deposed that on 16.12.2009, he alongwith draftsman went to the spot and draftsman took the measurement and rough notes at his instance.
38. PW20 Shri G. Sambamurty Raju is the father of the deceased and his evidence will be discussed in detail in the later part of judgment.
SC No.06/10 Page 17 of 67State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka
39. PW21 Shri D. Ramaraju deposed that he was working as Vigilance Officer in Department of Post, Delhi upto 1996 and was well conversant with English, Hindi and Telgu. He deposed that in December 2009, he had gone to PS Dwarka where Mr. Gopal Raju was writing statement of G. Padma in Telgu and he (PW21) translated the said statement in English. He further deposed that on 17.11.2009, he had gone to DDU hospital and on the request of Magistrate present there, he had translated the statement of Shri Sambamurty Raju in English which was made in Telgu.
40. PW22 Insp. Sukhdev Meena deposed that on 17.11.2009 the investigation of this case was assigned to him and he alongwith the original rukka went to the spot. He further deposed that the dead body was handed over to the father of the deceased vide receipt Ex.PW22/B. PW22 further deposed that after the postmortem, doctor handed over two sealed parcels which were seized by him vide seizure memo. PW22 further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith SI Mahesh Soni and Ct. Dharam Pal went to the spot and interrogated and arrested the accused vide arrest memo and conducted the personal search of accused vide personal search memo. PW22 further proved on record the disclosure statement of accused vide Ex.PW22/C. SC No.06/10 Page 18 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka PW22 further deposed that on 19.11.2009, he alongwith SI Mahesh soni and Ct. Dharampal took the accused to the spot and accused got recovered a pink coloured saree in three pieces, ATM card of Andhra Bank and four charge slips, which he seized vide separate memos. PW22 further deposed that during investigation he had sent sealed parcels containing pieces of saree to DDU hospital alongwith application vide Ex.PW22/D and obtained the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon regarding ligature marks.
41. Accused persons examined Shri Satyanarain Raju Jampana as DW1 in their defence and his evidence will be discussed in detail in the later part of judgment.
42. I have heard Shri Alok Saxena, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State assisted by the counsel for the defence and there is no dispute about the case law mentioned upon. Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Shri S. C. Bhuttan, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and with their assistance have gone through the record; and case law relied upon. Written submissions filed by the defence counsel.
SC No.06/10 Page 19 of 67State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka
43. Ld. Addl. PP for the State contended that it is a clear case of dowry death. He submitted that it is evident on record that the deceased committed suicide on account of non fulfillment of dowry demands made to her by the accused. He further submitted that deceased died within seven years of her marriage and all the accused persons are liable to be convicted under section 498A/304B/34 IPC.
44. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that accused never demanded any dowry from the deceased either before or after the marriage. Ld. Defence Counsel has further argued that there are number of contradictions in the statements of PWs which clearly proved that their statements are nothing but an afterthought and have been made only with the motive to extract money from the accused persons. The deceased was under depression on account of death of her maternal uncle and also she suffered an abortion on account of sudden demise of her maternal uncle, therefore, accused persons cannot be held responsible for the death of the deceased and both the accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
SC No.06/10 Page 20 of 67State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka
45. It is further argued that all the interested witnesses namely relatives of the deceased PW7, PW8 and PW20 are of adamant in nature in as much as they did not allow their another daughter namely Sarvani, who is the elder sister of deceased Shravanti, to attend the marriage of deceased Shravanti as she had eloped with a boy and performed love marriage as PW7 has admitted in her cross examination that they had not participated in the marriage of Sarvani. PW7 and PW8 had tried to explain that Sarvani was invited in the marriage of deceased Shravanti but as she was on family way, so she could not attend the marriage of her sister Shravanti. So PW7, mother of the deceased, in categorical terms, has admitted that they had not liked the love marriage of their elder daughter Sarvani, so they are not in speaking terms with her till date and Sarvani had not attended the marriage of Shravanti and after her marriage, Sarvani had never come to the house of her parents and nor the deceased was in talking terms with her elder sister Sarvani. This shows the height of admancy of the family of deceased and on account of adamant attitude of the family members of the deceased, accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
SC No.06/10 Page 21 of 67State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka
46. It has been further contended that apart from the interested witnesses, no independent witness has been examined with regard to the harassment meted out by the deceased at the hands of accused so until or unless there is legally acceptable evidence on record, the prosecution cannot take aid of presumption raised under Section 113(b) of Indian Evidence Act so as to convict the accused persons under Section 498A/304B IPC, otherwise, the case of the prosecution is full of material contradictions and vital discrepancies. In this regard, Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon: i. Mygapula Satyanarayana Vs. State of A.P., 2004(3) (L.S.) 344 (AP);
ii. D.BikshaPathi & Anr. Vs. State of A.P., 2006(1) ALT (Crl.) 159 (AP);
iii.Angirekula Ramakrishna Vs. State of A.P., 2007 (1) ALD (Crl.) 1024 (AP);
iv. Raju Singh Vs. State of A.P., 2009(1) ALT (Crl.) 79 (AP);
v. Durga Prasad & Anr. Vs. State of M.P., 2010 (3) ALT (Crl.) 319 (SC) and;
vi. V.Abburamulu & Anr. Vs. State of A.P., 2011 (1) ALT (Crl.) 114 (AP);
SC No.06/10 Page 22 of 67State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka
47. It is further urged that there is no evidence on record to show that soon before the death of deceased, she suffered any cruelty at the hands of accused persons in connection with the demand of dowry. In the absence of anything in this aspect, accused persons are entitled to be acquitted. In this regard, Ld. Defence Counsel has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Theerdh Kumari @ Raja Rani & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana, 2006(1) ALD (Crl.) 42 (SC);
(ii) Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, 2007 SAR (Crl.) 461 SC;
(iii) Subhash VS. State of Haryana, 2011 SAR (Crl.) 179 SC ;
(iv) Ganpat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002 Crl. L.J. 2246 Rajasthan HC;
(v) Ramanand and Smt. Sarvan Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2000 Cr.L.J. 2522 of Rajasthan; HC (Jaipur Bench)
(vi) State Vs. K.Sridhar Veerabhadraiah, 2000 Cr.L.J. 328 of DB of Karnatka HC;
(vii) Anand Moy Ghosh & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, 2006 Crl. L.J. 4250 of Calcutta High Court;
(viii) Anil Kumar Gupta VS. State of U.P.,2011 SAR (Crl.) 339 (SC);SC No.06/10 Page 23 of 67
State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka
(ix) Public Prosecutor Hyd. Vs. Appireddy Madhava Reddy & Anr., 2002(3) Law Summary (LS) 194 High Court (AP);
(x) Pandiripalli Ramalakshmi & Ors. Vs. State of AP, 2005(2) acquittal 567 AP High Court .
48. It has been further contended that to attract the provision under Section 498A/304B IPC, it must be established that cruelty or harassment to wife was to force her to cause grave bodily injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical and harassment of women should be with a view to coerce her relations to meet any unlawful demand of dowry for any property or valuable security. In the present case, there are so many contradictions as to time and manner of alleged demands and evidence on record is completely lacking to show that, any harassment was meted out to the deceased, so the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has relied upon the following case laws:
(i) State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Daulat ram & Anr.: Crl. L.P. 598/2011 and Crl. M.A. 19759/2011 Delhi High Court;
(ii) State Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors., Crl.L.P. No. 63 of 2011 Delhi High Court;
(iii) State Vs. Ram Niwas & Ors., Crl. M.A. No. SC No.06/10 Page 24 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka 12716/2010 and Crl. L.P. No. 247/2010 Delhi High Court;
(iv) State Vs. Jitender Garg & Ors., Crl. L.P. No. 202/2005 Delhi High Court;
(v) Girajo Devi & Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Admn.), 2010(2) LRC 80 (Del)DB;
(vi) Narender Singh Arora Vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors.), 2010(3) LRC 349 (Del);
(vii) State Vs. Ravinder Chhabra & Ors., 2010 (3) LRC 283 (Del) DB;
(viii) Durga Prasad & Anr. Vs. State of MP, 2010 (3) LRC 157 (SC) DB;
(ix) State Vs. Suraj Mehto, 2011 (7) LRC 413 (Del) (DB);
(x) State Vs. Mukesh & Anr., 2010(4) LRC 192 (Del)(DB);
(xi) Pyare Lal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2010(4) LRC 145 (Del);
(xii) Ashok Narang Vs. State, 2012 (2) LRC 287 (Del).
49. It is further contended by the Ld. Defence Counsel that prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the story as the FIR was lodged on the basis of statement made by PW20 before the Executive Magistrate vide Ex.PW4/A wherein PW20 has categorically stated that on 17.11.2009 he alongwith one D. Bangaraju, went to the PS Dwarka, where the said D. Bangaraju SC No.06/10 Page 25 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka had written the complaint on his behalf and he had given the same to the Sub Inspector, PS Dwarka before the statement recorded by Executive Magistrate and he further admitted that no such complaint has been filed with the chargesheet. So the complaint moved by PW20, will become the complaint i.e. the first document to get the case registered and the FIR should have been lodged on the basis of said document/complaint. But no such document has been brought on record for the reasons best known to the prosecution and later complaint has been fabricated as PW20 was influenced by PW21 D. Ramaraju that is why no allegations might have been levelled against the accused persons by PW20 in the said complaint made to the police on 17.11.2009. All the allegations has been invented by PW21, regarding demand of dowry of Rs.5 lacs before marriage and as such prosecution has suppressed the original complaint and substituted the FIR and prosecution has also failed to produce the DD book and as such adverse inference should be drawn that the original complaint moved by the complainant PW20 has been suppressed by the prosecution which makes the case of prosecution doubtful. In this regard, Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon Sevi & Anr. ; Koodakkal Kaniyam & Anr. Vs. State of Tamilnadu 1981 Cr.L.J.736(SC).
SC No.06/10 Page 26 of 67State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka
50. It has been further contended that alleged disclosure statement made by the accused Dileep Verma is fabricated and forged document as PW19 SI Mahesh Soni has stated that on 18.11.2009, he alongwith I.O and PW20 went to the house of deceased and arrested the accused and his personal search was taken. PW19 further deposed that on 19.11.2009, he again joined the investigation with the I.O. and on that accused led them to his house and got recovered one pink colour saree having white flowers which was kept behind a drum under the slab in the kitchen and accused also got recovered ATM card of Andhra Bank alongwith four charge slips from his brief case which were taken into possession vide seizure memo. This alleged propounded recovery of ATM at the instance of accused Dileep Verma does not come under the purview of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, as the brief case was available at the house of accused, when he was arrested and his personal search was conducted. The disclosure statement of accused has been prepared in Hindi language which is totally unknown to the accused. As such, the disclosure of accused is hit by Section 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act as the disclosure statement of accused does not bear the signature of independent witness except police witnesses and the disclosure statement smacks of malafide on behalf of investigating agency in order to SC No.06/10 Page 27 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka implicate the accused. In this regard, Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon "Kavinder & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2005(1) Acquittal 262 DHC.
51. It has further been submitted that demand of money on account of financial stringency for meeting some urgent domestic expenses cannot be termed as demand of dowry. In this regard, Ld. Defence Counsel has relied upon "Appasaheb & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2006(2) Acquittal 658 (SC)".
52. The accused persons have been charged u/s 498A & 304 B IPC. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to go through the provisions of law relevant to dowry death. Section 498A reads as under :
Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.SC No.06/10 Page 28 of 67
State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka Explanation--for the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
53. The object of introducing Chapter XXA containing section 498A IPC was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A IPC was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. It must be established that the cruelty or harassment to wife was to force her to cause bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide or the harassment was to compel her to fulfill illegal demand for dowry.
SC No.06/10 Page 29 of 67State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka Section 304B IPC reads as under:
304B. Dowry death (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown 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, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation - for the purposes of this subsection, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a terms which shall not be less than seven years but which may extent to imprisonment for life.
54. The offence of dowry death was created for the first time in the Indian Penal Code by inserting section 304B with effect from 19.11.1986. According to this section, when a woman dies of burns or bodily injury or otherwise than in normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her SC No.06/10 Page 30 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry, it is a dowry death. Explanation addeded to this section provides that 'dowry' shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Thus, the essential ingredients of this section are:
(i) A married woman has dies of burns or bodily injury or otherwise in normal circumstances;
(ii) The death occurs within seven years of her marriage; and
(iii) It is proved 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.
55. It is also relevant to note here the provisions of section 113B of the Evidence Act 1872, which also was inserted in the Evidence Act by way of amendment in the year 1986 and become operative with effect from 19.08.1986, which emanates the rule of presumption that if it is shown that soon befoer the death of the woman, she was subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that the accused has caused dowry death. Therefore, the presumption shall be raised only when the SC No.06/10 Page 31 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka following essential ingredients are proved on record:
(i) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed dowry death of a woman.
(ii) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative.
(iii) Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand for dowry and
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.
56. A legal fiction has been created in the said provision to the effect that in the event it is established that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any of his relative; for or in connection with any demand of dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
57. If section 304B IPC is read together with section 113B of the Evidence Act, a comprehensive picture emerges that if a married woman dies in unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial home within seven years from her marriage and there are allegations of cruelty or harassment in connection SC No.06/10 Page 32 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka with demand of dowry by the husband or relatives of the husband, the case would squarely come under "dowry death"
and there shall arise a presumption against the husband and the relatives.
58. It is for the prosecution to show that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry. In the absence of any evidence in this regard, this deficiency in evidence proves fatal for the prosecution case. Mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to bring in application of section 304B IPC. It has to be shown in addition that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand for dowry. Furthermore, the prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence of death there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case the aforesaid presumption, that the dowry death took place, would arise.
59. It is only when the aforementioned ingredients are established by acceptable evidence, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or his relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. It may be noticed that punishment for the offence of dowry death under section 304B is SC No.06/10 Page 33 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka imprisonment of not less than seven years, which may extend to imprisonment for life. Unlike under section 498A IPC, husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty shall be liable for imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Normally, in a criminal case the accused can be punished for an offence on establishment of commission of that offence on the basis of evidence, may be direct or circumstantial or both. But, in case of an offence under section 304B IPC, an exception is made by deeming provision as to nature of death as "dowry death" and that the husband or his relative, as the case may be, is deemed to have caused such death, even in the absence of evidence to prove these aspects, but on proving the existence of the ingredients of the said offence by convincing evidence. Hence, there is need for greater care and caution, that too having regard to the gravity of the punishment prescribed for the said offence, in scrutinzing the evidence and in arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the above mentioned ingredients of the offence are proved by the prosecution. In the case on hand, the learned counsel for the accused persons could not dispute that the first two ingredients as mentioned above in para 54 of the judgment are satisfied.
SC No.06/10 Page 34 of 67State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka
60. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct, such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be 'soon before death' if any other intervening circumstance showing the non existence of such treatment is not brought on record, before the alleged such statement and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough.
61. The question which now arises for determination is what lead the deceased to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life, whether she did so on account of acute mental depression caused by coming to know that she would not be able to conceive during her life time, as contended on behalf of accused or it is a dowry death as contended on behalf of the SC No.06/10 Page 35 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka prosecution.
62. Suicide is very complex phenomenon, there is no direct evidence available in case of suicide about what was going in the mind of the deceased when she committed suicide. It becomes very difficult to form an opinion about the reason which led the person concerned to commit suicide as the person has already died and is not available for his testimony. Hence in case of suicidal death, the court has to base its judgment upon all the attending circumstances prevailing around the deceased before her death, which are brought on record by the prosecution and on behalf of the accused.
63. It was held in AIR 1996 SC 67 that taunting for not bringing sufficient dowry is distinct from demand of dowry and should not be confused with. Though taunting for bringing insufficient dowry is also an uncivilized act but does not come within the purview of section 498A, sufficient to constitute the offence i.e the cruelty to the complainant with respect to not fulfillment of demand of dowry. In State vs. Suraj Mehto 2011 (7) LRC 413 Delhi (DB), it has been observed as under :
We may add here that the prosecution story SC No.06/10 Page 36 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka was that PW5 (the son of PW7, Deep Jhari) used to live in a joint family with her. Significantly, he did not depose about the dowry harassment at all or particularly dowry harassment any time before the death or the incident of 16.06.2007. Furthermore, PW7 the mother did not mention or specify kind of harassment meted to the deceased. These two aspects assume considerable importance in this case because in order to attract the presumption under section 113B the prosecution has to prove the bare foundational facts. This would include the acts of harassment even though specific dates cannot possibly be mentioned by the witnesses at least by approximation they can be accounted for. More importantly, the presumption has to be specific as to what kind of harassment it was, mental or physical; what was the act of cruelty in a given case has to be proved. In the present case no such specific act was alleged or proved.SC No.06/10 Page 37 of 67
State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka
64. In view of the above noted legal position, I would like to appreciate the evidence on record.
65. PW7 Mrs. G. Padma, mother of the deceased has deposed that she got her daughter Shravanti married to accused Dileep Kumar Verma on 06.12.2008 and she deposed that prior to the marriage, there was no demand from the side of inlaws (accused persons) of her daughter but only to perform the marriage with pomp and show. PW7 deposed that five days prior to the date of marriage accused Krishna Veni K. called them and demanded for Rs. 5 lacs cash and said that, otherwise, they will break the alliance and the demand was fulfilled as the marriage cards were distributed and everybody had been invited and they wanted to avoid social stigma in case of broken marriage. PW7 further deposed that after the marriage, the deceased was taken to village Peddapullaru of accused Dileep and after two months, accused Dileep brought the deceased to Delhi and started residing in the house where she died later. PW7 further deposed that during stay of the deceased at Peddapullaru, accused Dileep was not living there and his parents used to taunt Sharwanti and asked her to bring more money from her parents. PW7 further deposed that she did not pay anything to the accused person during the period of said SC No.06/10 Page 38 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka two months but she gave 30 tola gold in marriage and a sum of Rs.40,000/ cash to the accused Dileep when he brought Sharwanti to Delhi.
PW7 further deposed that when accused and her daughter started residing at Delhi, they came to know that salary of accused was Rs.8,000/ and not Rs.15,000/ as stated before marriage and so they came to Delhi and bought the household goods for accused and and paid Rs.40,000/ but still accused Dileep was not satisfied and used to quarrel with the deceased. PW7 further deposed that accused Dileep used to demand money from Shravanti and she used to convey his (accused Dileep Verma) demands to them over phone on which they used to deposit Rs.5,000/ to Rs.10,000/ in the account at Andhra Bank, ATM card of which was given to Shravanti and the said ATM card was used by accused Dileep for withdrawing the money. PW7 further deposed that her daughter used to tell her over phone that whenever accused Dileep used to talk to her mother Krishna Vani K. (accused), the behaviour of accused used to change towards the deceased.
PW7 further deposed that on 15.11.2009, Shravanti cried a lot over phone and said that all the money is finished in their bank account on which her husband (father of deceased) pacified her and assured that he will come to Delhi SC No.06/10 Page 39 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka and will pay the money. PW7 further deposed that the deceased used to call her everyday as she (PW7) is a heart patient but on 16.11.2009 when Shravanti did not call, they called accused Dileep Verma and told him that Shrawati was not picking up the phone and requested him to go home and look into the matter. PW7 further deposed that after sometime they again called the accused Dileep Verma who told that Shravanti was lying unconscious and so they requested him to take Shravanti to some hospital and when they called again, accused Dileep Verma told them that Shravanti had died. PW7 further deposed that thereafter, after the postmoretm, her husband took the dead body of their daughter to their home and after completion of last rites and ceremonies, she (PW7) alongwith her husband, and son came to Delhi and got their statements recorded. PW7 proved the ATM card vide Ex.P1.
66. PW8 Shri G. Manikanta Verma, borther of the deceased has deposed that his sister Shravanti got married to accused Dileep on 06.12.2008. He deposed that on 15.11.2009, Shravanti last telephoned them and she was crying at that time and stating that in pursuance to the call of mother (accused Krishna Veni K.), accused Dileep used to torture her and that it had become unbearable for her. PW8 further deposed that SC No.06/10 Page 40 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka Shravanti (since deceased) used to telephone his mother every morning but when on 16.11.2009, Shravanti did not call her mother, they telephoned her but she did not reply to that and so they call accused Dileep and who stated that he was on his way to office and that he did not know as to why Shravanti was not picking up the phone. PW8 further deposed that they requested him to go home and look into the matter and after some time they called him again and came to know that Shravanti was lying unconscious so they requested accused Dileep to take Shravanti to some hospital. PW8 further deposed that they called again to accused Dileep who then told them that Shravanti had died and thereafter, his father came to Delhi and took the dead body of Shravanti to their home after postmortem and after her last rites and ceremonies, he alongwith his parents came to Delhi and got their statements recorded. PW8 further deposed that accused Dileep used to torture his sister for money and even when he came to their house after marriage for the first time, they paid him a sum of Rs.50,000/ cash and one chain and one ring.
67. PW20 Shri G. Sambamurty Raju, father of the deceased has deposed that his daughter Shravanti (since deceased) was married to accused Kalindi Dileep Verma on SC No.06/10 Page 41 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka 06.12.2008 at Vishakapatnam in a traditional marriage. He further deposed that prior to the marriage, there was no demand from the side of inlaw of his daughter (deceased) except that the marriage be performed in a grand manner but just four days prior to the date of marriage, accused Dileep and accused Smt. Krishna Veni (mother of accused) demanded Rs.5 lacs cash which demand was fulfilled two days prior to the date of marriage. PW20 further deposed that after the marriage, accused Krishna Veni, the motherinlaw of his daughter demanded a gold necklace and earrings weight about 30 gms which was fulled by him (PW20). PW20 further deposed that thereafter, accused Krishnaveni K. again demanded eight pairs of bangles and four pair of earrings of gold weighing about 320 gms., one pearl necklace, one pair of anklet and silver ornaments for their daughter (deceased). PW20 further deposed that on 10.12.2008, on the demand of accused Dileep, he (PW20) gave him a sum of Rs.50,000/ cash, one chain and one finger ring (total weighing 20 gms).
PW20 further deposed that inlaws of the deceased kept on demanding more money and that their daughter was being harassed and tortured at her inlaws' house. PW20 further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith his wife took their daughter to Delhi where accused was working and SC No.06/10 Page 42 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka gave Rs.40,000/ cash to accused Dileep for arranging household articles for their home. PW20 further deposed that prior to the marriage of his daughter, it was disclosed to them that the salary of accused Dileep Verma was Rs.25,000/ whereas later they came to know his salary as Rs.8,000/ only and that as the said salary was not sufficient, accused Dileep used to demand money from them which they used to arrange Rs.5,00010,000/ every month which accused used to take through ATM as he (PW20) had given two ATM cards of SBI Vishakhapatnam and of Andhra Bannk, Anakapali, issued in his (PW20) name to his daughter. PW20 further deposed that on 15.11.2009 at about 9.00 p.m., his daughter (since deceased) had called them and said that she was harassed unbearably by her husband and motherinlaw to which he (PW20) consoled her and said that he would be coming to Delhi and will sort out everything.
PW20 further deposed that on 16.11.2009 at about 9.10 a.m., his son called Shravanti (since deceased) but did not get through and so he made a called to accused Dileep who later called back and told that Shravanti was dead. PW20 further deposed that thereafter they came to Delhi and on the next day he lodged a complaint at PS Dwarka. PW20 further deposed that he had identified the dead body of his daughter at DDU hospital and proved his statement vide Ex.PW20/A. SC No.06/10 Page 43 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka PW20 further deposed that on 18.11.2009, dead body of Shravanti was handed over to him with her Mangalsutra with gold chain, three finger rings and one pair of ear rings. Thereafter, on asking of leading question by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the Staet, PW20 stated that he had given the statement in the hospital to Executive Magistrate. PW20 further proved on record the marriage card vide Ex.PW20/B, five marriage photographs vide Ex.PW20/C1 to Ex.PW20/C5. PW20 further proved on record the Statement of SBI account (Mark 20/1), Statement of Andhra Bank (Mark 20/2) and two bills vide (Mark 20/3 and 20/4) vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/D. During cross examination, PW20 proved the photographs vide Mark P20/D1 to Mark P20/D7 and the photographs of the function held one day before the marriage vide Ex.PW20/DA1 to Ex.PW20/DA5.
68. The contention of the Ld. Defence Counsel, that there are so many improvements/omissions made by PW20 vide his statement Ex.PW4/A, recorded before Executive Magistrate and during his deposition before the Court, which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful so far as harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased, at the hands of the accused persons in connection with the demand of dowry is to be dealt with first of all. In order to appreciate alleged SC No.06/10 Page 44 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka contradictions/omissions/improvements, I would like to reproduce the statement (Ex.PW4/A) made before the Executive Magistrate as under:
"I have identified the dead body of my daughter, Shravanti at DDU hospital Delhi. I married of my daughter to K.Dileep Varma, S/o Ramachandra Raju, resident of Pedapulleru village, Undi Mandal, West Godavary Dt Andhra Pradesh on 06.12.2008. My daughter was approx 20 years old at that time. I paid Rs. five lakhs to the inlaws of my daughter at the time of marriage. I again paid Rs. fifty thousand when my soninlaw visited my house for the first time. However, my daughter was still taunted for dowry. My daughter confided me that she was being harassed by her husband, K. Dileep Varma and her mother Krishna Veni. I suspect the above named persons are responsible in some manner for this incident. My daughter was not like those who commit suicide. I have state the above statement SC No.06/10 Page 45 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka without any fear or favour. No police or any private person was present at the time of recording of this statement before the executive magistrate. The contents are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief."
69. So far as improvements/omissions are concerned, PW20 in his deposition has stated that he has not mentioned the following facts in his statement (Ex.PW4/A), made before the Executive Magistrate:
(i) It is correct that in my statement Ex.PW4/A, it is not mentioned that accused persons had demanded Rs.5 lacs from me.
(ii) After marriage, accused Krishan Veni, motherinlaw of my daughter demanded the gold necklace and ear rings weighing about 30 gms. We gave the necklace and earrings, as demanded, to Krishna Veni. Thereafter, accused Krishna Veni demanded for my daughter Shravanti 8 pairs of bangles, four pairs of earrings i.e. in all gold weighing about 320 gms. one pearl necklace, one pair of anklets and silver ornaments 7 Kg.
It is correct that in my statement Ex.PW4/A, it is not mentioned that accused Dileep had demanded Rs.50,000/ and SC No.06/10 Page 46 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka gold chain from me on 10.12.2008.
(iii) It is correct that in my statement Ex.PW4/A it is not mentioned that there was more demand for money from the side of parents of the accused.
(iv) It is correct that in my statement Ex.PW4/A, it is not mentioned that parents of accused Dileep tortured and harassed my daughter in her inlaw's house.
(v) It is correct that in my statement Ex.PW4/A it is not written that I had suggested that Shravanti goes and lives with Dileep at Delhi as Dileep was working there and voluntarily, PW20 stated that "I did not state so to the Magistrate. I do not remember if I stated to the Magistrate that my wife and myself brought my daughter Shravanti to Delhi and gave Rs.40,000/ to Dileep for arranging household articles for their home. It is correct that it is not so mentioned in Ex.PW4/A.
(vi) I do not remember if I had mentioned in my statement Ex.PW4/A that before marriage we were made to understand that Dileep was earning Rs.25,000/ per month but after marriage we came to know that his salary was only Rs. 15,000/. Again said Rs.8,000/ per month. It is correct that it is not so recorded in my statement Ex.PW4/A.
(vii) Lastly regarding alleged transaction through ATM card by accused, has not been detailed by PW20 in his SC No.06/10 Page 47 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka statement Ex.PW4/A.
70. So far as the contradictions are concerned, there are so many inner contradictions between the testimonies of PW7, PW8 and PW20 which falsify the case of the prosecution that the deceased was being harassed or was being tauted for bringing insufficient dowry as no independent witness either from the village of any of the party, has been examined to corroborate the alleged harassment upon the deceased in connection with demand of dowry by the accused persons. The alleged contradictions are as under:
(i) So far as first dowry demand on the day of marriage, PW20 has stated that nothing was demanded from the side of accused persons before marriage except that marriage should be performed in a grand manner.
On this point/aspect, PW7, mother of the deceased, has stated that nothing was demanded by the accused side and their only demand was of performance of marriage in a grand manner. Whereas PW8, brother of the deceased has stated nothing in respect of demand of dowry before marriage.
(ii) The second incident, regarding demand of dowry, pertains to the four days prior to the marriage and PW20 has SC No.06/10 Page 48 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka stated that four days prior to the marriage, accused Dilip Verma and his parents demanded Rs.5 lacs cash and said amount was paid by the parents of the deceased to the parents of accused two days prior to the marriage.
On this aspect, PW7 has stated that accused Krishna Veni had demanded Rs.5 lacs on telephone five days prior to the marriage, otherwise, marriage will be broken and two days prior to the marriage, she alongwith PW20 (her husband) had gone to Pedapulleru, native village of the accused and paid Rs.5 lacs in cash. Whereas PW8 has stated nothing regarding this demand of dowry four days prior to the day of marriage.
(iii) The third demand of dowry by the accused persons is stated to be made after marriage and PW20 has stated that after marriage, accused Krishna Veni, motherinlaw of deceased, had demanded the gold necklace and ear rings weighing about 30 gms and accused Krishna Veni had further demanded 8 pairs of bangles, four pairs of earrings i.e. in all gold weighing about 320 gms. one pearl necklace, one pair of anklets and silver ornaments 7 Kg for his daughter, the deceased.
On this aspect, PW7 and PW8 remained silent and they have stated nothing with regard to this third incident of alleged demand of dowry.
SC No.06/10 Page 49 of 67State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka
(iv) The fourth incident regarding demand of dowry is stated to have taken place on 10.12.2008 and PW20 has deposed that on 10.12.2008, on demand of accused Dileep Verma, he had given him Rs.50,000/ cash, one chain and one finger ring (total weighing 20 gms).
With respect to this demand, PW7 has stated that they had not paid anything to the accused during the said two months and further voluntarily she (PW7) stated that they had given 30 tolas of gold in the marriage and a sum of Rs.40,000/ cash to the accused Dileep. Whereas, regarding this fourth incident of demand, PW8 has stated nothing.
(v) The fifth incident regarding demand of dowry is general in nature wherein PW20 has stated that parents of accused kept on demanding more money.
And on this aspect, PW7 has stated that during the stay of the deceased, at Pedapulleru, the accused Dileep was not living there. Whereas, PW8 has stated nothing regarding this general allegation of demand of dowry.
(vi) So far as sixth incident regarding alleged demand of dowry on the basis of hear say evidence is concerned, PW20 has stated in chief that he came to know that parents of accused Dileep used to harass and torture his daughter at her inlaw's house.
SC No.06/10 Page 50 of 67State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka On this aspect, PW7 has deposed that parents of accused Dileep, used to taunt the deceased and used to ask her to bring more money from them. PW7 has further stated that they had not paid anything to the accused persons during the said two months. On this aspect, PW8 has stated nothing.
(vii) So far as seventh incident regarding allegation of dowry on bringing the deceased to Delhi and demand of Rs. 40,000/ is concerned, PW20 has stated that he had suggested to accused Dileep to take the deceased to Delhi as accused was working in Delhi and so he and his wife (PW7) brought the deceased to Delhi and also gave Rs.40,000/ cash to the accused Dileep for arranging household articles for their home.
On this aspect, PW7 has stated that after marriage, the deceased, was taken to the native village of accused at village Peddapullaru, where he was living with his parents as he was their only son and after two months of marriage, accused brought Shravanti to Delhi and they started living at Sector9, Dwarka. PW7 has further stated that she alongwith her husband (PW20) came to Delhi and bought the household goods for accused and deceased and pay Rs.40,000/ but accused Dileep was still not satisfied and used to quarrel with Shravanti.
Qua this incident, PW8 had stated nothing and SC No.06/10 Page 51 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka PW20 has also stated nothing regarding this incident and quarrel by the accused with the deceased at Delhi.
(viii) The eighth allegation regarding salary of accused Dileep is concerned, PW20 has stated that before marriage they were made to understand that accused Dileep was earning Rs. 25,000/ per month but after marriage, they came to know that his salary was Rs.8,000/ per month.
On this aspect, PW7 has stated that they came to know that the salary of the accused was Rs.8,000/ per month and not Rs.15,000/ as stated befsore marriage and on this meager salary, they came to Delhi and bought the household articles for Dileep and paid Rs.40,000/ but still accused Dileep was not satisfied and he used to quarrel with Shravanti. On this aspect, PW8 has stated nothing.
(ix) So far as last alleged dowry of demand by accused persons is concerned, PW20 has stated that the salary of accused Dileep was not sufficient and so he used to demand money and he used to arrange Rs.5,000/ to Rs.10,000/ every month to be given to him through ATM, as two ATM cards were given by them to the deceased, one of SBI, Vishakapatnam and the other of Andhra Bank, Anakapalli, both in the name of PW20.
On this aspect, PW7 has stated that accused Dileep SC No.06/10 Page 52 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka used to demand money from Shravanti and she used to convey his demand to us telephonically on which we used to deposit Rs. 5,000/ to Rs.10,000/ in my bank account for which the ATM card was given by us to Shravanti. The name of bank inwhich I had account was Andhra Bank. Money was withdrawn several times form the said account with the help of her said ATM card by accused Dileep. The ATM card was taken by police after death of Shravanti.
(x) So far as conveying of alleged harassment to the deceased at the hands of accused on telephone to her parents is concerned, PW20, father of deceased has stated that his daughter used to telephone them everyday and she used to tell that both the accused persons used to harass her.
On this aspect, PW7 has stated that her deceased daughter used to tell her telephonically that whenever accused Krishna Veni talked to accused Dileep on telephone, accused Dileep used to quarrel with Shravanti and his behaviour used to change, after talking to his mother. During the said period, they never talked to the parents of accused Dileep. Whereas, on this aspect PW8 has stated that Shravanti used to telephone his mother every morning to inquire about her health as she has SC No.06/10 Page 53 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka heart problem.
71. The last conversation which took place on 15.11.2009, i.e. one day before the suicide committed by deceased, PW20 has stated that on 15.11.2009 at about 9. p.m., his daughter (the deceased) telephoned them stating that her husband and motherinlaw were harassing her unbearably. He consoled the deceased that he shall be coming to Delhi and will set everything right.
On this aspect, PW7 has stated that on 15.11.2009, Shravanti telephoned him at about 8.309.00 p.m. and cried a lot on the phone stating that they (the deceased and her parents) have been cheated. She also stated that money had finished in their bank account on which PW20 pacified her and assured her that he will come and pay the money. The deceased used to telephone PW7 every morning to inquire about her heath as PW7 has heart problem. But on 16.11.2009, deceased did not telephone PW7 on which she called the deceased telephonically but the deceased did not answer. Then PW8 telephoned accused Dileep and accused stated that he was on his way to office and he did not know as to why the deceased was not picking up phone. PW8 requested him to go home and look into the matter. Thereafter, PW8 telephoned the accused SC No.06/10 Page 54 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka again after sometime and accused told PW8 that the deceased was lying unconscious.
72. Whereas, on this aspect PW8 has stated that on 15.11.2009, the deceased last telephoned PW7 at about 8.00/9.00 p.m. The deceased talked to PW8, PW7 and PW20. The deceased was crying and she told that accused Dileep used to torture her a lot in pursuance to telephone call of his mother, accused Krishna Veni. The deceased further told that now it had become unbearable for her. The deceased used to telephone his mother every morning to inquire about her health as PW7 had a heart problem. But on 1611.2009, deceased did not telephone PW7 mother on which the parents of the deceased called her telephonically but she did not answer. Then PW8 telephoned accused Dileep and accused stated that he was on his way to office and he did not know as to why Shravanti was not picking up phone. PW8 requested him to go home and look into the matter. These material contradictions and vital discrepancies have caused a dent in the prosecution and these contradictions could not be reconciled by the prosecution. Interestingly, from the testimonies of these PWs, no inference can be drawn that accused persons have harassed the deceased for or in connection with the demand of dowry as all the PWs have SC No.06/10 Page 55 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka stated that the accused persons had demanded money only so is the ratio of case law relied upon in para 48.
73. I found substance in the contentions of Ld. Defence Counsel that PW9, who has proved the joint statement of account of PW8 and PW20 vide Ex.PW9/A, has admitted in his cross examination that he cannot say as to who had withdrawn the amount as reflected in the statement of account and prosecution has failed to prove that the amount as alleged was withdrawn from Delhi and if withdrawn from Delhi, whether it was withdrawn by accused Dileep or deceased Shravanti. Similarly, Shri D. Raghuram (PW16) had proved on record the account opening form in respect of saving bank account vide Ex.PW16/A. He has admitted that the ATM card in respect of abovesaid account was issued in the name of PW7 and he has further admitted that customer can withdraw the cash through ATM all over India using PIN code number. Therefore, from the evidence of PW9 and PW16 it has not been proved on record that the amount was withdrawn from Delhi or it was withdrawn by the accused or by the deceased as prosecution has not placed on record any CCTV footage to fortify that the said amount was withdrawn by the accused Dileep. So is the case with the statement of account of PW20 (Ex.PW4/A). From the SC No.06/10 Page 56 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka testimony of PW7 and PW20 it is not proved that even the ATM is handed over by these witnesses to the deceased on account of demand of dowry by the accused persons as none of these witnesses have stated that the accused persons had harassed the deceased for demanding ATMs but PW8 and PW20 have stated that accused Dileep Verma demanded money through deceased i.e the ATMs in question were given to the deceased by these PWs. Demand of money on account of meeting financial contingency cannot be termed as dowry as held the case of Appasaheb (supra). So far as accused Krishna Vani K, one of the PWs has admitted that she had never been in Delhi in the company of the accused Dileep Varma and deceased Sharvanti. Therefore, no cruelty is alleged had ever been committed by Krishna Vani K.
74. So far as meager salary of accused Dileep Verma is concerned, as per the prosecution story, the prosecution has tried to prove that the accused was getting meager salary and he was parasite on the income of the parents of deceased but the defence has placed on record the document by way of filing written statement in terms of Section 233 (2) Cr.P.C. alongwith certificate. The accused Dileep belongs to a well off family and being the only son of their parents and having joint family SC No.06/10 Page 57 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka income to the tune of Rs.10 lacs from the immovable property. Therefore it cannot be presumed that accused persons are not financially well off.
75. PW21 is the person who had translated and interpreted the language of PW7, PW8 and PW20 and he has admitted that Ex.PW4/A was translated in his own handwriting as PW20 had given his statement before the Executive Magistrate in Telugu language. PW21 has also admitted in his cross examination that his daughter had committed suicide in the year 1999 and he had also registered a case against his son inlaw and his relatives and also that he has the knowledge about registration of the case. So the possibility that the complaint has been manipulated by PW21 cannot be ruled out. Similarly the recovery of ATM/slips of the deceased has been recorded on 19.11.2009 where the accused was arrested on 18.11.2009 and search of the house was made by the police but on the next day, recovery has been effected. Pertaining to recoveries, the law is that as the recovery becomes distant in the past the possibility of the same being acquired by the possession other than by way of fruit of the crime cannot be ruled out and this recovery which move further away in point of time visavis the date of the offence get diminished in their SC No.06/10 Page 58 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka incriminating character. Law is settled that delay in making the recovery raises doubt on such recovery and such recovery are to be seen with suspicion. But in view of the fact that the prosecution has failed to connect the evidence with accused Dileep has withdrawn the amount from ATM alleged to hand over by the parents of the deceased. The said recovery of ATM has become immaterial.
76. A perusal of the statements of PW7, PW8 and PW20 show that evidence led by prosecution viz the statement made by PW7, PW8 and PW20 in their examination in chief and cross examination bristle with discrepancies and contradictions and all the PWs had stated that there was no demand of dowry by the accused persons at the time of marriage of the deceased. Even in the last incident regarding demand of dowry i.e on the evening of 15.11.09, the deceased had conveyed that complainant (family of the deceased) has been cheated by the accused persons. Other discrepancies have been detailed in Para 70 of this judgment which the prosecution has failed to explain.
77. Furthermore, neither in the FIR nor in the statement and cross examination of PW7, PW8 and PW20, there has not SC No.06/10 Page 59 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka been specific allegations against the accused regarding dowry demand. Only thing which has been said regarding the accused persons that they asked money time and again and the accused Dileep after shifting to Delhi demanded money through the deceased. The said demand is stated to be made by the accused Dileep for carrying out day to day household expenditure. Deceased is stated to have conveyed in the night of 15.11.2009 that they have been (complainant party) cheated by the accused. Mere cheating cannot tantamount to demand of dowry and the same cannot be said to be termed as dowry as it cannot fall under the definition of 'dowry' as defined under section 2 of the Dowry Probation Act as the said demand is not made in relation to marry the deceased and accused Dileep.
78. The allegation of dowry at the time of marriage and thereafter was not made at the earlier point of time i.e in the sworn statement made by PW20, father of the deceased in Ex.PW4/A statement which became FIR in this case, still these three witnesses gave different versions about the information passed on to them by the deceased in the night of 15.11.09. It appears that there was no such information being passed on by the deceased at all and taking advantage of a general telephone call of the deceased and taking advantage of it the family SC No.06/10 Page 60 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka members articulated story of the above said information as if passed on to them by the deceased and due to which they could not able to say in one version of what actually the deceased stated to them, but all the three witnesses different versions through all of them talked to the deceased at one and the same time in a single telephone call such inter contradictions caste a doubt on the prosecution story.
79. On seeing the relevant statement connected to that phone call being spell out by the witness clearly establishes all of them have given different versions contradicting each other. Even otherwise, the said information alleged to be passed to PW7, PW8 and PW20 in the last phone call of the deceased does not attract the ingredients of either the harassment or any type of cruelty to the deceased for the purpose of extracting any money by way of demand of additional dowry. The important and crux of the case of dowry death is as to what happened soon before her death of the deceased is the fact to be considered as per the principles laid down by the supreme court. Though there is no fixed time for soon before her death, still, as per the version of the prosecution all PWs have lastly received call on 15.11.2009 in the night and thereby it became the last call of the deceased soon before her death. She died admittedly on the SC No.06/10 Page 61 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka next morning, hence the said call which happened to be last call soon before her death, wherein she did not whisper that she was subjected to harassment by the accused for the purpose of extracting additional dowry from her. Hence the offence charged against accused under section 304B or 498A being not attracted therefore the presumption cause under section 113A and B are not equally being applicable in this case in view of the judgments of various High Courts and Supreme Court as detailed in para 46 and 47 of this judgment.
80. In addition to it, PW7, PW8 and PW20 had not whispered anything about the death of younger brother PW7 who was maternal uncle of deceased hence the counsel of the accused was constrained to get elicit about it in the cross examination. However, PW7, PW8 and PW20 have admitted that on the death of P. Ramabhadraraju, maternal uncle of deceased, accused Dileep and deceased had come by air and on account of death of her maternal uncle, deceased was very sad. DW1 has also admitted in his cross examination that deceased and accused Dileep had visited by air for attending the last rites of maternal uncle of deceased and deceased was depressed on account of death of her maternal uncle and she suffered miscarriage on account of depression and she was under SC No.06/10 Page 62 of 67
State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka depression on account of this fact and the fact of abortion suffered by deceased has also been testified by PW1 and even PW20, father of the deceased, had admitted that he had given Mahamrityunjai Mantra to the deceased for her betterment. Therefore, an inference can be drawn that the deceased was under deep depression and due to depression she had committed suicide. Therefore, except three interested witness i.e. PW7, PW8 and PW20, no other witness has stated that deceased was ever harassed continuously for demand of dowry. PW1 who was landlord of accused, has stated that accused was living alongwith deceased on the ground floor as tenant and was paying rent of Rs.8,600/ per month and they were living happily and he had never seen the accused and deceased fighting with each other. On the same lines, PW12, who is the neighbour of accused, who helped the accused in shifting the deceased to hospital has not whispered anything about the alleged harassment or quarrel between the deceased and accused. It is further submitted that DW1 has not stated anything regarding demand of dowry as discussed above at para 70 from points (i) to (x).
81. From the above discussion, it is manifest that the ingredients, viz the woman must have been subjected to cruelty SC No.06/10 Page 63 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand of dowry has not been established by the prosecution. It is no more resintegra that the case of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and the prosecution cannot derive an strength from the weakness of the defence. The decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 supports this and the relevant para of the same is reproduced as under:
151. It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. This trite law and no decision has taken a contrary view.
82. From the above discussion, it is manifest that the prosecution has failed to show that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry and the same proves fatal for the prosecution case as regards offence under section 304B IPC. As regards offence under section 498A Indian Penal Code, 1860 having been committed by the appellant, again no specific allegation in this regard has been SC No.06/10 Page 64 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka made in the FIR or in the statements of PW7, PW8 and PW20 in this regard. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients as against the accused persons under section 498A Indian Penal Code, 1860.
83. Whereas, the accused persons tried to prove that deceased was never harassed or taunted by them and the deceased was living happily with the accused persons in her matrimonial home at Delhi. It is settled law that the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and accused persons by way of leading evidence is to improbablise the case of prosecution. The defence evidence is to be appreciated on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities and the defence is not supposed to prove its defence to the hilt.
Furthermore, the defence witnesses deserves parity with prosecution witnesses so far as their reliability and trustworthiness is concerned.
84. So is the ratio of Dudhnath Pandey Vs. State of UP AIR 1981 SC 911 wherein it has been observed that:
defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution. And, courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in defence SC No.06/10 Page 65 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka witnesses. Quite, often they tell lies but so do the prosecution witnesses.
The testimonies of defence witness is to be given the same weightage as is to be given to the prosecution witnesses and the evidence of defence witnesses cannot be discarded at the outset.
85. It is settled law that every suicide by married woman cannot be a dowry death. The prosecution proved its case that all the ingredients of section 304 B are made out only then the presumption under section 113B IPC can be availed by the prosecution. In this regard, I also found support from Rani Vs. NCT of Delhi 2011 Vol I DMC 320 which it has been clearly observed that every suicide after marriage cannot be presumed due to dowry demand. Tendency of the court should not be that since bride had died after marriage now somebody must be have culprit and noose must be made to fit someone neck.
86. From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case that accused persons had committed offence under section 498A/304B/34 IPC. Therefore, accused persons are hereby acquitted of charge under section 304B/498A/34 IPC by giving the benefit of SC No.06/10 Page 66 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka doubt.
87. Accused persons are, however, directed to furnish fresh bail bond in sum of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety in the like amount in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C undertaking to appear if called, before Appellate Court as mandated therein. Personal bonds and surety bonds are to be filed and be accepted for a period of six months as provided under Section 437A Cr.P.C.
88. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Vijay Kumar Dahiya) on the 12th Day of July 2012 ASJ/ Dwarka Courts New Delhi/12.07.2012 SC No.06/10 Page 67 of 67 State Vs. Dileep Verma Etc. SC No. 06/10 FIR No. 473/09 PS: Dwarka SC No.06/10 Page 68 of 67