Delhi District Court
State vs . Kewal Singh Etc. // Fir No. 1197/07 on 11 May, 2011
1
THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - I,
DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC No. 249/08
FIR No. 1197/07
PS : Sultan Puri
U/s. 498-A/304-B/34 IPC
State
Versus
1. Kewal Singh s/o Krishan Mohan
r/o O-79, Krishan Vihar Delhi.
2. Krishan Mohan s/o Late Sh. Ghansi Ram
3. Usha w/o Krishan Mohan
4. Sushma d/o Krishan Mohan
5. Shanno d/o Krishan Mohan
6. Babita d/o Krishan Mohan
7. Ravi s/o Krishan Mohan
all r/o O-49 Krishan Vihar, Delhi
8. Sangita w/o Deepak
r/o A-19/B, Krishan Vihar, Delhi
Date of Institution : 11.01.2008
Date of receipt of case in this court : 17.12.2008
Arguments heard On : 06.05.2011
Order Announced On : 11.05.2011
SHRI P.K. VERMA, APP FOR THE STATE.
SHRI AMIT AHLAWAT, COUNSEL FOR ALL THE ACCUSED.
State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07
PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC
2
JUDGMENT
1. The factual matrix of the case is that on 18.07.07 on at about 5.30 pm, an information was received on wireless through Ct. Karan Singh regarding some quarrel at O-49, Krishna Vihar, near Rajni Gupta Hospital. ASI Rana Devi on reaching there, found that dead body of Smt. Anita w/o Kewal Singh r/o O-49, Krishna Vihar, Delhi was lying and lot of crowd had gathered there. Thereafter Insp. Din Dayal Kalshan and SI Rajesh KUmar also reached the spot and on inquiry it was revealed that deceased Anita was married to accused Kewal Singh in December, 2005. Relatives of deceased Anita had apprehension that as Anita was being harassed and beaten by accused persons for dowry due to which she had died. SI Rajesh informed SDM who deputed Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Executive Magistrate. On the instructions of Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Executive Magistrate, SI Rajesh Kumar sent the dead body to mortuary for preservation. On 19.07.07 Executive Magistrate, Sh. Sukhbr Singh reached Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Mortuary and conducted proceedings u/s 176 CrPC and filled form 25.35 (1) B. Statement of Suraj Pal, Mukesh Kumar, Mamta Rathore and Sunita were recorded and postmortem on the State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 3 body of deceased was conducted at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. Statement of Suraj Pal, brother of deceased was recorded by the Executive Magistrate.
2. On the directions of the Executive Magistrate FIR of the present case was registered and investigation was assigned to Insp. Din Dayal. Statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC was recorded during investigation. Site plan was got prepared and postmortem report was collected. Viscera was also taken into possession. Accused Kewal Singh and Ravi were arrested. Scaled site plan was also prepared by SI Manohar Lal, draftsman. Treatment papers of deceased Anita were also collected from LNJP hospital. Accused Babita, Usha, Sushma, Shanno, Sangeeta and Kishan Mohan could not be arrested as they were absconding.
3. Accused Sangeeta was arrested on 28.12.07. Accused Sushma and Shanno were arrested on 27.12.07 and accused Kishan Mohan, Usha and Babita were arrested on 06.05.08. After completion of investigation challan was filed against the accused persons before the court.
State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 4
4. Ld. MM after compliance of section 207 Cr.PC committed the case to the court of Sessions.
5. My ld. Predecessor vide order dated 02.07.08 framed the charge under section 498-A/34 IPC and 304-B/34 IPC against all accused. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial trial.
6. Prosecution in support of its case examined following witnesses :-
Public Witnesses :
1. PW1 Suraj Pal Brother
2. PW2 Rekha Devi Neighbour at O-79
3. PW3 Mukesh Brother
4. PW9 Mamta Rathore Elder sister
5. PW11 Sunita Rathore Younger sister Police Witnesses:
1. PW4 HC Ramesh Kumar MHC (M)
2. PW10 SI Manohar Lal Draftsman
3. PW12 SI Rajesh I.O.
3. PW13 Ct. Pawan Arrested accused Kewal Singh
4. PW14 Ct. Ramesh Deposit of dead body at SGM Hospital.
5. PW15 ASI Karan Singh Initially informed about dead body of Anita to SHO.
State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 5
6. PW17 Ct. Jai Bhagwan Deposit of case property at FSL.
7. PW18 Ct. Vijender Kumar Arrest of Krishan Mohan.
8. PW19 W/Ct. Babita Arrest of accused Usha and Babita.
9. PW20 W/Ct. Sandhya Arrest of accused Sushma, Shanno and Sangeeta.
10. PW21 Insp Deen Dayal Kalshal IO
11. PW22 Insp. Samarjit Singh IO Medical Witnesses :
1. PW5 Dr. V.K. Jha
2. PW7 Dr. R. Dewan
3. PW8 Dr. Neeraj
4. PW16 Sri Narain, FSL
7. As per statement of Addl. PP for State dt.
25.02.2011 Sh. P.K.Verma, prosecution evidence was closed.
8. Statement of accused persons was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C and all the accused pleaded innocence and wished not to examine witnesses in defence.
9. I have heard ld. Addl. PP for state Sh. P.K. Verma and Sh. Amit Ahlawat, counsel for accused and perused the record.
State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 6
10. The star witness of the prosecution are PW1 Suraj Pal who is the brother of deceased Anita. He deposed that he has five sisters and two brothers including deceased Anita. His deceased sister married on 11.12.2005 with accused Kewal Singh as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Sufficient dowry was given. After marriage deceased Anita went to matrimonial home at O-49, Krishan Vihar. She was harassed by accused Kishan Lal, mother in law, Usha Devi, mother in law, four sister in laws, husband Kewal Singh and younger brother Ravi. He deposed that four five months of marriage, father in law and mother in law separated accused Kewal Singh and his sister Anita and they started living in a rented house. Accused Kewal Singh used to drive TSR but he sold the same before separation. He deposed that accused and Kishal Lal told him that if he wants that his deceased sister would live peacefully we should buy a TSR for which Rs.20,000/- were demanded. PW1 Suraj Pal gave Rs.10,000/- and asked that she may come to collect remaining Rs.10,000/- after three four days.
11. PW1 Suraj Pal further deposed that all the four State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 7 sisters-in-law of his deceased sister used to harass at the tenanted house and these facts were told by other tenants. After ten months of marriage, a male child was born at Ambedkar Hospital. Her deceased sister was taken to O-49, Krishan Vihar but after seven eight days she was turn out. Then he sent his younger sister Khushbu to look after Anita. After two three days sister in law Shanno gave beatings to his sister Khushbu. Then a police report was made. It was the incident of 04.10.06. Police official made understand accused persons and advised by HC Hattu Ram to take his sister Anita and newly born baby to the house then he brought them to his house where she remained for seven-eight days but then accused Kewal Singh again took her back and started harassing for demand of Rs. 1 Lac for autorikshaw. PW1 Suraj Pal further deposed that he refused to pay Rs. 1 Lac which was beyond his capacity. He deposed that thereafter sister of accused Kewal Singh Babita also started harassing his deceased sister. Accused Usha Devi used to demand the gold jewelery. On 15.07.2007, PW-1 received a telephonic call from accused Kewal Singh at about 4.00 p.m. that his sister is not well and vomiting and passing stool then he asked Kewal State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 8 Singh to take her immediately to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. He reached the hospital at 7.00 p.m. and found that Anita was in serious condition. Dr. Manish Gupta told accused Kewal Singh that the condition is serious and she may be removed to LNJP Hospital. Thereafter, she was admitted in LNJP Hospital where she expired on 18.07.07. He proved his statement recorded by SDM Ex.PW1/A. He deposed that the tenants living at O-79 Krishan Vihar wherein his deceased sister was living with accused Kewal Singh told that accused has given her severe beatings and then admitted in the hospital. He further deposed that his sister was harassed for demand of dowry. He proved that he identified the dead body of his deceased sister vide statement Ex.PW1/B on 20.07.07. He further proved the fact that on 21.07.07 accused Kewal Singh and accused Ravi was arrested by the police.
12. In the cross-examination PW1 Suraj Pal deposed that he has been doing the business of selling old clothes at patri in weekly market. His statement was recorded on 20.07.07. He admitted that before this court he did not depose regarding accused Kewal Singh's advance rent of TSR State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 9 but stated that Rs.20,000/- was paid to his sister as accused Kewal Singh separated from his parents. But this fact was not stated to SDM. He confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A where the fact that balance would be collected after three- four days is not mentioned. He admitted that he did not state to SDM that younger sister Khushbu went to the house of accused for help. Similarly he admitted that he did not state to the SDM that after two three days sister in law Shanno went there and gave beatings. He also admitted that he did not state that he along with the wife and younger brother went to O-49 and tried to make understand accused persons. He also admitted that he did not state to SDM that on 04.10.06, he went to the house of his sister and made a call to the police and he, Anita, Khushbu, Kewal Singh, Shanno and Kishan Lal taken to police station. He admitted that he did not state other facts stated by him in the court to the SDM as well as demand of dowry of Rs. 1 Lac for autorikshaw. He admitted that before SDM he did not state the demand of gold jewelery made by Usha. Similarly the statement of severely beatings given by accused as told by the tenants was not given to SDM. He admitted that he stated true facts to the State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 10 SDM. He denied that his sister Anita was suffering from brain disease and had brain nerves blocked. He denied that she used to go Sultan Puri for treatment of brain disease. He denied that that his sister died due to the brain disease and accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. Further in cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of marriage there was no demand of dowry. Accused Kewal Singh never demanded any dowry after the marriage. Accused started living separately three four months after the marriage. Other accused also never made any demand of dowry from him. He admitted that he has not made complaints regarding the alleged harassment prior to 04.10.06. He denied that on 26.06.07 his deceased sister inflicted injuries to accused Kewal Singh with knife. He denied that accused Kewal Singh never made demand of Rs.20,000/- as advance rent for purchase of TSR.
13. PW2 Rekha Devi, the most important witness who was neighbour of the deceased deposed that on 15.07.07 she was residing at O-79, Krishan Vihar, Sultan Puri as tenant. In the same house Anita shifted with accused Kewal Singh. The State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 11 relations between Kewal Singh and deceased were cordial and she did not see any quarrel between them. She deposed that she went to the market and while came back she came to know that Anita has been taken to the hospital and later on she died. She further deposed that in her presence Anita was never given beatings by accused Kewal Singh. She had not seen accused persons visiting Anita house and or being tortured. She turned out hostile. In cross-examination, she deposed that Anita was having son who was less than one year. On 15.07.07 she came back from market around 6.00 p.m. then she came to know that Anita was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. She never made efforts to ascertain the cause of hospitalization of deceased Anita. She told these facts to her husband who went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital to see her. She deposed that after death of Anita police came and enquired from her. She did not show the room of Anita to police. She denied that on 15.07.07 accused Kewal Singh gave beatings with belt to Anita. She denied that accused Krishan Mohan, Usha, Sushma, Shanno, Babita, Sangeeta and Ravi used to visit house of Anita and used to pressurise accused Kewal Singh to beat Anita and pressurised her to State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 12 meet unlawful demand of dowry. She denied that Anita was harassed by all accused persons for bringing more dowry. She denied that police prepared site plan at her instance. She denied that accused Kewal Singh used to give beatings to Anita.
14. PW3 Mukesh, elder brother of deceased Anita has deposed that deceased Anita was married to accused Kewal Singh on 11.12.05 and after 2-3 months of her marriage she was being mistreated and harassed by her in laws i.e. the accused persons for bringing less dowry. He has deposed that whenever Anita (deceased) used to visit their house, she used to narrate the misdeeds and harassment being given to her at her matrimonial home by the accused persons. He also testified that deceased Anita had told them that her husband had sold his three wheeler scooter and started harassing her to bring money from her maternal home to buy a new three wheeler scooter. They somehow managed to arrange Rs. 20000/- and gave the same to deceased Anita but even after getting Rs. 20000/- accused Kewal Singh did not purchase any auto rickshaw and the attitude of accused persons did not State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 13 changed even after getting the said amount. He has also deposed that after 9-10 months of marriage of Anita (deceased) she gave birth to a male child and at that time they also gave whatever they could give to her. He has also testified that after 4-5 months of the marriage of deceased Anita, she along with her husband accused Kewal Singh started living separately in a tenanted house but all the other accused persons frequently visited the room of Anita and used to harass her for more dowry and her husband also used to beat her.
15. PW3 Mukesh has further deposed that on 15.07.07 they received a phone call from accused Kewal Singh that Anita (deceased) had consumed something and she was admitted in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. On receiving this message he along with his brother Suraj Pal reached Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and found Anita (deceased) admitted there. Anita (deceased) remained unconscious till she remained in the hospital i.e. 18.07.07. She was shifted to JPN hospital where she expired on 18.07.07. Statement of Suraj Pal was recorded by Executive Magistrate and he along with his State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 14 sisters Mamta Rathore and Sunita wrote in that statement of Suraj Pal that they agree with his statement. He has proved that he identified the dead body of Anita at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. He has deposed that her sister Anita has died because of the torture given to her by her in laws i.e. accused persons.
16. In his cross examination, PW3 Mukesh Kumar has stated that accused persons did not make any demand for dowry either at the time of finalization of marriage or at the time of marriage. He further stated that no demand was made by accused to him individually. He denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that his sister never made any complaint regarding any harassment or cruelty to him or that his sister was suffering from some brain disease for which she was getting treatment or that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case in order to extract money from them.
16. PW9 Smt. Mamta Rathore, younger sister of deceased Anita, has corroborated the version given by her brother PW3 Mukesh and has deposed that deceased was married to accused Kewal Singh in December, 2005. Although State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 15 they had spent sufficient money for dowry in the marriage but soon after the marriage the accused persons used to quarrel with her sister Anita (deceased) on the pretext of less dowry and demanded auto rickshaw. She has deposed that deceased Anita used to telephone her about the demand of auto rickshaw and beatings given by her in laws.
17. On one occasion her elder brother gave Rs. 20000/- to accused Kewal Singh and after that for some days deceased Anita remained happy but they again started demanding more dowry and starting beating and quarrelling with her sister deceased Anita. Due to the beatings and harassment her sister Anita started living with her husband Kewal Singh separately but her in laws started quarrelling with her there also and on one occasion Anita (deceased) was given beatings with a belt by the accused persons. PW9 has further testified that within one year of marriage her sister Anita ( deceased ) gave birth to a male child and on the occasion of kuan pujan her brother gifted ornaments and clothes for the child, her sister Anita (deceased) and her husband Kewal Singh but after 3-4 days of the kuan pujan her sister was expelled from the rented house by her in laws. But State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 16 when Anita (deceased) made a complaint to the police, a compromise took place and she again went to her in laws house.
18. PW9 Mamta Rathore has deposed that on 15.07.07 her sister Anita was taken by accused Kewal Singh to SGM hospital as she was not well and thereafter she was taken to LNJP hospital where she expired on 18.07.07. She has stated that her sister Anita has died due to quarrelling and beatings given by the accused persons.
19. In her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, she has stated that at the time of marriage of Anita, there was no demand for dowry by the accused persons but it started after about 5-7 months of the marriage. She has also stated that she had told to the SDM about the harassment and beating given to Anita by her in laws. She denied the suggestion given by Ld. Defence Counsel that deceased Anita was suffering from brain disease and was getting treatment for the same or that accused persons never demanded any dowry or never gave beatings or harassed Anita or that her statement was not recorded by SDM or the police.
State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 17
20. PW11 Sunita Rathore, elder sister of deceased Anita has deposed on the same lines as has been deposed by PW3 Mukesh Kumar and PW9 Mamta Rathore. She has deposed that deceased Anita was married to accused Kewal Singh on 11.12.05 and in the marriage she was given sufficient dowry articles. After her marriage, her husband accused Kewal Singh sold his three wheeler and after 4-5 months of the marriage the accused persons started harassing deceased Anita on the pretext of insufficient dowry. All the accused persons used to demand money for purchase of new three wheeler and on one occassion Rs. 20000/- were given by her brother to Anita for purchasing the three wheeler. She has further deposed that after 10 months of marriage, her sister gave birth to a male child and in the namkaran ceremony, her brothers told her that they had given clothes and some ornaments to her sister and new born child. These facts were also told to her by the deceased.
21. PW11 Sunita Rathore has also testified that deceased Anita shifted to a rented house 2-3 months prior to the birth of male child. She came to know on 17.07.07 that State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 18 her sister Anita was admitted in LNJP Hospital where she saw Anita unconscious and on 18.07.07 Anita expired. She has deposed that Anita had expired due to beatings given by accused persons. She also testified that statement of her brother was recorded and same was signed by her also. PW11 Sunita Rathore has deposed that deceased Anita used to tell on phone about the harassment, taunting and beating given by the accused persons. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the state wherein she stated that on 15.07.07 deceased Anita was given beating by accused Kewal Singh with a belt and due to this reason she became unconscious and was admitted in the hospital.
22. In her cross examination, she has stated that she never visited the matrimonial house of deceased and she had given her consent to the statement made by her brother PW1 Suraj Pal to the SDM. She denied the suggestion that deceased Anita was suffering from brain decease and used to have fits regularly or that she was getting treatment for the same or that accused persons never gave beatings to Anita for want of dowry or that she deposed all the facts as per State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 19 instruction of her brother or that accused persons never demanded Rs. 20000/- from deceased Anita for purchase of new three wheeler.
23. Further, prosecution in support of its case examined PW5 Dr. V. K. Jha, who proved the postmortem report Ex. PW5/A. He also proved the cause of death of deceased Anita and also gave his opinion regarding cause of death. The cause of death was opined to be "defused brain necrosis as a result of disease process". He proved his detailed report regarding cause of death of deceased Anita as Ex. PW5/B. PW7 Dr. R. Dewan and PW8 Dr. Neeraj both have proved the death certificate (copy) Ex. PW7/A and death slip (copy) Ex. PW7/B in respect of death of patient Anita on 18.07.07 as they were posted in ward no. 31 of LNJP hospital. PW16 Sri Narain, Sr. Scientific Officer, Chemistry, FSL, Rohini has proved the detailed chemical examination report Ex. PW16/A.
24. PW12 SI Rajesh, the first investigation officer of this case, has deposed that on 18.07.07 on receipt of DD No. 49B he reached O-49, Krishan Vihar, Delhi. SHO PS Sultan Puri State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 20 was already present there. A dead body was lying in front of house no. O-79, Krishna Vihar, Delhi and brother of deceased namely Suraj Pal and other relatives were present at the spot. SHO PS Sultan Puri and HC Karan Singh were already present. PW15 ASI Karan Singh also corroborated the same in respect of presence of dead body at the spot. PW12 SI Rajesh has further deposed that on inquiry he came to know the name of deceased as Anita who was married to accused Kewal Singh and further came to know that deceased was being harassed for dowry. PW12 accordingly informed the SDM PW6 Sukhbir Singh, who reached at the spot and inspected the dead body and directed to remove the body to mortuary SGM hospital. The same has been corroborated by PW6 Sukhbir Singh, Executive Magistrate in his testimony before the court. Thereafter PW12 SI Rajesh along with Ct. Ramesh removed the dead body to mortuary SGM hospital. This fact has also been corroborated by PW6 Sukhbir Singh as well as by PW14 Ct. Ramesh.
25. PW12 SI Rajesh has further deposed that on 19.07.07 he along with relatives of deceased Anita reached SGM hospital and PW6 Sukhbir Singh, SDM also reached State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 21 there. He has also deposed that PW6 Sukhbir Singh recorded statement about identification of dead body Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW1/A. PW1 Suraj Pal and PW3 Mukesh have also corroborated the fact regarding identification of the dead body. He has further deposed that SDM recorded statement of PW1 Suraj Pal which was also consented by other witnesses and corroborated by PW1 Suraj Pal. He also proved the handing over memo of dead body vide memo Ex. PW12/A and seizure memo Ex. PW12/B in respect of viscera of deceased. Thereafter statement of PW1 Suraj Pal was handed over to SHO and PW 21 Insp. Deen Dayal recorded his statement. In his cross examination he has denied that he never joined the investigation of this case or that he never visited the spot and all the proceedings were conducted by him while sitting in the police station.
26. PW21 Insp. Deen Dayal Kalshal, the second investigation officer of this case, has deposed that on 21.07.07 HC Satpal handed over copy of FIR of the present case and rukka to him. He collected inquest papers, postmortem report, seizure memo and other documents from State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 22 PW12 SI Rajesh. Thereafter he along with SI Rajesh and Ct. Pawan Kumar reached the spot where PW2 Rekha Devi met them and at her instance he prepared the site plan vide Ex. PW21/A. Same has also been corroborated by PW2 Rekha Devi. He has further deposed that he tried to search the accused along with Ct. Pawan, Lady Ct. Kanta and Suraj Pal. In the evening on the same day accused Kewal Singh was arrested vide memo Ex. PW1/C and his personal search Ex. PW1/E was prepared. Thereafter at the instance of PW1 Suraj Pal, accused Ravi was also apprehended from O-49, Krishan Vihar, Sultan Puri and he was also arrested vide memo Ex. PW1/D and his personal search Ex. PW1/F was prepared. The arrest of accused Kewal Singh and Ravi has also been corroborated by PW13 Ct. Pawan.
27. PW21 Insp. Deen Dayal has further deposed the on 17.08.07 as per his directions, Ct. Jai Bhagwan received case property from HC Ramesh (MHC-M) and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini. This fact has also been corroborated by PW4 HC Ramesh Kumar and PW17 Ct. Jai Bhagwan. He also deposed that on 03.09.07 SI Manohar Lal at his instance State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 23 prepared the site plan and the same has also been proved by PW10 SI Manohar Lal. On 01.10.07 he collected attested copy of treatment from LNJP hospital which is collectively Ex. PW21/B. He has further proved the formal arrest of accused Sushma and Shanno vide memo Ex. PW20/A and PW20/B and on 28.12.07 accused Sangeeta was formally arrested vide memo Ex. PW20/C. The arrest of these three accused persons has also been corroborated by PW20 Ct. Sandhya. He has also deposed that on 04.03.08 he obtained NBWs of accused Usha, Babita and Krishan Mohan. He also proved the recording of FIR by HC Satpal Ex. PW21/E and endorsement of HC Satpal on rukka Ex. PW21/F. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before the court through SHO.
28. In his cross examination, he has stated that he arrested accused Kewal and Krishan Mohan on 21.07.07 and not on 18.07.07. He denied all the suggestions put to him by the Ld. Defence Counsel in his cross examination.
29. PW22 Insp. Samarjit Singh, has deposed that on 10.04.08 investigation of this case was marked to him. He has also deposed that on 06.05.08 he arrested accused Smt. State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 24 Usha, Kishan Mohan and Smt. Babita vide memos Ex. PW19/A, Ex. PW18/A and Ex. PW19/B. Formal search of accused Smt. Usha, Kishan Mohan and Smt. Babita were taken vide memo Ex. PW19/C, Ex. PW18/B and Ex. PW19/D. Arrest of accused Smt. Usha and Smt. Babita has been corroborated by PW19 W/Ct. Babita while arrest of accused Kishan Mohan has been corroborated by PW18 Ct. Vijender. Thereafter he prepared supplementary challan and filed the same through SHO. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he denied all the suggestions put to him.
30. The vital witnesses testimony are PW1 Suraj Pal, PW2 Rekha Devi, PW3 Mukesh, PW9 Mamta Rathore and PW11 Sunita Rathore. However, in order to carry out scrutiny and analysis of the testimony of these witnesses it is essential to have a look on the provisions of law and principles of law laid down by The Apex Court :-
Section 304B, IPC, deals with 'dowry death', which reads as follows:
"304B IPC. Dowry death.--
(1)Where the death of a State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 25 woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and 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 purpose of this sub-Section, "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 term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."
The legislature has also introduced Section 113B of the Evidence Act alongside insertion of Section 304B, IPC.
"113B. Presumption as to dowry death--When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 26 death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this Section "dowry death"
shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
The basic ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 304B, IPC, are as follows:
"(1) That the death of the woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or in some circumstances which were not normal;
(2) such death occurs within 7 years from the date of her marriage;
(3) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(4) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (5) it is established that such State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 27 cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death."
In the case of unnatural death of a married woman as in a case of this nature, the husband could be prosecuted under Sections 302, 304B and 306 of the Penal Code. The distinction as regards commission of an offence under one or the other provisions as mentioned herein before came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Apex Court in Satvir Singh V. State of Punjab 2001 (2) JCC 274; [(2001) 8 SCC 633] wherein it was held: (SCC p.643, paras 21-22).
"21. Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is 'at any time' after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are 'In connection with the marriage of the said parties'. This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties.
There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 28 within the ambit of 'dowry'. Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304-B IPC should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage.
22. It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304-B IPC is to be invoked. But it should have happened 'soon before her death'. The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words 'soon before her death is to emphasise the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry-related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval which elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 29 is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept 'soon before her death'.
" In Hira Lal Vs. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi 2003(2) JCC 1182: [(2003) 8 SCC 80], The Apex Court observed that :
(SCC pp.86-87, para 9] "The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression 'soon before' is not defined. A reference to expression 'soon before' used in Section 114. Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods 'soon after the theft, is either the thief has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. 'The determination of the period which can come within the term soon before' is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression 'soon before' State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 30 would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of woman concerned, it would be of no consequence."
31. The prosecution has to fulfill and establish the basic ingredients to attract Section 304 B IPC. The ingredients are :-
32. As per prosecution case deceased Anita was admitted at SGM hospital on 15.07.07 by accused Kewal Singh, her husband. Her condition became serious and then she was removed to LNJP Hospital. She died on 18.07.07. PW7 Dr. R. Dewan proved the death of deceased Anita and issued the death certificate Ex. PW7/A and death slip Ex. PW7/B. Death was due to bilateral intra cranial bleed with cardio respiratory arrest. PW8 Dr. Neeraj of the same ward further corroborated these facts. PW16 Sri Narain, FSL expert State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 31 analyzed the exhibits sent for chemical examination and gave detailed report Ex.PW16/A. Viscera was chemically examined but it does not find any kind of poison. PW5 Dr. V. K. Jha who conducted the postmortem also gave final opinion regarding cause of death after perusing postmortem report and viscera analysis report of FSL. As per opinion given by him, the cause of death was due to defused brain necrosis as a result of disease process. During investigation, IO PW21 Insp. Deen Dayal Kalshal took into possession the treatment documents of LNJP hospital Ex. PW21/B. As per history explained in these documents on 17.07.074 Anita deceased suddenly became unconscious. She was first taken to some private hospital and then to a government hospital and was finally admitted in LNJP hospital.
33. The CT scan of the head shows bleed in lateral ventricle & III Ventricle. D/L Basal ganglia / periventriculer white material / right frontal / fronto parietal region, which means internally brain was bleedings. In the cause of death no particular disease has been designated which resulted in the internal bleedings. This kind of internal bleeding is cause State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 32 due to some injuries. Prosecution examined PW2 Smt. Rekha Devi but she turned out to be hostile and not supported the prosecution in respect of fact that accused Kewal Singh had given her beating with belt. Prosecution has failed to prove how she received the internal injury or the internal bleeding injuries was caused by the beating given by accused Kewal Singh. The investigation officer while investigating the present case also did not collect the documents regarding the disease with which she was suffering prior to the incident. Thus on the basis of above discussion and observation, prosecution has failed to established that death of deceased occurred in other than normal circumstances.
34. Such death occured within seven years of the date of marriage. The prosecution establish on the basis of testimony of PW1, PW3 PW9 and PW11 that deceased Anita was married to Kewal Singh on 11.12.05. This fact is not assailed by the accused persons.
35. The deceased Anita died on 18.07.07. It clearly establish that death of Anita occurred within seven years of State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 33 her date of marriage. The other ingredients are taken up simultaneously as they are interconnected. These ingredients are as under :-
(iii) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and
(v) it is established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death."
36. The prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW1 Suraj Pal, PW3 Mukesh, PW9 Mamta Rathore and PW11 Sunita Rathore, who all are brothers and sisters of deceased Anita. The testimony of these five important witnesses is discussed in detail herein above. PW1 Suraj Pal's statement was recorded by SDM Ex. PW1/A on 19.07.07 and his statement was endorsed by PW3 Mukesh, PW9 Mamta Rathore and PW11 Sunita Rathore. No independent statement of PW3 Mukesh, PW9 Mamta Rathore and PW11 Sunita Rathore has been recorded by SDM. In witness box PW1 Suraj Pal mainly alleged that in April, 2006, deceased Anita came to him and State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 34 demanded Rs. 20,000/- for accused Kewal Singh's requirement for giving advance rent of TSR and he paid Rs. 10000/-. At that time, deceased Anita was residing with accused Kewal Singh separately from her other in-laws. This happened about 13 months prior to death of Anita.
37. Another incident has been stated by him when a male child was born to deceased Anita. However the incident of sending of his younger sister Khushbu for looking after deceased Anita and her newly born son has been disclosed by him for the first time before the court and it is clear cut improvement on the statement Ex. PW1/A. It is pertinent to mention here that this improvement is not corroborated by PW3 Mukesh, PW9 Mamta Rathore and PW11 Sunita Rathore. He also testified another incident of 04.10.06 when they all went to police station regarding altercation between deceased Anita and accused Shanno. This fact is also not stated to SDM in his statement and he is the only witness testifying these facts which is not corroborated by PW3 Mukesh, PW9 Mamta Rathore and PW11 Sunita Rathore. He also deposed in the court that accused Usha Devi demanded State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 35 gold jewellary from his deceased sister Anita. This fact has also not been corroborated by PW3 Mukesh, PW9 Mamta Rathore and PW11 Sunita Rathore. Lastly he alleged that Rs. 1 lac were demanded by Kewal Singh.
38. In the cross examination, he admitted the introduction of new facts by him when he appeared in the court. He admitted that at the time of marriage, there was no demand of dowry and after marriage also no dowry was demanded. He further admitted that accused Kewal Singh never demanded dowry after the marriage.
39. PW3 Mukesh although stated that there was a demand of Rs. 20000/- from accused Kewal Singh through deceased Anita but that demand according to him was to buy a new TSR which is contradictory to the testimony of PW1 Suraj Pal. According to him Rs. 20000/- were demanded for giving advance rent for TSR. PW3 Mukesh is silent about any demand made by any other accused at the time when the male child was born to deceased Anita. He is also silent about the harassment caused by other co-accused persons for State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 36 demand of dowry. He has given a general and sweeping statement in this regard. He also corroborated the fact that accused persons did not make any demand of dowry at the time of marriage.
40. PW9 Mamta Rathore has testified a different version. According to her all the in-laws demanded TSR for accused Kewal Singh. She introduced the fact regarding beatings given by accused Kewal Singh to the deceased when Rs. 20000/- was not met. She also testified that general allegations regarding beating and quarrel by accused persons with deceased Anita. In the cross examination she also admitted that at the time of marriage, there was no demand of dowry.
41. PW11 Sunita Rathore introduced facts in which taunts were included. According to her Rs. 20000/- were given for the purchase of new TSR. She even does not remember the date of marriage of deceased Anita. She was cross examined by Ld. APP and then she introduced that State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 37 on15.07.07 accused Kewal Singh gave beatings to her sister with belt. This is not supported by PW2 Rekha Devi, who is the neighbour of deceased Anita.
42. PW1 Suraj Pal testified that tenants had told him that deceased Anita was beaten by accused Kewal Singh and then was removed to hospital. Only PW2 Rekha Devi, a tenant, was examined but she turned out to be hostile in all respects.
43. The analysis of testimony of all material witnesses discussed herein above failed to establish that deceased Anita was subjected to cruelty or harassment by any of the accused persons for demand of dowry. No specific allegations were made by any of the witness regarding the cruelty caused to deceased Anita by accused persons. These material witnesses also failed to establish that soon before her death she was subject to cruelty or harassment by any of the accused. The alleged demand of Rs. 20,000/- or Rs. 1 lac which is not specified is about more than 13 months prior to the death of the deceased.
State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 38
44. The vital ingredient to establish charge u/s 304-B IPC is the death of the woman caused otherwise under the normal circumstances or burns or by bodily injury. In this case as discussed herein above in detail that the cause of death is not otherwise than under normal circumstances. The final opinion given by PW5 Dr. V. K. Jha established that deceased Anita died due to "defused brain necrosis as a result of disease process" although this death occurred within seven years of marriage.
45. The essence of Section 498-A IPC is cruelty and harassment. All the vital witnesses are the family members of deceased Anita, as discussed herein above, deposed taunts or general statements regarding the cruelty or harassment. The demand of dowry is also about 13 months prior to the death of deceased. The contradictions observed herein above are even regarding the demand for TSR. The prosecution miserably failed to establish the demand for dowry or illtreatment or harassment or cruelty having any connection with the death of deceased Anita.
State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC 39
46. On the basis of above detailed discussion and observation, prosecution has failed to prove the charge u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC against the accused Kewal Singh, Krishan Mohan, Usha, Sushma, Shanno, Babita, Ravi and Sangita. Hence in these circumstances, all the above mentioned accused persons are acquitted of the charges framed against them in this case. File be consigned to record room after compliance of Section 437-A CrPC.
Announced in the open court (SANJAY KUMAR) today i.e. 11.05.2011 ASJ-01 (NW),ROHINI COURTS: DELHI State Vs. Kewal Singh etc. // FIR No. 1197/07 PS : Sultan Puri // u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC