Delhi District Court
State vs Tarun Sharma on 26 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA-04: ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST:
KARKARDOOMA:DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 44514/2015
CNR No. DLNE01-000192-2013
FIR No. 141/2013
P.S. Bhajanpura
U/s : 498A/304B/34 of IPC
STATE
Versus
(1) Tarun Sharma
s/o late Sh. Prakash Chand Sharma
R/o A-60/A, Gali no. 3,
North Ghonda, Delhi-53
(2) Babita
w/o late Sh. Rajeev
r/o SK-49, Sindura Kala,
Kamla Nagar, Delhi
(3) Sushma Sharma
w/o Sh. Jagdish Sharma
R/o A-60/A, Gali no. 3,
North Ghonda, Delhi-53
(4) Jagdish Sharma
s/o late Sh. Babu Lal Sharma
r/o A-60/A, Gali no. 3, (expired and proceedings
North Ghonda, Delhi-53 abated vide order dt. 27-08-22)
(5) Trishant @ Mannu
s/o late Sh. Jagdish Sharma
R/o A-60/A, Gali no. 3,
North Ghonda, Delhi-53
(6) Sobha Sharma @ Sunita
w/o Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o A-60/A, Gali no. 3,
FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 1 of 57
North Ghonda, Delhi-53
Date of Institution : 10-10-2013
Date of Argument : 13-08-2024
Date of Judgment : 26-09-2024
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of this case are that on 04-05-2013, at about 12:04 pm, an information was received at PS Bhajanpura that 'wife of caller hanged herself at H. No. A/60, Gali no. 3, North Ghonda, Delhi'. The information was reduced into writing vide DD number 18A (Ex. PW15/A) which was marked to SI Yogesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as first IO/investigating officer). Thereafter, IO along with Ct. Kewal reached at the spot where they found one dead body of a lady lying on ground floor of the house. Relatives of deceased from paternal as well as from the side of in-laws were present. Upon inquiry, the IO came to know about name of deceased as Prem Lata, who was married to Tarun Sharma about 4 years ago. One child namely Vishesh Sharma, aged 3 years was born out from the wedlock. The parents of the deceased were levelling allegations against Tarun Sharma of killing their daughter. However, the in-laws of the deceased claimed that deceased had committed suicide in a room situated at second Floor. The SDM concerned was intimated telephonically, who passed directions for getting the spot inspected through Crime Team and to get the dead body deposited at mortuary. He further directed to produce the parents of the deceased at his office. The spot as well as dead body were got inspected through Crime Team. Photographs were clicked.
FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 2 of 57A deep red colour wound was found present on the neck of the deceased. The Crime Team had also inspected the room on the second floor where they had removed part of dupatta which was tied with the ceiling fan and the other piece of dupatta was found lying on the body, regarding which it was informed that said part was removed from the neck of the deceased. Pulanda of the above-said parts was prepared and sealed with the seal of 'YK'. Same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/D. No suicide note was found at the spot. As directed, parents, sister and son of the deceased were produced before SDM Sh. Rakesh Sharma in his office where he conducted inquiry. Statement of father of the deceased Yogender Kumar was recorded in question and answer form. Sh. Yogender Kumar replied that Prem Lata was his elder daughter and besides her, he has three more children. The deceased Prem Lata got married on 15-02-2009 with Tarun Sharma at this residence in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. During the marriage, the groom side demanded one colour TV, refrigerator, gold chain, sofa set, almirah etc. in the form of dowry. Even after marriage, they demanded cash from time to time and he kept on meeting their demands subject to his financial capacity. About ten days ago, his son-in-law demanded Rs. 2 lakhs through his daughter for getting his house repaired. However, he could not fulfill that demand. After marriage, his deceased daughter was not having cordial relations with her in- laws. She used to have quarrel with her husband and aunt on many occasions. Accused Tarun was having extramarital affair with one Babita, who was sister of Tarun's aunt. Accused Tarun had informed him telephonically at about 11:30 am that Prem Lata had committed suicide and asked them to reach there FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 3 of 57 immediately. He along with his family reached at the spot at about 12- 12:30 pm where he found that his daughter was lying dead on floor and her body was wrapped in a cloth. He raised suspicion that Tarun had killed his daughter and Babita is also involved in the conspiracy. He prayed for initiating legal action against Tarun and Babita. On the basis of above-stated statement of father of deceased, present FIR was registered for the offence punishable u/s 498A/304B/34 of IPC. Accused Tarun Sharma was arrested at the spot and information regarding his arrest was conveyed to his aunt Sushma Sharma. On 05-05-2013, postmortem report of deceased was got conducted by Tehsildar and after postmortem, dead body was handed over to the parents. Statement of father of uncle of deceased was recorded regarding identification of dead body. On 28-05-2013, postmortem report and viscera of dead body was received. In the postmortem report, the cause of death of deceased was opined as 'asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging'. Viscera was preserved to rule out intoxication. The viscera was seized and preserved at Malkhana. On 03-06-2013, viscera was sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Sumer for examination. Crime Team report along with photographs were obtained. In the presence of uncle of accused Tarun Sharma and other family members, room of accused Tarun Sharma was got opened and 'stridhan' articles recovered therefrom were handed over to the complainant Yogender Sharma. After completion of necessary formalities, chargesheet was filed against accused Tarun Sharma (arrested), Babita, Sushma Sharma, Baldev Sharma, Trishant and Shobha without their arrest. Viscera report was filed through supplementary chargesheet.
FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 4 of 57Committal
2. After taking cognizance and compliance of proceedings u/s 207 of Cr.P.C., the present case was committed to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 11-11-2016 by the Ld. MM/NE/KKD. Thereafter, the case was assigned to Ld. Predecessor of this Court by the Ld. District & Sessions judge.
Charge
3. After hearing argument and finding that prima facie case was made out, charge for the offence punishable u/s 498A and 304B IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to establish its case, the prosecution got examined as many as 15 witnesses. Prosecution Evidence
4. (i) PW1 Preeti Sharma was the sister of deceased. She deposed that her sister Premlata was got married to accused Sh. Tarun Sharma and that marriage was solemnized on 15.02.2009 and this marriage was arranged as mediated by Smt. Vidhyawati, residing in their neighborhood. Smt. Vidhya before that marriage had conveyed and informed them that because of death of mother of Tarun Sharma, he had been brought up by his uncle and aunt, Sh. Jagdish Sharma and Smt. Sushma Sharma and that Sushma Sharma was Vidhya's mother's sister's daughter and Vidhyawati further convinced them that family of Tarun Sharma was not greedy for any dowry or demand. In those circumstances and situation they convinced themselves to get her sister married to Tarun Sharma.
PW1 further deposed that a ceremony of "godh bharai"
for that marriage was performed on 07.07.2008 wherein her father spent around Rs.1 lac. After that "godh bharai" ceremony FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 5 of 57 till marriage all the festival occasions were well attended wherein her father spent around Rs.10000/- towards gifts given to family of Tarun Sharma. On the occasion of engagement ceremony which was held on 10.02.2009 a good amount of articles were provided to the family of accused. Accused Tarun Sharma and his uncle and aunt Sh. Jagdish and Sushma and Smt. Shobha, wife of the brother of Sh. Jagdish and son of Sh. Jagdish namely Trishant @ Mannu had expressed their unhappiness on the articles as well their quality which were given to them on that ceremony. On that occasion, accused persons put up a demand of Rs.1 lac. She identified all accused persons present in Court that day. Smt. Vidhyawati also favoured accused persons in their demand. In that situation her family members gave a second thought and they expressed their desire not to solemnize that marriage. On that occasion accused persons as well Smt. Vidhyawati then apologized to them because the wedding invitation cards had already been circulated and in those circumstances they did not break that talk for marriage.On 15.02.2009 her sister was got married to Tarun Sharma in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. All gifts articles which were arranged on the occasion of wedding from their side which she described as "stridhan" were given to the custody of Sh. Jagdish and Smt. Sushma by her father. Her father spent around an amount of Rs.10 lacs on that wedding. After marriage her sister was living and residing in her matrimonial home comprising her husband Tarun, his brother Trishant, his uncle Jagdish and his wife Smt. Sushma and Smt. Shobha wife of younger brother of Sh. Jagdish and that matrimonial home of Prem Lata was situated in North Ghonda, Delhi. Just after two months of marriage, accused Sh.FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 6 of 57
Tarun Sharma and accused Sh. Jagdish Sharma and Sushma Sharma and Smt. Shobha started harassing her sister and started giving cruelty physical as well mental by putting up demand for dowry. Her sister Premlata used to narrate those instances of harassment and cruelty quite often to her by telephone calls. Her sister used to tell her quite frequently that Sh. Jagdish Sharma and Sushma used to taunt her that since they had brought up Tarun Sharma and had spent around Rs.2 lacs, her sister should get that amount paid to them from her parents. Accused persons were harassing her sister. Her sister was caused a lot of harassment and cruelty when she was pregnant and accused persons were not even providing her adequate food.
She further deposed that on the occasion of first "karvachauth" festival soon after the marriage when her father visited the house of accused to greet them, accused persons expressed their unhappiness over the gift articles which her father had taken for them as was later on told to them by her father. On that occasion when her father had found her sister not in a good health condition in her matrimonial home and seeing the conduct and behaviour of accused persons, her father brought her sister with him to their house. Her sister was pregnant on that occasion and she gave birth to child in their house. On that occasion her father spent around Rs.50000/-. After two months of birth of the child, her sister went back to her matrimonial home and once again accused persons started treating her with cruelty and harassment both physical and mental and they once again put up their demand for further dowry. Accused Tarun Sharma, Jagdish, Sushma and Shobha and Trishant then again started putting up a demand of Rs.2 lacs. Her sister Premlata conveyed all those facts FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 7 of 57 and circumstances to her on phone and she conveyed all that matter to her father. On that occasion her father visited the house of accused persons to make them to understand and on one occasion her father paid a sum of Rs.25000/- to accused persons.
PW1 further testified that somewhere in March, 2012 the widowed sister of Sushma namely accused Babita also started residing in the matrimonial home of her sister Prema. Her sister Premlata conveyed her on a phone call that there were Illicit relations between Babita and Tarun Sharma. She identified accused Babita in Court that day. Her sister further told her that when she objected to that relationship between Babita and Tarun, both of them gave her physical beating. Her sister further told her that Babita used to speak to her sister that she would be getting married to Tarun and her sister would have to bear all that if she desired to reside in their house and she would be living as a maid servant in the house. Somewhere in June, 2012 accused Tarun lost his private service in "We Care" call center in Noida and all accused persons including Babita, started harassing her sister for demand of money of Rs.2 lacs so as to put Tarun in a gainful employment. To seek fulfillment of that demand accused persons caused a severe torture and beating to her sister. During that process her father used to visit matrimonial home of her sister in order to pacify accused persons and he used to pay money to them like Rs.10000/- or Rs.15000/- on those occasions.
PW1 further deposed that on 18.04.2013 her sister came to their house. She told her that on 16.04.2013 she had been given beating by her husband Tarun, other accused persons Sushma, Shobha, Jagdish, Trishant, Babita and they demanded dowry of Rs.2 lacs. Her father then spoke to accused persons on that FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 8 of 57 occasion and accused persons Tarun, Jagdish and Sushma gave an assurance to her father that no such conduct or treatment shall be repeated in future. Accordingly her sister Premlata was sent back to her matrimonial home.
PW1 further revealed that on the night of 03.05.2013 when it was around 10 pm that a phone call from her sister Premlata was received on the mobile phone of her father and that call was attended by her. Her sister Premlata conveyed to her that her husband accused Tarun and accused Jagdish, Sushma, Shobha, Trishant and Babita were harassing her and were giving her beating while repeating their demand for dowry of Rs.2 lacs. Her sister further told her that illicit relation between Tarun and Babita were on increasing terms openly and that she was being treated worse than maid servant in the house and she further conveyed to her that it was not feasible for her to reside any further in her matrimonial home. On that occasion she handed over the phone to her father who continued conversation with her sister. Her father tried to make her sister understand and tried to console her and he further told her sister that he would be arriving in the next morning to solve that problem for all time. On the morning of 04.05.2013 when her father and mother were preparing to proceed and visit her sister's matrimonial house, at around 11.30am that a phone call was received on the mobile phone of her father and that call was made by Tarun and Tarun conveyed to her father that Premlata had committed suicide. Their entire family including herself then reached the house of accused persons. She saw body of her sister Premlata lying on the floor on the ground floor of the house and she observed dark red /brown marks on her neck. Accused persons because of their FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 9 of 57 demand for dowry caused a serious cruelty and harassment to her sister and they had killed her sister.
In her cross examination, PW1 stated that she was not using any mobile phone. She was using a mobile phone bearing no. 9810721131 at the time of incident. The email address of Trishant is [email protected]. She denied the suggestion that she is having email address as [email protected]. It is affirmed that she was in touch with accused Trishant in the year, 2012 as well as after the incident through e-mail. She further affirmed that she had contacted accused Trishant on 30.12.2012 and 30.07.2013 through email. It is affirmed that they were in touch through email. It might be that said communication through emails was 37 times.
Ld. Defence counsel produced some e-mails which were delivered from e-mail address Sharmapreeti11@ Ymail.com. After going through said email PW1 stated that said e-mails were never communicated by her to accused. Said e-mails are taken on record and the same are collectively mark 'X'. She volunteered that password of her e-mail address was known to accused Trishant. He had fabricated said e-mails. She did not know if she was sending the e-mails through laptop or desktop. She did not remember as to when she started sending e-mails to accused Trishant.
At the time of marriage of Tarun, the grand mother and father were both alive. Even though her bed room was on second floor but she would generally stay on the first floor. There was independent kitchen on each floor. The aforesaid grand mother of her sister's husband died subsequent to marriage of her sister FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 10 of 57 somewhere in 2011 but she did not recall the date. It is affirmed that her mobile numbers was 9810721131 at that time. She did not have any mail ID and did not have any mail ID in the past. She had not sent any mail. Her sister had visited her house in the forenoon around 12 on 18.04.2013. The grand parents of accused were presented certain clothes and cash. She stated that she had been to the house of her sister (deceased), the said house was constructed over plot of 50 square yards.
(ii) PW-2 Yogender Kumar Sharma was the father of the deceased. He deposed that he had four children - two sons and two daughters - Prem Lata, victim deceased of present case, was his elder daughter. Prem Lata was got married on 15.02.2009 to accused Tarun Sharma. That marriage was got mediated by Smt. Vidhyawati, who was residing since twenty years in his neighbourhood. Vidhyawati while suggesting him for this matrimonial relationship had informed him that Tarun Sharma had been brought up by his uncle and aunt, accused Jagdish and Sushma, who were present in Court that day and that Smt. Sushma was the daughter of the elder sister of Vidhyawati.
Vidhyawati further told them that accused persons were not greedy for dowry and accordingly they made up their mind for this matrimonial relation. Godbharai ceremony for this marriage between his daughter Prem Lata and accused Tarun Sharma had taken place on 07.07.2008 and in performing that ceremony, he spent around Rs.1 lac. Engagement ceremony then was performed on 10.02.2009 and he spent around an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Marriage between his daughter Prem Lata and Tarun was then performed by him on 15.02.2009. In that marriage, he gave a good amount of dowry as per the demand of accused FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 11 of 57 persons. Accused persons being not happy with the dowry given by him in the marriage, accused Jagdish uncle, Smt. Sushma aunt, Shobha, who was also mother in law aunt of Prem Lata, Tishant @ Mannu son of Jagdish had put up a demand of Rs.1 lac on the occasion of engagement ceremony as these accused persons were not happy with the gifts article given by him on the engagement ceremony. In the wedding ceremony of Prem Lata, he spent around Rs. 10 lacs and gifts and dowry articles given by him in the marriage were entrusted to the custody of accused Tarun, accused Jagdish and Smt. Sushma. Prem Lata after marriage had started living and residing as a part of joint family consisting accused Jagdish, Sushma, Tarun, Shobha and Trishant and that matrimonial house was situated in gali no.3, Ghonda. After about 1½ month of the marriage, accused Jagdish and Sushma started saying that they had spent Rs.2 lacs in the bringing up of Tarun and they asked his daughter Prem Lata to bring an amount of Rs.2 lacs from her parents and Prem Lata conveyed that demand to them. In order to satisfy that demand, he paid sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- like amounts on various occasions to accused persons. Accused persons had started causing cruelties and harassment to his daughter to get their demands satisfied as Prem Lata used to tell and convey him those cruelties and harassment by phone calls. All accused persons except Babita were involved in commission of those acts of cruelties and harassment.
On the occasion of the first "Karva Chauth" of the marriage of his daughter Prem Lata, he took and carried gifts to the house of accused persons and as soon he reached the house with those gifts, accused Jagdish, Sushma, Tarun, Shobha, Trishant FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 12 of 57 expressed their unhappiness over those gifts articles and misbehaved with him and rather asked him to go out of their house. He saw that his daughter Prem Lata was not in a good condition in her matrimonial home. She was pregnant at that point of time. On that occasion he found his daughter had not been provided even food for five days and accordingly he brought his daughter to his house. PW2 started cryingin court while making deposition at that stage. He added that his daughter Prem Lata then stayed in his house for a period of around 5 to 6 months and she gave birth to a son while staying in his house. Around a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was spent by him in the delivery of son by his daughter. After about two months of birth of son, he sent back his daughter Prem Lata to her matrimonial home and gifts were provided by him to her for celebrating birth of son; After a few days accused again started causing cruelties and harassment to his daughter. Accused even used to cause physical beatings to his daughter Prem Lata. Meanwhile he had been visiting house of accused persons to speak with accused Jagdish, Sushma and Tarun as to why his daughter Prem Lata was being harassed and on all those visits, he used to give money to accused persons so as to ensure that they stop causing cruelties and harassment to his daughter Prem Lata.
PW2 testified that in March, 2012 widowed sister of Sushma namely accused Babita, present in Court that day, also came and started living and residing in the matrimonial home of his daughter Prem Lata. After sometime, his daughter Prem Lata informed and told him that a wrong and illicit relation had developed between accused Tarun and Babita and she further told and informed him that whenever she objected to that illicit FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 13 of 57 relation, accused Babita and Tarun used to cause her cruelties and physical beatings. His daughter Prem Lata further told and informed him/them that accused Babita used to declare that Tarun was her person and Prem Lata would have to live like a maid in the house. During that period Tarun lost his job/service. On that occasion all accused persons including accused Babita then put up a demand of Rs.2 lacs for the purposes of putting accused Tarun in some gainful employment and they started committing cruelties and harassment to his daughter to get that demand fulfilled. On 18.04.2013 his daughter Prem Lata came to his house and she narrated all above facts to them. On that date itself he then had a talk with accused Jagdish, Sushma and Tarun by making a phone call and accused persons provided him an assurance that mistake would not be repeated in future and on that day he sent back his daughter Prem Lata to her matrimonial home believing the assurance given by accused; On 03.05.2013 at around 10pm, he received a phone call from his daughter Prem Lata and he attended that call. Prem Lata asked him to call back to her as she was not having sufficient balance in her mobile phone and accordingly he gave a call on her mobile phone. While he was having a talk with his daughter Prem Lata, his younger daughter Preeti was also sitting by his side listening that conversation. In that phone his daughter Prem Lata told and informed him, and in that phone call, he had put his mobile phone on speaker mode and thus his daughter Preeti was also listening that conversation, Prem Lata informed him that illicit relation between Tarun and Babita were on increase and her condition in the matrimonial home was becoming worse than a maid in a house. She further informed him that on the issue of FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 14 of 57 demand of Rs.2 lacs all accused persons namely Jagdish, Sushma, Shobha, Babita, Tarun and Trishant had been causing cruelties and harassment to her. His daughter Preeti while listening that conversation had also come on the phone call and she too had a direct conversation with Prem Lata. His daughter Prem Lata was crying during that conversation and he continued to console his daughter Prem Lata assuring and telling her that he would be coming to her matrimonial home next day so as to resolve her difficulties and problems in a kind of permanent way.
PW2 further deposed that on the morning of 04.05.2013 while they were getting ready and prepared to visit the house of accused persons, at around 11.30am, he received a phone call from accused Tarun that Prem Lata had committed suicide. He with my family members then reached the house of accused persons and he found that two police officials had already arrived that place. He saw dead body of his daughter Prem Lata laid on the floor of room on the ground floor and he observed red bruise marks on her neck and he asked his son to make 100 number call as accused persons had killed his daughter. PCR police arrived and they took him and his family members to police station and he waited there as SDM was to reach. Finally SI Yogesh took him and his family members to office of SDM. As per direction of SDM, his statement was recorded by Tehsildar. He identified that statement bearing his signatures at point A and B as Ex. PW2/A. PW2 further testified that as he was not in a condition of body and mind because of the trauma of death of his daughter, he had not been able to narrate all the facts in a sequence in that statement. Accused persons had demanded motorcycle, colour television, sofa set, almirah, washing machine and furniture, gold FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 15 of 57 articles like chain, ring etc., at the time of marriage also.
PW2 claimed that on 05.05.2013 he had identified body of his daughter Prem Lata in GTB hospital vide identification memo Ex. PW2/B and they received body and performed cremation at his place. He narrated further facts of this case to a statement given on 05.05.2013. During Investigation he had given a list of dowry/gifts articles to the police and he identified the same as Ex. PW2/C. Some of those dowry articles were later on seized by the police from house of accused persons and police handed over those articles to him vide handing over memo Ex. PW2/D bearing his signature at point A. Rest other articles beyond this memo could not be recovered by the police as Informed by IO. He had provided purchase bills of costly gifts / dowry articles to the police and photocopy of those bills on the judicial file which are mark A, B, C, D and E. He claimed that he can produce originals of these photocopies of the bills. The gifts / dowry articles which were not recovered and seized by the police and not yet received by him are four tolas of gold jewellery, registration document of the motorbike. He identified the wedding investigation card of marriage of Prem Lata and Tarun as Ex. PX. Some of the photographs taken at the time of that wedding were seen by him on the judicial file which were 31 in number and he identified these photographs as Ex. PW2/1 to 31. PW2 has started crying quite bitterly on seeing these photographs. He had also seen photographs focusing his daughter Prem Lata in dead condition which were Ex. PW2/32 to 34.
PW2 had also brought the original bills which were exhibited as Ex.PW2/E (OS&R), Ex. PW2/F (OS&R),Ex.PW2/G (OS&R) and Ex.PW2/H (OS&R). The original of Bill Mark E FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 16 of 57 has been misplaced. He also produced the photographs of the articles that were returned to him as per Ex.PW2/D. They were exhibited collectively as Ex.PW2/I (1 to 12).PW2 further claimed that he had given motorcycle No.-7751 to accused persons at the time of marriage. He had searched the papers of this motorcycle, however, the same were not traceable. The motorcycle has been returned to him. He claimed that he had given four tolas of gold in form of jewellery but the same has not been returned by the accused persons which he had got prepared by giving old ornaments to gold-smith. He has no documentary proof to this regard that day.
In his cross examination, PW2 stated that the father of Tarun was alive at the time of marriage of Tarun. Grandmother of Tarun was also alive. He was aware that grandmother and father of Tarun were residing together with Tarun at the time of marriage. At the time of marriage, house of Tarun was completely constructed. He did not know who was residing at which floor but he used to visit second floor. The dowry articles were placed in different floors. He could not disclose several facts before the official. He had not stated before the SDM that "godvarai ceremony of this marriage between my daughter Prem Lata and accused Tarun Sharma had taken place o 07.07.2008 and in performing that ceremony I spent around Rs. 8 lac, engagement ceremony then I was performed on 10.02.2009". He could not provide the bills and bank details about money spent by him in the marriage of Rs. 10 lacs. He denied the suggestion that he had not spent Rs. 10 lacs in the marriage of his daughter and i.e. why he cannot provide the bills of such. He volunteered that he had provided the bill which he was having.
FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 17 of 57He did not remember the date, month and year when he had given Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- to Tarun. He denied the suggestion that he had not given such money to Tarun and his family at any point of time i.e. why he is unable to say such dates. It is affirmed that delivery of child was performed in a government hospital. He denied the suggestion that he had not spent Rs. 50,000/- at the time of delivery of child. He stated that on 03.05.2013 at about 02 pm, he was lying at his home when he received phone call of Prem Lata. He did not remember from whose phone this call was made to him. He volunteered that this was a missed call and then he had call back on that number from his mobile phone.
(iii) PW-3 ASI Kanshi Ram was the duty officer posted at PS Bhajanpura, at the relevant time. He has proved the copy of present FIR as Ex. PW3/A, and the endorsement made on the rukka prepared by the IO as Ex. PW3/B. He was cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material on record came out.
(iv) PW-4 Inspector E.S. Yadav was the Incharge of Mobile Crime Team who had inspected the spot on the date of incident. He claimed that he has observed dead body of a female whose name was revealed as Premlata, lying on the floor of the ground floor. He had also observed a piece of chunni tied to the fan on the second floor of the house. The other piece of the chunni was lying on the bed. Some broken pieces of bangles were lying on the floor of second floor room. He proved the scene of crime report prepared by him as Ex. PW4/A. He was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite having given an opportunity.
FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 18 of 57(v) PW-5 ASI Sanjeev was the duty officer posted at PS Bhajanpura, at the time of receipt of PCR call. He has proved DD no. 18A as Ex. PW5/A whereby an information was received from the control room that one person's wife had committed suicide at H.No. A-60, Gali No. 3, North Ghonda, Delhi.
He was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite given opportunity.
(vi) PW-6 HC Kewal Singh was the investigating police official who had accompanied SI Yogesh Kumar at the spot on 04.05.2013. He has proved the document prepared by the IO during arrest of accused as Ex. PW6/A to Ex. PW6/C; pieces of dupatta seized from the spot as Ex. PW6/D ; handing over memo of jewellery articles worn by the deceased as Ex. Pw6/E. He was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite having given an opportunity.
(vii) PW-7 Sh. Amarnath was the Tehsildar/ Executive Magistrate who had conducted inquest proceedings at the spot. He proved the statement recorded by him of parents of deceased namely Yogender Kumar & Birmo Devi as Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW7/A; Inquest proceedings as Ex. PW7/B; Identification statement of dead body of deceased as Ex. PW7/C and Ex. PW2/B. He was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite having given an opportunity.
(viii) PW8 ASI Shyam Lal was the photographer of the Mobile crime team. He has proved 22 photographs of the crime team clicked by him as Ex. PW8/A and negatives thereof as Ex. PW8/B. FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 19 of 57 He was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite having given an opportunity.
(ix) PW-9: Mukesh Kumar deposed that Deceased Premlata was his younger sister. She used to live at her matrimonial house at A-60/A, Gali No.3, Ghonda Chowk, Delhi. On 04.05.2013, he alongwith his family members including his father had gone to the house of his deceased sister. In my presence, his father had received two ear rings, one nose pin (Laung) and one pair of pajeb which was of his deceased sister and the same was handed over to his father vide handing over memo already Ex. PW6/E signed by him at point B. On 14.07.2013, he along with his father and other family members had gone to the house of his deceased sister alongwith the police. On his and his father's identification, certain household articles were taken into possession by the police which belonged to his deceased sister and the same were handed over to them vide memo already Ex. PW2/D signed by him at point B. All the articles are in his house. He has not given any statement to the police nor recorded by the IO.
He was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite having given an opportunity.
(x) PW-10 Hom Dutt Sharma deposed that he is property dealer and residing at aforesaid address alongwith his family for the last 30 years. He is uncle of deceased Prem Lata. He further deposed that four years prior to the day of incident, his younger brother Yogender had solemnized marriage of his daughter Prem Lata with accused Tarun Sharma. On 05.05.2013, it came into his notice that his aforesaid niece was killed by her husband and in laws. On the same day, he alongwith his family reached at FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 20 of 57 mortuary of GTB where his brother Yogender met them. He had identified the dead body of Prem Lata before police and Executive Magistrate in presence of his brother vide identification memo Ex. PW7/A. On the same day after postmortem examination, his brother had received the dead body for cremation against receipt, carbon copy of which is Ex. PW10/A. The aforesaid document is also exhibited on 14.07.2014 which is not clear. His statement was recorded in the mortuary. He has read over the same and found it correct. He claimed that they(his family) had taken the dead body to their home where they completed the last rites.
In his cross examination, he was cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material on record came out.
(xi) PW-11 ASI Jai Pal Singh was the MHC (M) posted at PS Bhajanpura at the relevant time during investigation of the present case. He has proved the entries made by him in register no. 19 with regard to deposit of exhibits at malhana of PS and despatch of exhibits to FSL. He has also proved the acknowledgment obtained from FSL. The records proved by him are Ex. PW11/A to Ex. PW11/F. He was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite having given an opportunity.
(xii) PW-12 Sh.Rakesh Sharma, Assistant Director of Education in Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi deposed that on 04.05.13, he was posted as SDM, Karawal Nagar having additional charge of SDM, Yamuna Vihar. On the same day, he received a call from SHO, PS Bhajanpura of hanging incident. Thereafter, he directed SHO to call Crime Team officials to visit the spot and sent the body to mortuary for the FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 21 of 57 postmortem. He also directed the Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar of Yamuna Vihar to conduct the inquest proceedings. Tehsildar Sh.Amar Nath had recorded statement of Sh. Yogender Kumar and he had completed the inquest proceedings. The statement of Yogender Kumar and Birma Devi recorded by Tehsildar already Ex.PW 2/A and Ex.PW 7/A were presented before him by the Tehsildar before him. Aforesaid witnesses also produced by the Tehsildar before him in his office. He had re-confirmed the aforesaid statement from the witnesses and on being found correct, he affixed his signature with seal at point X-1, X-2, X-3 and he made endorsement "recorded in his presence" which are Ex.PW 12/A-1, Ex.PW 12/A-2 and Ex.PW 12/A-3 on statement of Yogender Kumar already Ex.PW 2/A.He had also affixed his signature with seal at point Y-1 and Y-2 and made endorsement "recorded in his presence" which are Ex.PW12/B-1 and Ex. PW12/B-2 respectively on statement of Smt.Birma Devi already Ex. PW7/A. He had also directed aforesaid Tehsildar to give instruction to police official to hand over the dead body to legal heirs for postmortem.
In his cross-examination by Ld. Defense counsel, he affirmed that he met Yogender Kumar and his wife Birma devi after recording the statement by Tehsildar. Tehsildar being Executive magistrate was competent enough to conduct inquest proceedings. He affirmed that statements Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW7/A were not recorded in his presence by the Tehsildar.
(xiii) PW13 Smt. Brima Devi deposed she is mother of Premlata (deceased). She had two sons and two daughters including deceased. They solemnized the marriage of her aforesaid daughter Premlata on 15.02.2009 with Tarun Sharma FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 22 of 57 according to Hindu Rituals and customs at their home. There was no demand of dowry on the day of marriage in her presence. They had given dowry articles to husband and in-laws of her daughter on the day of marriage i.e. motorcycle, furniture, household utensil, clothes, gold and silver jewellery etc. After about one year her daughter was harassed and tortured by her husband and in-laws consisting of Chacha Sasur-Jagdish Sharma, Chachi Saas-Sushma, Chhoti Chachi Saas-Shobha, brother-in- law-Trishan@ Mannu and one other relative Smt. Babita (sister of Chachi Saas) for demand of dowry. Relation between her daughter Premlata and aforesaid accused persons were not cordial. Smt. Sushma (chachi Saas) "Aaye din kalesh karti thi, weh chahti thi ki naukrani ki tarah ghar me rahe and ghar ka kaam kare".Marriage of her son Sanjay was solemnized about one year prior to day of present incident. On the aforesaid occasion, accused Tarun had demanded gold jewelery from her daughter Premlata. To fulfill the aforesaid demand they had given a sum of Rs. 12,000/- to him. On 04.05.2013 at about 11:00 am her husband had received phone call of accused Tarun and told that Premlata had committed suicide. He alongwith her husband and her sons reached at the matrimonial house of Premlata at Ghonda Chowk. They found dead body of Premlata lying at the ground floor of the house. On seeing the dead body they had suspected that Premlata was killed by her husband Tarun and mausi saas accused Babita.
PW13 further deposed that her statement was recorded by SDM at about 04:00 pm in his office on the same day i.e. 04.05.2013. She was alone in the office of SDM when her statement was recorded, which is already Ex.PW7/A. PW13 FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 23 of 57 correctly identified all accused present in the court. She prayed from the court aforesaid accused persons may be convicted.
In her cross examination by Ld. Defense counsel, PW13 affirmed that at the time of marriage of Premlata, father and grand mother of Tarun Sharma were alive. It is affirmed that Tarun Sharma was residing on 2nd Floor along with his father and grandmother. It is affirmed that her daughter Premlata was also residing on 2nd floor with Tarun Sharma and his father and grand mother. He did not remember the date, month or particular year as to when the accused persons had demanded dowry. He denied the suggestion that the accused never demanded any dowry articles from them or that is why he did not remember the date, month or particular year. It is affirmed that talks for marriage in between Preeti and Trishan were going on, but the same could not be materialized.
(xiv) PW14 Dr. Mahesh Kumar, Asst. Professor IGMC, deposed that on 05.05.2013 he was on duty as Junior Demonstrator at UCMS and GTB Hospital, Delhi. On that day he had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Premlata w/o Tarun Sharma 27 years old female which had been sent by Executive Magistrate, Sh. Amar Nath and SI Yogesh for postmortem examination. Dead body was identified by Sh. Yogender Kumar and Sh. Hem Dutt.
PW14 claimed that the dead body was of an average built adult female wrapped in white plastic bag, wearing yellow sari, yellow blouse, yellow petticoat and a pink hair clip. Eyes closed, mouth closed. Ligature mark present over the neck. Rigormortis well developed all over the body Postmortem staining present over the back. Greenish discoloration present over the right lower FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 24 of 57 abdomen.
Following External antemortem injuries were reported :-
1 Brownish abraded dry hard parchmentised ligature mark, obliquely placed, above thyroid cartilage, incompletely encircling the neck. Total neck circumference is 31 cm. The ligature mark is 2 cm wide and 6 cm from the chin in the midline front of the neck when it goes upward and backward towards the left where it is 1 cm wide and 4 cm from left angle of mandible and further moves upward and disappears at the left mastoid tip where it 1 cm wide. The mark reappears on the right side back of the neck at a point 6 cm below the occiput and 3 cm from midline and moves forward and downwards where it is 2 cm wide and 4 cm from right mastoid tip. It is further moved downwards where it is 3 cm wide and 6 cm from right angle of mandible. The mark again moved medially and merged with a rest of the mark in the midline front of neck being absent for 8 cm in the back of the neck Internal examination is as under : -
Scalp - NAD Skull - NAD Brain-1220 gm, congested Neck Extravasation of blood present in the soft tissues and muscles of the neck Eqiglottis congested Left carotid sheath bruising present Underlying osteo cartilaginous structures NAD Ribcage - NAD Lungs -
Right 480 gm-Both the lungs are congested. Petechial hemorrhages present over the interlobar surfaces of both FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 25 of 57 the lungs.
Left 495 gm Both the lungs are congested. Petechial hemorrhages present over the interiobar surfaces of both the lungs.
Heart-225 gm - Petechial hemorrhages present over epicardial surfaces of base of the heart.
Coronaries - NAD Stomach empty - Walls - NAD Intestine contains gases of putrefaction Liver-1310 gm, blackish discolouration over inferior surface. Spleen-102 gm, congested Kidneys-
Right-111 gm-congested Left-98 gm-congested Urinary bladder - empty, Walls - NAD Pelvis / Vertebrae - NAD Uterus empty, Walls- NAD viscera was preserved which was handed over to police in sealed condition with sample seal Time since death is about one day Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. However, viscera has been preserved to rule out any intoxication. Postmortem report is proved as Ex.PW14/A which runs upto four sheet which bears my signature at point A 15 inquest papers were initialed and numbered by PW14. He further deposed that on 28.05.2013, PM report was received by IO SI Yogesh from their department. At that stage FSL report dt. 29.07.2013(Viscera analysis report) Ex PW14/B prepared by Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo was shown to the witness. After going through the contents of report, FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 26 of 57 PW14 stated that he was of the opinion that the cause of death still persist the same which is mentioned in PM report.
He was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel having despite given an opportunity.
(xv) PW-15 SI Yogesh Kumar was the IO of the present case. He deposed that on 04.05.2013, he was posted at PS Bhajanpura as Sub-Inspector. On that day, DD No. 18A Ex.PW15/A was assigned to him. He alongwith Ct. Kewal visited to the spot ie. A-60, Gali No. 3, North Ghonda, Delhi where one female dead body was lying on ground floor. Parents and in-laws of deceased were present there. On preliminary enquiry, he came to know the name of deceased Prem Lata and she was married with accused Tarun Sharma. The marriage was solemnized prior to four years of the incident. She was having one male child aged 3 years namely Vishesh. Parents were alleging to accused Tarun Sharma that he had killed deceased. He conveyed the said information to SDM concerned and requested to visit the spot. He directed him to call the crime team for inspection and photography of the spot and for preservation of the dead body in the mortuary of GTB hospital. He was also directed to reach his office alongwith the parents of deceased for recording of their statements Crime team was called at the spot. Spot ie room situated at 2nd floor of the above address was inspected and photographed by the crime team. One piece of dupatta having knot was hanging in the ceiling fan and other piece of dupatta was lying on bed. On enquiry, accused Tarun Sharma disclosed that he had unknot the piece of dupatta from the neck of deceased and the same was lying on the bed. He removed the piece of Jatta which was hanging on the ceiling fan.
FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 27 of 57He prepared the pullanda of both the pieces of dupatta (hanging on fan and lying on bed) and sealed with the seal of YK. Mark-1 was given to the pullanda which was hanging on ceiling fan and Mark 1A was given to the pullanda which was lying on the bed. Both the pullandas were taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex.6/D. He made a search for the suicide note but in vain. He removed the jewellary from the dead body and prepared seizure memo (handing over memo) and handed over to the father of deceased. The seizure memo is Ex.PW6/E which bears his signature at point C. He sent the dead body to mortuary of GTB hospital for preservation through Ct. Kewal. Thereafter, he alongwith parents of deceased visited to the office of SDM concerned at Nand Nagari. SDM Rakesh Sharma got recorded statement of Yogender Kumar (father of deceased) and Birma Devi (mother of deceased). He collected the statement of parents of deceased. Thereafter, he alongwith parents of deceased came back to PS. He prepared rukka on the statement of Yogender Kumar which is Ex.PW15/B which bears his signature at point A and got the case registered.
PW15 claimed that he along with Ct. Kewal visited to the spot where he prepared site plan which is Ex.PW15/C which bears his signature at point A. Accused Tarun Sharma was interrogated. He was arrested and personally searched vide arrested memo and personal search memo already Ex.PW6/A and B respectively both bear his signatures at point B. Disclosure statement of accused Tarun Sharma was recorded which is already Ex.PW6/C which bears his signature at point B. He alongwith Ct. Kewal and accused Tarun Sharma came back to PS. Accused Tarun Sharma was sent up to lock up. He recorded FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 28 of 57 statement of Yogender Kumar (father of deceased) and Preeti (sister of deceased) and Ct. Kewal. Accused was medically examined.
On the next day i.e. 05.05.2013, PW15 alongwith Yogender Kumar and Hom Dutt Sharma visited to the mortuary of GTB hospital where the dead body was identified by Yogender Kumar and Hom Dutt Sharma and dead body identification statements were recorded by Amar Nath, Tehsildar/EM which were already Ex.PW7/B and C which bears his signature at point B. The PM was conducted. The viscera was preserved and after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to Yogender Kumar (father of deceased) vide dead body handing over memo already Ex.PW10/A which bears his signature at point C. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Kewal came back to PS. PW15 further claimed that accused Tarun was produced before the Court and sent to JC. He alongwith Ct. Kewal came back to PS and recorded statement of Ct. Kewal, Yogender Kumar and Hom Dutt Sharma. He collected the PM report which was already Ex. PW14/A which bears his signature at point B.On 28.05.2013, he collected the viscera box and deposited the same to malkhana vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/D which bears his signature at point A. On 03.06.2013, he got deposited the viscera box to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Sumer Singh. The RC was Mark PW15/E. The receipt of FSL was already Ex.PW11/A. He recorded statement of Ct. Sumer Singh. He interrogated alleged accused Babita Sharma, Sushma, Jagdish and Trishant. The notice and interrogation report of Babita were Ex.PW15/F and G which bears his signature at point A. The notice and interrogation report of Sushma Sharma were Ex PW15/H and he which bears FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 29 of 57 his signature at point A. The notice and interrogation report of Jagdish Sharma were Ex. PW15/J and K which bears his signature at point A. The notice and interrogation report of Trishant were PW1S/LL and M which bears his signature at point A. The notice and interrogation report of Shobha were Ex.PW15/N and O, which bears his signature at point A. He collected the photographs and crime team report which were already Ex.PW4/A and 8/A respectively. He recorded statement of crime team incharge E. S. Yadav and photographer. The father of deceased had given list of dowry articles, receipts of expenses which were done in marriage. Receipts were Mark A-1 (running into seven pages). The articles which were produced by the in- laws were handed over to father of deceased. The memos were already Ex.PW7/C. He prepared chargesheet against accused Tarun Sharma (arrested) and Babita Sharma, Sushma Shrama, Shobha Sharma, Jagdish Sharma and Trishant Sharma (not arrested) and filed to the Court concerned. PW15 identified all the accused persons except accused Jagdish Sharma (expired) who were present in the Court. PW15 correctly identified the seized case property i.e dupatta pieces.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein they denied all the material facts put to them and stated that they were innocent and falsely implicated in this case. Accused Shobha Sharma stated that at the time of marriage of Tarun Sharma, she was living on separate floor and father of Tarun Sharma was alive. Accused Trishant @ Mannu stated that at the time of FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 30 of 57 marriage of Tarun Sharma, he was living on separate floor along with his mother i.e Sushma Sharma and father of Tarun Sharma was alive. Accused Babita stated that she is sister of co-accused Sushma and she is Mausi of Tarun Sharma. At the time of marriage of Tarun Sharma, she was living separately from the other accused persons. Accused Sushma Sharma stated that at the time of marriage of Tarun Sharma, she was living on separate floor and father of Tarun Sharma was alive. Accused persons opted to lead evidence in defence and examined four witnesses. Defence evidence
6. (i) DW1 Smt. Usha Rani deposed that she was working in Anganwari as helper. She was also working as a helper in Anganwari, Maujpur, Delhi in the year 2013. On 04.05.2013, at around 10:00 AM, DW1 and Sushma were present in Anganwari Maujpur as Sushma was also working in Anganwari as helper. In the meantime, Sushma had received a call from her relative and after receiving the call, Sushma stated that she has to go back immediately her house and thereafter Sushma left Anganwari centre after one hour, She had made a call to Sushma and asked her what happened in her house, she stated that "Mere Jaith Ke Bete ki Bahu Ne suicide Kar Liya Hai". Copy of her ID card is Ex. DW1/A (OSR).
During cross-examination by Ld. APP for State, she deposed that she was not having any appointment letter about her appointment as helper in Anganwari. She affirmed that in Card Ex.DW1/A, there was no date of appointment depicting. She affirmed that there was no date of issue mentioned in the card Ex.DW1/A. She affirmed that that there was no date of valid validation of the card. She affirmed that only her name was FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 31 of 57 mentioned in Card Ex. DW1/A and there was no signatures of hers appearing on the card.
(ii) DW2 Tarun Sharma is the accused-husband who got himself examined u/s 315 of Cr.p.c. He deposed that his marriage was solemnized with Prem Lata (deceased) on 16.02.2009. At the time of marriage, his father namely, Late Sh. Parkash Chand Sharma, his grand mother namely, Late Smt. Vidyamati Sharma, both were alive and marriage was arranged by his grandmother and his father. His chacha Late Sh. Jagdish Sharma, his chachi Smt. Sushma Sharma and their three sons were living on 1" floor separately from him and his younger chacha Sh. Raj Kishore Sharma with his wife Smt. Sobha Sharma was living on ground floor. He alongwith his wife, his son, his father and grandmother used to live on 2nd floor. Since marriage, he gave love and affection to his wife and he never made any dowry demand from his wife.
DW2 claimed that on 10.02.2013, 25th marriage anniversary of his Chachi namely Sushma Sharma was celebrated at H.No. A60/A, Gali No.3, North Gaunda, Delhi in which his in-laws family including his mother in law namely Smt. Birma Devi, his sister-in-law Preeti Sharma and his brother-in-law Mukesh were present and they were very happy and they enjoyed the function of marriage anniversary. Videography and photographs were also made.
Six photographs of the above-said 25th marriage anniversary function were filed, which were proved as Ex.DW2/A (colly). DW2 has produced a pen-drive in which video regarding celebration of above-said 25th marriage anniversary of his chachi which was proved as Ex.DW2/C. The FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 32 of 57 Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act was also filed, in support of the video recording, which was Ex.DW2/B. DW2 added that he never made any demand of Rs.2 lacs from his in-laws in the year 2012 or before marriage and even after marriage, he did not make any demand of dowry from in- laws or from his wife. In the year 2012, he was working at Vcare Software Solution Pvt. Ltd. and company raised his salary. His Increment letter was proved as Ex.DW2/D. Allegations leveled against him in this case were false and concocted. He being falsely implicated in this case.
In his cross examination by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. Subs. Addl. PP for the State, he denied the suggestion that about ten days prior to death of deceased, he had raised demand of Rs.2 lacs from Sh. Yogender Kumar through deceased namely Prem Lata. He denied the suggestion that on the first karwachoth of the marriage of deceased when her father visited his house, he and his family members expressed his unhappiness over the gift articles and further when he saw the deceased in miserable health condition, she was taken back to her parental home. He denied the suggestion that during interrogation whatever he disclosed, same was reduced into writing. He volunteered that police obtained his signatures on blank paper.
He further stated that he did not prepare the video which has been given by him in the pen drive Ex.DW2/C. He affirmed that he had not clicked the photographs Ex.DW2/A (colly).
He affirmed that no date, time, place has been mentioned in the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act about the taking of the print outs and preservation of the data and pendrive. He affirmed that the name, particulars of the devices used in FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 33 of 57 transferring the data into pendrive or taking out the print outs is not mentioned in the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. He affirmed that there is no particulars of hash value, etc have been furnished in support of his certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
(iii) DW3 Ms. Neelam Chaudhary, Supervisor, Women and Child Development (Aanganwadi), deposed that as per the record of her office, attendance register dated 04-05-2013 regarding Sushma w/o late Jagdish r/o H. No. A- 60/A, Gali No. 3, North Ghonda, Delhi-110053 was weeded out and the same is not available in their office as the record is very old i.e about ten years. Presently, Sushma is working in her office as Aanganwadi Helper at Maujpur, Delhi.
In her cross examination, she stated that she was supervisor in the above-said office. She had joined the above office in the year 2020. Prior to that, she was working in Wazirabad project where she remained posted from the year 2011 to 2020. She was not acquainted with accused Sushma Sharma prior to 2020. She is not having personal knowledge of the case. She has appeared in the court as she was summoned to produce the record.
(iv) DW4 Trishant @ Mannu is the accused and cousin brother-in-law of deceased got examined u/s 315 Cr.p.c. He deposed that in the year 2012, he came in contact with one Preeti Sharma ([email protected]), who is sister of deceased Prem Lata Sharma, through Gmail ID [email protected]. They were in relationship and later on they decided to marry. They also decided date for marriage however, he did not remember the said date. Yoginder Sharma, who was father of deceased, started pressurizing Tarun Sharma, FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 34 of 57 who is his cousin brother, to stay separate from him after marriage. The family members of deceased were falsely accusing him for demand of dowry. He participated in the marriage ceremony of Tarun Sharma. He only participated as family member and he did not demand any dowry articles from the family of deceased. He separately resided at first floor in same building from Tarun Sharma. He has been falsely implicated by the family members of deceased.
In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for state, DW3 stated that at the time of alleged incident, he was present on the first floor and the said incident took place at the second floor. He affirmed that no police complaint was made regarding his false implication. He denied the suggestion that he demanded any dowry articles from the family members of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that family members of the deceased correctly accused him of demanding dowry. He denied the suggestion that he was not living separately at the first floor in the same building rather he along with other accused persons were living on the said floor.
It is affirmed that the Preeti Sharma was in contact with DW3 through mobile phone as well as through email and she sent him some emails which were Ex. DW4/A (running into 19 pages) which were obtained by taking printout from his email ID. It is affirmed that he has not tampered the said email and regarding this he has furnished certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act which is Ex. DW4/B bearing his signature at point A. He denied the suggestion that the said certificate is not as per the provisions of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. FINAL ARGUMENTS FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 35 of 57
7. This court had heard Ld. Addl. PP for State, Ld. Counsel for complainant and Ld. Defence counsel and perused the record as well as written submissions filed on behalf of complainant, and on behalf of accused.
It is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for State that testimonies of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 498A/304B of IPC while laying special emphasis on the testimony of PW1 and PW2.
Ld. Counsel for complainant has drawn the attention of this court towards testimony of PW1 Preeti Sharma wherein she stated that on 18-04-2013, deceased came to their house and telling her that on 16-04-2013 she was given beatings by her husband Tarun Sharma and other accused persons namely Sushma, Shobha, Trishant, Babita and demanded Rs. 2 lakhs. She also stated that her father spoke to accused persons and accused Tarun, Jagdish and Sushma gave assurance to her father that no such conduct or treatment shall be repeated in future and her sister Prem Lata was sent back to her matrimonial home. She further deposed about receiving call on the night of 03-05-2013 (one day before her death) from deceased wherein deceased told her about all accused persons harassing and beating her and making demand of Rs. 2 lakhs and subjecting her to worst treatment than maid servant in the house, her father talked with deceased and tried to console her to come to matrimonial home to solve all the problems.
Ld. Counsel for complainant further drew the attention of this court towards testimony of PW2 Yogender Kumar Sharma who deposed about accused Tarun losing his job, all accused persons including Babita raising demand of Rs. 2 lakhs from FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 36 of 57 deceased and committing cruelties and harassment to deceased to get their demands fulfilled. On 18-04-2013, deceased came to his house and disclosed all the above facts to them and PW2 had talked with accused Jagdish, Sushma and Tarun on phone and accused assured about not repeating such mistakes in future and PW2 sent deceased on that day back to her matrimonial home. PW2 further deposed that on 03-05-2013, one day before death of deceased, deceased talked with PW2 on phone in presence of PW1 Preeti about increasing illicit relation between Tarun and Babita whereby her condition was made worse than maid, accused Jagdish, Sushma, Shobha, Babita, Tarun and Trishant causing cruelty and harassment to her over demand of Rs. 2 lakhs and abut deceased crying during conversation, his consoling her and telling to visit matrimonial home on next day to sort out her difficulties and problems.
It is further submitted that it is settled law that during examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., when incriminating evidence is put to accused, he has to give proper explanation but in present case, while simple denying incriminating evidence against them, none of the accused has given any explanation as to why deceased was driven to commit suicide in her matrimonial home. It is not case of defence that she was suffering from any dreaded disease or mentally ill patient. Failure of accused persons to give any explanation regarding unnatural death of deceased in their house is itself another circumstance against them for which presumption u/s 106 of Evidence Act and Section 113B of Evidence Act can be drawn against them.
It is further argued that in his testimony, DW2 Trishant did not give any explanation as to why deceased committed suicide FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 37 of 57 in her matrimonial home. So called photographs of 25th Marriage Anniversary of accused Sushma were never shown to PW2, PW1 and PW9 respectively.
In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for complainant has relied upon the following authorities:
1. Balvir Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, Crl. Appeal no. 301/15, 06-10-2023 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;
2. Kulwant Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, 2013[3] JCC 1594;
3. Pudhu Raja & Anr. Vs. State, Rep. By Inspector of Police, Crl. Appeal no. 1517/08 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;
4. Joshinder Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, 2014[2] JCC 894;
5. Yashwant Kumar Vs. State, 2011 Crl. L. J. 4527;
6. Raj Kumar Vs. State of MP, 2014 AIR SCW 1795;
7. Shanti & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana, 1991 AIR 1226;
8. Brahm Swaroop & Anr. Vs. State of UP, AIR 2011 SC 280;
9. Bansi Lal Vs. State of Haryana, 2011(1) 662 (SC);
10. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 958;
11. Vijay Pal Singh Vs. State of Delhi, 2011 VI AD (Delhi)18.
On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsel Sh. Sarvesh kumar argued that that no witness has come forward to depose about any incident which indicate that deceased was subjected to cruelty 'soon before her death' for or in connection with demand of dowry. The allegations that one day prior to date of incident, the deceased made phone call to her father in the presence of her sister Preeti reporting about torture being committed to her on account of illicit relations of Tarun Sharma with Babita and also on account of demand of Rs. 2 lakhs by all accused were false.
FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 38 of 57No CDR of that phone call was collected by the IO during investigation which was categorically admitted by the IO in his examination. It is further submitted that this fact was not even stated by the parents of deceased before the SDM concerned during inquest proceedings. Reliance is placed upon the defence evidence led on behalf of accused wherein photographs Ex. DW2/A and Ex. DW2/B of the deceased with accused Tarun Sharma were placed on record to show that deceased was quite happy as she attended marriage anniversary of Jagish and Sushma. It is further submitted that testimony of PW1 Preeti could not be relied upon as she had changed her statement repeatedly and therefore, her statement is not worthy of credence. PW1 Preeti was having affair with accused Trishant which fact was admitted by her in her statement/ cross-examination dated 07-04-2014. There are several contradictions on the point of allegations of demand of dowry made by the in-laws. There is contradiction between the testimony of PW1 and PW2 on the aspect of call made one day prior to the incident by the deceased on the aspect of time of call and name of caller. No prosecution witness has deposed about date, month and year as to when the deceased was subjected to torture by her in-laws/ accused persons.
It is further submitted that the Prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused made any dowry demand 'soon before death of the deceased'. The Prosecution has also failed to prove that the deceased was ever subjected to cruelty by the accused 'soon before her death'. He prayed for acquittal of all the accused persons from the charges punishable u/s 498A/304B IPC.
FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 39 of 57In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has relied upon the following authorities:
1. Shanti & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 1226;
2. Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand, Crl. Appeal no. 447/12, SCI
3. Ahmed Sayeed Vs. State, 2014[1] JCC 727;
4. Durga Prasad & Anr. Vs. State of MP, 2010[3] JCC 1852;
5. Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand, Crl. Appeal no. 447/12, SCI;
6. Baijnath & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2017(3) LRC 1 (SC)
7. Munshi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Crl. Appeal no. 911/23, SCI;
8. Sunita (Smt.) & Anr. Vs. State & Ors., 2019(1) LRC 429(Del);
9. Appasaheb & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 763
10. Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, 2007[2] JCC 959;
11. Bakshism Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, 2013[2] JCC 1334;
12. Satyawati & Ors. Vs. State, 2017 (4) LRC 487(Del);
13. Mahesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2019(3) LRC 609(SC)
14. Virender Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2010[2] JCC 950 FINDING OF THIS COURT
8. Before examination of the evidence, oral and documentary, it would be appropriate to have a glance at relevant statutory provision and case law.
Section 304-B IPC defines 'dowry death', as under:
304B. Dowry death-- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 40 of 57 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 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."
498A. 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. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any wilful 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.]
9. To bring home the guilt under section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must prove that:
(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii) Such a death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(iii) Soon before death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with demand of dowry; and
(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
10. Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is as under:-
FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 41 of 57"113B. Presumption as to dowry death. - When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a women and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has 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.
11. In Baljinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab, 2015 [1] JCC 473, Supreme Court of India interpreted expression 'soon before death' as under:
"13. As per the definition of 'dowry death' in Section 304-B IPC and the wording in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, it is necessary to show that 'soon before death' the woman concerned had been subjected to cruelty or harassment "for or in connection with the demand of dowry".
On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, it becomes obligatory on the Court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death.
The expression "soon before death" in Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act was considered by this Court in Hira Lal vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi; 2003 (2) JCC 1182 : 2003 (8) SCC 80 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph (9) observed as under:-
"9. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of "death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances". The expression "soon before" is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304- B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by the prosecution. "Soon before" is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. 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 of the 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 or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for their 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"
would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 42 of 57 cruelty or harassment concerned 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 death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned of the woman concerned, if would be of no consequence."
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Srinivasulu vs. State of A.P., (2007) 12 SCC 443 enumerated the conditions for drawing presumption under section 113-B of the Evidence Act, as under:
"8.4..... The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials:
(1) The question before the Court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code.) (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before the death."
13. It is pertinent to note that the principles governing the cases u/s 304B of IPC have been culled by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a landmark case titled Sudhakar Singh Vs. State on 18-07-2014 in Crl. Appeal No. 240/1998 as follows:
17.1. To attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC the main ingredient of the offence to be established is that soon before the death of the deceased she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. 17.2. The death of the deceased woman was caused by any burn or bodily injury or some other circumstance which was not normal.
17.3. Such death occurs within seven years from the date of her marriage.
17.4. That the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.
17.5. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.
17.6. It should be established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death.
17.7. The expression "soon before" is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. 17.8. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 43 of 57 an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.
17.9. Therefore, the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate or live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. In other words, it should not be remote in point of time and thereby make it a stale one.
17.10. However, the expression "soon before" should not be given a narrow meaning which would otherwise defeat the very purpose of the provisions of the Act and should not lead to absurd results.
17.11. Section 304-B is an exception to the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence that a suspect in the Indian law is entitled to the protection of Article 20 of the Constitution, as well as, a presumption of innocence in his favour. The concept of deeming fiction is hardly applicable to criminal jurisprudence but in contradistinction to this aspect of criminal law, the legislature applied the concept of deeming fiction to the provisions of Section 304-B. 17.12. Such deeming fiction resulting in a presumption is, however, a rebuttable presumption and the husband and his relatives, can, by leading their defence prove that the ingredients of Section 304-B were not satisfied.
17.13. The specific significance to be attached is to the time of the alleged cruelty and harassment to which the victim was subjected, the time of her death and whether the alleged demand of dowry was in connection with the marriage. Once the said ingredients are satisfied it will be called "dowry death" and by deemed fiction of law the husband or the relatives will be deemed to have committed that offence."
14. In Kanwar Pal vs. Shakuntala And Ors. Crl. Rev.P. 345/2006, it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 29-01-2015, that:-
"In our view, onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient of Section 498A, IPC and the essential ingredient of offence under Section 498A is that the accused, as the husband of the deceased, has subjected her to cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A IPC. Similarly, for the Court to draw the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act that the appellant had caused dowry death as defined in Section 304B, IPC, the prosecution has to prove besides the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty caused by the accused to the deceased soon before her death. Since the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt this ingredient of harassment or cruelty, neither of the offences under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC has been made out by the prosecution."FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 44 of 57
The concluding para read as under:
"40. I am of the considered opinion that to establish the offence under Section 304B IPC of dowry death, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be raised against an accused until independently the offence under Section 498A IPC is proved by leading evidence to the specific allegation with regard to time and date of such demand and cruelty and furthermore establishing the proximity live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand (offence under section 498A IPC) and the death of the victim."
15. Now, let this court apply the above-mentioned principles to the facts of the present case. Indisputably, the alleged incident has taken place within seven years of marriage; the factum of death of deceased Prem Lata was brought to the knowledge of parents of the deceased by accused Tarun Sharma and it was accused Tarun Sharma who had reported about the incident to the police leading to lodging of DD No. 18A(Ex. PW15/A). Thereafter, inquest proceedings started and during inquest proceedings, one tehsildar/Executive magistrate Ah. Amarnath recorded statements of parents of deceased, Ex. PW2/A (Sh. Yogender Kumar, father) and Ex. PW7/A (Ms. Birmo devi, mother) wherein Sh. Yogender kumar had levelled specific allegations against accused Tarun Sharma of conveying demand of Rs. 2 lakhs through his deceased daughter for the purpose of repair of house about 10 days prior to the date of incident. He has also raised allegations of extra-marital relationship of accused- husband Tarun Sharma with the sister of his aunt namely accused Babita. However, he levelled general allegations against remaining accused persons of demanding dowry and of disputes on domestic matters. The mother of deceased namely Birmo Devi too levelled general allegations against all accused of having quarrel with deceased over petty domestic matters.
FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 45 of 5716. In order to establish the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty "soon before her death" for or in connection with demand of dowry, the prosecution has got examined three witnesses i.e. PW1 Preeti Sharma PW2 Yogender Kumar Sharma and PW13 Smt. Brima Devi. Out of these three witnesses, PW13 Smt. Brima Devi in her testimony dated 05.09.2018 has levelled general allegations against all the accused persons collectively of subjecting the deceased to cruelty for demand of dowry. Nowhere she has testified as to in what manner her deceased daughter was tortured. Nor she deposed about any specific role of any particular accused in maltreating the deceased in connection with demand for dowry.
17. Perusal of testimony of PW1 Preeti Sharma and PW2 Yogender Kumar Sharma reveals that they had levelled allegations against all the accused persons collectively of harassing her deceased sister for demand of Rs. 2 lacs. However, they did not attribute any specific role of any particular accused in subjecting the deceased to harassment in connection with demand of dowry. At some place, they claimed that the said demand of Rs. 2 lacs was raised for putting accused Tarun in gainful employment when he lost his job somewhere in June 2012. On the contrary, PW2 in his statement before the Executive Magistrate concerned has revealed that the said demand of Rs. 2 lac was raised for getting his house repaired. Both PW1 and PW2 have also claimed that on 18.04.2013, the deceased came to their house and reported that she was being maltreated on account of dowry demand of Rs. 2 lacs. However, again there is no mention of any specific incident or specific role played by any of the accused in committing the alleged maltreatment/torture.
FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 46 of 57Both PW1 and PW2 have claimed that on the night of 3.05.2013 (one day prior to the incident), at around 10:00 PM, they received one phone call from deceased Prem Lata wherein she reported that she was being harassed and beaten by all the accused persons while repeating their demand of dowry of Rs. 2 lacs. Again, no where they have explained any specific role of any particular accused in harassing the deceased. Even there is contradiction regarding the timing of the said call. In their respective examination in chiefs, both PW1 and PW2 have claimed that the said call was received at around 10:00 PM on 03.05.2013. However, PW2 in his cross examination dated 13.11.2017 has stated that he received the said phone calls at 02:00 PM when he was lying at his home. There is also contradiction between the testimony of PW1 and PW2 as to who had received the said phone calls. PW1 claimed that the said call was received on the mobile phone of his father but the same was attended by her. In her cross-examination dated 23.11.2015, PW1 stated that her father was sleeping when the said call was received. She picked up a call and woke up his father who then talked to her sister. However, PW2 had nowhere stated in his deposition that the said call was picked by PW1 or that he was sleeping at that time. Further, this factum of having received phone call of deceased one day prior to the date of incident was brought up only during deposition before the court. PW2 had not revealed this fact in his statement Ex. PW2/A recorded during inquest proceedings. Nor any explanation came from the side of either PW1 or PW2 as to why this fact was not revealed during inquest proceedings.
18. On careful analysis of evidence, it is apparent that demand FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 47 of 57 for dowry did not appear to have triggered the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, there is no evidence that the accused persons had subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment "soon before her death", for or in connection with dowry.
19. Presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act can be drawn only when prosecution first establishes essential ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC. Since the prosecution evidence could not prove essential ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC, the question of drawing presumption against the accused under Section 113-B of IPC does not arise. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge punishable under Section 304-B of IPC.
20. Perusal of postmortem report Ex. PW14/A would show that it was a case of suicide by hanging. According to postmortem report, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. A brownish abraded dry hard parchmentised ligature mark, obliquely placed over thyroid cartilage incompletely encircling the neck was noticed. The autopsy surgeon did not give any definite opinion as to whether the hanging was suicidal, homicidal or accidental. No question was put to the Autopsy Surgeon to ascertain whether it was a case of murder or suicidal death. There were no injury or struggle mark on the body of deceased. There is no evidence to show that it was not a case of suicidal hanging. From the pattern of ligature mark around the neck of the deceased, it can be safely concluded that it was a case of suicide by hanging.
21. It is further pertinent to note that merely because discrepancies have been observed in the testimony of PW1 and PW2 on the aspects of allegations of dowry demand, their entire FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 48 of 57 testimonies cannot be discarded in toto. Nevertheless, it is observed that their testimony is consistent on the aspect of allegations conveyed to them by deceased Prem Lata during her lifetime about illicit relationship between the widowed sister of accused Sushma namely accused Babita and accused Tarun (husband of deceased). They both claimed that somewhere in March 2012, accused Babita started residing at matrimonial house of deceased Prem Lata. Both PW1 and PW2 have categorically deposed that the deceased Prem Lata had conveyed to them that there were illicit relations between Babita and Tarun Sharma, and when she (the deceased) objected to that relationship, both accused Babita and Tarun Sharma gave her physical beatings. PW1 deposed that her deceased sister told her that, "accused Babita used to speak to her sister (deceased) that she would be getting married to Tarun and her sister (deceased) would have to bear all that if she desire to reside in their house and she (deceased) would be living as a maid servant in the house". On the same lines, PW2 deposed that, " my daughter Prem Lata further told and informed me/us that accused Babita used to declare that Tarun was her person and Prem Lata would have to live like a maid in the house". It is pertinent to note that allegations of illicit relationships between accused Tarun and accused Babita have also been leveled by PW2 Yoginder Kumar Sharma during inquest proceedings as well vide his statement Ex. PW2/A which was recorded immediately after the occurrence. There was no possibility of cooking up any story at that time.
Thus, PW1 and PW2 have proved the oral dying declaration of deceased Prem Lata that she was being tortured in her matrimonial home on account of illicit relationship between FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 49 of 57 accused Tarun Sharma and accused Babita since March 2012 which continued till the date of incident.
22. With regard to evidentiary value of dying declaration u/s 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Nanhar Vs. State of Haryana, JT 2010 (6) SC 196 that, "dying declaration should be such, which should immensely strike to be genuine and stating true story of its maker. It should be free from all doubts and on going through it, an impression has to be registered immediately in mind that it is genuine, true and not tainted with doubts. Further, it should not be result of tutoring"
23. Further, in the case of Khushal Rao Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 that, "Once, the court has come to the conclusion that the dying declaration was the truthful version as to the circumstances of the death and the assailants of the victim, there is no question of further corroboration"
24. Admittedly, the above-stated oral dying declaration of the deceased established from the testimony of PW1 and PW2 is a material circumstance against the accused Babita and Tarun Sharma and put a burden upon them to explain as to whether there was any such illicit relationship or not at the relevant time. The failure of any explanation of accused Babita and Tarun Sharma to this circumstance leads to an adverse inference against them. In this case, both above-stated accused persons have not tendered any explanation in this regard.
25. Further, accused Babita and Tarun Sharma were supposed to put forward some explanation not only during cross examination of the witnesses, who have proved the role of accused Babita and Tarun Sharma in committing torture upon the deceased by entering into illicit relationships in the matrimonial FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 50 of 57 home of deceased Prem Lata, but also during their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. However, they just replied to all incriminating facts emerging from the evidence as "it is incorrect" or "I do not know". Nowhere, they have specifically denied the factum of their illicit relationship. The accused Babita and Tarun Sharma were supposed to tender a satisfactory explanation to the fact which was within their personal knowledge. No doubt, accused Babita and Tarun Sharma were not supposed to examine any witness to prove this fact, but they were definitely supposed to put forward some explanation u/s 313 Cr.P.C., which is not done by them.
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in case titled Jagroop Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 768 that if accused failed to tender any plausible explanation to incriminating evidence, it would serve the purpose of fulfilling the missing link of the circumstances. The relevant observation is as under:
"36. Another aspect is to be taken note of. Though the incriminating circumstances which point to the guilt of the accused had been put to the accused, yet he could not give any explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure except choosing the mode of denial."
27. In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh [(2000) 1 SCC 471 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 263], it has been held that, "when the attention of the accused is drawn to such circumstances that inculpated him in the crime and he fails to offer appropriate explanation or gives a false answer, the same can be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances. We may hasten to add that we have referred to the said decision only to highlight that the accused has not given any explanation whatsoever as regards the circumstances put to him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
28. None of the accused in his or her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 51 of 57had specifically denied the fact that accused Babita was not residing in the same house since March 2012 where other accused persons were residing prior to the date of incident. Even accused Babita had simply stated in her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that at the time of marriage of Tarun Sharma, she was living separately from the other accused persons. Nor she has revealed as to where she was residing at the relevant time i.e. in March 2012 and date of incident i.e. 04-05-2013. No defence evidence was led by accused Babita Sharma despite having given the opportunity. Accused Tarun Sharma, who stood in the witness box as DW2, had nowhere in his testimony specifically denied the allegations against him of subjecting the deceased to cruelty by entering into extra-marital relationship with accused Babita. Though he had specifically denied the allegation of demand of Rs. 2 lakhs made by his in-laws yet, nowhere he had stated in his deposition that accused Babita was not residing in his house prior to the date of incident.
29. In view of the facts, it stands proved that accused Babita and Tarun Sharma were in illicit relationship and they have failed to tender any explanation particularly in response to question nos. 12 and 18 of their respective statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and shall be presumed that their act have triggered the suicide of deceased Prem Lata.
30. Thus, in the opinion of this court, the prosecution has led cogent evidence to indicate that accused Tarun Sharma and accused Babita were in illicit relationship which had made life of deceased Prem Lata miserable in her matrimonial home. This conduct on the part of accused Tarun Sharma and Babita was of such nature that would drive any reasonable wife to commit FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 52 of 57 suicide. In other words, it is established that accused Tarun Sharma and Babita had instigated the deceased Prem Lata to commit suicide. As such, ingredients of section 306 IPC appears to have been satisfied in the present case.
31. In the light of aforesaid analysis, now the question that would arise is: whether the accused in the instant case can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC? Section 306 reads as under:
"306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
The basic ingredients of an offence under Section 306 is suicidal death and its abetment thereof. To attract the ingredients of abetment, the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide would be necessary.
32. It is further noted that charge for the offence U/s 304B of IPC, which prescribes punishment upto imprisonment for life, has already been framed against the accused persons vide order dt. 08-11-2015. Since, charge for the graver offence has already been framed against the accused persons, this court is within its power to convict the accused of minor offence i.e 306 IPC, which prescribes punishment upto ten years of imprisonment, in the present case without framing charge if the ingredients of minor offence are satisfied as per section 222 (2)of Cr.P.C 1973. Section 222 (2) of Cr.P.C 1973 reads as under:
When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.
33. It would be necessary at this juncture itself to note that FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 53 of 57 recently in Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 915 in SLP (Crl.) No. 12216 of 2022, the Hon'ble apex court had convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC though not charged for said offence.
The Hon'ble Supreme court Court referred to the case of Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P. (2004) 5 SCC 334 wherein it was held that according to Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), an appellate or revisional court may convict an accused for an offense for which no charge was originally framed, provided that doing so does not result in a failure of justice.
It added "In order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself."
In Dalbir Singh's case, the Court further relied on Sections 221(1) and (2) of the Cr.P.C. and held that if the evidence presented by the prosecution proves that an offense has, in fact, been committed, the accused can be convicted of that offense, even if it was not the specific charge The Court noted that the fundamental elements of an offense under Section 306 IPC include suicidal death and the abetment. To establish abetment, it is essential to prove the intention of the accused to aid, instigate, or abet the deceased in committing suicide. In this case, the Court observed that the evidence supported the torture endured by the victim, as revealed in her statement and her accepted dying declaration, which FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 54 of 57 ultimately led to her taking her own life.
The Court maintained that the omission to frame a charge under Section 306 would not preclude the court from convicting the accused for the offense if it is proven based on the evidence on record.
The Hon'ble apex court also relied on K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao (2003) 1 SCC 217 wherein it was held that mere omission or defect in framing of charge would not be fatal if from the statement of charge under Section 304B and in the alternative Section 498A, it is clear that all facts and ingredients for framing of charge under Section 306 existed in the case, same would suffice.
34. It is argued vehemently by the Ld. Defence counsel that no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of PW1 as she failed to give any satisfactory explanation in response to the questions asked from her regarding her relationship with accused Trishant Sharma. On this aspect, in the opinion of this court, the aspect of relationship between accused Trishant Sharma and PW1 is not a material issue. Merely on the ground that PW1 gave contradictory responses regarding exchange of emails between PW1 and Trishant Sharma, her entire testimony cannot be thrown away.
35. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that it is well settled that testimony of hostile witness cannot be discarded in toto. In the case of Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of M.P, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1853, Hon'ble Apex Court examined the evidentiary value of a hostile witness and held that the evidence of a witness, declared hostile, is not wholly effaced from record and that part of evidence, which is otherwise acceptable can be FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 55 of 57 acted upon. Hon'ble Apex Court relying upon its previous decisions in Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (1976) 2 SCR 921, Rabinder Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orrisa (1976) 4 SCC and Sayed Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCR 95 held that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
Thus, the contention that no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of PW1 on account of contradictions in her testimony on the aspect of exchange of emails between accused Trishant and PW1, fails to inspire the confidence of this court.
The citations relied upon by Ld. Defence counsel are not found to be applicable in view of peculiar facts of the present case.
DECISION OF THE COURT
36. From the aforesaid analysis, it is established that accused Babita and Tarun Sharma in furtherance of their common intention have subjected the deceased to cruelty in her matrimonial home i.e. H. No. A-60/A, Gali no. 3, North Ghonda, Delhi since March 2012 till the date of incident i.e. 04-05-2013. It is also established that accused Babita and Tarun Sharma in furtherance of their common intention have abetted the commission of suicide by deceased Prem Lata on or before the date of incident i.e. 04-05-2013 at H. No. A-60/A, Gali no. 3, North Ghonda, Delhi. Thus, the accused Tarun Sharma and Babita are hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 56 of 57 498A/34 of IPC and section 306/34 of IPC. However, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused namely Sushma Sharma, Jagdish Sharma, Trishant @ Manu and Sobha Sharma @ Sunita have committed cruelty upon the deceased Prem Lata during her matrimonial life. Therefore, accused Sushma Sharma, Trishant @ Manu and Sobha Sharma @ Sunita are hereby acquitted from the charges punishable u/s 498A/304B/34 of IPC. Let the convicts Tarun Sharma and Babita be heard on the quantum of sentence and grant of compensation on the next date of hearing.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
On 26-09-2024 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ
ARORA
ARORA Date: 2024.09.26 16:54:04
+0530
(PANKAJ ARORA)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/
KARKARDOOMA/ 26-09-2024.
FIR no. 141/13 State Vs. Tarun Sharma Etc. Page 57 of 57