Delhi District Court
The State vs . 1) Naresh on 30 August, 2010
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ JAIN
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS CASES)
OUTER DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
SC No.: 43/08
Unique ID No.: 02404R0015662008
THE STATE VS. 1) NARESH
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar,
R/o G488, Mangol Puri,
Delhi.
2) ASHOK KUMAR
S/o Sh. Nath Lal
R/o A931, Avantika,
Rohini, Sector2, Delhi.
3) PREM
W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar
R/o A931, Avantika,
Rohini, Sector2, Delhi.
4) VIJAY
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar,
R/o A931, Avantika,
Rohini, Sector2, Delhi.
FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 1
page of 31
5) ALKA
W/o Sh. Vijay,
R/o A931, Avantika,
Rohini, Sector2, Delhi.
FIR No.: 165/08
PS: Mangol Puri
U/S 498A/304B/34 IPC
Date of institution in Sessions : 12.09.2008
Date of conclusion of arguments : 18.08.2010
Date of decision : 30.08.2010
JUDGMENT
1 A telephonic call was received at about 11:35 am at PS Mangol Puri and the caller informed that one lady had committed suicide by hanging at O448, Mangol Puri. DD No. 25B was accordingly recorded and SI Umesh Kumar and SI Jai Kumar were deputed to go there and to investigate. They both reached there and found the door of the room situated at First Floor bolted from inside and from the window, they could notice a lady in hanging state. People also collected outside the room. It was not clear whether the lady had already died or still alive. The door was forcibly pushed open and she was brought down by cutting FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 2 page of 31 chunni with which she had hanged herself. She was taken to SGM Hospital where she was declared brought dead. Further investigation revealed that name of deceased was Jyoti. She had been married to accused Naresh on 04.04.03. Sh. Sukhveer Singh, Executive Magistrate was informed about the incident. He also reached at the hospital and recorded statements of parents of deceased. Her parents alleged that she was subjected to harassment related to dowry and suspected role of accused Naresh as well as of his parents, his brother Vijay and his bhabhi Alka (wife of Vijay). Sh. Sukhveer Singh accordingly recommended legal action. FIR was accordingly registered u/s 498A/304B IPC. All the four accused persons have been chargesheeted accordingly. 2 Chargesheet was filed before the concerned Magisterial Court on 17.06.08 and case was received on allocation by this court on 12.09.08. 3 All the four accused persons were ordered to be charged u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. They all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 3
page of 31
4 Prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and has examined 28
witnesses viz. PW1 Munni Devi (mother of deceased), PW2 Ram Chander (father of deceased), PW3 Sohan Lal, PW4 Rajesh (brother of deceased), PW5 Ct. Raj Kumar (MHC(M)), PW6 Shyam Sunder, PW7 Puran Mal, PW8 Laxmi Devi (neighbourer), PW9 Laxmi Devi, PW10 Raj Rani (neighbourer), PW11 Panna Devi (neighbourer), PW12 Ashok Kumar (neighbourer), PW13 Madan Lal (neighbourer), PW14 WHC Sita Devi, PW15 Ct. Ramesh Chander, PW16 Ct. Vikas Kumar, PW17 Sukhbir Singh, the then Executive Magistrate, PW18 Dr. V.K. Jha (doctor who had conducted the postmortem), PW19 Sachin, PW20 Amar Singh, PW21 Ramji Lal, PW22 Miss Reetu, PW23 Dinesh Tripathi, PW24 Rajender Sonkar, PW25 Ct. Madan Kumar, PW26 SI Vishesh Kumar (First IO), PW27 Ct. Raj Pal and PW28 Inspector Pawan Singh Rana (Second IO) 5 All the accused in their respective statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded innocence. Accused Naresh claimed that his wife was mentally sick and was patient of anxiety and she was even getting treatment from G.B.Pant Hospital and she had committed suicide while under such FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 4 page of 31 mental sickness and anxiety. Other accused also pleaded ignorance. Accused(s) also examined four witnesses in support of their defence viz. DW1 Shyam Sunder Gupta, DW2 Suman Bhatia, DW3 Iqbal Ahmad and DW4 Dr. Debashish Chaudhary.
6 I have heard Ms. Purnima Gupta, Ld. Additional P.P. and Sh. G.C. Mishra, Ld. Defence Counsel and carefully perused the entire material available on record.
7 It has been argued from the side of prosecution that case stands proved to the hilt. Learned APP has contended that death has admittedly taken place within a period of seven years of marriage and is under circumstances other than normal. She has contended that it was only due to the harassment meted out by the accused persons that Jyoti had taken such a drastic step and had chosen to finish her life. She has also contended that the testimony of her parents and brother as well as other neighbourer and relatives clearly indicate that there were repeated demands of dowry and Jyoti used to be maltreated due to non fulfillment of such demands. She has also argued that there is clear cut material on FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 5 page of 31 record which shows that she was subjected cruelty soon before her death. 8 Sh. Mishra has refuted all the aforesaid contentions. He has argued that deceased was suffering from anxiety and depression and, therefore, she had committed suicide. Reference in this regard has been made to the medical record as well. It has been argued that it was festival of Holi and accused Naresh had gone out with kids for purchasing and in their absence, Jyoti had committed suicide after bolting herself in. He has argued that there was never any harassment and cruelty of any nature whatsoever much less related to dowry. He has also argued that investigating agency was not fair and partial and statements of several witnesses were procured in illegal and unlawful manner and such statements, therefore, cannot be given any importance. He has also argued that there was never any act on the part of accused Naresh which might have compelled Jyoti to commit suicide. On the other hand, Jyoti had committed suicide of her own. Reference in this regard has been made to the testimony of PW22 in whom Jyoti used to confide. It has also been argued that even as per the investigating agency, Jyoti was living separately with her husband and children in a rented FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 6 page of 31 accommodation and other accused persons were residing at different place at Avantika and investigating agency knew such fact very well but despite that for totally unexplained reasons, the other accused persons have been falsely implicated at the instance of parents of deceased. It has also been argued that there are material improvements made by close relatives and parents of deceased which clearly suggest that accused persons have been roped in with ulterior motive. It has also been argued by Sh. Mishra that several prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and, therefore also, the prosecution case does not stand proved at all. 9 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. 10 In order to press charge for commission of offence under Section 304 B IPC the following ingredients are, in essence, required to be shown in existence by the prosecution:
(i) The death of the woman must have been caused within seven years of her marriage;
(ii) Such death should be due to burn injury or bodily injury or should FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 7 page of 31 occur otherwise than in normal circumstance;
(iii) Soon before her death, woman must have been subjected to cruelty by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with the demand of dowry.
11 There is no doubt that death of Jyoti is within seven years of her marriage and it is also not in dispute that her death was suicidal in nature and, therefore, it was under circumstances other than normal. As per case of prosecution and medical evidence as well, it is a case of suicide and defence also does not seem to be at odds. As per prosecution, it was only due to the cruelty and the harassment meted out to her that she was compelled to take such an extreme step and finished her life by committing suicide whereas according to defence, Jyoti had committed suicide under depression. Be that as it may, fact remains that it is settled law that even such suicidal death falls within the ambit of Section 304B IPC.
FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 8
page of 31
12 It is required to be seen whether Jyoti was subjected to cruelty in
connection with dowry and whether such cruelty existed soon before her death.
13 PW1 Munni Devi, PW2 Ram Chander and PW4 Rajesh are very material witnesses on this score. Let me see their testimony. PW1 Munni Devi has deposed that after marriage, her daughter was kept properly for some time but later on accused started harassing her and there used to be demands of various articles and cash. She deposed that accused Naresh used to give her beatings and her daughter Jyoti used to tell that whenever she used to meet her. She deposed that she used to console Jyoti to bear with the situation. She deposed that after birth of male child, her daughter Jyoti was kept properly for some time but again accused persons started harassing her and there was demand of `10,000/ on one occasion and of `20,000/ on another. She also deposed that she had paid an amount of `50,000/ to the accused as per their demand and thereafter there was demand of `1 lac which she could not fulfill as she was not in any such position. She deposed that on one occasion, there was quarrel at the matrimonial house of accused and her daughter was FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 9 page of 31 beaten up in her presence and she was pushed and Jyoti was sent back with her and both children were kept by accused persons. She deposed that after some days and approximately 810 days before Shiv Ratri, Naresh had come with two relatives to take Jyoti back. She deposed that one or two days before death of Joyti, Jyoti called her up on telephone and asked them to take her back as she was being troubled or else she would be killed.
14 I have seen her crossexamination very carefully and minutely. It becomes apparent that her statement before the SDM was very short and snappy. She then claimed that her daughter Jyoti used to be harassed on account of dowry and all the accused had killed her. No further elaboration was given by her before SDM at all. However, in witness box, she has come up with enormous description. When it was asked whether she had told the SDM about the fact of demand of `10,000/, `20,000/ and `50,000/, she claimed that she did not remember. She does not know the exact year when her daughter Jyoti got married. She has not given the date of birth of children of Jyoti. She has not bothered to tell the exact dates or months when the demand of `10,000/, FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 10 page of 31 `20,000/, `50,000/ or `1 lac were made. It becomes perceptible that when her deposition is compared with the statement which she had made before SDM, there is found to be vast improvement. Her testimony is unspecific and shorn of requisite details with respect to dates. 15 Her husband PW2 Ram Chander has also graced the witness box and according to him, Jyoti was kept properly for two years and thereafter all the accused persons had started harassing her on account of demand of cash amount and on one occasion, an amount of `10,000/ was demanded which was paid and about two months thereafter further demand of `20,000/ was made which was also paid. I have seen his statement which he had given before SDM. His such statement has been proved as Ex. PW2/A and in such statement, there is no mention of any demand of `10,000/ or `20,000/ either. Before SDM, he simply claimed that his daughter was being harassed by the accused persons and accused persons used to tell her to bring amount towards rent and electricity. Nothing else was mentioned by him before SDM. However, during trial he has come up with various new facts and it is not made clear by the prosecution as to why all these facts were not revealed by FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 11 page of 31 him when SDM had recorded his statement. This is despite the fact that he categorically deposed that he had mentioned so when SDM had recorded his statement but when confronted with his such previous statement, it was found that no such fact was mentioned. 16 As regards demand of `50,000/, a new twist has been given by PW2 Ram Chander. He has deposed that accused persons had told him that they wanted to sell their house but he told them not to sell that and then he paid them an amount of `50,000/. There is nothing to signify that there was ever any demand of `50,000/ from the side of accused persons. On the other hand, accused persons, if Ram Chander is to be believed, had simply told him that they were going to dispose of their house. They did not put forward any demand. It was Ram Chander who himself volunteered and made payment of `50,000/. Such payment cannot fall within the ambit and definition of demand of dowry. He further deposed that thereafter ` 1 lac was demanded but they showed their inability to meet that demand. Ram Chander has not given any date as to when such `1 lac was demanded. In his crossexamination, he could not tell the date or month when such demand was made. Even as FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 12 page of 31 regards the demand of `10,000/ and `20,000/, he came up with some new facts in his crossexamination. He claimed that a sum of `10,000/ was paid when his daughter Jyoti was blessed with a daughter and `20,000/ was paid when Jyoti was blessed with son. Payment, in this regard, seems to be customary in nature. At the time of birth of child, normally, gifts etc. are given and even if on such occasions, any such amount was paid, such amount cannot be said to be towards dowry demand. PW2 Ram Chander also does not know as to when he had met Jyoti lastly before her death. According to him as well as according to his wife PW1 Munni Devi, all the accused persons were living together. He deposed that he had visited the house of accused only once or twice. This is also not believable as marriage had taken place in the year 2003 and both sides were residents of Delhi and it would be hardly believable that Ram Chander would have visited Jyoti only once or twice during the tenure of five years.
17 Thus testimony of Ram Chander does not take the case of prosecution anywhere. Firstly, he has come up with vague allegations and has not able to give any specific dates or even months about the FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 13 page of 31 alleged demands. Secondly, averments regarding demand of `10,000/ and demand of `20,000/ evaporate in air since such amount was paid on the occasion of birth of children of Jyoti. Moreover, after birth of son, Jyoti was kept properly for two years even as per Ram Chander. As far as demand of `50,000/ is concerned, it has already been noticed above that there was no such demand from the side of accused. It was Ram Chander who had offered that sum so that accused persons are not compelled to sell their house. It was more of voluntary in nature and there is no material which may show that there was any such demand of `50,000/. Thirdly, had it been so, Ram Chander would have certainly revealed these vital facts before the SDM. His statement is conspicuously silent about any such demand. He also does not know as to when a sum of `1 lac was demanded.
18 PW4 Rajesh happens to be brother of deceased Jyoti. Surprisingly, he also does not remember the exact year when his sister got married to accused. He has also claimed that all the accused persons were living together at Mangol Puri and when son was born to Jyoti, they offered some articles known as chhuchhak. He also deposed that accused FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 14 page of 31 persons told his parents that they were in debt and, therefore, they would have to sell their house. He also deposed that there were regular disputes between accused his sister regarding payment of rent and electricity bill and his sister Jyoti used to tell these problems and also used to tell that her inlaws used to ask her to bring money for payment of rent and electricity etc. He deposed that they used to give `5,000/ or `10,000/ to accused persons on different occasions to fulfill their demands. No such fact has been deposed by the parents of deceased. He deposed that after Jyoti gave birth to a daughter, cruelties from her inlaws were on high pitch. He also deposed that his sister was pushed out from her matrimonial house and both kids were kept and they never permitted telephonic conversion between Jyoti and her children. He further deposed that with the intervention of their common relatives, namely, Brij Mohan and Ramji Lal, Jyoti was sent back and twothree days thereafter only Jyoti apprised them that there was demand of `1 lac. After some days, they again received a telephonic call from Jyoti that her inlaws were giving her illtreatment and then he had asked Jyoti to have a word with Brij Mohan and Ramji Lal who had earlier assured regarding good behaviour of accused. He deposed that on the date of incident i.e. FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 15 page of 31 on the occasion of Holi, he received information from one relative residing at Nabi Karim that a very big quarrel was going on at the house of Jyoti and asked to come. On way, they received another telephone call from police and then they learnt that Jyoti had died. 19 Rajesh does not know about the relevant dates or months. His testimony is found to be hearsay in nature as according to him, he was told by his parents only that payments had been made to accused persons. Since he had come up with a new fact that he had received information from his one relative that huge quarrel was going on at the matrimonial house of Jyoti that day (on the date of incident), it was asked from him as to who was that relative but startlingly he tried to hold back that name claiming that he could not tell name or particulars of his such relative. Surprisingly, he rather deposed that he was on duty at that time and he did not even know as to who had attended that call. This clearly reveals that he is coming up with exaggerated and inflated facts and improvements and trying to pad up the case of prosecution in unwarranted manner.
FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 16
page of 31
20 In his testimony, PW4 Rajesh mentioned about Brij Mohan and
Ramji Lal. He claimed that they were common relatives and they had assured that there would not be any problem from the side of accused persons and, therefore, Jyoti was sent back to her matrimonial house. Brij Mohan has not been cited as witness. However, PW21 Ramji Lal has entered into witness box. To the utter dismay of prosecution, he has not supported the case of prosecution. He deposed that he along with Brij Mohan and accused Naresh had gone the parental home of Jyoti and met parents of Jyoti. He deposed that parents of Jyoti told that there were frequent quarrels between Naresh and his wife and those quarrels were usual quarrels which used to be there between any husband and wife. He deposed that he convinced them and thereupon Jyoti was sent back. This witness was crossexamined by the prosecution with the permission of the Court but he remained adamant to the stand taken by him in his examinationinchief and did not whisper even a single word against the accused persons. This is despite the fact that he is related to family of deceased as well being common relative. Even PW8 Laxmi (wife of Ram Chander) has not supported the case of prosecution. She has deposed that Jyoti used to meet her and tell her that there used to be FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 17 page of 31 quarrel between her and her husband but those incidents were usual in nature (usne mujhe jo jhagde bataye vo miya biwi ke aapsi jhagde hote the) According to her, such quarrels were those which could be normally seen in any household. Since she was resiling from her previous statement, she was crossexamined by the prosecution with the permission of the court but she remained unwavering and claimed that it was wrong to suggest that Jyoti used to tell her that her inlaws used to demand dowry and used to maltreat her. Her testimony also creates a doubt in the authenticity of the case of prosecution. 21 PW10 Raj Rani and PW11 Panna Devi are neighbours of Ram Chander. According to them, whenever Jyoti used to come to parental home, she used to tell that accused used to harass and beat her as she and her father were unable to fulfill their demands. PW10 Raj Rani, however, failed to give complete particulars and, therefore, she was crossexamined by the prosecution with the permission of the Court. In her crossexamination, she deposed that she could not tell the date, month or year when Jyoti had told about her sufferings particularly regarding payment of rent and electricity bill. PW11 Panna Devi was also FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 18 page of 31 confronted with her previous statement.
22 Be that as it may, fact remains that parents and brother of deceased are the persons who were in the thick of the things and must be knowing all these personal facts better than others. As already noticed above, according to Ram Chander, there was never any demand of `50,000/. On the other hand, he himself had paid a sum of `50,000/ to accused persons. Investigating agency, however, tried to twirl such fact and wanted to show that there was, in fact, a demand of `50,000/ and such demand was made and amount was paid in presence of witnesses, namely, PW12 Ashok Kumar and PW13 Madan Lal. PW12 Ashok Kumar has deposed that in his presence accused and Vijay demanded `50,000/ from Ram Chander which was paid. To the similar extent is the testimony of Madan Lal. However, Madan Lal, in his cross examination, categorically deposed that in his presence only amount was paid by Ram Chander and neither any demand was made nor there was any such conversation. It clearly shows fallaciousness in the case of prosecution. Be that as it may, Ram Chander himself has claimed that such amount was paid by him of his own and, therefore, testimony of FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 19 page of 31 PW12 Ashok and PW13 Madan Lal becomes totally redundant. Moreover, these two witnesses do not know as to where Jyoti had resided after her marriage. They did not visit the house of Jyoti and they do not even know whether Jyoti was residing with her husband only or with her inlaws also. It does not click that amount would be demanded or paid in presence of such outsiders. Normally, such type of conversation is not done in open or in presence of unfamiliar persons.
23 There is one very important aspect of the case. Whether Jyoti was living with her husband and kids at Mangolpuri or whether they all were residing with other accused persons as well? Parents, brother and close relatives of Jyoti have tried to hide the truth in order to garner undue empathy. Parents and brother of deceased categorically claimed that all the accused persons were residing together. However, their such assertion is found to be disingenuous. PW28 Insp. Pawan Singh Rana is the investigating officer of the case and he has categorically admitted in his crossexamination that deceased and accused Naresh were living away from other accused persons for approximately three years prior to the incident. Moreover, their addresses were found to be different. I FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 20 page of 31 have seen the testimony of DW1 Shyam Sunder, DW2 Suman Bhatia and DW3 Iqbal Ahmad. PW6 Shyam Sunder is the landlord of house in question of Mangol Puri and he has also categorically deposed that such house had been rented to accused Naresh and it consisted of only one room, bathroom and kitchen. It becomes noticeably clear that accused Naresh, deceased Jyoti and their children were residing at O448, Mangol Puri and rest of the accused persons were residing separately at Avantika, Rohini, Delhi. In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Others (2000) 5 SCC 207, Apex Court has rightly cautioned that in cases where accusations of dowry deaths are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than the husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and by mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. In the aforesaid case, this Court further observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all relations of the inlaws of the deceased which, if not discouraged, was likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In the case in hand, it has to be additionally kept in mind that they all were living separately and, therefore, there has to be clearcut and fully convincing evidence against these accused and they cannot be held liable merely due to the FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 21 page of 31 reason that they are close relatives of husband.
24 It would be now appropriate to deal with the testimony of PW22 Miss Reetu. She is student of class 8th. She deposed that she knew Jyoti Aunt who used to reside near their house. She claimed that Jyoti used to live with her husband and two children and she used to claim that she was not happy with Naresh. She deposed that on the festival of Holi of 2008, Jyoti had called her and told her that she was going to hang herself and gave her v70/. Reetu had requested her not to do any such thing but Jyoti pushed her out and bolted the door from inside. This had happened between 11.00 AM & 11.30 AM and then Reetu came back to her house and told her father about the same and then they heard noise of cries of children and she and her father rushed there and saw, from window, Jyoti hanging. Court question was also put to this witness. She admitted that Jyoti used to talk to her often. It was asked whether Jyoti had ever told her as to why she wanted to go back to her parents and why she was not happy with Naresh but she answered that Jyoti never told any reason. It was asked whether she had asked anything from Jyoti in that regard to which she answered in negative. She was crossexamined by the FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 22 page of 31 prosecution and in her such crossexamination, she deposed that it was correct that Jyoti had told her that "mein Naresh ki achchi tarah se holi manwanugi ye mujhe kaafi tang kar rahen hain. Such utterance of Jyoti shows her vindictive attitude. Moreover, Reetu also admitted in her crossexamination that Jyoti was having very adamant attitude and she used to be stubborn and used to create fuss on everything (bahut jid karti thi or baat2 par aad jaati thi). Her father PW23 Dinesh Tripathi has also deposed that he heard some noise from the room of Jyoti and initially he thought that some children were making noise but his daughter Reetu told him that children were not there as they had already been taken by Naresh to Rohini and they came out and tried to open door of the room of Jyoti but they could not do that as same was bolted from inside. He peeped inside through the window of her room and found her hanging. Since he did not come up with complete facts, he was cross examined by the prosecution with the permission of the Court and then he admitted that a sum of `70/, which had been given to his daughter Reetu by Jyoti, had been seized by the police. He, however, failed to identify green color dupatta with which Jyoti was hanging or the black color hair clutcher which had been recovered from the spot. FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 23
page of 31
25 Ld. defence counsel has contended that statements of alleged
independent witnesses/neighbourers are procured statements and were never recorded before 01.05.08. In this regard, he has heavily relied upon bail order dated 01.05.08 passed by Sh. Narender Kumar, Ld. ASJ, FTC, Rohini Courts, Delhi. I have seen such order and during the consideration of said bail application, Inspector Pawan Singh Rana had appeared in person and had submitted before the court that the evidence regarding cruelty to Jyoti soon before death was yet to be collected and he also stated that he would record statements accordingly. Sh. Mishra has contended that said order clearly indicates that by 01.05.2008, no such statement had been recorded as Investigating Officer had himself stated that no neighbour had come forward to make statement that there was any quarrel between husband and wife that day. However, statements which have been recorded on 27.04.08 are towards different aspect. These statements were of the persons who were residing near the parental home of Jyoti and not near matrimonial home of O488, Mangol Puri, Delhi. It, therefore, cannot be said that such statements have been manufactured. Needless to reiterate that testimony of such witnesses has already been discussed above and it has also been noticed that some of FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 24 page of 31 the witnesses have resiled from their previous statements. 26 It would be also important to mention here that the couple had two children. Name of their son is Yashu. He was also questioned during the investigation. At that time, he was hardly 3½ years of age and could not throw much light about the incident in question. However, he admitted that his grandparents and his Tau ji and Tai ji used to visit their house on some occasions. It also clearly indicates that deceased Jyoti was residing with her husband Naresh and kids separately at O488, Mangol Puri, Delhi. Investigating Agency prayed for recording of statement of Master Yashu u/s 164 Cr.P.C. but no such statement could be recorded as Ld. Magistrate found the child too young and moreover, the child was found to be noncooperative.
27 There is no dispute that the death in question is suicidal death. There is no dispute that Jyoti had bolted the room from inside and had committed suicide. Reference in this regard be made to the testimony of PW3 Sohan Lal, PW7 Puran Mal, PW22 Reetu, PW23 Dinesh Tripathi, PW24 Rajender Sonkar, PW25 Ct. Madan Kumar and PW26 SI Vishesh FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 25 page of 31 Kumar. According to PW18 Dr.V.K. Jha, Autopsy Surgeon, death was due to asphyxia as a result of ligature pressure over neck structure by ante mortem ligature hanging. Post Mortem Report has been proved as Ex.PW18/A and final opinion, after seeing the chemical analysis report of viscera, has been proved as Ex.PW18/B. 28 As already noticed above, according to accused persons, Jyoti was having mental problem and was suffering from anxiety and depression and this might be the reason behind her suicide. In order to substantiate such defence, accused persons have examined DW4 Dr. Debashish Chaudhary, Professor Neurology, G.B. Pant Hospital. He had personally examined the patient and according to him, Jyoti was found associated and showing symptoms of anxiety and depression. He also deposed that since she was showing such symptoms, it could not be ruled out that she was more prone to commit suicide.
29 Dr. Chaudhary also admitted in his crossexamination that Jyoti had been advised anti epileptic drugs also. Relevant medical record has been proved as Ex.DW4/A and Ex.DW4/B. FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 26 page of 31 30 Investigational aspect is not much in dispute. However, Sh. Mishra has contended that it was not appropriate for the concerned SDM to have got recorded the statements of parents of deceased through a po lice officer. He has also contended that such statements should have been recorded without any delay. There is no dispute on this aspect. In such type of matters, statements are required to be recorded as early as possible. However, since on most of the occasions, such parents are un der great shock and trauma, it is not always possible to record statements same day. Be that as it may, fact remains that it cannot be assumed that statements given before SDM were after deliberation or were after thought in nature. On the other hand, such statements are found to be sketchy statements and shorn of vital details. It has already been ob served by me that there are huge improvements in the deposition of the closest relatives of the deceased. Moreover, testimony of father of de ceased reveals that payment of `10,000, ` 20,000 or of `50,000 was not at all towards dowry. Allegations are general, vague and unspecific. There is an attempt to pad up the case. In Nasib Chand v. State of Pun jab, 2009(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 285, it has been observed that the principle FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 27 page of 31 of law, laid down, was to the effect that the improvements throw doubt on the prosecution story. Improvements made by interested witnesses make their testimony vulnerable and reliance cannot be placed on such witnesses. Reference be made to Badruddin Vs. State of Maharshtra 1981 CRI. L. J. 729 SC and Satish Kumar Batra v. State of Haryana 2009 CRI. L. J. 2447SC. Reference in this regard be also made to one re cent Judgment of our own High Court cited as Jagdish & Others Vs. State 2010 (2) JCC 943 wherein it has been observed that it was difficult to rely upon the testimony of witnesses who had come up with marked improvements in their testimony visavis their previous statements recorded by SDM. Moreover mere demand of dowry, even if it is as sumed to be in existence, does not per se becomes penal. In a recent case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. JAGDISH & ANR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1411 OF 2010 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 4389 OF 2004) (DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 03, 2010) , it has been observed as under: "........but demand of dowry by itself is not an offence under Section 498A or Section 304B IPC. What is punishable under Section 498A or Section 304B IPC is the FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 28 page of 31 act of cruelty or harassment by the husband or the relative of the husband on the woman. "
31 My foregoing discussion persuade me to hold that there is not sufficient material to substantiate beyond doubt that Jyoti was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and that such act of cruelty took place soon before her death.
32 Term "soon before" is elastic and there is no straitjacket formula which may prove to be handy to say with certainty either way. Suffice to say that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty and the death in question. There must be live link between the two. 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, it would be of no consequence. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words "soon before her death" is to emphasize the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been direct consequence of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a discernible nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 29 page of 31 cruelty inflicted on her. Hiatus elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death should not be wide and court is to decide on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the interval in that given case is sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept "soon before her death."
33 Such element of cruelty 'soon before death' is missing here. Nothing can be concretely deciphered from the testimony of Jyoti's parents and brother in this regard. No neighbourer residing in the vicinity of Mangol Puri has deposed about there being any quarrel between them much less related to dowry. Brother of deceased has also failed to supply the name of his relative who had allegedly informed that a quarrel was going on the date of incident. As per persons residing in Mangol Puri, there was no such quarrel that day at all. Some of the PWs have not supported the case of prosecution.
34 I do not find any material which may either hint or suggest that accused persons had abetted or instigated her to commit suicide. I am, therefore, inclined to grant benefit of doubt to all the accused persons. FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 30
page of 31
35 All accused persons, namely, Naresh, Ashok Kumar, Prem,
Vijay and Alka are hereby acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
36 Their respective bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
37 File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court Today i.e. on 30th August, 2010 (MANOJ JAIN) ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) OUTER DISTRICT:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI FIR No.: 165/08, PS: Mangol Puri 31 page of 31