Delhi District Court
State vs Lalit Kumar (Husband) . . . Accused ... on 19 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. T.S. KASHYAP
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Unique I.D. No. : 02402R02372122012
Sessions Case No. : 53/2012
FIR No. : 183/2012
Under Sections : 498A/304B/34 IPC
Police Station : Karawal Nagar
In the matter of :
STATE
Versus
1. Lalit Kumar (Husband) . . . Accused Persons
S/o Sh. Virender Singh
R/o House No. 224, Gali No. 1
MCD School, New Sabhapur Gujran
Karawal Nagar, Delhi
2. Virender Singh (Father-in-law)
S/o Sh. Gauri Shankar
R/o House No. 224, Gali No. 1
MCD School, New Sabhapur Gujran
Karawal Nagar, Delhi
3. Vimlesh @ Kamlesh (Mother-in-law)
R/o House No. 224, Gali No. 1
MCD School, New Sabhapur Gujran
Karawal Nagar, Delhi
Date of Institution : 01/09/2012
Date of committal : 28/08/2012
Date of reserving judgment : 17/05/2014
Date of pronouncement : 19/05/2014
FIR No. 183/2012 Page 1 of 25
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 29/05/12 on receipt of DD No. 5PP, PP Shahdara, PS ODRS Delhi regarding lying of a dead body of a female, aged about 25-30 years at railway track, near Jawala Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, ASI Prem Kishore proceeded at the spot. The deceased was identified as Smt. Kiran, W/o Lalit Kumar, R/o House No. 224, New Sabhapur, Karawal Nagar, Delhi, aged 21 years. IO recorded the statement of Lalit Kumar regarding identification of deceased. The postmortem of dead body was carried out at GTB Hospital. On 02/06/12, the statement of father of deceased namely Sh. Bhagwati Prasad, S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop, R/o Bassai Kaji, PS Shashani, Distt: Hathras, U.P was recorded by the SDM Kotwali as under :-
"I have five children - two sons and three daughters. My daughter Kiran is at fourth number. I have got married my daughter Kiran with Lalit Kumar on 22/05/10 at our village. At the time of marriage, Sh. Virender Kumar, father of Lalit told my brother-in-law (Sala) Ameer Chand that he demanded in marriage ring, gold chain, pajeb, motorcycle, TV, almirah, double bed and other house-hold articles. I said that I am a poor person and cannot give these articles in marriage. Thereafter, my brother-in-law Amir Chand told me that you will not find such a good boy. Thereafter, I agreed to give all these articles in marriage and I gave the same after mortgaging my land. For one year of her marriage, my daughter never told my that her in-laws were demanding dowry. After about one year of marriage, my daughter Kiran told me that her mother-in-law Smt. Kamlesh told her that we had given less dowry and demanded more dowry and made a demand of Rs. 50,000/- on which I said that I not could give this amount being a poor person. Thereafter, my daughter told FIR No. 183/2012 Page 2 of 25 me to keep her at parental house. I somehow arranged the said amount and gave it to the father-in-law of my daughter namely Virender Singh stating I have nothing more to give and to please keep my daughter peacefully and happily. Despite that in-laws of my daughter namely Lalit, Virender Singh and Smt. Kamlesh and brother of Lalit namely Amit used to harass my daughter for dowry. My daughter Kiran told me several times regarding that but I could not help her being a poor person. My brother-in-law (Jija) Sh. Munshi Lal resident of Karawal Nagar expired on 16/05/12 and I went there in his Roti (Tehravin) on 28/05/12 where my son-in-law and daughter also came. My son-in-law asked me to visit his house. I alongwith my family went there, where a quarrel took place between my daughter and her mother-in-law. I made my daughter understand not to quarrel with elders and I came back to my house. On 29/05/12 at about 5:00 a.m, I went to the in-laws house of my daughter to bring her. My son-in-law told me that your daughter had already gone. Thereafter, I went to the house of my sister and started searching her with the help of neighbourers. On 01/06/12, my son and son-in- law went at Shahdara Railway Station where one tea vendor informed that one girl died there as she came under the train. Thereafter, they went to the police post of Shahdara where police officials showed them a photograph who was identified by them as my daughter Kiran. I have a suspect that my daughter Kiran was not cut by train but she was killed by Vishamber, tau of Lalit. I want action against husband of deceased, her mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law Amir and Bishamber, tau of Lalit".
2. Thereafter, on the direction of SDM Kotwali, the present case was registered U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC & 4 D.P. Act. The investigation was carried out by Insp. Lekh Raj Singh. During investigation accused Lalit Kumar, FIR No. 183/2012 Page 3 of 25 Virender Singh and Smt. Vimlesh @ Kamlesh were arrested. Amit Kumar S/o Virender Singh was found to be juvenile whose charge-sheet was separately filed before Juvenile Justice Board. Vishamber was not arrested as no evidence was found against him.
3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against all the three accused persons namely Lalit Kumar, Virender Singh and Smt. Vimlesh @ Kamlesh U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC & 4 D.P. Act.
4. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate after supplying the necessary copies to the accused persons committed the case to the court of Sessions vide order dated 28/08/12.
5. Vide order dated 21/09/12 accused persons were charged for the offences punishable U/s 498A/304B(2)/34 IPC and alternatively for the offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 16 witnesses.
(a) The prosecution examined following material witnesses :-
i) PW1 Bhagwati Prasad is the father of deceased.
He deposed, inter alia, that he had given the dowry articles i.e motorcycle, TV, fridge, cooler, sewing machine, jewelleries and other house-hold articles in the marriage of his daughter. After about one year of marriage, her deceased daughter told him that her in-laws used to harass her for the demand FIR No. 183/2012 Page 4 of 25 of dowry and used to say that AAPNE DAHEJ KAM DIYA HAI, APNE BAAP SE DAHEJ AUR LAO. He told her daughter that he was a poor person and he had already mortgaged his agricultural land for her marriage. Her daughter also told him that AGAR AAP DAHEJ NAHI DETE HAI TO MUJHE APNE GHAR PE RAKH LO. Her daughter stated so because her in-laws used to beat her and harass her for the demand of dowry.
On this, he arranged Rs. 50,000/- after selling his animals and borrowed some loan. He handed over Rs. 50,000/- to Virender Singh, father-in-law of his daughter. For some day, his daughter remained well in her matrimonial home but after some day, accused persons namely Virender, Lalit, Smt. Kamlesh and Amit, Devar of his deceased daughter again started harassing his deceased daughter for dowry and stated PACHAS HAJAR SE KIYA HOTA HAI AUR PAISE LAO. This fact was told to him by his deceased daughter. In the month of Jeth 2012, his brother-in-law, Munshi Lal had expired and he had come to Delhi on the occasion of his Tehrvi on 28th day in the month of Jeth of that year alongwith his family members and relatives at Karawal Nagar to attend the same. His deceased daughter and his son-in-law, accused Lalit, had also come there to attend the said function. On that day, his daughter told him that FIR No. 183/2012 Page 5 of 25 accused persons were harassing her with demand of dowry. On the same day in the evening time, he alongwith his family members went to the matrimonial home of his deceased daughter at Karawal Nagar where they met Smt. Kamlesh, Virender Singh, Lalit and Dever of his daughter. All the four accused persons started quarreling with her daughter. He came back to the house of his sister, Smt Ramwati at Karawal Nagar after making accused persons understand not to quarrel with his daughter (since deceased) or harass her for dowry. On the next morning at about 5:00 a.m, he alone went to the matrimonial house of his deceased daughter where accused, Lalit told him to get his daughter ready as he had to take her back to his home. On this accused, Lalit told him that his deceased daughter was not there and she had already left from there. Thereafter, he returned back to home of his sister where he had come to attend the Tehrvi of his brother-in-law (Bahnoi). Thereafter, he alongwith his family members and relatives searched for her daughter in the area of Karawal Nagar but his daughter could not be found. He searched his daughter on 29th and 30th of the month of Jeth in the area of Karawal Nagar but she could not be found. On 1st day of next month, his son, Raj Kumar and accused, Lalit reached at Shahdara railway station in search of FIR No. 183/2012 Page 6 of 25 his deceased daughter and from the tea shop owner they came to know that one dead body of a lady was lying on the railway track. Both of them contacted the railway police and they showed photographs of his deceased daughter and they identified her by seeing the photographs. They went to the mortuary GTB hospital to see the dead body of his deceased daughter and they identified the dead body. He also went to GTB hospital mortuary on 02/06/12 and identified the dead body. His statement in this regard was recorded by the police which is Ex. PW2/A. He also received the dead body of his deceased daughter after post-mortem for cremation vide receipt Ex.
PW2/P1. On the same day, his statement was recorded by the SDM which is Ex. PW2/B. He further deposed that his deceased daughter was killed by all the four accused persons and she has not committed suicide. He also identified all the three accused persons in the court.
ii) PW3 Smt. Shakuntala is the mother of deceased Kiran. She deposed that her deceased daughter was living happily in her matrimonial home. She never complained to her against her in-laws. She does not know as to how her death was caused as at that time she was at her village. She was declared hostile and cross-examined by Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for State.
FIR No. 183/2012 Page 7 of 25iii) PW4 Sanjay is the brother of deceased. He deposed that they had given dowry articles in her marriage according to their financial capacity. On 01/06/12, in search of his deceased sister, he alongwith his father and brother-in-law Lalit had gone to GRP Chowki, Railway Station, Shahdara, where he identified the photographs of his deceased sister and thereafter he identified the dead body of his deceased sister at mortuary of GTB Hospital. He also proved his statement Ex.
PW4/A and handing over memo of dead body as Ex. PW2/P1.
iv) PW5 Raj Kumar is the brother of deceased. He, inter alia, deposed that deceased Kiran was his daughter who was married with accused Lalit on 22/05/10. They had given dowry articles in her marriage according to their financial capacity. His deceased sister Kiran was living happily in her matrimonial home and she did not make any complaint against her in-laws during her lifetime. He does not know as to how she expired. He does not know anything about this case. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for State.
v) PW9 Sh. Rakesh Sharma, SDM, Karawal Nagar, Delhi deposed that on 01/06/12, he was posted as SDM Kotwali, Delhi and SHO of PS Old Delhi Railway Station informed him that a lady has come FIR No. 183/2012 Page 8 of 25 under the running train and died. On 02/06/12, he recorded the statement of Sh. Bhagwati Prasad, the father of deceased vide Ex. PW2/A. He directed the SHO, PS Karawal Nagar to take necessary action as per law and made endorsement on the said statement. On 03/06/12, he prepared inquest report Ex. PW9/B and requested the concerned Doctor to conduct the postmortem of dead body vide his request Ex. PW9/C. He also directed the SHO that after postmortem, the dead body be handed over to the father of the deceased.
(b) The prosecution also examined following formal witnesses:-
i) PW1 HC Biresh Kumar deposed that on 02/06/12 he was posted at PS Karawal Nagar and on that day he was deputed as Duty Officer. At about 4:10, he received rukka from SHO, PS Karawal Nagar, on the basis of which he got recorded FIR Ex. PW1/A. He also made endorsement on rukka Ex. PW1/B. After registration of FIR, he handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to SHO PS Karawal Nagar for investigation.
ii) PW6 Sh. Parmal Singh, Station Master, Shahdara Railway Station, Delhi deposed that on 29/05/12, he was posted as Deputy Station Superintendent at Shahdara Railway Station. At about 07:05 a.m, driver Sh. A.K. Srivastava of train No. 14084 Mahananda Express FIR No. 183/2012 Page 9 of 25 informed him on wireless that a lady was struck by the above said train and her head was inside the track while her body was out of the track. He immediately gave the message to GRP Police Chowki and removed the dead body of lady.
iii) PW7 Sh. Ajay Kumar Srivastava deposed that on 29/05/12, he was posted as Loco Pilot (driver) in North Central Railway. On that day, he was deputed as driver on train No. 14084 Mahananda Express from Delhi to New Jalpaiguri and at about 7:00 a.m, took the above said train from Shahdara Railway Station. When the train reached near KM Pole No. 6/26, dead body of a female was lying on railway track. The head of dead body was severed which was lying in between the track and body was lying out of the track. Many public persons were gathered there. He informed the Power Cable Shahdara, Delhi through walky-talky which was with him.
vi) PW8 Dr. Mahesh Kumar, Jr. Demonstrator, UCMS & GTB Hospital, Delhi proved the postmortem report Ex. PW8/A prepared by Dr. Ashok Najan, Jr. Demonstrator.
v) PW11 Ct. Vinod Kumar deposed that on 12/07/12, he was posted as Constable at PS Karawal Nagar, Delhi. On that day, on the direction of the IO of the case and SHO, he had received a sealed viscera petty of the deceased in this case and took the same to FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 118/21 and deposited the same with the FSL.
vi) PW14 Ct. Subhash Chand deposed that on 28/05/12, he was posted at PP Railway Shahdara of PS Old Delhi FIR No. 183/2012 Page 10 of 25 Railway Station from 8:00 a.m to 8:00 a.m next date. On 29/05/12 at about 7:45 a.m, he received a memo from Dy. Superintendent of Railway Station, Shahdara regarding a dead body. He recorded DD No. 5PP on the basis of same and handed over the said DD to ASI Prem Kishore for further inquiry. The said DD is already Ex. PW13/A and memo is Ex. PW6/A.
vii) PW15 HC Inder Pal Singh deposed that on 12/07/12, he was posted as MHCM at PS Karawal Nagar, Delhi. On that day, at the instructions of IO, he had handed over sealed viscera petty of deceased Kiran and one forwarding letter to Ct. Vinod Kumar intact condition. After receiving the same, Ct. Vinod Kumar left the PS alongwith above said articles with RC No. 118/21/12 and went to FSL Rohini where he deposited the same and obtained copy of receipt. He returned back to PS and handed over said receipt to him.
(c) The prosecution has examined the following witnesses of investigation :-
i) PW10 Ct. Manju deposed that on 18/07/12, he was posted as Constable at PS Karawal Nagar, Delhi and he alongwith the IO went to House No. 224, Gali No. 1, New Sahbhapur Gujran, Delhi where the accused Vimlesh @ Kamlesh was apprehended by the IO. The IO interrogated her and after his interrogation, she was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW10/A. He took her personal search vide memo Ex. PW10/B. FIR No. 183/2012 Page 11 of 25
ii) PW12 Ct. Gopal deposed that on 02/06/12, he was posted as Constable at PS Karawal Nagar, Delhi and he alongwith IO went to House No. 224, Gali No. 1, New Sabhapur Gujran, Delhi where accused Virender and Lalit were present. The IO arrested both of them vide arrest memo Ex. PW12/A and PW12/B. Their personal search were also taken vide memo Ex. PW12/C and PW12/D.
iii) PW13 ASI Prem Kishore deposed that on 29/05/12, he was posted at PP Railway Shahdara of PS Old Railway Station. On receipt of DD No. 5PP Ex. PW13/A regarding death of a lady at railway track, he went to the spot where he found the dead body of a lady lying in two pieces. He got the dead body photographed. He proved the form 25.35 Ex. PW13/B, application for preservation of dead body Ex. PW13/C and seizure memo of ornaments of dead body Ex. PW13/D. On 01/06/12, one Lalit alongwith Sanjay came at GRP, PP Shahdara to whom he showed the photographs of deceased and also the dead body at GTB mortuary and they identified the dead body as of Kiran. He recorded the statement of Lalit vide Ex. PW9/D. Sanjay also made his statement Ex. PW4/A regarding identification of dead body. Father of deceased also identified the photographs and dead body of Kiran. He recorded his statement Ex. PW2/A. He also informed Sh.
Rakesh Sharma, SDM, Railway. On direction of SDM, the present case FIR was registered at PS Karawal Nagar. He also filled up the inquest form vide Ex. PW9/B. He further deposed that on 03/06/12, SDM conducted inquest FIR No. 183/2012 Page 12 of 25 proceedings and on his direction postmortem of deceased was conducted and after postmortem, dead body was handed over to father of deceased.
vi) PW16 Insp. Lekh Raj Singh deposed that on 02/06/12, he was posted as SHO at PS Karawal Nagar and received a telephonic information from SHO of PS Old Delhi Railway Station that dead body of a female namely Kiran was recovered at Shahdara Railway Station, who died in train accident. He reached at the office of SDM, Kotwali where SDM Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma handed over to him the statement of father of deceased for necessary action. On his direction, Duty Officer registered the case. Thereafter, he went to the house of accused persons and arrested accused Virender and Lalit vide Ex. PW12/A and PW12/B. He also conducted their personal search vide memos Ex. PW12/D and PW12/C respectively. On 18/07/12, he also arrested accused Vimlesh @ Kamlesh from her house vide arrest memo Ex. PW10/A and got conducted her personal search through W/Ct. Manju vide memo Ex. PW10/B. He further deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him.
7. After closure of the Prosecution Evidence, all the incriminating evidence against the accused persons namely Lalit Kumar, Virender Singh and Vimlesh @ Kamlesh was put to them in their statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC on 17/04/14 wherein the accused persons pleaded that they are innocent and in fact on 29/05/12, the deceased left their house for going to her parental home by train and must have died accidentally. Accused Virender FIR No. 183/2012 Page 13 of 25 Singh and Vimlesh @ Kamlesh did not opt to lead evidence in their defence. However, accused Lalit Kumar opted to lead evidence in his defence. Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons tendered certified copy of judgment of Juvenile Justice Board-II whereby juvenile Amit was acquitted in the present case. The same is Ex D1. Thereafter, he closed the D/E on behalf of the accused persons.
8. I have heard the submissions from Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for State and Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons. I have also gone through the record.
9. Ld. Counsel for accused persons vehemently argued that death of deceased Kiran was an accidental death and not homicidal or suicidal. He submitted that prosecution has not proved on record that death of deceased was homicidal or suicidal. In his cross-examination, PW16 IO/Insp. Lekh Raj Singh admits that nothing was revealed during investigation whether the incident was suicidal or accidental. He further deposed that it was revealed during investigation that the elder brother of accused Virender Singh namely Vishamber Singh was not in visiting terms with the family of accused and as such no action was recommended against him. First IO PW13 deposed that Bhagwati Prasad did not raise any suspicion about the death of his daughter Kiran at that time. Bhagwati Prasad gave statement that death took place on a railway track and he did not raise any suspicion on any person. PW4 Sanjay brother of deceased also not raised any suspicion on anyone. Ld. Counsel for accused persons further submitted that to attract Sec. 302 IPC, death must be homicidal but apparently it is a case of accident. He submits that father of deceased Bhagwati Prasad in his statement regarding identification of dead body stated that death of the deceased was caused in a train accident for FIR No. 183/2012 Page 14 of 25 which he was personally satisfied and there was no fault of anyone. PW3 Smt. Shakuntala Devi, mother of deceased and PW5 Raj Kumar, brother of deceased deposed in the court that deceased Kiran was living happily in her matrimonial home. PW2 Bhagwati Prasad admits in his cross-examination that it was revealed to him and so stated by him in his statement Ex. PW2/A that death of his daughter was due to train accident. He also admits that he has not lodged any complaint against the accused persons prior to death of his daughter regarding alleged harassment and beatings for dowry demand. He also did not produce any document regarding mortgaging his property or selling his animals, to the IO to substantiate his allegations to the effect that he has fulfilled the dowry demand of in-laws of his deceased daughter by mortgaging his land or selling his animals. He further submitted that Amir Chand through whom in-laws of deceased used to demand dowry was not made a witness by the prosecution. Ld. Counsel further submits that juvenile, Amit, an accused in the present case has already been acquitted by Juvenile Justice Board. Ld. Counsel submitted that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and prayed that all the accused persons be acquitted. Ld. Defence Counsel has relied on the authorities reported as Shiv Kumar v State 2012 [2] JCC 1083, Ahmed Sayeed v State 2014 (1) LRC 378 (Del), Bhupender @ Kale v State 2012 (7) LRC 24 (Del) (DB), Mahesh Kumar & Ors v State 2013 (6) LRC 213 (Del), Dharampal v State of NCT Delhi 2013 (6) LRC 207 (Del), Krishna & Anr. v State of Delhi 2013 (5) LRC 203 (Del), S. Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Ganna v State of Karnataka, Crl. Appl. No. 937 of 2006 (03/07/2013) 760 Matrimonial Law Reporter 2013, Atul Sharma & Anr v State, Crl. Appl. No. 142 of 2000 (23/05/2013) 680 Matrimonial Law Reporter 2013, Vipin Jaiswal (A-1) v State of Andhra Pradesh 2013 CRI.L.J 2095 and Nepal Singh v State of Haryana, Crl. Appl. No. 383 of 2002 (24/04/2009) 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 418.
FIR No. 183/2012 Page 15 of 2510. Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for State has submitted that PW2 Bhagwati Prasad, father of deceased, in his statement before the SDM made allegations of dowry and cruelty against the accused persons. When PW2 reached at the in-laws house of his daughter, she was not found there and was informed by accused Lalit that she had already left the house. The accused persons did not inform the parents of deceased regarding missing of deceased from their house. He further submits that deceased was medically fit and there was no reason for her to commit suicide and even otherwise if she has committed suicide she must have been compelled by the accused persons for doing so. PW2 Bhagwati Prasad, father of deceased supported his allegations made before SDM during his deposition in the court. He further submitted that the accused persons be convicted for the offences for which charge has been framed against them.
11. Accused persons have been charged for the offences punishable U/s 498A and 304B/34 IPC and alternatively for the offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC.
12. Sec. 498-A IPC reads as under :-
"Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. -- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation - For the purpose 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 FIR No. 183/2012 Page 16 of 25 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".
13. Section 304-B IPC, which reads as under :-
"Dowry death - (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation - For the purposes of this 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".
14. In order to seek conviction U/s 304-B IPC the prosecution is obliged to prove that :-
(a) the death of a woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(b) such death should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage;
(c) the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband;
(d) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and
(e) to such cruelty or harassment the deceased should have been subjected soon before her death.
15. The charge for offfence U/s 302 IPC in alternative was framed against the accused persons as per mandate in authority reported as Rajbir @ Raju and Anr v State of Haryana AIR 2011 SC 568. There is no allegation of the complainant against any of the accused that they have caused homicide or culpable homicide of deceased. The charge-sheet filed by FIR No. 183/2012 Page 17 of 25 the IO against the accused persons is only for facing trial U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC and U/s 4 of D.P. Act. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution has deposed in the court that any of the accused has caused culpable homicide of the deceased. In the cross-examination of PW16 Insp. Lekh Raj Singh, has affirmed the suggestion that nothing was revealed to him during his investigation whether incident was suicidal or acccidental and therefore the prosecution has failed to prove on record the charge for offence U/s 302/34 IPC against the accused persons.
16. Out of the material prosecution witnesses examined by the prosecution Smt. Shakuntala Devi PW3 has deposed that her deceased daughter Kiran was living happily at her matrimonial home. She never complained to her against her in-laws. She does not know as to how her death was caused. She does not want to say anything else in the case. She was cross-examined by Ld. Add. Public Prosecutor wherein she stated that her statement was recorded by the police. She denied the suggestion that it so happened that her daughter had stated to her that when she came after her marriage to her home, she will not live at her matrimonial home as her in-laws used to taunt her for bringing less dowry in the marriage and also used to give beatings to her. She denied the suggestion that on the occasion of death of brother-in-law of her husband (bahnoi) her husband had visited the matrimonial home of deceased daughter Kiran and she had stated to her husband that her in-laws used to taunt her for demand of dowry and after telling this fact, in-laws of her deceased daughter had quarrelled with her and thereafter her husband had returned back to the house of his sister at Karawal Nagar after making her deceased daughter understand and on next day when they came to know that Kiran was not present at her in-laws house, her husband and other relatives had searched her and these facts were told to FIR No. 183/2012 Page 18 of 25 her by her husband. She further denied the suggestion that she had stated to the IO, in her statement that it so happened that in-laws of her deceased daughter Kiran had killed her at Shahdara Railway Station. She also denied the suggestion that on 17/08/12 she alongwith her husband and relatives came to the PS Karawal Nagar where her statement mark PW3/PA was recorded. She further denied the suggestion that she has levelled the allegations against in-laws of her deceased daughter that they used to harass her and beat her for dowry demand. She also denied the suggestion that in- laws of her deceased daughter had killed her at Shahdara Railway station. She also denied the suggestion that her daughter was not happy at her in- laws house. She further denied the suggestion that she had been won over by the accused persons as such she was suppressing truth and deliberately deposing falsely to save the accused persons.
17. The material witness Sanjay PW4 is the brother of deceased who has merely deposed that his deceased sister was married to Lalit Kumar on 22/05/10 as per Hindu customs and rites and they had given dowry articles as per their financial capacity. On 01/06/12, he alongwith his father and brother had gone to GRP Chowki Railway Station Shahdara in search of his deceased sister where he identified the photograph of his deceased sister and identified the dead body at mortuary. His statement Ex. PW4/A was recorded and they received the dead body of Kiran vide Ex. PW2/P1.
18. Raj Kumar PW5 is another brother of accused and deposed on the lines of PW4 and added that his deceased sister was living happily at her matrimonial house and she did not make any complaint against her in-laws during her life time. He does not know as to how she expired and he does not know anything about the case. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Addl.
FIR No. 183/2012 Page 19 of 25Public Prosecutor but he did not support the prosecution version wherein he denied the suggestion that he has stated to the IO that it so happened that on occasion of marriage of his deceased sister, the father of accused Lalit namely Virender Singh had demanded gold ring, gold chain, pajeb, motorcycle, TV, almirah, double bed and other house-hold articles from his maternal uncle Amir Chand and his father has stated that he was a poor man and could not give said articles and on insistence of his maternal uncle, Amir Chand that "AISA LADKA NAHI MILEGA", his father had agreed to give said articles and for the same his father had mortgaged their land and gave the dowry articles to in-laws of his deceased sister. He further denied the suggestion given by Ld. Addl. P.P that after one year of marriage of his deceased sister she had told them that her mother-in-law Kamlesh had told her that they had given less dowry and demanded more dowry articles and his deceased sister had demanded Rs. 50,000/- from his father on which his father had stated that he was a poor man on which his sister stated that "MUJHE GHAR ME HIS RAKH LO", and his father had arranged Rs. 50,000/- and handed over to Virender Singh, father of accused Lalit Kumar and his father had also stated to the in-laws of deceased sister that he has nothing more and therefore please keep his daughter well. This witness further denied the suggestion given by Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor that he had stated to the IO that even thereafter in-laws of his deceased sister harassed her for dowry articles but due to their poverty they could not help the sister and on 29/05/12, he came to know that his deceased sister was not available at her matrimonial home and her son was present at home who disclosed the said fact to his father on telephone.
19. The testimony of PW3, PW4 and PW5 does not support the prosecution case at all as these witnesses have not made any allegation FIR No. 183/2012 Page 20 of 25 against the accused persons that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons or by any other relative of her husband.
20. It is pertinent to note that none of the above mentioned witnesses have supported the testimony of PW2 Bhagwati Prasad. The initial allegation of the witness Bhagwati Prasad against the accused persons was that father-in-law Virender Singh made dowry demand mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW2/B from his brother-in-law Amir Chand on whose suggestion he had given the dowry articles in the marriage of his deceased daughter. However, said Amir Chand has not been cited as witness and not examined by the prosecution in the court due to reasons best know to the IO/prosecution. There is no corroboration of such allegation by any of the family members of deceased (i.e PW3, PW4 and PW5). PW2 had further alleged that he had mortgaged his land and thereafter he had given the said articles to the accused persons. However, he has not disclosed the names of person to whom PW2 had mortgaged his land nor any such person has been cited as a witness. No list of dowry articles nor any document has been placed on record to show that such dowry articles were purchased by PW2. The photocopy Ex. PW2/D of the alleged mortgaged deed has not been duly proved and original thereof has not been produced in the court. In the cross- examination of PW16 Insp. Lekh Raj Singh, he has admitted that he did not collect the original nor the originals of Ex. PW2/D were shown to him by PW2 Bhagwati Prasad. IO also admitted that he did not examine Pratap Singh and Sudan Singh in order to verify the contents of Ex. PW2/D. He voluntarily added that he had asked Bhagwati several times to produce those persons but he failed to do so. The IO also affirmed the suggestion that he did not verify from Sub-registrar office about the authenticity of Ex. PW2/D. FIR No. 183/2012 Page 21 of 25
21. PW2 Bhagwati Prasad has also alleged that his deceased daughter had told him after one year of her marriage that her in-laws (the accused persons) were making dowry demand specifying her mother-in-law Kamlesh that the family of deceased had given less dowry and demanded Rs. 50,000/- which were paid by him after collecting from his relatives. However, neither any date has been specified nor names of his relatives has been disclosed by PW2 Bhagwati Prasad nor such relatives have been cited and examined in the court to corroborate the fact that PW2 Bhagwati Prasad had arranged the money from his relatives.
PW2 has also claimed that on 28/05/12, he had visited the matrimonial house of his deceased daughter as he had gone to attend the tehrvi of his brother-in-law who was residing in the neighbourhood of his daughter's in-laws house. On asking of his son-in-law Lalit, he had gone to matrimonial house of his deceased daughter where some quarrel had taken place between his daughter and mother-in-law Kamlesh. However, these facts have not been corroborated by PW3, PW4 and PW5 who are close relatives (of PW2 and deceased) and they were supposed to be aware of all the facts and allegations as made by PW2 Bhagwati Prasad against the accused persons. In her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor, PW3 Smt. Shakuntala Devi has denied the suggestion that she has stated to the IO in her statement that on the occasion of tehrvi of brother-in-law of her husband, her husband had also visited the matrimonial home of his deceased daughter and she stated to her husband that her in-laws used to taunt her for dowry demand and after telling this fact in-laws of her deceased daughter had quarrelled with her. Therefore, the allegations made by PW2 Bhagwati Prasad have also not been corroborated by PW3 Smt. Shakuntala, his wife who was the best person with whom such allegation should have been shared by PW2 FIR No. 183/2012 Page 22 of 25 Bhagwati Prasad.
22. A perusal of his statement Ex. PW2/B made by PW2 Bhagwati Prasad shows that he had made a specific allegation suspecting Bishamber (tau of accused Lalit Kumar) that he had killed his deceased daughter and after investigation, the IO had filed the charge-sheet stating that during the investigation it was found that said Bishamber did not have visiting terms with the family of accused persons and he had not even attended the marriage of accused Lalit Kumar. The said accused Bishamber was not charge-sheeted as no incriminating evidence could be collected by the IO against him. The allegation of PW2 Bhagwati Prasad against the accused Kamlesh that there was a quarrel between deceased Kiran and accused Kamlesh, her mother-in- law on 28/05/12 has not been corroborated by PW3, PW4 and PW5 and such allegation does not amount to be cruelty or harassment for or in connection with dowry demand. There is no other allegation against the accused persons that the deceased was treated or subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand. Therefore, the testimony of PW2 Bhagwati Prasad does not appear to be cogent and does not inspire confidence. As such his testimony does not deserve to be believed in view of the fact that all his relatives PW3 Shakuntala Devi (his wife), PW4 Sanjay and PW5 Raj Kumar (both his sons) have not corroborated the allegations made by him against the accused persons. The authorities relied by Ld. Defence Counsel are fully applicable on the facts of this case.
23. Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for State has submitted that PW2 in his statement before Ld. SDM made allegations of cruelty and dowry demand against the accused persons and that when he reached at the in-laws house of his deceased daughter, she was not found there and was informed by FIR No. 183/2012 Page 23 of 25 accused Lalit that she had already left the house and that she was medically fit, as such there was no reason to commit suicide and she must have been compelled by the accused persons for doing so.
The marriage of the deceased in the present case was solemnised with accused Lalit Kumar on 22/05/10 and she died on 29/05/12 within seven year of her marriage and therefore court can draw adverse presumption against the accused persons that they or their relatives have abetted the suicide by the deceased or the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with dowry demand by the accused persons. However, there is a pre-condition that such presumption has to be drawn only when there is material to show that soon before death of a woman such a woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry and then only a presumption can be drawn that accused persons have committed dowry death of said woman [relied G.V. Siddaramesh v State of Karnataka (2010) 3 SCC 152]. Moreover, there is no allegation of complainant or his relatives that soon before death of complainant's daughter she was treated with cruelty or harassed by the accused persons on account of dowry demand. The juvenile Amit has already been acquitted by Juvenile Justice Board vide judgment 22/01/2013 Ex. D1.
24. It is also pertinent to note that PW6 Parmal Singh, Station Master, Delhi Shahdara Railway Station has deposed that on 29/05/12, he was posted as Dy. Station Superintendent at Delhi Shahdara Railway Station from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 a.m and at about 7:05 a.m driver A.K. Srivastava of train No. 14084 Mahananda Express informed him on wireless that a lady was hit by the train and her head was inside the track whereas her body was out of the track. PW6 gave message to GRP Police, Chowky Shahdara and FIR No. 183/2012 Page 24 of 25 ASI Prem Kishore conducted the proceedings and removed the dead body. IO recorded his statement as Ex. PW6/A bearing railway memo No. 75 dated 29/05/12. The said driver A.K. Srivastava has been examined as PW7 wherein he has corroborated the said fact. The postmortem report Ex. PW8/A shows the cause of death as "shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries to neck produced by heavy blunt force impact".
25. In view of above discussion, I am of the considered view that the accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal for all the charged. Accordingly, all the accused persons namely Lalit Kumar, Virender Singh and Vimlesh @ Kamlesh are hereby acquitted of the charges framed against them. However, they are directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bond in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each in terms of Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C within a week of their release from J/C for a period of six months. All the three accused persons be released from J/C forthwith, if not required in any other case. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today i.e 19th May 2014 (T.S. Kashyap) ASJ-01/Spl. Judge (NDPS) Shahdara District Karkardooma Court, Delhi FIR No. 183/2012 Page 25 of 25