Delhi District Court
State vs . Jitender Choudhary & Ors. on 16 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARVIND BANSAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE -05 (SHAHDARA)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
*****
SC No. 598/2016
FIR No.: 1042/2014
Police Station: Nand Nagri
U/s 306/34 IPC
State Versus
1. Jitender Choudhary
s/o Ram Nandan
r/o B-1/154, Nand Nagri
Delhi.
2. Ram Nandan Choudhary
s/o Shri Bansi Choudhary
r/o B-58, Sushila Garden
Near Saboli, Delhi.
3. Prem Lata
d/o Ram Nandan
r/o B-58, Sushila Garden
Near Saboli, Delhi.
4. Hem Lata
d/o Shri Ram Nandan
r/o B-58, Sushila Garden
Near Saboli, Delhi.
5. Meena
w/o Shri Ram Nandan
r/o B-58, Sushila Garden
Near Saboli, Delhi.
.... Accused
(a) Date of Institution: 24.12.2014
(b) Date of Offence: 24.10.2014
(c) Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty &
State vs. Jitender Choudhary & Ors.
SC No. 598/2016
FIR No. 1042/2016
Police Station: Nand Nagri
Page No. 1 of 18
claimed trial
(e) Argument heard &
reserved for order: 27.01.2023
(f) Final Order: All accused
Acquitted
(f) Date of Judgment: 16.02.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons are facing trial having been charged for the offence u/s 306/34 IPC. The facts in brief leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused per- sons may be summed up as under:-
On 24.10.2014 at 08:00 pm at H. No. 131/154, Nand Nagri, Delhi, Poonam Devi committed suicide because during the period from 22.05.2002 to 24.10.2014, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, gave beatings to her, and harassed and tortured her and thereby all of them abetted Poonam Devi to commit suicide by hanging herself in a room of aforesaid address and thereby all the accused persons committed an of- fence punishable u/s 306/34 IPC.
After completion of the necessary formalities, FIR was registered. During investigation, IO arrested accused Jitender Chaudhary, collected necessary material, investigated role of other accused persons and prepared chargesheet.
2. After completion of investigation, challan u/s 173 Cr.P.C was filed by IO on 24.12.2014 u/s 306/34 IPC. The Court State vs. Jitender Choudhary & Ors.
SC No. 598/2016 FIR No. 1042/2016Police Station: Nand Nagri Page No. 2 of 18 took cognizance of the offence on the facts alleged in the challan and proceeded against the accused persons. The case file was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 10.02.2015 after completion of necessary legal formalities u/s 207 Cr.P.C. Upon receipt of chargesheet pursuant to order of the then learned District & Sessions Judge, Shahdara on 20.02.2015, matter was fixed for hearing on point of charge. After hearing arguments, vide order dated 05.03.2015, Charge u/s 306/34 IPC was framed and explained to all the accused to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence:
3. In support of its case, prosecution produced and ex- amined 13 witnesses.
PW-1 Jaganath Shah deposed that his daughter Poonam was married with Jitender Choudhary in the year 2002 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. He had given sufficient dowry according to his capacity. He had also given Rs. 01 lac and one motorcycle (boxer) to Ram Nandan Choudhary but he, his wife and his two daughters Hemlata & Premlata were not happy with the aforesaid goods and cash. Immediately after marriage, Ram Nandan Choudhary, his wife and daughters started harassing and giving beatings to his daughter Poonam and started demanding more dowry and cash. After two years of marriage, accused per- sons had given beatings to his daughter. Thereafter, a complaint was made to CAW Cell upon which a case was registered u/s 498-A/406 IPC. A compromise took place to the extent that all the accused persons would keep Poonam happy. Thereafter, his State vs. Jitender Choudhary & Ors.
SC No. 598/2016 FIR No. 1042/2016Police Station: Nand Nagri Page No. 3 of 18 daughter was taken by the accused persons to their house. After three or four days of Diwali of the year 2014 after about 02:00 pm, his daughter Poonam made a call to her mother on her mo- bile phone and told that accused persons had taken away her chil- dren to Sushila Garden after threats. On the same day, a phone call was received from accused Ram Nandan Choudhary who told that Poonam had expired. He alongwith his family members went to police station Nand Nagri firstly and had come to know that his daughter Poonam was shifted to mortuary of GTB Hospi- tal. His statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded by IO. IO prepared document Ex.PW1/B and took his signature. He had identified dead body of his daughter vide Ex.PW1/C and his statement Ex.PW1/D was recorded. He had taken copy of postmortem re- port vide receipt Ex.PW1/E. After postmortem, dead body of his daughter was handed over to him. The witness was cross-exam- ined by learned defence counsel.
PW-2 Smt. Sudama Devi deposed that her daughter Poonam was married in the year 2002 with accused Jitender Choudhary. After marriage, accused persons started extending beatings to her daughter Poonam on account of demand of money from her daughter. They made a complaint to CAW Cell in this regard. The matter was compromised. A baby girl was born from the wedlock of her daughter in the year 2005 and an- other baby was born in the year 2007. She further deposed that accused persons and her in-laws started taunting her on the issue of giving birth to two girls. She further deposed that deceased Poonam also told her that accused persons used to demand money for house expenses and maintenance of two daughters. State vs. Jitender Choudhary & Ors.
SC No. 598/2016 FIR No. 1042/2016Police Station: Nand Nagri Page No. 4 of 18 She deposed that they had given Rs. 20,000/- and also Rs. 50,000/- to father-in-law of daughter Poonam and despite that ac- cused persons were continuously demanding money from her daughter. Poonam had also informed her that she had apprehen- sion that her husband and parents-in-law would kill her. She fur- ther deposed that on 24th October (witness did not remember the year), a phone call was received at about 08:00 pm from father- in-law of Poonam who informed her that her daughter Poonam had expired. She alongwith her family members went to the mat- rimonial home of Poonam and from there, they went to hospital. She made her statement Ex.PW2/A to the police. The witness was duly cross-examined by learned defence counsel.
PW-3 Anil deposed that on 22.05.2022, his sister Poonam was married with Jitender Choudhary. Soon after the marriage, accused persons started giving beatings to his sister Poonam. Accused persons used to demand money for starting business. His father had given Rs. 25,000/- and once Rs. 50,000/- to Ram Nandan Chaudhary but they were not satisfied with the said payment. They made complaint to CAW Cell at Pitampura and matter was got compromised in 2007. Thereafter, his sister was kept by her in-laws properly for a period of about 06/07 months. One domestic violence case was also pending in the Court where the matter was compromised on 20.10.2014 at Me- diation Centre and thereafter, accused persons had taken his sister to her matrimonial home. Right from the next day i.e. 21.10.2014, the accused persons started harassing his sister and she was not being given proper food. He deposed similar facts re- garding information of death of his sister and his visit to GTB State vs. Jitender Choudhary & Ors.
SC No. 598/2016 FIR No. 1042/2016Police Station: Nand Nagri Page No. 5 of 18 hospital. Police recorded his statement Ex.PW3/A. The witness was duly cross-examined by learned defence counsel.
PW-4 Ram Kanwar proved the present FIR as Ex.PW4/A, endorsement on Rukka made by him as Ex.PW4/B and DD No. 14 dated 25.10.2014 as Ex.PW4/C. PW-5 Vandana is the sister of deceased Poonam and deposed similar facts as deposed by PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3. The witness was cross-examined.
PW-6 HC Purshottam deposed that on 23.11.2014, accused persons came to police station and produced the photo- copy of their bail order before IO. IO arrested the accused per- sons vide memos Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/D respectively.
PW-7 Ct. Sunny Malik deposed that on 24.10.2014, on receipt of DD No. 39B, he alongwith ASI Ashok Tirki reached at B-1/154, Nand Nagri where they found a lady lying dead on the ground floor. IO/ASI Ashok Tirki called crime team at the spot which took photographs at the spot. Hus- band of deceased Poonam had handed over a piece of chunni to IO and stated the same to have been separated from the neck of his wife Poonam, and the same was sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. On 25.10.2014, after postmortem of dead body of deceased, the same was handed over to Jagannath Shah, father of deceased. Thereafter, accused Jitender was ar- rested and personally search vide memos Ex.PW7/B & Ex.PW7/C respectively. Accused Jitender Chaudhary was interro- gated and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW7/D. Some document provided by Jagannath to IO were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/E. The witness correctly iden- State vs. Jitender Choudhary & Ors.
SC No. 598/2016 FIR No. 1042/2016Police Station: Nand Nagri Page No. 6 of 18 tified piece of chunni as Ex.P-1.
PW-8 Kiran Pal deposed that the marriage of Poonam was solemnized in the year 2002 with accused Jitender. After the marriage, in-laws of Poonam started quarreling and taunting Poonam. A case was also pending between Poonam and her husband Jitender in the Court. Two-three days prior to this in- cident, accused Jitender Choudhary took Poonam to his house as matter was compromised between them. After that Jagannath in- formed him that Poonam was killed by her in-laws. They went to Police Station Nand Nagri where his statement was recorded by police. The witness was duly cross examined.
PW9 Ct. Mukesh deposed that on 24.10.2014, on direction of IO, he took 09 photographs at the place of incident and of dead body. The said photographs Ex.W9/A-1 to A-9 were developed and handed over to IO. The negatives of the photo- graphs are Ex.PW9/B collectively. The witness was cross exam- ined.
PW10 Insp. E.S. Yadav deposed that on 24.10.2014, he alongwith crime team including photographer reached at B-1/154, Nand Nagri, Delhi where he found a dead body lying on a bed in the room on ground floor. He directed photographer to take the photographs of scene of crime. He also inspected the scene of crime and prepared his detailed report Ex.PW10/A. The witness was cross examined.
PW11 ASI Ashok Tirki reiterated the assertions made by PW-7 Ct. Sunny Malik. However, he proved rukka Ex.PW11/B and Site Plan as Ex.PW11/C. The witness was duly cross-examined.
State vs. Jitender Choudhary & Ors.
SC No. 598/2016 FIR No. 1042/2016Police Station: Nand Nagri Page No. 7 of 18 PW12 SI Rajender Singh deposed that on 01.11.2014, further investigation of the case was handed over to him. He recorded the statement of witnesses. He arrested the ac- cused persons. He also collected the crime team report. After completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and filed before the Court. The witness was duly cross-examined.
PW12 (wrongly mentioned) Dr. Shalney Razden proved postmortem report no. 1478/2014 as Ex. PW12/A. The witness was cross-examined.
Statement of Accused & Final Arguments:
4. On completion of Prosecution Evidence, separate statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C whereby all the incriminating material/evidence available on record was put to them. They all denied the prosecution case in its entirety and stated that they were innocent and had been falsely and wrongly implicated in this case.
5. Final arguments advanced by Shri Kamal Akhter, learned Addl. PP for State and Shri R. N. Dubey, learned defence counsel heard.
6. Learned Additional PP for State reiterated the case of prosecution as deposed by prosecution witnesses before the Court. He argued that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-8, all deposed regarding displeasure of all the accused persons for bringing less dowry in the form of goods and cash. He submitted that deceased used to be beaten and harassed by accused persons State vs. Jitender Choudhary & Ors.SC No. 598/2016 FIR No. 1042/2016
Police Station: Nand Nagri Page No. 8 of 18 for not bringing sufficient dowry. It is argued that the prosecution witnesses have given cogent account of the harassment suffered by victim at the hands of accused persons and her consequent suicide. He argued that the regular cruelty meted out to victim left her with no option but to commit suicide and therefore, all the accused persons must be convicted for commission of offence U/s 306/34 IPC.
7. It is the argument of learned defence counsel that all the accused were falsely implicated by the family of deceased without any fault on their part. He argued that the allegations of demand of dowry made by PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 are general and vague in nature. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the depositions of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 regarding the same allegations and thus, none of them is a reliable witness. It is the argument that deceased was staying at her parental home for three years prior to her death and there is no complaint against any of the accused during that period. It is argued that deceased was staying with her husband and two chil- dren in the given house for last four days only after a settlement between the parties and there is no act alleged in the testimony of any of prosecution witnesses to reflect any act or omission on the part of any of the accused persons to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. It is argued that case of prosecution is based on a mere hypothesis or imagination and there being no allegation against any of the accused, they deserve to be acquitted.
8. Submissions heard at length. Material available on State vs. Jitender Choudhary & Ors.
SC No. 598/2016 FIR No. 1042/2016Police Station: Nand Nagri Page No. 9 of 18 record of judicial file carefully perused.
Appreciation of Evidence :
9. Before delving into appreciation of evidence, it must be understood that prosecution is under obligation to prove all the basic ingredients of both the charged offences to bring home the guilt of accused.
Section 306 IPC reads as under :
(a) "306. Abetment of Suicide: If any person com-
mits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of ei- ther description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
10. The term 'abetment' has been defined in Section 107 IPC as under:
"107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the do- ing of thing, who First Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly Inten- tionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the do- ing of that thing."
It is, thus, clear from plain reading of the Sections that there should be an overt act on part of the accused of in- stigating or facilitating the victim to commit suicide.
11. In Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chhatisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Hon'ble Apex Court elucidated the term 'instigation' and stated that:
"Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, in- cite or encourage to do an act".
State vs. Jitender Choudhary & Ors.
SC No. 598/2016 FIR No. 1042/2016Police Station: Nand Nagri Page No. 10 of 18
12. To satisfy the requirement of instigation, though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out.
13. In SS Cheena vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 190, the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled as under:
(a) Abetment involves a mental process of instigat-
ing a person or intentionally aiding a person in do- ing of a thing
(b) Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
(c) There has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.
(d) It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the de- ceased into such a position that he committed sui- cide.
14. In Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab (2017) I SCC 433, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :
"The basic ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To consti- tute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would mitigate against this indict- ment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted into the intentions of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 of IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpabil- ity and complicity of the indictable acts or omissions are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 of IPC, thus, criminalizes the sustained incite-
State vs. Jitender Choudhary & Ors.SC No. 598/2016 FIR No. 1042/2016
Police Station: Nand Nagri Page No. 11 of 18 ment for suicide".
15. It is observed that complaint Ex.PW1/A filed by PW-1 Jagannath Shah after the death of his daughter Poonam can be read in two parts; one, wherein he has alleged harassment and beating of his daughter at the hands of all the accused persons, and second, wherein he has explained the return of his daughter to her matrimonial home after a written settlement before Media- tion Centre on 20.10.2014 and her suicidal death on 24.10.2014.
It is observed that a complaint regarding alleged de- mand of dowry and harassment of deceased Poonam was already pending before concerned learned MM, and one complaint under D. V. Act was also pending before concerned learned Mahila Court when both the parties agreed to amicably settled their dis- pute vide a mediation settlement dated 20.10.2014.
16. It is the admitted case of prosecution that deceased Poonam was living at her parental home separate from her hus- band for last three years immediately prior to Mediation Settle- ment Mark-A. It is also the admitted position that deceased Poonam went to her matrimonial home on 20.10.2014 immedi- ately after the settlement was arrived at between the parties. It is also undisputed that deceased Poonam alongwith her husband and two daughters aged 10 years and 07 years started residing at B-1/154, Nand Nagri, Delhi and the other family members of ac- cused/husband were not staying with them at the given address being resident of a different place at Sushila Garden, Ghaziabad.
State vs. Jitender Choudhary & Ors.
SC No. 598/2016 FIR No. 1042/2016Police Station: Nand Nagri Page No. 12 of 18
17. It is the case of prosecution through the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 that on 24.10.2014 (the day when Poonam committed suicide), Poonam made a call to her mother on her mobile phone and informed that accused persons had threatened her stating 'aaj tere sath mar peet karenge'. Poonam was told not to worry as she had been sent back to her matrimo- nial home pursuant to a Court settlement. She was also told that next day being the festival of Bhaidooj, his brother shall visit her and she may complain him if anything happens.
While PW-1 reiterated the aforesaid allegations, he also deposed that accused Ram Nandan Chaudhary and Meena had visited the matrimonial home of his deceased daughter and had taken away both her daughters and had threatened her. As against this, PW-2 Sudama Devi did not depose anything regard- ing the threat of beating extended to her daughter either by ac- cused Jitender Chaudhary or by the in-laws namely Ram Nandan or Meena. She instead deposed that when her daughter asked ac- cused Jitender Chaudhary to bring 'ration', he refused and left the house with his parents and both the daughters. She addition- ally deposed that Poonam had an 'apprehension' that her husband and in-laws would kill her. Contrary to the deposition of PW-1 & 2, PW-3 deposed that accused persons had started harassing her sister from the next day of taking her back to matrimonial home. He stated that his father (PW-1) had intervened and advised Poonam that accused persons will not harass her. PW-3 deposed that Poonam was not having food in the house and when she asked her husband/accused Jitender Chaudhary to bring house- hold items, he and her father-in-law threatened her to keep quiet State vs. Jitender Choudhary & Ors.
SC No. 598/2016 FIR No. 1042/2016Police Station: Nand Nagri Page No. 13 of 18 and told her 'jo lana tha hum la chuke, ab hum kuch lakar nhi denge' and she was also threatened by saying 'agar police me gayi to tere liye achha nahi hoga'. He stated that Poonam in- formed her mother that she was feeling fear and told her mother that 'uska darr lag raha hai wo log kuch or bhi aakar karenge'.
18. During cross-examination, PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 were confronted with their previous statements made to police re- garding the aforesaid allegations. It is observed that the allega- tions of refusal to bring ration by accused Jitender Chaudhary or the allegation of harassment from the next day of settlement or the allegation of threat not to approach the police, were not found anywhere in the statements of these witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
19. It is also observed that all the three witnesses (PW- 1,2 & 3) introduced new facts and improved substantially upon their previous statements made to police. While improvement to a certain extent explaining the previous statement may be permit- ted, introduction of new facts by the witnesses which are contrary not only to the previous statements but also to their testimonies vis-a-vis each other amounts to a material contradiction and can- not be ignored. Such introduction of new material facts, create a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court regarding the veracity thereto. It also creates a doubt over the previous allegations and reflect an over-zealous attitude of the witnesses to implicate the accused persons. In the present case, while PW-1 in his com- plaint Ex.PW1/A informed the police that accused Jitender State vs. Jitender Choudhary & Ors.
SC No. 598/2016 FIR No. 1042/2016Police Station: Nand Nagri Page No. 14 of 18 Chaudhary had taken both his daughters to their grandparents house, he deposed before the Court that the grandparents had come to the matrimonial house of his daughter. Similarly, PW-1 claimed in his complaint Ex.PW1/A that his daughter Poonam expressed her 'apprehension' that she may be beaten by her hus- band when he returns home in the evening, he introduced a new allegation that accused husband and his parents threatened his daughter that they shall extend beatings to her. Similarly, PW-2 introduced the new allegation of refusal of accused Jitender Chaudhary to bring ration. She did not depose anything about the alleged threat extended either by accused Jitender Chaudhary or his parents. She deposed only about the 'apprehension' of his daughter. Similarly, PW-3 introduced the allegation of harass- ment of her sister from the first day of her return to matrimonial home, another allegation of the three accused threatening her not to bring any more household items and the threat of not ap- proaching the police.
20. In the opinion of this Court, all the witnesses em- phasised upon the allegations of cruelty against deceased Poonam for demand of dowry prior to the mediation settlement Ex.A, however, made improved allegations of general harass- ment by accused husband and his parents on the date she com- mitted suicide. Considering the lapse of time between the regis- tration of FIR and recording of their testimony before Court, it appears that the witnesses were guided by a legal mind to intro- duce the allegation of harassment on the date of commission of suicide to substantiate the previous allegations and to make the State vs. Jitender Choudhary & Ors.
SC No. 598/2016 FIR No. 1042/2016Police Station: Nand Nagri Page No. 15 of 18 case more realistic.
21. PW-2 Sudama Devi admitted during her cross exam- ination that she never disclosed the mobile number on which she allegedly received the phone call from her daughter Poonam on 24.10.2014. The mobile number of PW-1 Jagannath Shah was also not disclosed to the IO. In such circumstances, no call detail record to substantiate the allegation of receipt of a call on 24.10.2014 from deceased Poonam to her mother and making of a call by PW-1 to his daughter, could be brought on record. Such a deficiency in the material collected during investigation leaves scope of doubt in the version of prosecution. The failure of wit- nesses to disclose the mobile number and consequent failure of IO to collect the CDR create a missing link in the chain of events leading to the proof of allegations of harassment against the ac- cused persons.
22. Prosecution has repeatedly emphasised upon the last call made by deceased Poonam to her mother and the last call made by PW-1 to his daughter. As discussed above, prosecution has failed to corroborate the testimony of witnesses in this regard with any document/CDR whatsoever. There is another way to look at the entire episode. There is nothing in the case of prose- cution that deceased made any call to her parents (PW-1 or PW-
2) on any previous day w.e.f 20.10.2014 to 23.10.2014 and in- formed them about the alleged conduct of her husband or her in- laws. There is no whisper of any misconduct on the part of any of the accused persons on the first three days of her stay with State vs. Jitender Choudhary & Ors.
SC No. 598/2016 FIR No. 1042/2016Police Station: Nand Nagri Page No. 16 of 18 accused/husband. Supposing (but not admitting) that accused/husband refused to bring ration or the in-laws snubbed her stating that they shall not bring anything else/more, can such an act would amount to 'instigation to commit suicide.' Similarly, if she was threatened 'not to inform police', the same cannot be an indication or provocation to end one's life. It is noted that PW- 1 during his complaint Ex.PW1/A and PW-2 during her exami- nation in chief specified that deceased was under an 'apprehen- sion' that she may be beaten. In case, she was so frightened of the conduct of accused persons, she could have taken such an ex- treme step three years ago when she was living together with her in-laws. It must be understood that there was a substantially long gap of three years between the alleged cruelty/harassment, if any and the suicidal death. During this period, the victim/deceased stayed with her own family and this span of time was sufficient enough to settle the dust of apprehension, if any. There is no clear or cogent or convincing act or omission described by prosecution through the testimony of any of its witness which had the intensity to create a situation of 'no return'. In these circumstances, the ingredient of 'instigation' or 'aiding' appears missing from the chain of events making the prosecution case weak.
23. There are other factors which contribute towards the weakness of the case of prosecution, like, neither PW-1 nor PW-2 nor PW-3 made any call either to accused/husband or his parents to confirm the allegations, if any, of the deceased. They made no effort even to confront the accused persons that they had under- State vs. Jitender Choudhary & Ors.
SC No. 598/2016 FIR No. 1042/2016Police Station: Nand Nagri Page No. 17 of 18 taken to keep Poonam happily and peacefully but she was com- plaining of their conduct within four days of her stay with her husband.
There is no material on record that the in-laws of de- ceased visited her during her stay with her husband on any day between 20.10.2014 to 23.10.2014.
No neighbour in the vicinity of matrimonial home of deceased was interrogated or examined to corroborate the theory of beating or harassment..
Deceased/victim committed suicide after some hours of her husband and children leaving home. There was suffi- cient time with her to write a suicide note, however, no such note was recovered.
24. In the opinion of this Court, there are many deficien- cies and deformities in the case of prosecution. The deposition of prosecution witnesses do not fulfill the necessary ingredients of offence punishable u/s 306 IPC. In such circumstances and in view of the entire discussion in preceding paragraphs, all the ac- cused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt in the case of prose- cution. Accused persons namely Jitender Chaudhary, Ram Nandan Chaudhary, Prem Lata, Hem Lata and Meena stand acquitted of the charged offence u/s 306/34 IPC. Announced in the open Court on 16.02.2023 (ARVIND BANSAL) Additional Sessions Judge-05 (Shahdara) Karkardooka Courts, Delhi State vs. Jitender Choudhary & Ors.
SC No. 598/2016 FIR No. 1042/2016Police Station: Nand Nagri Page No. 18 of 18