Delhi District Court
State vs Vikram on 12 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VANDANA JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 & SPECIAL JUDGE
(COMPANIES ACT) SOUTH WEST: DWARKA COURTS:
NEW DELHI
(MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD)
CNR No. DLSW01-009048-2020
SC No. : 456/2020
State Vs. : Vikram
FIR No. : 353/2018
U/s. : 498A/304B IPC
P.S. : Palam Village
1. Date of commission of offence : From 24.10.2011 till
05.10.2018
2. Date of institution of the case : 13.02.2020
3. Date of committal to Sessions Court : 08.12.2020
4. Name of the complainant : Avdhesh Saran
5. Name of accused, parentage &
address : Vikram
S/o Sh. Lal Chand
R/o RZH-358, Gali No. 5,
Raj Nagar Part II,
Palam Colony, New Delhi.
8. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
9. Date on which order was reserved : 02.04.2024
10. Final order : Acquitted
11. Date of final order : 12.04.2024
SC no. 456/2020
State Vs. Vikram
FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 1 of 21
JUDGMENT
1. The criminal machinery was set into motion on receiving DD No. 27A on 05.10.2018 at about 17:16 pm at PS Palam Village wherein it has been recorded that "caller ki wife ne fansi laga kar suicide kar liya hai at H. No. RZH-358, Gali No. 5, Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi".
2. The said DD was assigned to SI Manish. He went to the aforesaid address along with Const. Sandeep and at the first floor of the house, he found that one lady was lying on the bed and one brown colour chunni was found tied around her neck. He came to know that the said lady was married to accused Vikram and had died within 7 years of her marriage. He informed the concerned SDM and also called crime team at the spot. The photograph of the dead body was clicked. The body was shifted to DDU Hospital wherein she was declared brought dead and was shifted to mortuary. The family members of the deceased did not turn up on 05.10.2018 and thereafter appeared before Ld. Executive Magistrate on 07.10.2018 and the statement of father of deceased namely Sh. Avdhesh Sharan and sister of deceased namely Preeti Sharan were recorded by Ld. Executive Magistrate, District South District, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Thereafter, the FIR under Section 498A/304B IPC was registered against the accused and the postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted on his instructions.
3. After conducting postmortem, the body of the deceased was handed over to the family members of the deceased and accused SC no. 456/2020 State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 2 of 21 Vikram was arrested. Chunni which was tied around the neck of deceased was handed over to the IO by the doctor. The other part of the chunni which was found tied on the ceiling fan was seized by SI Manish. The statement of Sh. Avdhesh Sharan as recorded by Ld. Executive Magistrate, on the basis of which FIR was registered, is reproduced as under :
"1. I have two girls from my first wife, whose names are Preeti (27 years) and Pooja (23 years). I have two boys from my second wife, whose names are Vivek (19 year) and Piyush (13 years).
2. Pooja had married Vikram s/0 Lal Chand R/0 B-Block, Qutut Vihar, Phase II, Delhi against her family members.
3. After marriage, both of them lived in front of the house for about a year. Till then both were fine. After that their child was born and they started visiting the house and they also visited my house during festivals. The rituals of give and take continued.
4. Then they started living on rent in Palam area. They used to visit my house. When they used to reside near Goyla Dairy, the noise of quarrel came from their house.
5. Last year, my daughter told that "papa mujhe pani ki dikkat ho rahi hai" and she asked me to give the old fridge to her. I told that as the old fridge was already sold then I purchased new fridge for her on credit basis.
6. Vikram is addicted to drinking alcohol. He used to drink before marriage and the neighbours warned Pooja at the time of marriage but still Pooja married to Vikram.
7. Vikram told Pooja that he did not have a motorcycle and asked her to demand motorcycle from him. Pooja told me but I told Pooja that I had not enough money.
8. Last year in December, I demolished my old house and rebuilt it after taking a bank loan. At that time, Vikram taunted Pooja that there was money for reconstructing house but not for purchasing bike for him. At this time also, there occurred a minor quarrel between them. Then everything became normal.
9. Whenever she met her step-mother, her mother gave her Rs 1000/- or sometimes Rs 4500/-.
10. On the evening of 05.10.2018, I got a call from some SI and I came to know that Pooja had committed suicide. Pooja's in-laws did not tell us that Pooja had committed suicide. After coming from the police station, I along with other three SC no. 456/2020 State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 3 of 21 persons reached the house where they lived. According to the landlord, Vikram received his salary yesterday and he was drinking alcohol since 6:00 am on 05.10.2018.
11. Pooja's son who is 4 and half years old came to the landlord and told that "Grandmother, my mother has committed suicide." After that the landlord went to his room.
Pooja was found hanging with the fan. The landlord woke up Vikram several times but he did not wake up. Then, she shook him and picked him up. He took down Pooja from there and while doing so, he fell down along with her. After that the landlord called the police and informed Vikram's family members.
12. Pooja never expressed any problem, she was always seen smiling and laughing. That's why we didn't care much. I don't have anything else to say."
4. Another statement of Ms. Preeti Sharan, sister of deceased was also recorded by Ld. Executive Magistrate, which is reproduced as under :
1. We are two sisters. The name of my sister is Pooja Sharan (23 years). My husband's name is Nadeem Sharif.
2. Pooja was married to Vikram @ Vicky on 24/10/2011.
Vikram used to live in Goyala Dairy. She was living in Palam for a year. The marriage took place happily.
3. After marriage, everything was fine for three-four years. Thereafter Vikram started drinking liquor. Vikram did not earn money and always remained in the house. When Vikram married Pooja, she was minor. After three or four years of marriage, Vikram used to drink alcohol, fight, abuse and fight. After drinking liquor, Vikram was used to vomit and pass urine in his clothes.
4. Pooja's child was having pain for several months. She had no pain money to get ultrasound of his child done. Pooja used to sewing clothes for earning her livelihood. Our step mother had thrown Pooja out of the house before marriage.
5. Our Neighbours warned Pooja to not to marry Vikram. She married to Vikram after breaking relations with her parents.
6. When we talked on the phone, she sounded a little happy and a little sad.
7. Pooja was very worried about admission of her child in school. She was short of money. And so she was in depression.
8. Vikram never used to give money for expenses or for SC no. 456/2020 State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 4 of 21 admission of her child in school.
9. About five-six months ago, Pooja's call came as Vikram had slapped Pooja. Pooja used to talk harshly to Vikram.
10. Pooja told about two years ago that a fight with her mother-in-law was happened.
11. On 02.10.2018, at around 9-10 am, a call came, the phone was on speaker, she felt a little sad.
12. On 05.10.2018, Friday, at 7.00 pm, a call from SI Manish, Delhi Police came informing that Pooja has hanged herself.
13. After receiving call from Manish, I called my aunt (moushi) to go to Pooja's house and see what happened. When aunty (moushi) went to Pooja's house, she got her to talk to the landlady Neelu, who told that Vikram has been fighting with Pooja since 6:00 am on 05.10.2018. We regularly used to pacify their quarrels. I don't want to say anything else."
5. Investigation was completed. Postmortem report was collected and then charge-sheet was filed. After compliance of Section 207/208 Cr.P.C., the case was committed before the court of sessions in terms of Section 209 Cr.P.C. The charge under Section 498A/304B IPC was framed against the accused on 01.04.2022.
6. Prosecution cited 16 witnesses, out of which 12 witnesses were examined. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C., wherein he admitted copy of FIR No. 353/2018, Certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act, DD No. 27A, Postmortem report No. 1790/2018 and death report of deceased Pooja as Ex.PX1 to Ex.PX5.
7. PE was thereafter closed vide order dated 16.03.2024. Statements of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC wherein all incriminating evidence against him was put to him but accused denied all the allegations levelled against him and also SC no. 456/2020 State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 5 of 21 submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He did not opt for DE and thereafter matter was listed for final arguments.
8. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which have come on record. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are detailed as under:-
9. PW-1 Sh. Avdhesh Saran is the father of deceased. His testimony will be discussed during the findings.
10. PW-2 Smt. Preeti Sharan @ Emaan Kausar is the sister of deceased. Her testimony will also be discussed during findings.
11. PW-3 Smt. Suman Sharan is the step mother of deceased. Her testimony will also be discussed during findings.
12. PW-4 Sh. Ram Nath is the landlord of the house where deceased along with accused was residing prior to committing suicide. He has deposed that on 05.10.2018, son of the couple came to him, aged about 4 years at that time, he was crying and told them that "Daadi Meri Mummy Ko Dekho Kya Ho Gya" and he along with his wife immediately went upstairs and saw Vikram was over-drink and sleeping and Pooja was lying there. He then informed the family members of accused Vikram and police. He further deposed that police came at the spot and Pooja had already died but he did not know as how she died. Police recorded his statement on 08.10.2018.
SC no. 456/2020State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 6 of 21
13. Since PW-4 Sh. Ram Nath did not disclose the facts completely, he was cross examined by learned Addl. PP for the State by putting some leading questions to him. During his cross examination by learned Addl. PP for the State, he has admitted the suggestion that on receiving the information from the child, he along with his wife went upstairs and noticed that Pooja was hanging with the fan and then, he tried to wake up the accused who was lying there under influence of liquor and he took off Pooja from the fan but got unbalanced and fell down as he was heavily drunk. He further submitted that Pooja had not responded and then he made call to the police. He was duly cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused.
14. PW-5 Dr. Saurabh Jain : He has deposed that he is posted at DDU Hospital since year 2015 and MLC No.9737 of Pooja is in handwriting of Dr. Sachin Patel and bears his signature at point A. He further deposed that he had seen Dr. Sachin Patel writing and signing in due course of his duties. He proved the said MLC as Ex.PW5/A. On 05.10.2018, when Pooja was brought to DDU Hospital, he was CMO on duty. He further deposed that MLC Ex.PW5/A also bears signature of Dr. Arnab Pramanik, who had conducted the seizure of the jewelery of deceased Pooja. He also submitted that he being a CMO of hospital, has also seen Dr. Arnab Pramanik writing and signing in due course of his duties.
15. PW-6 SI Rajeshwar : He has deposed that in the month of April, 2019, present case was marked to him for further investigation. He prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the concerned Court.
SC no. 456/2020State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 7 of 21
16. PW-7 Sh. Puneet Kulshreshtha : He has deposed that on 05.10.2018, he was posted as Executive Magistrate, Dwarka and had received an information that death of a woman had taken place in unnatural circumstances. He then went to the address of deceased i.e. RZ H-358, Gali No. 5, Raj Nagar-II, Palam, New Delhi and inspected the spot along with IO. On 07.10.2018, IO of present case came to his office along with one Sh. Avdhesh Sharan and Ms. Priti Sharan and narrated the facts of the case. He recorded statement of complainant Sh. Avdhesh Sharan Ex.PW1/B and statement of Ms. Priti Sharan Ex.PW2/A and directed the IO to get conduct the postmortem of the deceased.
17. PW-8 Insp. Meena Yadav : She has deposed that on 07.10.2018, investigation of present case was marked to her for further investigation. Body of deceased Pooja was in mortuary of DDU Hospital. She then got the postmortem of deceased conducted through SI Manish. Case property which was handed over by SI Manish to her was deposited in Malkhana. Accused Vikram was also handed over by SI Manish to her. She further deposed that accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B respectively and went to spot and inspected the spot. Site plan Ex. PW8/C was prepared by her. She then recorded statement of witnesses and parents & sister of deceased and took crime team report from concerned official. She further deposed that she also recorded statement of crime team officials and then he got transferred from PS Palam Village and handed over the file to MHC(R). She correctly identified accused Vikram in the court. She was duly cross examined SC no. 456/2020 State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 8 of 21 by ld. Counsel for accused.
18. PW-9 HC Mahender Mohan : He has deposed that on 07.10.2018, he joined the investigation of the present case along with IO/W/Insp. Meena Yadav.
19. PW-10 ASI Satpal : He has deposed that on 05.10.2018, he received a call vide DD No. 27A and IO/SI Manish called him at H. No. 358, Gali No. 5, Raj Nagar Part II, Palam, Delhi. He along with Photographer HC Banwari and ASI Nitin Fingerprint Expert went to the spot. He further deposed that he came to know that one lady had committed suicide and he saw her lying on the bed in dead condition. He then inspected the spot and saw one half chunni/ dupatta tied with a fan and it was cut in the middle. Half of the said chunni/ dupatta was tied in the neck of the deceased. He further deposed that he prepared the scene of crime report Ex.PW10/A and handed over the same to the IO. He was cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused.
20. PW-11 ASI Banwari Lal : He has deposed that on 05.10.2018, Incharge ASI Satpal received a call vide DD No. 27A from IO/SI Manish and he, Incharge ASI Satpal and Fingerprint Expert ASI Nitin went to H.No. 358, Gali No. 5, Raj Nagar Part II, Palam, Delhi. He then came to know that one lady had committed suicide and he saw her lying on the bed in dead condition. He further deposed that on the directions of the Incharge, he took photographs of the spot and the deceased Ex. PW11/A (colly) from the government digital camera and handed over to IO /W/Insp. Meena Yadav. He was duly cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused.
SC no. 456/2020State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 9 of 21
21. PW-12 Sh. Manish : He has deposed that on 05.10.2018, he was on day emergency duty and received DD No. 27A regarding a suicide committed by a lady at RZ-H-358, Gali No. 5, Raj Nagar II, Palam Village, Delhi. He along with Const. Sandeep went to that house and thereafter went to the first floor of the said house and saw one lady was lying on the bed and one brown colour chunni was tied around her neck. There was one red colour bucket on the bed. Part of the chunni was also tied with the ceiling fan. He further deposed that he came to know that the name of the said lady was Pooja W/o Vikram and he informed father and sister of the deceased. He then came to know that the said lady was married on 24.10.2011 and he then informed the concerned SDM. He further deposed that he made a call to crime team and crime team visited the spot and duly inspected the spot. Photographs of the spot were got clicked by the photographer who accompanied the crime team. The body of the deceased was shifted to DDU Hospital. He further deposed that he seized one red colour bucket which was kept on the bed in that room vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A and brown colour chunni which was tied with the ceiling fan vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/B. He then went to the hospital and collected the MLC of deceased. The deceased was declared brought by the doctor and she was shifted to the mortuary. On 07.10.2018, father and sister of the deceased came to the PS and then they all went to DDU Hospital and he again informed the concerned SDM. SDM came to the hospital and statement of both father and sister of the deceased were recorded by him at the hospital. He seized the ligature material and one sealed parcel along with sample seal which were handed over by the doctor vide seizure memo SC no. 456/2020 State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 10 of 21 Ex.PW12/C and Ex.PW12/D respectively. The statement written by the SDM were handed over to him and he along with accused Vikram and the case property came back to the PS and deposited the case property in the malkhana. He then prepared rukka Ex.PW12/E on the statement of Avdhesh Saran and further investigation of the case was handed over to IO/Insp. Meena. He correctly identified accused Vikram. He correctly identified the case property i.e. bucket as Ex.P1, brown chunni having knot as Ex.P-2 and brown chunni as Ex.P-3. He was duly cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused persons.
22. I have heard Sh. Vijender Singh Kharb, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Subodh Kumar Jha, Ld. counsel for accused.
23. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that the prosecution has duly proved that SDM has recorded the statement of father and sister of the deceased on the basis of which, the FIR has been registered. He has argued that it has been proved that deceased died within 7 years of her marriage under unnatural circumstances and her death was suicidal. Ld. Addl. PP has argued that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act has been raised which has not been dislodged by the accused. Hence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and therefore the accused be convicted for the offence under Section 498A/304B IPC.
24. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that neither PW-1 nor PW-2 has supported the prosecution story. It has not been proved that the deceased had committed suicide in pursuance to SC no. 456/2020 State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 11 of 21 the cruelty meted out to her by accused in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. Therefore, accused be acquitted for the offence under Section 498A/304B IPC.
Analyisis, Reasoning & Findings
25. The relevant provisions of law which are relevant for the purposes of deciding this case are as follows:
"304-B. Dowry death-(l) 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.
(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."
26. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 defines "dowry" as under :
"2. Definition of "dowry"-In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly -
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to an other person.
At or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of said parties, but does not include SC no. 456/2020 State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 12 of 21 Dower or Mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation I-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any presents made at the time of a marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this section, unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the said parties. Explanation II- The expression 'valuable security' has the same meaning as in in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code."
27. Section 113B of Evidence Act raises a presumption against the accused and reads:
"113-B Presumption as to dowry death - When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such a person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "dowry death"
shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code."
28. The legal position firmly established is that 'suicidal death' of a married woman within seven years of her marriage is covered by the expression "death of a woman is caused xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances" as used in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. (Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, [2000] 8 SCC 663).
29. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand" 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454 has SC no. 456/2020 State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 13 of 21 held that :
"13. A conjoint reading of Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act with reference to the presumption raised was discussed in para 32 of the aforesaid judgment, which is extracted below:-
"32. This Court while often dwelling on the scope and purport of Section 304-B of the Code and Section 113-B of the Act have propounded that the presumption is contingent on the fact that the prosecution first spell out the ingredients of the offence of Section 304-B as in Shindo v. State of Punjab [Shindo v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 517: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 394] and echoed in Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana [Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 16 SCC 640 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 346]. In the latter pronouncement, this Court propounded that one of the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304-B of the Code is that the accused must have subjected the woman to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death and that this ingredient has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and only then the Court will presume that the accused has committed the offence of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Act. It referred to with approval, the earlier decision of this Court in K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao [K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, (2003) 1 SCC 217: 2003 SCC (Cri) 271] to the effect that to attract the provision of Section 304-B of the Code, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty and harassment "in connection with the demand for dowry".
With reference to the legal position as referred to above, the matter is now required to be examined as to whether the case in hand falls in the category where the presumption can be raised against the accused relieving the prosecution from proving its case and putting the onus on the accused/appellant.
30. Section 304B IPC is attracted only when the woman dies SC no. 456/2020 State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 14 of 21 under unnatural circumstances. The postmortem report has been admitted by the accused under Section 294 Cr.PC and was exhibited as Ex.PX4. Since there was no dispute to the postmortem report, therefore, the same can be read as evidence. The said postmortem report was prepared by Dr. B. N. Mishra wherein the opinion on the cause of death was given as under :
(1) The cause of death is due to asphyxia caused by ligature hanging by using part of chunni which was found on the neck. (2) Manner of death is suicide.
31. Since the cause of death shows that the deceased died due to hanging and the manner of death was suicide, therefore it is clear that the victim had died under unnatural circumstances.
32. The prosecution version is that there was demand of fridge and a motorcycle and a share in her father's property. Let us appreciate the evidence led by prosecution witnesses in order to see whether there was any demand of dowry i.e. demand of any fridge or a motorcycle or her share in her father's property soon before her death or and whether she was harassed for non-fulfillment of the same.
33. PW-1 Sh. Avdhesh Sharan (father of deceased), PW-2 Smt. Preeti Sharan @ Emaan Kausar (sister of deceased) and PW-3 Smt. Suman Sharan (step mother of deceased) are the material witnesses. PW-1 in his testimony has deposed that :
"The deceased was my daughter and she solemnized love marriage with accused Vikram who is present in the Court today (Correctly identified). After marriage, they started residing in a house which was situated just opposite to my house and they stayed there for about 1 year. Thereafter, they SC no. 456/2020 State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 15 of 21 shifted in a house at Palam Village. My daughter Pooja used to visit our house occasionally and my wife had also visited her house at Palam Village once or twice. Deceased Pooja asked us to arrange a second hand refrigerator but I had given a new refrigerator to her. The relation between Pooja and her husband Vikram were cordial by that time. On 05.10.2018, I received a call from police station Palam Village to the effect that Pooja had committed suicide by hanging. After receiving the said call, I along with my wife and 2-3 neighbors went to PS Palam Village. From there, we went to rented accommodation of Vikram where land lord of the house met us who told me that son of Pooja who was 4.5 years old at that time had come to their house and told them that his mother had committed suicide. The land lord further told us that thereafter, they went to the room of accused Vikram and found that he was sleeping inside the room where Pooja had committed suicide by hanging and they woke him up and thereafter, accused Vikram brought the dead body of deceased down. The dead body of deceased had already been shifted to hospital for postmortem. Thereafter, they went to hospital and I received the body of deceased Pooja vide handing over memo Ex.PW1/A bearing my signature at point A. In the hospital, SDM had made enquiry from me and recorded my statement. The statement is now Ex.PW1/B bearing my signature at point A on each page. I do not want to say anything else. I do not want to proceed with my complaint. Accused did not make any demand of dowry from me at any point of time. Deceased also did not make any complaint to me about the same. I do not know as to why the deceased had committed suicide as the relation between accused and Pooja were cordial."
34. Since PW-1 did not support the prosecution case, he was declared hostile and was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State which is as under :
"It is correct that accused Vikram was a person of alcoholic nature. It is wrong to suggest that deceased Pooja had told me on one occasion that accused had demanded for a motorcycle but I have declined the said demand. It is wrong to suggest that when I was renovating of my house, accused told to deceased Pooja that, "Ghar Banwane Ke Liye Paise Hai, Lekin Bike Ke Liye Nahi" or that an altercation had taken SC no. 456/2020 State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 16 of 21 place between Pooja and accused Vikram over the said issue. The witness is confronted with statement Ex.PW1/B from portion A to A, where it is so recorded.
It is wrong to suggest that deliberately I am not disclosing the entire facts as I have settled the present matter with accused."
35. The perusal of the aforesaid testimony and the cross- examination conducted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State shows that witness had categorically stated that accused did not make any demand of dowry from him. Deceased did not make any complaint to him with respect to the same. He denied the suggestion put by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that accused has demanded the motorcycle or that he used to harass the deceased for not fulfilling the demands. During his deposition, he had only stated that deceased has asked him to arrange the second hand refrigerator but he had given her new refrigerator. He did not state that the said asking of the deceased to arrange a second hand refrigerator was made at the instance of the accused herein. The testimony of PW-1 does not support the prosecution case at all.
36. Now let us come to the testimony of PW-2 Smt. Preeti Sharan @ Emaan Kausar. She has deposed that :
"We were two sisters. My sister's name is Pooja Sharma. Pooja was got married to accused Vikram @ Vicky (Accused present in Court today correctly identified) on 24.10.2011. Accused and Pooja were residing at Goyla Dairy just opposite to the house of my father. After the marriage, married life of my sister Pooja was going smoothly for 2-3 years. Thereafter, some problem started and accused used to quarrel with my sister Pooja. Accused is a habitual drinker. He was also not working and my sister used to stitching work and some time some other works as house maid. After the birth of Vivan (Son of accused and Pooja) my sister told me that situation of her family had deteriorated. When the child was 2.5 years old, accused shifted to Palam Village with my SC no. 456/2020 State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 17 of 21 sister and her son Vivan. My sister used to call me telephonically and tell me about their quarrels. Once she told me that the accused even did not provide medical facility to her son Vivan when he had stomach pain. Accused did not even pay for admission of child in school. Accused did not pay for a single penny for kitchen expenses.
On 02.10.2018, I received a call from my sister, she was crying but I could not talk to her properly as I was busy in my household work and I asked her to call after sometime. Thereafter, on 05.10.2018, one SI Manish Kumar of PS Palam Village telephonically informed me that my sister had committed suicide. I came to Delhi on 06.10.2018 and on 07.10.2018, my statement was recorded by Executive Magistrate. Same is on record and now Ex.PW2/A (running into three pages) bearing my signature at point A. I am not able to understand as why she had committed suicide as she was a very lively girl. I do not want to say anything else."
37. She was also declared hostile. During her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she admitted that 2-1/2 years prior to the date of incident, accused asked deceased Pooja to demand her share from her father. She also admitted that her father bought fridge on the asking of the accused. She further admitted that accused was demanding the motorcycle through deceased but her father could not buy the same. In this regard, PW-2 was duly cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused wherein she admitted that fact of demanding fridge or motorcycle was not recorded in her statement recorded by Ld. Executive Magistrate. Even otherwise on comparing PW-2 with PW-1, it is found that PW-1 had not stated at all that at any point of time, deceased told him that accused asked her to demand her share from PW-1. The said deposition of PW-2, during her cross- examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, is not supported by the statement of PW-1. In respect of buying fridge by PW-1, PW-1 did not state anywhere that deceased asked for a fridge at the asking by the SC no. 456/2020 State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 18 of 21 accused. The statement of PW-2 in this regard cannot be relied upon. Even otherwise, this statement of PW-2 is bereft of any specific date, time or year. The accused was married to the deceased in the year 2011 and the deceased committed suicide in the year 2018.
38. PW-3 Smt. Suman Sharan is the step mother of the deceased. She has deposed that :
"I am second wife of my husband. I have two sons from my marriage and my husband had two daughters namely Pooja and Preeti from his previous wife. Pooja (deceased) got love marriage with accused at the age of 16 years against our Will with accused Vikram who was residing opposite to our house. After the marriage, Pooja started living opposite our house with accused Vikram @ Vicky. We used to hear crying of Pooja sometime and whenever we used to ask from her mother-in-law about the reason of crying of Pooja, she used to say that Pooja was fighting with her. Accused Vikram is a habitual drinker and he was not doing any work. He used to harass Pooja on one pretext or other. At the time of birth of Vivan (Son of Pooja), we resumed our relationship with Pooja after her marriage. At the time of birth, we gave Chhuchak but we could not give all the items of the list which was provided by her mother-in-law at the time of birth of Vivan. Thereafter, again relations between both families became strain. Family members of Pooja were not allowing Pooja to talk to us. After some time they shifted to Palam Village. Thereafter, once I visited house of my daughter at Palam Village and I felt that she was not happy with her marriage life but she did not tell anything to me. Thereafter, in the month of October, 2018 we were informed by police that Pooja had committed suicide by hanging. I along with my husband visited hospital. I had seen her dead body in the hospital. Once Pooja asked for a fridge and same was bought by husband for her."
39. During her testimony, she had also stated that once the deceased asked for a fridge and same was bought by PW-1 for her. In her deposition, she had not stated anywhere that accused had asked SC no. 456/2020 State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 19 of 21 Pooja to demand fridge from her father. Even otherwise also no date on which Pooja asked for fridge has been mentioned in the deposition. It is not proved that fridge was asked at the instance of accused from the father of the deceased.
40. Apart from the aforesaid testimony, there is no other allegation against the accused regarding any harassment caused by him upon the deceased in connection with or demand of dowry. During his cross- examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW-3 has stated that there was no demand of dowry by the accused.
41. PW-4 is the landlord and is only the witness to the fact that on 05.10.2018, son of the deceased, aged about 4 years came crying to him and told about suicide committed by her mother and they went immediately and saw accused lying under the influence of liquor and also noticed that deceased Pooja was hanging through the fan. The said testimony does not indicate at all that the accused had harassed the deceased either prior to her hanging or at any other time in connection with or for demand of dowry.
42. In order to bring home a conviction for the charge under Section 304B IPC, it is not sufficient to only prove that cruelty or harassment had been meted to the victim, but that such treatment was in connection with the demand for dowry. In the present case, prosecution has failed to fully satisfy the requirements of both section 113B of Indian Evidence Act and Section 304B of Indian Penal Code.
43. Hence, accused Vikram stands acquitted in present FIR SC no. 456/2020 State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 20 of 21 No. 353/2018 PS Palam Village of the charges framed under Section 498A/304B IPC.
44. Bail bonds and surety bonds u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. be furnished on behalf of accused.
Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA JAIN
Announced in open court JAIN Date:
2024.04.16
12.04.2024 14:52:06 +0530
(Vandana Jain)
ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act)
Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi
Note: This judgment contains twenty one (21) pages and having my signature on each page.
Digitally signed VANDANA by VANDANA JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.04.16 14:52:14 +0530 (Vandana Jain) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi SC no. 456/2020 State Vs. Vikram FIR No. 353/2018, PS Palam Village Page 21 of 21