Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Anjana Kapoor on 4 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
Session case No. 12/2013
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0361342012
State Vs. (1) Anjana Kapoor
W/o Brij Mohan Kapoor
R/o D84, Sudershan Park,
Basaidarapur, Delhi
(Acquitted)
(2) Mayank Kapoor
S/o Brij Mohan Kapoor
R/o 5C, Flat Rampura,
Delhi
(Acquitted)
(3) Brij Mohan Kapoor
S/o Late Sh. Madan Lal Kapoor
R/o D84, Sudershan Park,
Near Tyagi Dharamshala,
PS Moti Nagar, Basaidarapur,
Delhi
(Acquitted)
(4) Shilpa
D/o Brij Mohan Kapoor
R/o 5C, Flat Rampura,
Delhi
(Acquitted)
FIR No.: 159/2011
Police Station: Keshav Puram
Under Section: 498A/304B/34 IPC
St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 1 of 77
Date of committal to session Court: 21.1.2013
Date on which orders were reserved: 4.1.2014
Date on which judgment pronounced:4.1.2014
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per allegations between 8.1.2011 to 21.5.2011 at House No. 407/34, Onkar NagarC, Jude Bagh, Delhi the accused Anjana Kapoor being the mother in law of the deceased Kanchan, accused Mayank Kappor being the jeth of deceased Kanchan, accused Brij Mohan being the father in law and accused Shilpa being the sister in law (nanand) of deceased Kanchan in furtherance of their common intention subjected Kanchan to cruelty by making illegal demands of dowry from her and harassed her. It is also alleged that on 21.5.2011 at about 10:30 AM all the accused caused the death of Kanchan by hanging, otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons for or in connection with the demand of dowry.
BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 21.5.2011 pursuant to DD No. 8 PP regarding suicide by a girl, SI Ranbir Singh along with Ct. Nisar reached at House No. 407/34, Joor Bagh, Onkar Nagar C, Tri Nagar, Delhi where they found the house locked and came to know that the victim girl St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 2 of 77 was already removed to Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital by her relatives.
Thereafter, they reached Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital and in the meanwhile DD No. 10 PP was also received to SI Ranbir Singh that the girl Kanchan was declared dead in the hospital. SI Ranbir came to know from the parents of the deceased that deceased Kanchan was married with Aman on 8.1.2011 on which information was sent to SHO and also by the SDM Model Town. On the directions of SDM the dead body of Kanchan was shifted to Mortuary of BJRM Hospital. SI Ranbir Singh then visited the scene of crime from where a suicide note was recovered which was taken into possession. On the same day the SDM Model Town Sh. Pradeep Baijal met the parents of the deceased and recorded the statement of mother of the deceased Kanchan namely Smt. Usha Sharma wherein she alleged that the motherinlaw, father in law, Jeth and Nanand of the deceased used to beat and harass the deceased on account of demand of dowry due to which reason Kanchan committed was killed by the accused persons. However, no allegations were made against the husband of Kanchan namely Aman Kapoor. On the basis of the statement of Smt. Usha Sharma, the present case was registered. Thereafter the accused persons were arrested and after completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against them in the Court.
CHARGE:
(3) Charges under Sections 498A/34 and 304B/34 IPC or in St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 3 of 77 alternatively under Section 302/34 IPC were settled against the accused Anjana Kapoor, Mayank Kapoor, Brij Mohan and Shilpa to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(4) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of Prosecution witnesses:
Sr. No. PW No. Name of witness Details of the witness
1. PW1 W/Ct. Manoj Kumari Police witness who has proved the arrest of accused Anjana Kapoor
2. PW2 W/Ct. Sarita Police witness who has proved the arrest of accused Shilpa Kapoor
3. PW3 HC Sombir Singh Police witness who has proved the arrest of accused Mayank Kapoor
4. PW4 HC Sudhir Police witness MHCM
5. PW5 W/Ct. Kaushalya Police witness who had reached the spot
6. PW6 HC Ram Phool Police witness - Duty Officer
7. PW7 SI Manohar Lal Police witness Draftsman
8. PW8 SI M.D. Meena Police witness - Crime Team Incharge
9. PW9 Ct. Subhash Chand Police witness - Crime Team photographer
10. PW10 HC Naresh Kumar Police witness MHCM
11. PW11 Ct. Suneet Police witness who had deposited the exhibits with the MHCM
12. PW12 Sh. Pradeep Baijal Official witness SDM
13. PW13 Dr. Anil Jindal Witness from Maraja Agarsain Hospital
14. PW14 Sudhir Basoya Public witness - landlord of the accused St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 4 of 77
15. PW15 Pt. Dhananjay Dwivedi Public witness who had performed the marriage
16. PW16 Dr. Bhim Singh Autopsy Surgeon
17. PW17 Smt. Usha Shama Public witness - mother of the deceased
18. PW18 Mrs. Geeta Public witness - younger sister of the deceased
19. PW19 Karam Chand Public witness - father of the deceased
20. PW20 Ct. Nissar Police witness who had joined investigations with the IO
21. PW21 SI Ranbir Singh Initial Investigating Officer
22. PW22 Inspector Vijay Kumar Subsequent Investigating Officer List of documents exhibited S. No. Ex. No. Detail of document Proved By
1. PW1/1 Affidavit of W Ct. Manoj Kumari W Ct. Manoj Kumari
2. PW1/A Arrest memo of Anjana
3. PW1/B Personal search memo of Anjana
4. PW2/1 Affidavit of W Ct Sarita W Ct. Sarita
5. PW2/A Arrest memo of Shilpa Kapoor
6. PW2/B Personal search memo of Shilpa Kapoor
7. PW3/1 Affidavit of HC Sombir Singh HC Sombir Singh
8. PW3/A Arrest memo of Mayank
9. PW3/B Personal search memo of Mayank
10. PW4/1 Affidavit of HC Sudhir HC Sudhir 11. PW4/A Copy of register No. 19
12. PW4/B Copy of RC 6/21/12
13. PW4/C FSL receipt
14. PW5/1 Affidavit W Ct. Kaushalya
15. PW5/A DD No. 8PP
16. PW5/B Copy of 10PP St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 5 of 77
17. PW5/C Copy of DD register
18. PW6/1 Affidavit of HC Ramphool HC Ramphool
19. PW6/A FIR
20. PW6/B Endorsement on rukka
21. PW7/1 Affidavit of SI Manohar Lal SI Manohar Lal
22. PW7/A Scaled site plan
23. PW8/1 Affidavit of Ct. Subash Chand Ct. Subash Chand
24. PW9/A1 to Photographs of scene of crime 13
25. PW9/B CD
26. PW10/1 Affidavit of HC Naresh Kumar HC Naresh Kumar
27. PW11/1 Affidavit of Ct. Suneet Ct. Sumeet
28. PW12/A Statement of Mother of deceased Sh. Pardeep Baijal
29. PW12/B Inquest form
30. PW12/C Dead body identification
31. PW12/D Dead body identification
32. PW12/E Brief facts
33. PW12/F Request for postmortem
34. PW13/A MLC of the victim Dr. Anil Jindal
35. PW14/A Photocopy of rent agreement Sudhir Basoya
36. PW14/B ID proof of Brij Mohan
37. PW14/C Seizure memo of ID Proof
38. PW15/A Copy of Marriage certificate Pt. Dhananjay
39. PW15/B Copy of Marriage register and documents
40. PW16/A Postmortem report Dr. Bhim Singh
41. PW16/B Subsequent opinion
42. PW17/A Photographs of Marriage at Arya Samaj Usha Sharma Mandir
43. PW17/B1 Photographs of reception to B3
44. PW20/A Seizure memo of Pen St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 6 of 77
45. PW20/B Seizure memo of Diary
46. PW20/C Seizure memo of remaining
47. PW20/D Seizure memo of Suicide note
48. PW21/A Application for Preservation of dead body
49. PW21/B Dead body handed over memo
50. PW21/C Arrest memo
51. PW21/D Personal search memo
52. PW21/E Site plan
53. PW22/A Rukka Inspector Vipin
54. PW 22/B Seizure memo of Marriage certificate Kumar
55. PW22/C Seizure memo of
56. PW22/D Handwriting Documents EVIDENCE:
(5) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Twenty Two witnesses as under:
Public witnesses:
(6) PW14 Sudhir Basoya has deposed that H. No. 407/34, Onkar NagarC, Tri Nagar, Delhi was owned by them and the same was in the name of his father. According to the witness, in the month of March 2011 the second floor of the house having two rooms set was given to Brij Mohan Kapoor on rent basis for Rs.6,000/ per month and all the family members of Brij Mohan were residing in the house. He has also deposed that he handed over the photocopy of the rent agreement between his father and Brij Mohan to police which is Ex.PW14/A (three pages) and ID proof of St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 7 of 77 Brij Mohan which is Ex.PW14/B. He has further deposed that Police seized the same vide memo Ex.PW14/C. He has correctly identified the accused Brij Mohan Kapoor and Anjana Kapoor in the Court.
(7) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that the above said premises is having ground floor and first floor which have also been given on rent to other tenants. He has further deposed that he knew that Brij Mohan Kapoor and Anjana Kapoor were residing in the said portion with their family members which consists of two sons and one daughter. According to him, name of the one of the son of accused Brij Mohan Kapoor is Aman who was married and was residing in the said portion with his parents.
(8) PW15 Pandit Dhanajay Dwivedi has deposed that he used to perform marriages at Arya Samaj Sewa Samiti, 2164, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi
- 110000 according to Hindu rites. He has further deposed that on 08.01.2011 he performed a marriage between Aman Kapoor S/o Brij Mohan and Kanchan D/o Karam Chand at the above said Arya Samaj Mandir and Karam Chand and Nirmal Jeet Singh were also present as witnesses.
According to the witness, after the marriage he issued a certificate of marriage and copy of the same which is Ex.PW15/A. He has further deposed that Aman Kapoor, Kanchan, Karam Chand and Nirmaljeet Singh also put their signatures on the marriage certificate Ex.PW15/A at points B, C, D and E respectively and the photographs of Aman Kapoor and Kanchan were also mentioned in the certificate. The witness has produced the St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 8 of 77 original marriage register and other documents i.e. Affidavits, ID proofs submitted by the above said Aman Kapoor and Kanchan and proved the copy of the marriage register and the documents submitted by the above said parties which are collectively Ex.PW15/B (twelve pages). According to him, police also contacted him and he gave all the documents to the police.
(9) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he did not know about the relation of Nirmaljeet Singh with the bride and bridegroom, who was a witness of the marriage proceedings. He has further deposed that parents of the groom and the parents of the bride were also present at that time.
(10) PW17 Usha Sharma is the mother of the deceased who has deposed that her daughter Kanchan was married with Aman Kapoor on 08.01.2011 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. She has proved the copy of the marriage register which is Ex.PW15/B bearing her signatures at point A on page no.2 and the affidavit which is at page no.12 of Ex.PW15/B bearing her signatures at point A. She has further deposed that after the marriage her daughter Kanchan was residing at Shastri Nagar alongwith her husband Aman Kapoor, Brij Mohan Kapoor (father in law), Anjana Kapoor (mother in law), Shilpa (Nanad) and Mayank Kapoor (Jeth) and after threefour months of the marriage they all shifted to the H.No. 407/34, Onkar NagarC, Joor Bagh, Delhi. According to the witness, after 15 days of the marriage St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 9 of 77 fatherinlaw, motherinlaw, Nanad and Jeth demanded money from her daughter Kanchan. She has testified that reception of the marriage was held on 19.01.2011 and they gave all the dowry articles and gifts to the above said persons. She has further deposed that when the above said persons shifted to the Onkar Nagar, they demanded Rs.20,000/, Rs.25,000/ and they (accused persons) received about Rs. 65 thousands from them (parents of deceased). According to her, on 01.04.2011 they gave furniture and jewelery to her daughter Kanchan as per demand of her motherinlaw Anjana Kapoor. She has testified that the above said persons namely Brij Mohan, Anjana Kapoor, Shilpa and Mayank tortured her daughter Kanchan for more dowry and Mayank and Anjana Kapoor gave beatings to her daughter. The witness has also deposed that they also mentally tortured Kanchan and there was no end of their demands and they were saying that they would give the dowry articles of Kanchan in the marriage of Shilpa and they also said that if they (parents) were not able to give money then they (accused) took their daughter Kanchan to their (parents) house. She has testified that on 20.05.2011 motherinlaw Anjana Kapoor, fatherinlaw Brij Mohan, Nanad Shilpa and Jeth Mayank gave beatings to Kanchan by slippers (chappal) and Aman saw the same. The witness has also deposed that Kanchan called her (witness) on her mobile phone and told that she was given beatings by the above said persons at about 11.00AM on 20.05.2011, on which she (witness) went to their house but the above said persons were not present there. She has also deposed that Shilpa and Mayank had gone St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 10 of 77 for their work place and Anjana and Brij Mohan went to their Dhaba. She has further deposed that Kanchan and Aman met her at their house and Kanchan told her that she was harassed by the above said persons to sit on their Dhaba but Aman showed his inability to do anything in this regard. The witness has testified that thereafter she returned back to her house and at about 3.30 PM Anjana Kapoor came to her house and demanded money for her business of Dhaba and further told her that if they (parents) would not pay the money to them (accused) then they (parents of the deceased) should take back Kanchan to their house. The witness has also deposed that thereafter she informed Kanchan about the said talk and Aman came there and told his mother Anjana Kapoor that "hame kahin basne doge ya nahin"
and thereafter Anjana Kapoor went away from there. According to the witness, at about 9.30 PM Kanchan came to their house with Aman and told her that they had not to pay the money and she would not sit on the Dhaba and thereafter 11.30 PM she went away with Aman Kapoor to her matrimonial house. The witness has testified that on 21.05.2011 at about 10:30 AM they received a telephone call from Aman that Kanchan was no more and thereafter they immediately reached at her matrimonial house and they found that Kanchan was lying on the floor in the house and Anjana Kapoor was standing there at some distance. She has further deposed that they took Kanchan to Bansal Clinic and thereafter they took her to Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital Punjabi Bagh, Delhi where she was declared dead by the doctors. The witness has also deposed that police came at the hospital as her St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 11 of 77 daughter Geeta Joshi called the police. She has proved that SDM recorded her statement vide Ex.PW12/A at his office at Ram Pura, Delhi. (11) According to the witness, on 23.05.2011 postmortem was conducted and after postmortem dead body of Kanchan was handed over to them. She has proved that she handed over the photographs of marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir to the police which is Ex.PW17/A. According to her, she also handed over the photographs of the reception to the police which are Ex.PW17/B1 to Ex.PW17/B3 and also handed over the certificate of marriage of Aman and Kanchan which is Ex.PW15/A. She has correctly identified the accused Anjana Kapoor, Brij Mohan Kapoor, Mayank Kapoor and Shilpa in the Court.
(12) Leading questions were put to the witness by the Ld. Additional Public Prosecution sought permission to put leading question to the witness about the specific demand of money, wherein she has admitted that Anjana Kapoor demanded Rs.15,000/ one month before the date of incident and she alongwith her husband paid Rs.15,000/ at her house to accused Brij Mohan Kapoor. The witness has further admitted that two months before the day of incident Kanchan told her that the above said accused persons demanded Rs.20,000/ and she (deceased) was harassed for that and on non payment of the same she (deceased) was threatened to vacate the room and thereafter they paid Rs.20,000/ to the accused persons. The witness has also admitted that 2½ before the day of incident Mayank and Anjana Kapoor came to their house and told her that Kanchan was not hearing to them and St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 12 of 77 some days after that Kanchan told her that the above said accused persons demanded Rs.20,000/ and for the non payment of the same she (accused) would not be kept at her matrimonial house. She has further admitted that accused Shilpa demanded Rs.25,000/ as the cost of the ring to be given to her. The witness has also admitted that the accused Brij Mohan, Anjana Kapoor, Mayank and Shilpa harassed her daughter continuously for money and due to their cruelties, she committed suicide. (13) In her crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, she has deposed that her statement was firstly recorded by the SDM in his office and thereafter by the police on 02.06.2011. She does not remember the month or the date when Kanchan and herinlaws shifted their residence from Shastri Nagar to Onkar Nagar. The witness has admitted that the residence of Kanchan in Onkar Nagar was in the same locality where her house was situated and there was a walking distance of about 15 to 20 minutes. She has further deposed that even when Kanchan was living at Shastri Nagar, she used to come alongwith her husband to their house. The witness has further admitted that she had stated to the police or to the SDM that after 15 days of the marriage fatherinlaw, motherinlaw, Jeth and Nanad demanded money from her daughter Kanchan but she did not state to the police as well as the SDM that at the time of reception held on 19.01.2011 she gave furniture and jewelery to inlaws of her daughter Kanchan. She has also admitted that though about Rs.6065 thousands were given to the accused persons but she cannot tell as to how many times said money was given. She St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 13 of 77 has further deposed that twice the money was given to Brij Mohan Kapoor but she could not tell the date or month when the money was given. She has testified that once another payment of Rs.5,000/ was made to Shilpa when she came to her house with her daughter Kanchan. According to her, all the above said money were given as a loan and even after her daughter shifted to Onkar Nagar, she used to come to her house alongwith her husband. She has further admitted that the incident of 20.05.2011 as mentioned by her herein above was not stated to the police or the SDM. She has also deposed that she went to the house of Kanchan along with her eldest daughter Geeta.
She has admitted that no police complaint was ever made and that though they wanted to give an FDR to Kanchan but on her saying they gave the furniture and jewelery and has voluntarily explained that it is on the suggestion of motherinlaw of Kanchan that they had given the furniture and jewelery. She has denied the suggestion that after her marriage when she visited her house she ever attempted to commit suicide. The witness has further admitted that on 20.05.2011 Aman and Kanchan had dinner with her family and left for their house at about 11:30 PM along with two children of her eldest daughter Geeta and Aman came in the morning of 21.05.2011 at about 8:459AM to drop the child. She has also deposed that on receiving information from Aman at about 10:30 AM on phone that Kanchan was no more, she sent her daughter Geeta and her husband to Kanchan's house and thereafter herself and her husband also reached there but she is unable to tell with regard to the members of Aman's family present there. The witness has St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 14 of 77 admitted that what she stated above in her examinationinchief that "on 20.05.2011 when Anjana Kapoor came to her house at about 3:30 PM she demanded money for the business of Dhaba and told her that if they would not pay they would send back Kanchan to their house" was not happened on that day but some days before but she could not tell the month or the date of said discussion. She has also admitted that whenever they asked for return of the loan taken by the accused persons they used to say that they would re pay the said amount back very soon as and when they get the money. She has further admitted that she herself, her daughter and her husband had gone to the office of the SDM but only her statement was recorded. She has further deposed that the money which she had stated to have been paid to the accused persons was paid in cash of which she had no proof. The witness has also admitted that Aman was not having any independent earnings and was working with his family in the Dhaba. She has further admitted that her daughter wanted Aman to have separate job and home but Aman was working with his family and was staying with them. She has admitted that the money which she was giving to her daughter because Aman was not earning anything and was unable to fulfill the requirements of her daughter and has voluntarily explained that also because her daughter wanted him to work separately so that he could start his own work. She has denied the suggestion that no such incident as stated by her took place on 20.05.2011 happened and it was for this reason that she did not tell about this incident to the IO or to the SDM. She has St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 15 of 77 admitted that no meeting was ever held between relatives of both their families. The witness has also admitted that on the ground and first floor of the portion in which Kanchan was living there are tenants staying there. She has denied the suggestion that her daughter was never beaten. She has admitted that she did not give any complaint to the police regarding beating nor her daughter was ever taken to the doctor for the alleged beating given to her. The witness has also denied the suggestion that her daughter was never beaten by the accused and it was for this reason that there was no medical on record or any record of police complaint. She has admitted that her daughter was having an adjustment problem with the family of the accused and has voluntarily explained that she was trying her best to adjust but it could not happen. She has denied the suggestion that neither any harassment was caused by the accused persons or any demand for dowry was ever made.
(14) PW18 Geeta W/o Sumat Joshi is the younger sister of the deceased Kanchan. She has deposed that the deceased Kanchan was her elder sister and they were five sisters and one brother out of whom Kanchan was her fourth sister who had expired. She has further deposed that Kanchan was having a love affair with Aman and had gone away with him and told them that they had got married but later with the intervention of the family she was married to accused Aman on 08.01.2011 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies at Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamuna Bazaar, Delhi. She has also deposed that at the time of marriage Aman and his family used to stay St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 16 of 77 at Shastri Nagar and thereafter they shifted to Hansa Puri, Tri Nagar, Delhi. According to her, after her marriage with Aman, Kanchan often met her at her mother's house and told her that her relations with Aman were normal but her relations with other relatives i.e. mother in law Anjana Kapoor, Jeth Mayank Kapoor and Nanand Shilpa Kapoor were not normal as they were not happy with her marriage which was a simple marriage because of the love affair. She has also deposed that they were repeatedly making demands and from the date of her marriage till her death her mother had almost paid them about Rs.6065 thousand. She has further deposed that on the demand of the said persons, her mother had also given various furniture articles, jewelery for Aman, Kanchan and other person. The witness has testified that one day prior to her death, Kanchan had given her a telephonic call in the morning and told her that there was quarrel between her and her mother in law (ladai ho gai hai). She has further deposed that Kanchan and Aman came to their house and she was told by Kanchan that there was a fight between her and her mother in law. She has also deposed that she went to the house of the inlaws of Kanchan but she could not meet her motherin law and came back. According to her, after sometime in the afternoon the motherinlaw Anjana Kapoor came to their house and thereafter he and her mother advised Anjana Kapoor and Kanchan not to fight with each other. The witness has testified that Anjana Kapoor returned home in the afternoon itself whereas Kanchan and Aman returned home at around 11:30 PM. She has also deposed that in the morning at about 1010:15 AM they received St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 17 of 77 telephone call from Anjana Kapoor that Kanchan was not opening the door and hence she (Anjana) was getting nervous about it. She has further deposed that she (witness) thought that Kanchan must have locked the door from inside being annoyed and she told her mother that she personally wanted to go and see what had happened but within 15 minutes she received call from Aman that Kanchan had expired. She has testified that when she reached the home of Kanchan, she found her lying on the floor near the door of her home and Anjana Kapoor and Aman were also sitting there with her head on their legs. According to her, since the said room was on the third floor, they brought the body at the ground floor and took Kanchan to Bansal Nursing Home but there they were told by the doctor present there that they i.e. Doctors would not touch her and said they should shift her to the bigger hospital. She has further deposed that they requested the doctor to check her but he refused on which she made a call on 100 number to police and then without wasting time they took her to Maharaja Agarsain Hospital where Kanchan was declared brought dead. According to the witness, from there again they made a call on 100 number and informed the police that they had brought her at Maharaja Agarsain Hospital, after which police came to the hospital and recorded her statement and thereafter she was taken to the office of the SDM where her statement was also recorded. She has correctly identified that the accused Anjana Kapoor, Mayank, Brij Mohan and Shilpa in the Court.
St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 18 of 77 (15) In her crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that she was at her parents house since one week prior to the incident on 21.05.2011. According to her, on the night of 25.11.2011 when Aman and Kanchan left for their house, her son Mayank Joshi aged around five years and her daughter Ria Joshi aged around 2½ years old also accompanied them and they stayed with Aman and Kanchan in the night. She has further deposed that her daughter was picked up by her uncle in the night at about one o'clock and her son was dropped at her parent's house in the morning at about 88:15AM by Aman. According to her, the house of her parents and the house of the accused persons were in the same locality and there was just a ten minutes walking distance between both the houses. The witness has also deposed that her statement was recorded by the police on the date of incident at the hospital and then by SDM in his office and then again by the police on 02.06.2011. According to her, on 01.04.2011 she along with her husband went to the house of Kanchan where all the family members of Aman were present and they stayed there for about 10 minutes and there was no discussion about any matter. She has denied the suggestion that her statement was not recorded by the police on 21.05.2011 or at the SDM's office. It has been observed by this Court that no such statement is there on record. She has further deposed that after the marriage Kanchan met her about 78 times at her mother's house. According to the witness, once she came along with her nanand to her mother's house and told her that she needed rupees five thousand for her nanand. She has further deposed St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 19 of 77 that the relations with inlaws of Kanchan were not normal because they did not accept the marriage. She has testified that she was also present when the marriage was performed at Arya Samaj Mandir where the parents of Aman were also present. She has also deposed that on the day prior to her death, Kanchan telephoned her in the morning at about 1010:30 AM when she was at her mother's house and she did not make any call to her mother. According to the witness, thereafter she along with her mother went to the house of Kanchan where only Kanchan was present who told her that her motherinlaw had slapped her with a chappal and they all including Aman had gone to their Dhaba. She has further deposed that she did not tell this fact to the IO in her statement. She has denied the suggestion that no such incident had happened and it is for this reason that she did not tell this thing to the IO. The witness has also deposed that when Anjana Kapoor came to her mother's house at about 2:30 PM only she and her mother were present. She has further deposed that she was not present when her mother and Anjana Kapoor were discussing with each other as she was busy in making and serving tea etc. She has testified that at about 3:00 PM Kanchan and her husband Aman came to her mother's house where her mother advised both of them not to fight with each other. She has also deposed that after this there was normal discussions amongst their family members and Kanchan and her husband like a family and both of them had dinner with their family and only thereafter they left for their house along with her two children. She has admitted that the disputes which were usually occurring between St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 20 of 77 Kanchan and her motherinlaw were those which normally occur within the families. She has admitted that no police complaint was made at any point of time and has voluntarily explained that her sister wanted to adjust in the family. The witness has further admitted that Aman was not having any independent income and has voluntarily explained that the parents of Aman wanted him to work in their family Dhaba but her sister (deceased Kanchan) wanted him to do an independent job. She has also admitted that Aman was not qualified and has voluntarily explained that he had studied uptill 10th. The witness has further admitted that the disputes which occur between her sister and her inlaws was because she wanted Aman to work and live separately but his family wanted him with them. She has admitted that one of her uncle namely Subhash was having a cosmetic shop in Delhi and that Aman also worked in the said shop for sometime but she has denied the suggestion that he was on salary on this shop and has voluntarily explained that he had only joined there to pickup work. She has admitted that Kanchan had stopped Aman from working in the shop of her chacha and wanted him to work independently in some other place. According to her, only two times money was given before her, once to Anjana Kapoor and another to Kanchan and her nanand as a loan. She has testified that no other payment was paid in her presence. The witness has admitted that no demand was ever made by any of the accused persons before her. She has admitted that giving of furniture and jewelery at St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 21 of 77 the time of reception on 19.01.2011 was not stated in her statement to the police. The witness has further admitted that the above furniture articles and the jewelery were the gifts given to her sister during the marriage and has voluntarily explained that initially they thought that they would give her cash by way of FDR but it was on the request of her inlaws that they gave her furniture and jewelery articles. She has also deposed that in her presence no meeting of the relatives of Aman with her parents was ever held. She has denied the suggestion that there was no harassment caused to her sister by the accused persons in connection with dowry. The witness has admitted her sister was having problems in adjusting with her inlaws and that she was separately staying with Aman in one room and has voluntarily explained that her inlaws had separated her. She has admitted that in laws of her sister were in possession of only two rooms out of which Aman and Kanchan were staying in one room and has voluntarily explained that there were tenants staying on the ground and first floor and inlaws of her sister were also on rent in the said premises.
(16) PW19 Karam Chand is the father of the deceased who has deposed that his daughter Kanchan was married to Aman in Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi. He has identified his signatures on marriage register Ex.PW15/B at page no.1 at point A which marriage certificate Ex.PW15/A also bear his signatures at point D. He has further deposed that after the marriage his daughter Kanchan resided at Shastri Nagar with her St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 22 of 77 inlaws and thereafter they shifted to Onkar Nagar, Joor Bagh, Delhi and Kanchan resided there with her husband Aman, Brij Mohan (fatherinlaw), Anjana Kapoor (motherinlaw), Shilpa (Nanad) and Mayank (Jeth). According to the witness, the above said accused persons Brij Mohan, Anjana Kapoor, Shilpa and Mayank continuously demanded money, Rs. 5,000/, Rs.10,000/ and Rs.25,000/ through Kanchan and on account of non payment of the same she was harassed and threatened. He has further deposed that on the day of death of his daughter Kanchan, he also went to the office of SDM with his wife where the statement of his wife Usha was recorded and he was agreed with the statement of his wife and put his signatures at point B on Ex.PW12/A. According to him, the accused persons received Rs. 6065 thousands from them on their demand. He has correctly identified accused Brij Mohan, Anjana, Mayank and Shilpa in the court.
(17) Leading question were put to the witness by the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor, wherein the witness has admitted that one month before the death of Kanchan, the accused Anjana Kapoor demanded Rs.15,000/ on which he along with his wife went to the house of accused and handed over Rs.15,000/ to accused Brij Mohan. The witness has also admitted that two months before the death of Kanchan, her inlaws demanded Rs.20,000/ and on non payment she was threatened to vacate the room of the house and thereafter they paid Rs.20,000/ to accused persons. The witness has further admitted that 2½ months before the death of Kanchan, Mayank and Anjana St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 23 of 77 came to their house and told that Kanchan was not listening to them and after some days Kanchan told them that accused again demanded Rs. 20,000/ and on non payment she was threatened to vacate the room and to take Kanchan from her matrimonial house to their house. The witness has further admitted that Kanchan was continuously harassed by the accused persons for money and forced her to sit on their Dhaba which she refused. (18) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has admitted that he never paid any money to the accused and states that his wife gave the same and it was only once that he accompanied her wife to her daughter's house and gave money but he cannot tell as to how much money was given at that time. He has deposed that all the money were given as a loan. He has admitted that he accompanied his wife to the office of SDM but his statement was not recorded and he signed only as a witness to the statement of his wife. He has testified that he never visited the house of her daughter except once as stated above. According to him, his daughter used to come to his house along with her husband occasionally. He has also deposed that on 20.05.2011 when the accused Anjana Kapoor came to his house, he was not present in the house and whatever discussion was held between his wife and Anjana Kapoor was told to him by his wife. He is not aware whether any beatings was ever given to his daughter by the accused persons. According to the witness, at the reception the furniture and jewelery articles of his daughter were given St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 24 of 77 and has voluntarily explained that he wanted to give FDR to Kanchan but on her saying they gave the furniture and jewelery. He has denied the suggestion that after her marriage when Kanchan visited his house she attempted to commit suicide. He is not aware as to what the accused had to say about the repayment of loan amount taken by them as all these matters are looked after by his wife. According to the witness, he does not have any proof of giving loan to the accused. He has admitted that Aman was not having any independent earnings and was working with his family in the Dhaba. He has further admitted that his daughter wanted Aman to have separate job and home but Aman was working with his family and was staying with them. The witness has also admitted that the money which he was giving to her daughter because Aman was not earning anything and was unable to fulfill the requirements of his daughter and has voluntarily explained that also because his daughter wanted him to work separately so that he could start his own work. He has denied the suggestion that no such incident as stated by him has happened on 20.05.2011 and it is for this reason that he did not tell about that incident to the IO or to the SDM. The witness has admitted that no meeting was ever held between relatives of both their families and that on the ground and first floor of the portion in which Kanchan was living there were tenants living there. He has denied the suggestion that his daughter was never beaten. He has also admitted that he did not give any complaint to the police regarding beating nor his daughter was ever taken to the doctor for the alleged beating given St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 25 of 77 to her. He has denied the suggestion that his daughter was never beaten by the accused and it is for this reason that there was no medical on record or any record of police complaint. He has further admitted that his daughter was having an adjustment problem with the family of the accused and has voluntarily explained that she was trying her best to adjust but it could not happen. He has denied the suggestion that neither any harassment was caused by the accused persons or any demand for dowry was ever made .
Witness of medical record:
(19) PW13 Dr. Anil Jindal Casualty Incharge of Maharaja Agarsain Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi has proved the MLC No. 004/11 of Kanchan W/o Aman, female, 19 years old dated 21.05.2011 which is in the handwriting of Dr. Pankaj Kumar which MLC is Ex.PW13/A. According to the witness, Kanchan was brought at the hospital at 11.55AM by Usha Sharma (mother) and Aman (husband) with alleged history of hanging at around 11.00AM on 21.05.2011 at address 407/34, Onkar NagarC, Tri Nagar, Delhi110035. He has further deposed that the patient was brought dead in casualty, pulse and BP not recordable and ECG flat pattern and ligature mark (extending from right mastoid process to left mastoid) over neck was present and no other external injury found over the body. (20) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has admitted that he was not present in the casualty when the above said St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 26 of 77 Kanchan was examined by Dr. Pankaj and also admitted that this MLC was not prepared in his presence.
(21) PW16 Dr. Bhim Singh is the Autopsy Surgeon who has deposed that on 23.05.2011 at about 12.30PM he conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Smt. Kanchan W/o Aman Kapoor, female, 19 years old on the request of Sh. Pradeep Baijal, SDM, Model Town, Delhi, with alleged history brought dead with history of hanging on
21.05.2011 at about 11.55AM and last seen alive morning of 21.05.2011. The witness has proved that on examination he found following external injury:
Incomplete V Shape ligature mark, brownish parchment like around the neck, width varying from 1cm to 1.1cm, situated 7cm below chin in front, 4cm below right ear lobule and 5cm below left ear lobule, absent on back side, merges with hairs. Total circumference was 31cm.
(22) According to the witness on internal examination he found all the organs congested, stomach was empty. He has proved having opined that the death was due to asphyxia consequent upon compression of neck due to antemortem hanging and time since death about 50 hours.
He has proved the detailed postmortem report which is Ex.PW16/A. He has further deposed that after postmortem he handed over the clothes of the deceased in unsealed condition to the police with all eleven inquest papers. St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 27 of 77 (23) According to the witness, on 17.08.2012 he received an application from SHO, Police Station Keshav Puram, Delhi for subsequent opinion with a sealed packet sealed with the seal of RS. The witness has further deposed that on opening the packet he found one synthetic Khaki/brown Chunni tied with electric wires i.e. three white, one blue and other end of the chunni, measuring approximately 152cm in length (chunni) and 36cm, 45 cm, 55 cm and 67cm in length of the wires (approximately). The witness has proved that after examining the same he gave his subsequent opinion that the ligature mark present around the neck could be possible by the above mentioned chunni which subsequent opinion is Ex.PW16/B. He has also deposed that after examining the contents of the packet, he resealed the same with the seal of FMT BJRM HOSPITAL DELHI and handed over the same to police with sample seal. The witness has correctly identified the chuuni of khaki/brown colour which is Ex.P1 and three white wires and one blue wire which are collectively Ex.P2. (24) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has admitted that the above stated ligature marks were caused possibly by hanging through the above stated chunni.
Police / official witnesses:
(25) PW1 Woman Constable Manoj Kumar is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 (as per provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein she has proved that on St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 28 of 77 24.05.2011 she joined investigation with Investigating Officer Inspector Vijay Kumar and the accused Anjana Kapoor was arrested from her residence at 407/34, Onkar NagarC, Tri Nagar, Delhi vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/A and her personal search memo was prepared vide Ex.PW1/B. She has proved that she took the accused Anjana Kapoor to BJRM Hospital for her medical examination and got her medically examined there and handed over the MLC to Inspector Vijay Kumar. She has not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity granted in this regard.
(26) PW2 Woman Constable Sarita is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1 (as per provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein she has proved that on 03.08.2011 she joined the investigation of the present with IO Inspector Vijay Kumar and on that day accused Shilpa D/o Brij Mohan Kapoor surrendered in the Police Station Keshav Puram on which IO interrogated her and arrested her vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A and her personal search was also conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW2/B. She has further deposed that the accused Shilpa was released on bail by the IO on production of surety. She has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence her testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(27) PW3 Head Constable Sombir Singh is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW3/1 (as per St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 29 of 77 provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 03.08.2011 he joined the investigation of the present with IO Inspector Vijay Kumar and on that day accused Mayank Kapoor S/o Brij Mohan Kapoor surrendered in the Police Station Keshav Puram on which IO interrogated him and arrested him in the case vide memo Ex.PW3/A and his personal search was also conducted vide Ex.PW3/B. According to the witness, the accused Mayank Kapoor was released on bail by the IO on production of surety. He has also not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity.
(28) PW4 Head Constable Sudhir is a formal witness being MHC(M) who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW4/1 (as per provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that the entry in Register No.19 copy of which is Ex.PW4/A (running into four pages); RC No. RC6/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW4/B and receipt issued by FSL which is Ex.PW4/C. He has also not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity.
(29) PW5 Constable Kaushalya is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW5/1 (as per provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein she has proved that on 21.05.2011 at about 11:35 AM, a PCR call vide DD No. 8 PP Shanti Nagar, Delhi was received in PP Shanti Nagar and the same was entrusted to SI Ranvir Singh for necessary action and she alongwith Constable Nissar proceeded for the spot. St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 30 of 77 She has proved the attested copy of DD No.8 PP Shanti Nagar, Delhi copy of which is Ex.PW5/A. She has further deposed that on 21.05.2011 at about 12:45 PM an information from Maharaja Agarsain Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi was received in the PP Shanti Nagar, Delhi through North West Control Room which was recorded vide DD No. 10 PP Shanti Nagar, Delhi and the same was marked and informed telephonically in this regard to SI Ranvir Singh for necessary action. She has proved the attested copy of DD No. 10 PP Shanti Nagar, Delhi which is Ex.PW5/B and the photocopy of above said two DDs are collectively Ex.PW5/C. She has not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard. (30) PW6 Head Constable Ramphool is a formal witness being Duty Officer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW6/1 (as per provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the copy of FIR which is Ex.PW6/A and his endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW6/B. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard.
(31) PW7 Sub Inspector Manohar Lal is a formal witness being the Draftsman who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW7/1 (as per provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having inspected the spot and having prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW7/A which he handed over the same to Inspector Vijay Kumar. This witness has also not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 31 of 77 despite opportunity in this regard.
(32) PW8 Sub Inspector M. D. Meena is a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW8/1 (as per provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 21.05.2011 on receipt of information he inspected the scene of crime and prepared his report which is Ex.PW8/A which he handed over to the Investigating Officer.
(33) PW9 Constable Subhash Chand is a formal witness being the Crime Team Photographer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW9/1 (as per provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having visited the spot of incident where he took photographs of the scene of crime which are Ex.PW9/A1 to Ex.PW9/A13 and the CD containing the above photographs is Ex.PW9/B. (34) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he has admitted that in the photograph Ex.PW9/A4 and Ex.PW9/A13 there is a broken Roshandan above the door.
(35) PW10 Head Constable Naresh Kumar is a formal witness being MHC(M) who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW10/1 (as per provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 17.08.2012 he was posted as a MHC(M) at Police Station Keshav Puram and on that day he handed over one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of R.S. Containing a brown colour Chunni for subsequent opinion St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 32 of 77 from the autopsy surgeon. He has further deposed that this parcel was deposited in the malkhana on 21.05.2011 by SI Ranvir Singh vide mud No. 2689 in the register no. 19. He has further deposed that on 17.08.2011 Inspector Vijay Kumar handed over to him one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of FM BJRM containing the Chunni alongwith the sample seal and he (witness) deposited the same in the malkhana. He has further deposed that on 03.02.2012 two documents were sent to FSL Rohini through Constable Suneet vide RC No. 6/12/12 and were deposited in FSL Rohini vide FSL No. FSL2012/D812. He has also deposed that so long as the above mentioned case property remained in his custody in the malkhana, the same remained intact. He has proved the entry at point X on page no. 2 copy of which is Ex.PW4/A and entry in register no. 21 vide RC No. 06/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW4/B. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard.
(36) PW11 Constable Suneet is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW11/1 (as per provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 03.02.2012 Inspector Vijay Kumar handed over to him two documents for depositing the same in FSL Rohini Delhi vide RC No. 6/21/12 and he deposited the same in FSL Rohini vide FSL No. 2012/D812. He has proved the entry in register no. 21 vide RC No. 6/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW4/B and the copy of receipt issued by FSL is Ex.PW4/C. He has further deposed that so long as the above mentioned case property remained in his custody in the malkhana, the St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 33 of 77 same remained intact. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard.
(37) PW12 Pradeep Baijal has deposed that on 21.05.2011 he was posted as SDM, Model Town, Delhi and on that day he received information form Police Station Keshav Puram that one lady namely Kanchan has committed suicide and the body of the deceased was brought by the relatives to Bansal Nursing Home and thereafter to Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital. According to the witness, he directed the police official to take the body to BJRM Hospital mortuary for preservation for 72 hours and for bringing the parents of the deceased for recording of their statement. He has further deposed that parents of the deceased were brought in his office on the same day and statement of mother of deceased namely Usha Sharma was recorded by him as per verbatim in his office which was also witnessed by the father of the deceased namely Karam Chand, which statement of Usha Sharma is Ex.PW12/A. The witness has proved that thereafter on 23.05.2011 he reached at BJRM Hospital Mortuary where he filled the inquest Form which is Ex.PW12/B; recorded the statement of Karam Chand and Subhash for identification of dead body vide Ex.PW12/C and Ex.PW12/D respectively; prepared the brief facts which are Ex.PW12/E and made a request for postmortem vide Ex.PW12/F. The witness has testified that he directed police to hand over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased after postmortem which directions are at point B on St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 34 of 77 Ex.PW12/F. According to the witness, thereafter he gave directions to police to lodge the case under Section 498A/304B IPC against Anjana Kapoor (Motherin law), Brij Mohan (Fatherinlaw), Mayank (Jeth) and Shilpa (Nanad) and also directed to investigate further which directions are at point D on Ex.PW12/A. (38) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he does not remember as to who recorded the statement of mother of deceased and has voluntarily explained that it was recorded either by his staff on his dictation and as per information / told by Usha Sharma to him. He has admitted that he got information about the incident from the mother of deceased and the script of the statement was dictated by him as per verbatim. He has further deposed that Karam Chand was also present when he recorded the statement of Usha Sharma. The witness has also admitted that he did not record the statement of Karam Chand separately and has voluntarily explained that Karam Chand was agreed to the statement given by Usha Sharma. He does not remember the exact time when he recorded the statement of Usha Sharma but states that it was recorded in his office during the day time.
(39) PW20 Constable Nissar has deposed that on 21.05.2011 he was posted at PP Shanti Nagar, Police Station Keshav Puram and was on emergency duty along with SI Ranbir. According to the witness, on that day SI Ranbir received DD No. 8 PP regarding a suicide committed by a girl at 407/34, 2nd Floor, Onkar NagarC, Judbagh, Tri Nagar, Delhi pursuant to St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 35 of 77 which he along with SI Ranbir reached at the spot but they found that the said premises was locked and they came to know that the said girl was taken to the hospital. According to him, in the meanwhile SI Ranbir received another DD No. 10 PP regarding taking the said girl to Maharaja Agarsain Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi on which he alongwith SI Ranbir reached at the Maharaja Agarsain Hospital where SI Ranbir received MLC No. 0004/11 which was of brought dead. He has further deposed that thereafter SI Ranbir conveyed that information to the senior officers and to the SDM. According to the witness, thereafter on the directions of the SDM, SI Ranbir instructed him to get the dead body preserved at BJRM Hospital, Mortuary Jahangir Puri, Delhi. The witness has testified that he after getting the dead body preserved at BJRM Mortuary came back to the spot i.e. 407/34, 2nd Floor where SI Ranbir was already present along with the crime team who were inspecting the spot. He has further deposed that Crime Team inspected the spot and the photographer took the photographs of the same. According to him SI Ranbir found one brown color pen under the pillow on the bed, one chunni of brown color wrapped with electric wire, one steel container having mark of Raj Lakshmi on it, one diary containing the suicide note on the pages of 22/23, some burn match sticks, some pieces of burn cloth, some broken pieces of glass of window. The witness has proved that thereafter SI Ranbir converted the said articles into a sealed pullanda with the help of white cloth and sealed the same separately with the seal of RS, after which SI Ranbir seized the pullanda of the pen vide Ex.PW20/A. St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 36 of 77 According to the witness, SI Ranbir also seized the diary containing suicide note vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/B and other remaining articles were seized vide by seizure memo Ex.PW20/C. He has also deposed that thereafter he along with SI Ranbir accompanied the parents of the deceased to the office of the SDM and after recording the statements of the parents of the deceased he returned back to the police station where the seized articles were deposited in the malkhana by SI Ranbir. He has testified that on 23.05.2011 SDM reached at BJRM Mortuary and postmortem of the deceased was conducted there after which the body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. The witness has correctly identified the case property i.e. chunni of khaki/brown color which is Ex.P1; three white wires and one blue wire which are Ex.P2 with a cloth as seized by the IO; pen which is Ex.P3; one steel container which is Ex.P4; broken glasses which are Ex.P5; match sticks and some burnt material which is Ex.P6; the diary of year 2011 in which on page of 22/23.02.2011 suicide note was found, which diary is Ex.P7 and the suicide note which is Ex.PW20/D seized by the Investigating Officer which was on the page of diary dated 22.02.2011 Tuesday which is Q1.
(40) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has admitted that no statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 21.05.2011 but the statements U/s 161 Cr. P.C. were recorded on 23.05.2011 at the police station but he does not remember the persons whose statements were St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 37 of 77 so recorded. He has further deposed that the said statement were recorded by Inspector Vijay Kumar. He has admitted that in the room where the incident took place the articles which were used in a kitchen were also lying.
(41) PW21 Sub Inspector Ranbir Singh has deposed that on 21.05.2011 he was posted as Chowki Incharge of PP Shanti Nagar of Police Station Keshav Puram and on that day he received DD No. 8PP Ex.PW5/A regarding suicide committed by a girl on which thereafter he along with Constable Nisar reached at H. No. 407/34, Joor Bagh, Onkar NagarC, Tri Nagar, Delhi on 2nd floor and found that the house was locked. According to the witness, he came to know that the victim girl had already been taken to Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital by her relatives on which he alongwith Constable Nisar reached at Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital. He has further deposed that meanwhile he received DD No. 10PP which is Ex.PW5/B that the girl Kanchan was declared dead in Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital. Thereafter he collected the MLC of Kanchan from the hospital who was declared brought dead and parents and relatives of Kanchan were also present there. He has further deposed that he came to know from them that Kanchan was married with Aman on 08.01.2011 on which he informed the SHO about all the facts and also the SDM, Model Town, Delhi. According to the witness, on the direction of the SDM, Model Town, Delhi he shifted the dead body of Kanchan to the mortuary of BJRM Hospital and made an application for preservation of the dead body vide Ex.PW21/A. He has St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 38 of 77 further deposed that thereafter he reached the spot where Aman and parents of Kanchan also reached. The witness has testified that Aman opened the house after which he (witness) inspected the place of incident and found the window glass above the door was broken. He has further deposed that one brown chunni with two blue and white colored wires were found on the bed of Kanchan, one steel container was also lying on the bed and some burnt match sticks were also found on the floor of the room. The witness has deposed that he found one suicide note on a ruled paper near the pillow and one diary also found near on the bed near the pillow and a pen was also found under the pillow. He has testified that he called the crime team officials who inspected the scene of crime and took photographs and thereafter he collected the crime team report which is Ex.PW8/A. According to the witness, he kept the recovered pen in a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of RS and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/A. He has further deposed that he seized the suicide note vide Ex.PW20/B and sealed the recovered brown color chunni with wire in a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of RS and also sealed the recovered diary of year 2011 in a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of RS. The witness has further proved that he also sealed the recovered burnt match sticks in a cloth pullanda with the burnt materials and sealed the same with the seal of RS and also seized the above said three pullandas and the steel container and the broken glasses of window vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/C. According to him, thereafter he alongwith the St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 39 of 77 parents of Kanchan reached at the office of the SDM, Model Town, Delhi at Ram Pura, Delhi where he produced both persons before the SDM, Model Town, Delhi who made inquiries from them and recorded their statements. The witness has testified that SDM, Model Town gave directions to him for the postmortem on the dead body of Kanchan on 23.05.2011 after which he returned back to the police station where he deposited the seized articles in the malkhana of Police Station Keshav Puram. He has also deposed that he informed the SHO about all the facts. The witness has further deposed that on 23.05.2011 he alongwith the parents of the deceased and Constable Nisaar reached the mortuary of BJRM hospital after informing the SDM who also reached there and conducted the inquest proceedings. He has testified that on the directions of the SDM, postmortem was conducted on the dead body of Kanchan after which the dead body was handed over to the father of the deceased vide memo Ex.PW21/B. According to him, SDM Model Town gave directions for taking actions against Anjana, Brij Mohan, Shilpa and Mayank under Section 498A and 304 B IPC on the statement of the Usha Sharma which is Ex.PW12/A. The witness has proved that he returned back to the Police Station Keshav Puram and handed over all the documents to the SHO Inspector Vijay Kumar who made his endorsement on the directions of SDM for registration of the FIR and took over the investigations.
(42) According to the witness (SI Ranbir Singh) on the same day i.e. on 23.05.2011 he joined the investigations with Inspector Vijay Kumar, HC St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 40 of 77 Naresh at about 5:00 PM and reached at House No. 407/34, 2 nd Floor, Onkar Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi but no one was present there. He has further deposed that the Investigating Officer made local inquiries and they again reached at place of incident where Brij Mohan met them who was interrogated by the Investigating Officer. He has also testified that accused Brij Mohan was then arrested vide memo Ex.PW21/C and his personal search was taken vide Ex.PW21/D. The witness has proved that the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan at his instance which is Ex.PW21/E after which they returned back to the Police Station Keshav Puram where his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. He has further deposed that on 24.05.2011 he again joined the investigations with Investigating Officer and Woman Constable Manoj Kumari and reached at the place of incident where Aman, Anjana Kapoor met them. He has proved that the accused Anjana Kapoor was interrogated by the Investigating Officer after which she was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/A and her personal search was taken by Woman Constable Manoj Kumari vide memo Ex.PW1/B. According to him, thereafter they returned back to the Police Station Keshav Puram where Investigating Officer recorded his statement.
(43) The witness has correctly identified the accused Brij Mohan and accused Anjana Kapoor in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. chunni of khaki/brown color which is Ex.P1; three white wires and one St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 41 of 77 blue wire which are Ex.P2 with a cloth as seized by him; pen which is Ex.P3; one steel container which is Ex.P4; broken glasses which are Ex.P5; match sticks and some burnt material which is Ex.P6; the diary of year 2011 in which on page of 22/23.02.2011 suicide note was found, which diary is Ex.P7 and the suicide note which is Ex.PW20/D seized by him which was on the page of diary dated 22.02.2011 Tuesday which is Q1. (44) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that FIR was registered on 23.05.2011 on the directions of SDM. He has admitted that the husband of the deceased and mother and father of the deceased had taken her to the hospital and this is not stated either in the FIR or in the DD. He has deposed that he did not record the statement of any witness U/s 161 Cr. P. C. He has further deposed that no residents were present on the ground and first floor of the house of the place of incident when he visited there. According to the witness, he took the mother and father of the deceased to the SDM office and statement of the parents of the deceased were recorded by the SDM but since he was outside he did not know what they had told the SDM at that time. He has denied the suggestion that the room where the deceased had committed suicide, the gas chulha of common domestic use was not present in the said room. He has admitted that the husband of the deceased had not been made an accused in the present case.
(45) PW22 Inspector Vijay Kumar is the investigating officer of this case who has deposed that on 23.05.2011 he was posted as SHO, Police St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 42 of 77 Station Keshav Puram and took over the investigations of the present case. According to him, SI Ranbir Singh handed over the statement of Usha Sharma containing the directions of the SDM for registration of the case. He has proved that he made his endorsement on the said statement vide Ex.PW22/A. He has further deposed that SI Ranbir Singh also handed over to him seizure memos, crime team report, dead body handing over memo and various DD i.e. DD No. 8PP and 10 PP. The witness has testified that he send the statement containing his endorsement to the Duty Officer for registration of the case after which the FIR was registered the Duty Officer who handed over to him a copy of the FIR and original tehrir and he took over the investigations.
(46) The witness has further deposed that on 24.05.2011 he along with SI Ranbir and Woman Constable Manoj Kumari reached at the place of incident where Anjana Kapoor, motherinlaw of the deceased, met them and she was interrogated by him after which she was arrested vide Ex.PW1/A and her personal search was conducted by Woman Constable Manoj Kumari vide Ex.PW1/B. He has further deposed that she was got medically examination through Woman Constable Manoj Kumari after which the accused was produced before the Ld. Illaka Magistrate and remanded to Judicial Custody. The witness has proved having collected the Postmortem report with inquest papers from BJRM hospital; having collected the photographs which had been taken by the crime team along with the CD of the same; having collected the marriage certificate St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 43 of 77 Ex,PW15/A from Usha Sharma and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/B. According to the witness, Usha Sharma also produced four photographs of the marriage between Aman with Kanchan which are Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW17/B1 to Ex.PW17/B3 and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/C. The witness has further deposed that he also collected the rent agreement between the landlord and Brij Mohan with regard to the house where the incident had taken place. He has also deposed that he seized the Rent Agreement Ex.PW14/A and copy of Identify Card of Brij Mohan Ex.PW14/B vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/C. According to him, the scaled site plan Ex.PW7/A was got prepared through SI Manohar Lal and thereafter he collected and seized Ex.PW22/D which was the admitted handwriting of Kanchan from Pandit Dhanjay Dwivedi who had got the marriage between the deceased and Aman solemnized vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/E. The witness has testified that the suicide note and the admitted handwriting of Kanchan was sent to FSL Rohini through Constable Sumeet and during his investigations he sought subsequent opinion of the doctor about the chunni pursuant to which the doctor gave his subsequent opinion vide Ex.PW16/B. (47) The witness has also deposed that on the same day he alongwith SI Ranbir Singh and HC Naresh reached the place of incident where he inspected the scene of crime and prepared the site plan Ex.PW21/E at the instance of SI Ranbir. According to the witness, accused Brij Mohan father St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 44 of 77 inlaw of the deceased met him at the spot who was interrogated and thereafter arrested vide memo Ex.PW21/C and his personal search was taken vide Ex.PW21/D after which they returned back to the Police Station Keshav Puram after medical examination of Brij Mohan and he was kept in the lock up. He has testified that on 03.08.2011 Mayank Kapoor and Shilpa Kapoor came at the police station and they were arrested vide memos Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW2/A respectively on both exhibits and their personal search were taken vide Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW2/B respectively. He has also deposed that they were released on bail as anticipatory bail has already been granted. The witness has further deposed that he recorded statements of witnesses and after completion of investigations, he filed the charge sheet against the accused Anjana Kapoor, Brij Mohan Kapoor, Mayank Kapoor and Shilpa Kapoor. He has correctly identified the accused Anjana Kapoor, Brij Mohan Kapoor, Mayank Kapoor and Shilpa Kapoor in the Court. The witness has further deposed that Handwriting Expert report was collected which is Ex.PW22/F in respect of the suicide note which is Ex.PW20/D and the admitted handwriting of Kanchan which is Ex.PW22/D (not disputed by the accused, even otherwise admissible U/s 293 Cr. P.C.). According to him, thereafter supplementary charge sheet had been filed against the accused persons.
(48) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he recorded the statements of all witnesses U/s 161 Cr. P.C. on different dates. He has further deposed that he recorded the St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 45 of 77 statement of Usha Sharma two times during his investigations and also visited the place of incident. He has denied the suggestion that the place of incident where the incident took place was not a kitchen. He has admitted that the ground and first floor of the house were occupied by other people. According to the witness, he had made inquiries from the other persons residing in the same house with regard to the relations between the deceased and the accused and what they knew about the incident but they did not tell anything to him and hence he did not record their statements. He has also deposed that he could not collect any evidence against the husband of the deceased namely Aman and therefore he is not made as an accused. He has denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not make Aman, the accused in the present case in connivance with the complainant or that all the accused have been falsely implicated by him at the instance and in connivance with the family of the deceased. He has further denied the suggestion that he had not conducted fair and free investigations or that his investigations were led by the family of the deceased. STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(49) After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of all the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused which they have denied. All the accused i.e. Anjana Kapoor, Mayank Kapoor, Brij Mohan and Shilpa have stated that the marriage between St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 46 of 77 Aman and the deceased Kanchan was a love marriage and there was no question of any demand of dowry. According to the accused, at the time both Aman and Kanchan got married they were both very young and not working. They have further stated that they are running a Dhaba and Aman was also running helping them in the Dhaba and the deceased wanted to get separated from their family and get some other job. The accused have stated that there was dispute between the deceased and her husband on one side and the family of the deceased on the other side on account of which Kanchan committed suicide within five months after her marriage.
According to the accused, they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. However, the accused have not examined any evidence in their defence.
FINDINGS:
(50) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record. My findings are as under:
Identity of the accused:
(51) In so far as the identity of the accused persons are concerned the same is not disputed. The accused Anjana Kapoor is the mother in law of the deceased, accused Mayank Kapoor is the Jeth of the deceased, accused St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 47 of 77 Brij Mohan Kapoor is the father in law of the deceased and the accused Shilpa is the unmarried sister in law (Nanand) of the deceased Kanchan. All the accused persons have been identified in the Court by the family members of the deceased. In view of the above, I hereby hold that the identity of the accused persons stands established.
Unnatural death within seven years of marriage:
(52) It is an admitted case of the parties that the marriage between Aman Kapoor and Kanchan (deceased) was a love marriage. Both the families of the accused and that of the deceased Kanchan were known to each other and residing in the same area. Initially the marriage was solemnized in Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 8.1.2011 to which later on the parents consented and a Joint Reception was held on 19.1.2011. The factum of marriage between Kanchan and Aman Kapoor has been duly proved by Pt.
Dhananjay Dwivedi (PW15) and it was a simple ceremony. Further, it is an admitted case that Kanchan died an unnatural death by hanging herself on 21.5.2011 i.e. within seven years of marriage (precisely within Four months of the marriage).
Medical Evidence:
(53) Dr. Anil Jindal (PW13) has proved the MLC of Kanchan W/o Aman which is Ex.PW13/A according to which Kanchan was brought at St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 48 of 77 the hospital at 11.55AM by Usha Sharma (mother) and Aman (husband) with alleged history of hanging at around 11.00AM on 21.05.2011 at address 407/34, Onkar NagarC, Tri Nagar, Delhi110035 and on examination pulse and BP not recordable and ECG flat pattern and ligature mark (extending from right mastoid process to left mastoid) over neck was present and no other external injury found over the body, after which the patient was declared 'Brought Dead'.
(54) Dr. Bhim Singh (PW16) is the Autopsy Surgeon who has proved that on 23.05.2011 at about 12.30PM he conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Smt. Kanchan, vide postmortem report which is Ex.PW16/A according to which on examination he found following external injury:
Incomplete V Shape ligature mark, brownish parchment like around the neck, width varies from 1cm to 1.1cm, situated 7cm below chin in front, 4cm below right ear lobule and 5cm below left ear lobule, absent on back side, merges with hairs. Total circumference was 31cm.
(55) He has proved having opined that the death was due to asphyxia consequent upon compression of neck due to antemortem hanging and time since death about 50 hours. The witness has proved having given the subsequent opinion on the ligature material i.e. synthetic Khaki/ brown Chunni tied with electric wires i.e. three white, one blue and other end of the chunni and opined that the ligature mark present around St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 49 of 77 the neck could be possible by the above mentioned chunni which subsequent opinion is Ex.PW16/B. (56) Here, I may observe that the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Bhim Singh (PW16) has not opined the nature of death whether homicidal or suicidal. In this regard, it is evident that an incomplete V Shape ligature mark was found around the neck of the deceased thereby establishing that the death was suicidal. The above evidence has not been controverted by the accused persons and hence I hereby hold that the medical evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution that Kanchan had committed suicide by hanging herself.
Forensic Evidence:
(57) The case of the prosecution is that when the initial Investigating Officer SI Ranbir visited the scene of crime, he found a diary containing the suicide note which he had seized. Thereafter the Investigating Officer collected the admitted handwriting of the deceased i.e. the handwriting of the deceased Kanchan on the back side of the affidavit which she had furnished during her marriage. Thereafter the suicide note and the admitted handwriting of the deceased were sent to FSL for comparison. (58) The handwriting report Ex.PW22/F which is perse admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. has been duly proved by the Investigating Officer Inspector Vijay Kumar (PW22). I hereby hold that the forensic evidence conclusive establishes that the writings in the red enclosed portion stamped St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 50 of 77 and marked Q1 and A1 were written by one and the same person thereby proving that the suicide note Ex.PW20/D was written by the deceased Kanchan, a fact which has not been disputed by the accused persons.
Allegations against the accused under Section 498A & 304B IPC (dowry death proximity test):
(59) The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the deceased Kanchan and Aman (husband of Kanchan not an accused before the Court) was a love marriage. Both Kanchan and Aman were known to each other and had got married in Arya Samaj Mandir on 8.1.2011 which marriage the parents had accepted. It is alleged that soon after the marriage the deceased was subjected to repeated harassment and demand for dowry and on many occasions the demand for cash was made on the pretext that it was required for running the family Dhaba in which Aman (husband of the deceased) was also involved and a sum of Rs.65,000/ (cash) was given by the family of the deceased. It is also alleged that one day before her death the deceased had been beaten by her motherinlaw Smt. Anjana Kapoor with slippers on which she had also made a complaint to her mother. As per the allegations the family of the deceased suspected that she had been killed by the accused persons because they were not happy with the marriage of their son Aman with the deceased and also because they were unable to fulfill their demands for dowry. In this regard the prosecution has placed their reliance on the testimonies of the mother, father and sister of the St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 51 of 77 deceased.
(60) Before coming to the discussion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution on merits, it is necessary to discuss the law in this regard. In order to succeed in charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the section. It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health. The use of the expression "willful" in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonably expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative, as the case may be. Everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act and such a presumption must necessarily be drawn even if there is no intention to cause any injury or harm to the woman. Whether the conduct in question is likely St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 52 of 77 to drive the woman to cause injury to her life, limb or health, will depend upon a number of factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of awareness of the aggrieved woman, her temperament, state of her health, physical as well as mental and how she is likely to perceive such a behavior. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, it will also constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
(61) The expression "Cruelty" takes in its ambit mental cruelty as well as physical torture of the woman. If the conduct of the accused with a woman is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life and safety, such a conduct would attract criminal liability, envisaged in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
(62) If the woman has been harassed on account of her failure or the failure of her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, that also constitutes cruelty, within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC. The expression "harassment" has not been defined in Section 498 A of IPC, but its dictionary meaning is to subject someone to continuous vexatious attacks, questions, demands or other unpleasantness, etc. However, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under section 498A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 53 of 77 torture physical or mental, by positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand. (63) Further, in order to establish a charge under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, which deals with what is described as "dowry death", the prosecution must necessarily prove the following ingredients: i. The death of a woman must have been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstance;
ii. Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
iii. Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband;
iv. Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry;
v. Such cruelty or harassment is when to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
(64) The term "Dowry" has not been defined in Section 304B of IPC, but, since this expression has been defined in Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it is required to be given the same meaning for the purpose of under Section 304B IPC as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under:
St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 54 of 77 "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 parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before 3 or any time after the marriage 4in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case or persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies." (65) Dowry would include that property or valuable security which is actually given or which is agreed to be given, in relation to the marriage of a person in question. The property or valuable security may be given or may be agreed to be given before marriage or at the time of marriage or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the marriage.
However, there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given and the marriage. If at any time before or at the time of or even during marriage, the parents of a woman or any other person related or connected to her agree to give some cash, valuable security or property to her husband or inlaws after marriage, that also would be covered within the definition of dowry as the agreement or promise in such a case would be attributable to the marriage or proposed marriage and if there is demand for any cash property, valuable security etc. which is promised, but not given, it would constitute demand for dowry. If the husband of the girl or any other person related or connected to him, demands something from the girl or her parents or any other person related to or connected with her, saying that the articles St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 55 of 77 being demanded by them were expected to be given or ought to have been given in marriage, that would also, to my mind, constitute demand of dowry because even though such an article may not have been agreed or promised to be given by the girl or her family members, it might have been in the contemplation of the boy and/or his family members, on account of the expectation that such an article would be given at the time of marriage. Therefore, such demand would be considered to be a demand in connection with the marriage though made after the marriage has been solemnized. Even demand of articles such as T.V., fridge, jewellery, clothes, furniture, etc. which usually are given or expected in marriages in our country, would, considering the objective sought to be achieved by incorporating Section 304B in Indian Penal Code and enacting Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 fall within the purview of Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. (66) In the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1998 SC 958, the Apex Court has specifically held demand of T.V., Fridge, etc. though not agreed to be given or promised or even demanded prior to or at the time of marriage, to be a demand for dowry for the purpose of Section 304B of IPC. If cash or some property, etc. is demanded by the boy or his family members, after marriage, saying that they were expecting such cash, property, etc. to be given in marriage, and the girl, or her parents or any other person related or connected to her promise to fulfill such a demand, that also may fall within the purview of dowry, as the promise though made after marriage, would nevertheless be St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 56 of 77 referrable to the marriage, having been made with a view to preserve the marriage. In case, if the demand is made after marriage and it is in respect of a property or valuable security, which was not demanded, was not expected to be given and also was not in contemplation at any time up to solemnization of marriage, demand of such cash, property or valuable security, etc. cannot be said to be in connection with the marriage and, therefore, would not constitute demand of dowry.
(67) In the case of Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45 while dealing with this issue, the Hon"ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:
"Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties". This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304B should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage."
St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 57 of 77 (68) In the case of Appasaheb and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2007 SC 763, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"...... In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning........ A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure....."
St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 58 of 77 (69) The Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act are both remedial and penal statutes. As such Courts are expected to construe the provisions in a way that the purpose is fulfilled through and within the limits of language employed in the statute. If a case is established then the Courts are to be stringent in dealing with the culprits. The Courts while taking a stringent view and despite the obligation of the Legislature enactment a success have also to keep in mind that the charge should be made out. The main ingredients to be proved for establishing a case under Section 304B IPC are (i) unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and (ii) she being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with any demand of dowry.
(70) The words "it is shown" occurring in section 304B IPC are of significance for the reason that the initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Section 304B IPC do exist on the prosecution. This being shown or established, the question of presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would arise. In other words, to draw a presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act the necessary ingredient that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry has to be proved. Only when these facts are proved then by virtue of the deeming provision of section 304B IPC, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death. Though cruelty at any St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 59 of 77 time after the marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and harassment envisaged by Section 304B is to be soon before the death of a woman.
(71) The Courts are required to scrutinize the evidence carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is a demand and then the atmosphere becomes calm and quiet and then again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of her husband within a short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as the torture and harassment is confined to the four walls of the house. The Courts are, however, required to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in laws are strained for any reason whatever it might be.
(72) Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological problem or mental agony or such circumstances that the person committing suicide may think that life he or she is living is more miserable than the pangs and agony of death. The power of tolerance would vary from person to person . Some persons try to make the life easy by tolerance while others even on petty points bring an end to their life. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported as Gurditta Singh Vs. The State of St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 60 of 77 Rajasthan reported in 1992 Crl. L.J. 309).
(73) The importance of proximity test is both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive section 304B IPC and Section 113B Evidence Act is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" used in Section 113B of the Evidence Act, Illustration (a) of the Act is relevant. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before"
would normally imply that the interval should not be too much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. (74) It is well settled by several judgments that mere suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt. In the case reported as State of Punjab Vs.. Bhajan Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 258, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 61 of 77 "......... The circumstances of this case undoubtedly create suspicion against the accused. Suspicion, by itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of the accused....."
(75) In another case reported as Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: ".......Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of this innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have benefit of that doubt........
It needs all the same to be reemphasized that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. The courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because the acquittal might have an impact upon the law and order situation or St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 62 of 77 create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused...."
(76) In another case reported as AIR 1973 SC 2622, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under : "...... Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before the court can convict and the mental distinction between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure consideration....."
(77) Further more, in another case reported as Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under : ''......Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 63 of 77 circumstance this Court in the case of "Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) stated thus:
It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished.
There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted....."
(78) It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. (79) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, I may observe that in so far as Smt. Usha Sharma (PW17) the mother of the deceased Kanchan is concerned, she is the complainant in the present case whose first statement was recorded by the SDM Sh. Pradeep Baijal (PW12) on the date of death of the deceased which statement is Ex.PW12/A as proved by the SDM Sh. Pradeep Baijal and was reaffirmed/ supported by Karam Chand (PW19) father of the deceased who had made endorsement on the same. The prosecution has also placed their reliance on the testimony of younger sister of the deceased namely Geeta who has been examined as PW18. In so far as the testimony of Usha Sharma is concerned, she has St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 64 of 77 stated that after threefour months of the marriage, all the accused persons along with the deceased shifted to House No. 407/34, Onkar NagarC, Jor Bagh, Delhi and there were repeated demands of dowry being raised by them. According to her, on 1.4.2011 they gave furniture and jewelery to the deceased which were demanded by Smt. Anjana Kapoor though they wanted to give an FDR to their daughter after the marriage. Further, it is alleged that one month before the date of incident the accused persons demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/ which were given to the accused; two months before the day of incident there was a demand of Rs.20,000/ which was fulfilled; about two and half months before the date of incident Mayank Kapoor and Anjana Kapoor demanded Rs.20,000/ and on another occasion there was a demand of Rs.25,000/ and the accused Shilpa demanded Rs.25,000/ as the cost of the ring to be given to her, which demands were repeated and they had given about Rs.65,000/ to the accused persons till the time of death of Kanchan. It is only the younger sister of the deceased Kanchan namely Geeta (PW18) who has deposed similarly in respect of the above demands.
(80) At the very Outset I may observe that in so far as Karam Chand (PW19) the father of the deceased is concerned, he has in his examination in chief made a vague statement with regard to the demands being raised by the accused persons and has also admitted that he made no separate statement to the SDM and only supported what his wife stated. I may note that at the first instance, Smt. Usha Sharma the mother of the deceased does St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 65 of 77 not make any allegation regarding the demand of dowry or harassment and only informed the SDM that her daughter had been subjected to mental torture (Mansik yaatnaayen) and also make a vague statement that the motherinlaw and the sisterinlaw of the deceased used to frequently ask Kanchan to arrange for cash from time to time and they had paid Rs.6065 thousand to the accused persons since January 2011 which had not been returned. In so far as Karam Chand (PW17) is concerned, he is only a witness to the above statement of his wife and had made no separate statement.
(81) Secondly coming to the crossexamination of Smt. Usha Sharma, she has very categorically admitted that the amount given to the accused persons was in the form of a loan. She has also conceded that the furniture and jewelery were given in the form of gifts which are given to the bride during the marriage. She has further admitted that the husband of the deceased i.e. Aman Kapoor was not employed anywhere and the deceased wanted Aman to start his independent business, which he was unable to do.
The relevant portion of her crossexamination is as under:
"........ It is correct that I have not stated to the police or to the SDM that after 15 days of the marriage father in law, mother in law, Jeth and Nanad demanded money from my daughter Kanchan. It is correct that I did not state to the police as well as the SDM that at the time of reception held on 19.01.2011 I gave furnitures and jewelery to inlaws of my daughter Kanchan. It is correct that though about St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 66 of 77 Rs.6065 thousands were given to the accused persons but I cannot tell as to how many times said money was given. Twice the money was given to Brij Mohan Kapoor but I cannot tell the date or month when the money was given. Once another payment of Rs.
5,000/ was made to Shilpa when she came to my house with my daughter Kanchan. All the above said money was given as a loan. Even after my daughter shifted to Onkar Nagar, she used to come to my house alongwith her husband. It is correct that the incident of 20.05.2011 as mentioned by me herein above was not stated to the police or the SDM. I went to the house of Kanchan along with my eldest daughter Geeta. No police complaint was ever made. It is correct that though we wanted to give an FDR to Kanchan but on her saying we gave the furniture and jewelery. Vol. it is on the suggestion of mother in law of Kanchan that we have given the furnitures and jewelery. It is wrong to suggest that after her marriage when she visited my house she ever attempted to commit suicide. It is correct that on 20.05.2011 Aman and Kanchan had dinner with my family and left for their house at about 11:30 PM along with two children of my eldest daughter Geeta. Aman came in the morning of 21.05.2011 at about 8:459AM to drop the child. On receiving information from Aman at about 10:30 AM on phone that Kanchan was no more I sent my daughter Geeta and her husband to Kanchan's house and thereafter myself and my husband also reached there but I cannot say as to the members of Aman's family present there. It is correct that what I stated above in my chief that "on 20.05.2011 when Anjana Kapoor came to my house at about 3:30 PM St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 67 of 77 she demanded money for the business of Dhaba and told me that if we will not pay they will send back Kanchan to our house" was not happened on that day but some days before but I cannot tell the month or the date of said discussion. It is correct that whenever we asked for return of the loan taken by the accused persons they used to say that they will repay the said amount back very soon as and when they get the money. It is correct that myself, my daughter and my husband had gone to the office of the SDM but only my statement was recorded. The money which I have stated to have been paid to the accused persons was paid in cash of which I have no proof. It is correct that Aman was not having any independent earnings and he was working with his family in the dhaba. It is correct that my daughter wanted Aman to have separate job and home but Aman was working with his family and was staying with them. It is correct that the money which I was giving to my daughter because Aman was not earning anything and was unable to fulfill the requirements of my daughter. Vol. also because my daughter wanted him to work separately so that he could start his own work......"
(82) It is writ large that whatever Smt. Usha Sharma has deposed in the Court is a total improvement over her first statement and the allegations relating to various demands which have been made by her, have now been made for the first time in the Court. Similarly the younger sister of the deceased i.e. Geeta who has been examined as PW18 has also in her testimony admitted the various improvements made by her with regard to St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 68 of 77 the specific demands. She has admitted that the furniture and jewelery articles given to her deceased sister were in the form of gifts and that the cash amount was in the form of a loan. If that be so, then the question of demand as alleged by the family of the deceased and the prosecution does not arise. The relevant portion of the crossexamination of Geeta (PW18) is reproduced as under:
"....... It is correct that the disputes which were usually occurring between Kanchan and her mother in law were those which normally occur with in the families. It is correct that no police complaint was made at any point of time. Vol. my sister wanted to adjust in the family. It is correct that Aman was not having any independent income. Vol. the parents of Aman wanted him to work in their family dhaba but my sister wanted him to do an independent job. It is correct that Aman was not qualified. Vol. I think he had studied uptill 10th. It is correct that the disputes which occur between my sister and her inlaws was because she wanted Aman to work and live separately but his family wanted him with them. It is correct that one of my uncle namely Subhash is having a cosmetic shop in Delhi. It is correct that Aman also worked in the said shop for some time but it is wrong to suggest that he was on salary on this shop. Vol. he had only joined there to pickup work. It is correct that Kanchan has stopped Aman for working him in the shop of my chacha and wanted him to work independently in some other place. Only two times money was given before me, once to Anjana Kapoor and another to Kanchan and her nanand as a loan. No other payment was paid St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 69 of 77 before me. It is correct that no demand was ever made by any of the accused persons before me. It is correct that giving of furniture and jewelery at the time of reception on 19.01.2011 was not stated in my statement to the police. It is correct that the above furniture articles and the jewelery were the gifts given to my sister during the marriage. Vol. initially we thought that we would give her cash by way of FD but it was on the request of her in laws that we give him furniture and jewelery articles......"
(83) It is evident from the above that there was no demand for dowry by accused and whatever was given, was in the nature of gifts. (84) Thirdly coming next to the testimony of Karam Chand (PW19) who is the father of the deceased. He has made no separate statement to the SDM and in his examination in chief before the Court he is totally vague with regard to the allegations made against the accused persons. In his crossexamination the witness has not support the version given by his wife Smt. Usha Kapoor and daughter Geeta. The relevant portion of his cross examination is as under:
"...... It is correct that I never paid any money to the accused but my wife gave the same and it was only once that I accompanied my wife to my daughter's house and gave money but I cannot tell as to how much money was given at that time. All the money was given as the loan...."
"..... I do not know as to what the accused had to say about the repayment of loan amount taken by them St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 70 of 77 as all these matters are looked after by my wife. I do not have any proof of giving loan to the accused. It is correct that Aman was not having any independent earnings and he was working with his family in the dhaba. It is correct that my daughter wanted Aman to have separate job and home but Aman was working with his family and was staying with them. It is correct that the money which I was giving to my daughter because Aman was not earning anything and was unable to fulfill the requirements of my daughter. Vol. also because my daughter wanted him to work separately so that he could start his own work. It is wrong to suggest that no such incident as stated by me on 20.05.2011 has happened and it is for this reason that I did not tell about this incident to the IO or to the SDM. It is correct that no meeting was ever held between relatives of both our families. It is correct that on the ground and first floor of the portion in which Kanchan was living there are tenants living there....."
(85) It is evident for the above that though the allegations of giving loan to accused have been made but witness is unable to establish that the same were in the nature of a demand.
(86) Fourthly it is writ large from the testimony of Smt. Usha Kapoor, Geeta and Karam Chand and also from the testimony of Sudhir Basoya (PW14) that the accused persons were residing at House No. 407/34, Onkar NagarC, Tri Nagar, Delhi on rent basis and that in the premises where the incident had taken place, other tenants were residing in St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 71 of 77 the same but not even a single tenant has been cited as a witness before the Court. I am sure if the deceased was subjected to repeated harassment and beating as claimed by the family of the deceased, the persons residing in the same building would have been aware of the same. Not even a single person residing in the same premises has been cited as a witness to independently corroborate the aspect of harassment and demand of dowry as claimed by the family of the deceased.
(87) Fifthly I may observe that the source of Rs.65,000/ has not been explained by the family members of the deceased and appears to be doubtful since the financial condition of the family of the deceased is not so comfortable. From where the said amount was arranged and from whom, has not been explained.
(88) Lastly coming next to the aspect of suicide note. The deceased Kanchan herself had given a clean chit to the accused persons and there is no reason to doubt the same. She was in love with Aman Kappor who is the son of Anjana Kapoor & Brij Mohan Kapoor, brother of Mayank Kappor and Shilpa and had married him of her own without any pressure from any side. Aman was totally unemployed and it is admitted by family of the deceased that the deceased Kanchan was desperately wanting him to get some employment but he was will working in the family business of running a Dhaba with which arrangement she was not very happy. The suicide note left by the deceased also rules out any foulplay on the part of the accused persons. For the sake of convenience, I repeat the relevant St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 72 of 77 portion of the suicide note as under:
".... Hey Sai Baba, mera sara din larai mein gujarta hai. Rozroz larai hoti hai. Sai Baba aaj mere pati ne mujhse kuch maanga par main kaise doon kyonki vo apne maa baap ke bina nahin reh sakte main unke bina nahin rah sakti. Sai Baba par main unko unke maabaap se milva kar itni door chali jaaungi ki jahan swe koi vapas nahin aata main bhi nahin aaungi. Sai Baba aaj tak jo manga hai vo diya hai. Ab mainne jo maanga hai vo bhi de do. Sai Baba main kisi ke taane nahin sunsakti. Sai Baba mujhe aisi maut de do jo mujhe kabhi bhi kisi ko na di ho........"
(89) It is writ large from the aforesaid that the deceased had not made even a whisper of any demand of dowry or harassment in the said note. She had specifically alleged that there were frequent disputes and quarrels but does not mention whether they were with her inlaws or with her husband. All the family members of the deceased admitted that the quarrels/ disputes between the deceased and Aman were those which normally takes place in the family, which aspect finds a support from the suicide note. It is borne out from the the above suicide note that the deceased Kanchan perhaps wanted to live separately from her inlaws whereas her husband Aman Kapoor was insisting upon staying in the joint family along with his parents, which appear to be the main cause for the dispute or else there would be no reason for her to have mentioned "..... aaj mere pati ne mujhse kuch maanga par main kaise doon kyonki vo apne maabaap ke bina nahin reh sakte main unke bina nahin rah sakti. Sai Baba par main unko unke maa baap se milva kar itni door chali jaaungi ki jahan swe koi vapas nahin aata St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 73 of 77 main bhi nahin aaungi....". It is this which now finally clinches the entire issue and creates a dent in the case of the prosecution with regard to the harassment and demand for dowry. I may observe that 'Harassment' as contemplated under Section 498A Indian Penal Code includes both Mental and Physical. However, the postmortem report of the deceased does not show any sign of injury on the body of the deceased to substantiate the allegations that she had been beaten before the incident. (90) Not every case of unnatural death of a woman within seven years of marriage is on account of harassment or demand of dowry. There can be many other reasons which can be attributed to this extreme act committed by the deceased/ victim compelling her to take her own life which would be peculiar to each case. In the present case it is clear from the evidence which has come on record in the form of oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased Kanchan Kapoor had committed suicide by hanging herself at her matrimonial home but the prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment by the accused Anjana Kapoor, Mayank Kapoor, Brij Mohan and Shilpa. Also the prosecution has failed to establish any proximity or live link between the death of Kanchan Kapoor or any misconduct by the accused. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the role of the above accused in the commission of the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt nor there is anything on record to show that the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide on account of St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 74 of 77 conduct of the accused or cruelty inflicted upon her.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS (91) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(92) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that the identity of the accused stands established, the accused Anjana Kapoor is the mother in law of the deceased Kanchan Kapoor; accused Mayank Kapoor is the Jeth; accused Brij Mohan Kapoor is St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 75 of 77 the father in law and accused Shilpa is the sisterinlaw (Nanand) of the deceased Kanchan Kapoor. It also stands established that the marriage of the deceased Kanchan Kapoor was solemnized with Aman Kapoor on 8.1.2011 which was a love marriage. It also stands established that Kanchan died an unnatural death by hanging herself on 21.5.2011 i.e. within seven years of marriage (precisely within Four months of the marriage) and the cause of death was due to asphyxia consequent upon compression of neck due to antemortem hanging which is suicidal in nature.
(93) However, the allegations against the accused Anjana Kapoor, Mayank Kapoor, Brij Mohan and Shilpa of infliction of cruelty or causing harassment to the deceased in connection with demand of dowry, do not stand established beyond reasonable doubt. The deceased had committed suicide at her matrimonial house but prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment by the accused persons. Also, the prosecution has failed to establish any proximity or live link between the death of Kanchan Kapoor or any misconduct by the accused. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the role of the above accused in the commission of the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt nor there is anything on record to show that the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide on account of conduct of the accused.
(94) I hereby hold that the circumstances reflected from the material on record do not stand conclusively established. The facts are also are not St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 76 of 77 consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The chain of evidence is not so much complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused persons. The material brought on record by the prosecution are insufficient to hold that each of the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Further, each circumstance has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also not been able to establish a conclusive link connecting each individual circumstance with the other, and the accused. Crucially, the material and evidence on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a court to record a finding of guilt of the accused. Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Anjana Kapoor, Mayank Kapoor, Brij Mohan and Shilpa, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to them who are acquitted of the charges under Section 498A/304B/34 and alternatively under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Their sureties be discharged as per rules.
(95) File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 4.1.2014 ASJII(NW)/ROHINI St. Vs. Anjana Kapoor Etc., FIR No. 159/11, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 77 of 77