Delhi District Court
Fir No. 431/16 State vs . Amar Singh And Ors. Page No. 1 Of 31 on 17 November, 2020
SC No. 60/17 1 17.11.2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN GUPTA : ADDITIONAL
SESSION JUDGE - 03 : NORTH WEST DISTRICT :
ROHINI : DELHI
SC No. 60/17
FIR NO. 431/16
PS Kanjhawala
U/s. 498A/304B/34 IPC
State
Vs
Amar Singh & ors.
CNR No. DLNW01- 000874-2017
(a) Session Case No. 60/17
(b) Date of offence 11.10.2016
(c) Accused 1. Amar Singh
S/o Meva Lal
R/o Village Nibadi
Kala, PS Bakewar,
Tehsil Bharthana, Dist
Itawa (UP)
2. Jagmohan S/o
Hakim Singh
3. Anita W/o
Jagmohan
Both R/o H.no.114,
FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 1 of 31
SC No. 60/17 2 17.11.2020
Gali no.1, Sainik
Enclave, Mohan
Garden, PS Uttam
Nagar.
(d) Offence u/S 498A/304-B/34
IPC
(e) Plea of accused Not Guilty
(f) Final Order Accused persons
are acquitted of the
charge of offences
under S. 498A/34
IPC and 304B/34
IPC.
(g) Date of institution 28.01.2017
(h) Date when judgment 28.10.2020
was reserved
(I) Date of judgment 17.11.2020
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons are facing trial for the offences u/s 498-A/304B/34 IPC.
FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 2 of 31
SC No. 60/17 3 17.11.2020
BRIEF FACTS
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.10.2016, on receipt of DD no. 4A, SI Sapan alongwith Ct. Naresh Kumar went to Utsav Vihar, Karala, Delhi, where they found that the room at the first floor was locked from inside. They saw from the window of the room that Rajni W/o Late Pradeep Kumar was hanging with dupatta. Her son Ayush aged 4 years and one infant who were sleeping inside the room were awakened by Amar Singh. Her elder son Ayush opened the lock of the room from inside. It was found that Rajni had hanged herself with the help of chunni on the wall of the room. The other police officials alongwith Inspector Dinesh and crime team also reached at the spot. Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar was informed about the incident.
2.1 The statement of the brother of deceased namely Shyam Singh was recorded by the Tehsildar, who stated that his sister Rajni was married with Pradeep Kumar according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After her marriage, her in-laws used to harass her for demand of dowry. Due to this reason Rajni and her husband FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 3 of 31 SC No. 60/17 4 17.11.2020 alongwith their children started living at Delhi. Rajni was harassed by Amar Singh, her sister in law Anita @ Appi and her husband Jagmohan. The husband of his sister namely Pradeep had expired on 01.07.2016 at Delhi due to heart attack. His sister alongwith her husband was living on rent at Utsav Vihar, Karala. After the death of Pradeep, Amar Singh, Appi and Jagmohan started living with his sister in her house at Karala on rent. His sister had called him over phone 2-3 days ago and had told him that her in laws are torturing her and are threatening to throw her out of the house. There were two LIC policies in the name of the husband of his sister and her in-laws wanted to take the money of the said two LIC policies. On 11.10.2016, at around 3 am in the night, he received the call from father in law of Rajni that she had committed suicide by hanging. He immediately alongwith his relatives reached Utsav Vihar, Karala and saw that his sister Rajni had hanged herself with chunni on the wall of the room. One suicide note was recovered from her room wherein she had leveled allegations against her in laws.
2.2 The dead body of the deceased Rajni was
FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 4 of 31
SC No. 60/17 5 17.11.2020
sent to SGM Hospital Mortuary alongwith the chunni which was used by the deceased to hang herself. The upper part of the sardine and the suicide note of the deceased was taken by the police. FIR U/s 498A/304B/34IPC was registered against the accused persons and chargesheet was filed against them after due investigation.
3. The Ld. MM after taking cognizance of the offence and due compliance of provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the present matter to the Court of Sessions, which was subsequently assigned to the present court.
CHARGE
4. After hearing arguments on point of charge and finding a prima facie case against accused persons, requisite charge U/s 498-A/304B/34 IPC were framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 5 of 31
SC No. 60/17 6 17.11.2020
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses.
5.1 PW 1 is Ct. Anil. He deposed that on 11.10.2016, he was posted as Photographer at Crime Team, Outer District. On receipt of information, he alongwith SI Akash and other staff reached at the spot and on the directions of IO and In-charge Crime Team, he took 11 photographs of the spot from different angles. Later on, he handed over 11 photographs of the spot including the photographs of the deceased hanging with a small window/ventilator of the wall of the room. He has proved negatives of all the photographs collectively as Ex.PW1/P1. There are only four photographs in judicial record which are Ex.PW1/P2 to Ex.PW1/P5. His chief was deferred for producing the remaining 7 photographs but they were never produced.
5.2 PW-2 is Ct. Naveen. He deposed that on 02.12.2016, he was posted as Asstt. Draftsman, Mapping FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 6 of 31 SC No. 60/17 7 17.11.2020 Section, Outer District, Sector-2, Rohini. He proved the scaled site plan of the place of incident as Ex.PW2/A. 5.3 PW-3 is ASI Jitender. He deposed that on 11.10.2016, he was working as Duty Officer at PS Kanjhawala. At 3:21 am, an information was received through wireless operator that daughter in law of the caller (number 8586004049) was hanging. The said information was reduced in Daily Diary Register vide DD No. 4-A Ex.PW3/A. 5.4 PW4 is SI Akashdeep. He deposed that on 11.10.2016, he was posted at Crime Team Office, Outer District. On that day, on receipt of the call at about 4:25am, he alongwith Ct. Anil, Photographer and other crime team members reached at the spot at House of Dilbagh Singh, Bank wali Gali, Utsav Vihar, Karala, Delhi where IO SI Sapan alongwith other staff met them. At the instructions of the IO, he inspected the spot and found that a lady whose name was disclosed as Rajni W/o Late Sh. Pradeep, was hanging on a net of bricks on the wall with the help of a pink colour stoll (Chunni). One FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 7 of 31 SC No. 60/17 8 17.11.2020 notebook was also found on the spot and a suicide note was written in the said notebook. He got the spot photographed through Ct. Anil. He further deposed that on his instructions, IO had seized the notebook containing the suicide note and stoll (Chunni). He proved his inspection report as Ex.PW4/A .
5.5 PW-5 is Dr. Manoj Dhingra. He proved PM report as Ex.PW5/A and his opinion with respect to the chunni as Ex.PW5/B. 5.6 PW-6 is Ct. Gajraj and PW-12 is Ct.
Naresh. They deposed that on 11.10.2016, they were posted at PS Kanjhawala as constable and joined the investigation with the IO Inspector Kamal Singh. After alighting the body of deceased, the piece of the chunni which was found tied with the hollow portions of the wall made for ventilation as well as one note book containing suicide note and pen were seized by the IO after preparing two separate pullandas vide seizure memos Ex. PW12/A and PW12/B. Thereafter, IO SI Sapan handed over DD entry 4-A, Inspection report and two FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 8 of 31 SC No. 60/17 9 17.11.2020 exhibits (sealed pulandas) in sealed condition which were deposited in malkhana. On 12.10.2016, they alongwith IO Inspector Kamal Singh went to SGM hospital, Mangol Puri where Executive Magistrate Sh. Praveen Kumar was present. Shyam Singh and Shiv Raj identified the dead body of deceased Rajni. After preparing the inquest papers, PM upon the dead body of deceased Rajni was conducted. Thereafter, dead body was handed over to Shyam Singh and other relatives. IO recorded the statement of Shyam Singh and Shiv Raj. Concerned doctor handed over one sealed pulanda alongwith one sample seal of SGM HOSPITAL MANGOL PURI DELHI containing piece of Chunni used for hanging. PW6 proved the above said pulanda sealed by the IO vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW6/A. He proved the arrest memo and personal search memos of accused Amar Singh as Ex. PW6/B and Ex. PW6/C and his disclosure statement as Ex.PW6/D. He deposed that on 24.10.2016, complainant Shyam Singh came to the PS and handed over original marriage card of Rajni with Pardeep Kumar. He proved copy of his Ration Card and Voter ID card as Ex. PW6/P-1, Mark PW6/X-1 and Mark PW6/X-2 respectively. All the above said documents were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/E. FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 9 of 31 SC No. 60/17 10 17.11.2020 5.7 PW-7 is Sh. Parveen Kumar, Executive Magistrate, Kanjhawala. He proved the statement of Shyam Singh as Ex. PW7/A. He further deposed that a suicide note was also recovered which was stated to be in the handwriting of deceased. He proved the body identification statements of Shyam Singh and Shiv Raj as Ex. PW7/B and Ex. PW7/C respectively. He proved Carbon copy of the handing over memo of the dead body as Ex.PW7/ D. 5.8 PW-8 is Sh. Shyam Singh @ Babu . He is brother of deceased Rajni. He proved his statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate on 11.10.2016 as Ex. PW8/A. He proved the Suicide note as Ex. PW8/B. He proved signatures of his sister Rajni on the account opening form and other documents of Purvanchal Bank, Nirwadi Kalan as Mark PW15/X on points encircled at A1 to A7. He further deposed that he received a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW13/B signed by him at point A and he had submitted a written reply of the said notice to SHO, PS Kanjhawala. He proved his said reply (running in three pages) as Mark PW8/X. He duly identified his signatures on various other documents. His testimony in FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 10 of 31 SC No. 60/17 11 17.11.2020 detail shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
5.9 PW-9 is Sh. Dilbagh Singh. He is the landlord of the place where the incident occurred and had rented it to deceased Rajni. He deposed that there were two rooms on the first floor of the said plot and one room he had given on rent, about two years prior to the present incident to Pradeep and he used to reside in the said room alongwith his wife Rajni and two children. Pradeep expired on 01.07.2016 due to illness. About two months prior to the death of Rajni, accused Anita @ Appi w/o accused Jagmohan alongwith her husband Jagmohan and one child started living in the adjacent room and accused Amar Singh started living alongwith Rajni in the room of Rajni. In the night of 11.10.2016, Rajni had hanged herself and thereafter, accused Jagmohan fled away from there. He proved seizure memo Ex.PW9/A vide which documents of his property Mark-PW9/X (six pages) were seized.
5.10 PW-10 is ASI Krishna Kumari. She proved Computerized copy of FIR as Ex. PW10/A, endorsement FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 11 of 31 SC No. 60/17 12 17.11.2020 on the original rukka as Ex. PW10/B and Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW10/C. 5.11 PW-11 is ASI Rajbir Singh. He deposed that on 11.10.2016, he was posted at PS Kanjhawala and was working as MHC(M). He proved the Copy of said entries (running in four pages) as Ex.PW11/A. 5.12 PW13 is Inspector Shailender Singh. He deposed that On 20.11.2016, he was posted at PS Kanjhawala as Inspector. On that day, further investigation of the present case was marked to him by the then SHO PS Kanjhawala Inspector Dharmabir. He collected the file from MHC(R) and perused the same. On 02.12.2016, he got prepared the scaled site plan, which was handed over to him later on by Ct. Naveen and same was made part of record. On 10.12.2016, he obtained two pullandas in sealed condition, containing one part of chunni each and moved an application Ex. PW13/A to Dr. Manoj Dhingra of Forensic Medicine of SGMH, Mangol Puri, Delhi, for obtaining his opinion regarding ligature material. Dr.Manoj Dhingara gave his written opinion as FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 12 of 31 SC No. 60/17 13 17.11.2020 Ex. PW5/B alongwith two sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of SGMH. Opinion of the doctor was made part of the record and the said pullandas in sealed condition were again deposited into Malkhana. On 11.10.2016, he served notice u/s. 91 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW13/B to complainant Shyam Singh @ Babu Singh. On14.12.2016, due to his transfer from PS Kanjhawla, he handed over the case file to MHC(R). In the month of May, 2017 he was again transferred to PS Khanjhawala and the present case was again marked to him for further investigation. On 21.06.2017, he prepared a notice u/s. 91 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW13/C addressed to Branch Manager, Poorvanchal Bank, Niwari Kalan, Teshil Bharthana, Distt. Etawah, U.P. for obtaining admitted handwriting of deceased Rajni. On 07.07.2017, the said documents containing the admitted handwriting of deceased Rajni alongwith the questioned document, i.e., suicide note were deposited by me in FSL Rohini for obtaining the opinion of handwriting expert. On the same day, after perusal of the admitted handwriting, handwriting expert of Rohini FSL was of the view that admitted writing is not sufficient and instructed to provide admitted writing/exclusive writing for examination and opinion and the admitted as well as questioned documents were returned vide his FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 13 of 31 SC No. 60/17 14 17.11.2020 letter/objection form dated 07.07.2017 marked PW13/X. Thereafter, he called complainant Shyam Singh @ Babu Singh and asked him to supply some more admitted handwriting of deceased Rajni but, he showed his inability to supply the same. Thereafter, he prepared supplementary chargesheet against Jagmohan and Anita and filed the same in the Court.
5.13 PW14 is Dinesh. He deposed that on 11.10.2016, he was posted at PS Kanjhawala as ATO. He alohgwith SI Sapan and Ct. Naresh visited the spot. On 22.12.2016, the case file of this case was marked to him for further investigation. He had prepared the Challan qua accused Amar Singh and sent to court through SHO. On 15.02.2017, he arrested accused Jagmohan and Anita @ Appi in the present case vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW14/B respectively. He also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Anita @ Appi Ex.PW14/C. He also sent a notice Ex.PW14/D to Branch Manager/In-charge, Purvanchal Bank, Bhartana Nawai Kalan, Distt. Etawa, UP for providing the details of the account of deceased Rajni Devi. Further investigation of this case was marked to Inspector Shailender Chauhan FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 14 of 31 SC No. 60/17 15 17.11.2020 and he handed over the supplementary case file to him.
5.14 PW-15 is ASI Anil Kumar. He deposed that on 22.06.2017, he was posted at PS Kanjhawala as ASI. He took the notice Ex.PW13/C to the bank manager who handed over him original documents pertaining to account no. 75037683464 and the same were seized vide seizure memo as Ex.PW15/A. He returned from Etawa and reached PS Kanjhawala in the morning of 24.06.2017 and handed over the copy of seizure memo and the documents received by him from the Manager to IO Inspector Shailender Singh. He proved the said documents marked as Mark-PW15/X. 5.15 PW16 is Sh. Krishan Chandra Porwal, Branch Manager, Purvanchal Bank, Niwadi Kalan, Post Niwadi Kalan, District Etawah, UP. He deposed that on 23.06.2017, on the request of ASI Anil Kumar of PS Kanjhawala, the then Branch Manager of Purvanchal Bank, Niwadi Kalan, Etawah, UP, Mr. Krishan Dev Tripathi had supplied the original account opening form alongwith other KYC documents of Account No. 75037683464 to ASI FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 15 of 31 SC No. 60/17 16 17.11.2020 Anil Kumar. He proved the account opening form (running in 04 pages) alongwith KYC documents namely copy Samanya Niwas Praman Patra and copy of Voter ID Card as Ex.PW16/A. 5.16 PW17 is SI Sapan. He being the IO of the case, proved the entire investigation. He identified the two pieces of Chunni as Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2.He identified the notebook and ball pen which were seized by him from the spot. The suicide note is already Ex.PW8/B and the ball pen as Ex.P-3.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons u/S 313 Cr.P.C was recorded after putting all the incriminating evidence on record, to which they pleaded innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.
ARGUMENTS
7. It is argued by ld. APP for the State that the FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 16 of 31 SC No. 60/17 17 17.11.2020 prosecution has proved that the accused persons being the father in law, sister in law and brother in law (nandoi) of the deceased, in furtherance of their common intention, subjected her to cruelty and harassed her by making illegal demands of dowry from her. The said demands continued from the date of marriage and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by them, soon before her death. It is submitted that the suicide note Ex.PW8/B is very clear in this respect and PW8 Sh. Shyam Singh, has categorically deposed that the deceased Rajni was harassed and subjected to cruelty by all the accused persons for illegal demands of dowry. It is prayed that all the accused persons be convicted for the offences u/S 498A/304B/34 IPC.
8. Per Contra, the ld. Defence counsel has argued that the prosecution has neither proved any demand of dowry nor any cruelty-mental or physical by the accused persons to deceased Rajni. It is further argued that in the suicide note Ex.PW8/B, there is not even a single allegation regarding the demand of dowry by the accused persons. It is further argued that PW8 is an interested witness being the brother of the deceased. Even he has FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 17 of 31 SC No. 60/17 18 17.11.2020 not deposed regarding any specific demand of dowry by any of the accused persons soon before the death of deceased Rajni. It is submitted that PW8 during his cross examination admitted that he and his deceased sister Rajni have never made any complaint in writing to any police authority against the accused persons or their family members. It is submitted that it seems that the deceased Rajni had committed suicide as she was depressed after the death of her husband who died due to heart attack in 2016. It is prayed that since the prosecution has failed to prove any case against the accused persons, all the accused persons be acquitted for all the offences.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
9. Heard ld. APP for the State, ld. Defence counsel and perused the complete record file. As per the postmortem report Ex.PW5/A, ligature mark was seen with width 1.5 cm & 30 cm long present above the thyroid eminence in midline of neck running upward & backward obliquely on both sides and absent over nape of neck. It was 6.8 cm below chin, 1.2 cm below right ear, FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 18 of 31 SC No. 60/17 19 17.11.2020 and 4.5 cm below left ear, subcutaneous tissue. PW5, the concerned doctor opined that the cause of death was Asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging with chunni as per his opinion Ex PW5/B. Thus, it is evident that the deceased Rajni expired in unnatural circumstances and her death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of ante- mortem hanging with the chunni. The allegations against the accused persons are that they harassed and tortured her with mental cruelty for not fulfilling their demand of dowry. In these circumstances, in order to prove the offence under Section 498A IPC against accused persons, the onus is upon prosecution to prove that deceased Rajni was subjected to cruelty by them. Further, in order to prove the offence under Section 304B IPC against accused persons, prosecution has to prove that soon before her death, deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by them, for or in connection with demand for dowry.
10. Section 498-A IPC reads as under:
"498-A. HUSBAND OR RELATIVE OF HUSBAND OF A WOMAN SUBJECTING HER TO CRUELTY:
FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 19 of 31 SC No. 60/17 20 17.11.2020 Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means
(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;
or
(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand"
11. Thus, term 'cruelty' for the purposes of section 498 A IPC is to be established in the context of S. 498 A IPC. It has to be determined by considering the conduct of the accused persons, weighing the gravity or seriousness of their acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the women to commit suicide. The prosecution has to establish that the FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 20 of 31 SC No. 60/17 21 17.11.2020 woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously or atleast in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. The emphasis is on any willful conduct which is of such a nature i.e. likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The mental cruelty which is engraved in the first limb of Section 498-A of the IPC has nothing to do with the demand of dowry. It is associated with mental cruelty that can drive a woman to commit suicide and dependent upon the conduct of the person concerned.
12. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the Suicide note of the deceased Ex. PW8/B and testimony of her brother Sh. Shyam Singh, who has been examined as PW8.
Suicide Note - its existence and discovery
13. The suicide note is stated to have been recovered from the same room where the body of the deceased Rajni was found hanging. It was seized by the IO on the same day. The suicide note is written on the last FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 21 of 31 SC No. 60/17 22 17.11.2020 page of the register which belonged to deceased Rajni. The said suicide note was sent to FSL, however, it was returned back with the objection that the admitted handwriting was not sufficient for examination or opinion on the suicide note. The concerned IO, issue notice to the brother of deceased Shyam Singh for providing further documents containing the admitted signatures/handwriting of deceased Rajni, however, he failed to provide any handwritten document of his late sister Rajni Devi. Thus, no report from the FSL was received with respect to the suicide note.
14. At this stage, it is argued by the ld. APP for the state that PW8, brother of deceased, during his examination in chief has identified the handwriting of his deceased sister Rajni on the suicide note. PW8 has deposed that the suicide note is in handwriting of Rajni and identified her writing as he had seen her writing and signing during the tenure she had resided with him i.e. prior to her marriage on many occasions.
FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 22 of 31
SC No. 60/17 23 17.11.2020
15. I have perused the suicide note Ex.PW8/B and also carefully perused the testimony of PW8. Except the testimony of PW8, the prosecution has not placed on record any document to prove that the suicide note Ex.PW8/B was written by deceased Rajni or that the same is in her handwriting. Even the FSL result could not be obtained on the said suicide note in the absence of sufficient documents containing admitted handwriting of deceased Rajni. Now coming to the contents of the suicide note. The suicide note Ex.PW8/B is reproduced verbatim as under:
"Mummy, mai to jaa rahi hun.
Bache dono sambhal ke rakhna. Inko apne saath hi dono ko litana. Apne bache kisi ko mat dena. Holi ke baad krishna ke sath school bhejna. Inko dono ko bichhadne mat dena, kyunki inke maa baap to chhoot gaye, ab inko tum mat chhodna, na kisi ke sath bhejna, apne sath hi rakhna, itni humari apse vinti hai.
Galti ko maaf karna.
Bhai ji meri mitti mummy pitaji ko zarur dikhana, kyunki woh dekhne ke liye FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 23 of 31 SC No. 60/17 24 17.11.2020 tadpenge. Kya kare bhai ye log mujhe taane dete rehte hai, ki mera beta kha liya. Appi kehti hai ki tune mera bhai kha liya, isliye mai majburi mein jaa rahi hun, sara kuch mere bachon ke naam kar dena."
16. On perusal of the said suicide note, it is evident that the deceased Rajni was depressed after the death of her husband. It is submitted by ld. APP for the State that from the said suicide note it is evident that the accused persons, who are her in laws instigated, annoyed and taunted her that she is the cause of the death of her husband. The argument of the ld. APP sounds ostensibly plausible but the fact remains that the court has to primarily see whether the accused persons treated the deceased Rajni with cruelty for demand of dowry and the said demand was made soon before her death which caused her death in unnatural circumstances. In the entire suicide note, there is not even a single allegation regarding any demand of dowry or harassment or cruelty by the accused persons for not fulfilling the illegal demand of dowry soon before the death of deceased FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 24 of 31 SC No. 60/17 25 17.11.2020 Rajni.
Whether deceased was subjected to cruelty by accused persons and that too for or in connection with any demand for dowry:
17. The main witness of prosecution is PW-8 Sh. Shyam Singh @ Babu. He is brother of deceased Rajni. He deposed that Rajni was married on 07.02.2011 with Pardeep S/o Amar Singh as per Hindu rites and rituals. After her marriage, her in laws namely Amar Singh, Anita @ Appi and Jagmohan started harassing her in connection with demand of dowry. His sister Rajni along with her husband Pradeep (since expired) started living at Delhi at the plot of Dilbag Singh S/o Surajbhan. His sister was having two children out of the said wed lock. Pradeep expired on 01.07.2016 due to heart attack at his residence situated at Utsav Vihar, Karala, Delhi. After the death of Pradeep, accused Amar Singh, Anita @ Appi and husband of Anita @ Appi namely Jagmohan Singh started living along with his sister Rajni at Utsav Vihar, Karala, Delhi. About 2 days prior to her death, his sister Rajni FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 25 of 31 SC No. 60/17 26 17.11.2020 telephonically informed him that the accused persons were harassing and torturing her and were threatening her to throw out of the house. She also informed him that the accused persons were planning to usurp the money of the LIC policy of Pradeep. It was either Saturday or Sunday when his sister telephonically told him said fact and he promised her that on Tuesday being his weekly off, he would come to her matrimonial home. However, on 11.10.2016, at about 3.00 am, accused Amar Singh telephonically informed his father at Auriya that Rajni had hanged herself. After receiving this information, his father telephonically informed him about the incident as at that time he was at Badarpur, Delhi. After receiving this information, he alongwith his other relatives reached at Utsav Vihar, Karala and saw that a loop of Chunni was there in the neck of his sister and she was in standing position by the side of a wall. One suicide note was also recovered from the said room in which Rajni had committed suicide. He deposed that his sister Rajni had committed suicide due to the cruelty and torture met by her at the hands of the accused persons in connection with the demands of dowry.
FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 26 of 31 SC No. 60/17 27 17.11.2020
18. PW8 in his entire statement recorded before the SDM and before the court, except for general taunting, has not leveled any material allegation regarding demand of dowry or consequent cruelty against any of the accused persons. There is no specific allegation of demand for dowry in the entire statement of PW8. The statement of PW8 and contents of suicide note Ex. PW8/B do not establish that there was any dowry demand from the accused persons. Therefore the alleged taunting cannot be meant to have been done with a view to coerce the deceased or her parents to meet any dowry demand. Hence, the alleged cruelty does not conform to explanation (b) given in Section 498A IPC.
19. Now, the next question is whether taunting/harassment as alleged by PW8 conforms to the explanation of cruelty as given in explanation (a) to Section 498A IPC. PW8 during his cross examination admitted that neither deceased Rajni nor any of their family members had lodged any complaint in writing against the accused persons. Though he volunteered that dispute between his sister Rajni and her in laws was FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 27 of 31 SC No. 60/17 28 17.11.2020 resolved due to intervention of the elders of the village, however at the same time, he admitted that he had not stated the said fact to the police during investigation. He further deposed that to his knowledge, Pradeep, deceased husband of his sister Rajni had two LIC policies, out of which, in one of the policies, his sister was nominee and in the other policy, father of Pradeep was nominee.
20. Thus, from the testimony of PW8 it is evident that neither the deceased nor any of her family members ever lodged any complaint regarding harassment meted out to her or her family members by any of the accused persons. The words in the suicide note "Appi kehti hai, tune mera bhai kha liya, isliye mai majburi mein jaa rahi hun", are not strong enough to drive someone to commit suicide. No evidence has come as to the nature and temperament of the deceased. Whether she was very sensitive, over sensitive or hyper-sensitive is also not clear and whether such sensitiveness was within the knowledge of the accused persons so as to infer that accused persons gave the alleged taunting knowing that said taunts would drive her to commit suicide.
FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 28 of 31
SC No. 60/17 29 17.11.2020
21. The prosecution has neither lead any evidence nor proved any specific instance of instigation against accused persons. There is no evidence on record to prove that the taunting regarding the death of Pradeep was being done continuously, with the intent to drive the deceased to commit suicide. There is no evidence about the specific manner and occasion when such taunting was done by accused Anita. There is also no evidence that accused Anita aided the deceased in any manner to commit suicide. Simply because, defence has failed to prove the reason for commission of suicide by the deceased, during their examination u/S 313 Cr.P.C., cannot lead to presumption that they must have tortured or treated the deceased with cruelty which drove her to commit suicide.
22. No doubt it is true that while looking for evidence regarding cruelty meted out to the deceased soon before her death, the standard of proof is not as that of beyond reasonable doubt but is of preponderance of FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 29 of 31 SC No. 60/17 30 17.11.2020 probabilities. However the evidence led in the present case by the prosecution so far as to prove the cruelty to the deceased by the accused persons soon before the death of the deceased, is not enough to accept even on the scale of preponderance also that deceased was subjected to cruelty and that too for or in connection with the demand for dowry. Though, the reason for the death of the deceased remained shrouded in mystery and it appears very easy to accept that she might have been subjected to cruelty on the basis of suspicion, but mere suspicion, howsoever grave it may be, is not enough to hold that deceased Rajni was subjected to cruelty and/or that too for or in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death. There is no sufficient material to hold that accused persons subjected the deceased to cruelty for or in connection with a demand for dowry, soon before her death.
23. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredient that deceased was subjected to cruelty, hence the presumption under section 113A as well as under section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be raised against accused persons FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 30 of 31 SC No. 60/17 31 17.11.2020 even though Rajni died within 7 years of her marriage by committing suicide.
24. Hence, on the basis of above discussion, all the three accused persons are hereby acquitted of the charge of offences under Section 498A/34 IPC and 304B/34 IPC for causing dowry death of deceased Rajni or abetting the deceased to commit suicide. All three accused persons shall furnish bond as required under Section 437A Cr.P.C. for a sum of Rs 10,000/- with one surety of like amount, for a period of six months. At request of ld. Defence counsel and considering the current pandemic situation, the bail bonds which are already on record are further extended for a period of 6 months.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the KIRAN GUPTA
open court on 17.11.2020 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS,
DELHI/17.11.2020
FIR No. 431/16 State Vs. Amar Singh and Ors. Page No. 31 of 31