Delhi District Court
State vs . on 4 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUESH KUMAR GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04 & SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
SOUTHEAST: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
SC No. 291 of 2018
State
Vs.
1) Virender Singh,
S/o Sh. Inderpal Singh
R/o 3211/72,, E2, 2nd Floor,
IIIrd, 60 Foota Road,
Molarband Extension,
Badarpur New Delhi.
2) Inderpal Singh,
S/o Sh. Madan Mohan Singh ,
R/o 3211/72, E2, 2nd Floor,
IIIrd, 60 Foota Road,
Molarband Extension,
Badarpur, New Delhi
3) Smt. Rajwati
W/o Inderpal Singh,
R/o 3211/72, E2, 2nd Floor,
IIIrd, 60 Foota Road,
Molarband Extension,
Badarpur, New Delhi .......Accused
FIR No. 76/2018
PS : Badarpur
U/s. 498A/304B/34 IPC
Instituted on : 19.05.2018
Received on committal : 29.06.2018
Argued on : 23.08.2019
Decided on : 04.09.2019
State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.1 / 32
JUDGMENT
1 The brief facts of the prosecution case are like this. On 17.2.2018, DD No. 50A was received by SI Ved Prakash who alongwith Ct. Kamelsh went to Majidia Hospital(HAH Centenary Hospital), Hamdard Nagar, New Delhi where MLC of deceased was taken who was declared "brought dead" by the doctor. They came to know that on 24.2.2012 marriage of deceased Neeraj was solemnized with Virender Kumar who has hanged herself within 7 years of marriage. Sh. Mohinder Singh, Executive Magistrate was telephonically informed who told that he should be informed on the arrival of parents of the deceased. Crime Team was called. The crime team inspected the place of occurrence i.e. 3211/72, 2 nd Floor, E2, 3rd Sixty Foota Road, Molarband Extension, Badarpur. One Stol was and one mobile phone of deceased were recovered from the room. Two SIM Cards bearing No. 9717835797 and 7983577234 with IMEI Number 866343039434599 and 866343039434851 were found in the mobile phone. The stoll and mobile phone were taken in to possession vide separate recovery memos.
State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.2 / 32 2 On 18.2.2018 Sh. Rambir and Smt. Sangeeta, parents of the deceased came and their joint statement was recorded by Executive Magistrate. They gave the statement to the effect that on 29.2.2012 marriage of their daughter i.e. deceased Neeraj was performed with Virender. One son was born out of their wedlock. The deceased and Virender Singh started residing at Delhi after the marriage. On17.2.2018 at 4.30pm Virender has telephonically informed their younger son Brij Mohan that his sister has committed suicide who is in hospital. They alongwith their relatives came to Delhi and reached at 2.30am in hospital where no one from her inlaws were present.
3 On 17.2.2018 at 2pm she (Smt. Sangeeta) has called her daughter who told her while weeping that her husband has beaten her in the morning and disconnected the call. She called her again number of times but she did not pick the call. They have received the call in the evening about the suicide by her daughter. Prior to this case, their daughter has told her that Virender usually beats her. Her mother in law and jethani are instrumental in the quarrel between her and her husband. Her father in law Inderpal hurl filthy abuses to State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.3 / 32 their daughter. The inlaws of their daughter have started harassing the deceased after one year of the marriage. Their daughter used to tell them but they always made her understand. They were not aware that such a situation will come one day. Virender was working in a transport company in 2014 who has taken Rs. 50,000/ from the father (Sh. Rambir) of the deceased to purchase a canter. 4 On 6.2.2018 Virender has demanded Rs. 5 lakh from them but such an amount was beyond their capacity so they refused to give the same to him. They told him that they will make some arrangements in 24 months. They feel that the incident has taken place due to ill treatment of the inlaws of the deceased and her in laws are responsible for her death. Their joint statement has been recorded. The endorsement was made by SI Ved Prakash and FIR was got registered. The further investigation was handed over to Insp. Hoti Lal. He has recorded statements of witnesses. 5 The instructions were given by IO to SI Ved Prakash as a result dead body was shifted to Mortuary, AIIMS for postmortem. The dead body after postmortem was handed over to relatives of the deceased. The supplementary statements of Smt Sangeeta and State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.4 / 32 Rambir Singh were recorded.The IO went to the place of occurrence where Virender Singh, Inderpal and Rajwati met them who were interrogated by him. All of them were arrested. Statements u/s 161 CrPC were recorded by the IO. The notice u/s 91 CrPC was given to Brijmohan to produce the documents who gave the documents to the police. The CDR of the mobile phone of deceased were taken. On 17.2.2018 a call was made at 12:18pm for 23 seconds from phone no. 7983577234 to phone No.9105007708 and at 12.30pm from 9105007708 to phone No. 7983577234 for 33 seconds. The mobile No. 9105007708 belongs to the father of the deceased and mobile no. 7983577234 belongs to Sandeep being used by the brother of deceased. The postmortem report was taken. Statements u/s 161 CrPC were recorded. After the investigation, charge sheet u/s 498A/304B IPC was filed against the accused. 6 The accused have put their appearance. The copy of the challan and documents were supplied to them. The case was committed to the court of Sessions by Ld. MM vide order dated 29.6.2018.
7 After hearing, the charge under section 498A/304B IPC State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.5 / 32 was framed on 2.8.2018 against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8 The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. The accused have admitted MLC Ex. PA1 and PMR Ex. PA2 u/s 294 Cr.PC. Their statements to this effect were recorded. The prosecution evidence was closed. The accused were examined under section 313 Cr.PC. Their defence is of denial simplicitor. However, no defence evidence has been led by the accused. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 9 PW1 Sangeeta is mother of the deceased Neeraj. She has stated that on 24.2.2012 marriage of deceased was solemnized with accused Virender. Her daughter has started residing at Badarpur with her inlaws after the marriage. Her daughter used to talk to her on telephone from her matrimonial home. She used to tell that her jethani Preeti beats her and her mother and father in law used to quarrel with her on petty household issues. She used to tell her that accused Virender used to beat her. She has told her on on her visit to her parental house and even on telephone that accused Virender demands money from her and sometimes demand Rs. 1 lakh from State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.6 / 32 her. Her husband has once given Rs. 50,000/ to accused Virender and this fact was told to her by her husband. Her husband has also given Rs. 50,000/ to accused Virender at Bus Stand, Etawah, UP. The mother and sister inlaw of her daughter used to pass the comments that she has brought insufficient dowry. On 18.2.2018 in between 12noon - 1pm her daughter has called her on the mobile phone of her son Brijmohan. She has also called her on her mobile phone from the mobile phone of Brijmohan. Her daughter was weeping through out the conversation. Her daughter has told that her husband Virender has beaten her. They tried to pacify their daughter and told her that they will come to her house. They tried to contact Virender who did not respond to the call. Accused Virender had answered the call at 4.30 pm and told that he will talk to them after sometime and disconnected the call. Accused Virender has informed at 5pm to her son that tumahri didi ne phansi lagali hai and her son has informed her. They left for Delhi and went to hospital. They went to PS on the same night. Her statement Ex. PW2/A was recorded on the next day which bears her signature at point A on each page. She was declared hostile and crossexamined by the State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.7 / 32 prosecution.
10 During crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State she admitted that on 17.2.2018 a call from accused Virender was received on the mobile phone of her son Brijmohan. On 17.2.2018 her daughter has talked to her on phone who told that accused Virender has mercilessly beaten her. She was weeping. Accused Inderpal used to give filthy abuses to her daughter. The inlaws have started harassing and beating the deceased after one year of the marriage. The deceased has tolerated all this in order to save her marriage.
11 In the year 2014 accused Virender has demanded Rs. 50,000/ from her husband to purchase a canter. On 6.2.2018 accused Virender has demanded Rs. 5 lakh from them but they told him that they cannot fulfill his demands. However, they will try to give such money in 24 months.
12 During crossexamination by the accused she stated that her husband is driver who earns about Rs. 12000/ per month. They were told before marriage that accused Virender is Manager in a Transport Company at Faridabad. Her daughter used to pick the State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.8 / 32 phone and sometimes her sister in law used to answer the call. She used to talk to her daughter after 23 days. Her daughter used to tell about the beatings and harassment given to her by her inlaws. They did not tell to the police or to the panchayat of their village or to any respectable of the society about harassment of her daughter from the accused. They used to talk to the jija of accused i.e. Jitender whenever they used to come to Delhi.
13 Accused Virender has never demanded any money or gold or silver from her or her husband on telephone. Accused Inderpal and Rajwati have never demanded any money or jewellery from her or from her husband. On 17.2.2018 she has talked to her daughter for 510 minutes. The suggestion is denied that she has spoken only for 32 seconds on that day or that only Brijmohan has spoken to the deceased on that day. On 17.2.2018 they did not talk to any of the relatives of the deceased. They did not lodge any complaint with the police. She did not tell this fact to her husband on telephone. She does not know the month and year when Rs. 1 lakh in all was given by her husband to the accused. She has told to the police and Magistrate that Rs. 50,000/ were given on two occasions State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.9 / 32 to the accused. Confronted with statement Ex. PW1/Aand statement u/s 161 CrPC dated 10.3.2018 where it is not so recorded. She does not remember how much amount was demanded by accused Virender from her and from her husband. The suggestion is denied that accused have never beaten her daughter or there was no demand of Rs. 5 lakh or 50,000/ from accused. The suggestion is denied that deceased was not maltreated.
14 PW13 Brijmohan is brother of deceased. He stated that on 24.2.2012 the marriage of his sister was solemnized with accused Virender. On 7.4.2018 he has handed over 3 CD of marriage Ex. PW13/24 and marriage card Ex. PW13/1 to the police which were taken into possession vide Fard Ex. PW11/F. On 10.4.2018 he has handed over 4 marriage photographs of deceased Ex. PW11/X1 to 4, one bill of Sandeep Electronics and furniture Ex. PW4/A, bill of Rajender Furniture Ex. PW3/A and receipt of Krishna Jewller Ex. PW12/A which were taken into possession by police vide Fard Ex. PW11/G. Her sister used to call on his mobile No. 9536458662 and one other mobile number. Her sister used to cry and used to tell him to give phone to her parents. During cross examination he State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.10 / 32 stated that he has received one call from her sister in the morning and thereafter his mother has called the deceased at 3pm. His sister wept and thereafter call was disconnected. His mother has also talked to deceased in the morning. He did not lodge any complaint from morning till 3pm with police. His mother has not disclosed anything to him regarding the conversation with deceased. He did not make any efforts to call his sister. He used to visit the house of his sister. He has once stayed for about one month. He did not notice any quarrel between his jija and deceased. (Vol. He has stayed only after 23 months of marriage). No transaction has taken place in his presence. His jija has never demanded any vehicle either from him or from his parents in his presence. His jija has taken money from his parents but he does not know the exact amount. The suggestion is denied that his parents used to demand money from his sister or jija. Pankaj is his brother who did not go to meet his jija in jail. The suggestion is denied that they have spoken for 29 seconds in the morning with the deceased.
15 PW14 Rambir Bhadoria is father of the deceased Neeraj. He stated that on 24.2.2012 the marriage of deceased was State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.11 / 32 solemnized with accused Virender. Smt. Preeti is sister in law of accused Virender. His daughter used to say in her matrimonial home at Delhi. On 17.2.2018 his son Brijmohan has received a call from accused Virender that deceased has committed suicide by hanging upon which all of them came to Delhi and went to hospital. The police had taken them to SDM. His statement Ex. PW7/A was recorded which bears his signature. The deadbody after postmortem was handed over to them. Neeraj was blessed with a son. There was no demand of dowry at the time marriage from the accused or his family members. There is no demand from the accused till the death of deceased. His daughter has never told him that she has been harassed or tortured by the accused on account of dowry demand or on any other score. He is not having any grievance against the accused. He has also told this fact to the SDM. He was declared hostile and crossexamined at length by the prosecution. 16 During crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State the suggestion is denied that his daughter has told him that accused Virender used to beat her at the instigation of accused Rajwanti and Preeti or that in 2014 he has given Rs. 50,000/ to accused Virender State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.12 / 32 for purchase of vehicle or on 6.2.2018 accused Virender has demanded Rs. 5 lakh from him and he has refused to give the same or that he has told to the authorities that death of Neeraj has taken place due to wrong behaviour of accused or accused Inderpal used to abuse his daughter or that on 17.2.2018 his wife has told him that deceased has told her that accused Virender has given beatings to her. He is confronted with his statement Ex. PW7/A and statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC. The suggestion is denied that he has compromised with the accused and deposing falsely to save them. 17 No crossexamination was done by the accused though opportunity was given.
18 PW9 Sandeep Singh stated that Brijmohan is his childhood friend. He has got issued SIM No. 7983577234 in his name and handed over to Brijmohan. He came to know upon receipt of summons of this case that Brijmohan has given this number to his sister Neeraj. Ex. PW2/F is the CAF of his SIM number. 19 PW3 Rajender Kumar stated that he is running a furniture shop under the name and style of Rajender Furniture at Nehar Bazar, Mandoli, Etawah, UP. On24.2.2012 Rambir Singh State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.13 / 32 Bhadoria has purchased furniture of Rs. 51500 from his shop on the marriage of his daughter. He has issued the receipt Ex. PW3/A. 20 PW4 Sandeep Kumar stated that he is running a Electronic and furniture shop under the name and style of Sandeep Electronic and Furniture at Naya Nehar Pul, Lakhna, Etawah, UP. On 22.2.2012 Rambir Singh Bhadoria has purchased electronic items of Rs. 42500 from his shop for the marriage. He has issued the receipt Ex. PW4/A. P 21 PW12 Kirshan Soni stated that he is running a jewellery shop under the name and style of Kirshna Jewellers at Maheshwari Mohalla, Lakhna, Distt. Etawah. He knows Rambir who is resident of neighbouring village. Rambir has purchased gold and silver jewellery of Rs. 68238 and 3894 from his shop for marriage of his daughter. He has issued the receipt Ex. PW12/A which bear the rubber stamp of his shop. During crossexamination he stated that on 11.4.2018 he has issued the receipt Ex. PW12/A which also shows the name of buyer.
22 PW2 Yatin Chawla is Nodal Officer of Reliance Jio. He stated that he has been summoned to produce the record from State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.14 / 32 16.2.2018 till 18.2.2018 wrt mobile phone no. 7983577234. The application Ex. PW2/A was received from the IO. The said mobile number is in the name of Sandeep Singh. Ex. PW2/Bto E are the CAF, CDR, Cell ID chart and certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act wrt to said mobile number. The said documents were provided by Kamal Kumar, Nodal Officer to the police. The CAF, CDR,Cell site ID Chart are Ex. PW2/F which are in the court record. The certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW2/G bears the signature of Kamal Kumar and he identifies the same. 23 PW10 Ajay Kumar Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel stated that he has brought the summoned record of mobile No. 9717835797 from 16.2.2018 till 18.2.2018. The record of mobile number was provided to police on receipt of application u/s 91 CrPC by Sh. Chander Shekhar Tiwari. The said mobile is in the name of Virender Singh. The CAF, CDR, Cell ID Chard and certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act are Ex. PW10/A to D. 24 PW7 Sh. Mohender Singh, Executive Magistrate stated that on 17.2.2018 he has telephonically received information about the unnatural death of Neeraj from SI Ved Parkash who visited the State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.15 / 32 spot where he was informed that dead body was shifted to hospital. On 18.2.2018 he has gone to Heritage Apartment, Sector11, Dwarka where Smt. Sangeeta and Sh. Rambir Bhadoria, parents of deceased, met him. Their joint statement Ex. PW7/A was recorded on which endorsement Ex. PW7/B was made and forwarded to SHO. He has given an authority letter Ex. PW7/C to IO for postmortem of deceased by filling inquest papers. The dead body after postmortem was handed over to relatives of deceased.
25 PW6 ASI Kaptan Singh has proved FIR Ex. PW6/A, endorsement Ex. PW6/B on the rukka and certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW6/C. 26 PW8 SI Lakhmi Chand stated that on 17.2.2018 he was incharge Mobile Crime Team, SouthEast, New Delhi. On that day he has received a call from IO upon which he alongwith Ct. Amit and Anand reached on the spot. One stol was lying on bed. Deceased was already shifted to hospital. He has inspected the spot and prepared his report Ex. PW8/A. 27 PW11 SI Ved Prakash stated that on 17.2.2018, DD No. 50A regarding admission of a lady brought dead in Majidia Hospital State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.16 / 32 was recorded and handed over to him upon which he alongwith Ct. Kamelsh went to Majidia Hospital(HAH Centenary Hospital), Hamdard Nagar, New Delhi where MLC of deceased was taken who was declared "brought dead" by the doctor. Accused Virender met him in the hospital and told that on 24.2.2012 his marriage with deceased was solemnized who has hanged herself in the house. Sh. Mohinder Singh, Executive Magistrate was telephonically informed who told that he should be informed on the arrival of parents of the deceased. He came back to the spot. Crime Team was called. The crime team inspected the place of occurrence i.e. 3211/72, 2 nd Floor, E2, 3rd Sixty Foota Road, Molarband Extension, Badarpur and also took the photographs. One Stol and one mobile phone of deceased with two SIM Cards bearing No. 9717835797 and 7983577234 were sealed in a pullanda with seal VP and taken in to possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW11/B. He came back to PS and deposited the case property in Malkhana.
28 On 18.2.2018 Sh. Rambir and Smt. Sangeeta, parents of the deceased came to the PS. He has informed the Executive Magistrate who told him to bring them in the office of Society, State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.17 / 32 Heritage Apartments, Plot No. 10, Sector 11, Dwarka, New Delhi. The joint statement of parents of deceased was recorded by Executive Magistrate and forwarded to SHO for necessary action. He was directed by Executive Magistrate to get the postmortem done vide letter Ex. PW7/C. The endorsement Ex. PW11/C was made by him and FIR was got registered. The further investigation was handed over to Insp. Hoti Lal. The dead body was shifted to Mortuary, AIIMS for postmortem at the instance of the IO. The dead body was identified by the brother of deceased vide memo Ex. PW11/D. The dead body after postmortem was handed over to relatives of the deceased vide memo Ex. PW11/E. On 7.4.2018 Brijmohan, brother of deceased, has handed over 3 CDs and one marriage card which were taken into possession Ex. PW11/F. On 10.4.2018 Brijmohan has handed over 4 photographs of the marriage Ex. PW11/X14, bill of Sandeep Electricals Ex. PW4/A, bill of Rajender Furniture Ex. 3/A and bill of Krishna jeweller which were taken into possession vide Fard Ex. PW11/G. The identity of the case property is not disputed by Ld. Defence Counsel. 29 During crossexamination by the accused he admitted State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.18 / 32 that accused Virender has taken the deceased to Majidia Hospital. The suggestion is denied that Ex. PW1/A is not the true version of the parents of the deceased or parents of deceased were tutored before recording their statement or that parents and relatives of the deceased told him that they do not want any action against the accused as they have never demanded and treated the deceased with cruelty or that he has not properly carried out the investigation or bills are forged and fabricated. Executive Magistrate has not visited the spot in his presence.
30 PW15 Insp. (Retired) Hoti Lal stated that on 18.2.2108 the investigation of the case was handed over to him upon which he recorded statement of SI Ved Prakash and directed him to go for the postmortem on body of deceased. On 20.2.2018 he alongwith Ct. Ramji Lal and L/Ct. Sarita visited the place of occurrence where accused met them who were interrogated and arrested. Their personal search and arrest memos Ex. PW5/AtoD and Ex. PW15.A and B were prepared. The disclosure statement Ex. PW5/E of accused Virender was recorded. On 7.4.2018 and 10.4.2018 Brij Mohan, brother of deceased Neeraj, has produced 3 CD, one State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.19 / 32 marriage card, 4 photographs and 3 bills which were taken into possession vide Fard Ex.PW11/F and G. He has collected CAF and CDR of mobile phone no. 9105007708 and 7983577234, PMR of deceased, recorded statements u/s 161 CrPC, prepared charge sheet and filed in the Court. During crossexamination he stated that on 19.2.2018 he has met the parents of deceased in the PS. The suggestion is denied that he has of his own recorded the statements of parents of deceased as they never wanted any action against the accused or bills are forged and fabricated which were obtained by pressuring the shopkeepers or that he is deposing falsely. 31 PW5 Ct. Ramji Lal has corroborated the version of PW15.
ARGUMENTS 32 Ld. Addl.PP for the State submitted that accused used to harass and beat the deceased. He further submitted that accused Virender used to demand Rs. 1 lakh from the deceased and even Rs. 1 lakh has been given to accused Virender by father of deceased. He further submitted that deceased used to tell her mother i.e. PW1 State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.20 / 32 about the harassment, taunt for bringing insufficient dowry and beatings given to her by the accused on telephone. He further submitted that there is an unnatural death of the deceased within 7 years of the marriage regarding which no explanation has been furnished by the accused and there is presumption that a dowry death has taken place.
33 Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that there was no demand of dowry on the part of accused. He further submitted that there is nothing on record that deceased was ever tortured or beaten on account of bringing insufficient dowry or to meet out any demand. He further submitted that family members of the deceased i.e. PW13 and 15 have not supported the case of prosecution and there is nothing on the record that there was any dowry demand soon before the death of the deceased.
34 Heard and perused the record.
Law relating to Section 304B IPC.
35 Section 304B. Dowry Death (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.21 / 32 than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation For the purpose of this subsection, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.' 41 In order to attract application of Section 304B IPC, the essential ingredients are as follow:
(i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance.
(ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.
(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.22 / 32 husband or any relative of her husband.
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.
(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
36 Section 113B Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Presumption as to dowry death - When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation. For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
37 In Manohar Lal v. State of Haryana, 2014 SCC Online Supreme Court 507 it is held by their lordship that soon before as an expression which permits of elasticity and therefore proximity test State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.23 / 32 has to be applied keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. The facts must show the existence of proximate live link between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of victim.
38 In Satvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 633 wherein it was held as under :
"21. 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 the 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 State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.24 / 32 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 IPC should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage.
22. It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman if Section 304B is to be invoked. But it should have happened "soon before her death". The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words "soon before her death" is to emphasis the, idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.25 / 32 of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval on that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept "soon before her death".
39 The evidence adduced by the prosecution has to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited case.
FINDINGS 40 On 24.2.2012 the marriage of deceased Neeraj has taken State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.26 / 32 place with the accused Virender Singh at village Aakurpur, Distt. Etawah, UP. They have started residing at Delhi after the marriage. The coaccused are mother and father in law of deceased who also used to reside with them. On 18.2.2018 the unnatural death of deceased has taken place. The death has taken place within 7 years of the marriage.
41 The prosecution u/s 304B IPC cannot escape from the burden of proof that victim was subjected to harassment or cruelty by the accused in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death.
42 PW1 Smt. Sangeeta, PW14 Rambir Badhori and PW13 Brij Mohan are parents and brother of deceased. The parents of the deceased have purchased the articles including jeweller articles for marriage from PW3 Rajinder Kumar, PW4 Sunil Kumar and PW12 Kishan Soni.
43 The mobile No. 7983577234 stands in the name of PW9 Sandeep Singh who has given the same to PW13 who in tern has given the same to deceased.
44 PW2 Yatin Chawla and PW10 Ajay Kumar have State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.27 / 32 provided the CAF, CDR and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act of mobile no. 7983577234 and 9717835797 to the police. 45 PW7 Mahender Singh is the Executive Magistrate. PW11 SI Ved Prakash and PW 15 Insp. Hoti Lal have carried out investigation of the case.
46 PW1, 13 and 14 are closely related to the deceased. Their testimony is material to determine the guilt of the accused. 47 The testimony of PW1 shows that accused Virender used to beat the deceased. She has not deposed about the reasons of giving alleged beating by accused Virender to deceased. Her testimony shows that accused Inderpal and Rajwati used to quarrel with deceased on petty household issues. This is an ordinary wear and tear of life and quarrel on household issues do take place but this cannot be connected with any demand of dowry.
48 The testimony of PW1 further shows that accused Virender used to demand Rs. 1 lakh from the deceased. Her testimony nowhere shows that accused Virender used to harass and beat the deceased on her failure to bring Rs. 1 lakh. She has nowhere deposed that cruel treatment was given to the deceased for State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.28 / 32 her failure to meet the demand. Mere demand of money by itself is no cruelty. Mere harassment is no cruelty. The harassment for the purposes of coercing the deceased to meet the unlawful demand tentamounts to cruelty but this aspect is missing from the testimony of PW1.
49 PW1 is not supported by PW13 & 14 even on this aspect.
50 The testimony of PW1 shows that her husband has given Rs. 50,000/ on two occasions to the accused Virender. Her testimony further shows that this fact has been told to her by her husband. PW14 is husband of PW1. PW14 has nowhere corroborated the version of PW1. He has been declared and cross examined by the prosecution at length but the prosecution has failed to bring anything against the accused. PW13 is son of PW1. He has nowhere deposed that accused used to beat and harass his sister or they have given Rs. 50000/ on two occasions to the accused Virender. The testimony of PW1 does not find corroboration from testimony of PW14.
51 The testimony of PW1 shows that mother in law of the State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.29 / 32 deceased used to taunt the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry. Mere taunt of bringing insufficient dowry does not come within the ambit of dowry demand.
52 It is clear from the evidence on record that on the day of incident PW1 has spoken to the deceased on the mobile phone. The deceased was weeping and told that accused Virender has beaten her. The deceased has not disclosed the reason of beating given by accused Virender to PW1. This part of her testimony nowhere establishes the fact that the beating was for nonfulfilling of any demand of dowry.
53 The testimony of PW1shows that accused have never demanded any money or gold or silver items from her or from her husband in her presence. The testimony of PW13 shows that accused Virender has never demanded any money from her parents. No money transaction has taken place in his presence. PW 14 has nowhere deposed that accused have ever raised any demand of dowry from him. His testimony further shows that deceased has never told him about the harassment or torture. It is clear from their testimony the accused have not raised any demand of money or any State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.30 / 32 other articles with PW1, PW13 and PW14.
54 The parents of deceased have never confronted the accused about the alleged beating or harassment given to deceased by them. There is no explanation why such a step was not taken by them. Further, they have not given any complaint to the police for the reasons best known to them.
55 The testimony of PW1 nowhere shows that there was any demand of dowry soon before the death of her daughter. PW14 has not supported the case of prosecution.
56 The prosecution cannot advance its case from the testimony of official witnesses when the main prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution.
57 There is no evidence on record that there was any cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased.
58 Keeping in view my aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The accused are acquitted of the offence charged.
State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.31 / 32 59 The accused are directed to furnish personal bonds with surety bonds of Rs.20,000/ each u/s 437A Cr.PC. 60 Bonds furnished and accepted.
61 File be consigned to Record Room.
announced in the open court on 4th September, 2019 (SURESH KUMAR GUPTA) ASJ04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS) SouthEast District Saket Courts, New Delhi State Vs. Virender Singh etc - SC No. 291/18 Page No.32 / 32