Delhi District Court
State vs . 1.Dharmender Kumar S/O Sh on 28 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR ,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (WEST) , DELHI.
New Case No.56210/2016
Sessions Case No. 464/1/12
Assigned to Sessions on 31/05/12
FIR No. 291/2009
Police Station Uttam Nagar
Under Section 498A/304-B IPC
Charged Under Section 498-A/304-B IPC
State Vs. 1.Dharmender Kumar S/o Sh
Naresh Kumar R/O H. No. S-
16, Gali No.7/1, Vikas Nagar,
Delhi
2.Smt Laxmi W/o Sh Mukesh
Pandit R/O Village Dantiya
Distt Alwar, Rajasthan
Arguments heard on 27.04.2018
Date of Judgment 28.04.2018
Final Judgment Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. The case pertaining to the charge sheet being filed u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No. 291/2009, PS Uttam Nagar, Delhi for the alleged offence U/S 498A/304-B/34 IPC. The charge sheet was committed to the Ld. Sessions Judge (West), vide committal proceedings order of the Ld. MM and the accused persons were sent for the trial of offences U/S 498A/304-B/34 IPC .
S.C. No. 464/1/12 State Vs Darmender & Ors Page 1 of 19BRIEF FACTS
2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 16.09.2009, on receipt of DD No.15A, ASI Kailash Chand along with Ct Jai Prakash reached at H. No. S-2, Gali No.7/1, Vikas Nagar, Delhi where they came to know that deceased Ruchi W/o Dharmender was admitted in DDU Hospital on 13.09.2009 who has expired on 15.09.2009 at DDU Hospital. ASI Kailash Chand has informed the Senior Officers and SDM concerned. He has shifted the dead body of deceased Ruchi to mortuary of DDU hospital. The parents of deceased namely Surender Kumar (father) and Manju Devi (mother) were taken to the office of SDM, Patel Nagar, Delhi where their statements were recorded. Sh Surender Kumar, father of the deceased, has stated that his daughter Ruchi was married with accused Dharmender on 16.02.2004. In the marriage, he had given all the dowry articles as per his capacity. But later on the accused and his family members demanded some articles which they could not gave. After one year of marriage, his daughter informed that her mother-in-law Krishna Devi and Nanad Laxmi used to beat her for demand of money and motorcycle . He has stated that on 13.09.2009 he received a telephone call of Lekhraj, one of the relative of accused who informed him that Ruchi is admitted at DDU hospital. He along with his wife went at DDU Hospital. They noticed that the condition of their daughter Ruchi was quite deteriorated and she was not in a position to speak. They S.C. No. 464/1/12 State Vs Darmender & Ors Page 2 of 19 were informed by the doctor that Ruchi should have been admitted in the hospital in advance and her condition is critical. A day after, their daughter expired in the hospital.
3. After recording statement of the father and mother of the deceased, the investigation was taken up by S.I Ved Prakash. During the course of investigation accused Dharmender and Laxmi were arrested. The statements of witnesses were recorded U/S 161 Cr P C. The medical record of deceased was seized. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Ld. MM for the offence under section U/S 498-A/304-B/34 IPC. The Ld. MM took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of session for trial of the case and sent the accused Dharmender and Laxmi to face the trial, however, Smt Krishna Devi has expired on 20.06.2011 as per her death certificate hence proceeding against her stand abated.
CHARGE
4. Ld. Predecessor of this court, after considering the material on record and hearing the Addl. PP and Ld Counsel for the accused, found a prima facie case for the offence against accused persons namely Dharmender and Laxmi punishable U/S 498-A/304-B/34 IPC. Charges were accordingly framed vide order dt. 06.09.2012 against the accused persons to which accused persons have pleaded S.C. No. 464/1/12 State Vs Darmender & Ors Page 3 of 19 not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case has cited 29 witnesses and examined 21 witnesses including PW-1 Sh Surender Kumar, father of the deceased, PW2 Smt Manju, mother of the deceased as a star witnesses of the prosecution. Other witnesses cited in the list were police officials who participated during the course of investigations besides the medical witnesses who have examined or conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Jyoti.
6. The PW 1 Sh Surender Kumar, father of deceased has deposed that his daughter Ruchi was married with accused Dharmender 16.02.2004. In the marriage, he had given all the dowry articles as per his capacity. A motorcycle was demanded in the marriage by accused Dharmender, his mother Krishna Devi and his sister but he could not gave the motorcycle. Whenever he used to visit at the matrimonial house of his daughter, she used to complaint that she was beaten by her husband and other in laws on the point of demand of money and the motorcycle and her in laws used to say that if she ( deceased) wanted to reside there (matrimonial home) she has to fulfill their demands.
S.C. No. 464/1/12 State Vs Darmender & Ors Page 4 of 197. He has deposed that he received a telephone call of Lekhraj, a relative of deceased that Ruchi is admitted at DDU hospital. He along with his wife went at DDU Hospital. They noticed that the condition of their daughter Ruchi was quite deteriorated and she was not in a position to speak. Witness has deposed as stated in the document Ex. PW1/ A. He has identified the dead body of his daughter in the hospital.
8. PW2 Smt Manju, mother of the deceased has deposed that in the marriage of her daughter, she had given all the dowry articles as per her capacity. A motorcycle and the cash amount were demanded in the marriage by accused persons but they could not gave the motorcycle. She has deposed that her daughter used to complaint to her that she was beaten by her husband and other in laws on the point of demand of money and the motorcycle. She has deposed that she along with her husband went at DDU Hospital. They noticed that the condition of their daughter Ruchi was quite deteriorated and she was not in a position to speak. She has deposed that once or twice she and her husband visited the matrimonial house of Ruchi, in laws of Ruchi stated not to visit matrimonial house of Ruchi otherwise they would beat Ruchi.
9. PW3 Sh Parmod Kumar, SDM,Patel Nagar, who has S.C. No. 464/1/12 State Vs Darmender & Ors Page 5 of 19 recorded statement of Sh. Surender Kumar, father of the deceased. After recording the statement, he made endorsement, addressed to SHO, PS Uttam Nagar, Delhi to take action as per law. On 17.09.2009, he went to DDU Hospital, and prepared the inquest papers. He also recorded the identification statement regarding identification of the deceased.
10. PW4 Inspector Om Parkash has got issued process U/S 83 Cr P C against all the accused persons.
11. PW5 HC Jai Parkash has deposed that on 16.09.2009, on receipt of DD No 15A by ASI Kailash Chand he along with him went to the spot and taken the dead body from there and got it preserved at Mortuary, DDU Hospital.
12. PW6 ASI Kailash Chand has deposed that on receipt of DD No.15A he along with Ct. Jai Parkash went at H. No.S-2, Gali No.7/1, Vikas Nagar, where dead body of a lady namely Ruchi was lying in the veranda. He made inquiries and come to know that Ruchi was admitted at DDU Hospital on 13.09.2009 vide CR No.39549/09 and in the night of 15.09.2009, she expired. On the directions of SDM, Patel Nagar, Delhi he brought parents of Ruchi to the office of SDM. He directed Ct. Jai Parkash to take the dead body of Ruchi to DDU Hospital and get it preserved at Mortuary, S.C. No. 464/1/12 State Vs Darmender & Ors Page 6 of 19 DDU Hospital. He has handed over the dead body to the relative of deceased after getting done the postmortem on the dead body.
13. PW7 ASI Munesh Pal, the Duty Officer, has recorded FIR in the present case on the basis of tehrir vide Ex.PW7/A and after recording FIR gave copy of the FIR and original tehrir, after making his endorsement, to SI Ved Parkash. He has also proved the copy of DD No.15A.
14. PW8 HC Anil deposed that on 16.09.2009, on receipt of a call from Control Room, he along with SI Gulshan Kumar, Incharge, MCT and fingerprint proficient HC Udham Singh went at S-2, Gali No.7, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, where deadbody of a lady was lying in a street in front to aforesaid house. He took 5 photographs of the dead body from different angles.
15. PW 9 SI Ved Parkash has deposed that after registration of FIR the investigation of this case was marked to him. He made search for the culprits. On 10.11.2009, he collected PM report.
16. PW 10 Dr Tilak Raj has deposed that on 09.09.2009 patient namely Ruchi was admitted in Sparsh Hospital with S.C. No. 464/1/12 State Vs Darmender & Ors Page 7 of 19 the disease pulmonary Koch's and was discharged on 12.09.2009. Patient was referred to DDU hospital for extra opinion and further treatment. He has issued a certificate Ex PW9/A.
17. PW11 Dr N Solanki has deposed that on 13.9.2009, patient Ruchi was brought to the casualty of DDU Hospital and on the same day she was admitted in Department of Surgery under Dr A K Mongia. On 15.09.2009 she was operated by Dr Bal Mukund and Dr Anirudh. She remained admitted in ICU till 15.9.2009 where she expired at 11.30 pm. The death summary was prepared by Dr Amit Khwas, S.R Anesthesia posted in ICU.
18. PW 12 Dr Ajay Kumar, has brought the medical record of deceased and placed on record through document Ex PW12/A. As per record on 13.09.2019 Patient Ruchi was brought to the casualty and on 15.09.2009 she was operated by Dr Bal Mukund and Dr Anirudh. She remained admitted in ICU till 15.9.2009 where she expired at 11.30 pm.
19. PW13 ASI Devi Singh has deposed that on 12.06.2006 he was posted as Duty Officer at P S Paharganj from 8.00 am to 4.00 pm. At about 12.55 pm he received one information from the Control Room regarding a quarrel at S.C. No. 464/1/12 State Vs Darmender & Ors Page 8 of 19 Jhandewalan Saraswati Bal Vidhyala and he recorded DD entry 14-A, which is Ex PW13/A and the same was marked to HC Ishwar Singh who left for further action along with Constable Virender.
20. PW14 HC Ishwar Singh has deposed that on 12.06.2006 he received DD entry 14-A Ex PW13/A and he along with Constable Virender went to Saraswati Bal Vidhyala, Jhandewalan where one Ruchi had given one written request Ex PW14/A, regarding settlement of quarrel and he accordingly recorded DD entry 26-A Ex PW14/B.
21. PW15 Inspector Sanwar Mal, the investigating officer has deposed that on 21.03.2012, the investigation of this case was entrusted to him. On 27.03.2012 he arrested accused Dharmender vide arrest memo Ex PW15/A, and interrogated him and recorded Dharmender's disclosure statement vide Ex PW15/B. He has taken into possession the Medical paper of deceased Ruchi Ex PX1 (already Ex PW9/A) and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex PW15/C. He also got verified all the documents and recorded statements of concerned Doctors.
22. He has further deposed that on 14.05.2012 accused Laxmi was arrested vide Ex PW15/D as she surrendered herself and he interrogated her vide Ex PW 15/E. The witness has S.C. No. 464/1/12 State Vs Darmender & Ors Page 9 of 19 also took into possession one photograph of marriage of deceased with accused Dharmender which is already exhibited as Ex. PA and seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex PW1/B. He also collected and verified previous complaints/DD entry pertaining to disputes between the accused and deceased Ruchi. He also applied to MS DDU Hospital for obtaining case sheet of patient Ruchi vide Ex PW15/F and obtained death summary.
23. PW16 HC Sunil had also joined the investigation along with Inspector Samar Mal and accused were arrested in his presence vide Ex.PW15/A. He has also collected the death certificate of deceased Krishna.
24. PW17 is ASI Satish Kumar who has exhibited the process U/s 82 Cr.PC, against accused Krishna Devi, Dharmender and Laxmi.
25. PW18 is Dr. Angad Singh proprietor of Path Hospital, Dwarka Mor and deposed that deceased was checked by him on 07.09.2009 and he had prescribed the medicine to the deceased vide prescription Ex. PW18/A. The witness has also deposed that deceased was suffering from pulmonary koch's (TB Chest).
S.C. No. 464/1/12 State Vs Darmender & Ors Page 10 of 1926. PW19 is W/Ct. Arti, who has participated in the investigation and got arrested accused Laxmi vide arrest memo Ex. PW15/D. The personal search of accused Laxmi was conducted in her presence vide Ex. PW19/A. The accused Laxmi had also made disclosure statement in her presence which was recorded vide Ex. PW15/A.
27. PW 20 is Dr. B. N. Mishra who had given opinion regarding the cause of death of deceased Ruchi vide Ex. PW20/A and opined that the manner of death was natural.
28. PW21 is Dr. Ritu Aggarwal, who has identified the signature of Dr. Amit and Dr. Pavitra who has prepared the death summary of deceased Ruchi. The witness has placed on record the death summary as PW 21/A. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:
29. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused namely Dharmender and Laxmi under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded so as to enable them to personally explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons which they have denied as being incorrect and have stated they have falsely been implicated in this case. They have chosen not to lead any defence evidence.
S.C. No. 464/1/12 State Vs Darmender & Ors Page 11 of 19APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
30. I have heard the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor Sh. R.S Mangal Murti for the State and Ld Counsel for the accused. I have carefully perused the entire record including the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, documentary evidence and the statement of the accused persons. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the same.
31. Before further adverting to the facts of the present case, I would like to mention here certain settled preposition of law which has to considered by the Court while dealing with criminal matters. It is a settled proposition of law that to bring home conviction, the prosecution has to establish its case beyond the pale of reasonable doubt by establishing an unbroken chains of events, leading to commission of the offence with which the accused are charged with. It is further a settled proposition of law that once this chain is broken or a plausible theory of another possibility is shown, the accused person become entitled to the benefit of doubt ultimately leading to their acquittal.
The emphasis can be supplied upon a case in titled as Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1987 (3) Crimes 55.
32. Here in the present case both the accused persons have been charged with offence U/s 498A/304B IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. To constitute an offence U/s 304 B IPC the S.C. No. 464/1/12 State Vs Darmender & Ors Page 12 of 19 prosecution is required to prove the ingredients of offence envisaged under this section which are :
I) death of a married woman had occurred.
ii) that such death had been taken place within 7 years of her marriage.
Iii) that such death was caused by any burn or bodily injury or otherwise under normal circumstances.
iv) that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband and / or any relative of her husband.
v) that such cruelty or harassment was perpetrated on the deceased soon before her death.
vi) that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment or for any connection with any demand of dowry.
33. In the light of settled law let us examine the case of the prosecution whether prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of both the accused persons for the alleged offence U/s 304B IPC r/w 34 IPC.
34. The first ingredient which is required to be proved by the prosecution is that whether the death of married woman had occurred. In this regard the testimony of PW1, 2 & 3 are relevant. The testimonies of other witnesses such as IO as well as doctors who had either treated deceased or got conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Ruchi are also relevant to prove this ingredient. The PW1 & 2 have S.C. No. 464/1/12 State Vs Darmender & Ors Page 13 of 19 categorically deposed that their daughter Ruchi was got married with one of the accused namely Dharmender on 16.02.2004. The witnesses PW1 & PW2 have deposed that their daughter expired on 15.09.2009 at DDU Hospital. The PW20 Dr. B. N. Mishra, Senior Medical Officer, Medical Legal Expert, has deposed that he had conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Ruchi vide document Ex. PW20/A and opined the cause of death. So the fact has been proved on record that Ruchi was married with accused Dharmender and she has died on 15.09.09.
35. The next ingredient which has to be proved by the prosecution is that whether the death of Ruchi has taken place within 7 years of marriage. The evidence has come on record that marriage between deceased Ruchi and one of the accused Dharmender was solemnized on 16.02.2004 and deceased Ruchi has expired on 15.09.2009. So the fact has also been proved on record that the deceased Ruchi has expired within 7 years of her marriage.
36. The third ingredient which has to be proved by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused persons is whether the deceased Ruchi was died due to any burn or bodily injury or otherwise under normal circumstances. In this regard the testimony of PW20 Dr. B. N. Mishra is important who has got conducted the post mortem on the dead body of deceased Ruchi. The PW20 has opined the S.C. No. 464/1/12 State Vs Darmender & Ors Page 14 of 19 cause of death of deceased Ruchi as "The cause of death was due to septicemia/ toxemia consequent upon perforation of intestine followed by intestinal obstruction. Manner of death was natural." So as per testimony of PW20 the death of deceased Ruchi was natural and same was not due to any burn, bodily injury or otherwise under normal circumstances.
37. The testimony of PW10 Dr. Tilak Raj Medical Incharge Sparsh Hospital, Dr. N. Solanki PW11, Medical officer, DDU Hospital, Dr. Ajay Kumar PW12, Specialist Anesthesia DDU Hospital, Dr. Angad Singh PW 18, Dr. Ritu Aggarwal PW21 Sr. Medical Officer Department of Anesthesia are also important to come to the conclusion the cause of death of deceased. All the doctors have deposed that the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 13.09.2009 and was treated as she was suffering from pulmonary for the Koch's (TB Chest). So, the fact has been proved on record that the death of deceased was natural due to ailment.
38. So far as the other ingredients of the offence U/S 304-B IPC are concerned they are also the ingredients for adjudication of the offence U/s 498-A IPC and I am dealing with those ingredients in succeeding paragraphs of this judgment.
39. The question whether the deceased was subjected to S.C. No. 464/1/12 State Vs Darmender & Ors Page 15 of 19 cruelty or harassment by her husband Dharmender (one of the accused) and his relative Laxmi (sister-in-law of deceased) or Krishna Devi (mother-in-law of deceased). In this regard the testimony of PW1 & 2 are relevant. The PW1 has deposed in his examination in chief that a motor cycle was demanded in the marriage by the accused Dharmender and his mother Krishna Devi and sister. But, he could not gave the motor cycle and whenever he used to visit at the matrimonial house of his daughter she used to complaint to him that she was beaten by her husband and other in laws on the demand of money and motorcycle.
40. The witness PW2 Manju Devi has also deposed that motorcycle and cash amount was demanded in the marriage by accused Dharmender and his mother Krishna Devi and sister Laxmi. But they could not gave the motorcycle. She further deposed that whenever she used to visit the matrimonial home of her daughter she used to complaint to her that she was beaten by her husband and in laws on the demand of money and motor cycle.
41. But neither the PW1 nor the PW2 have specified any date, month or year when such demand was made by the accused persons. Moreover, there is a contradiction in the statement of PW1 & 2 regarding the demand of dowry as PW1 has deposed that demand was made only with S.C. No. 464/1/12 State Vs Darmender & Ors Page 16 of 19 respect to motorcycle while PW2 has deposed that there was demand of cash as well as motorcycle. But the PW2 has not clarified the amount of cash which was demanded by the accused persons. One fact which is very crucial has come on record which is stated by the complainant Surender Kumar (PW1) as well as his wife Manju (PW2) in their statements during inquest proceeding Ex. PW1/A that they were having no talking terms with the accused persons since last 3 years.
42. Then question arises once they (PW1 & PW2) were not having talking terms with the accused persons and they have not disclosed in their statements when they lastly met their daughter and accused persons, regarding trustworthiness of their allegations. The complaint as well as statements of PW1 & 2 are totally silent when they have met their daughter lastly. Once they admitted that they have no talking terms with the accused persons and their daughter was residing with accused persons then precisely it can be presumed that they have not met accused or their daughter since last 3 years from the date of death of deceased Ruchi.
43. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Ajay Pal & Ors. Vs. State 2017 [2] JCC 1154 has observed that " The allegations leveled against the appellants are not credible in nature as they miserably fall short of the basic details S.C. No. 464/1/12 State Vs Darmender & Ors Page 17 of 19 such as the day, date, time or any definite or particular incident of any harassment towards demand of dowry with respect to the deceased and thus fail to attract the scope of Sec. 498A IPC."
44. In the absence of any substantial evidence on record the statement of PW1 & PW2 remained a bare general statement regarding demand of dowry and harassment as well as cruelty upon the deceased Ruchi. Even otherwise the testimonies of the PW1 & PW2 are not trustworthy which inspired the confidence of this court to bring home the guilt of accused persons.
CONCLUSION.
45. This being the position on facts as discussed above and applying the relevant law upon those facts. The chain of facts and circumstances and the connecting links stands broken regarding the commission of offence by the accused persons. The prosecution has not been able to establish or prove its version by proving circumstantial evidence unerringly pointing out towards the guilt of the accused persons. In sum and substance the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond the pale of reasonable doubt leading to possibilities acting like holes in the pot are created making it difficult to hold the facts together forming a uniform mixture. Resultantly, the accused persons become entitled to benefit of doubt and are S.C. No. 464/1/12 State Vs Darmender & Ors Page 18 of 19 accordingly acquitted of the charges U/s 498-A/304-B IPC.
46. In view of the statutory requirement of section 437-A Cr. PC, the accused persons are directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the court, for a period of 6 months, to appear before the appellate court, if so required.
47. File be consigned to record room after due completion.
Digitally signed byANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN JAGDISH JAGDISH KUMAR COURT ON THIS 28.04.2018 KUMAR Date: 2018.05.02 11:46:52 +0530 (JAGDISH KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (WEST):DELHI S.C. No. 464/1/12 State Vs Darmender & Ors Page 19 of 19