Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Arun Kumar on 10 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 1119/09
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R1304632005
State Vs. (1) Arun Kumar
S/o Chatar Singh
R/o House No. 884,
VPO Bakhtawarpur,
Delhi
(Convicted)
(2) Smt. Ram Rati
W/o Chatar Singh
R/o House No. 884,
VPO Bakhtawarpur,
Delhi
(Acquitted)
(3) Chatar Singh
S/o Ram Niwas
R/o House No. 884,
VPO Bakhtawarpur,
Delhi
(Acquitted)
(4) Shobh Raj
S/o Chatar Singh
R/o House No. 884,
VPO Bakhtawarpur,
Delhi
(Acquitted)
St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 1
FIR No.: 143/05
Police Station: Ali Pur
Under Section: 498A/304B/34 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to sessions court: 26.9.2005
Date on which orders were reserved: 2.6.2011
Date of which judgment pronounced: 16.7.2011
JUDGMENT:
As per allegations, on or before 16.4.2005 at house No. 884, Village and Post Officer Bakhtawarpur, Delhi the accused Arun Kumar being the husband, Ram Rati being the mother in law; Chatar Singh being the father in law and Shobh Raj being the brother in law of the deceased Poonam @ Sneha subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry. It is also alleged that all the accused in furtherance of their common intention committed dowry death of Poonam @ Sneha. BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
The case of the prosecution is that on 16.4.2005 DD No. 24B was received in Police Station Ali Pur to the effect that one Sneha W/o Arun Kumar was admitted in BJRM Hospital who had consumed poison, pursuant to which SI Dalbir Singh along with Ct. Prem Pal reached BJRM Hospital. SI Dalbir Singh collected the MLC of Poonam who was declared unfit for statement at that time and during St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 2 treatment she expired. During inquiry SI Dalbir Singh came to know that marriage of Smt. Poonam @ Sneha was solemnized within seven years from her death and hence he informed the SHO Police Station Ali Pur and SDM Narela. Sh. G.P. Singh, the then SDM reached the hospital where he recorded the statement of Maan Singh the father of the deceased. In his statement to the SDM, Maan Singh had alleged that his daughter Poonam @ Sneha was harassed by her husband Arun Kumar, mother in law Ram Rati, father in law Chatar Singh and brother in law Shobh Raj for demand of dowry. On the basis of the said statement of Maan Singh the present case was got registered and all the accused were arrested and charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 498A/304B/34 Indian Penal Code.
CHARGE:
The Ld. Predecessor of this court has settled the charges under Sections 498A/304B/34 Indian Penal Code against all the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. EVIDENCE:
In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as twenty one witnesses as under:
Public witnesses:
PW1 Smt. Krishna W/o Ashok Kumar is the sister in law (Bhabhi) of the deceased Pooanm who has deposed that her St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 3 youngest sisterinlaw (nanad) Poonam @ Sneha was married with accused Arun on 26.11.2011 and they had given dowry as per their capacity. According to her, a few months after marriage, when Poonam came to their house, she told that her parentsinlaw, husband and dever were greedy persons and demanded money from the retirement benefits of her (Krishna's) father in law and when Poonam resisted this demand, she was beaten by them. The witness has further deposed that Poonam was not permitted to move out of the house or go even to the terrace and also not even provided food properly and new clothes were not permitted to be worn by her. She has further deposed that the jewellery given by them to her Nanad was kept by accused Ram Rati in her possession and Poonam was not permitted to wear the jewellery. According to PW1, about a year after the marriage Poonam was admitted to a government hospital for cesarean delivery and when she visited along with her husband to see Poonam in the hospital, there was none to look after her. She has deposed that Poonam's mother in law had not come there making an excuse of her illness and therefore she herself and her husband stayed back to look after Poonam and provide her medicines etc. and also to bear the expenses. The witness has further deposed that Poonam has also told her that some time later, accused Arun started demanding money on the pretext of his business and about a year later, Poonam St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 4 gave birth to another daughter and her parents in law again refused to take care of Poonam. She has also deposed that this time also, she herself and her husband took care of Poonam and also bore the expenses for her delivery. She has further testified that having given birth to two daughters, the parentsinlaw of Poonam started taunting Poonam. PW1 has further deposed that accused Arun started demanding Rs.50,000/ since he wanted to buy a van, as he was a driver and about five to six months prior to Holi in the year 2005, Poonam was badly beaten by the accused persons as well as by her Dever. According to her, Poonam called up in the house of their neighbourer namely Raj and she attended the telephone call on which Poonam requested that she should be brought to her parent's house as she was being constantly harassed and tortured for demand of Rs. 50,000/. The witness has also deposed that her husband Ashok went to village Bakhtabar Pur to bring Poonam from her matrimonial house and that Poonam had received injuries on her back and was severely beaten and hence, she was , treated at a private hospital. According to her, accused Ram Rati had not permitted Poonam to take away her daughters and had said that Poonam would be permitted to reenter in house only if she brought Rs.50,000/. The witness PW1 has further deposed that Poonam remained with them for about five months and during this period, accused persons used to speak to her on telephone St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 5 and told her to return only if Rs.50,000/ had been arranged. According to PW1, about a week after Holi accused Arun along with his cousin had come to their house to take Poonam along with him and again demanded Rs.50,000/ after which they arranged the amount by borrowing Rs.10,000/ from Umed Singh, Rs.30,000/ from Raj Singh and another Rs.10,000/ were arranged from her dever Satish. She has also deposed that only then accused Arun took Poonam along with him and after fifteen days, accused Chatar Singh called up his husband on a mobile phone and told him that Poonam and Arun had fought with each other and Poonam was admitted in hospital. She has further deposed that her husband and her father in law went to the hospital and came to know that Poonam had passed away because of consuming some poisonous substance. She has also deposed that accused persons were responsible for the death of Poonam. She has identified all the accused in the court.
In her cross examination the witness has denied the suggestion that accused Chatar Singh owned and possessed a van prior to the marriage of deceased Poonam with accused Arun or that no demand for Rs.50,000/ was ever made by accused Arun or other inlaws of the deceased. She has also denied that the telephone call regarding admission of deceased in hospital was not made on the mobile phone of Ashok but on the land line of a neighbour, which was St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 6 attended by Satish. She has deposed that her husband was a Conductor on a private bus for the last 14 years and earned Rs.150/ per day and her Dever has a kiryana store. She has denied that accused Arun was driving his own vehicle i.e. Maruti Van bearing No. DL3C9360 at the time of marriage and states that he used to drive a Maruti Van but did not own the same. The witness has also denied that accused was employed at the time of marriage. PW1 has also deposed that she has three Nanads apart from the deceased Poonam and that two of them were married in Delhi and the third one was married in Daulatabad, Gurgaon, Haryana. She has further deposed that for the first three months of marriage, accused came with Poonam whenever they visited their house and thereafter accused Arun stopped coming with the deceased to their house. She has admitted that her father in law Maan Singh retired as a HC from Delhi Police and deposed that Poonam used to tell about the harassment by accused persons to all members of the family but no complaint was made to the police regarding these harassments. PW1 has admitted that all their relatives knew about the harassments and the beatings to Poonam but none of them advised to lodge a police complaint. According to her, she visited the deceased when she lived in Delhi in the official house allotted to accused Chatar Singh. She has further deposed that she did not visit village Bakhtawar Pur where Poonam St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 7 alongwith other accused persons shifted shortly before her death. She has also admitted that accused persons lived in a Government accommodation in Safdarjung Enclave since 1994 and states that marriage was solemnized in the said house. She has further stated that deceased had complained to her about the restrictions imposed upon her in the absence of her devarani namely Manju who had been married several years prior to marriage of Poonam. The witness has testified that accused persons had got Poonam admitted in the hospital for her first delivery and that she herself and her Devar reached at the hospital prior to delivery. According to the witness, she stayed at the hospital for four to five days but her devar had come back and accused Chatar Singh used to visit the hospital occasionally. She has also testified that mother and sister of the accused Arun refused to come to the hospital. The witness has further deposed she left the hospital prior to the discharge of deceased Poonam and states that after the stay of four to five days, she started feeling unwell. She is not aware of the date of discharge and states that she does not remember the date and also does not know, as to who paid the bills at the time of discharge of Poonam from the hospital, as they were not present at that time. She has further deposed that Poonam was got treated in the village by Dr. Rajni for about one and a half month but she does not have the medical record of that treatment and states that she did not St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 8 retain the same because they did not expect the accused could kill her. She has also deposed that the last phone call as regards beatings by the accused persons, was made by Poonam at the house of Prem, which was attended by her devar Satish. According to the witness, her husband, devar Satish and her father in law had then gone to the house of accused persons. She has denied the suggestion that she knew that her husband, devar and father in law had caused injuries to the accused persons or that an FIR had been registered against them at Police Station Jahangir Puri. She has further deposed that she did not visit the jail to meet the daughters of Poonam who had gone to custody along with the remaining accused persons. She has denied that her husband is a drunkard and states that her statement was recorded by the police at her house but she does not remember the date or time elapsed between the recording of statement and occurrence of incident. She has also deposed that all members of her family were present at that time and Manju and her Nanads were not present at that time. She does not remember if her father in law was present at that time and states that her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. She has denied the suggestion that her husband used to harass and torture Poonam in order to extract money from the accused persons and has deposed that a sum of Rs.50,000/ was paid to the accused Arun a week after Holi. PW1 has also denied the St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 9 suggestion that no such amount was given to accused or that no such demand was ever made by the accused or that she has deposed falsely as the deceased was her close relative. The witness PW1 Smt. Krishna has deposed that at the time of second delivery of Poonam, deceased was not discharged from the hospital in her presence but has denied that the expenses were incurred by the accused persons or that no demand was made by them towards the expenses or to buy any Maruti Van.
PW2 Maan Singh is the father of the deceased Poonam who has deposed that he is a retired Delhi Police official and Poonam was her youngest child. According to him, he has two sons and four daughters including Poonam and has deposed that Poonam was married to accused Arun Kumar S/o Chatar Singh on 26.11.2001 and he was plying a private Maruti Van. He has further deposed that on 16.04.2005 at about 4:00 pm, accused Chatar Singh had called at the house of his neighbour Prem Singh, which was attended to by his son Satish and accused Chatar Singh had told Satish that a quarrel between Poonam and her husband had taken place and Poonam was admitted in Jahangir Puri hospital. The witness has also deposed that thereafter he along with his two sons namely Ashok Kumar and Satish along with some relatives reached at Jahangir Puri hospital where they came to know that Poonam had already expired. According to St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 10 the witness, the behaviour of inlaws of Poonam was not good towards her from the very beginning of her marriage for the reason that she had not brought sufficient dowry and the deceased was beaten by her in laws and husband for not fulfilling their demands. PW2 Maan Singh has further deposed that after one year of marriage, deceased gave birth to a female baby at NDMC hospital and she was not taken care of by her husband or her in laws and that his son Ashok and his wife used to look after Poonam and her daughter. The witness has also deposed that as per customs they had given gifts to the accused and his family as per their capacity but they were not satisfied with the items given by them. He has testified that after a year, Poonam had given birth to another female child at Safdurjung hospital and both the deliveries were by way of cesarean. According to him, this time also deceased was not taken care of by the accused persons and again his son and his daughter in law looked after her and all the expenses were borne by his sons. He has further deposed that again as per customs, gifts and articles were given but the accused persons were not happy and satisfied instead they started taunting the deceased that she had spoiled atmosphere of their family by giving birth to two female children and the deceased was more tortured and harassed. PW2 has also deposed that that deceased was restrained from going outside the house on the pretext that accused Ram Rati St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 11 was patient of Thyroid and she needs a person to look after her. He has deposed that most of the time she used to talk with them on telephone and told that her husband, her parents in law and devar used to harass her by giving beatings for not bringing money. The witness has further deposed that his sons used to visit the matrimonial house of deceased occasionally. According to the witness, one day a telephone call from Poonam was received at the house of Prem Singh which was attended by his son Satish Kumar and Poonam had told him that she was severely beaten by the accused persons and should be taken back from her in laws house. The witness has testified that he sent his son Ashok Kumar to Bakhtawarpur where the accused persons were shifted later on and he brought her back with him on seeing her condition but accused Ram Rati, mother in law of the deceased, snatched her two minor daughters from her and asked her to bring Rupees 5060 thousand and only then she would be allowed to enter in the house. PW2 has also deposed that Poonam narrated the entire episode to him and also told that her husband and parents in law had warned her not to come back in the house again without Rs.5060 thousand. The witness has also deposed that the deceased stayed with him for about five months and during that period only once the accused Chatar Singh came to his house but refused to take his daughter back to his home despite requests and on being asked about St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 12 their conduct towards Poonam, rather crossquestioned him as to who was the witness of beatings and harassment to Poonam after which he left the house. He has further deposed that accused Chatar Singh did not show his inclination to take Poonam back to her matrimonial house and the deceased used to weep for her daughters. According to him, on 31.03.2005 accused Arun visited his house and put a condition to take Poonam back only if the demand of Rs.5060 thousand was fulfilled and thereafter he took Poonam back to his house only when his son Satish Kumar somehow managed to gave Rs.
50,000/ to him though he was not present at that time. The witness has testified that on 16.04.2005, they came to know that Poonam had died and she was given poison in her meals. He has deposed that in the hospital SDM had also reached and recorded his statement at about 11:50 PM which is Ex.PW2/A. He has further deposed that it was his suspicion that either his daughter Poonam was given some poisonous substance in her food or that she was tortured and harassed by the accused persons to such an extent that under pressure, she was forced to take some poisonous substance. The witness has testified that on 17.04.2005, they went to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial Mortuary, where in the presence of SDM, he had identified the dead body of Poonam and his statement to that effect was also recorded which is Ex.PW2/B. He has proved that after postmortem the dead St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 13 body was handed over to them vide memo Ex.PW2/C and on 27.04.2005 he had produced the marriage card of his daughter which is Ex.PW4/D. He has correctly identified all the accused persons in the court.
In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he had worked in the police department for about forty years. He does not remember where he had been posted during his service tenure but states that his last posting was in the PCR. He has further deposed that the complaints from her daughter that she was being harassed started reaching him after the birth of her first child i.e. one year after the marriage. According to him, his daughter on her visit to his house and also on visits of his sons to her house had told about the harassment. He has denied that all the expenses for the first delivery of the first child of his daughter were not borne by him. The witness has deposed that before and after the delivery of the first child her daughter used to reside at her matrimonial home and the child was born in a hospital where she had been admitted by the accused persons but they informed him after the admission and they did not attend the hospital all throughout her stay in the hospital. He has further deposed that on the day of her discharge from hospital, the accused persons took her to the matrimonial house and his sons and daughter in law came back to his house. He has further deposed that St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 14 he did not visit the hospital during this period and he has no personal knowledge of the attendants who were available with her daughter. He is also not aware for how long her daughter remained admitted in the hospital and also the date of her discharge. He has denied that his statement as regards the non availability of accused persons to attend upon his daughter in the hospital is incorrect, as he has no personal knowledge of the same. The witness has further deposed that his daughter was harassed even prior to the birth of first child. According to him, his salary was more than Rs.10,000/ per month and he has a son, daughter in law and a deceased daughter who was dependent upon him. The witness has further deposed that his son was employed in Home Guard and was not so employed as Home Guard at that time. He is not aware if his salary was Rs.4,500/ per month and if the length of service of a Home Guard used to be three years. He has deposed that expenses at the NDMC hospital were borne by his sons and the accused kept on harassing his daughter even after the delivery of first child and used to cause her beatings but no complaint was made to the police regarding these beatings or that no medical examination was carried out. According to the witness, he did not have a living wife and he was therefore, concerned if he brought back his daughter, there would be nobody to look after her. He has further deposed that at the time of birth of second child also the accused St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 15 persons did not take care of his daughter but he is not aware who had got her admitted in the hospital and states that he was told about the same by his sons. The witness has testified that accused persons had informed his son and thereafter his son and daughter in law took care of her. He has also deposed that no telephone was installed at his house at the time of the incident and states that he used to receive the calls from his neighbours. He is not aware as to who got his daughter admitted in the hospital at the time of her death but states that he himself, his sons and several other relatives and friends had gone to the hospital. He has deposed that he and his sons had not caused beatings to accused Arun Kumar and Chatar Singh but has admitted that FIR bearing No. 298/05, Police Station Jahangir Puri under Section 323/324/307/34 IPC was registered against his sons Satish and Ashok and Pradeep Kumar S/o Sh. Umed Singh. He has denied the fact that his name was not added in the above said FIR as he was an expolice official. He has further deposed that his daughter had already expired when he reached the hospital and he saw her only on the next day in mortuary. He is unable to tell specifically the date when accused Arun Kumar had fought with her daughter and states that they used to keep quarreling frequently and his daughter had been continuously tortured for the demand of dowry by the accused persons since eight to ten months of the marriage. He has further deposed St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 16 that he did not take any relatives to the house of accused persons to speak to them as regards the harassment caused to his daughter but states that he had personally gone to their house on a couple of occasions and gave articles to her daughter as per the demands raised by the accused and his statement to this effect was also recorded by SDM. The witness has testified that he was not reemployed after his retirement, but his son was employed. He has further deposed that his son Karan Kumar was not available at home during the day and the phone calls used to be attended by his daughter in law or any other family member present and available. PW2 Maan Singh has testified that he did not seek the custody of the minor daughters of deceased despite the fact that the accused persons had been arrested and states that he did not have a living wife or any other woman to take care of the minor children. He is not aware if the minor children remained in the Jail during the custody of accused Ram Rati and also does not remember if a telephone was installed at the house of accused persons. He has denied the fact that his daughter was suffering from mental depression and she committed suicide because of the mental depression or that he did not give Rs.50,000/ to the accused persons or any other articles or money demanded by them as dowry. The witness has also denied the suggestion that his sons used to visit the matrimonial house of deceased to demand money from accused Arun St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 17 Kumar as they were unemployed and were in financial difficulty. PW2 Maan Singh has also denied the suggestion that because of constant demands of her brother, deceased used to remain depressed.
PW9 Shri Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Mann Singh is the brother of the deceased who has deposed that deceased Poonam @ Sneha was his youngest sister and was married to Arun Kumar S/o Sh. Chatar Singh, R/o Village Bakhtawar Pur, Delhi on 26.11.2001 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. He has further deposed that Arun Kumar was driving a private van and his father was serving in the NDMC. According to him, the matrimonial life of his sister went on smoothly for about three to four months but after his father retired from Delhi Police and received money on his retirement, the accused Arun who is the husband of deceased; Chatar Singh fatherinlaw; Ram Rati motherinlaw and Shobhraj brotherinlaw (devar) of the deceased started demanding money from his sister. The witness has also deposed that all the accused demanded Rs.50,00060,000/ from his sister so that they could purchase a van and accused persons started harassing her and also gave beatings to her. He has also deposed that her sister used to make telephone calls in their neighbourhood and she used to narrate all these incident to her bhabhi Krishna who is his wife and his wife often consoled her but the harassment of accused continued. According to PW9, thereafter her St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 18 sister gave birth to one girl child in NDMC hospital through cesarean operation and doctor had advised her that there should be a gap of four to five years between the next delivery. They had given customary gifts/ items on the birth of child to the inlaws of her sister but all the accused persons were not satisfied with the gifts and articles. The witness has further deposed that he along with his wife had visited the inlaws of his sister for giving these customary items and they tried to satisfy the accused persons but accused were not satisfied and often tortured her (deceased) saying what they had given despite the fact that their father has retired and had received money on his retirement. He has also deposed that he told them that they had spent the retirement benefits of his father on the construction of their house but the accused continued to harass his sister on account of demand of dowry. The witness has testified that he again visited the house of accused and tried to pacify the accused persons but they continued to harass his sister who used to make telephone calls to them and they used to console her. PW9 has also deposed that after one year again his sister gave birth to a girl child and this time they had taken her sister to Safdarjung hospital where the accused informed them about the birth of girl child when he along with his wife went to Safdarjung hospital but none of the accused was present there and his sister was alone with her child. According to the St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 19 witness, during stay of his sister in the hospital none of the accused had attended to her and it was his wife who used to attend the deceased and accused remarked as to how they could bear the burden of two girls. PW9 has also deposed that they again gave the customary gifts on the birth of the second child but the accused were not satisfied with the gifts and articles and they again demanded Rs. 50,00060,000/ so that they could purchase a van and the accused continued to harass his sister. He has testified that he again visited the house of accused persons and tried to satisfy them and explained them about their financial condition but the accused were not satisfied and thereafter they again continued to harass his sister. According to him, about one to two months again his sister made a telephone call and narrated the harassment and demand by accused persons on which he again visited the house of inlaws of his sister and brought her back to their house and after about ten to fifteen days, he went along with her sister to her in laws. The witness has further testified that after two to three months a telephone call was received from his sister which was attended to by his father and his sister started weeping on the telephone and his father asked him (witness Ashok) to go at the matrimonial house of his sister pursuant to which he again visited her matrimonial house where his sister started weeping on seeing him. The witness has also testified that the condition of Poonam was St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 20 serious and she was having some injury marks on her body and therefore, he brought her sister back to his house but the accused persons had kept both the daughters of his sister with them and asked his sister not to come again at their house without bringing Rs. 50,000/. He has deposed that he told the accused persons that if they are able to arrange the money then they would make the payment. According to him, his sister remained at their house for about five months and during that period Chatar Singh had once came to their house and made inquiry about the money but went away without taking his sister. He has also deposed that Arun Kumar also made a telephone call to his sister once and inquired about the money from his sister when his sister had disconnected the phone. The witness has further testified that on 31.03.2005, the accused Arun came to their house and made inquiry from his sister about the arrangement of money and his sister told this fact to his younger brother Satish who took Rs.10,000/ from his uncle Umed Singh; Rs.30,000/ from Raj Singh and arranged Rs.10,000/ from his own sources and gave Rs. 50,000/ in total to accused Arun after which Arun took Poonam to his house. According to PW9 on 16.04.2005 at around 4:00 PM, Chatar Singh made a telephone call to them and told them that there was a quarrel between Arun and his sister Poonam and she has been admitted in BJRM hospital on which he along with his father, his St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 21 brother and family members went to the hospital where they found their sister Poonam dead. PW9 has deposed that on making inquiries, they came to know that deceased was admitted in hospital for consuming some poisonous substance and thereafter, SDM came and recorded statement of his father and got the FIR registered. He has proved having identified the dead body of his sister vide statement Ex.PW6/E and the fact that after the postmortem examination dead body was handed over to them vide receipt Ex.PW2/C. He has correctly identified all the accused persons in the court.
In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he had studied upto class 9th and is a Conductor on a private bus for the last about eight years and has got a conductor license. According to him, his duty often shifts on different private buses and he had worked under one Gulati of Sultanpuri and another is one Singh Sahab of Mangolpuri. He has testified that in year 2005 he used to get a salary of Rs.130140 per day and no record was maintained in respect of the salary which was given to him. The witness has deposed that his father retired from Delhi Police in 2001 and at the time of marriage of his sister Sneha, accused Arun Kumar used to ply a private Maruti Van as a taxi but not in any school. He is not aware whether accused Arun Kumar owned the Maruti Van or not and states that his sister remained happy in the matrimonial house for initial four to five St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 22 months and had also come to their house after marriage and after the phera ceremony after about fifteen to twenty days and she used to stay for a day or so. According to him, Poonam was residing in a government accommodation which was allotted to her father in law at Safdarjung Enclave and they also used to visit her matrimonial home. He has further deposed that after about four to five months of the marriage, when his sister came to their house and by which time their father had retired, hence she told them that her in laws were asking for money from her to be brought from her parental house as nothing substantial has been done in the marriage. The witness has also deposed that the aforesaid fact was told to his wife Smt. Krishna by the deceased and his wife in turn told him but he was not present when deceased stated the said fact to his wife. He has admitted that he does not remember the exact date, month of year when the aforesaid facts were disclosed to him. He has deposed that he had not discussed the said matter with anyone else in the family and only told his wife that he would go and make the in laws of Sneha to understand but he did not make any complaint to police or any authority. He has further deposed that his father also did not make any complaint in this regard. According to him, his brother Satish was running a 'parchoon' shop and resides with him along with his family and at that time deceased had stayed with them for one day only and her husband Arun took her St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 23 back but he was not present at that time in the house and he had no talk with Arun in the aforesaid context at that time. The witness has further stated that he visited the house of the accused after about twenty days on his own and stayed for about two hours and he had made the mother in law of Sneha to understand that they should not harass his sister since at that time they were not financially capable of giving them anything. He has also deposed that at that time Arun and his father were not present in the house and he used to meet Arun and his father on subsequent visits but he does not remember the exact date, month or year of his visits to Arun and his father. According to PW9, father of Arun informed him about the admission of Sneha in NDMC hospital at the time of delivery of her first baby through a telephone call on the phone of a neighbourer. He has deposed that the time of receiving information to be around 4:00 AM in the morning but he does not remember the exact date, month or year of the said incident. The witness has also testified that he and his brother Satish Kumar had gone to the hospital and reached there within one and a half hour or so and the accused Chatar Singh and Ram Rati were present there at that time. He has deposed that they (he himself and his brother) stayed there till evening and returned back to their house but he was not in possession of any bill of payment of hospital medical expenses pertaining to delivery of first child of Sneha. St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 24 According to the witness, he was not present at the time of discharge of Sneha. He has deposed that at the time of birth of child of Sneha they had given the usual articles in gift such as clothes, utensils, toys and sweets etc. and no list of such articles were prepared. The witness has also deposed that he along with his wife and children had gone to deliver the said articles and all his family members i.e. parents, brothers etc. were aware of the said articles. He has admitted the fact that his father hardly visited the house of accused persons and deposed that he stayed at the house of accused persons from about two to three hours when he went to deliver the articles and at that time his sister did not complain to him about anything as other relatives of accused persons were also present. He has also deposed that after two months Sneha came to their house but he does not remember the exact date, month of year of her visit. According to him, she stayed there for one day only and Arun was accompanying her at that time. The witness has further deposed that he met her in the evening only as during the day time he was away for duty and she left for her matrimonial house in his absence and thereafter he met Sneha after about one month or so when he had gone to her house. He has deposed that he had gone alone and being Sunday all the accused persons were present at their house and at that time deceased told him about the complaints of her in laws that sufficient items were not St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 25 given at the time of birth of her child. The witness has testified that he came back to his house but did not lodge any complaint and informed his family members about the said incident but his family members also did not lodge any complaint in this regard. He has denied that no complaint was not made because no such incident had taken place and has deposed that thereafter Sneha used to call on the phone of his neighbourers and his wife used to attend the calls. According to the witness, his wife used to inform him in the evening about the said telephonic conversation but he did not disclose the said conversations to anyone in his neighbourhood. He has also deposed that they used to discuss the matter but no complaint was made as they did not deem it proper in view of the fact that their own reputation as well as of their sister's reputation was at stake. The witness has further testified that deceased used to visit their house occasionally and they also visited Poonam @ Sneha to make her in laws understand but he does not remember the date, month or time when he had gone to her house to bring her back to their house. He has admitted that there was a telephone connection in the house of accused persons. According to PW9, at the time of birth of second child of Sneha accused Chatar Singh informed them about her admission in the Safdarjung hospital but he does not remember the date or month of the incident. He has deposed that he and his wife had St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 26 gone to the hospital at around 10:00 AM and Ram Rati was present at that time but she left when they reached there and did not return back. The witness has also deposed that he returned back home after leaving his wife and his wife stayed there for about one week and he used to take her food in the morning. He has further stated that he used to come back in the afternoon or in the evening and in between he used to go on his duty. According to him, he was not present in the hospital when the second child was born and Sneha was operated upon in the evening and they reached in next morning and he had also not donated blood at that time. He is not aware when Sneha was discharged but according to the witness his wife was present there. The witness has testified that after discharge Sneha had gone to her matrimonial house along with his wife. He has also deposed that his wife returned back in the evening and he was not in possession of any bills of expenses incurred by him at that time. According to PW9, when Rs.50,00060,000/ were demanded, then Rs.10,000/ were given by his brother Satish and Rs.30,000/ were given by his uncle (chacha) Raj Singh and Rs.10,000/ were given by his uncle Umed Singh but the aforesaid money was not given in his presence. He has denied that no such money was ever demanded or paid by them and states that the deceased came to their house along with her second child after about two months of her birth but he does not St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 27 remember the date, month of year of her visit. He has further deposed that at that time he was present at his house and accused Arun had accompanied her at that time in a Maruti Van and she stayed for the whole day but did not make any complaint. The witness has denied the suggestion that her sister was under depression at the time of her marriage. According to him, he had brought his sister to his house as she was injured and she was provided medical treatment from a local village doctor but he had not given any such treatment record to police and had not disclosed the name of the doctor. He has denied the suggestion that he had not done anything like that as nothing of this sort had happened. The witness has also deposed that Arun had come to their house on 31.05.2005 to take their sister back and at that time also no police complaint was made by them. He has further deposed that he had not made any call to her to inquire about her well being and after that their sister had not come to meet them. PW9 Ashok has testified that on 16.04.2005, the telephone call was attended to by his father at about 4:00 PM when was present at his house at that time and at BJRM hospital they saw a huge gathering of public and inquired about his sister from a doctor whose name he was not aware. He has denied the suggestion that upon reaching hospital they started beating the accused persons but has admitted that a case bearing FIR No.298/05 stands registered against him and his family members with St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 28 regard to the alleged incident in which they are facing trial. He has also deposed that he saw the dead body of her sister at about 7:00 PM and there was no jewellery on her person at that time and she was wearing a suit. He is not aware the number of papers which he signed. He has deposed that he had not read the said papers. According to him, SDM had come in his presence at about 8:309:00 PM but did not make any inquiry from him and police was already present in the hospital. He has further deposed that his statement was recorded on 17.04.2005 at his house and his family members were present at that time but neighbourers including his uncle were also not there. The witness has also deposed that they received the dead body on 17.04.2005 and has denied that his sister used to remain under depression due to their drinking habits and quarrelsome nature or that due to their poor financial condition they used to demand money from her and her in laws. He has further denied that accused persons never harassed the deceased or that they never demanded any money, dowry or articles from her or them.
PW13 Satish Kumar is also the younger brother of the deceased who has similarly deposed that deceased Poonam was his younger sister and her marriage was solemnized on 26/11/2001 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies with Sh. Arun Kumar S/o Sh. Chattar Singh, R/o Village and Post Office Bakhatawarpur Delhi St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 29 and that in the marriage they have given all those things which normally a person gives according to their capacity. He has deposed that at the time of marriage Arun Kumar was operating a private van and his father was serving in the NDMC. According to him, the matrimonial life of his sister sailed smoothly for about twothree months and thereafter his sister's husband Arun Kumar, motherinlaw Smt. Ramwati, fatherinlaw Chatar Singh and devar Shobh Raj @ Amardeep started harassing her sister on account of trifling matters. The witness has testified that his sister was taunted that her father had not given cash in the marriage as they were expecting much more cash and articles and also that her father had ruined all their expectation. According to him, in year 2001 his father had retired from Delhi Police as Head Constable and the inlaws of her sister were expecting that they would get share of Poonam but his father had spent all amount on the house etc. on which issue her husband Arun Kumar, motherinlaw Ram Rati, fatherinlaw Chatar Singh and devar Shobh Raj @ Amardeep had started harassing her again and Poonam was kept in restrain. PW13 Satish Kumar has testified that her sister was also not allowed to make telephone calls and she some times used to telephone without telling/ informing to her inlaws, at the house of Sh. Prem Singh their neighbourers and talked to them and narrated all the facts. He has further deposed that after one year of the marriage her St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 30 sister gave birth to a female child in NDMC hospital through cesarean operation and after the birth of the female child the husband of Poonam and her inlaws had not taken care of her and it was his elder brother Ashok Kumar along with his wife who went to the hospital and after seeing her condition they took care of her till she remained in the hospital. The witness has testified that at the time of birth they performed the 'chuchak' ceremonies according to their capacity but motherinlaw and fatherin law of Poonam were not satisfied with the same and were not happy and thereafter Arun Kumar started demanding money from them on the pretext that he wanted to start some work but since their economic condition was not good so they were not able to help him due to which reason the inlaws of the Poonam again started taunting her and when her sister resisted then her husband and motherinlaw also gave beatings to her. According to the witness, when the first daughter of his sister was of one year then his sister gave birth to the second daughter in the NDMC hospital, Safdarjung, Delhi through operation and after birth of two female child the inlaws of his sister started saying that they cannot bear the expenses of female child and also started telling Poonam to bring the money from her father for the maintenance of the female child. He has deposed that all the accused started demanding Rs. 50,000 60,000/ and about five months prior (from the date of the St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 31 incident) Poonam rang up in their neighbourhood and informed his father that her husband, motherinlaw, fatherinlaw and devar had given beatings to her and asked his father to take her back on which his father had sent his (witness's) elder brother Ashok to Bakhtawarpur village who finding that Poonam was given beating, brought her back to their house. The witness has also testified that her motherinlaw had kept both daughters with her and told Poonam that till she would not arrange Rs.50,000/ she will be allowed to enter into house and will not give the children to her. According to him, thereafter Arun Kumar many times rang up and asked if they could arrange for Rs.50,000/ only after which he would take away Poonam to his house and during this time Chatar Singh also came to their house but he had not talked to them about taking away Poonam. He has also deposed that on 31.03.2005 the accused Arun Kumar again came to their house and demanded the money only after which he could would away Poonam but at that time his, father and his elder brother were not present at home and therefore, seeing towards the future of his sister, he informed his chacha and tau who were residing in his neighbourerhood about all these facts. According to the witness, he took Rs 10,000/ from Sh. Umed Singh, S/o Sh. Mega Ram, Rs.30,000/ from Sh. Raj Singh S/o Sh. Bhagwan and he himself arranged Rs.10,000/ and in total he gave Rs.50,000/ to St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 32 accused Arun Kumar at about 22:30 PM after which the accused Arun left their house along with Poonam. The witness Satish Kumar has further deposed that on 16.04.2005 at about 4:00 PM Smt. Raj Wati W/o Sh. Prem Singh told him that there was a telephone call from Chattar Singh on their telephone on which he talked on the telephone and on the other side Chatar Singh told him that a quarrel had taken place between Poonam and Arun and Poonam was admitted in BJRM hospital and thereafter he informed all these facts to his father and brother etc. and when he along with his father and brother etc. reached BJRM hospital, they came to know that Poonam had expired and she was admitted at the hospital for consuming some unknown poison. According to the witness, he was sure that his sister had been given some poisonous substance in which crime Arun Kumar, Ram Rati, Chatar Singh and Shobh Raj @ Amardeep are involved.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that he is 12th passed and is unable to read English. According to him, his other sisters are also married and they are in visiting term with their Jeeja. He has admitted that at the time of marriage of his sister Poonam, her inlaws were residing in the government quarter. He has testified that his father had retired in the month of May or June 2001 which fact he did not mention in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 33 witness has testified that after the marriage, next day his sister came to their house for 'fera' ceremony and went back on the same night on 27.11.2001 and remained at her inlaws house for about one week and thereafter she was brought back to their house and her husband had also accompanied her. He has deposed that at that time lady members were present and his father was also present at that time and his sister remained in their house for one or two days but Arun had left on the same day and he came back after about one week. According to PW13, he was not present at home at that time but lady members were present over there and states that at that time he was on his work as he was working as a plumber and on that day he had not met Arun. The witness has further deposed that Poonam had called up after about twothree months and his bhabhi had spoken to her on phone and it is only his bhabhi who can tell what talks took place between them. PW13 Satish Kumar has deposed that they had constructed the house about twothree months prior to marriage of her sister and that he had never visited to the house of Poonam nor his other sister had visited the matrimonial house of Poonam but his other Jijas' and sisters met Arun Kumar and Poonam on some occasions. According to him, his father had told him of the conversation which took place between him and his sister and that the phone was received in the year 2004 in the month of October. He has testified that no complaint was made by St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 34 him, his father and his brother in the police station. He has admitted that his sister Poonam used to talk with his wife and there was a telephone at government quarters of Poonam but he is unable to tell the number. He has further deposed that after about threefour months of the marriage they came to know that she had been harassed by her inlaws and she narrated these facts to all the family members including him at their home but he is unable to tell the month and time. He has denied the suggestion that Poonam was not harassed by her inlaws and that is why they had not made any complaints with the police and states that they did not deem it appropriate straight way to file the complaints before the police. PW13 has deposed that they tried to pacify the matter with the accused and his brother and bhabhi many times visited in this regard but his own wife did not go with them. He has denied the suggestion that his wife had not visited with them as no such incident happened. The witness is unable to tell the exact date and month of their visit and states that they visited in the morning and came back in the evening. According to PW13, generally his brother and bhabhi used to go to the matrimonial house of his sister. He is not aware whether Arun owned his van and states that they knew only that he was doing the work of driving private van. He has testified that Poonam used to make telephone call after interval of about seven to ten days but he had not attended her St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 35 telephone. The witness has further deposed that Chatar Singh had informed them on telephone that Poonam has been admitted in the hospital for delivery which phone was attended by his brother and after some time he came to know this fact and he was present at his house since the phone was received at about 4 AM. According to PW13, he and his brother reached NDMC hospital at about 8 AM where they met Chatar Singh and they remained at the hospital for about two to three hours and Ashok donated the blood in the NDMC Hospital. He has further deposed that they left the hospital at about 2:00 PM but he is unable to tell when Poonam was discharged from the hospital as he was not present there at that time. PW13 has admitted that they had not made any payment at the hospital and only his brother and Bhabhi can tell about the details. He has also admitted that Poonam had gone back to her matrimonial home after discharge from the hospital and his brother and sisterinlaw had gone to meet Poonam after one week of the discharge from the hospital. The witness has testified that he could not met Poonam and they conducted the 'chuchak' ceremony (giving gifts to the new born child) after one week of her discharge from the hospital. He has deposed that only his brother had gone in this ceremony and they had given the clothes of child, clothes for the mother of the child and also clothes for the other members of the family. He has denied the suggestion St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 36 that they had never conducted any such ceremony. According to the witness, after birth of the first child Arun made the demand of money but he is unable to tell the date. He has also deposed that he had send his sister to his house and used to make the demand through his sister. He has testified that his sister Pooanm remained in their house for about five months after the birth of the second child and has admitted that on the birth of the first child she never came back home and states that at that time her inlaws never send her back and when they went to fetch her they refused. He has stated that his brother had gone to fetch her at the time of birth of first child after one month when her in laws refused and again went after one month when they again refused, despite the fact that his sister wanted to come with them as she was being harassed. He has also deposed that his brother had told all these things to him, his father and the other family members and he also told that Poonam was being harassed on which he had suitably advised the family members. According to him, they did not make any complaint to the police because they wanted the peace to be there but has denied that no such police complaint was made because there was no such harassment. He has further deposed that on 31.03.2005 when Arun came to their house he, his wife, his sisterinlaw/bhabi and children were at home. The witness has also deposed that Arun took Poonam back only after they arranged for money and at the time St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 37 when he had taken money from Sh. Umed Singh and Raj Singh nobody else was there. He has deposed that when he had told his Chacha that he wanted money, Raj Singh was sitting and he had himself given Rs.30,000/ and at the time when he had given Rs. 10,000/ from his house and his wife and sisterinlaw were at home. According to him, he had told his brother and sisterinlaw regarding the amount which he had arranged as aforesaid. The witness has further deposed that he had given money to Arun Kumar when she was at their house for five months it was only then that Poonam was taken back by Arun Kumar. He has denied the suggestion that he was not aware when the phone call was received from his sister and states that they had received this call in the afternoon when his sister had told his father that her husband Arun Kumar, motherinlaw Ram Rati, fatherinlaw Chatar Singh, Devar Shob Raj @ Amardeep had given her a beating on that day and that they should get her back home. The witness has further deposed that they all were present at house at that time and his father send his elder brother Ashok to her matrimonial home Bakhtawarpur to find out as to what had happened. According to PW13, initially the inlaws of Poonam used to stay at NDMC flats but he is unable to tell the year when they shifted to village Bakhtawarpur. He has deposed that they got the medical treatment of Poonam conducted from a private doctor but he is unable to tell the St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 38 name of the doctor from whom the treatment had been taken and states that it was at Budh Vihar. He has denied the suggestion that he is unable to tell the name and details of the doctor since there was no such incident nor any treatment was taken by Poonam. He has deposed that the second daughter was born after one year of the first child and has admitted that the second child was also born at NDMC Hospital and they were informed about the birth of second child by Arun on telephone which was attended by his brother. The witness has further deposed that he did not go to the hospital to see Poonam and states that his brother and sisterinlaw had gone to the hospital where they did not find anybody and he was told by his brother about this. He has deposed that he did not make any payment of any bill of the hospital and states that it was a government hospital they had only got the medicines prescribed privately. According to him, his brother used to get the medicines but he is unable to produce the receipts of the purchase of the medicines as they had not maintain the same. He is unable to tell the time when Poonam was discharged from the hospital and states that after she went to her house on being discharged he went to see at her house. He has denied the suggestion that she was very happy at that time and has admitted that they used to get the calls from Arun demanding money at their neighbour's house as they never had a direct line but he is unable to tell the details of the St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 39 dates when such calls were received. The witness has further deposed that since his sister used to be at home she and his sisterinlaw used to go to hear the call and his wife did not attend to any such call. He has denied the suggestion that there was no such incident where calls were made by Arun demanding money and this allegation has been concocted by them. According to him, on 16.04.2005 he had attended the telephone which was received in his neighbourhood. He has also deposed that he hardly attended the call for twothree minutes and states that the said call was made by Sh. Chatar Singh and at that time all his family members were at home. PW13 has further deposed that after receiving the call he, his father and his chacha and one or two other relatives went to BRJM Hospital in a bus after 5:00 PM. He has denied that soon after reaching the hospital they started quarreling with Chatar Singh and his children. PW13 has admitted that there was a FIR No.298/05 registered against him and other family members in respect of that incident but states that it is a false case. He has denied that he is a habitual drinker and that since their financial condition was not good he and his brother used to make demands of money from their sister due to which reason she was feeling harassed. According to him, his statement was recorded by the police at his residence and all his family members were present at that time. He has deposed that it was on 27.04.2005 in the evening at St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 40 about 5:00 PM when his statement along with that of both his uncles, his sisterinlaw and other neighbours were recorded by the police. The witness has also deposed that his wife's statement was not recorded and has denied that her statement was not recorded since there was no question of harassment by inlaws of Poonam. PW13 has admitted that on the next date following the incident his other relatives including his other sisters and brothersinlaw had also come to their residence. He has deposed that police did not make any inquiries from his other relatives and has denied that Poonam was under depression even before the marriage and she had taken the extreme step because of them.
PW14 Sh. Raj Singh S/o Sh. Bhagwana has deposed that he was doing business of manufacturing gas burner and Maan Singh is his elder brother who has two sons and four daughters and the names of the sons are Ashok Kumar and Satish Kumar and Poonam was the youngest daughter who was married to Arun Kumar, S/o Chattar Singh, R/o Village Bakhatwarpur on 26.11.2001. According to him, the marriage ceremony was solemnized by his brother as per his status and he had even given gifts and dowry as per his capacity. He has further deposed that about twothree months after the marriage of Poonam he came to know that she was being harassed by her inlaws including husband, motherinlaw, fatherin St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 41 law and brotherinlaw for dowry. The witness has also deposed that his brother had retired and Poonam was being compelled to seek a share in the retirement benefits of his brother Maan Singh who had invested the entire money in the house which he had constructed for himself. He has further deposed that after her marriage Poonam gave birth to two daughters when the first daughter was born after about one year of the marriage and the second daughter was born one year thereafter. According to PW13 Satish Kumar both the daughters were born in a government hospital by a cesarean operation and on both the occasions it was Ashok and his wife who took care of Poonam and her inlaws did nothing. The witness has also testified that in the year 2005, date he does not remember, his nephew Satish Kumar came to him and told him that Poonam was at their house after his brother Ashok Kumar had brought her on account of harassment by her in laws and that her husband Arun Kumar had demanded Rs.50,000/ to take her back because he wanted to do some business/ work. He has further deposed that he told him that Poonam had been at their house for about five to six months and was being subjected to harassment by her inlaws. According to PW14, Poonam had also told him herself that she was being harassed for dowry by her husband, motherinlaw, fatherinlaw and brotherinlaw and when Satish told him about the demand raised by Arun, he told Satish that he had Rs.30,000/ St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 42 which he can gave to him and in pursuance to the same he gave Rs. 30,000/ to Satish and that he was told by Satish that his other brother Umed Singh had given him Rs.10,000/ and Satish himself had arranged for Rs.10,000/ from his house. The witness has further deposed that after Satish gave Rs.50,000/ to Arun he took Poonam back and after about 1520 days, date he does not remember, Satish told him that they had received the call from the inlaws of Poonam that Poonam was in the hospital. According to him, on receiving this information he along with Satish and other family members went to BJRM Hospital where they found Poonam dead. The witness has further deposed that it was appearing as if she had been given some poisonous substance as a foul smell was emanating from her mouth. He has stated that Poonam had expired on account of her inlaws and action should be taken against her husband, fatherinlaw, motherin law and brotherinlaw.
With the permission of the court, leading question on the aspect of various dates, were put to the witness wherein he admitted that Satish had told him about the telephone call on 16.04.2005 and that he had forgotten the date on account of lapse of time.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that his house is adjoining the house of his brother Maan Singh and therefore, whenever Poonam used to come to her parental home she visited him. St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 43 The witness has further deposed that the first met Pooanm after four to five days of her marriage. He has admitted that that she did not make any complaint to him regarding harassment in her first visit and for the first time she told them about the harassment was after one year, it was after the birth of the child. According to him, she used to tell them that since Arun Kumar was unemployed they used to compel her to bring things/ money from her residence. He has admitted that he did not see his brother giving any money to Poonam pursuant to any demand prior to this demand of Rs.50,000/ and states that on her visits she was showered with gifts and things which are normally given to a daughter. He has denied that she only told him that the problem was unemployment of the husband and that she did not make any complaints regarding her other family members. PW14 has deposed that at the time of Chuchak ceremony of the first daughter his brother had given gifts as per his capacity but he is not aware if any specific demand was made by the accused persons. He has denied that there was no such demand at that time and admits that they did not made any complaint to the police or any other authority regarding the harassment made to Poonam. The witness has also deposed that the marriage of Poonam was solemnized through one Daya Nand who is their relative and is also known to boy's side. According to him, they had told Daya Nand regarding harassment caused to Poonam. St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 44 The witness has denied that there was no such harassment and it is for this reason that Daya Nand had not been cited as a witness. PW14 Raj Singh has admitted that Arun had not made any demand of Rs. 50,000/ in his presence and he had come to know about this demand through Satish. He has admitted that he had given a sum of Rs. 30,000/ on the basis of what had been told to him by Satish on his face value and that Chatar Singh, Ram Rati, Shobj Raj @ Amandeep and Arun had never made any demand in his presence and he had come to know about this only through his brother and his family. The witness has denied that there was no demand at any point of time nor Rs.50,000/ had been demanded by Arun. He has denied the suggestion that Poonam was being harassed by his nephew Ashok and Satish who wanted money from her as their financial position was not good. PW14 has testified that he was not an income tax payee, as he was involved in a small scale industry with meager turn over. According to him, his statement was recorded at his residence on 27.04.2005 and when he had seen the dead body of Poonam in the hospital all family members were there. The witness has testified that no doctors or hospital staff were present at that time but states that her dead body was lying on the stretcher. He denied that he has deposed falsely at the instance of his brother.
St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 45
PW16 Smt. Rajwati W/o Sh. Prem Raj is the neighbour of the parents of the deceased who has deposed that Sh. Maan Singh was residing in his neighbourhood and was having two sons and four daughters and all were married. According to him, deceased Poonam was his youngest daughter who was married to Arun Kumar R/o Bakhtawarpur about 3½ years prior to her death. She has deposed that she was having a phone at their residence but there was no phone in the house of Sh. Maan Singh and after the marriage, Poonam gave birth to one daughter by cesarean operation after about one year but nobody from her in laws was there to take care of her. The witness has further deposed that the brother of Poonam namely Ashok and her Bhabhi visited Poonam to take care her and after the marriage Poonam used to call at their house and she (witness) used to hear her phone and asked her to call her brother, bhabhi or father. She has further deposed that on the phone Poonam often started to weep and when she made inquiries from her and also talked to her, she told her that her inlaws used to harass her and used to gave beating to her. According to PW16, Poonam used to make telephone call at the interval of 2025 days and states that her inlaws used to demand money from her and demanded share from retirement money of her father. She has further stated that there were many restrictions upon Poonam from her inlaws and she was not allowed to go on the roof or St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 46 even talk to anybody. The witness has further deposed that Ashok had brought Poonam to their house and she was present there on the Holi festival. According to her, Poonam had also given birth to second daughter through operation and on the day of Holi, Poonam was weeping and when she made inquiry from her, she told her that her daughters were not sent with her by her inlaws. PW16 has also deposed that after the birth of second daughter, the inlaws of Poonam started harassing her more stating from where they would bring money for the maintenance of the daughters. She has deposed that during the stay of Poonam at her parental home, her mother in law and husband made a call and called Poonam to hear the telephone after which Poonam started weeping and on inquiry Poonam told her that her husband is demanding Rs.50,000/ for purchasing a van and if she would not bring money then he would not take her back. According to her, the husband of Poonam namely Arun along with his cousin (Son of his maternal uncle) took away Poonam after five to six days of the Holi festival and he was given Rs.50,000/ after arranging the same. According to the witness, Poonam came to her before leaving the parental house and told her that she was not willing to go there and also stated that since Rs.50,000/ had been paid, her in laws would keep her quietly. She has also deposed that after ten to fifteen days at about 5.00 telephone call was received at their house from the St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 47 father of Arun. She has also deposed that she attended the phone and thereafter she called Satish, the brother of the deceased who attended the phone and told her that Poonam was admitted in Jahangir Puri Hospital and she later on came to know that Poonam has been killed.
In his cross examination the witness has deposed that there were four members in her family including herself, her husband, her son, daughter in law and one grand daughter. According to her, the other sisters of the deceased used to come to their parental house occasionally and the fact regarding beating of Poonam by her in laws was also known to the other sisters. She does not remember the date, month and the year of the marriage of deceased Poonam. The witness has deposed that at the time when she used to receive the calls during the day, she was alone because her husband used to on duty and her daughter in law had gone to her father's place. PW16 has deposed stated that house of Maan Singh is opposite to her house and the house of Raj Singh is three houses away from her house. She is not aware whether he had a telephone connection nor does she remember the exact year and date when the first daughter of Poonam was born and states that she came to know because her entire family had gone to visit her. The witness has also deposed that Ashok and his wife Krishna had gone to see Poonam but the wife of Satish did not go to visit Poonam at that time. She explained that she knew that Poonam St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 48 was not taken care by her in laws because Krishna had told her about it. The witness has also deposed that she had gone to see Poonam on one occasion in the hospital with her brother Ashok after four days of the birth of the child but she does not remember the name of the hospital. She has denied the suggestion that she did not go to the hospital but states that she does not remember the date and year when the second child of Poonam was born and deposed that she came to know because she was told by her family being neighbours. PW16 has also deposed that at the time when the second daughter was born, Poonam was not being kept well by her in laws and states that after the birth of first daughter, she was facing harassment. She has also deposed that Raj Singh and his family members used to discuss about the problems of Poonam and states that staying in the same area they had good relations and often used to talk about family affairs, more so as Poonam did not have a mother. PW16 Raj Wati has deposed that she did not go to the hospital herself during the birth of the second daughter and states that Poonam's father is her Jeth (in relation) and she was often told about it by his daughter in law Krishna. She has deposed that Poonam had come to her house around Holi in the same year in which she expired. She has also deposed that Arun had in her presence undertaken to the family of Poonam that he would keep her well. According to the witness, both the sister in laws of Poonam i.e. St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 49 wife of Satish and Ashok were present at that time and Sh. Maan Singh was also at home. She is not aware of the name of the person who had come with Arun but she was told that he was cousin of Arun. She has testified that Arun never told her that he wanted money and states that when he used to call up he used to demand money from the relatives of Poonam on telephone and they used to tell her. PW16 has further deposed that she did not personally go and see if Poonam was being kept in captivity and states that Poonam used to tell her herself. She has testified that Poonam told her that she was calling up while she had gone to get medicines for her daughter. The witness has further deposed that she never went to the house of Poonam and states that as per their customs the mother, Chachi, Tai etc. do not go, only brothers can go to the house of the sister. According to PW16, her son did not go to her house and states that brothers of Poonam had gone since her son is remotely related. PW16 Smt. Raj wati has further deposed that Poonam did not have any telephone connection in her inlaw's house and at the time when Arun took Rs.50,000/ she was present in the gali along with other persons namely Krishna, Manju, Angoori and Sheela. She has further deposed that male members of her family were not present there at that time but Satish was present and Arun had taken her back in the evening but she is unable to tell the exact date, month or year and states that it was St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 50 towards the end of the month. The witness has deposed that after Arun took Poonam back, she never came back to her parental house and states that the mother of Arun often used to converse with her when Poonam was at her father's house which conversation would last till such time some person from her family had come to attend the call. She has denied that brother of Poonam used to demand money from Poonam and states that rather it was Arun who used to trouble Poonam to demand a share from retirement money of her father. She has also denied that Poonam was never tortured and states that she was frequently beaten and had bruises over her body. The witness has further deposed they never wanted her marriage to be spoiled and that is why they never reported the matter and she was provided local treatment. According to her, at the time when she had received the call from the in laws of Poonam informing them that she was admitted in the hospital, she was alone in the house and her daughter in law was upstairs. She also does not remember who exactly informed her that Poonam had been killed. She also does not remember the year when the father of Poonam had retired and states that for the first time, the police met her was at the house of Poonam's father after her death and her husband did not go there. He has stated that she does not remember the date when her statement was written by the police but states that it was written at Maan Singh's house in the presence of St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 51 Satish, Ashok and Krishna when Angoori and Manju came later. She has deposed that Angoori and Manju were also present while the police was still there but she is not aware if their statements were also recorded or not. According to her, there were no ladies of the gali but she does not remember on how many documents she put her thumb impressions (she was totally illiterate). She has testified that after recording her statement she was not told by the police officer what he had written but she does not remember if she had put her thumb impression on her statement. She has denied the suggestion that Ashok is an alcoholic and states that she never seen him consuming liquor. She has also denied that the financial condition of Satish was not good or that she has deposed falsely at the instance of the family of Poonam being related to them. She is not aware if the children are still with the family of Arun.
Medical Evidence:
PW7 Dr. Anil Shandilya, Lecturer, LLRM Medical College, Meerut has deposed that on 17.04.2005 he was posted as Senior Resident, Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial hospital and had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Poonam @ Sneha, aged about 27 years female, sent by SDM Sh. G. P. Singh, identified by Constable Prem with alleged history as per brief facts that her daughter Poonam @ Sneha has been subjected to cruelty and St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 52 torture since after her marriage on 26.11.2001 by her husband Arun Kumar, fatherinlaw Chatar Singh, motherinlaw Ram Rati and brotherinlaw Shobraj for the demand of dowry. He has deposed that on 16.04.2005 at about 4:00 PM he was informed by Chatar Singh that Poonam has been admitted in Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial hospital by consuming some unknown poison. She was admitted in the hospital vide MLC No.19607 with alleged history of surface poisoning and died at about 3:45 PM. According to him, gastric lavage also preserved and the following were the findings on postmortem examination:
Average built, conjuctiva congested, rigor mortis present all over the body. No mark of external injury of deformity over the body.
He has proved that on the internal examination of Head brain matter was congested edematous; no abnormally was detected in the Neck; bilateral lungs were congested and edematous in the Chest; on cut section blood froth was exuding out; also no abnormally was detected in the Heart. On examination of abdomen Stomach was Greenish white to salaty colour deposits along with lesser and greater curvature, anterior and posterior walls of stomach, mucosa grossly congested with atypical smell. The witness has testified that the cause of death was deferred till receipt of blood and viscera chemical St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 53 analysis report which was preserved, sealed and handed over to concerned police official for CFSL examination. According to him, time since death was consistent with hospital timing of death on 16.04.2005 at 3:45 pm. He has also deposed that he also preserved clothes and blood and viscera. He has proved his detailed report which is Ex.PW7/A bearing his signature at point A. The said witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence, his testimony remained uncontroverted.
PW8 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary, CMO, BJRM Hospital, Delhi has proved that the MLC No.19607 of Sneha W/o Arun Kumar, aged 30 years female, who was brought to hospital on history of poisoning on 16.04.2005. According to him, the patient was examined by Dr. Sanjay and patient was referred to Medicine and seen by SR Medicine Dr. Naveen. He has further deposed that Dr. Sanjay and Dr. Naveen are not working in hospital and their present whereabouts are not known. The said MLC is Ex.PW8/A on which the witness has identified the signatures of Dr. Sanjay and Dr. Naveen Bhatt at points A and B. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel and his testimony has gone unrebutted.
PW15 Dr. Kulbhushan Goyal from BJRM Hospital has deposed that on 18.10.2007 one application was moved SI Dalbir Singh of Police Station Alipur for giving the final opinion regard the St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 54 death of Ms. Sneha whose postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. Anil Shandil vide Postmortem No. 228/05 dated 17.4.2005 as the Investigating Officer has received the CFSL report of viscera bearing no. CFSL(K)/EE/2005(Del)871 dated 30.03.2006 which gave positive test of Aluminum Phosphide in the stomach and its contents and in gastric lavage (done in hospital). According to the witness, he perused the Postmortem report and chemical analysis report and in view of PM findings and positive result of Aluminum Phosphide of CFSL, death in the present case is due to cardiac anoxia and element of asphyxia as a result of Aluminum Phosphide poisoning. He has proved his subsequent opinion which is Ex.PW15/A bearing his signature at point A. In his cross examination he has admitted that the postmortem was not done by him and the postmortem report was also prepared by him. He is unable to tell in how many cases he had given subsequent opinion on 18.10.07.
Police/ official witnesses:
PW3 WASI Manisha has deposed that on 17.04.2005 she was posted at Police Station Ali Pur and on that day she along with Investigating Officer SI Arjun Singh went to house No.884, Village Bakhtawar Pur, Delhi for the investigation of the present case.St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 55
According to the witness, Constable Prem Pal was also accompanying them and accused Chatar Singh, Arun Kumar and Ram Rati were arrested from there by the Investigating Officer in her presence vide arrest memo which are Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C which bears her signature at point A respectively. She has further deposed that the personal search of the accused Ram Rati was conducted by her and nothing was recovered from her personal search, vide memo to that effect was prepared and the same is Ex.PW3/D. In her cross examination, the witness has deposed that accused persons were arrested from their house and Ram Rati was arrested first of all. She has denied the suggestion that all the accused persons were arrested from the hospital. She does not remember if the Investigating Officer had tried to associate any public person for the arrest of accused persons. She has also denied that she did not join the investigation or that no arrest was made in her presence.
PW4 HC Ramesh has deposed that on 16/17.04.2005 he was posted at Police Station Ali Pur as Duty Officer from 12 :00 AM to 8:00 PM. According to him, on 17.04.2005 at about 1:30 AM he received a rukka from SHO Police Station Alipur on the basis of which he had recorded formal FIR No.143/05 in his own handwriting, carbon copy of which is Ex.PW4/A. He has further deposed that he also endorsed the rukka vide endorsement Ex.PW4/B which bear his St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 56 signature at point A. According to him, after registration of FIR investigation was handed over to SI Arjun Singh and copy of FIR and rukka was sent through Constable Rajeev at BJRM hospital and messages were sent to the senior police officials. In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he is not aware of the handwriting on rukka. The witness has also deposed that Constable Rajeev left the Police Station within half an hour and had left the police station alone.
PW5 Constable Ashokan has deposed that on
28.06.2005, he was posted at Police Station Ali Pur and on that day one sealed box stated to be containing viscera and one bottle sealed with the seal of BJRM hospital along with FSL form vide RC No. 93/21/05 and he went to deposit the same at FSL Hyderabad but the officials refused to receive the exhibits for examination. According to him, he came back with the sealed pullandas and handed over the same back to MHC(M). He has proved that during the tenure, the above mentioned sealed box and sealed bottle remained in his possession and nothing was tampered or allowed to be tampered with. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and his testimony has gone unrebutted.
PW6 Shri G.P. Singh, Dy. Registrar, Department of Cooperative Societies, Delhi (the then SDM) has deposed that on St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 57 16.04.2005 he was posted as SDM Narela and on that day, sometime in the afternoon, he received a telephonic call from Police Station Ali Pur that one lady has been admitted in Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial hospital, Jahangir Puri with history of poisoning. According to the witness, he was further informed that she was unfit for statement and again in the evening he was informed that the lady has died and he directed police officials to inform the parents of the deceased to reach Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial hospital so that their statements could be recorded. The witness has testified that he reached Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial hospital around 11:30 PM on the same day where Shri Maan Singh, father of the deceased and Smt. Poonam were present. PW6 has also deposed that he has recorded the statement of Maan Singh in Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial hospital itself which is Ex.PW2/A and after recording the statement of Maan Singh, he endorsed the same to SHO, Police Station Ali Pur with a direction to register an FIR under relevant provisions of law which endorsement is Ex.PW6/A. He has also deposed that on 17.04.2005, he again reached Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial hospital mortuary in the morning hours and made a written request to the Incharge, Mortuary to conduct an autopsy on the body of the deceased, which request is Ex.PW6/B. He has proved having prepared the brief facts and annexed the same with the written request for autopsy which brief St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 58 facts are Ex.PW6/C. The witness has also deposed that death report on form No. 25:35 was also prepared which form is Ex.PW6/D. He has also proved the statement of Shri Man Singh, father of deceased which is Ex.PW2/B; statement of Shri Ashok Kumar, real brother of the deceased which is Ex.PW6/E and they identified the body of the deceased as that of Mrs. Poonam @ Sneha.
In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he does not remember the exact time when he received the telephonic call and states that at that time he was present in his office and reached the hospital at around 11:30 PM where he remained till about 1:001:30 AM in the night. The witness has also deposed that he was informed about the death of Poonam @ Sneha at about 5:00 PM by some police officials but he does not remember his name. PW6 has testified that the police officials had given him the initial information that Poonam has probably died of poisoning. He has denied that he did not record statement of either the father of the deceased or the brother of deceased or that the statement of Maan Singh was recorded by the Investigating Officer even prior to his arrival or that he subsequently put his signature thereunder. According to him, he came to know only from the statement of Maan Singh that he had retired from Delhi Police. He is unable to tell whether Maan Singh made a statement before him on the basis of suspicion only. He is not know St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 59 as to whether accused Arun and Chatar Singh were present in the hospital or not at the time when he recorded statement of Man Singh. He has also not aware as to whether Maan Singh and his son had given any beating to Arun and Chatar Singh resulting in injuries on their person. The witness has denied the suggestion that he did not visit the hospital or that he had not correctly carried out the proceedings.
PW10 WHC Sarla has deposed that on 16.04.2005 she was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Ali Pur and was working as DD writer from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. According to her, on that day at around 2:40 PM, HC Vijay Kumar informed her from BJRM hospital that one Smt. Sneha W/o Arun Kumar R/o Village Bakhtawar Pur had been got admitted in BJRM hospital by her husband as she had consumed poison. She has further deposed that she had recorded the said information vide DD No.24/B and a copy thereof was sent to SI Dalbir Singh through DHG Constable Ravi for necessary action, which DD is Ex.PW10/A. She has not been cross examination by the Ld. Counsel despite opportunity in this regard.
PW11 WHC Bala Devi has deposed that on 16.04.2005 she was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Ali Pur and was working as Duty Officer from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM and on that day at around 3:50 PM, she received an information from HC Vijay Kumar St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 60 that one Smt. Sneha W/o Arun Kumar R/o Village Bakhtawar Pur who was got admitted in the hospital by her husband on 16.04.2005 after having consumed poison, had been declared brought dead by the doctors vide MLC No.19607/05. She has further stated that she had recorded the said information in the roznamcha vide DD No.16A and through wireless conveyed the said information to SI Dalbir Singh. She has proved the said DD entry which is Ex.PW11/A. In her cross examination, she has deposed that she did not remember whether she had informed about the said DD entry to the SHO or not.
PW12 HC Vijay Kumar has deposed that on 16.04.2005 he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Ali Pur and was working as Duty HC at BJRM hospital from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. According to him, on that day at around 1:15 PM, one Smt. Sneha was got admitted by her husband Arun Kumar in the casualty vide MLC No.19607 after she had allegedly consumed some poisonous substance. He has also deposed that she was unfit for statement and he had conveyed the information to Police Station Ali Pur in that regard. The witness has further deposed that at around 3:45 PM Smt, Sneha was declared brought dead by the doctors and he again conveyed this information to Police Station Ali Pur on telephone pursuant to which the local police had come from and had recorded St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 61 his statement in that regard. He was not cross examined despite opportunity and his testimony has gone unrebutted..
PW17 Ct. Rajiv has deposed that on 17.4.2008 he was posted as Constable in Police Station Alipur and on that day at about 1:30 AM (midnight) he was handed over an original rukka and copy of the FIR bearing no. 43/05 which he took to the BJRM Hospital and handed over the same to SI Arjun Singh. His testimony remained unrebutted as he was not cross examined despite opportunity.
PW18 HC Ramphal has deposed that on 22.5.2005 he was posted as Constable in Police Station Alipur and on that day on the directions of the Investigating Officer he took the exhibit i.e. one box and one bottle duly sealed with the seal of BJRM hospital from the MHC(M) and took the same to FSL Hyderabad vide RC No. 67/21/05 but the same was not taken by the authorities on the ground that they do not take the exhibits pertaining to out station. He has deposed that he brought the aforesaid exhibits back to Delhi and the same was got deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station Alipur and the copy of the RC was also given to MHC(M). He has proved that during the period the aforesaid exhibit remained in his possession, no tampering was done with the exhibits and that his statement was recorded in that regard. His testimony remained unrebutted as he was not cross examined despite opportunity.
St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 62
PW19 Ct. Prem Pal has deposed that on 16.04.2005 he was posted at Police Station Ali Pur and on that day he was present with SI Dalbir Singh and on that day on the receipt of DD No.24B he along with SI Dalbir Singh reached at BJRM Hospital and collected the MLC of Smt. Sneha. According to him, they came to know that during her treatment she expired after which SI Dalbir Singh informed the SDM, Narela who came to the Hospital. The witness has deposed that he was left with the dead body in the mortuary for guarding the same and on the next day the postmortem of the dead body of Smt. Sneha was got conducted. He has also testified that he received box and one sample seal duly sealed with the seal of BJRM hospital and handed over the same to SI Arjun Singh since SI Dalbir Singh was not feeling well, therefore investigations of that case was handed over to SI Arjun Singh. The witness has further deposed that SI Arjun Singh took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/A and also took the bottle duly sealed with the seal of hospital and same was also seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/B. According to PW19, after postmortem was conducted, the body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased on 17.4.2005. He has testified that on 17.4.2005 he along with Investigating Officer Si Arjun Singh and WASI reached H.No. 884, Bakhtawarpur, Delhi where accused Arun Kumar, Sh. Chatar St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 63 Singh and Smt. Ramrati met them and they were arrested in this case vide memos Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C and were personally searched vide memos Ex.PW19/C to Ex.PW19/E. In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that they reached at the hospital at about 3:10 PM and public persons were available in the hospital but he was not aware of them at that time. According to him, the investigating officer informed him that the patient was unfit for statement and the Investigating Officer left the hospital leaving him in the mortuary but he is not aware of the time of departure of the Investigating Officer SI Dalbir Singh from hospital. He has deposed that SI Arjun Singh came to the hospital at about 4.00 PM and at that time SI Dalbir Singh was not present in the hospital. According to him, SI Dalbir Singh already informed SHO and SDM but he is not aware of the time. He has testified that SDM came in the hospital in the night at about 10/11 PM but he does not remember whether SHO had come with the SDM or separately but states that both of them did not met him. PW19 has also deposed that he received the box and bottle from the hospital at about 3.00 or 3.30PM by the doctor but he is not aware of the name of the doctor. He has testified that the box and bottle remained with him for about thirty minutes and he remained in the mortuary upto next morning i.e. upto the time of postmortem. According to PW19, in the morning SI St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 64 Arjun Singh came in the mortuary and got the postmortem conducted and SDM was also present in the hospital when postmortem was done. The witness has also deposed that they reached Bakhtawarpur at about 5:006:00 PM on 17.04.2005 by a private two wheeler but he is not aware of its number. According to him, public persons were available in the village and gathered at the house of accused persons and the personal search of accused Ramrati was conducted at about 7.00 PM by Woman ASI. He has denied that the personal search of accused persons were conducted at the police station or that he had signed the memos while sitting in the police station later on.
PW20 SI Dalbir Singh has deposed that on 16.04.2005, he was posted at Police Station Alipur and on that day on receipt of DD No. 24B at about 2.40 PM, he along with Ct. Prem Pal reached at BJRM hospital Jahangirpuri where he collected the MLC of Smt. Sneha, W/o Arun Kumar with alleged history of poisoning and she was unfit for statement at that time. The witness has also deposed that during the investigation he came to know that her marriage was solemnized on 26.11.2001, since seven years on the day of her death had not been completed, therefore he informed the SHO and SDM Narela. According to him, at about 3:45 PM during the treatment, she expired and SI Arjun Singh along with Inspector/ SHO came to BJRM hospital. PW20 has further deposed that SI Arjun Singh was St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 65 entrusted with the investigation of this case and Ct. Prem Pal took the sealed bottle containing Gastric lavage and sample seal from the doctor and same was handed over to SI Arjun Singh by him who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/B in his presence. He has also deposed that the dead body was formally searched by SI Arjun Singh and one pair of gold earring, one pair of silver Pajeb, one gold nose pin and one artificial mala with pendant were taken into possession by SI Arjun Singh who sealed the same with the seal of AS and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/A. According to PW20, he sent the dead body to the mortuary and at that time he was not feeling well therefore further investigation was done by SI Arjun Singh. He has deposed stated that on 02.04.2006 he again received the investigation of this case when accused Shobh Raj had moved an application for his anticipatory bail which was granted by the Hon'ble court and thereafter father of the deceased Maan Singh moved an application before the Hon'ble Court seeking cancellation of bail. According to him, he attended the court in this regard and was directed to verify the genuineness of the age certificate produced by accused Shobh Raj pursuant to which he received the photocopy of the age certificate in which his date of birth was mentioned as 09.02.1988 which was seized vide memo Ex.PW20/B and the certificate is marked X1. The witness has also deposed that he St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 66 verified the said certificate from MCD, Narela and Alipur and the report of Deputy Health Officer, MCD, Narela is Mark X2 the original certificate of which is in the case file of FIR No.287/07 U/s 420/468/471 IPC, PS Alipur according to which certificate as per record the date of birth of Shobh Raj S/o Sh. Chatar Singh on 09.02.1988 does not exist in the birth and death record and hence, a separate case was got registered against the accused Shobh Raj. The witness has also testified that he had also moved an application before the Principal Sarvodaya Vidyalaya, Jor Bagh, New Delhi seeking the date of birth of accused Shobh Raj vide Ex.PW20/C to which a certificate was given by the Vice Principal vide Mark X3 the original of which is attached in the aforesaid case file according to which certificate Mark X3, the date of birth of accused Amardeep @ Shobh Raj is 09.02.1986. The witness has also deposed that the report of Deputy Health Officer is MarkX4 and as per this report the birth record of 1988 of accused Shobh Raj does not exist. He has further testified that after receiving the aforesaid certificates the bail of accused Shobh Raj was cancelled by the Hon'ble Court. He has proved that on 08.10.2007, accused Shobh Raj was arrested by him vide memo Ex.PW20/D and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW20/E. According to him, he recorded the statement of the witnesses and were placed in the Supplementary Charge sheet St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 67 prepared by him. He has also proved that on 04.10.2007, he moved an application at BJRM hospital requesting therein final opinion regarding cause of death vide his application which is Ex.PW20/F on which Dr. Kulbhushan has given his subsequent opinion which is Ex.PW15/A. He has also proved having collected the FSL result from MHC(M) and placed the same before the Court vide his application Ex.PW20/G which FSL result is Ex.PW20/H. The witness has correctly identified all the accused and the case property i.e. one pair of gold earring, one pair of silver Pajeb, one gold nose pin and one artificial mala with pendant to be the same as belonging to the deceased which are collectively Ex. P.1 During his crossexamination, he has deposed that he reached at the hospital at about 3.00 PM and met the Duty Constable first in the hospital. According to him, he knew Maan Singh, the father of the deceased who met him in the hospital but he was not aware of other relatives of the deceased. The witness has deposed that he was also not aware of the accused persons at that time so he is unable to tell whether the accused persons were also present in the hospital or not. He has testified that he did not ask from the doctor as to who got the deceased admitted in the hospital nor did he see in the MLC as to who brought the deceased in the hospital. He is not aware if any case pertaining to Police Station Jahangir Puri was pending St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 68 against the brother and other relatives of the deceased. According to PW20, he informed the SHO and SDM at 3.55PM and he left the hospital at about 5.306.00 PM. He has admitted that in his presence neither SHO nor SDM reached the hospital on that day since he was suffering from high blood pressure and this information was given to SHO who sent SI Arjun Singh for further investigation at about 4.15 - 4.30 PM. According to the witness, personal search of deceased was not conducted in his presence however articles recovered from the dead body were seized in his presence by SI Arjun. He has further deposed that he was lying in the room of the Duty Constable at hospital because of his high blood pressure, so he is unable tell whether any lady police official came in the hospital or not. The witness has also deposed that the SDM never met him in this case. He has admitted that in Mark X3 the name of accused was mentioned as Amardeep Lohiya and alias Sobhraj is not mentioned therein. He has also admitted that he had mentioned the name of Sobhraj in his application Ex.PW20/B and not alias Amardeep Lohiya. According to PW20, his statement was recorded by the investigating officer on 17.4.05 in the police station but he is not aware as to who other were examined under Section 161 Cr.PC on that day by the Investigating Officer. He has further stated that on 17.4.05 he did not sign any document and SI Arjun Singh had not met him after 17.4.05 with St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 69 regard to this case. He does not remember the date of receiving the subsequent opinion regarding cause of death but states that the same was given by the doctor on 18.10.07. He has denied that he never joined the investigations of this case and also that he has signed the documents later on while sitting in the police station at the instance of accused Arjun Singh with the connivance with father of deceased.
PW21 Inspt. Arjun Singh has deposed that on 16.4.05 he was posted at Police Station Alipur as Sub Inspector and on that day he received a message from the then SHO who directed him to reach at BJRM Hospital. According to him, at about 6:00 PM he reached BJRM hospital where SI Dalbir Singh and Ct. Prempal met him. He has testified that he received the MLC from SI Dalbir Singh and made inquiry from SI Dalbir and Ct. Prempal and received the sealed bottle containing gastric lavage of the deceased Smt. Sneha duly sealed with the seal of hospital which he seized vide memo Ex.PW19/B. According to him, he came to know that the dead body is lying in the mortuary therefore he went to mortuary and inspected the dead body and he found no external injury on the dead body. He has testified that the dead body was formally searched by him and one pair of gold earring, one pair of silver Pajeb, one gold nose pin and one artificial mala with pendant were taken into possession by him and sealed the same with the seal of AS and took it into possession St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 70 vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/A. The witness has also deposed that he started waiting for SDM who came in the hospital at about 11:45 AM and SDM recorded the statements of father, brother of deceased and on the basis of statements of father of deceased SDM directed the SHO to get the case registered. He has proved having sent the rukka to the police station through SI Dalbir Singh for getting the case registered. He has also deposed that Ct. Rajeev brought the rukka and copy of FIR in the hospital itself and he recorded the statements of brother of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.PC. According to him, Ct. Prempal was deputed in the mortuary to guard the dead body and he went to the police station back where he deposited the case property in the malkhana. He has further testified that on 17.4.05 at about 5 to 6 AM he along with HC Jai Bhagwan reached the spot and prepared site plan which is Ex.PW21/A. He has proved having searched the room where the deceased was living but nothing incriminating was found there at that time and the accused persons were not available there at that time therefore, he came back to the police station. The witness has further deposed that at about 10:00 AM he again went to the mortuary and that the relatives of the deceased including her father were found available in the mortuary. He has proved having prepared the inquest documents vide Ex.PW6/B to Ex.PW6/D, which were signed by the SDM and the St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 71 postmortem of the dead body was got conducted. According to the witness, the dead body was duly identified by Sh. Maan Singh and Sh. Ashok Kumar vide statement Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW6/E and thereafter the dead body was handed over to them vide receipt Ex.PW2/C. The witness has also deposed that he received viscera petti along with the sample seal and parcel containing clothes of deceased duly sealed with the seal of BJRM hospital from Ct. Prempal and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW19/A. PW21 has deposed that thereafter he came back to the Police Station and the exhibits were deposited in the Malkhana and on the same day at about 77:30 PM he along with WASI Manisha and Ct. Prempal reached at Bakhtawarpur at the house of accused persons where the accused namely Chatar Singh, Arun Kumar and Smt. Ram Rati, were arrested in the present case after interrogation vide memos Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/C respectively and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW19/C to Ex.PW19/E. He has proved having recorded the statements of witnesses. According to him, on 27.4.05 he went to the house of the deceased and also recorded the statements of the relatives and other witnesses. He has proved having collected the wedding card of the deceased from the father of the deceased which is Ex.PW2/D and the postmortem report. The witness PW21 has deposed that on 22.5.05 he sent the exhibits to FSL Hyderabad through Ct. Ramphal St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 72 but the same could not be deposited and hence he brought the same back and deposited in the Malkhana. On 28.6.05 he again sent the aforesaid exhibits to FSL Hyderabad through Ct. Ashokan but the same could not deposited on that day also. The witness has proved having obtained the NBWs against accused Sobhraj @ Amardeep but he was not traceable and thereafter proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.PC were got issued against the accused. He has testified that thereafter he was transferred from the police station therefore the further investigation of this case was handed over to some other Investigating Officer. The witness has correctly identified the accused persons in the court as well as the case property which is collectively Ex.P1. The said witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence, his testimony has gone unrebutted. Statement of the accused/ defence evidence:
After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied. The accused Arun Kumar has stated that he is innocent and was having good relations with Poonam and no quarrel had taken place between them. According to him, his brother in law is a habitual drinker and he used to ask Poonam to bring money St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 73 from him and Poonam herself used to give him money in his absence.
He has stated that Poonam had died due to illness and he has nothing to do with her death. The accused has denied having demanded any money from the family of the deceased.
The accused Ram Rati has stated that she is innocent and she has been falsely implicated. She has denied having demanded any money. Further, the accused Chatar Singh has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. According to him, he was arrested from the hospital which he was admitted since he was given beatings by the brothers of Poonam whereas her wife was arrested from their residence. The accused Shobh Raj has similarly stated that he is innocent and has nothing to do with the incident. According to him, on the day of the incident he was not at home since he had gone for his wife. He has further stated that his brother Arun and Bhabhi Poonam were having good relations. The accused has preferred not to examine any witness in his defence.
FINDINGS:
I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence counsels appearing on behalf of the accused. I have also gone through the written synopsis/ memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused and the complainant and the evidence on record. First I propose to deal with St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 74 all the allegations/ averments made by the public witness individually in a tabulated form as under and later on comprehensively.
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition
No. witness
1. Smt. Krishna She is the sister in law (Bhabhi) of the deceased who
(PW1) has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That her youngest sisterinlaw (nanad) Poonam @ Sneha was married on 26.11.2011 with accused Arun and they had given dowry as per their capacity.
2. That few months after marriage, when Poonam came to their house, she had told them that her parentsinlaw, husband and dever were greedy persons and demanded money from the retirement benefits of her (Krishna's) father in law and when Poonam resisted this demand, she was beaten by them.
3. That Poonam was not permitted to move out of the house or even to the terrace and was not even provided food properly nor permitted to wear new clothes.
4. That the jewellery given by them to her Nanad was kept by accused Ram Rati in her possession and Poonam was not permitted to wear the jewellery.
5. That about a year after the marriage Poonam was admitted to a government hospital for cesarean delivery and when she along with her husband visited the hospital to see Poonam, there was none from the family of accused to look after her.
6. That Poonam's mother in law had not come to the hospital making an excuse of her illness and therefore she (Krishna) herself and her husband stayed back to look after Poonam and provide her medicines etc. and also bore the expenses for the treatment of Poonam.
St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 75
7. That Poonam further told that accused Arun started demanding money on the pretext that he wanted to start a business and about a year later, Poonam gave birth to another daughter and her parents in law again refused to take care of Poonam.
8. That this time also, she (Krishna) herself and her husband took care of Poonam and also bore the expenses for her delivery. She has testified that having given birth to two daughters, the parents inlaw of Poonam started taunting Poonam for the same.
9. That accused Arun started demanding Rs.50,000/ as he wanted to buy a van, as he was in driving profession and about five to six months prior to Holi in the year 2005, Poonam was badly beaten by the accused persons as well as by her Dever.
10.That Poonam called up in the house of their neighbourer namely Raj and she attended the telephone call on which Poonam requested that she should be brought to the parent's house as she was being constantly harassed and tortured for a demand of Rs.50,000/.
11.That her husband Ashok went to village Bakhtabar Pur to bring Poonam from her matrimonial house and that Poonam had received injuries on her back and was severely beaten and she was thereafter got treated at a private hospital.
12.That accused Ram Rati had not permitted Poonam to take away her daughters and had said that Poonam would be permitted to reenter the house only if she brought Rs.50,000/.
St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 76
13.That Poonam remained with them for about five months and during this period, the accused persons used to speak to her on telephone and told her to return only after Rs.50,000/ had been arranged.
14.That about a week after Holi accused Arun along with his cousin had come to their house to take Poonam along with him and again demanded Rs.
50,000/ after which they arranged the amount by borrowing Rs.10,000/ from Umed Singh, Rs.
30,000/ from Raj Singh and another Rs.10,000/ were arranged from her dever Satish.
15.That the accused Arun took Poonam along with him after he was given Rs.50,000/ by her dever Satish.
16.That after fifteen days, accused Chatar Singh called up his husband on a mobile phone and told him that Poonam and Arun had fought with each other and Poonam was admitted in hospital.
17.That her husband and her father in law went to the hospital and came to know that Poonam had passed away because of consuming some poisonous substance.
18.She has identified all the accused in the court.
2. Maan Singh He is the father of the deceased Poonam who has (PW2) deposed on the following lines:
1. That his youngest daughter Poonam was married to accused Arun Kumar S/o Chatar Singh on 26.11.2001 who was plying a private Maruti Van.
2. That the behaviour of the inlaws of Poonam was not good towards her from the very beginning of her marriage for the reason that she had not brought sufficient dowry and deceased was beaten by her in laws and her husband for not fulfilling their demands.St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 77
3. That after one year of marriage, deceased gave birth to a female baby at NDMC hospital and she was not taken care of by her husband or her in laws and that his son Ashok and his wife used to look after Poonam and her daughter.
4. That as per their customs they had given gifts to the accused and his family as per their capacity but they were not satisfied with the items given by them.
5. That Poonam had given birth to another female child at Safdurjung hospital and both the deliveries were by way of cesarean.
6. That this time also deceased was not taken care of by the accused persons and again his son and his daughter in law looked after her and all the expenses were borne by his sons.
7. That again as per custom, gifts and articles were given but the accused persons were not happy and satisfied and instead they started taunting the deceased that she had spoiled atmosphere of their family by giving birth to two female children and the deceased was even more tortured and harassed.
8. That deceased was restricted from going outside the house on the pretext that accused Ram Rati was patient of Thyroid and she needed a person to look after her. He has deposed that most of the time she used to talk with them on telephone and told them that her husband, her parents in law and devar used to harass her by giving beatings for not bringing money.
9. That one day a telephone call from Poonam was received at the house of Prem Singh which was attended by his son Satish Kumar and Poonam told him that she was severely beaten by the accused persons and should be taken back from her in laws house.St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 78
10. That he sent his son Ashok Kumar to Bakhtawarpur where the accused persons were shifted later on and he brought her back with him on seeing her condition but accused Ram Rati, mother in law of the deceased, snatched her two minor daughters from her and asked her to bring 5060 thousand only then she would be allowed to enter in the house.
11. That Poonam narrated the entire episode to him and also told him that her husband and parents in law had warned her not to come back in the house again without Rs.5060 thousand.
12. That the deceased stayed with him for about five months and during that period only once accused Chatar Singh came to his house but he refused to take his daughter back to his home despite requests and on being questioned about their conduct towards Poonam, rather asked them as to who was the witness of such beatings and harassment caused to Poonam.
13. That accused Chatar Singh did not show his inclination to take Poonam back to her matrimonial house and the deceased used to weep for her daughters.
14. That on 31.03.2005 accused Arun visited his house and put a condition that he would take Poonam back only if the demand of Rs.5060 thousand was fulfilled and took Poonam back to his house only when his son Satish Kumar somehow managed to gave Rs.50,000/ to him but he was not present at that time.
15. That on 16.04.2005 at about 4:00 pm, accused Chatar Singh had called at the house of his neighbour Prem Singh, which was attended by his son Satish and Chatar Singh told that a quarrel between Poonam and her husband had taken place and Poonam was admitted in Jahangir Puri hospital.St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 79
16. That thereafter he along with his two sons namely Ashok Kumar and Satish with some relatives reached at Jahangir Puri hospital where they came to know that Poonam had already expired.
17. That they came to know that Poonam had died and she was given poison in her meals.
18. That he was suspicious that either his daughter Poonam was given some poisonous substance in her food or she was tortured and harassed by the accused persons to such an extent that under pressure, she was forced to take some poisonous substance.
19. That the SDM had also reached the hospital and recorded his statement which is Ex.PW2/A.
20. That on 17.04.2005, they went to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial Mortuary, where in the presence of SDM, he had identified the dead body of Poonam and his statement to that effect was also recorded which is Ex.PW2/B.
21. That after postmortem the dead body was handed over to them vide memo Ex.PW2/C and on 27.04.2005 he had produced the marriage card of his daughter which is Ex.PW4/D.
3. Ashok Kumar He is the brother of the deceased who has deposed on (PW9) the following aspects:
1. That deceased Poonam @ Sneha was his youngest sister and was married to Arun Kumar S/o Sh.
Chatar Singh, R/o Village Bakhtawar Pur, Delhi on 26.11.2001 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.
2. That Arun Kumar was driving a private van and his father was serving in NDMC.
St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 80
3. That the matrimonial life of his sister sailed smoothly for about three to four months but when his father retired from Delhi Police and received money on his retirement, the accused Arun husband of deceased; Chatar Singh, fatherin law; Ram Rati motherinlaw and Shobhraj brotherinlaw (devar) of the deceased started demanding money from his sister.
4. That all the accused demanded Rs.
50,00060,000/ from his sister so that they could purchase a van and accused persons started harassing her and used to give beatings to her.
5. That his sister used to make telephone calls in their neighbourhood and she narrated all these incidents to her bhabhi - Krishna who is his wife but his wife used to console her but the harassment of accused continued.
6. That thereafter his sister gave birth to one girl child in NDMC hospital through cesarean operation and doctor had advised her that there should be a gap of four to five years between the next delivery and they had given customary gifts/ items on the birth of child to the inlaws of her sister but all the accused persons were not satisfied with the gifts and articles.
7. That he along with his wife had visited the inlaws of his sister for giving these customary items and they tried to satisfy the accused persons but accused were not agreeable.
8. That he told them that they had spent the retirement benefits of his father on the construction of their house and thereafter again all the accused persons continued to harass his sister on account of demand of dowry.
St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 81
9. That he again visited the house of accused and tried to pacify the accused persons but they continued to harass his sister who again used to make telephone calls and told them about harassments but they tried console her.
10. That after one year again his sister gave birth to a girl child and this time they had taken her sister to Safdarjung hospital where accused informed them about the birth of girl child and he along with his wife went to Safdarjung hospital but none of the accused was present there and his sister was alone with her child.
11. That during stay of his sister in the hospital none of the accused had attended to her and his wife used to attend the deceased and accused remarked as to how they could bear the burden of two girls.
12. That they again gave the customary gifts on the birth of the second child and again the accused persons were not satisfied with the gifts and articles and they again demanded Rs.
50,00060,000/ so that they could purchase a van and the accused persons continued to harass his sister.
13. That he again visited the house of accused persons and tried to satisfy them and explained to them about their financial condition but the accused were not agreeable and thereafter accused persons again continued to harass his sister.
14. That after about one to two months again his sister made a telephone call and narrated the harassment and demand by accused persons on which he again visited the house of inlaws of his sister and brought her back to their house and after about ten to fifteen days, he went along with her sister to her in laws.
St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 82
15. That after two to three months a telephone call was received from his sister which was attended to by his father and his sister started weeping on the telephone and his father asked him (witness Ashok) to go at the matrimonial house of his sister pursuant to which he again visited her matrimonial house where his sister started weeping on seeing him.
16. That the condition of Poonam was serious and she was having some injury marks on her body and therefore, he brought her sister back to his house but the accused persons kept both the daughters of his sister with them and asked his sister not to come again at their house without bringing Rs.50,000/.
17. That he told the accused persons that if they are able to arrange the money then they would make the payment.
18. That his sister remained at their house for about five months and during that period Chatar Singh once came to their house and made inquiry about the money but he went away without taking his sister.
19. That Arun Kumar also once made a telephone call to his sister and inquired about the money from his sister but his sister had disconnected the phone.
20. That on 31.03.2005, accused Arun came to their house and made inquiry from his sister about the arrangement of money and his sister told this fact to his younger brother Satish who took Rs.
10,000/ from his uncle Umed Singh; Rs.30,000/ from Raj Singh and arranged Rs.10,000/ from his own sources and gave Rs.50,000/ in total to accused Arun after which Arun took Poonam to his house.
St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 83
21. That on 16.04.2005 at around 4:00 PM, Chatar Singh made a telephone call and told them that there was a quarrel between Arun and his sister Poonam and she has been admitted in BJRM hospital on which he along with his father, his brother and family members went to the hospital where they found their sister Poonam dead.
22. That on making inquiries, they came to know that deceased was admitted in hospital for consuming some poisonous substance and thereafter, SDM came and recorded the statement of his father and got the FIR registered.
He has proved having identified the dead body of his sister vide statement Ex.PW6/E and the fact that after the postmortem examination dead body was handed over to them vide receipt Ex.PW2/C.
4. Satish Kumar He is is also the younger brother of the deceased who (PW13) has deposed:
1. That deceased Poonam was his younger sister and her marriage was solemnized on 26/11/2001 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies with Sh.
Arun Kumar S/o Sh. Chattar Singh, R/o Village and Post Office Bakhatawarpur Delhi.
2. That in the marriage they have given all those things which normally a person gives according to their capacity.
3. That at the time of marriage Arun Kumar was running a private van and his father was serving in NDMC.
4. That the matrimonial life of his sister sailed smoothly for two to three months and thereafter his sister's husband Arun Kumar, motherinlaw Smt. Ramwati, fatherinlaw Chatar Singh and devar Shobh Raj @ Amardeep started harassing her sister on account of trifling matters.
St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 84
5. That his sister was asked that her father had not given cash in the marriage and they were expecting much more cash and articles and her father had not given any cash and articles and her father had spoiled all their expectation.
6. That in the year 2001 his father had retired from Delhi Police as Head Constable and the inlaws of her sister were expecting that they would get the share of Poonam but his father had spent all amount on the house etc. on which issue her husband Arun Kumar, motherinlaw Ram Rati, fatherinlaw Chatar Singh and devar Shobh Raj @ Amardeep had started harassing her again and Poonam was kept in restrain.
7. That her sister was also not allowed to make telephone calls and she some time used to telephone without telling/ informing to her in laws, at the house of Sh. Prem Singh their neighbourers and talked to them and narrated all the facts.
8. That after one year of the marriage her sister gave birth to a female child in NDMC hospital through cesarean operation and after the birth of the female child the husband of Poonam and her in laws had not taken care of her and it was his elder brother Ashok Kumar along with his wife who went to the hospital and after seeing her condition they took care of her till she remained in the hospital.
9. That at the time of birth they performed the 'chuchak' ceremonies according to their capacity but motherinlaw and fatherin law of Poonam were not satisfied with the same and were not happy and thereafter Arun Kumar started demanding money from them on the pretext that he wanted to start some work but since their St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 85 economic condition was not good so they were not able to help him due to which reason the inlaws of the Poonam again started taunting her and when her sister resisted then her husband and mother inlaw also gave beatings to her.
10.That when the first daughter of his sister was of one year then his sister gave birth to second daughter in NDMC hospital, Safdarjung, Delhi through operation and after birth of two female child the inlaws of his sister started saying that they cannot bear the expenses of female child and started asking Poonam to bring the money from her father for the maintenance of the female child.
11.That all the accused started demanding Rs.50,000 60,000/ and about five months prior (from the date of his deposition) Poonam rang up in their neighbourhood and informed his father that her husband, motherinlaw, fatherinlaw and devar had given beating to her and asked his father to take her back on which his father had sent his (witness's) elder brother Ashok to Bakhtawarpur village who finding that Poonam was given beating, brought her back to their house.
12.That her motherinlaw had kept both daughters with her and told Poonam that till she would not arrange for Rs.50,000/ she would not allow her to enter into house and will not give the children to her.
13.Thereafter Arun Kumar many times rang up and asked if they had arranged Rs 50,000/ only then he can take away Poonam to his house and during this time Chatar Singh came to their house but he had not talked to them about taking away Poonam.
St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 86
14.That on 31.03.2005 accused Arun Kumar came to their house and demanded the money only then he could take away Poonam but at that time his, father and his elder brother were not present at home and therefore seeing towards the future of his sister, he told these facts to his chacha and tau who were residing in his neighbourhood.
15.That he took Rs 10,000/ from Sh. Umed Singh, S/o Sh. Mega Ram, Rs.30,000/ from Sh. Raj Singh S/o Sh. Bhagwan and he himself arranged Rs.10,000/ and in total he gave Rs.50,000/ to accused Arun Kumar at about 22:30 PM who left their house along with Poonam.
16.That on 16.04.2005 at about 4:00 PM Smt. Raj Wati W/o Sh. Prem Singh told him that there was telephone call from Chattar Singh on their telephone on which he talked on the telephone and on the other side Chatar Singh told him that a quarrel took place between Poonam and Arun and Poonam was admitted in BJRM hospital and thereafter he told all these facts to his father and brother etc. and when he along with his father and brother etc. reached BJRM hospital, they came to know that Poonam had expired and she was admitted at the hospital on account of consumption of some unknown poison.
17.That he is confirmed that his sister had been given some poisonous substance in which crime Arun Kumar, Ram Rati, Chatar Singh and Shobh Raj @ Amardeep are involved.
5. Raj Singh He is the uncle/ chacha of the deceased who has (PW14) deposed on the following lines:
1. That he was doing business of manufacturing gas burner and Maan Singh is his elder brother who has two sons and four daughters and the names of the sons are Ashok Kumar and Satish Kumar and Poonam was the youngest daughter who was St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 87 married to Arun Kumar, S/o Chattar Singh, R/o Village Bakhatwarpur on 26.11.2001.
2. The marriage ceremony was solemnized by his brother as per his status he had even given gifts and dowry as per his capacity.
3. That about twothree months after the marriage of Poonam he came to know that she was being harassed by her inlaws including husband, motherinlaw, fatherinlaw and brotherinlaw for dowry.
4. That his brother had retired and Poonam was being compelled to seek a share in the retirement benefits of his brother Maan Singh who had invested the entire money in the house which he had constructed for himself.
5. That after her marriage Poonam gave birth to two daughters when first daughter was born after about one year of the marriage and the second daughter was born one year thereafter.
6. That both the daughters were born in a government hospital by a cesarean operation and on both the occasions it was Ashok and his wife who took care of Poonam and her inlaws did nothing.
7. That on 16.4.2005 his nephew Satish Kumar came to him and told him that Poonam was at their house after his brother Ashok Kumar had brought her on account of harassment by her inlaws and that her husband Arun Kumar had demanded Rs.
50,000/ to take her back because he wanted to do some business/ work.
8. That he told him that Poonam had at their house for about five to six months and was being subjected to harassment by her inlaws.
St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 88
9. That Poonam had also told him herself that she was being harassed for dowry by her husband, motherinlaw, fatherinlaw and brotherinlaw and when Satish told him about the demand raised by Arun, he told Satish that he had Rs.
30,000/ which he can gave to him and in pursuance to the same he gave Rs.30,000/ to Satish and that he was told by Satish that his other brother Umed Singh had given him Rs.
10,000/ and Satish himself had arranged for Rs. 10,000/ from his house.
10. That after Satish gave Rs.50,000/ to Arun he took Poonam back and after about 1520 days, date he does not remember, Satish told him that they had received the call from the inlaws of Poonam that Pooanm was in the hospital.
11. That on receiving of this information he along with Satish and other family members went to BJRM Hospital where they found Poonam dead.
12. That it was appearing as if she had been given some poisonous substance as a foul smell was emanating from her mouth.
13. That Poonam had expired on account of her in laws and action should be taken against her husband, fatherinlaw, motherinlaw and brotherinlaw.
6. Smt. Rajwati She is the neighbour of the parents of the deceased (PW16) who has corroborates the testimonies of the parents of the deceased on the following lines:
1. That Sh. Maan Singh was residing in his neighbourhood and was having two sons and four daughters and all were married.
2. That Poonam was his youngest daughter who was married to Arun Kumar R/o Bakhtawarpur about 3½ years prior to her death.St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 89
3. That she was having a phone at their residence but there was no phone in the house of Sh. Maan Singh and after the marriage, Poonam gave birth to one daughter after about one year to cesarean operation but nobody from her in laws take care of her.
4. That the brother of Poonam namely Ashok and her Bhabhi used to visit her to take care her and after the marriage Poonam used to call at their house and she (witness) used to hear her phone and asked her to call her brother, bhabhi or father.
5. That on the phone Poonam started weeping and when she made inquiries from her.
6. That many times when she talked Poonam she told her that her inlaws used to harass her and gave beating to her.
7. That Poonam used to make telephone call at the interval of 2025 days and her inlaws used to demand money from her and demanded share from retirement money of her father.
8. That there were many restrictions upon Poonam from her inlaws and she was not even allowed to go on the roof or to talk to anybody.
9. That Ashok brought Poonam to her house who was present on the Holi festival.
10. That Poonam had also given birth to second daughter through operation and on the day of Holi, Poonam was weeping and she made inquiries from her who told her that her daughter was not sent with her by her inlaws.
11. That after the birth of second daughter, the in laws of Poonam started harassing her more and more taunting her from where they would bring money for the maintenance of her daughters.St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 90
12. That during the stay of Poonam at parental home, her mother in law and husband used to make call and she used to call Poonam to hear the telephone after which Poonam started weeping and on inquiry Poonam told her that her husband is demanding Rs.50,000/ for bringing van and if she would not bring money then he would not take her back.
13. That husband of Poonam namely Arun along with his cousin (Son of his maternal uncle) took away Poonam after five to six days of the Holi festival after he was given Rs.50,000/ .
14. That Poonam came to her before leaving the parental house and told her that she was not willing to go there but still since Rs.50,000/ had been paid, it was felt that her inlaws they would keep well.
15. That that after ten to fifteen days at about 5.00 telephone call was received at their house from the father of Arun.
16. That she attended the phone and thereafter she called Satish, the brother of the deceased who attended the phone and told her that Poonam was admitted in Jahangir Puri Hospital and she later on came to know that Poonam has been killed.
Coming now to the microscopic examination of the evidence against all the accused.
Identity of the accused:
The identity of the accused is not disputed. The accused Arun Kumar is the husband of the deceased Poonam @ Sneha;
accused Ram Rati is the mother in law of the deceased; accused St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 91 Chatar Singh is the father in law and accused Shobh Raj is the younger brother in law i.e. devar of the deceased.
Death of the deceased within 7 years of marriage and cause of death:
The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the deceased Poonam had been solemnized with the accused Arun Kumar on 26.11.2001 and she expired on 16.4.2005 i.e. within three years five months of the marriage. The date of marriage is not disputed.
Dr. Kulbhushan Goel (PW5) from BJRM Hospital has proved that the cause of death of the deceased was Cardiac anoxia and element of asphyxia as a result of Aluminum Phosphide poisoning. Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary (PW8) has duly proved the MLC of deceased Poonam who was brought to the hospital with a history of poisoning on 16.4.2005. Further, Dr. Anil Shandilya (PW7) has proved having conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and that Gastric Lavage were preserved. According to him, there were no marks of external injury or deformity over the body. It was observed that on examination of Head the brain matter was congested edematous; Chest examination revealed that Bilateral lungs were congested and edematous; on cut section Blood forth was exuding out and Stomach was containing greenish white to salaty colour deposits along with lesser and greater curvature, anterior and St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 92 posterior walls of stomach, mucosa grossly congested with a typical smell. Therefore, under these circumstances, the opinion was deferred by Dr. Anil Shandilya till the receipt of FSL report. PW15 Dr. Kulbhushan Goel has proved the CFSL Report of viscera bearing no. CFSL(K)/EE/2005 (Del)871 dated 3.3.2006 which gave positive test of Aluminum Phosphide in the stomach and its contents and also in the gastric lavage (done in the hospital). He has proved his opinion that in view of the postmortem report and chemical analysis report and in view of the postmortem findings and positive result of Aluminum Phosphide of CFSL, death was due to cardiac anoxia and element of asphyxia as a result of Aluminum Phosphide poisoning.
Section 498A & 304B IPC (Dowry Death - Proximity Test):
In order to succeed in charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the section. It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 93 injury or danger to her life or health. The use of the expression "willful" in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonably expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative, as the case may be. Everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act and such a presumption must necessarily be drawn even if there is no intention to cause any injury or harm to the woman. Whether the conduct in question is likely to drive the woman to cause injury to her life, limb or health, will depend upon a number of factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of awareness of the aggrieved woman, her temperament, state of her health, physical as well as mental and how she is likely to perceive such a behavior. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, it will also constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 94 Penal Code.
The expression "Cruelty" takes in its ambit mental cruelty as well as physical torture of the woman. If the conduct of the accused with a woman is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life and safety, such a conduct would attract criminal liability, envisaged in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
If the woman has been harassed on account of her failure or the failure of her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, that also constitutes cruelty, within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC. The expression "harassment" has not been defined in Section 498A of IPC, but its dictionary meaning is to subject someone to continuous vexatious attacks, questions, demands or other unpleasantness, etc. However, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under section 498A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, by positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand.
Further, in order to establish a charge under Section 304 B of Indian Penal Code, which deals with what is described as "dowry St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 95 death", the prosecution must necessarily prove the following ingredients: i. The death of a woman must have been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstance;
ii. Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
iii. Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband;
iv. Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry;
v. Such cruelty or harassment is when to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
The term "Dowry" has not been defined in Section 304 B of IPC, but, since this expression has been defined in Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it is required to be given the same meaning for the purpose of under Section 304B IPC as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satvir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 96 defines dowry as under:
"Definition of 'dowry'. In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or (b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before 3 or any time after the marriage 4in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case or persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies." Dowry would include that property or valuable security which is actually given or which is agreed to be given, in relation to the marriage of a person in question. The property or valuable security may be given or may be agreed to be given before marriage or at the time of marriage or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the marriage. However, there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given and the marriage. If at any time before or at the time of or even during marriage, the parents of a woman or any other person related or connected to her agree to give some cash, valuable security or property to her husband St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 97 or inlaws after marriage, that also would be covered within the definition of dowry as the agreement or promise in such a case would be attributable to the marriage or proposed marriage and if there is demand for any cash property, valuable security etc. which is promised, but not given, it would constitute demand for dowry. If the husband of the girl or any other person related or connected to him, demands something from the girl or her parents or any other person related to or connected with her, saying that the article being demanded by them was expected to be given or ought to have been given in marriage, that would also, to my mind, constitute demand of dowry because even though such an article may not have been agreed or promised to be given by the girl or her family members, it might have been in the contemplation of the boy and/or his family members, on account of the expectation that such an article would be given at the time of marriage. Therefore, such demand would be considered to be a demand in connection with the marriage though made after the marriage has been solemnized. Even demand of articles such as T.V., fridge, jewellery, clothes, furniture, etc. which usually are given or expected in marriages in our country, would, considering the objective sought to be achieved by incorporating Section 304B in Indian Penal Code and enacting Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 fall within the purview of Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 98
In the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1998 SC 958, the Apex Court has specifically held demand of T.V., Fridge, etc. though not agreed to be given or promised or even demanded prior to or at the time of marriage, to be a demand for dowry for the purpose of Section 304B of IPC. If cash or some property, etc. is demanded by the boy or his family members, after marriage, saying that they were expecting such cash, property, etc. to be given in marriage, and the girl, or her parents or any other person related or connected to her promise to fulfill such a demand, that also may fall within the purview of dowry, as the promise though made after marriage, would nevertheless be referrable to the marriage, having been made with a view to preserve the marriage. In case, if the demand is made after marriage and it is in respect of a property or valuable security, which was not demanded, was not expected to be given and also was not in contemplation at any time up to solemnization of marriage, demand of such cash, property or valuable security, etc. cannot be said to be in connection with the marriage and, therefore, would not constitute demand of dowry.
In the case of Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45 while dealing with this issue, the Hon"ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under: St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 99
"Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties". This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304B should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage."
In the case of Appasaheb and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2007 SC 763, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 100
"In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning........ A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 101 urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure."
The Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act are both remedial and penal statutes. As such Courts are expected to construe the provisions in a way that the purpose is fulfilled through and within the limits of language employed in the statute. If a case is established then the Courts are to be stringent in dealing with the culprits. The Courts while taking a stringent view and despite the obligation of the Legislature enactment a success have also to keep in mind that the charge should be made out.
The main ingredients to be proved for establishing a case under Section 304B IPC are (i) unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and (ii) she being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with any demand of dowry.
St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 102
The words "it is shown" occurring in section 304B IPC are of significance for the reason that the initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Section 304B IPC do exist on the prosecution. This being shown or established, the question of presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would arise. In other words, to draw a presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act the necessary ingredient that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry has to be proved. Only when these facts are proved then by virtue of the deeming provision of section 304B IPC, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death. Though cruelty at any time after the marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and harassment envisaged by Section 304B is to be soon before the death of a woman.
The Courts are required to scrutinize the evidence carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is a demand and then the atmosphere become calm and quiet and then again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of her husband within a short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 103 not available as the torture and harassment is confined to the four walls of the house. The Courts are, however, required to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in laws are strained for any reason whatever it might be.
Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological trouble or mental agony or such circumstances that the person committing suicide may think that life he or she is living is more miserable than the pangs and agony of death. The power of tolerance would vary from person to person . Some persons try to make the life easy by tolerance while others even on petty points bring an end to their life. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported as Gurditta Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1992 Crl. L.J. 309).
The importance of proximity test is both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive section 304B IPC and section 113B Evidence Act is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" used in section 113B of the Evidence Act, Illustration (a) of the Act is St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 104 relevant. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be too much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
It is well settled by several judgments that mere suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt. In the case reported as State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 258, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: ''The circumstances of this case undoubtedly create suspicion against the accused. Suspicion, by itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of the accused.'' St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 105 In another case reported as Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of this innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have benefit of that doubt........
St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 106 It needs all the same to be reemphasized that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. The courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because the acquittal might have an impact upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused..
In another case reported as AIR 1973 SC 2622, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under : ''Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before the court can convict and the mental distinction between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 107 consideration.'' Further more, in another case reported as Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under : ''Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this Court in the case of "Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) stated thus: It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. There may also be an element of truth in the St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 108 prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted.'' It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused.
Applying the above principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that the main allegations against the accused are regarding harassment caused to the deceased Poonam @ Sneha for demand of dowry. In this regard the testimonies of the father of the deceased namely Sh. Maan Singh (PW2), brothers of the deceased namely Ashok Kumar (PW9) and Satish Kumar (PW13), sister in law (Bhabhi) of the deceased being wife of Ashok Kumar namely Smt. Krishna (PW1), uncle/ Chacha of the deceased namely Raj Singh (PW14) and neighbour of the deceased namely Smt. Rajwati (PW16) who is also related to family of the deceased in distant relations, are relevant.
St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 109
On the basis of the evidence on record, the various incidents of cruelty as born out from the testimonies of the above witnesses are short listed as under:
1. That the deceased was not permitted to move out of the house and even go to the terrace.
2. That she was not permitted to wear new clothes nor she was provided proper food.
3. That the jewellery given to Poonam at the time of marriage was kept by the accused Ram Rati the mother in law in her possession and Poonam was not permitted to wear any jewellery.
4. That Poonam was not permitted to visit her parental house on the pretext that her mother in law was suffering from thyroid and she should stay back in the house and take care of her.
5. That after one year of the marriage Poonam delivered a baby girl by cesarean operation at NDMC Hospital but the inlaws did not take care of her and it was her parental family who had borne the expenses of the delivery and there was nobody from her inlaws side who even remained in the hospital with her.
6. That after about one year Poonam again gave birth to another daughter by way of cesarean operation in the government St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 110 hospital and again it was her parental family who took care of her whereas the inlaws of Poonam never visited the hospital.
7. That Poonam was subjected to regular taunts for giving birth to two daughters.
8. That the husband of Poonam i.e. accused Arun Kumar was demanding Rs.50,000/ as he wanted to purchase a Maruti van on account of which she was being constantly harassed and tortured and even beaten due to which reason her brother Ashok went to the matrimonial house of Poonam and on seeing the injuries on her back, brought her home after which she was got treated from a private doctor.
9. That when Ashok brought Poonam to her parental house, the accused Ram Rati did not permit her to take away her daughters and also said that she would permit her to come back after Rs.50,000/ had been arranged.
10. That during this period the accused Chatar Singh went to the parental house of Poonam to find out whether they could arrange for Rs.50,000/ but since the same could not be arranged, he did not take Poonam back with him.
11. That a week after Holi, the accused Arun Kumar along with his cousin came to the parental home of Poonam and only St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 111 after he was given Rs.50,000/ he took Poonam along with him.
12. That after 15 days of Poonam going back to her matrimonial home, she expired on account of Aluminum Phosphide poisoning which according to the prosecution was either given to her by the accused or was consumed by her on account of torture being inflicted upon her, she compelled to consume Aluminum Phosphide.
The entire evidence on record is only in the form of oral testimonies of the family members of the deceased namely Smt. Krishna (PW1); Maan Singh (PW2); Ashok Kumar (PW9); Satish Kumar (PW13); Raj Singh (PW14) and Raj Wati (PW16) who are all related to the deceased. Smt. Krishna (PW1) is the bhabhi/ sister in law of the deceased, Maan Singh is the father, Ashok Kumar and Satish Kumar are the the brothers, Raj Singh is the uncle/ chacha and Raj Wati is distantly related to Poonam being the wife of the cousin of the father of the deceased and is also their next door neighbour.
All the above witnesses have very consistently deposed that for the initial four to five months Poonam was very happy with the marriage and there was no trouble but later the problem arose on account of frequent taunts of the in laws to the deceased who kept her St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 112 jewellery; did not permit her to wear new clothes; did not give proper foods and did not take care of her when she gave birth on two occasion to female child in government hospital where even the expenses were borne by her parental family.
I may observe that Firstly it is evident from the record that the father of the deceased Poonam namely Maan Singh is retired as Head Constable from Delhi Police and is having roots in the society being aware of the existing laws. No complaint of any kind at any point of time has ever been filed either with the police or with any other authority regarding dowry related harassment being meted out to the deceased by her inlaws.
Secondly the allegations that the deceased was not permitted to go to the terrace or given proper food and she was not permitted to wear new clothes, are only oral and made by the family members of the deceased. They are all general and non specific. The deceased when she died was hardly married for three and a half years and it is impossible to believe that she was not given new clothes. Normally it is customary that a large number of clothes are given to the newly married bride which clothes lasts for years together. Also, in the first year after marriage, new clothes are given by the parental family on festivals and other occasions. Hence, to say that within three and a half years of marriage she had not been given new clothes St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 113 or was not permitted to wear the same, does not appeal to the mind. Also, no document including the medical record of the deceased has been placed on record showing that she was not given proper food or that her health deteriorated on the said count. Also, the allegations that her jewellery was kept by the mother in law or she was not permitted to wear the same, does not prove harassment perse. It is normal in joint families that the jewellery given to the bride is kept in safe custody of the senior person in the family which is given to her to be worn on specific occasions unless the bride has a separate locker of her own where she is able to keep her jewellery safely which is not the case. These allegations have now been made by the family members of the deceased for the first time only after the death of the deceased.
Thirdly on one side is the parental family of the deceased comprising of her father, two married brothers with their families, uncles (brothers of the father) who are residing in the neighbourhood whereas on the other side is her matrimonial family comprising of just four persons i.e. father in law, mother in law and younger brother in law who was unmarried at the time of the incident. Poonam was the only able bodied female member of the family, the mother in law Ram Rati being an aged woman suffering from multiple ailments particularly Thyroid an aspect which is admitted by the family of the deceased. It is therefore natural under these St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 114 circumstances that the entire responsibility of running the day to day chores fell upon the deceased Poonam. I may observe that even otherwise it is the duty of every able bodied member of the family including the daughter in law to serve the ailing senior members of the family. Therefore, when the mother in law of the deceased was ailing it is only a natural expectation of the family that the daughter in law would attend to her and take good care of her. To allege this as harassment is unacceptable and cannot be termed as cruelty as contemplated under the Statute. The allegations made regarding the deceased not been permitted to visit her parental house are general and vague. No specific instances have been given as on what occasion Poonam was required to visit her parental house and was not permitted.
Fourthly the oral testimony of the family members of Poonam that they extended monetary help to Poonam and were bearing her medical expenses during her stay in the government hospital on both the occasions when she gave birth to two female child, is not born out from the record as they have not been able to place on record any documentary record of having made any payment to the hospital or of having made any purchases of medicines etc. as alleged. Rather, on the contrary they have admitted as correct that Chatar Singh, the father in law of the deceased, was an employee of St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 115 NDMC and therefore, under these circumstances, there is no question of the family of Poonam bearing the expenses for her stay in the hospital on account of the entitlement of Chatar Singh. It is also evident from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and an admitted case of the family of the deceased that the accused Chatar Singh was working with the NDMC. In fact PW1 Smt. Krishna has admitted that the accused were residing in government a accommodation in Safdurjung Enclave since 1994 and therefore, under these circumstances, the NDMC Hospital being near to the house of the accused, Poonam was admitted in the said hospital during the delivery of the first child.
Fifthly the family members of the deceased are not unanimous on the aspect that the inlaws of the deceased did not bother to come to the hospital or take care of her during her stay in the hospital on the occasion of birth of children. PW1 Smt. Krishna in her testimony has deposed that when she went to the hospital to see Poonam there was no one to look after her. This fact is contrary to the oral testimony of Ashok Kumar (PW9) who has deposed that when he and his brother Satish Kumar went to the hospital, the accused Chatar Singh and Ram Rati were present there and they stayed their till evening and returned back to their house. Smt. Krishna (PW1) has also contradicted the testimony of Ashok Kumar when she has St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 116 deposed that she along with her husband stayed at the hospital to provide Poonam with the medicines whereas Ashok Kumar has deposed that he was not present at the time of discharge of Sneha @ Poonam from the hospital at that time. I may observe that the presence of too many family members of any patient is not warranted in any hospital and there being no other female member in the family of the deceased except for her ailing mother in law it is only natural under the given circumstances, that Krishna being the young sister in law/ Bhabhi of Poonam was present in the hospital. However, the absence of Arun the husband of Poonam is an aspect which cannot be ignored. When the wife is hospitalized on the birth of the child which is by cesarean operation, it is second birth for her. Arun Kumar being the husband of the deceased and also being available in Delhi should have been by his wife's side. His absence on both the occasions (of birth of the child) is conspicuous and rather, reflects and proves his casual and non caring approach towards his wife who was left by herself at such an occasion.
Sixthly it is also alleged that Poonam had been badly beaten by her in laws on account of which her brother Ashok brought her back to their house and got her treated from a private doctor. I may observe that no complaint has been made to the police in this regard nor any document has been placed showing that she had been St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 117 provided with any treatment from any doctor. The date of the incident, the name of the doctor from where she was got treated or who exactly had beaten her are very vague. These allegations apart from being non specific also do not find any support from any documentary record. Further, the father of the deceased being a retired Head Constable from Delhi Police, I am sure under no circumstances he would have tolerated and ignored this kind of a behaviour had it come from the inlaws of the deceased and would have certainly lodged a complaint with some authority which did not happen. However, the fact remains that Poonam had been brought back to her parental house by her brother Ashok but her mother in law i.e. accused Ram Rati did not allow her daughters to be taken. This only reflects that some incident and dispute did take place which was between Poonam and Arun and perhaps it is for this reason that in order to save her marriage with the accused that it was not reported. Had it been a simple verbal altercation Poonam would not have been brought home, hence apparently it was something more than a verbal altercation and could be physical assault by the husband due to which she was brought back to her father's house by her brother Ashok. However, the fact that her daughters were retained by Ram Rati and not permitted to be taken shows that the parents in law of the deceased were also interested in saving the marriage between Poonam and Arun St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 118 and hoped for her return in the family for her daughters.
Seventhly it is alleged that after Poonam delivered two female daughters, the inlaws of the deceased used to taunt her as to how they would bring up the two female children. This allegation does not stand substantiated from the record and rather, it is evident that when Poonam was taken to her parental house by her brother Ashok, the mother in law Ram Rati did not part with the two children. I may also observe that it is evident from the judicial record that during the trial when Ram Rati was arrested, both the small children (females) were lodged along with Ram Rati and even as on date the children are with the mother in law. The family of the deceased has also not claimed any custody of the family of female children. Had it been so as alleged, Ram Rati given her age and ailments would have wasted no time in abandoning the children which she has not done till date. The circumstances of the case do not conform and corroborate the allegations regarding the frequent taunts being made by Ram Rati to Poonam for given birth to two female children. Rather, it strengthens the view that the main conflict was between Arun Kumar and Poonam with which the other family members had no concern.
Eighthly it is evident from the testimonies of the witnesses i.e. PW1 Smt. Krishna, PW2 Maan Singh, PW9 Ashok Kumar, PW13 Satish Kumar, PW14 Raj Singh and PW16 Smt. St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 119 Rajwati reveal that the main allegations are against the husband of the deceased namely Arun Kumar and in so far as the allegations against the father in law Chatar Singh, mother in law Ram Rati and brother in law Shobh Raj are concerned, they are vague and non specific. Neither the dates of the cruelty have been spelt out nor the manner in which the same committed, has been elaborated or explained. Even Rajwati (PW16) the neighbour of Poonam has corroborated the testimony of other family members to this extent, only after which Poonam was taken to her matrimonial house by Arun Kumar. Raj Wati (PW16) in her crossexamination has deposed that in so far as the other allegations are concerned, she was only told about it sometimes by Poonam or by her family members but at no point of time she herself witnessed any such incident. Rather, she has admitted that at one time when Poonam was at her parental home, a telephone call was received from the matrimonial home of Poonam and she (Raj Wati) even spoke to her mother in law. The allegations made against the inlaws are not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilty of the accused and another view is certainly possible.
Ninthly in so far as the allegation of demand of Rs. 50,000/ to Rs.60,000/ against the accused Chatar Singh, Ram Rati and Shobh Raj are concerned, the entire evidence on record is oral and that too after the death of the deceased. At no point of time any St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 120 complaint had been made to the police in this regard. However, in so far as the accused Arun Kumar is concerned, the case is different. The demand of Rs.50,000/ and the delivery of the same by Satish Kumar finds independent corroboration from the testimony of Raj Singh (PW14) who has claimed that he had given Rs.30,000/ to Satish Kumar and Rs.10,000/ was given by Sh. Umed Singh. Satish Kumar (PW13) has proved that he took Rs.10,000/ from Sh. Umed Singh; Rs.30,000/ from Sh. Raj Singh and he himself added Rs. 10,000/ and thereafter after collecting Rs.50,000/ he gave to accused Arun Kumar which he demanded for purchase a van. Raj Singh (PW14) who is the uncle/ chacha of the deceased has in his testimony corroborated the version given by Satish Kumar (PW13)in this regard. He has proved that he came to know that the husband of the deceased was demanding Rs.50,000/ which fact was told by to him by Satish who also told that his elder brother Umed had given Rs.10,000/ and he (Satish) himself had arranged for Rs.10,000/ from his house and therefore, he gave the remaining Rs.30,000/ after which Satish gave Rs.50,000/ to Arun to take Poonam back. In his cross examination Raj Singh (PW14) has admitted that the accused Arun had not made any demand of Rs.50,000/ in his presence and he had given Rs.30,000/ on the basis of what has been told to him by Satish Kumar. I may observe that Raj Singh (PW14) is involved in small St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 121 scale industries and is residing in the same area and therefore being the real uncle of the deceased, it is only natural that he would have helped his brother in this regard. Smt. Rajwati (PW16) is also an independent witness. She is a neighbour of Maan Singh the father of the deceased and is having a telephone connection where Poonam used to call up and she used to pass on the message to the family of the deceased. She has corroborated the testimony of the brothers and father of the deceased to the extent that Poonam was present in her father's house during Holi festival and on the day of Holi she had seen Poonam weeping and on inquiry she was told by Poonam that her daughter was not sent with her by her inlaws. According to Rajwati (PW16), during the stay of Poonam at her parental house, her mother in law and husband used to make call and she used to call Poonam to attend the telephone and often after hearing the call Poonam started weeping and on inquiry she told Rajwati that her husband was demanding Rs.50,000/ for bringing a Van and if she would not bring money that he would not take her back. She has corroborated the testimonies of the brothers and father of the deceased to the extent that the husband of the deceased namely Arun and his cousin i.e. son of his maternal uncle had taken Poonam back after five to six days as he was given Rs.50,000/ after arranging the same. According to her, before leaving Poonam came to her and told her that she was not St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 122 willing to go but she (Rajwati) told her that since Rs.50,000/ had been paid, her inlaws would keep her well. I may observe that the call informing the parents regarding the condition of Poonam had been made in the house of Rajwati which she communicated to the other family members of Poonam. The only defence offered by the accused is that they were in a much better financial position, the accused Chatar Singh being a retired Government Servant from NDMC as Investigating Officer in Vigilance Department earning Rs. 20,000/ per month and is drawing a monthly pension of Rs.8,000/ per month in the year 2005 and was already maintaining a Maruti Van with registration no. DL3CQ9360 and one scooter and also had agricultural land worth Rs.1 Crore approximately situated at village Bakhtawarpur bearing Khasra No. 91/15 in the name of Chatar Singh. It is pointed out that the accused Chatar Singh is also having a house at village Bakhtawarpur, Delhi and has also received a sum of Rs. 6 lacs approximately as retirement benefits in the year 2002. It is argued that the husband of the deceased namely Arun Kumar used to drive the said Maruti Van and was earning handsomely for himself and his wife and there was no requirement of another Maruti Van. It is further pointed out that the accused Shobh Raj i.e. the brother in law (dewar) of the deceased is a dance instructor and is also earning about Rs.25,000/ per month and all the daughters of Chatar Singh i.e. St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 123 sisters of the accused Arun Kumar are married and settled. I have considered the submissions made as aforesaid and I may observe that in so far as the accused Chatar Singh, Ram Rati and Shobh Raj are concerned, there is no evidence of demand of dowry except the oral testimonies of the family of the deceased which was on the basis of what was told to them by the deceased. However, in so far as the accused Arun Kumar is concerned it is writ large that his job was not secured and was earning much less than his brother and father. Further, no document in the form of Registration Certificate or permit etc. has been placed on record to show that Arun was already having a Maruti Van and was driving the same on commercial basis having a regular income. Moreover, the witnesses of the prosecution have duly proved that a sum of Rs.50,000/ was given to him only after which be took the deceased back. I therefore find no merit in the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel in so far as the accused Arun Kumar is concerned.
Tenthly it is alleged that during the period Poonam was at her parental house, Chatar Singh had come to their house to find out if Rs.50,000/ had been arranged but went back without taking back Poonam with him. In this regard I may observe that had there been a demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/, Chatar Singh would have certainly not come personally to the parental house of the deceased. St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 124 Rather, having made it very clear that the deceased should come back only after she arrange Rs.50,000/, he would have rather chosen to wait having already waited for five months. I may further observe that Chatar Singh is a retired government officer and there is nothing on record to show that there was an immediate requirement for him to have gone to the parental house of Poonam to demand Rs.50,000/. Had that been so, father of the deceased namely Maan Singh being retired Head Constable from Delhi Police would have taken him to task which did not happen. Rather, the possibility that on account of personal dispute between the husband Arun Kumar and wife Poonam, the father in law Chatar Singh having gone to the parental house of Poonam in order to amicably settle the disputes as the grand daughters were with them, cannot be ruled out.
Eleventhly in so far as the accused Arun Kumar is concerned, he is the husband of the deceased and the demand of Rs. 50,000/ and delivery of the same has been duly proved after which Arun Kumar took Poonam with him which aspect has been duly established. Even otherwise, the allegations regarding giving the physical and mental harassment to the deceased as specific only qua the husband Arun Kumar and not qua the accused Chatar Singh, Ram Rati and Shobh Raj and accused Arun Kumar has not been able to effectively rebut the same.
St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 125
Lastly it has become necessary to highlight that at the time of the death of the deceased in the hospital when the father and brothers of the deceased were informed by Chatar Singh, the family of the deceased had come to the hospital in large number and gave severe beatings to Chatar Singh and Arun Kumar who were present in the hospital and they had sustained injuries in respect of which a separate case bearing FIR No. 298/05, Police Station Jahangir Puri, under Sections 307/323/341/34 IPC was registered in which Pradeep Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Satish Kumar have been held guilty. I may observe that the parental family of the deceased who had turned extremely violent after coming to know of the death of their daughter, who created a law and order problem in the hospital by openly giving threats and beatings to Chatar Singh and Arun Kumar, would have never kept quite had the deceased been given severe beatings by her in laws or been subjected to harassment. More so as the father of the deceased namely Maan Singh was a retired Head Constable from Delhi Police and was aware of the existing law of the land and the remedies. This strengthens the view of the Court that the dispute if any was mainly between Arun Kumar and Poonam wherein the element of dowry cannot be ruled out, but in so far as the other family members are concerned the allegations against them do not stand substantiated.
St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 126
In so far as the accused Arun Kumar is concerned, the allegations made against him are specific and pointed. It cannot be ignored that as per the MLC and Postmortem report there was no injuries on the body of the deceased which proves that no force was used upon her. It is also evident that it was the accused Arun Kumar himself who had taken the deceased to Hospital which again proves that the death was suicidal. Further, it was Chatar Singh who had immediately made a telephone call to the parental house of Poonam to inform them of the incident. This call was made at the house of Rajwati which was attended to by Satish Kumar and it was Chatar Singh who told Satish that there was a quarrel between Poonam and Arun and Poonam had been admitted to Jahangirpuri Hospital. This again goes to prove that the death of Poonam was suicidal, on account of mental and physical cruelty inflicted upon her by her husband Arun Kumar. I hold that there is a proximate and live link between the death of the deceased and the act of the accused Arun Kumar i.e. in ignoring his wife and paying no heed to her and leaving her alone in the hospital on the birth of his children on both occasions by cesarean operation, giving beatings to her after which she was taken by her brother, not bringing her back for five months till her family had arranged a sum of Rs.50,000/ and also coupled with the fact that the death of the deceased took place within 15 days of her coming back to St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 127 her matrimonial house point out towards the guilt of accused Arun Kumar. I, therefore, hold the accused Arun Kumar guilty of the offence under Section 498A read with 304B Indian Penal Code.
However, in so far as the accused Chatar Singh, Ram Rati and Shobh Raj are concerned, it is evident that the names of the father in law, mother in law and brother in law have been introduced only to spread the net wide as often happened in cases under Section 498A/ 304B Indian Penal Code. Further, it is clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased had committed suicide at her matrimonial house but it cannot be related to any dowry related harassment by the accused Chatar Singh, Ram Rati and Shobh Raj as apparently there is no proximity of link between the death of Poonam or any misconduct by them. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the role of the above accused i.e. Chatar Singh, Ram Rati and Shobh Raj in the commission of the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt nor there is anything on record to show that the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide on account of conduct of the accused. I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Chatar Singh, Ram Rati and Shobh Raj regarding harassment to the deceased, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to them. St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 128 FINAL FINDINGS:
In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 129 probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Applying the above principles of law to the present case, it is evident that the identity of all the accused stands established. The accused Arun Kumar is the husband of the deceased Poonam; accused Ram Rati is the motherinlaw of the deceased; accused Chatar Singh is the fatherinlaw of the deceased and accused Shobh Raj is the unmarried brotherinlaw of the deceased. It also stands proved and established that the marriage between the accused Arun Kumar and deceased Poonam @ Sneha was an arranged marriage and was solemnized on 26.11.2001. It was alleged that the deceased was not permitted to go to the terrace or given proper food and she was not permitted to wear new clothes, which allegations the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate against all the accused. Further, the allegations that the inlaws of the deceased did not bother to come to the hospital or take care of her during her stay in the hospital on the occasions of birth of female child, stands established only qua the accused Arun Kumar and not qua the accused Chatar Singh, Ram Rati and Shobh Raj. In so far as the allegation of demand of Rs.50,000/ is concerned, the prosecution has duly established the same only qua the accused Arun Kumar. It stands established from St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 130 the evidence on record that the accused Arun Kumar demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/ from the deceased Poonam @ Sneha and for a period of about five months, the deceased Poonam @ Sneha stayed at her parental house. The prosecution has further established that it was only when this demand of Rs.50,000/ was fulfilled by the family of the deceased that the accused Arun Kumar took her to his house on 31.3.2005. It further stands established that on 16.4.2005 the deceased Poonam consumed some poisonous substance and the cause of death was cardiac anoxia and element of asphyxia as a result of Aluminum Phosphide poisoning.
With regard to the accused Arun Kumar, the prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by circumstantial evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 131 able to built up a continuous link in so far as the aspects of inflicting mental cruelty and harassment to the deceased Poonam @ Sneha are concerned. I hold that there is a proximate and live link between the death of the deceased and the act of the accused Arun Kumar i.e. in ignoring his wife and paying no heed to her requirement and leaving her alone in the hospital on the birth of his children on both occasions (which was by cesarean operation); giving beatings to her after which she was taken by her brother to her parental house; not bringing her back for five months till her family had arranged and paid him a sum of Rs.50,000/ and also coupled with the fact that the death of the deceased took place within 15 days of her coming back to her matrimonial house. All this points out towards the guilt of accused Arun Kumar. Therefore, the accused Arun Kumar is hereby held guilty of the offence under Section 498A read with 304B Indian Penal Code for which he is accordingly convicted.
In so far as the accused Ram Rati, Chatar Singh and Shobh Raj are concerned, I hereby hold that the circumstances reflected from the material on record do not stand conclusively established. The facts are also are not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. There is nothing on record to definitely establish which of the accused actually committed the offence and who did not participate in the crime. The chain of St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 132 evidence is not so much complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused persons. The materials brought on record by the prosecution are insufficient to hold that each of the accused Ram Rati, Chatar Singh and Shobh Raj was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Further, each circumstance has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also not established a conclusive link connecting each individual circumstance with the other, and the accused namely Ram Rati, Chatar Singh and Shob Raj. Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a court to cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases based on circumstances evidence. Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Ram Rati, Chatar Singh and Shobh Raj, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to them who are acquitted of the charges under Section 498A & 304B Indian Penal Code.
Case be listed for arguments on sentence qua the convict Arun Kumar on 21.7.2011.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 16.7.2011 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 133 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 1119/09 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R1304632005 State Vs. (1) Arun Kumar S/o Chatar Singh R/o House No. 884, VPO Bakhtawarpur, Delhi (Convicted) (2) Smt. Ram Rati W/o Chatar Singh R/o House No. 884, VPO Bakhtawarpur, Delhi (Acquitted) (3) Chatar Singh S/o Ram Niwas R/o House No. 884, VPO Bakhtawarpur, Delhi (Acquitted) (4) Shobh Raj S/o Chatar Singh R/o House No. 884, VPO Bakhtawarpur, Delhi (Acquitted) St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 134 FIR No.: 143/05 Police Station: Ali Pur Under Section: 498A/304B/34 Indian Penal Code Date of Conviction: 16.7.2011 Arguments heard on: 22.7.2011/5.8.2011 Date of Sentence: 10.8.2011 APPEARANCE: Present: Sh. Taufiq Ahmed, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Convict Arun Kumar in judicial custody. ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide my detailed judgment dated 16.7.2011, the accused Arun Kumar has been held guilty of the offence under Section 498A read with 304B Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. However, the accused Chatar Singh, Ram Rati and Shobh Raj have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 498A and 304B Indian Penal Code.
The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the accused Arun Kumar and deceased Poonam @ Sneha was an arranged marriage and was solemnized on 26.11.2001. The accused St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 135 Arun Kumar is the husband of the deceased Poonam; accused Ram Rati is the motherinlaw of the deceased; accused Chatar Singh is the fatherinlaw of the deceased and accused Shobh Raj is the unmarried brotherinlaw of the deceased. As per the allegations, after one year of marriage a female child was born to the deceased through cesarean operation in a government hospital and one year thereafter another female child was born to the deceased but on both the occasions the inlaws of the deceased did not take care of Poonam and it was the brother and bhabhi/ sister in law of Poonam who took care of her and also bore the expenses of the hospital. Further it was alleged that the accused Arun Kumar demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/ from the deceased Poonam @ Sneha and for a period of about five months, the deceased Poonam @ Sneha stayed at her parental house. It was only when the demand of Rs.50,000/ was fulfilled by the parents of the deceased that the accused Arun Kumar took her to his house on 31.3.2005. On 16.4.2005 the deceased Poonam consumed some poisonous substance and expired in the hospital due to cardiac anoxia and element of asphyxia as a result of Aluminum Phosphide poisoning.
On the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution particularly the father, brothers, sister in law/ Bhabhi, uncle/ chacha and neighbour of the deceased, this court St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 136 has observed that though the death was suicidal but it was on account of mental and physical harassment given to her by her husband Arun Kumar on account of the demand for dowry. It was also held that there is a proximate and live link between the death of the deceased and the act of the accused Arun Kumar i.e. in ignoring and paying no heed to her and leaving her alone in the hospital on the birth of the child by cesarean operation on both the occasions, giving beatings to her, not bringing her back for five months till her family had arranged a sum of Rs.50,000/ coupled with the death of the deceased within 15 days of her coming back to her matrimonial house. The death had occurred within 15 days after Arun took the deceased to his house and even on the date of the incident there was a hot talk between the two. However, in so far as the accused Chatar Singh, Ram Rati and Shobh Raj are concerned, this court has observed that the prosecution has not been able to establish the role of the accused in the commission of the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt nor there is anything on record to show that the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide on account of conduct of Chatar Singh, Ram Rati or Shobh Raj.
This court has therefore held the accused Arun Kumar guilty of the offence under Section 498A read with 304B Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. However, the accused Chatar St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 137 Singh, Ram Rati and Shobh Raj have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 498A and 304B Indian Penal Code.
I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence qua the convict Arun Kumar. He is aged about 37 years having a family comprising of father, ailing mother, three married sisters, one brother and two daughters. He is a graduate and is a Driver by profession. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the convict has vehemently argued that the convict is not involved in any other case and is in judicial custody for about six years and three months. He has pointed out that the convict is the helping hand of his family and has already remained in judicial incarceration for a considerable period. He prays that a lenient view be taken against the convict. Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand has prayed for a strict punishment keeping in view the allegations involved. He submits that the convict used to harass the deceased and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty thereby compelling the deceased Poonam to commit suicide due to which reason he is not entitled to any indulgence.
I have considered the rival contentions. The necessity of there being a proportion between the offences and punishment has been long felt. However off late various judgments of the higher St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 138 courts of the land and various jurists have tried to provide certain rules to this moral arithmetic.
(i) The punishment sought to be inflicted for any given offence should be such that the evil of the punishment must be made to exceed the advantage of the offence.
ii) The more deficient in certainty a punishment is, the severer it should be.
iii) The greater an offence is, the greater reason there is to hazard a severe punishment for the chance of preventing it, and
iv) Same punishment for the same offence ought not to be inflicted upon all delinquents.
It is necessary to pay some regard to the circumstances which effect sensibility.
However, at the same time it must be kept in mind that the principle of there being a proportion between punishment and offences ought not to be so mathematically followed so as to render the laws subtle, complicated and obscured. Brevity and simplicity are a superior good. Something of exact proportion may also be St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 139 sacrificed to render the punishment more striking, more fit to inspire people with a sentiment of aversion for those vices which prepare the way for crimes.
The convict Arun Kumar caused mental and physical cruelty upon his wife i.e. deceased Poonam in order to compel her and her parental family to meet the illegitimate demands raised by him which is unpardonable. The offences against women cannot be taken lightly and I hold that the convict deserves no mercy. In view of the above, I hereby award the following sentence to the convict Arun Kumar:
1. The convict Arun Kumar is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three Years and fine for a sum of Rs.2,000/ for the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
2. Further, I sentence the convict Arun Kumar to Rigorous Imprisonment for Ten (10) Years and fine of Rs.10,000/ for the offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The convict St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 140 is already in judicial custody. He is sent to custody for serving the sentence. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period undergone by him during the trial.
The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs and another be attached with his jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 10.8.2011 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Arun Kumar Etc, FIR No. 143/04, PS Ali Pur Page No. 141