Delhi District Court
State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu on 24 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE
(EAST) cum ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI.
SC No.43/2007
Unique Case ID No.02402R0227742007
FIR No.391/2006
Police Station Geeta Colony
Under Section 498A/304B IPC
State Versus Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu
S/o Kuldeep Singh
R/o G84, New Seelam Pur,
Delhi.
Date of Institution : 19.04.2007
Date of judgment reserved : 13.05.2011
Date of judgment : 19.05.2011
JUDGMENT
Police of Police Station Geeta Colony has filed the present chargesheet under Section 498A/304B IPC against accused Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu.
2 Briefly stating, the facts of the prosecution case are SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 1 of 32 that on 9.12.2006, an information was received by HC Yashpal DD writer (PW9) to the effect that the informer informed that his wife has hanged herself. HC Yashpal (PW9) recorded the same vide DD No.52B, Ex.PW9/A and handed over same to Ct. Jai Parkash (PW13) to be delivered to ASI Israil Khan (PW17). ASI Israil Khan (PW17) along with Ct. Jai Parkash (PW13) reached the spot i.e. III floor of 7/54, Geeta Colony and found a female dead body on a single bed. Legs of the deceased were hanging from the bed and there were ligature marks on her neck. One chunni was hanging with the fan. Accused was present at the spot who stated that the dead body was of his wife Laxmi and he himself had informed the police about the incident. Since only 78 months of marriage had elapsed, ASI Israil Khan (PW17) called SDM and Crime Team at the spot. ASI Israil Khan (PW17) took the phone number of family members of deceased from accused. Smt. Santosh (PW1), mother of deceased, reached at the spot. Ct. Satye Prakash (PW10) took photographs of the spot and proved the positive photographs as Ex.PW10/1 to Ex.PW10/11 and its negatives as Ex.PW10/12 to Ex.PW10/22. ASI Israel Khan (PW17) left Ct. Jai Prakash (PW13) at the spot to safeguard the same. ASI Israel Khan (PW17) took Smt. Santosh (PW1) and accused to the SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 2 of 32 police station. At the spot, SDM Sh. C.P. Sharma (PW5) reached and inspected the spot. Sh. C.P. Sharma (PW5) recorded statement Ex.PW1/A of Smt. Santosh (PW1).
3 In her statement Ex.PW1/A, Smt. Santosh (PW1) (hereinafter shall be referred to as complainant), has stated that on 9.12.2006 she was called at the spot and she saw that her daughter Laxmi was lying dead on the bed and a chunni was tied with a fan in the room. She stated that deceased Laxmi was 16 years old who married with accused about six months back without the wishes of her family members. She has also stated that it was a love marriage. Due to love marriage, they had disconnected their relations with deceased Laxmi and did not go to meet her. About 20 days ago, deceased had come to the house of the complainant (PW1) to meet her and complained that accused used to illtreat, abuse and beat her. She further stated that her deceased daughter used to complain against her husband on telephone also. She further stated that Laxmi was illiterate. Complainant (PW1) showed her strong suspicion that either accused killed her daughter or he gave so much mental and physical torture which compelled her to commit suicide.
4 Sh. C.P.Sharma (PW5), SDM, also recorded SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 3 of 32 statement of accused Ex.PW5/A and gave it to the SHO for further action. SHO made endorsement on statement Ex.PW1/A of the complainant (PW1). On the basis of same, Duty Officer HC Yashbir Singh (PW14) recorded FIR Ex.PW14/A. ASI Israil Khan (PW17) sent the dead body to the mortuary in the custody of Ct. Jai Parkash (PW13).
5 Further investigation of the case was assigned to SI Rajnikant (PW19). He along with ASI Israil Khan (PW17) reached at the spot. He found one white and pink colour Chunni Ex.P1 hanging from ceiling fan. He converted the same into a sealed pulanda with the seal of RKS and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/A. SI Rajnikant (PW19) prepared the site plan Ex.PW19/A at the instance of ASI Israil Khan (PW17). Investigating Officer (PW19) made inquiries from the complainant (PW1) and seized the birth certificate of deceased vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW17/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW17/C. 6 On 11.12.2006 Sh. C.P. Sharma (PW5) conducted inquest proceedings of the dead body vide Ex.PW5/B. He also wrote letters Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D to the Incharge of mortuary with a SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 4 of 32 request to conduct autopsy on the dead body. Postmortem on the dead body of Laxmi, wife of the accused was conducted by Dr. Akash Jhanjee (PW7) vide his report Ex.PW7/A. After postmortem, Doctor handed over sealed parcel containing viscera, cloths of deceased, sample seal and blank envelope to Ct. Vinay Kumar (PW11). Investigating Officer SI Rajnikant (PW19) seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/A. The dead body of deceased was identified by her brother Dinesh (PW16) and Raj Kumar vide their statements Ex.PW5/F and Ex.PW5/E respectively. The dead body of deceased was handed over to her relatives vide letter Ex.PW5/G. Dinesh (PW16), brother of deceased received the dead body vide memo Ex.PW16/A. 7 The personal search articles of accused and the sealed pulandas of deceased were deposited in malkhana with MHCM, HC Mool Chand (PW12) who made entries Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW12/B in this regard. The exhibits of the case were sent to CFSL, Kolkatta through Ct. Pradeep (PW15) vide RC No.11/21, Ex.PW12/C. CFSL report is Ex.PW19/B. 8 Sh. Israr Babu (PW18), Alternate Nodal Officer of Vodafone Essar Mobile has proved the application form Ex.PW8/A SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 5 of 32 filled up for the mobile connection bearing No.9811335182 in the name of accused and the copy of his Electoral Card as Ex.PW18/B. He also proved the call details of said mobile as Ex.PW18/C for the period 1.12.2006 to 2.2.2007. He also proved the cell ID chart as Ex.PW18/D. 9 After completion of the investigation, the challan was put up in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, where accused was supplied with the copies of documents of the prosecution and then, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for the trial of the accused . 10 The charges under section 498A and 306 IPC were framed against the accused on 28.5.2007 which reads as under: "That from June, 2006 to 9.12.2006 at G84, New Seelam Pur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Geeta Colony, you being the husband of Laxmi subjected her to cruelty of such a nature which had driven her to commit suicide by causing her physical torture and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 498A IPC and within my cognizance.
Secondly on 9.12.2006, at the above place, Laxmi committed suicide by hanging and you being her husband abetted the commission of suicide by her and thereby committed the offence of dowry death punishable under section 306 IPC and within my cognizance."
SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 6 of 32 11 Accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
12 In support of its case, prosecution has examined 19 witnesses. PW1 Smt. Santosh is the complainant as well as mother of the deceased, PW2 Ms. Indu is the sister whereas PW16 Dinesh is the brother of the deceased. PW3 Sher Khan is the uncle of the deceased whereas PW4 Ms. Payal Babbar is the friend of the deceased. PW8 Jagmohan is the landlord of the premises where accused and deceased were residing whereas PW6 Rimpi was living in the premises where accused with deceased was residing. PW5 Sh. C.P.Sharma was the SDM at the relevant time. PW9 HC Yashpal was the DD writer whereas PW14 Yashbir Singh was the Duty Officer in the Police Station at the relevant time. PW10 Ct. Satye Parkash took photographs of the spot. PW 12 HC Mool Chand was the MHCM at the relevant time. PW11 Ct. Vinay Kumar and PW13 Ct. Jai Parkash remained associated with investigation of the case conducted by Investigating Officers PW17 SI Israil Khan and PW19 SI Rajnikant. PW15 Ct. Pradeep deposited exhibits in CFSL. PW18 Israr Babu is the Alternate Nodal Officer of Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd. 13 The statement of the accused has been recorded under SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 7 of 32 Section 313 Cr.PC in which he stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused opted to adduce evidence in his defence. However, no defence evidence was led by the accused, therefore, defence evidence was closed. 14 I have heard Shri Ashok Kumar, learned Addl. PP for the State as well as Sh. R.S. Goswami, Learned counsel for the accused. I have carefully gone through their submissions and meticulously gone through the entire material available on record. 15 It is argued by Ld. Addl PP for the State that the complainant (PW1) as well as sister of deceased (PW2), Sher Khan (PW3) and friend of deceased, namely, Payal Babbar (PW4) have proved the case of the prosecution that the deceased was being harassed and meted with cruelty by the accused on account of dowry. It is further argued that their testimony is sufficient to hold the accused guilty. It is further argued that the contents of complaint and the testimony of complainant have duly been corroborated by other public witnesses. The medical evidence also establishes that deceased died an unnatural death and that is too within seven years of her marriage. It is further argued that all the ingredients of abetment to commit suicide have been duly proved.
SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 8 of 32 16 On the other hand, ld. Defence counsel has argued that there is no evidence on record with regard to demand of dowry. It is further argued that the public witnesses examined in the present case are the relatives or friends of the deceased and their testimony cannot be made the basis to convict the accused. It is further argued that the deceased was suffering from various ailments and brain tumor and that was the reason for committing the suicide. It is further argued that there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the commission of suicide by the deceased. It is further argued that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against accused, therefore, he is entitled for acquittal.
Cruelty on account of demand of dowry 17 It has been alleged against the accused that he harassing the deceased Laxmi for bringing dowry. It is argued by Ld. defence counsel that there is no evidence on record to prove that there was any demand of dowry either from the deceased or from her parents.
18 To prove cruelty and harassment meted out to the deceased for not bringing dowry, prosecution has examined, the mother of the deceased i.e. complainant (PW1), her sister Ms. Indu SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 9 of 32 (PW2) and maternal uncle (PW3).
19 The complainant (PW1) in her testimony has deposed that Laxmi was her daughter who got married with accused and it was a love marriage. Though, she had severed her relations with her daughter Laxmi, she used to call the complainant on her mobile phone. She got married with accused six months before her death. Complainant further stated that about 2022 days before her death, she had an accident and Laxmi came to see her. While talking, Laxmi started crying and told that accused used to beat her after taking liquor. Accused used to tell her daughter that she had not given anything in dowry and he required money for his business. Accused used to force her daughter to bring money from the complainant. Complainant told Laxmi to go back to her husband and she promised that she would make arrangement for some money. Complainant further stated that one week before her death Laxmi came to her house and told that accused was harassing her to bring money. Complainant assured her that she was going to sell her house at Sonia Vihar to make arrangements for money. Deceased took her younger sister Indu along with her to her house.
20 During cross examination complainant (PW1) stated SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 10 of 32 that she was running a grocery shop at the ground floor of her jhuggi at Yamuna Vihar. She was earning Rs. 5000/ per month from her said shop and had given some rooms of her jhuggi on rent. There were three rooms at the ground floor and two rooms at the first floor of jhuggi. The total rent amount from tenants was Rs. 2500/ per month. She further stated that her daughter had gone with accused from her another house situated at Sonia Vihar. She stated that she knew Sher khan for the last about 20 years. She denied that her daughter was living happily with the accused. She stated that her daughter visited twice in her house. She further stated that accused used to force her daughter to bring money from her and she sent Laxmi back to her husband with the promise that she would make arrangement for some money.
21 The testimony of complainant (PW1) has duly been corroborated by her second daughter Indu (PW2) who categorically deposed that her mother met with an accident and Laxmi came to see her 2022 days before her death. Witness further stated that Laxmi told her mother in her presence that accused used to harass her and used to demand money. Her mother told Laxmi to go to home and assured her that she would make arrangement for the money. SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 11 of 32 22 In her cross examination, she has stated that her sister visited her house prior to one week of her death. She denied that accused never demanded dowry or harassed her sister. She also denied that no money was demanded by the accused. 23 Testimony of the complainant has also corroborated by Sher Khan (PW3) who deposed that he treats the mother of Laxmi as his sister and by that relation Laxmi was his niece. Laxmi got married to accused Paramjeet and it was a love marriage. He further deposed that 23 days before her death, Laxmi came to his house and complained him that accused used to give her beatings after taking liquor and used to ask her to bring money from her mother. He made Laxmi understood that she had to carry on with her husband as she got married with him on her own. During cross examination, witness stated that he is not real maternal uncle of deceased. He was on visiting terms with Santosh for the last 1015 years. He denied that he took Rs.5000/ from accused and to avoid payment, he is deposing against the accused. He also denied that accused used to keep his wife Laxmi property. He also denied that Laxmi did not complain to him 23 days before her death that accused used to give beatings and used to ask her to bring money.
SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 12 of 32 24 From the statement of mother of the deceased i.e. complainant (PW1), sister of deceased, namely, Indu (PW2) and of Sher Singh (PW3), it has come in evidence that 2022 days before the death of deceased, she complained that she was being harassed and cruelty was being meted out to her by the accused for bringing dowry and money. From the testimony of Sher Singh (PW3), it has also come in evidence that 23 days before her death, Laxmi came to him and complained that accused used to beat her and asked for bringing money from her mother. The complainant (PW1) as well as Indu (PW2) and Sher Singh (PW3) have specifically stated that the accused used to harass the deceased for bringing dowry and money from her mother. It has also come in evidence that from her marriage with accused, deceased was living at her matrimonial house where she was meted with cruelty at the hands of accused for not bringing dowry and money. During the course of crossexamination of the complainant (PW1), Indu (PW2) and Sher Singh (PW3) also, the defence has failed to put any dent. During entire crossexamination, witnesses remained stuck to their stand that the deceased Laxmi was being harassed for not bringing dowry by the accused. They have categorically denied the case of defence that the accused was not harassing the deceased SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 13 of 32 for not bringing dowry.
25 From the testimony of mother of the deceased i.e. complainant(PW1), sister of deceased Indu(PW2) and Sher Singh (PW3), the prosecution has duly established that the deceased was was meted with cruelty and was being harassed by the accused for not bringing dowry. All the above witnesses have specifically stated that the accused was harassing the deceased on account of dowry. All these witnesses were cross examined at length but during the course of their cross examination, they stuck to their stand as deposed by them in their examinationinchief. The defence has failed to put any dent on their testimony either through cross examination or by adducing evidence.
26 In view of clear, cogent and clinching evidence against the accused that he subjected the deceased Laxmi to cruelty on account of dowry and money, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has successfully established its case under section 498A IPC against the accused.
Abetment to commit suicide 27 It is alleged against the accused that he used to beat the deceased every now and then on account of dowry and money. SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 14 of 32 To prove this aspect, complainant(PW1) in her complaint Ex.PW1/A has mentioned that before 20 days of her death, her daughter Laxmi came to meet her and complained that her husband i.e. accused used to illtreat, abuse and beat her. It is also mentioned in the complaint that her deceased daughter also used to complain against the accused on telephone also.
28 The complainant (PW1) in her deposition before the court has stated that about 2022 days before her death, Laxmi came to her house and started crying. She told the complainant that accused used to beat her after taking liquor. She also stated that after the death of Laxmi, when she visited the spot, she found injury marks on the body of Laxmi.
29 The incident of beatings given to deceased Laxmi, has also been corroborated by sister of deceased, namely, Indu (PW2). PW2 deposed that when Laxmi came to her house 2022 days before her death, she told that accused used to harass her. Witness stated that Laxmi again came to her house one week before her death and then this witness went along with Laxmi to her house. Indu (PW2) stated that in the evening, when accused came home, he was under the influence of liquor. Accused gave a kick blow in the stomach of SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 15 of 32 Laxmi and gave a fist blow on her face by which one of her tooth was broken. Thereafter, accused started abusing Laxmi and when Indu (PW2) objected, accused stopped beating Laxmi. 30 Sher Khan (PW3) has also stated that about 23 days before her death, Laxmi came to his house and complained to him that accused used to beat her after taking liquor and used to ask to bring money from her mother. He further deposed that when Laxmi came to his house, her tooth was broken and Laxmi informed him that accused had given her a kick after taking liquor. 31 Another important witness of the present case is Ms. Payal Babbar (PW4) who is friend as well as neighbour of deceased Laxmi. Witness PW4 has deposed that accused is the husband of Laxmi and Laxmi was her friend. She further deposed that Laxmi was living in her neighbouring house in the year 2006. She used to visit her (PW4) house quite often. Laxmi used to tell her that accused used to beat her quite often after consuming liquor. Few days before her death, Laxmi visited her house when she noticed that her two front teeth were broken and Laxmi was also having some bruises below her eye. Laxmi was bleeding from her injury. Witness (PW4) further deposed that Laxmi told her that accused had beaten her. Laxmi told SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 16 of 32 that accused used to tell her that he was fed up with her and wanted to get rid of her. In the evening, Laxmi told the witness that she would go to her maternal uncle's house as she apprehended that accused might kill her.
32 During crossexamination, witness (PW4) stated that she knew Laxmi for 34 months prior to incident as she had visited the house of Laxmi 34 times and Laxmi visited her house 1015 times. Laxmi told her that it was her self chosen marriage. She denied that Laxmi was very happy with the accused. She also denied that accused never gave beatings to Laxmi.
33 The contents of the complaint Ex.PW1/A made by the complainant (PW1) before the police has duly been corroborated by her in her testimony before the Court. She has categorically stated that her deceased daughter Laxmi complained her that accused used to give her beatings on account of dowry and money. The testimony of complainant (PW1) has been corroborated by her another daughter Indu (PW2) who also stated that her deceased sister Laxmi told that she was given beatings by the accused. Indu (PW2) became the witness of beatings given to deceased also. She is specific that when she had gone along with the deceased to her house, in the evening, SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 17 of 32 accused came under the influence of liquor. She narrated the incident that on that day accused gave kick blow on the stomach of Laxmi and also gave a fist blow on her face due to which one of her tooth was broken. She also testified that accused abused Laxmi that he had not brought anything from her house.
34 Sher Khan (PW3) also corroborated the testimony of complainant (PW1). Sher Khan has categorically stated that about 23 days before her death, Laxmi came to his house and complained that accused used to give her beatings after taking liquor and used to ask her to bring money. This witness (PW3) also corroborated the version of Indu (PW2) that when Laxmi came to his house, her tooth was broken.
35 Witness Payal Babbar (PW4) has also substantiated the allegations of abetment by accused in the commission of suicide of deceased. This witness has categorically stated that she was friend and neighbour of the deceased and she was in visiting terms with her. She specifically stated that few days before her death, when Laxmi visited her house, she noticed that her front teeth were broken and on asking, Laxmi informed that accused used to gave her beatings. 36 It is admitted case of the accused himself that the SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 18 of 32 deceased was his wife and he himself informed the police regarding hanging of the deceased. It is also matter of record that deceased died in her matrimonial house in which she was residing with the accused. The landlord of the accused, namely, Jagmohan (PW8) has testified that house no.7/54, Geeta Colony, 3rd floor, Delhi was taken on monthly rent of Rs.3,000/ by accused. He also deposed that accused along with his wife was residing at that house.
37 The postmortem on the dead body of deceased was conducted by Dr. Akash Jhanjee (PW7). The postmortem report is Ex.PW7/A. As per postmortem report Ex.PW7/A, on external examination of the dead body, doctor found (1)ligature mark in the form of pressure abrasion with oblique, discontinues disposition over the front and sides of the neck; (2) scabbed abrasion over back of left hand 2 cm below and inner to left wrist medial border; (3) scabbed abrasions over outer front of lower left thigh; (4) contusion, bluish black over back surface of left shoulder region; (5) contusion, greenish over back surface of upper half left forearm; and (6) contusion greenish over palmar surface of lower half right thumb. 38 After examination of the dead body, doctor (PW7) opined the cause of death as asphyxia as a result of ante mortem SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 19 of 32 ligature hanging via injury no.1 which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were opined to be ante mortem in nature. Duration of injury no.2 and 3 were opined to be of 23 days, duration of injury no.4 was around 34 days and injury no.5 and 6 were opined to be of duration of 56 days. Injury no.1 was found to be of fresh in duration whereas injury no.2 to 6 were found to be caused by blunt force object.
39 The postmortem report Ex.PW7/A confirms that the death of deceased Laxmi was caused due to hanging. This report also confirms the case of prosecution that deceased was subjected to beatings by the accused which culminated into hanging by the deceased. Injury no.2 to 6 mentioned in the postmortem report Ex.PW7/A establishes that accused was giving beatings to the deceased which was was the reason for committing suicide by the deceased.
40 In view of the testimony of complainant (PW1) which has duly been corroborated by the testimony of Indu (PW2), Sher Khan (PW3) and Ms. Payal Babbar (PW4) coupled with the medical evidence, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has brought sufficient material on record to prove its case that accused SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 20 of 32 used to give beatings to the deceased every now and then. Deceased was so much in mental and physical pressure that, she chose an extreme step to commit suicide just to get rid of the torture meted out to her by the accused. It was the beatings and harassment by the accused on account of demand of dowry, which culminated into commission of suicide by the deceased. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the accused has abetted the commission of suicide by deceased Laxmi.
Presumption u/s 113A of Evidence Act 41 When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman has been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and is shown that she had committed suicide within period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume having regard to all the other circumstances of the case that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or such relative of her husband.
42 In Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhatisgarh (AIR 2001 SC 3837), it was observed that Section 306 IPC provides that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 21 of 32 suicide, shall be liable to be punished. The ingredients of abetment are set out in Section 107 of IPC which are reproduced as under: "107. Abetment of a thing A person abets the doing of a thing, First Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly xxxxx Thirdly Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
43 In the said judgment, it was further observed that since for proof of offence u/s 306 IPC, it was difficult to secure direct evidence inasmuch as the incriminating evidence is hugely available within the four corners of the matrimonial home and it was not available to anyone outside the occupants of the house. Therefore, Section 113A of Evidence Act which provides for drawing presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman was inserted in the Evidence Act. However, before the presumption could be raised, it must be shown (i) the woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, (iii) the husband or his relative, who are charged had subjected her to cruelty. On existence and availability of these circumstances, the presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman may be drawn.
SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 22 of 32 44 In the present case, it has been established by the prosecution from the testimony of complainant (PW1) that deceased was being subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused on account of dowry and money. Complainant (PW1) as well as Indu (PW2), Sher Khan (PW3) and Ms. Payal Babbar (PW4) have categorically deposed in the court that accused used to beat, abuse and harass the deceased every now and then as told by the deceased to them. It has also been established on record that the death of deceased had occurred within about six months of her marriage with the accused. It has also been proved that deceased had informed the incidents of giving beatings and harassment by the accused to the abovementioned witnesses. The postmortem report Ex.PW7/A confirms the death of deceased due to hanging which cannot be said to be in normal circumstances. In these circumstances, presumption of abetment by accused in the commission of suicide by deceased as provided under Section 113A of Evidence Act can safely be drawn against the accused.
Defence 45 The defence taken by the accused is that the deceased was suffering from brain tumor and other ailments. It is argued by the SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 23 of 32 Ld. defence counsel that the deceased committed suicide due to the ailments and brain tumor.
46 Ld. defence counsel put a suggestion to the complainant (PW1) to the effect whether deceased was suffering from ailment or was having brain tumor. Complainant (PW1) categorically denied the said suggestions. She stated that her daughter was not suffering from any ailment. She denied that there was a tumor in the brain of her daughter Laxmi. Complainant (PW1) stated that when her deceased daughter was very young, she used to get fits but she cured after her treatment. She also denied that her daughter used to remain disturb because of her ailment. She categorically denied that her daughter committed suicide due to her ailment. Sister of the deceased, namely, Indu (PW2) also stated during the course of her crossexamination that her sister was not suffering from any serious ailment. She denied that her sister committed suicide as she was suffering from brain tumor. The friend as well as neighbour of the deceased, namely, Payal Babbar (PW4) also stated that Laxmi never told her that she was ailing from any kind of ailment. 47 Accused has not led any evidence to show that deceased was suffering from any ailment or brain tumor which SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 24 of 32 compelled her to commit suicide. Suggestions were put to the witnesses with regard to suffering of deceased from ailments/brain tumor, but the witnesses have categorically denied that deceased was suffering from any ailment. Even, no medical record of the deceased has been produced by the accused to show that deceased was suffering from any ailment or brain tumor.
48 But, the fact remains that the complainant (PW1), Ms. Indu (PW2), Sher Khan (PW3) and Payal Babbar (PW4) have categorically deposed that accused used to give beatings to the deceased. Even, the witness Indu (PW2) is the eye witness of giving beatings by the accused to the deceased. Their testimony remained unrebutted and controverted during crossexaminations. The defence has failed to put any dent to their testimony. Therefore, accused has failed to bring anything from the crossexamination of witnesses which goes to probabilise the defence taken by the accused. Whereas, it has been established by the prosecution on the record that deceased Laxmi was subjected to cruelty and harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry. It has also been established that deceased died an unnatural death due to hanging and that is too within seven years of her marriage. So, I am of the considered opinion that the SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 25 of 32 accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumption of Section 113A of Evidence Act that death of deceased Laxmi was natural and that she committed suicide due to her ailments.
49 In view of the discussion made above, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully established all the concomitants of Section 306 of IPC that the death of deceased Laxmi had taken place due to hanging and not under normal circumstances, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry by accused, she died due her unnatural death and that is too due to cruelty and beatings given to her by the accused.
Conclusion 50 In the present case, in view of the factual background, it was necessary to establish that (1) the deceased committed suicide, and (2) she had been subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC.
51 The prosecution has examined the mother of the deceased i.e. complainant (PW1) who categorically deposed that her deceased daughter Laxmi was being harassed and meted with cruelty by the accused on account of dowry/money. She is very specific that SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 26 of 32 her deceased daughter before 2022 days days of her death, came to her and complained that she was given beatings by the accused on account of dowry. Testimony of complainant (PW1) has duly been corroborated by her another daughter Ms. Indu (PW2) and Sher Khan (PW3). They have also deposed that deceased complained before them that accused was beating her and harassing her for not bringing dowry from her mother. In view of the unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony of above witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has duly established the charge under Section 498A IPC against the accused.
52 The prosecution has also established on record from the testimony of complainant (PW1) that it was due to beatings, torture and harassment by accused which led to commission of suicide by the deceased. Ms. Indu (PW2) in her testimony has categorically deposed that she herself witnessed the incident of giving beating by the accused to the deceased. Ms. Payal Babbar (PW4) who is friend as well as neighbour of the deceased also deposed to the effect that she was being informed by the deceased that she was given beatings by the accused many times. The defence has failed to bring anything on record to show that these witnesses are deposing falsely and are SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 27 of 32 interested in his prosecution without any rhyme and reason. Consequently, I am of the considered opinion that their testimony are reliable and trustworthy to hold the accused guilty of abetment for commission of suicide by deceased Laxmi under Section 306 IPC. 53 Consequently, accused Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu is hereby held guilty for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. He is convicted accordingly.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 19.05.2011 District Judge (East)
cum Addl. Sessions Judge
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 28 of 32
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE
(EAST) cum ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI.
SC No.43/2007
Unique Case ID No.02402R0227742007
FIR No.391/2006
Police Station Geeta Colony
Under Section 498A/304B IPC
State Versus Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu
S/o Kuldeep Singh
R/o G84, New Seelam Pur,
Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Vide my judgment dated 19.5.2011, I have convicted Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu for offences under section 498A and 306 IPC.
2 I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. counsel for the convict on the point of sentence. 3 The learned Addl. PP has argued that convict has committed serious crime of abetment to commit suicide of his wife. He has also been convicted for offence under section 498A IPC. It is SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 29 of 32 further argued that it was the duty of the convict to maintain and protect his wife, but he subjected her to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry. It is further argued that magnitude of the harassment and cruelty was such which compelled her to commit suicide, therefore, convict does not deserve any leniency and that exemplary punishment as provided under the law be given to him. 4 On the other hand, learned counsel for convict has moved an application under section 360 Cr.P.C. praying release of the convict on probation. The grounds taken in the application are that the convict is 30 years old, having liability of his entire family; there is no involvement of convict in any other criminal case except present one. Further ground taken is that only son of convict is suffering from ailment who has been operated upon twice and his condition is not good.
5 As per section 360 of Cr.P.C., a person aged above 21 years of age can be released on probation only in an offence punishable with fine or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less. It is further provided that if any person under twenty one years of age is convicted having no previous conviction, he can be released on probation. Provision of section 360 Cr.P.C. are not SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 30 of 32 applicable to the facts of the present case as the convict is above 21 years of age and imprisonment provided for offence under section 306 IPC is extendable upto 10 years. Consequently, I do not find any ground to release the convict on probation. Application is accordingly dismissed.
6 In the present case, the chargesheet was filed against the convict for committing the dowry death under Section 304B of IPC. But the charge against the convict was framed under Section 306 IPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of dowry death has held that the cases of dowry death are required to be dealt with iron hand and the culprits of such an offence must be awarded the death sentence. The Court upheld the conviction of the convict while observing that it was really a case under Section 302 IPC and death sentence should have been imposed in such a case. It was further observed that cases of bride burning fall in the category of rarest of rare cases and hence deserves death sentence. It was observed that crimes against woman are not ordinary crimes committed in a fit of anger or for property. They are social crimes which disrupt the entire social fabric. (Reliance : Satya Narayan Tiwari @ Jolly & Anr. Vs. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No.1168/2005 decided on 28.10.2010) SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 31 of 32 7 In view of facts and circumstances of the present case that convict has been held guilty for meting out cruelty and harassment to his deceased wife on account of dowry and also for abetment of her suicide, convict Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu is hereby awarded rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.5000/ for offence under section 498A IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo SI for three months. Convict is also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.10,000/ for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo SI for three months. 8 Both the sentences of convict shall run concurrently. The convict shall be entitled for the benefit as per the provisions of Section 428 Cr. PC. Copies of the judgment and order on sentence be given free of cost to the convict.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 24.05.2011 District Judge (East)
cum Addl. Sessions Judge
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
SC No.43/2007 State vs Paramjeet Singh @ Ballu Page 32 of 32