Delhi District Court
Sc No: 440351/16 State vs . Pawan & Ors on 3 January, 2023
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- 02
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
S. C. No. 440351/16
CNR No. DLSW01-000007-2008
FIR No. 929/07
Police Station Dwarka
Under Section U/s498A/304B/302/201/34 IPC
State
Versus
1. Pawan Kumar
Son of Sh. Kaptan Singh
2. Daljeet Singh
Son of Sh. Kaptan Singh
3. Smt Satbiro
Wife of Sh. Kaptan Singh
4. Kaptan Singh
Son of Sh. Bheem Singh
All R/o WZ-4A,
Village Palam,
New Delhi .....Accused Persons
Judgment Page 1 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
Date of institution 24.01.2008
Judgment reserved on 08.12.2022
Judgment Pronounced on 03.01.2023
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Pawan Kumar (husband of deceased), Satbiro (mother-in-law of deceased), Kaptan Singh (father-in- law of deceased) and Daljeet Singh (brother-in-law of deceased) are facing trial in the present case on allegations that they subjected deceased Bharti @ Priya to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and on 03.10.2007 deceased Bharti was found dead otherwise than under normal circumstances within one and half years of her marriage and accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed the offense punishable U/s 304B/34 IPC. Alternatively, accused persons are charge-sheeted for committing murder of deceased and also for disappearance of the evidence.
Judgment Page 2 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
Brief Facts:
2. On receipt of DD No.15A dated 03.10.2007 at 10:45 am PS Dwarka in respect of the information that at house no. WZ-4A, Palam Village, a girl has died due to hanging ASI Ram Nath reached the spot. He gave information to the Executive Magistrate who carried out proceedings U/s 176 Cr.P.C. Crime Team was called. The crime scene was photographed. As the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage, SDM was informed and he directed to get a post-mortem conducted. MLC of deceased was obtained.
3. Executive Magistrate recorded the statement of father of deceased Subhash Chander (PW5) and her brother Sunil Kumar (PW10) wherein they stated that deceased Bharti @ Priya was got married on 25.04.2006 to Pawan Kumar Solanki. After 3-4 months of her marriage accused Judgment Page 3 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors Pawan Kumar, Satbiro, Kaptan Singh and Daljeet @ Romi started harassing deceased for want of dowry. On 02.10.1997 Satbiro, mother-in-law of deceased called them on phone and then complainant, his son and Dharmveer (PW11) went to meet deceased and asked her as to whether she had any problem to which deceased stated that she is fine and that in case of any trouble she will let them know.
4. On 03.10.1997 at about 10:00 A.M. Sanjeev, (PW9) brother of deceased received a call from the mother- in-law of deceased that deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself. When complainant and his family members went to matrimonial house of deceased, they noticed that the deceased was lying on the bed. Complainant stated that the mother-in-law of deceased used to threaten them on phone to marry their daughter somewhere else or give them dowry. On 12.09.2007 also accused Pawan Kumar took deceased with Judgment Page 4 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors him and withdrew Rs.3,000/- from the account of deceased. Complainant stated that due to non-fulfilling of dowry amount the deceased was killed by her in-laws.
5. On the basis of allegations made in the complaint Duty Officer was directed to register FIR U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. Investigation was entrusted to Inspector Sudhir Singh (PW34). He prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of the witnesses.
6. Accused Pawan (husband of deceased), brother- in-law of deceased namely Daljeet and mother-in-law Satbiro were arrested on 04.10.2007. A post-mortem was got conducted at DDU Hospital. Viscera was taken into custody. IO collected the wedding card of the deceased and Pawan and an inland letter written by Bharti to her father on 29.11.2006. Judgment Page 5 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
7. During investigation the complainant Subash Chander presented lists of dowry and stridhan, which were taken on record. Post-mortem report reflected cause of death as "asphyxia due to smothering"; as such, Section 302 IPC was also added.
8. Exhibits were sent to FSL. Scaled site plan was got prepared. Handwriting of deceased was obtained for comparison with handwriting appearing on in-land letter. Accused Kaptan Singh (father-in-law of deceased) was arrested on 10.12.2007. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
Charge:
9. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 498A/34 IPC, 304B/34 IPC in alternative U/s 302/34 IPC and under Section 201/34 IPC was framed against accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Judgment Page 6 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
Prosecution Evidence
10. Prosecution examined following 34 witnesses.
Name Nature Documents Proved
PW1 Sahib Kaur Mother of Supported prosecution
Deceased
PW2 Vijay Singh Jeweler Proved cash memos in respect of
purchase of jewelry as Ex. PW-
2/A1-A7.
PW3 HC Shiv Lal Police Proved arrest & personal search
memos Ex. PW-3/A-D.
PW4 Harprasad State Bank of Proved statement of account of
India accused Subhash Chander as Ex.
PW-4/A.
PW5 Subhash Father of Proved in-land letter dated
Chander deceased 29.11.06 as Ex. PW5/A. His
statement Ex. PW-5/B. dead body
identification and receipt memo as
Ex. PW5/C & D. Marriage card
and its seizure memo as Ex.
PW5/E&F. List of Istridhan
Articles as Ex. PW-5/G. Seizure
memo of Alto Car as Ex. PW-5/H.
Another list of Istridhan Articles as
Ex.PW5/I. Covering letter of list of
Dowry Articles as Ex.PW-5/J. List
of recovered Dowry Articles as
Ex. PW-5/K.
Covering letter along with Roll
No. card and bank statements of
deceased as Ex. PW-5/L-O. Hand-
written sample and its seizure
Judgment Page 7 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
memo as Ex. PW-5/P & Q. Letter
dated 12.12.07 as Ex. PW-5/R. List
of recovered Dowry Articles as Ex.
PW-5/S. List of balance Istridhan
Articles as Ex. PW-5/T. Seizure
Memo of ruled sheets as Ex. PW-
5/U&V. Practical schedule of
deceased for BA Part 2 & 3 as
Ex. PW-5/W & X.
PW6 ASI Atar Crime Team In- Crime Team Report as Ex. PW6/A.
Singh charge
PW7 Poonam Nanad of Supported prosecution
deceased
PW8 Asha Sejwal Sister of Supported prosecution
deceased
PW9 Sanjeev Brother-in-law Supported prosecution
Kumar Sejwal of deceased
PW10 Sunil Kumar Elder brother of Statement recorded by SDM as
Sejwal deceased Ex. PW10/A and identification
memo of the dead body as
Ex. PW10/B.
PW11 Dharamveer Relative of
Singh deceased
PW12 ASI Suraj Police FIR as Ex. PW-12/A and
Bhan endorsement on Rukka as
Ex. PW-12/B.
PW13 Naresh Public witness Seizure of Alto Car as Ex. PW5/A.
Santram Public witness Recovery memo of dowry
PW14 Ex. PW5/K
PW16 Chanderbhan Public witness Recovery memo of dowry
Ex. PW5/K
Judgment Page 8 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
PW17 Ram Lakhan Bank Witness Statement of account of deceased
as Ex. PW17/A
PW18 Aarti Gupta Teacher Practical file of deceased as
Ex. PW5/V
Constable Police Arrest of accused Satbiro vide
PW19 Poonam arrest & personal search memo
Ex. PW-19/A & B
PW20 ASI Ajeet Police Proved photographs of the crime
Singh scene as Ex. PW-20/A1 & A5
PW21 Phool Kumar Brother of Supported prosecution
deceased
PW22 Rajbir Singh Public witness Hostile PW23 Dr. Komal Doctor Prepared postmortem report Singh Ex.PW23/A and her subsequent opinion as Ex.PW23/B PW24 Jagdish Aneja Salesman Proved cash memos as Ex.PW24/A to Ex.PW24/C PW25 Ct. Hardeep Police Prepared site plan Ex.PW25/A Singh PW26 HC Ram Police Seizure of ruled sheets Ex.PW5/U Narain PW27 SI Ram Nath Police Seizure memo of chunni Ex.PW27/A, recorded statement regarding identification of dead body, seized viscera, blood sample & clothes of deceased vide memo Ex.PW27/B & C, proved chunni as Ex. PX-1.
PW28 HC Ramdeen Police Seizure of marriage card, inland letter, dowry articles, and register.
Deposited exhibits with FSL.
Judgment Page 9 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
Proved arrest of accused Kaptan
Singh and his disclosure statement
vide Ex.PW28/A to D.
PW29 HC Jai Singh Police Same as PW27.
PW30 ASI Rohtash Police Proved DD No.15A as Ex.PW29/A
PW31 Devak Ram FSL Proved handwriting report of
deceased as Ex.PW31/A.
PW32 Shashi Bala FSL Proved her Biology and Serology
report as Ex.PW32/A & B.
PW33 HC Yogesh Police Proved deposit of case property
Kumar MHC(M) with Malkhana and FSL as
Ex.PW33/A to D.
PW34 Inspector IO Completed investigation of the
Sudhir Singh case and filed the charge sheet.
Plea of Accused Persons
11. Incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were explained to the accused persons as required under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Accused persons claimed that they have been falsely implicated and they have never harassed or tortured deceased Bharti. Accused persons further stated that they did not demand dowry either from deceased or her parents at any point of time.
Judgment Page 10 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
Defense Evidence
12. In defense, accused examined 5 witnesses. DW1 Bhuwan Chandra, Public Relation Inspector Post Office deposed that the said in-land letter Ex. PW5/A pertains to year 1999. He proved the tariff sheet in respect of In-land Letter as Ex. DW1/A. He deposed that from In-land Letter Ex. PW 5/A. He cannot tell from which Post Office, it was posted nor he could say that to which Post Office it was delivered. He testified that Ex. PW5/A is deficiently stamped.
13. DW2 Dheeraj Bisht proved the attendance sheet of accused Pawan Kumar in respect of his course BFA (Painting) as Ex. DW2/A. In his cross-examination, the witnesses admitted that though Ex. DW2/A is a computerized document but during the years 2006-2007 attendance was being marked manually. He also admitted that relevant certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has not been produced.
Judgment Page 11 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
14. DW3 Naresh Kumar, Officer of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. proved a copy of attendance record of accused Kaptan Singh of 02.08.2006 and 02.10.2007 as Ex. DW3/A & B. He also proved attendance record dated 03.03.2010 as Ex. DW3/C.
15. DW4 Deepak Arya proved attendance record of accused Subash Chandra from 26.05.2006 till 18.03.2009 as Ex. DW4/A.
16. DW5 Poonam Ahlawat deposed that accused persons are her parents and brothers. She testified that her brother accused Pawan Kumar got married to deceased Bharti on 25.07.2006 and after her marriage, she was continuing her studies and the accused Pawan also used to accompany deceased for her examination. DW5 deposed that on 02.10.2007, she visited her parental house and met Bharti. DW5 further deposed that Bharti often used to tell her that she wanted to become something in Judgment Page 12 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors life but could not do so because of her father and testified that Bharti was comfortable in matrimonial home and never complained against anybody. She testified that Bharti went to her parental house in the last week of October 2006 and returned to her matrimonial home in June 2007 and Bharti visited her house many times to attend birthday and family get- together.
Prosecution Arguments
17. Sh. Pramod Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that testimony of PW23 Dr. Komal Singh proves that cause of death of deceased Bharti was asphyxia due to smothering. It is submitted that post-mortem report also finds injuries on the lips of deceased along with strangulation marks which indicates that death of deceased was homicidal. It is further submitted that prosecution has been able to prove that deceased was harassed on account of demand for dowry. There was demand for dowry even one day before her death and thus, the prosecution has Judgment Page 13 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the accused persons are liable to be convicted. Defense Arguments
18. Sh. SP Kaushal, Ld. Defense counsel submitted that marriage between deceased and accused Pawan was solemnized on 25.04.2006 and the unfortunate incident happened on 03.10.2007. During this matrimony period deceased stayed for a period of over seven months i.e. from November, 2006 to June, 2007 continuously at her parental home. It has been submitted that as per deposition of prosecution witnesses deceased returned to her matrimonial home on 02.07.2007 and accused Pawan along with his brother-in-law Naresh took her back.
19. It is stated that during this period there is no allegation or incriminating evidence against any of accused persons except Judgment Page 14 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors the deposition of complainant (PW5) that accused Satbiro made a telecommunication asking him to send Bharti by saying that Bharti was taken to her parental home by her brother Sanjeev against the wishes of her in-laws and for that reason they will not come to take her back yet accused Pawan along with Naresh went to bring back deceased to her matrimonial home. It is stated that relations between husband and wife and the two families have been proven to be normal for the reason that on Raksha Bandhan and also on 30.08.2007 the couple went to the parental home of deceased.
20. It is further submitted that there is no allegation in respect of any cruelty affected done to the deceased soon before her death. It is stated that the prosecution has failed to prove the DD entry, cash memos and even the postmortem report beyond a reasonable doubt. It is argued that testimony of witnesses is not reliable and there are material improvements in the Judgment Page 15 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors statements of family members of deceased which makes the case of the prosecution not believable.
21. I have heard Ld. Additional PP for State and Ld. Defense Counsel. I have perused the record carefully and have also gone through various citations filed by both sides. Analysis Death of Bharti whether Suicidal or Homicidal
22. PW23 Dr. Komal Singh conducted the postmortem examination of deceased. Following external injuries were found on her body:
Abrasion on lower lip 1.2 cm x 2 mm, fresh injury.
Abrasion upper lip 5 mm x 2 mm fresh injury.
Irregular parchmentised mark present below avascular pale placed 2 cm below the chin margin.Judgment Page 16 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
23. PW23 opined the apparent cause of death was asphyxia due to smothering. He proved postmortem report as Ex. PW23/A. PW23 further deposed that he also examined the viscera report which showed absence of any common poison in the viscera. Therefore, the final cause of death remains the same as per his report Ex PW23/B.
24. Post-mortem report has been negated by the defense on the ground that though it finds mentions three injuries on the dead body but death report Ex. PW15/B mentions in Column no. 10 "No Injury Mark" on the dead body and therefore post-
mortem report is not be relied upon.
25. Besides the above, it is argued that post-mortem report mentions "Irregular Parchmentized mark "V" present below the Chin" and as per medical science "V" mark is main symptom of suicidal hanging so it is a clear-cut case of suicide. Judgment Page 17 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
26. It is submitted by defense that PW23 Dr. Komal not only failed to mention whether this injury was fresh or not in report Ex PW23/A but later on he improvised and mentioned in Ex PW23/B that the "injury in question is postmortem injury"
and that too on the query by the Investigating officer. It is stated that PW23 neither visited the spot nor raised any other query.
By just following the information received through inquest papers he formed an opinion, leaving blanks in the reports as well in the statements made on oath. Thus, on the face of it testimony of PW23 is not trustworthy.
27. It is further argued that PW23 gave a false report that smothering is impossible unless a person is intoxicated. In the absence of intoxication, the signs of the violence would be apparent and to fix liability on anybody the nail clippings of the deceased as well as of the accused were required to be taken for Judgment Page 18 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors detecting foreign tissues, which has not been done in this case. Moreover, there is no investigation related to Homicide. FSL report strengthens the contention that the deceased was neither under the influence of any intoxicating substance nor there was any mark of violence.
28. It is submitted that right from the first information till the conclusion of the investigation there is no indication of Homicidal act, except the oral vague and bald allegations of the family members of the deceased. It is argued that Hon'ble High court of Delhi in "Lekh Ram & Anr vs. State of Delhi 2018 (2) JCC 886 in Para 71 clarifies the position that if there is no investigation on Section 302 I.P.C then benefits should go to the accused.
29. Defense has submitted since the charge of Section 302 IPC is an alternate charge and the evidence related to Judgment Page 19 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors homicide is also neither according to medical science nor according to forensic science and nor supported by reliable trustworthy testimony discredit the whole testimony of PW23. Defense has relied upon Machindra Vs. Ssajjan Galpha Rankhamb & Ors. 2017 SCC ONLINE SC 443 wherein it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "expert opinion should be demonstrative and should be supported by convincing reasons".
30. First line of defense in respect of post-mortem report is that death report Ex PW15/B does not find any injury mark whereas post-mortem report Ex PW23/A finds injuries on the chin of deceased Bharti. True that death report Ex PW15/B does not mention any injury on the chin but while appreciating the said death report is to be kept in mind that report is not a determination of minute details whereas post-mortem aims to determine the cause of death.
Judgment Page 20 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
31. In post-mortem report PW23 Dr. Komal specifically mentions an abrasion on lower lip (1.2 cm x 2 mm), an abrasion over upper lip (5mm x 2mm) and a Parchmentized mark present below avascular pale placed 2 cm below the chin margin.
32. PW20 ASI Ajeet Singh reached at the spot after getting information about the incident. He took photographs Ex.20/A-1 to A-5 of the place of occurrence and photographs of deceased still lying on bed. In the photographs Ex. PW1/A2, A- 4 & 5 injuries on the chin of deceased are clearly visible. Therefore, these injuries cannot be said to be inflicted on the deceased post-mortem, these injuries are antemortem in nature and are rightly reflected in post-mortem report Ex PW23/A.
33. Second limb of the argument is that Dr. Komal (PW23) gave a false report that death was caused by smothering, as smothering is impossible unless a person is Judgment Page 21 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors intoxicated and it is submitted, in absence of intoxication, the signs of violence would be apparent and to fix liability on anybody the nail clippings of the deceased as well as of the accused was required to be taken for detecting foreign tissues, which has not been done in this case.
34. Doctor has noted an abrasion on lower lip (1.2 cm x 2 mm), an abrasion over upper lip (5 mm x 2 mm) and Parchmentized mark present below avascular pale placed 2 cm below the chin margin. Injuries found on the body lend support to opinion of Doctor about smothering. Cross-examination of PW23 Dr. Komal reads as under:
I put my signatures on the inquest papers. At time of conducting the postmortem, I had seen the death report Ex. PW15/B. The said report does not mention any fresh injury on the body of the deceased. I observed that the report mentions that there was an old injury mark below the chin of the deceased. I did not visit the spot of crime in this case.Judgment Page 22 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
35. There is nothing in the cross-examination of PW23 that dents his version. Nothing has been brought to discredit testimony of PW23. The medical jurisprudence does not say that smothering without intoxication is impossible.
36. Although counsel for the accused has stated that no investigation has been done about homicidal death and no offending material of smothering was found but this argument is ill-conceived for the simple reason that if the investigation is not done it would not mean that an act is not done.
37. While appreciating evidence of PW23 it is to be kept in mind that smothering means to cut off supply of oxygen and if the hand is put forcibly over the nostrils or on the mouth and supply of oxygen is cut off, it will lead to death of any person. In the present case, report of PW23 concludes and it also emerges from injuries that are clearly visible in Judgment Page 23 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors photographs that smothering was the cause of death which is homicidal in nature.
38. In Vijay Pal Singh & Others Vs State of Uttrakhand (2014)15 SCC 163, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
Since, the victim in the case is a married woman and the death being within seven years of marriage, apparently, the court has gone only on one tangent, to treat the same as a dowry death. No doubt, the death is in unnatural circumstances but if there are definite indications of the death being homicide, the first approach of the prosecution and the court should be to find out as to who caused that murder. Section 304B of IPC is not a substitute for Section 302 of IPC.
39. In the light of above authoritative judgment, let us now proceed to see whether enough evidence has been brought on record to prove who caused this homicide.
40. Prosecution has charge-sheeted four accused persons in the present case. Pawan Kumar (Husband). Daljit Singh Judgment Page 24 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors (Brother-in-law), Kaptan Singh (Father-in-law) and Satbiro (Mother-in-law). As per the prosecution case, all of them were residing with deceased on the first floor of the house and on the ground floor, one or two tenants were residing.
41. It is submitted on behalf of the complainant/ prosecution that it is an admitted case of the defense that all accused reside together in the same house. Accidental or suicidal death has been ruled out. Injuries present on the body of the deceased are found to be ante-mortem in nature. Clear and affirmative evidence of the injuries suffered by the deceased and the post-mortem opinion proves it to be a homicidal death at the residence of the accused and the aforesaid circumstances when read with Section 106 of the Evidence Act, complete the chain implicating and proving beyond doubt that the accused persons were the perpetrators of the aforesaid offense and are guilty of murder. The unnatural Judgment Page 25 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors and homicidal death of Bharti had taken place in the confines of her matrimonial home.
42. It is further submitted that presence of the accused persons at the time of homicidal death has been established and proved beyond reasonable doubt as it is nobody's case that they were not present at the house at that time. Explanation of the accused as to how and why the occurrence took place assumes significance and is important. Accused then cannot keep quiet or offer no explanation meeting the incriminating material.
43. It is argued that when presence of an accused at the time of homicidal death is established and proved beyond doubt, the principle enshrined in section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 impels and requires an explanation from the accused as to the cause and the reason for the injury that caused loss of life. When no such explanation is forthcoming or explanation is Judgment Page 26 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors found to be untrue, the said fact becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances making it complete. In this regard prosecution has relied upon "Pawan Singh v State & Ors".
MANU/DE/0302/2015.
44. To appreciate the arguments, let us examine what prosecution has brought forward in evidence.
45. PW27 SI Ram Nath deposed that on 03.10.2007 on receipt of DD No. 15A, he along with Ct. Jai Singh (PW29) reached WZ-4A, First Floor, Palam village where Bharti was found lying dead on the bed. He informed SHO and also informed SDM and called them on the spot. PW27 also called the crime team and seized chunni (Ex PX-1) which was found lying on the railing vide memo Ex PW27/A. Judgment Page 27 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
46. PW29 HC Jai Singh deposed on similar lines by testifying that a DD No. 15/A (Ex PW29/A) was received in respect of one girl who died due to hanging at WZ-4A, Palam Village. He along with ASI Ram Nath went there and found dead body of Bharti lying on the double bed, whereas a chunni was found tied to the window of the drawing room which was seized vide memo Ex PW27/A.
47. PW34 Inspector Sudhir Singh, Investigation Officer reached the spot at about 8 PM on 03.10.2007. He prepared a site plan and arrested accused persons Pawan, Daljit & Satbiro on that day. He obtained photographs of the scene of the crime, collected the postmortem report of deceased as in which Doctor opined the cause of death was asphyxia due to smothering and hence, he added Section 302 IPC. He recorded the statement of witnesses and got prepared scaled site plan through draughtsman. During his cross-examination, IO deposed: Judgment Page 28 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors ...I did not conduct any inquiry regarding the mobile phone of accused, complainant and his daughter. I also did not make any inquiry as to who all accused persons were present at the house on the day of incident. I did not make any inquiry regarding the office hours of accused Kaptan Singh and his days of duty. I also did not make any inquiry as to what course accused Pawan and Daljeet were pursuing or where accused Pawan was employed and also his duty hours and working days.
48. It is evident from the testimony of PW27, 29 & 34 that there are no investigations as to whether recovered Chunni (Ex PX-1) was used in smothering deceased or how chunni was found tied to the window of the drawing room whereas crime scene was bedroom.
49. Though Investigating Officer deposed that after getting post-mortem report he added Section 302 IPC but there is no investigation to find the murder trial. No effort is made to find out how the deceased was smothered. No material was examined or seized in this regard. IO did not make any inquiry Judgment Page 29 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors as to who among accused persons were present at the house at the approximate time of incident. No inquiries were made from the tenants who as per Investigating Officer were residing on the ground floor of the same house.
50. In Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 15 SCC 285 it is held by Hon'ble Apex court:
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties very carefully and had gone through the record. The trial court had gone into the evidence and observed that there was no evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. It is true that the incident happened in the matrimonial home and some presumption regarding the special knowledge, etc. could be raised in such a situation. But the basic onus on the prosecution is to prove its case and the onus does not change merely because the victim is the wife and the accused the husband and the incident happened in the matrimonial home.
51. Accused persons have relied on evidence to indicate that accused Daljit and Kaptan were not at home when the Judgment Page 30 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors incident took place. Prosecution has not discharged its initial onus to prove manner and persons behind homicidal death. In these facts, let us proceed to examine allegations appearing against accused person under Section 304B/498AIPC.
52. It would be appropriate to have a glance at relevant provisions and case law regarding 304-B IPC.
Section 304-B IPC defines 'dowry death', as under:
53."(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation- For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."
Judgment Page 31 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
54. To bring home the guilt under section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must prove that:
(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii) Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(iii) Soon before death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with demand of dowry; and
(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
55. So far as the first two ingredients of Section 304B IPC there is no dispute that the deceased was married to the accused Pawan on 25.04.2006 and she died an unnatural death on 03.10.2007 that is within 7 years of her marriage. The crucial question is whether "soon before her death", the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the Judgment Page 32 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors accused persons and such cruelty or harassment was in connection with the demand for dowry.
56. In this regard, the material prosecution witnesses are PW1 Sahib Kaur (mother of deceased), PW5 Subash Chander (father of deceased), PW7 Poonam & PW8 Asha Sejwal (sisters-in-law of deceased), PW9 Sanjeev Kumar Sejwal, PW10 Sunil Kumar and PW21 Phool Kumar (brothers of deceased) to sustain the charges. PW11 Dharamveer Singh also testified about the demand of Rs 5 lakhs raised by accused persons on 02.10.2007.
57. Following allegations are appearing in the testimony of above-named witnesses in respect of dowry demand and inflicting cruelty upon the deceased on account of demand of dowry:
a) Bharti (deceased) got married to accused Pawan on 25.04.2006 and in the marriage gold & silver jewelry, Judgment Page 33 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors washing machine, AC, refrigerator and all clothing were given.
b) After 25-26 days of her marriage, when Bharti visited their house, she complained that behavior of Satbiro, Kaptan, Daljit and accused Pawan were not cordial with her and complained greedy nature of accused persons.
c) On 26.05.2006, accused Pawan demanded Rs. 50,000/- cash from PW5 and on his demand Rs. 50,000/- were given to accused Pawan.
d) Bharti was not allowed to use the phone and was taunted " Phone Ka bill kya tumaraha baap bharega".
e) On 10.06.2006, Poonam (PW7) called Bharti on telephone. Bharti was crying on phone and was asking us to take her from her matrimonial home. PW1, 5, 9 & 10 went to the matrimonial house of Bharti who complained that her husband Pawan and her mother-in- law Satbiro had thrown her out of her room and all the accused persons used to taunt her for dowry. Accused Kaptan Singh, father-in-law of Bharti assured them that they shall not harass.
f) On 02.08.2006 accused Kaptan singh demanded Rs. 50,000/- which were given to him.
g) On 09.08.06 money and phone gifted by brother of Bharti on occasion of Raksha Bandhan were snatched by the accused persons and it was told that accused Judgment Page 34 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors persons were pressing for an inverter. Thereafter, the inverter was purchased and got installed the said inverter in the house of accused persons by PW9 Sanjeev.
h) On 31.10.06, accused Pawan Kumar and Satbiro threw phone and Satbiro demanded a Geyser and Rs. 15,000/- was given to accused Satbiro for geyser.
i) On 29.11.06, a written letter was received written by Bharti containing details of behavior extended by the accused persons to Bharti regarding non-fulfilling their dowry demand and also about the cruelty extended by the accused persons towards Bharti.
j) Bharti lived for about 7 months in her parental house from November 2006 during her stay Bharti complained that her in-laws harassed her for not bringing sufficient dowry.
k) Bharti complained that accused Kaptan, brother-in- law Daljeet and accused Pawan told her to wash their undergarments manually and when Bharti objected accused Satbiro and accused Daljeet gave her beatings on her refusal. Accused Daljeet gave a kick blow on her abdomen as a result of which Bharti fell unwell.
l) On 03.07.07 accused Daljit took Rs.10,000/- cash also from complainant.
m) On 12.09.07, accused Pawan withdrew cash Rs.3000/- from account of Bharti. Accused Pawan asked for 5 lakhs to buy a car from complainant. Judgment Page 35 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
n) On 02.10.07, accused Satbiro shouted at complainant that he did not bring cash of Rs. 5 lahks as was asked from him.
o) On 03.10.07, accused Satbiro made a telephonic call to my PW9 about the incident.
58. Besides the above allegations a letter Ex PW5/A written by deceased Bharti is produced in evidence, its English Translation reads as under:
Papaji you will be sad upon reading this letter but I am writing this letter under compulsion. You arranged my marriage with open arms for bringing happiness and you must have spent Rs.10-15 Lakhs in the marriage but even then I am unhappy. I am harassed here for everything and I am taunted. I am asked for forgiveness for no fault of mine and I am shamed again and again. Bad abuses are given for you and mother. I am stopped from using the telephone. All the time my mother-in-law and father-in-law keep me under the eye. Whenever you people call to inquire about my condition, only my mother-in- law, brother-in-law and Pawan pick up the phone and give you the false assurance that your daughter is happy here. These people record everything that I talk with you on the phone. When there was a power cut in the house in the summer, Judgment Page 36 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors these people (mother-in-law, father-in-law and all) put pressure on me that I had brought AC, now come with an inverter too. For this, they used to pressurize me on the phone every day to bring it (inverter). When brother came home to get the inverter installed, I was sent to work in the kitchen and I was not allowed to talk to the brother. My brother left the house dejected. My mother-in-law and father-in-law pressurized for money and said your family didn't give us money for the ring. For this, I was taunted daily. I was beaten and used to be pushed outside. These people demanded more gold jewelry and I was told to bring it and we will see how your family doesn't give. Due to beatings, I started having pain in my stomach. Because my mother-in-law and brother-in-law pulled my hair and hit me in the stomach. When I told all these things to my husband Pawan, he questioned my words and said that I will have to do whatever my family says. And pushed me out. Whenever I would talk about the fees for my studies, I would be told that his father would bear the expenses of his studies. My mother-in-law said ask your father for money, I have nothing for you. If I ever forbid you to ask them for anything from my house, then I would be taunted that even the daughter-in-law of the neighborhood brings so much, you will have to bring more money and goods than that. I know father, you must have not repaid the loan taken for my marriage but these people make me happy only when you will fulfill their demands. When I told my mother-in-law about my stomachache, these people took me to a private Nursing home.Judgment Page 37 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors There I was taken to in isolated place and my ultrasound was conducted some medicine was also given and everyone also taunted me repeatedly that she has become weak.... my mother-in-law kept my jewelry with her. When I refused that it will break then Pawan also forced me to give my jewelry to my mother-in-law. There it will be safe and my mother-in-law will take proper care of it. I doubt their intention that these people want to kill me. All four (Pawan, father-in-
law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law) keep talking late at night. I can't sleep at night and remain in fear. Get me out of here as soon as you get this letter. These people have made my life hell. They are not humans but beasts. They are greedy. They are mannerless who are after my life. Papaji, I have become very weak take me immediately. These people will make me mad and would say that I died in madness. Papa, quickly get me out of this hell. Come quickly, Papa, to take me.
59. Allegations appearing in the testimony of witnesses and the above letter is attacked by the defense by submitting that the unfortunate incident happened on 03.10.2007. During matrimony, deceased lived for a period of over seven months continuously at her parental home, from Judgment Page 38 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors November 2006 to June 2007. As per deposition of witnesses, deceased returned to her matrimonial home on 02-07-2007, and accused Pawan along with his brother-in-law Naresh came to take her back. Admittedly during this period, there is no allegation or incriminating evidence against any of the accused persons. In such circumstances, no adverse inference against accused persons can be drawn for a period of over seven months. It is submitted that the testimony of witnesses is not trustworthy because no complaint was ever made during matrimonial life of the deceased with accused Pawan.
60. It is contended that a forged and fabricated letter marked as Ex.PW5/A has been discarded and discredited by the witnesses themselves. There are different versions, firstly in respect of dates when letter was written, posted and delivered. Admittedly the letter bears the year of its printing as 1999. that is, about seven years before it's being put into Judgment Page 39 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors use. Another important issue is that letter does not find mention in statement Ex. PW5/B, which was the first available opportunity to disclose the same, even though PW-5 was allegedly carrying the same with him at the time when he made the said statement to SDM.
61. Third important circumstance which goes against the prosecution is that according to PW-5 deceased was at her parental home about a week before birth of the child which was on 29.11.2006. PW-1 also admitted that "Bharti was at our home on the day Poonam was hospitalized. Bharti might have come to our house about a week before hospitalization of Poonam".
62. Attention is also drawn by the defense on pages of dairy of deceased written by deceased (a suicide note) on 16.09.2006 wherein deceased has written that she is happy Judgment Page 40 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors and got love from the family of accused persons and nobody should be held responsible for her death.
63. Now, let us examine case of prosecution in light of defense arguments. Defense has not been able to shatter the deposition of the prosecution witnesses PW1,5,7, 9, 10 and 21 who all in unison deposed that accused persons kept demanding money from deceased and complainant.
64. Witnesses though were confronted with their previous statements but they all withstood the test of cross- examination done by Ld. Counsel for accused. Witnesses have duly corroborated their version.
65. In my considered opinion the clinching evidence in the present case is letter Ex PW5/A. PW31 Dr. Devak Ram Judgment Page 41 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors deposed that as per his report letter Ex PW5/A is in handwriting of deceased Bharti.
66. In this letter deceased Bharti writes that accused persons put pressure on her to bring inverter. Accused persons stated to Bharti that they were not given money for the ring and for this reason she was taunted daily. She was beaten and used to be pushed outside. Accused persons demanded more gold jewelry and she was told to bring it. Bharti stated that her mother-in-law and brother-in-law pulled her hair and hit her in the stomach. Bharti was taunted that woman residing in the neighborhood brings so much and she will have to bring more money and goods than that. Bharti stated that her mother-in-law kept her jewelry with her. When she refused that it will break then her husband Pawan forced her to give her jewelry to her mother-in-law.
Judgment Page 42 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
67. Ld. Defense Counsel contends that this letter Ex PW5/A is forged letter as despite so serious allegations alleged in Ex PW 5/A, no action was initiated by complainant and his family. It is submitted that had there been any iota of truth, the complainant would not have waited for a minute to lodge a complaint. It is submitted that letter Ex. PW5/A stands falsified, fabricated and forged, and was prepared to counter the averments mentioned in Ex PW 31/A that is contents of Dairy written by deceased. Moreover, letter is seven years older before incident and testimony of DW1 Bhuwan Chandra, PRO, Post Office establishes this letter was deficiently stamped and never posted.
68. It is further contended that interpolation and tampering of Ex-PW5/A can also not be ruled out, in view of statement of PW-31 wherein he has stated:
"It is correct that have not given opinion on Judgment Page 43 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors figure 2,9 and 1. Vol. could not find any significant features in these figures. The figures at Point X1 on Ex. PW5/A are 2,9,1,0 and 6".
It is stated that aforementioned conduct of the complainant establishes malafide and an attempt to create documentary evidence to strengthen his contentions.
69. Defense though has disputed that in-land letter was never posted nor there was any need for the deceased to write a letter and also contended that letter was manipulated. But defense has not disputed the fact that deceased was author of this letter or that letter is the in handwriting of deceased more so, this fact stands established by the testimony of PW31.
70. In this letter deceased has made serious allegations against all accused persons of demanding dowry, beating and taunting her. The question is why deceased would Judgment Page 44 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors make such kind of allegations in Ex PW5/A that she is under threat from accused persons on account of being harassed and tortured, if she was happy and satisfied by the behavior met to her by accused persons.
71. No matter how this letter came to the hands of complainant whether by post or not but the fact remains that Ex PW5/A was written by deceased and she mentions in it about demand for gold, inverter and money by accused persons. Deceased has also written that she is living under fear of accused persons and requested her father to take her back to her parental house.
72. It is hard to comprehend that deceased herself wrote a letter making false attributions thinking that the same would be used as evidence in case she dies or her father made her write this letter leveling false allegations against accused Judgment Page 45 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors persons with a thought he would use this letter as evidence against accused persons if his daughter dies. In this letter deceased has narrated and shared to her family, her woes and harassment meted out to her by accused persons.
73. Contents of the letter are similar to allegations leveled by family members of deceased against accused persons. Letter Ex PW5/A lends support to prosecution case and is to be relied upon to establish charges against accused persons. Contention of the defense that why complainant did not take any action after receipt of this letter doesn't dent the contents of letter as our social structure and mindset is such that generally families try to save matrimonial life and matters are not reported to police easily. It is in evidence that accused persons were approached by complainant to resolve the issue. Thus, the objections to letter Ex.PW5/A taken by defense is superficial and are liable to be rejected. Judgment Page 46 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
74. As noted in above paras allegations for demand of dowry and harassment remained consistent throughout the matrimonial period. The last allegation in respect of dowry demand is of a day before death. In this regard PW5, PW10 and PW11 have deposed. Let us examine what PW11 Dharamveer has deposed:
"On 2nd October, 2007 Subhash made a telephonic call to me and told me that accused persons were harassing Bharati for demand of money and he asked me to reach at the house of accused persons at Palam. On the same day at about 2.30 pm I reached there alone. Prior to my arrival there, Subhash, his son Sunil and his relative Rajbeer had already reached there. When I reached there, the mother-in-law namely Satbiro was quarreling with Subhash in a loud voice. I tried to make understand Satbiro not to do so and thereafter, she took me and Rajbeer outside the room and told us that they had asked S bring Rs.5 lacs but he did not bring any money. We both tried to make her understand in the presence of Kaptan and Pawan and Daljeet that Subhash is not too financially sound to pay such a huge amount. Satbiro told myself and Rajbeer that if Subhash is not able to pay such amount, both of you pay the Judgment Page 47 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors same. We both told her that we too are not having such a huge amount to pay to you. We again tried to make her understand not to harass Bharati. Thereafter, Subhash asked to send Bharati with him but Satbiro denied for the same as she had stayed already for about 7-8 months at her parental house and she further told that " agar le jana chahte ho to hamesha ke liye le jao aur shadi kahi aur kar dene, dusri shadi karoge to vaha bhi to paise lagaoge". After that, Subhash asked Bharti to go with him but Bharti told that her mother in law was saying that during Shradh days, it would not be proper to go to her parental home. Subhash again requested to the accused persons not to harass Bharati, but Kaptan, Satbiro, Pawan, Daljeet and nanad Neelam shouted loudly in one voice saying that "ladki hogi tumhari, hamari to bahu hai, hum to marange pitenge, hamari marji". At about 4.30 pm I, Subas and Sunil and Rajbeer left the house of accused persons for our house....
75. Similar is the testimony of PW5 Subash and PW10 Sunil in respect of the incident. The defense contends that PW5 Subash (father of deceased) in his statement Ex. PW5/B stated that "Tab Maine Apni Ladki Se Poochha Ki s Judgment Page 48 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors Kya Baat Hai, Yadi Koi Dikkat Hai To Maire Saath Chal, To Ladki Ne Kaha Ki Mein Theek Hu, Koi Baat Hogi To Mein Fone Par Bata Dungi". But later on, PW-5 and other witnesses, owing to malafide intentions, changed their statements to fortify the allegation of 02.10.07 and deposed an improvised version. It is argued that any averment amounting to introducing a new case is not tenable in law. It is argued that the witnesses have moved in different directions about the allegations of 02.10.07. There are major improvements in the statements of PW-5 as well as PW-10 concerning the allegations of 02.10.07, which renders their testimony untrustworthy.
76. PW5, PW10 & 11 all have deposed that on 02.10.2007 there was demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs from accused persons and they even asked Bharti to accompany them to her parental house. In his initial statement Ex PW5/B as well Judgment Page 49 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors PW5 Subash stated that he was called by accused Satbiro and there he was threatened Satbiro that they would not keep his daughter in matrimonial home and when PW5 inquired from his daughter(deceased) she stated that she is fine and let him know in case of any problem.
77. Statement Ex PW5/B corroborates the version of PW10 & 11 that on 02.10.2007 they along with PW5 Subash went to the house of accused persons. In his deposition, PW5 has narrated the entire incident.
78. In his statement Ex PW10/A recorded by SDM, PW11 Sunil mentions that accused Satbiro threatened them and she was also demanding car. PW11 also corroborates the version of PW10 Sunil that there was specific demand by accused Satbiro.
Judgment Page 50 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
79. Version of PW5 in Ex PW5/B that deceased stated to her that "Ladki Ne Kaha Ki Mein Theek Hu, Koi Baat Hogi To Mein Fone Par Bata Dungi" doesn't indicate overall condition of deceased it just reflects deceased did not want to say anything at that time for reasons she must have. More so, as per this version, deceased stated that in case anything happens then she will inform. This statement of deceased indicates apprehension in her mind that something might happen. Nothing substantial is brought on record to discredit the testimony of witnesses in respect of incident dated 02.10.2007.
Defense
80. In order to prove that on alleged dates of demands accused Pawan was attending his classes, defense examined DW2 Dheeraj Bhist, from Amity School of Fine Arts. He produced an attendance record of accused Pawan as Ex DW2/A. However, in his cross-examination witness says: Judgment Page 51 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors "....... It is correct that Ex DW-2/A (colly.) was produced on record by accused Pawan. It is correct that for every subject attendance is marked separately in the class. It is correct that in the year 2006-2007, attendance was being marked in the class by the concerned teacher manually. I can not say whether the Ex DW-2/A(colly) has been prepared on the basis of manual record of attendance maintained by the class teacher. As per my knowledge, Dr. Nirmala Sharma was not teaching at the level of bachelor. It is correct that Ex DW-2/A(colly.) is computerized document and it is not having the relevant certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.... "
81. DW2 admits that Dr. Nirmala Sharma who issued the certificate was not teaching at the level of bachelor. He further admits that in the year 2006-2007, attendance was being marked in the class by the concerned teacher manually but no manual record has been produced by DW2. There is no evidence that who prepared Ex DW2/A, who made computer entries nor any certificate under 65B Evidence Act has been produced. In these facts, no weightage can be given to attendance record produced.
Judgment Page 52 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
82. Defense examined DW-3 Naresh Kumar, from BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. to prove that on relevant dates and on date of incident as well accused Kaptan Singh was not at home. He deposed that as per record, accused Kaptan Singh was on duty from 12 in the night till 8.00 a.m on 03.10.2007. On 02.08.2006, as well accused Kaptan Singh was present in the office and during that month his duty hours were 9.00 a.m till 5.00 p.m. He produced relevant pages of attendance register of dates 02.08.2006 and 02.10.2007 as Ex. DW-3/A & B. Another document dated 03.03.2010 was produced by witness as Ex.DW-3/C. During his cross- examination by Ld. Addl. PP, DW3 deposed as under:
..... It is correct that EX DW-3/A and Ex DW-3/B is not the original register of the division, where the employees marks his attendance. It is correct that EX DW-3/A and Ex DW-3/B do not reflect any duty hours of any employee. It is correct that Ex DW-3/A and EX DW-3/B is not signed by any officer. Vol. same is not required. It is correct that EX DW-3/A and EX DW-3/B do not reflect time of arrival and time of departure of concerned Judgment Page 53 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors employee. Vol. the said record is available in the Sub-division.....
83. It is evident from the testimony of witness that attendance record Ex DW-3/A & B does not reflect any duty hours of any employee nor it reflects the time of arrival and time of departure of concerned employee. Therefore, record produced by DW3 does not help the cause of accused Kaptan Singh to prove his absence.
84. DW5 Poonam Ahlawat examined by defense deposed that accused persons are her parents and brothers.
She deposed that on 02.10.2007, she visited her parental house and met Bharti. Bharti often used to tell her that she wanted to become something in life but could not do so because of her father. DW5 testified that Bharti was comfortable in matrimonial home and never complained against anybody. DW5 as per her admission was not residing Judgment Page 54 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors with accused persons and her testimony does not throw any light as to what was transpiring in the matrimonial home of deceased.
85. Thus, in light of above discussions, it has to be concluded that accused persons have failed to discharge the onus shifted upon them qua rebutting the presumption arising 304-B IPC as well as to shatter veracity of the duly proved overall version of prosecution witnesses qua the commission of cruelty and harassment by the accused persons with deceased Bharti for not meeting the unlawful demands of dowry leading to her unnatural death.
86. On the other hand, there is evidence on record that harassment of deceased started from the time of her marriage and continued till her death. Incidents narrated by prosecution witnesses cannot be segregated from one another Judgment Page 55 of 58 SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors and they all form a part of the continuous transaction. These incidents qualify the criteria of 'soon before death' due to rule of proximity of time because it was a continuing ordeal having continuity of action and community of purpose. Nonetheless, there is a specific incident of 02.10.2007 a day before death wherein demand for dowry was raised by the accused persons.
87. Firm, cogent and consistent testimonies of PW1,5,7 to 11 & 21 have proved the continuous dowry demands made by the accused persons and harassment given by accused persons to the deceased due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands and subjected her to cruelty soon before her death by the accused persons due to which deceased died under unnatural circumstances. Letter Ex PW5/A lends support to the version of prosecution witnesses and corroborates allegations.
Judgment Page 56 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
Conclusion:
88. From the discussions made above, following facts emerges:
i) Deceased Bharti got married to Pawan on 25.04.2006 and she met an unnatural death on 03.10.1997 that is within seven years of her marriage.
ii) Continuous demands of dowry (cash, gold and car) were made by the accused persons from deceased and her father which father of deceased failed to fulfill completely.
iii) Cruelty inflicted on deceased on account of insufficient dowry soon before her death.
iv) Accused persons have failed to discharge the onus shifted upon them qua rebutting the presumption arising 304-B IPC as well as to shatter veracity of the duly proved overall version of prosecution witnesses.
v) Matter is not investigated to find out murder trail. There is insufficient material on record to point out the mode, manner and persons responsible for causing death of deceased nor any evidence has been led to prove allegations in respect of disappearance of material evidence.Judgment Page 57 of 58
SC No: 440351/16 State Vs. Pawan & Ors
89. Accordingly, it is held that prosecution has been successful to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons Pawan, Kaptan Singh, Satbiro and Daljit for the offenses punishable under Section 498-A/304-B/34 Indian Penal Code. They are convicted for said offenses. Accused persons are acquitted for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and 201/34 Indian Penal Code for want of evidence.
Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence on 30.01.2023.
Announced in the open court on 3rd day of January, 2023 Digitally signed GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2023.01.03 17:09:22 +0530 Gautam Manan Addl. Sessions Judge-02 South-West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi Judgment Page 58 of 58