Delhi District Court
Prosecution vs . on 19 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAVITRI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. : 186/2012
Under Section : 302/498-A/406/304-B/34 IPC
Police Station : Jafrabad
Sessions Case No : 331/2016
Unique I.D. No. : 02402R030722012
In the matter of :-
STATE
..... PROSECUTION
Vs.
1. Arun Kumar
s/o Jagat Singh
r/o 139, Near Panchayat Ghar,
Maujpur, Delhi
2. Jagat Singh
s/o Tek Chand
r/o 139, Near Panchayat Ghar,
Maujpur, Delhi
3. Anjana @ Anju
w/o Pintu Bhati
r/o H. No. S-36, Bapu Park,
Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi-03
State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 1
4. Pintu Bhati @ Yogesh
s/o Raj Singh
r/o H. No. S-36, Bapu Park,
Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi-03
5. Reena Rani
d/o Jagat Singh
r/o H. No. 139, Old Maujpur,
Near Panchayat Ghar, Delhi-53
6. Mahendri Devi
w/o Jagat Singh
r/o H. No. 139, Old Maujpur,
Near Panchayat Ghar, Delhi-53
7. Dev Pal
s/o late Sh. Gyanender Singh
r/o Village Nithari,
Sector-31, Noida,
Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, UP
.....ACCUSED PERSONS
Name and particulars of : Sh. Kharak Singh
complainant s/o Sh. Atar Singh
r/o Village Shabaj Pur,
Ghaziabad, UP
Date of Institution : 19.10.2012
Date of Committal : 02.11.2012
Date of receiving in this Court : 05.11.2012
Date of reserving judgment : 15.01.2019
State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 2
Date of pronouncement : 19.01.2019
Decision : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
Brief facts as per the investigation :
1 The present dowry death FIR was registered on 22.07.2012 with respect to dowry death of deceased Sunny who had got married to accused Arun Kumar only on 18.11.2010. The challan u/s 498-A/304-B/302/406/34 IPC r/w sections 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act was filed. Initially, accused husband Arun Kumar and father-in-law Jagat Singh were arrested and challan was filed against them only. Later on, the other co-accused were brought to trial by way of a supplementary challan. All these remaining co-
accused were admitted to anticipatory bail by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the ld. Sessions Court.
The state machinery was put in motion after a PCR call was made by accused Arun at about 10.40 am on 22.07.2012 to the effect that his wife had locked herself inside room and was not opening the same. At 10.50 am, PCR reached at the spot. By that time, the door of the room was broken. The victim had been taken off the sealing fan by hanging from which her death was caused. The dupatta which was used for hanging had been cut in four pieces. She was brought to ground floor, main gate of the matrimonial house State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 3 from the second floor room where incident had taken place, by the time PCR reached. As per the challan, she was brought out by her husband and father-in-law along with some other family members. PCR took her to hospital where the matrimonial family members accompanied. She was declared dead on arrival.
2 The FIR was registered on the statement of father of deceased namely Kharak Singh, recorded by Executive Magistrate Sh. V.P. Jha. The following facts emerged during investigation :
After the marriage, for 15 days, everything remained normal. Thereafter, all the accused persons who are as follows :
(I) Arun Kumar, husband
(ii) Jagat Singh, father-in-law
(iii) Mahendri, mother-in-law
(iv) Anju @ Anjana, married nanad
(v) Pintu Bhati, nandoi
(vi) Manju @ Reena, unmarried nanad &
(vii) Devpal Bhati, maternal cousin of husband
started torturing deceased Sunny for dowry and
harassed and beat her for not meeting the demands. They wanted Rs.10 lakhs cash and a BMW/big car. Accused Pintu Bhati, Anjana @ Anju and Devpal were the mediators of the marriage. No police complaint was filed with respect to these incidents in order to save the marriage. On the date of incident, in the morning, the deceased had told her mother telephonically that her parents-in-law i.e. State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 4 Mahendri and Jagat Singh had been quarelling with her and not even allowing her to have tea. As per the postmortem report, her stomach was found empty. The deceased had made three police calls from her mobile no. 8882967513 (the sim was in her father's name) on 05.07.2012 at 7.44, 7.47 and 10.47 am indicating that she was tortured by the members of family. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was antemortem hanging. Some dowry articles including jewellery and a car were handed over by the accused persons to the IO during investigation. It was found during investigation that the married nanad Anju and her husband Pintu Bhati used to stay at the matrimonial house of deceased only, for most of the time, while accused Devpal Bhati visited only occasionally. After recording statement of witnesses, preparation of various documents and collecting evidence, the investigation was concluded and accused persons were sent for trial.
3 After hearing arguments, the accused persons were charged of offences u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC, alternatively u/s 302/34 IPC, on 08.08.2013 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. They were discharged of the offences u/s 406 IPC and 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
Prosecution Evidence :
4 To prove its case, prosecution has examined 25 State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 5 witnesses.
5 PW-1 is the father of deceased Kharak Singh. He has deposed on the lines of prosecution case. He deposed that he had given a Scorpio vehicle in marriage and accused persons demanded a BMW and Rs.10 lakhs. He deposed that the articles were demanded through mediators by the remaining accused and accused Devpal, Anju and Pintu Bhati who were the mediators had asked him to meet the demands. He deposed that accused Mahendri (MIL) had mentioned about eliminating the deceased in sleep which deceased had overheard. He also deposed that the AC room of deceased was used by accused Anju and Pintu Bhati and deceased was made to sleep on third floor where her body was found.
Then he deposed about some facts which were not part of his 161 CrPC statement stating that the accused had made the deceased sit on the roof of the house. Accused Jagat Singh went upstairs and grappled with her. He ran away after the deceased raised alarm. He further deposed that after beating the deceased accused persons had taken her to IHBAS on one occasion and procured a false certificate pretending that she had become mentally disturbed. He also deposed that accused Devpal had threatened him to compromise the matters with accused persons or else they would kill his daughter and he would save them after selling his plot worth Rs.1 crore. He further deposed, making improvement over his State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 6 161 CrPC statement that on the date of incident deceased had called him and his wife and told that accused Mahendri, Arun, Anju and Reena were not allowing her to have tea and had been beating her for last two days. Further, that he assured the deceased to keep patience and told her that they would reach her within 1 & ½ hour. Then he deposed that at about 8.40 am accused Arun called to inform that the deceased had hanged herself. Further, that immediately thereafter his daughters Antim and Anu rushed to house of accused but did not find deceased there. He further deposed that thereafter after receiving information from police he went to GTB Hospital along with his other family members and saw the deceased lying on stretcher. When he asked accused Arun as to what they had done, accused replied, "we have done what we wanted and do what you want".
He further deposed that police did not conduct fair investigation in the matter and SDM had not recorded his full statement and told him that detailed statement would be recorded by police. Thereafter he deposed about seizure of card, photographs and two DVDs of marriage, list of dowry articles from him by IO and the seizure of Scorpio car no. DL 4CNV 5391 given in dowry, from the accused persons and proved his signatures on the relevant documents.
During his cross-examination by the ld. counsel for accused, he admitted that the accused side had organized a reception soon after the marriage which he had attended with his State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 7 family members and then deceased had come back to his house on the same night and stayed for about a month or so. He also admitted that during this one month period she made no complaint against accused persons and accused Arun had taken her back to matrimonial house after a ritual called `boora khaana'. He also stated during his cross-examination that after around one week he had again visited matrimonial house of deceased to bring her back to his house as per rituals. Thereafter, Sunny stayed at his house for about 7-10 days and was then taken back to matrimonial house by accused husband Arun. The witness stated that he met Arun on this occasion but did not remember any particulars talks which he had with him. He stated that he would have asked about Arun's well being. He admitted that he had given dowry articles to his daughter of his own sweet will. He admitted that deceased had no child and had never conceived but denied suggestion that she used to remain under depression due to this reason or that she was taken for treatment of depression to IHBAS. He denied the suggestion that AC room of deceased was not used by accused Pintu and Anjana and also the other suggestions contrary to his deposition.
He deposed during his cross-examination that he had known accused Anjana around one year prior to the marriage. At that time, the talks of marriage had begun between the parties. He denied the suggestion the accused Devpal used to reside in Nithari,UP and volunteered to say that he resided in the house of his in-laws (in the neighbourhood of matrimonial house of deceased).
State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 8 He also denied that at the time of incident accused Pintu Bhati and Anjana used to reside at Kotla Mubarakpur. He stated that at the hospital accused Jagat Singh and Arun were present along with one Karan Singh and an aunt of accused Arun. He could not tell the mobile number on which he and his wife had received the call of deceased, nor the mobile number from which deceased had called.
6 PW-2 is mother of deceased Smt. Pritam Devi. She has also deposed on the lines of prosecution case i.e. demand of BMW car and Rs.10 lakhs cash and beating of deceased by accused persons. Her chief examination is almost as that of PW-1. Additionally, she mentioned that on 13th July (year not mentioned), it was birthday of deceased. She (deceased) called her and informed that accused persons were asking for car and Rs.10 lakhs. She mentioned that on one occasion when she was in Rajasthan for religious purpose, deceased had called her to tell that she had been badly beaten by accused Jagat, Mahender, Arun and Anju. She did not mention any date of this incident.
She also deposed about telephonic conversation between her and deceased in the early morning of 22.07.2012 at about 7.30 am and deposed that deceased had called her and was crying over phone. She also mentioned that accused husband Arun used to address the deceased as Pritam's daughter and Kharak Singh's daughter. The DVDs of marriage were played before court during evidence of this witness and it was observed by my ld.
State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 9 Predecessor Judge that jewellery and cash were given in marriage by the parents of the deceased to the accused persons.
During her cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, she admitted that when deceased had come to her natal house for the first time, after four days of her marriage, she did not make any kind of complaint against accused persons to her. She also admitted that at the time of marriage negotiations, no demand of dowry was made by accused persons and there was no dispute about dowry at the time of marriage and the deceased was taken to her matrimonial home after marriage without making any demand. She admitted that deceased was not harassed in her presence but volunteered to say that they used to harass her at her back. She stated that the accused Arun used to visit along with Sunny, the deceased at her house. She did not tell her mobile number despite asking during cross-examination, which as per her she had been maintaining since prior to marriage of deceased till the date of recording of her evidence. She admitted that the Scorpio car was given in marriage of their own sweet will and it was not demanded by accused persons.
She denied the suggestion that Sunny had attempted to commit suicide on two occasions prior to her marriage. She also denied that she did not want to get married to accused Arun or that had attempted to commit suicide twice after marriage at her natal home. She denied the suggestion that deceased had any mental disorder/depression issues in June 2012 and was taken to IHBAS for State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 10 treatment. She also denied the suggestion that in November, 2011 her family had forcibly asked the deceased to come to natal house and she was annoyed with them and therefore took some pills in order to commit suicide. She also denied the suggestion that she and the other family members used to visit matrimonial house of deceased against her wishes. She denied the suggestion that she did not make any complaint to police upto July, 2012 because Sunny was residing happily with her in-laws. She admitted that there were well educated persons in her family including an MLA, a councillor and an advocate.
7 PW-3 is Miss Antim, sister of deceased. She has also deposed on same lines as PW-1 and PW-2, the parents of deceased regarding harassment and torture of deceased by all the accused persons and deposed that no complaint was made in order to save the marriage and not to adversely effect the marriage prospects of other three unmarried sisters. She deposed that deceased was tortured even when she used to sit for taking meals. Her basic requirements were not met by the accused persons and the witness used to buy her personal things out of her own pocket money.
She further deposed during her chief examination that deceased was murdered by accused persons and IO had recorded her (witness) statement in that regard (though in her cross- examination, she categorically denied recording of her statement by police/any government official including SDM). She denied the State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 11 suggestion that she had given statement to the IO and had not disclosed any facts before him as were deposed by her during her evidence before court.
Her evidence on this aspect is untrue. I have been through her 161 CrPC statement as available on record. She has mentioned many fresh facts in her examination-in-chief, that do not form part of her 161 CrPC statement which contains averments only about dowry related torture and harassment. She mentioned that on one occasion deceased had telephonically informed her that accused Arun had taken her at Yamuna bridge at about 10.00 pm in rainy season and pushed her towards the sewerage pipeline. Later accused Arun had apologized for his conduct and had taken her to matrimonial home. At that time, the witness had also reached at Yamuna bridge. The witness narrated one more incident that the deceased was going to appear in BA second year exam at Tilak Nagar with accused husband Arun and nandoi Pintu. When they reached at the turn of Delhi University, accused Arun had pushed her before a blueline bus and some public persons had saved her. She deposed that this fact was disclosed to her over telephone.
Yet another incident was narrated by the witness that one occasion the deceased was coming from her matrimonial home to her natal home with accused Dev as there had been a quarrel at matrimonial home. At Bhopura Flyover, she was picked up by accused husband accompanied by accused Pintu. Down the flyover, she was pushed by accused husband and Pintu from motorcycle and State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 12 sustained many injuries as a result while accused Dev and accused Arun did not receive any injury. The deceased made a call to the witness who reached at the spot along with her mother and got her medically treated. Again the deceased was emotionally blackmailed by accused husband and taken to matrimonial home.
Towards the end of her chief examination, the witness deposed about the developments on the date of incident. She stated that on 22.07.2012 at 7.00-7.30 am her mother received a call from deceased, deceased was weeping and told that her mother-in-law was quarreling with her. She deposed further that after some time accused Arun called her mother to inform that deceased had confined herself in a room. Thereafter, she deposed about death of deceased and alleged that she was murdered. During her cross- examination, the witness stated that she was pursuing B.Tech at the time of marriage of deceased. She admitted that she along with her two sisters had visited matrimonial house of deceased to celebrate her birthday on 13.07.2011. She further deposed in response to defence question that in the birthday celebration of Sunny, the deceased, accused husband, his parents and both sisters and son of accused Anju were present. She further deposed that deceased asked her to stay back but they had returned to their house. Accused Mahendri had not liked the food cooked by deceased and had scolded her on her birthday. Since the atmosphere had turned heavy and full of tension, the witness and her sisters had left for their home. She admitted that deceased celebrated karwa chauth at her State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 13 matrimonial home in year 2011. She stated that she would have visited matrimonial house of deceased 40-50 times. She stated that deceased had told her about the incident about her going to appear in the exam at Tilak Nagar, after a long gap from the incident i.e. around the month of February, 2012. The witness deposed that she could not produce any medical document about injuries sustained by deceased at Bhopura Flyover because there was no doctor available and she and her mother had got her first aid treatment at a medical shop near natal home. She deposed that this incident would have taken place in the month of April-May, 2012. The witness could not tell the numbers of mobile phone used by her between January 2012 till 22.07.2012 i.e. date of incident. She could not even tell the sim number of phone used by deceased in July, 2012. She deposed that she changed her mobile numbers after every 2-3 months and did not remember the mobile number used by her in May-July, 2012. She even could not tell the mobile number of her mother used on 22.07.2012. She denied that none of the incidents narrated above had taken place with the deceased. Also that, she could not mention the exact date and time of incident as these were false allegations.
During her cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused Arun and Jagat Singh, she stated about the incident of Yamuna bridge that she called the deceased and got to know that she and accused Arun were having exchange of heated words in car. Thereafter she and her mother reached there and saw the couple quarelling on the other side of the road. She denied the suggestion State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 14 that her tenant also accompanied her to Yamuna bridge along with her mother. She stated that she had gone there on scooty and not in Accent car that the family owned. She denied the suggestion that on that day deceased had left her matrimonial home after a quarrel or that accused Arun had told the witness about this on phone while stating that he was going to search for Sunny, the deceased. In response to court query, the ld. counsel for accused could not point out any particular time of such call by accused Arun to the witness. She denied the suggestion that she and her mother also tried to make the deceased understand and thereafter she was sent back to matrimonial house with accused. Regarding Bhopura Flyover incident, the witness admitted that PCR call was made by some public person. She also admitted the suggestion that public person told police that she and her mother were compelling Sunny to sit in their vehicle and for that reason police wanted to arrest them. She volunteered to state that the police mistook them to be in-laws of Sunny. She stated that Sunny had made call to her using mobile phone of accused Arun when Bhopura Flyover incident happened.
During her cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused Jagat Singh and Arun, the witness admitted that deceased was emotional person but denied the suggestion that she used to get annoyed on every small issue or that the deceased had problem of headache since long. She denied the suggestion that Sunny was having infertility issues. She denied the suggestion that Sunny was suffering from acute depression or that she was treated in IHBAS.
State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 15 She also denied the suggestion that the deceased was not treated with cruelty prior to or soon before her death or that no dowry was ever demanded from her by any of the accused persons.
8 PW-4 is Mrs. Sandhya Verma, mausi (mother's sister) of the deceased. She deposed that she was a municipal councillor from BJP party at the time of marriage of deceased with accused Arun. She also deposed on the same lines as the other family members of the deceased. Additionally, she mentioned about having talked to accused Arun and family members regarding harassment of deceased for dowry and that she had met the deceased at the house of her MLA brother on two celebrations. She also identified dowry articles produced before the court. She did not mention specifically about any incidents which were narrated by Antim, though Antim had deposed that her mausi was aware of all these incidents having taken place with the deceased.
During her cross-examination, she was confronted with her 161 CrPC statement wherein the fact regarding deceased having made complaint to her about demand of Rs.10 lakhs and BMW car by the accused persons was not mentioned, as also the fact regarding the deceased having met her at the house of her brother on two occasions. She volunteered to say that police did not show her the statement recorded by them and that the police had been hostile to the complainant side. She denied the suggestion that she did not talk to accused Arun and his family regarding demand of State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 16 dowry. She stated that she did not know whether any panchayat was held in the matter of Sunny and that she had not visited the house of accused persons to talk in respect of demands made by them. The witness was asked to specify the name of accused persons told to her by deceased as had been torturing her, twice or thrice but every time she started with the term `all accused persons' and took names looking at the accused persons present in the court. This was recorded as court observations by my ld. Predecessor Judge.
The witness could not tell the mobile number used by deceased nor her own number on which deceased used to call her. She denied the suggestion that she was intentionally not disclosing her mobile number because no such calls were ever made to her by deceased as she never complained to her regarding any cruelty and harassment. She denied the suggestion that since there was no problem to deceased in matrimonial family, therefore, complainant side had not lodged any police complaint in this regard nor any panchayat had taken place. During her evidence, she had mentioned about having made a complaint to police commissioner accordingly she was directed to produce the complaint by ld. Predecessor Judge and she produced a photocopy only and not the copy with original receipt. She denied the suggestion that she was producing a forged and fabricated document. The document has not been placed on record of court file.
State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 17 9 PW-5 is one Prem Raj Chandela, an advocate by profession. He deposed that the deceased was his niece and he had given a Scorpio car in her marriage and had also taken the same on superdari. He deposed about the deceased having called him on 5.7.2012 that accused persons i.e. parents-in-law, their son- in-law Bhati, husband, one relative namely Dev/Ved would kill her if Rs.10 lakhs cash and a BMW or a big car was not given to them but he could not tell the mobile number from which the deceased had called nor he furnished landline number on which he received call. He also deposed that the victim again called him on 12.07.2012 on his mobile phone no. 9968311215/9868557280 and he was in Kashmir on Amarnath Yatra and told her that he would talk to her after his return to Delhi. In the court, witness identified only accused Devpal and Pintu Bhati and none other. She denied the suggestion that he did not tell anything to the police or that deceased never called him at any point of time to complain about demand of dowry by accused persons. Regarding the action taken by him after receiving call of deceased on 5.7.12 he stated that he had gone to matrimonial house of Sunny, the house was locked, he waited for about half an hour and then came back.
10 PW-17 is a public witness namely Sh. Dharampal. He was a witness to recovery of dowry articles from the house of accused persons. He was not cross-examined.
State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 18 11 PW-24 is one Harish Chand Jain. He is the tenant of accused persons and identified all the accused before the court except Pintu Bhati. He deposed that after 3-4 months of marriage quarrel started between accused and deceased Sunny. The witness deposed that he used to hear the noise of beating (maar-peet) and even heard the cries of deceased. He further deposed that there used to be frequent quarrels during night time.
He further deposed that on 22.07.2012 he heard the noise of quarrel since 6.00 am and also heard cries of deceased Sunny after 6.00 am. The witness came near the main gate of landlord's house at around 7.45 am and police reached there after about half an hour and the witness got to know that Sunny was taken to hospital by her in-laws, as deposed by witness. He also deposed that accused Anjana used to reside at her parental home after her marriage and he had seen her husband as he used to visit her.
In his cross-examination, he admitted the suggestion that accused Jagat Singh had filed a case for eviction which he (witness) had contested. He also admitted that he had filed about 7 complaints against the family members of Jagat Singh during years 2009-2011 and also admitted that copies of these complaints as Ex.PW24/D-1 to D-6 when produced by defence. The witness stated that he had known father of deceased namely Kharak Singh since the year 2010 and deposed that he had met him lastly on 19.08.2016 i.e. after more than 4 years of death of deceased, who was the daughter-in-law of his landlord. It is also important to note at this State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 19 stage that evidence of this witness was recorded on 30.09.2016. He denied the suggestion that out of enmity with Jagat Singh he had come to depose in the present matter or that he had become witness at the instance of Kharak Singh or that he never heard any kind of cries/noise coming from the house of accused persons. He also deposed that after he was beaten by accused Jagat Singh and Arun and their associates, he had called complainant Kharak Singh to PS Jafrabad on 19.08.2016. He denied the suggestion that he had not paid rent to accused Jagat Singh. He admitted the suggestion that the distance between the portion where he resided and the portion under occupation of accused persons would be around 60-70 feet. He also admitted that in this portion of 60-70 feet the work of screen printing was done but denied the suggestion that the screen printing was done 24 hours and stated that it was done upto around 8.00 pm. 12 PW-9 is Dr. Veena Gupta. She proved the medical record of Anjana (married nanad) as per which she had delivered a child in her Nursing Home on 06.08.2010. Her address was mentioned as that of the house of accused persons. She proved the medical documents Ex.PW9/A and a certificate regarding delivery of child by Anjana Ex.PW9/B. 13 PW-10 is HC Ashok who had gone to attend the call vide DD no. 15A along with ASI Jeet Singh. The deceased had been removed to hospital by PCR prior to their reaching the spot. The State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 20 witness had taken the rukka for registration of FIR and the first IO seized the chunni (ligature material) in four parts from the spot in his presence. He was not cross-examined.
14 PW-19 is the then ASI Ajeet Singh. He has deposed on the same lines as PW-10. He deposed additionally that he went to GTB Hospital and obtained MLC of deceased and handed over the same to Ct. Ashok and had called the crime team and SDM to reach spot, while Ct. Ashok guarded the spot. He further deposed that the second IO/Insp. N.R. Lamba prepared site plan at his instance and proved his signatures on the same. He deposed that accused Arun and Jagat Singh were present in the house where incident had taken place. He identified the chunni before the court and proved the same as Ex.PW19/article-1. Nothing material was asked during his cross- examination.
15 PW-8 is Dr. V.P. Jha, the concerned Tehsildar who conducted proceedings in the matter and recorded statement of father of deceased. It is admitted position that same statement was adopted by mother of deceased. During his cross-examination by defence, witness stated that he recorded statement after due inquiry about ability and mental condition of Kharak Singh. He further deposed that none of Kharak Singh and Mrs. Pritam made any written complaint later on that their complete statement was not recorded. He denied the suggestion that Kharak Singh had not made State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 21 any statement Ex.PW1/B to him.
16 PW-11 SI Gaurav Chaudhary deposed that he was with IO/Insp. N.R. Lamba when the IO arrested the accused Arun Kumar and Jagat Singh from their home on 22.07.2012. He proved his signatures on the documents of arrest. PW-7 Sh. Gyan Chand is a witness who identified the dead body. PW-6 is the nodal officer from Idea Company. He proved the CDRs of accused Pintu Bhati's phone.
17 PW-12 is CMO from GTB Hospital. He proved the MLC of deceased prepared by Dr. Pankaj as per which the patient was brought dead. He was also not cross-examined. PW-13 is the doctor who conducted postmortem. He proved his report Ex.PW13/A as per which the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging and there were two reddish abrasions, one over midline of upper lip and another just below the left side of chin. It is not mentioned in PM report whether the injuries were antemortem or postmortem. During cross-examination, the witness stated that the abrasions were insignificant.
18 PW-14 is the I/c, Mobile Crime Team and he proved his report Ex.PW14/A. The perusal of the same would show that at the spot of incident one kitchen knife and iron rod were found lying there and were used to break open the door and cut the chunni.
State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 22 19 PW-15 is photographer of Crime Team. He proved 6 photographs of the spot along with their negatives as Ex.PW15/A-1 to A-12. The photographs show the red colour chunni lying on bed, one iron rod and a hammer. The kundi/latch of the room had been broken as reflected from the photographs. The ceiling fan is also seen. The broken kundi is also seen lying on the floor, in the photographs. The witness stated during his cross-examination that the photographs were clicked in the third floor of the house between 11.30 am - 12.15 pm. 20 PW-16 is FSL witness who proved his report Ex.PW16/A regarding viscera of deceased. As per the same, no poison was detected in body of deceased. He was not cross-examined.
21 PW-18 is HC Rajesh Bhardwaj from PCR. He deposed about having visited the matrimonial house of deceased after receiving information that she had locked herself inside a room and reached there immediately as his base point was Maujpur Chowk only. He saw that some ladies and gents were bringing the deceased in their hands outside the house. He had taken the deceased to hospital in PCR van and one lady i.e. accused mother- in-law and one gent i.e. accused husband had accompanied them to hospital. He was not cross-examined by defence.
22 PW-20 is MHC(M) who proved the entries in register no.
State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 23 19 and 21 regarding deposit and movement of case properties i.e. some dowry articles of the deceased and other case properties Ex.PW20/A-G. Nothing material was asked during his cross- examination.
23 It is important to note that after investigation was conducted by local police the matter was investigated by DIU. Accordingly, the DIU IO/Insp. Suresh Chand was examined by prosecution as PW-21 who had conducted the investigation w.e.f. 13.02.2013. He deposed about preparation of arrest related documents of the accused persons released on anticipatory bail and seizing of dowry articles of the deceased from the accused persons and DVDs of marriage from complainant Kharak Singh, apart from recording statements of some witnesses.
24 PW-22 is Insp. Kamlesh, yet another IO from PG Cell, North East who seized marriage card, photographs of marriage and list of dowry articles and proved the same as Ex.P-1 to P-3. He also investigated the aspect regarding delivery of a child by accused Anjana at Holy Child Hospital, Krishna Nagar wherein her address was mentioned as that of matrimonial house of deceased. He also deposed about recovering some dowry articles from house of accused persons on a search warrant.
25 PW-23 Insp. Sanjay Gade is yet another DIU IO who State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 24 received the file for investigation on 26.11.2012. He proved the documents regarding the arrest and disclosure made by accused Pintu, Anjana and Reena and also seized some stridhan articles produced before him by the above mentioned accused persons and also seized the Scorpio car given in marriage, from the house of one Rajesh, cousin of accused Arun. In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the vehicle was not parked in the house of Rajesh but on main road, Maujpur or that no vehicle could be parked in the house of Rajesh. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons themselves handed over all the articles including the keys of Scorpio vehicle. The witness had deposed that duplicate key was produced by witness Karak Singh.
26 PW-25 is IO/Insp. N.R. Lamba from local PS Jafrabad. He deposed that after registration of FIR on his endorsement on 22.07.2012, he reached the spot along with PW-11 SI Gaurav, PW Ct. Ashok and other police staff and arrested accused Arun Kumar and Jagat Singh and prepared site plan at the instance of ASI Jeet Singh. Then he deposed about sending the viscera to FSL, collecting the clothes of deceased and postmortem report and obtaining the CDRs of mobile phone of accused Pintu. He denied the suggestion that accused Arun and Jagat were taken into custody from GTB Hospital, rather than from their home.
27 Defence, admitted the following documents thus State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 25 dispensing the formal proof of the same :
i. FIR ii. CDR of mobile phone of deceased Sunny iii. Marriage card, DVDs and photographs of marriage iv. The recovered dowry articles v. The Scorpio car, its keys and RC vi. The arrest related documents of all accused persons except accused Arun and Jagat Singh Statement of accused persons u/s 313 CrPC
28 After conclusion of entire PE, accused persons were examined u/s 313 CrPC. They denied the allegations against them and all the incriminating evidences put to them. They stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case and with respect to witness Harish Chand, their stand was that he was on inimical terms with them after accused Jagat Singh had filed an eviction petition against them and had also made some complaints against them prior to present case. Accused persons stated that they had handed over the dowry articles to the police. Accused Devpal Bhati stated that he was implicated only because the family of deceased knew his name and the natal family of his wife was residing in neighbourhood of accused persons. Accused Anjana admitted that she was mediator of the marriage. She further stated that she never demanded dowry nor asked family of accused to meet any demand and that she had State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 26 been living at her matrimonial house at Kotla Mubarakapur since after marriage which had taken place prior to marriage of deceased. She further stated that she had handed over the articles which were given to her and her husband by the family of deceased in marriage and she had produced the same on their asking. Accused Jagat Singh, father-in-law of deceased stated that may be they were falsely implicated in present case by the family of deceased because their daughter died in their house.
Defence Evidence 29 After conclusion of S/A, the accused persons led defence evidence and examined Dr. Avinash, Psychiatry Deptt. IHBAS as DW-1. He produced the patient file of deceased Sunny Mavi dated 26.06.2012 and copy of her OPD card of the same date and documents pertaining to advice for her further follow up. Perusal of same shows that the deceased was having chief complaints of irritability, decreased sleep, restlessness, lowness of mood, referential ideas (patient considers innocuous events or mere co-incidences believing them to have strong personal significance). Some interpersonal issues were also involved. In response to court query, the witness answered that as for a layman's understanding, the symptoms are suggestive of mild depression and anxiety. The witness further deposed in response to court question that patient visited him only once and was examined and prescribed medicines State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 27 for decreasing anxiety and improvement of sleep. She was advised for further follow up for detailed evaluation after one week but she did not turn up.
In cross-examination by State, the witness stated that since the final diagnostic evaluation could not be done due to non- attendance by the patient, it could not be said whether she was mentally ill or not.
30 DW-2 to DW-4 are the neighbours of the accused persons. All three deposed on the lines that they never heard any cries or noise of quarrel from the house of accused persons nor any of the accused ever discussed any such thing with them and the couple led a happy married life and nobody had seen any misunderstanding or quarrel between them. During their detailed cross-examination the ld. Addl. PP tried to elicit information which could favour the prosecution and impeach the credit of the witnesses but he could not succeed. The witnesses denied that they were deposing at the instance of accused persons or that they had no knowledge about the family life of deceased or the conduct of accused persons towards her. They also denied that accused Anjana was staying at her parental home even after her marriage.
31 DW-5 is witness from SOL, University of Delhi. He had brought the record of examination of deceased. As per the record Ex.DW5/A and the admission ticket of deceased Ex.DW5/B issued State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 28 by examination department of SOL, DU, she had appeared in BA second year examination vide roll no. 5404178 and the examination centre for her second year examination was Siddharth International Public School, Loni Road, Delhi. The witness stated in his cross- examination that he had not produced the 65-B Evidence Act certificate.
Analysis of Evidence, Arguments of Defence and Findings of Facts :
32 The accused persons other than Arun and Jagat Singh have submitted the written submissions. I have been through the same as well as the record of case file and I have heard the arguments advanced by both sides.
33 At the outset, I want to make it clear that nothing has been proved on record which would show that the victim had been murdered. The evidence of prosecution clearly shows that it was a case of suicide by the deceased. As per the medical documents the cause of death was antemortem hanging. The victim was taken to hospital by her in-laws along with PCR. Her husband and father-in- law were admittedly present in the hospital along with other members of extended family. The deceased had suffered two insignificant minor bruises which were not opined to be antemortem. Within a period of 8 minutes, the door of the room where she had State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 29 confined herself was broken open with the help of an iron rod and other instrument. The inside latch was also broken. The ligature material was cut with the help of a knife. The deceased was taken off the ceiling fan and was removed to main gate of house from her third floor room. The PCR had not arrived till then. The lightning speed with which the family of accused had acted, goes on to show that the two minor injuries must have been suffered by her during this process and further shows that the family of accused tried their level best to save the deceased after she hanged herself and were not the guilty conscious. Accused husband himself had made a call to PCR and to the family of deceased. He and his father did not try to run away from police and were arrested on the same day from their home itself. Therefore, the alternative charge of 302 IPC cannot be sustained against any of the accused persons.
Now coming to the offences u/s 498-A and 304-B IPC. The ld. defence counsel has argued qua accused Devpal Bhati that he could not have been charged in the present case u/s 498-A/304-B IPC as the Ho'ble Supreme Court has laid down in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, Crl. Appeal no. 1278/2014 that the relatives of husband includes only the persons related to him by blood, marriage or adoption. In that case, respondent Gurmit Singh who was brother of chachi of accused husband was discharged of the offence u/s 304-B IPC as he could not be said to have been related to the husband of the victim by blood, marriage or adoption. In the present case, accused Devpal Bhati is son of maamaji of accused husband State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 30 i.e. his cousin. The mother of accused husband and father of accused Devpal Bhati are brother and sister and therefore related to each other by blood. Their relationship therefore falls between blood relationship/sapinda relationship as both of them have common ancestors in parents of mother of accused husband who are also the parents of father of accused Devpal Bhati. Therefore, in my view, accused Devpal Bhati falls within the ambit of relative of accused husband though not a family member. The contention is, therefore, rejected.
34 Ld. counsel for complainant and State have relied upon following judgments :
i. Harish Kumar & ors. Vs. State, 2016 Law Suit (Del) 2436 lays down that even if the demand is long after marriage the same can constitute dowry. Even if the defence witness do not speak about ill treatment to the deceased that does not mean that there was no harassment. Neighbours have a tendency to stay away from the court and if the evidence of family members of deceased is corroborated by other circumstances of the case, accused persons can be convicted of dowry death.
ii. Jamadar Ojha, Rajender Tiwari Vs. State, 2017 Law Suit (Del) 2259 laying down that phrase `soon before' is a relative term to be considered under circumstances of each case. However, it cannot be stretched to any period and there should be a State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 31 proximate and live link between the dowry related cruelty and consequent death.
iii. Birju Kumar Paswan Vs. State, 2017 Law Suit (Del) 6093, is a judgment about circumstantial evidence and not much relevant to the fact of present case.
iv. Ram Kaur Vs. State of Delhi, 2011 Law Suit (Del) 2208, is a judgment on its own facts, though, on dowry death and has no parity with the facts of the present case.
v. Jagjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2018 SCC Online SC 1671, laying down that demand of dowry should not be stale but should be the continuing cause for death of married woman u/s 304-B IPC.
vi. Chandra Bhawan Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2018) 6 SCC 670, in that matter the accused persons were convicted when they failed to explain as to how the deceased who was daughter-in- law of family had died in their home.
vii. S. Govinda Raju Vs. State of Karnataka (2013) 15 SCC 315, laying that only in the event of material contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggeration or embellishments the evidence of witnesses stands discredited not otherwise. viii. Kanu Ambu Vish Vs. State of Maharashtra 1971 Law Suit (SC) 103. The ratio of this judgment is not much relevant for the present case. It held that when a witness is confronted with his previous statement and given an opportunity to explain, that part of statement which is put to him does not State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 32 constitute substantive evidence.
The analysis of evidence would show that admittedly there was no demand of dowry by the accused side for marriage of deceased with the accused husband Arun. Whatever was given in the marriage was given as per the sweet will of parents of deceased. Everything remained normal for quite some time. The reception of marriage which had taken place on 18.11.2010 was organized on 24.11.2010 and was duly attended by the complainant side.
Thereafter, deceased came to live with them on the same night and stayed for about one month happily without complaining about her in-laws. Then she was taken to matrimonial house by accused husband after performing some custom `Boora khaana'. Thereafter, again she visited her natal house off and on and was taken back to matrimonial house by accused husband. The complainant deposed during his cross-examination that he did not remember as to what talks he used to have with accused husband Arun when Arun visited his house with the deceased and must have inquired about his well being only. Had there being any dowry and cruelty related issues, as is the case of prosecution, it would have been natural for him to confront his son-in-law and also the son-in-law would have avoided visiting his wife's home but it was not so. Admittedly, her family members kept visiting her from time to time in her matrimonial house. Her sister Antim deposed that during the period of about 20 months from the date of marriage till the death of deceased, she had State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 33 visited her matrimonial house about 40-50 times. She even attended birthday of deceased celebrated at her in-laws house, along with her two sisters. All this reflects that the relationship between the two families was cordial and harmonious and there were not any major issues involved. Admittedly, at the time of celebration of birthday, accused Devpal Bhati and Pintu Bhati were not present. Had Pintu Bhati been a ghar jamai and had he and Devpal Bhati been living at the house of accused persons, they would have been present during the birthday celebration, this aspect is therefore contrary to the story the family members of deceased have tried to put up.
There was no police complaint on any occasion nor any panchayat etc was held to resolve the dowry related issues, if any. As per PW-3 Antim, her parents and mausi were also aware of all the incidents that had taken place with the victim, yet none of them narrated about the same during their evidence before the court. Antim herself denied making any 161 CrPC statement but it was on record of court file. It contained only general allegations regarding dowry demand and torture but she mentioned numerous instances of cruelty against the victim during her evidence before court. She deposed about visiting the matrimonial house of deceased on her birthday along with her two sisters, whereas, her mother mentioned about call of deceased to her regarding demand of Rs.10 lakhs and BMW car by the accused persons on the same day. It is very unlikely that the dowry hungry accused persons, as they have been portrayed by the family of deceased, would celebrate the birthday of State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 34 the daughter-in-law of the house and also invite her family members to attend the same, despite their demands not having been met. The evidence of mother of victim is therefore false on the face of it, on this aspect.
Interestingly, none of the five public witnesses who were the relatives and family members of the deceased, disclosed either the phone number of deceased or any of their phone numbers on which they used to communicate with the deceased despite the fact that her mother deposed that she was using the same phone number till her evidence before the court. Witness Antim took a stand that she used to change her phone numbers every 2-3 months and did not remember the same. Witness Premraj Chandela deposed about a call having been received by him from deceased on his landline phone on 05.07.2012 regarding the threat of accused persons to kill the deceased in the event their demand for Rs.10 lakhs and BMW car was not met but did not furnish the number. Regarding the call made to him on 12.07.2012 by the deceased, he furnished two mobile numbers but admittedly did not talk to the deceased as he was on Amarnath Yatra. Therefore, it has not been proved that 12.07.2012 call, if any, was about dowry related torture. The CDRs of a mobile phone which as per the prosecution case was used by deceased are available on court file and were admitted by defence. The perusal of same shows that there was no call made from the said phone at any landline number on 05.07.2012, thus, belying the deposition of Premraj Chandela who is an advocate by State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 35 profession. There were three PCR calls made at 100 number from this phone at 7.44, 7.47 and 10.47 am but the corresponding record regarding disposal of calls was sought from the concerned PS and a response was received that no information was received from PCR about any of these calls nor any record was available in PS with respect to the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that the victim had complained about harassment and torture for dowry by calling PCR on 05.07.2012. In this regard, ld. defence counsel has argued orally that on that day they had a quarrel with their tenant Harish Chander Jain/PW-25 and had tried to call the police but due to some network problem the voice from their end could not be communicated to the police staff at 100 number. This explanation may or may not be true. On the date of incident also, as per the CDRs of deceased's mobile phone, a PCR call lasting some seconds was made but again no record for attending and disposal of the same was available with the concerned PS. The PCR records of the year 2012 had been weeded already when process was sent for production of the same in order to know about the contents of the calls. In light of above, prosecution has been unable to prove that the deceased made 100 number call regarding dowry related torture by accused persons.
Further, as per the CDRs, deceased had not made any calls from her mobile phone on 22.07.2012 i.e. the date of incident. She had received someone's call which lasted for 27 seconds only, thus, belying the depositions of her parents and sister who deposed about having received a call from the deceased on their undisclosed State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 36 phone number. The deposition of witness Premraj Chandela during his cross-examination that he had gone to the matrimonial house of victim to talk to accused persons and waited there for half an hour but no one opened the door, does not inspire any confidence and clearly is a cooked up story. In normal course, things do not happen like that. Deceased was daughter of his sister. In normal course of things, he was required to discuss the matter with the family of deceased and approach the accused side only with their consent and in their company. It is highly unlikely that he would continue to wait for half an hour and neither called the victim on her phone before visiting her nor would call her when he found her matrimonial house locked, specially when he was real maamaji of deceased and was aware of her mobile number. It was not his case that he even discussed the matter with parents of deceased or made a police call/complaint when deceased allegedly informed him about threat to her life, despite being a lawyer himself.
35 Considering the above, the testimonies of all the public witnesses have to be viewed with caution and need to be corroborated by independent evidence. The tenant Harish Chand Jain could have been an independent witness of the prosecution but in view of admitted history of litigation and complaints between him and Jagat Singh and his remaining in contact with the father of deceased for long time even after her death and meeting him before deposing in court are sufficient to impeach his testimony as it clearly State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 37 shows that he was on inimical terms with the accused family and had deposed in court at the instance of complainant. Therefore, I hold that he is not a reliable and truthful witness.
Sadly, no other independent evidence has been adduced by the prosecution, rather, a conscious and deliberate attempt has been made to with-hold information from the court. They could have very well made available at least their phone numbers from which they used to communicate with the deceased. Additionally, witness Antim would make available the record of messages she used to exchange everyday after 5.00 pm with the deceased as has been deposed by her. But no such thing has been done. The only inference that can be drawn, under these circumstances, is that deceased did not communicate with them in the manner and on the occasions deposed by them in their evidence and they have cooked up stories about the same.
Merely because the stomach of deceased was found empty during postmortem after she died in the morning of 22.07.2012, is not sufficient to conclude that she was not being allowed to have tea by all the accused persons. Regarding the alleged incident of 22.07.2012 itself, different versions have been given by different witnesses about the accused persons who were not so allowing her. While one witness mentioned about accused mother-in-law Mahendri, the other mentioned about her and Jagat Singh, whereas the third witness mentioned about all the accused persons. As per the prosecution itself, the location of accused Pintu State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 38 Bhati was not found to be at spot of incident or anywhere near it on the date of incident. The fact that his location was sometimes near the spot is not sufficient for convicting him as it is natural for a person to visit the family of his wife occasionally. So far as the birth of a child by accused Anju while staying at her parents' house is concerned, it is customary in many communities that a woman delivers her first child under care of her mother which requires her to stay at the natal house for some months. Moreover, the documents furnished with respect to accused Anju at the time of granting anticipatory bail showed her to be residing at Kotla Mubarakpur i.e. her matrimonial home as has been pointed out by her counsel. It is natural for her to keep visiting her parents off and on after her marriage, she being their daughter.
Regarding the incident of accused husband having pushed the deceased before a moving blueline bus near Delhi University area, while he was allegedly taking her to Tilak Nagar for her appearance in the exam is falsified by the fact that as per the relevant documents including the notings in the examination branch of Delhi University which was duly attested by the Asstt. Controller of Exams and was produced before the court from lawful custody of witness DW-5, deceased did not have Tilak Nagar as her examination centre, rather, it was one Siddharth International School, Loni Road which is very far off from Tilak Nagar. Even if the documents in form of a computer print out are discarded for want of certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, the notings themselves State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 39 are sufficient to establish the above mentioned fact. Though, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that a court may consider a document in appropriate cases despite there being no u/s 65-B certificate, if the circumstances justify the same.
Regarding the denial of suggestions by the public witnesses about mental condition of deceased, the same stand falsified by the evidence of DW-1, the IHBAS doctor who produced the medical documents relating to her medical treatment, prima facie showing that the deceased suffered from mild depression and anxiety and was having chief complaints of irritability, decreased sleep, restlessness, lowness of mood, referential ideas and was even prescribed medicines for the same. Even if the evidence of DW-2 to DW-4 who are the neighbours of the accused persons, is not attached much credence, in view of the judicial pronouncements quoted by the complainant and State side, the above mentioned facts are more than sufficient to exculpate the accused persons.
In view of my above analysis of evidence, I hold that prosecution has failed to establish that any of the accused persons had subjected the deceased to cruelty at any time after her marriage with the accused husband. The prosecution has also failed to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by any of accused persons for any demand for dowry, soon before her death. It was the duty of prosecution to establish the same before the presumption u/s 113-B of Evidence Act could come into play. I, therefore, acquit all of the them of the offences u/s 498- State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 40 A/34 & 304-B/34 IPC. Even at the cost of repetition, I state that all the accused persons are also acquitted of the alternative charge u/s Digitally signed by 302/34 IPC.
SAVITRI CHAUDHARY
SAVITRI ATTRI
Location: Shahdara
CHAUDHARY District, Karkardooma
ATTRI Courts, Delhi
Date: 2019.01.19
15:46:55 +0530
Announced in the open court (SAVITRI)
today on 19.01.2019 Additional Sessions Judge-03 (Shahdara), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi State Vs. Arun Kumar & ors. FIR No. 186/12 PS Jafrabad 41