Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Dharam Veer Singh S/O Jhamman Lal, on 30 November, 2017

      IN THE COURT SH. RAKESH TEWARI: DISTRICT &
     SESSIONS JUDGE: EAST DISTRICT: KARKARDOOMA
                    COURTS : DELHI :

SC No. 895/2016 
CNR No. DLET01­001379­2013

State             Vs.          Dharam Veer Singh S/o Jhamman Lal,
                               R/o Mohalla Darukutta, PS & Post Tappal 
                               Distt. Aligarh, U.P. 

FIR No. 110/2013
U/s 498A/304B IPC. 
PS Ghazipur


Date of Institution                    : 17.08.2013
Date of Reserving for Order            : 10.11.2017
Date of Pronouncement                  : 30.11.2017


J U D G E M E N T : ­ 
    1.

  Prosecution   case   emanates   from   the   facts   that   on 06.03.2013, SI Narender of PS New Ashok Nagar informed by lodging the DD No.34A at the PS Ghazipur to the effect that   one lady  had  hanged  herself   at  A­103,  Harijan  Basti, Kondli,   Delhi.   The   said   call   was   assigned   to   SI   Kuldeep Singh who reached the said spot and came to know that Ajita @ Rinki had hanged herself and her husband had removed her to LNJP Hospital on which the said SI Kuldeep Singh informed the SHO and he himself reached the said hospital and SDM, Mayur Vihar was called at the said hospital and SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.1/39 the SDM after reaching the hospital recorded statements of parents of deceased and at the statement of the mother of deceased, namely, Smt. Jal Devi, the said SDM directed the SHO to take necessary action, and accordingly the FIR was registered and it was entrusted to Inspector Jogender Singh for investigation. 

2.   As   per   statement   of   Smt.   Jal   Devi,   mother   of   the deceased, deceased Ajita Kumari was her youngest daughter out   of   five   children   and   was   aged   about   24   years,   whose marriage   took   place   on   10.07.2011   with   accused Dharamveer, resident of A­103, Harijan Basti, Kondli, Delhi, whose permanent address was Village Tappal, Distt. Aligarh, U.P.   and   the   accused   Dharamveer   was   working   as   the registration  plates   number  maker  of   the  vehicles,   and  that they (complainant) had given one Alto Car in the marriage and spent about Rs.9,00,000/­ over the same, but despite that in­laws of her deceased daughter used to demand dowry, and that   yesterday on 05.03.2013 at about 6.00pm, she   along with   her   husband   went   to   meet   her   daughter   at   her matrimonial home and remained there for about two hours, when their daughter told that her in­laws were demanding Rs.1,00,000/­, and that their son­in­law wanted to install a machine of number plate cutting for which the money was required   and   that   mother­in­law   of   her   daughter   was   also demanding jewellery weighing about 2 tolas, on which she SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.2/39 (complainant) and her husband requested the said in­laws for granting   them   time   and   they   made   their   daughter   to understand, and that at about 2.00am, she received a phone call that her daughter had hanged herself and had been taken to LNJP  Hospital,  and that they reached hospital  at about 4.30am   as   they   were   not   having   any   vehicle   and   at   the hospital they found that their daughter had died, and that they raised suspicion that in­laws of her daughter had hanged her, and deceased did not hang herself, and that they had come to know   in   the   Hospital   that   one   suicide   note   had   been recovered   from   her   undergarments   wherein   it   has   been written that she was committing suicide out of her own will and   in   that   there   is   no   fault   of   her   in­laws   and   they (complainant side) raised suspicion that suicide note was not written by their deceased daughter and somebody from her in­laws   had   written   the   same,   and   that   they   (complainant side)  sought an inquiry with regard to the handwriting of the deceased.

3. Thereafter,   on   07.03.2013,   postmortem   on   the   dead body of deceased Ajita @ Rinki was got conducted at the instance of  SDM in Mortuary, LNJP  Hospital, Delhi. The dead body was handed over to parents of deceased Ajita @ Rinki. Investigating Officer arrested accused Dharamveer in the   case.   Statements   of   relatives   of   deceased   Ajita   were recorded. PM report was obtained, as per which the deceased SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.3/39 died due to asphyxia consequent upon antemortem hanging via   ligature   and   viscera   was   preserved   to   rule   out   the presence of poisoning in the same. 

4.   During investigation, persons present at the spot did not tell anything about the incident. IO tried to join public persons in investigation, but none agreed. IO investigated the fact of suicide note found in the undergarments of deceased Ajita. However, complainant and her husband told that Ajita did not write her name as Rinki, whereas the said suicide note was having name of deceased as Rinki. Moreover, no admitted   handwriting   of   deceased   Ajita   could   be   obtained during investigation and due to this reason said suicide note was not sent to FSL for examination. Even the viscera report obtained from the forensic expert revealed that on chemical, microscopic  and TLC examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and   methyl   alcohol,   cynide,   phosphide,   alkaloids, barbiturates,   tranquilizers   and   pesticides   could   not   be detected   in   exhibits   1A,   1B,   1C   and   1D.   When   doctor concerned was again asked to opine the cause of death of Ajita as to whether it was homicidal or suicidal, he opined that as the viscera report found to be negative for common poisons,   hence   the   cause   of   death   as   mentioned   in   the postmortem   report   is   asphyxia   consequent   upon   the antemortem   hanging   via   ligature.   During   investigation,   no evidence could be found against the mother­in­law, father­in­ SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.4/39 law, brother­in­law, sisters­in­law, husbands of the sister­in­ law   and   aunt­in­law   of   the   deceased   and   thereafter   the chargesheet was filed.  

5.   From the said chargesheet and evidence on record, my Ld.   Predecessor   vide   his   order   dated   28.09.2013   framed Charges against the accused for the offences under Section 498A/304B IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 

6.   However,   during   hearing   of   bail   application   of   the accused before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the family members of accused produced a diary and two long registers, which were purported to be in the handwriting of deceased Ajita @ Rinki. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.09.2013 bail application of the accused was dismissed as withdrawn as the alleged   suicide   note   along   with   specimen   handwriting   of deceased Ajita were sent to FSL for comparison. The FSL result is now on the judicial record. 

7.   In order to support its case, prosecution has examined 16 witnesses in all, who are discussed in detail below.

8.   The   statement   of   accused   under   Section   313  Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him except the fact that he got married with Ajita on 09.07.2011   and   not   on   10.07.2011   as   claimed   by   the complainants.   He  had  claimed   his  false  implication  in  the case due to ill­motives of witnesses, namely, Jal Devi, Om SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.5/39 Prakash, Banti, Manisha Sagar  and Bala to extract money from   him   and   his   family.   He   also   stated   that   aforesaid persons intentionally failed to furnish specimen handwriting of the deceased Ajita @ Rinki even after several requests of the   investigating   officer   in   order   to   substantiate   their allegations. Whereas the deceased had written a suicide note and the same was found by the doctor of LNJP Hospital on 05/06­03­2013.   He   further   stated   that   even   the   aforesaid persons falsely deposed that suicide was committed at his residence   at   A­103,   Harijan   Basti,   Kondli,   whereas   the deceased Ajita committed suicide at Village Tappal, Aligarh, U.P. and she was brought to LNJP hospital by him as no treatment could be afforded to her in UP and thereafter on reaching   LNJP   Hospital,   he   had   informed   the   family members of deceased about the incident. He claims himself to be innocent and falsely implicated in the case. 

9.   In order to substantiate his plea of innocence, accused examined   four   witnesses   in   his   defence   and   DW1   is   the Principal of the School of deceased who produced gazette issued by Secondary Education Council, Uttar Pradesh, and photocopy of the same is Ex.DW1/A in which the name of Ajita Kumari is mentioned at point A and he had also proved the admit card bearing photograph of Ajita which is filled by the   said   student   in   her   own   handwriting   and   the   same   is Ex.PW3/D1   and   in   his   cross­examination,   he   replied   that SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.6/39 Ex.PW3/D1 was filled by the student concerned in the class and other students also filled up their respective forms along with this student Ajita, but specifically he could not say as to whether the said document was filled by Ajita or not and that he had not seen Ajita filling the said form and he volunteered that the forms were given to the students in the class room to fill the same and return at the same time after filling and as such it is obvious that the said document was filled by Ajita. DW2   deposed   regarding   marriage   of   deceased   with   the accused at Tappal, U.P and the matrimonial home was set up at Tappal, UP and that he was Pradhan of the village at that time and the incident of suicide took place on 05.03.2013 at about 11 or 11.30pm at Tappal U.P and he went to the house of accused Dharamveer and advised the accused to take Ajita to a good hospital as she was alive at that time and thereafter Dharamveer   along   with   his   brother   and   two   women   took Ajita to a hospital in Delhi and in the following morning, he came to know that Ajita had expired in the hospital, and that after about 10­15 days, one police officer namely Kuldeep Singh   inquired   about   the   incident   from   him   and   he   and several   other   villagers   made   statement   to   the   said   police official   with   respect   to   the   incident   and   his   aforesaid statement was duly recorded by the said police official and in his cross­examination on behalf of the State, he replied that there was no permanent/temporary resident of Dharamveer in SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.7/39 Harijan Basti, Colony, Delhi, and that he did not know as to why   Ajita   had   committed   suicide.   DW3   Sh.   Tejpal   Singh also   deposed   on   the   same   lines   on   which   the   DW2   has deposed. DW4 Sh. Vasudev Gautam again deposed on the same lines on which DW2 and DW3 have deposed. 

10.  I have heard the Ld. Chief PP for the State as well as arguments advanced by Sh. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate, for the accused and perused the entire record. 

11.  PW1   HC   Mahender   Singh   is   the   duty   officer,   who proved   the   copy   of   FIR   as   Ex.PW1/A   and   his   own endorsement   on   rukka   as   Ex.PW1/B.   PW4   is   Constable Manoj   Kumar,   who   accompanied   the   IO   to   the   Mortuary where the viscera box in sealed condition was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/A. PW5 is Constable Sachin, who deposited the viscera box to FSL vide Road Certificate No.48/21. PW6 Inspector   Mahesh   Kumar   prepared   the   scaled   site   plan Ex.PW6/A. PW7 HC Hari Om was the MHC(M) who proved the entry of the case property deposited in the Malkhana and road   certificate   which   are   collectively   as   Ex.PW7/A   and acknowledgement   regarding   deposit   of   the   case   property Ex.PW7/B. 

12.  PW8 is the SDM Sh. P. K. Dabas, who deposed that on 06.03.13, he was posted as SDM, Mayur Vihar and  SHO P.S. Gazipur gave a call to him to the effect that one married female   namely   Ajeeta   has   committed   suicide   and   she   has SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.8/39 been taken to LNJP hospital where she has expired and that when he reached the said hospital, he found the father  Om Prakash,   mother   Smt,   Jal   Devi   and   brother   Bunty   of   the deceased present there. He recorded the statement of Smt. Jal Devi which was read over to her in presence of Om Prakash and Bunty, who had also affirmed the statement and Smt. Jal Devi, Om Prakash and Bunty put their signatures which is already   ExPW2/A   on   which   he   made   endorsement Ex.PW8/A and he handed over the statement to SHO Police Station Gazipur for taking necessary action and thereafter, he prepared   inquest   papers   which   are   already   Ex.PW2/C   and identification of the dead body was got done vide statements of Om Prakash and Jal Devi ExPW8/A and ExPW2/B and thereafter,     he   got   conducted   the   postmortem   of   the   dead body. He further deposed that as the deceased was known with   other   name   like   Rinki,   therefore,   he   moved   an application   for   correction/addition   of   the   name   in   the application to this effect which is ExPW8/C and  request for postmortem is ExPW8/D and he had recorded statement of Om Prakash on 07.03.2013 which is ExPW8/E. In his cross examination on behalf of accused, he admitted that he had not shown the place where dead body was found by him in death   report   ExPW2/C.   He   replied   both   the   statements ExPW2/A and EXPW2/E are in his handwriting but he could not   tell   the   exact   time   when   statement   of   Jal   Devi   was SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.9/39 recorded   by   him   in   the   forenoon.   He   replied   that   the statement EXPW2/A is joint statement of Om Prakash, Jal Devi   and   Bunty   in   my   view.   He   admitted   that   he   had recorded name of deceased as Rinki @ Ajeeta in EXPW2/B as per narration of Jal Devi. He admitted that inquest papers are not in his handwriting. He replied that he was informed by family members of deceased and police officers that the name of deceased was Rinki @ Ajeeta. He replied that he had signed ExPW8/C after treating its contents as correct. He admitted that address of deceased was mentioned as 'Village and Post Tappal Aligarh U.P. He admitted that no time of recording   of   statement   of   Om   Prakash   is   mentioned   on Ex.PW8/E.   He   did   not   remember   as   to   where   statement ExPW8/E was recorded by him, but he again stated that it was either recorded at his office or in the hospital. He could not   say   as   to  whether   said   statement   was   recorded   before preparation of inquest papers or thereafter. He admitted that he had not seen suicide note during proceedings and that he did not ask Investigating Officer to produce the suicide note. He replied that he had not visited the spot or made the local inquiry.

13.  PW12 Dr. Yusuf Azad prepared the MLC of deceased Ajita as Ex.PW12/A and he deposed that on examination of the dead body, one suicide note was found in her Bra and he replied that  Dr. Ravinder was the then CMO on duty. He SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.10/39 could identify the suicide note recovered from Rinki and that he had seen the same on the judicial record and the same Ex.PQ12/DA and that it was the same suicide note which was found under the Bra of Pinki and he handed over the same to the police. 

14.  PW13   Dr.   Jiju   P.V.   is   the   Senior   Scientific   Officer (Documents), FSL who proved his report Ex.PW13/A, as per which, he concluded that the person who wrote red enclosed writing/signatures, stamped and marked A1 to A70 and A73 to   A182   also   wrote   the   red   enclosed   writing/signatures, stamped and marked as Q1 and Q2.

15.  PW14   SI   Kuldeep   Singh   deposed   regarding   the investigation before the registration of the case conducted by him and in his cross­examination on behalf of accused, he did   not   recollect   the   exact   time   of   arrival   at   the   spot   on 06.03.13   after   receipt   of   information   and   that   none   had accompanied   him   to   the   spot.   He   replied   that   he   had   not inspected the spot at any point of time.

16.  PW15 Dr. Rishi Kumar Solanki conducted the autopsy on   the   dead   body   of   deceased   and   he   proved   his   report Ex.PW15/B, as per which the cause of death was asphyxia consequent upon ante mortem hanging, via ligature. 

17.  PW16 Insp. Jogender Joon is the IO of the case who deposed   regarding   his   investigation   and   in   his   cross examination   on   behalf   of   accused,   he   replied   that   on SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.11/39 06.03.13, he   alongwith his driver and Operator reached at the   spot   in   official   vehicle   at   about   11.30   am     and     he inspected   the   spot   on   that   day   and   he   identified   the photographs Ex.PW16/DA, Ex.PW16/DB and Ex.PW16/DC. He   replied   that   he   had   not   recorded   the   statement   of   any person at the spot on that day and that   he had not got the spot photographed.   He replied that   he had not recovered anything   at   the   spot   on   06.03.13   and   thereafter.   He volunteered that he recovered the Car from outside the house on 07.03.13. He could not say as to whether the document Ex.DX was given by Gulvir S/o Kundan Lal in Police Station or not.  He replied that he was deposing falsely in this regard as the document Ex.DX bears the DD number and signatures of   PS   Ghazipur.   I   could   not   say   whether   photocopies   of affidavits mark PW16/DD­1 to DD­8 were given to him by the concerned persons or not during investigation of the case or   not.   He   admitted   that   the   doctor   had     recovered   one suicide note from the under garments of the dead body and he   had   issued   notice   u/s   91   Cr.PC   to   the   parents   of   the deceased to supply admitted handwriting of the deceased but they told him that they were not having such handwriting. He replied   that   during     investigation,   he   came   to   know   that deceased had studied in School. He volunteered that he had also issued notice to School Authorities  to supply admitted handwriting   of   the   deceased   but   they   did   not   supply.   He SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.12/39 replied   that   he   had   not   ascertained   the   genuineness   of marriage photographs and the place of taking photographs which were produced by the complainant and  seized by him vide memo Ex.PW14/F. 

18.  Coming   to   the   public   witnesses   and   PW2   Smt.   Jal Devi is the complainant on whose statement, the FIR was registered.   In   her   examination   in   chief,   she   substantially supported  her  complaint  Ex.PW2/B  as  narrated above  and she further deposed that they had given household articles, gold and silver jewellery as well as cash in the marriage of their daughter and that all the dowry articles were handed over to accused, his father, mother, brother and sister  and that after marriage her daughter Ajita joined her matrimonial home at 103, Harijan Basti, Kondli and that after 2­3 months of   the   marriage,   accused,   his   mother,   father,   brother   and sister   stared   demanding   cash   while   his   mother   demanded gold jewellary and dowry and that on 5.3.2013, the accused, his   father   and   mother   were   causing   harassment   to   her daughter and that her husband sought time from parents of accused   for   "arrangement   of   money   and   to   meet   their demand   of  money"  and   that   the   SDM  had  shown   her   the alleged suicide note of her daughter. She further deposed that she had told the SDM and the police about the phone number from   which   the   above   call   was   received.   (emphasis supplied). 

19.  In her cross­examination on behalf of the accused, the said   underlined   portion   of   the   examination   in   chief   was confronted to her and the same was not found recorded in her previous   statement   on   which   the   FIR   was   registered Ex.PW2/A.   She   further   admitted   that   Ex.PW2/DA   is   the same "Peeli Chhithi" or "The Lagan Patrika" (a letter ritually written before the marriage to the groom side). She admitted Ex.PW2/B is the marriage card circulated by groom side. She could not say if engagement was held at the house of accused Dharamveer at Village Tappal UP. She admitted that her son namely, Jagdish is seen handing over some gifts to accused Dharamveer in photograph Ex.PW2/DC. She could not say if photograph mark DX is that of the house of accused situated at   village   Tappal.   She   replied   that   place   of   marriage   was Barat Ghar, in Pratap Vihar, Khora colony. She admitted that accused   is   seen   in   all   the   six   photographs   collectively Ex.PW2/DD. She could not say if the said six photographs are   relating   to   "Ghurcharhi   ceremony"   of   accused Dharamveer held at village Tappal or not. She could not say if her daughter Ajeeta is present in photograph Mark DY at point A or not. 

20.  In her further cross­examination, she could not tell the time   but   her   statement   was   recorded   by  SDM   outside   the mortuary which was written by SDM in his own hand. She further   replied   that   suicide   note   was   shown   to   her   by   the SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.14/39 SDM   at   the   time   of   recording   her   statement.   Accused Dharamveer was running  number plate manufacturing work at Kaptan Market, Kondli, Delhi and she had personally seen the shop of  the accused and she volunteered that the said shop was of some Chauhan. She admitted that Sh. Kundan Lal   is   real   Tau   (elder   brother   of   the   father)   of   accused Dharamveer   and  he   was   residing   at  A­103,   Harijan   Basti, Kondli, Delhi. She replied that she had been to Kondli house number of times but she could not tell the dates of her visit and she had always gone there to ground floor only but she could not tell as to how many rooms were there at the ground floor of the said house and she again said that there were two rooms at ground floor besides kitchen and washroom and a stair case near the main gate. She could not tell as to at which floor   the   room   of   the   deceased   was   situated   and   she volunteered that the deceased used to work in the kitchen at ground floor. She replied that she used to sit in the bedroom of the deceased. She further replied that no list of gifts and presents was prepared at the time of marriage and that she did   not   remember   the   date   but   they   had   informed   the mediator about ill­treatment to their daughter. She did not remember   if   any   complaint   was   filed   by   them   prior   to 5.3.2013   against   accused   or   his   family   members   about alleged harassment. She admitted that they did not lodge any complaint even on 5.3.2013 after returning from matrimonial SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.15/39 home   of   her   daughter.   She   admitted   that   marriage   of   her daughter was solemnized on 9.7.2011 and she was sent on 10.7.2011. She could not tell the date as to when for the first time, demand of Rs.1,00,000/­ and gold jewellary was made by accused and his family members. She replied that she did not take the police party to Kondli house after the case for the purposes of recovery of her belongings from there. She admitted   that   they   had   given   gifts   and   presents   to   their daughter   in   the   marriage   as   per   prevailing   customs   and traditions   and   she   volunteered   that   accused   persons   had demanded car before marriage and the same was given by them but she did not tell to the SDM regarding giving of the said car in her statement. 

21.  In her further cross­examination, she replied that the amount spent in the marriage was arranged by her husband after taking loan from his department, from the earnings of shop  run by  her  sons  and withdrawal  from the  bank. She replied   that   she   could   show   the   documents   of   bank withdrawal if asked to produce. She could not tell on the day of her deposition, the phone number upon which and from which phone call was received at 2/3 a.m. on 6.3.2013 and the said phone numbers were mentioned by her to the SDM and   the   police   but   same   were   not   found   recorded   in   her previous statement Ex.PW2/A. She replied that she was told about recovery of said suicide note on the following dates.

She replied that they had gone to the matrimonial home of their daughter on 5.3.2013 by Moped and that she had told the   SDM   in   her   statement   that   they   were   not   having   any vehicle as it was not possible to go to the hospital on Moped. She could not tell the date as to when for the first time, it was revealed to them that their daughter was being harassed by accused on the pretext of demand of dowry. She denied the suggestion that she disclosed the name of her daughter as Rinki in addition to Ajita in her statement Ex.PW2/B and she was confronted with her statement Ex.PW2/B where both the names of the deceased were found mentioned. She admitted that a video film of the marriage was prepared from the side of the accused but she had not seen the same. She did not know   if   Barat   started   from   Village   Tappal   Aligarh.   She replied that deceased studied up to 10th class from a private school at Mayur Vihar­III and she volunteered that she had given school documents of her daughter to the police.   She could not say if suicide note Ex.PW2/DF is the same suicide note which was shown to her by the SDM.  She admitted that she had a copy of  the said suicide note in the documents carried   by   her   in   the   court.   She   was   specifically   asked   a question as to whether she knew the place where deceased had committed suicide to which she replied that she had left her   daughter   alive   and  she   did   not  know   as   to  where   the accused had killed her and that Ajita was killed by her in SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.17/39 laws. She could not admit or deny photograph Mark­A is of the room situated on the ground floor of property No.A103, Harijan   Basti,   Kondli,   Delhi.   She   replied   that   she   could identify the handwriting of deceased Ajita but she could not identify the handwriting of portion A to A of Mark­'B' of register already marked as exhibit No.2 by FSL and that the handwriting of register Mark­C, exhibit No.3 by the FSL, is not of her daughter. Likewise the handwriting of the register Mark­D, given the number as exhibit No.4 by the FSL is not of her daughter. 

22.  PW­3 Bunty is the elder brother of the deceased Ajita who deposed in his examination in chief on the same lines as has been deposed by PW­2 but he gave a different story that on   06.03.13   in   the   morning   at   about   2.00­2.30AM,   his mother received call from accused Dharmveer informing that his sister Ajita had committed suicide and that he informed them that one suicide note had been found and his statement alongwith that of her mother Smt. Jal Devi and father Sh. Om Prakash was recorded which is Ex.PW2/A. 

23.  In his cross examination, PW­3 replied that he did not ask the SDM to record his statement separately. He replied that the date of marriage as 10.07.2011, given by him in his examination in chief was given wrongly but in fact it was 09.07.2011. He replied that he had stated to the police in his statement   that   accused   Dharamveer   was   doing   work   of SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.18/39 preparing number plates and it was his own business and he was   confronted   with   his   previous   statements   Ex.PW3/DA and Ex.PW3/DB where it was not so recorded. He replied that   he   had   stated   to   the   police   in   his   statement   that household   articles   including   fridge,   Almirah,   double   bed, dressing table, temple and side tables etc. were given in the marriage and he was confronted with his said two previous statements where it was not found so recorded and he again said  that   he  had stated  the  said  facts  in the  court but not before   the   police.   He   had   not   stated   to   the   police   in   his statement that gold jewelery consisting of gold ring, chain, tops etc., clothes and cash were given in the marriage. He had   not   stated   to   the   police   in   his   statement   that   all   the articles were entrusted to the accused. He had not stated to the police in his statement that father in law of the deceased Jhamman   Lal   used   to   demand   clothes   for   himself   or   that sister­in­law   Suman   &   Servesh   used   to   demand   gold jewelery for themselves and also used to demand money for accused Dharamveer or that his sister told about the demand made   by   the   accused   and   his   family   members   or   that   his parents   told   his   sister   that   they   have   already   spent   huge amount in the marriage and in order to meet their demand, they need some time or that thereafter, about 2­3 months of marriage, his mother had given a gold chain to accused as demanded by him and he again said that he had stated the SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.19/39 said   facts   to   the   police   and   he   was   confronted   with   his previous statements Ex.PW3/DA and Ex.PW3/DB where the said facts were not found so recorded. He replied that he had stated to the police that on 05.03.2013 his parents assured the accused that they would meet their demand but some time be given and again he was confronted with his said previous statements where it was not found so recorded. 

24.  In   his   further   cross­examination   on   behalf   of   the accused PW­3 replied that he did not tell the police any date or first time coming to know about the demand made by the accused   and   his   family   members   after   2­3   month   of   the marriage of his sister. He could not tell the date when the family members of the accused demanded clothes, jewelery, cash from his sister or the date when his parents consoled his sister   or   the   date   when   the   gold   chain   was   given   by   his mother   to   accused   Dharamveer.   He   did   not   lodge   any complaint to the police on 05.03.2013 against the accused and his family members regarding the demand of dowry and he volunteered that they had not done so as they were not willing   to   disturb   the   married   life   of   the   deceased.   He answered that he got married prior to marriage of Ajita and that the accused persons made the demand from him that if the sufficient dowry was not given then anything could be happened with his sister and it happened after 5­6 months of marriage of his sister but he did not recollect month or date SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.20/39 and he stated so to the police also and he was confronted with his previous statements where the said facts were not found   so   recorded.     He   could   not   say   if   house   seen   in photograph Ex.PW3/DC is the house of the accused persons at Village Tappal or not. He admitted that his elder brother Jagdish   was   seen   in   photograph   Ex.PW3/DC   and   that accused Dharamveer is seen in photograph Ex.PW3/DD. He could not say if these photographs are relating to Ghurchari or not. He replied that he had gone to Tapple house of the accused. He could not say if the house shown in Ex.PW3/DD is   house   situated   at   103,   Harijan   Basti   or   Village,   Tapple District   Aligarh,   U.P.   He   could   not   identify   his   sister   in photograph Ex.PW3/DE and he could not recognize the face of his sister at point A in photograph Ex.PW2/D3. He replied that   his   parents   left   their   house   on   05.03.2013   at   about 6.00PM and returned at about 8.30PM and he did not make any complaint on 05.03.2013 when facts about demand were revealed to him from his parents. He did not know if any CD of the marriage function was given to his family or not by the accused.   He   did   not   take   the   police   to   house   no.   A­103, Harijan Basti, Kondli, Delhi for recovery of articles of his sister and it was two storyed house and he could not tell the direction of the same and he further could not tell the room occupied by his sister and whenever they used to go, they were made to sit in the drawing room. He admitted that uncle SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.21/39 of accused namely Kundan Lal, his wife and children were also residing in the said house at Harijan Basti. He admitted that in the CD displayed on a laptop before the court, his relatives including his mother, sisters, brother in laws etc. are seen and the said photographs are pertaining to his house but he could not say that the house seen in recording from 15 minutes to 22 minutes is of the accused persons at village Tappal and that he could not say if the person in strips shirt is his brother seen at recording of 30 minute. He admitted that accused Dharamveer is seen in the recording and that one car is seen in the recording which was given in the marriage but he could not say if handing over some polythene to accused Dharamveer is his brother or not. He admitted to be present in the recording at 33.36 minutes  and putting a 'Tika' on the forehead   of   the   accused   but   he   could   not   say   if   the   said ceremony had taken place at Tappal or in Harijan Basti but it was   engagement   ceremony   and   he   could   not   identify   the place where the said ceremony had taken place. 

25.  When   another   CD   was   displayed   from   one   hour   28 minutes, the witness admitted that accused Dharamveer was seen in the recording who was getting ready for the marriage. He   admitted   that   Rasham   Tika   ceremony   for   purpose   of Ghurchari is shown in the CD but he could not say if it is of village Tappal or not and he could not say if the background of the seen is of A­103, Harijan Basti or not. He admitted SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.22/39 that   the   accused   Dharamveer   is   seen   on   the   horse   in   the recording but he could not say the area is of village Tappal or not. 

26.  A third CD was displayed and the PW­3 admitted that Phera Ceremony (taking 7 steps round the nuptial fire)  of accused Dharamveer  and his  sister  going on. He  admitted that the 'Vidai ceremony' is also seen in the CD and 'Doli' of his sister is seen departing from their house but he could not say if the road and street seen in recording at 11 minutes is of Village Tappal or Harijan Basti Kondli and he could not say if the house seen in the photograph at 13.32 minutes of the recording is of village Tappal or Harijan Basti. He replied that he was unable to recognize the place where his sister and Dharamveer are seen entering in the house is that of village Tappal or Harijan Basti. He could not say whether the voter ID   Card   No.SGX   1300368   is   carrying   photograph   of   his sister Ajita or not but he admitted that the voter identity card bears   the   particulars   of   his   sister   Ajita   and   same   is Ex.PW3/DH. He admitted that the talks about the marriage of his sister was done through Sh. Kundan Lal, the uncle of the   accused.   He   specifically   admitted   that   no   demand   of dowry was made to him by the accused Dharamveer or his family members.

27.  In   his   further   cross­examination,   he   replied   that   the suicide note Ex.PW2/DF was earlier seen by him but its copy SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.23/39 was not seen by him with his parents. He replied that he had been to the shop of Dharamveer number of times situated at Delhi in Kaptan market but he did not know the number of that shop nor he had shown the shop at Kaptan market to the police.   He   replied   that   he   had   not   personally   made   any complaint  to  Sh.  Kundan  Lal  about  the  harassment  of   his sister. He replied that they came to know about recovery of suicide   note   on   06.03.2013   at   the   police   post   situated   at LNJP Hospital. He was shown the handwriting from portion A to A of mark­B (exhibit No.2 of FSL), handwriting mark­ C of register (exhibit No.3 of FSL), handwriting mark­D of register   (exhibit   No.4   of   FSL)   but   he   denied   the   said handwriting to be that of his sister Ajita.

28.  In his further cross­examination, he replied that Ajita had also studied with him in St. Raman School situated at West   Vinod   Nagar,   Delhi   and   he   had   identified   the photograph of the deceased Ajita pasted on admit card issued by Secondary Education Council Utter Pradesh Ex.PW3/D­1. He could not say if the said admit card is of Ajita or not and he did not know if the writing in blue colour at point A to A and B to B on Ex.PW3/D­1 are of deceased Ajita or not. He did  not  know  if   deceased  Ajita  had  passed  her   10th class from Divya Public High School, Bayana Ghaziabad U.P. as mentioned on Ex.PW3/D­1. 

29.  PW­9 Sh. Om Prakash is the father of deceased who SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.24/39 deposed almost on the same lines as has been deposed by PW­2 and PW­3, in his examination in chief and he further deposed   that   police   informed   him   in   the   mortuary   that somebody from the side of accused had produced a suicide note to them and that it was a suicide note to the effect that his daughter had put her life to the end by her own and that the letter was not written by his daughter.  

30.  In   his   cross   examination   on   behalf   of   the   accused, PW9   replied   that   on   05.03.2013   accused   Dharamveer,   his parents, Kundan and Mamta had met him in the house and the message was conveyed to them by his elder daughter to visit at the house of Ajita as she was being harassed and that he had talked with accused and his parents and that he had requested the accused and his parents to give some time for arranging the money to which the accused and his parents agreed.   He   replied   that   the   money   was   demanded   for investment in the said shop and that he was not sure about the earnings of the accused at that time. He further replied that he himself used to earn Rs.30,000/­ per month as he was employed   as   carpenter   in   Railways.   He   replied   that   his daughter Ajita @ Rinki was not having any mobile phone and that he never conversed with Ajita on phone and that the phone call was received by his wife at around 2.00AM on her mobile phone on 05.03.2013 and that he did not recollect the number of mobile phone of his wife and that he had no SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.25/39 mobile   phone   and   that   he   did   not   know   as   to   who   had informed   his   wife   at   2.00AM.     He   replied   that   Ajita   had studied up to 10th standard from a school located at Mayur Vihar­III and that he could not identify the handwriting of Ajita and that his wife is illiterate. The witness was put with a   court   question   as   to   when   for   the   first   time,   he   got complaint regarding the ill treatment of Ajita to which he replied that he got the complaint from Ajita after about 6­8 months from her marriage regarding her harassment and he replied that he had come to know about the ill treatment of his daughter when he visited at her house after 7­8 months. He replied that he had spent Rs.9 lakhs in the marriage of Ajita apart from the car given in the dowry and this amount was spent as per demand of her in laws and that out of the said   amount,   Rs.2   lakhs   was   given   in   cash   on   different occasions/ceremonies   and   for   the   remaining   amount,   the dowry   articles   were   given   and   that   he   had   paid   around Rs.50,000/­ at the time of Sagan, around Rs.50,000/­ at the time of Roka ceremonies, around Rs.60,000/­ was paid when the Barat had arrived at their place and remaining amount of Rs.40,000/­ was paid at the time of Bidai. 

31.  In his further cross examination, he replied that   on 05.03.2013, he remained with the in laws of Ajita for two hours and left around 8.00pm and that he has not lodged any complaint to police regarding harassment suffered by Ajita at SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.26/39 the hands of her in laws as he wanted to save the matrimonial life of his daughter.   He did not remember the name of the school of the deceased due to lapse of time.  He did not know if his daughter Ajita committed suicide and he volunteered that she was murdered and she did not commit suicide.

32.  PW­10   Smt.   Manisha   Sagar,   is   the   elder   sister   of deceased, who deposed regarding the marriage of deceased with the accused on 09.07.2011 and ceremony taking place at A­103,  Harijan  Basti,   Kondly,  but  again  she   said  that  her parental  home at Khora   Colony, and she further  deposed about   giving   of   Alto   Car   and   other   household   articles   in dowry, which were entrusted to parents/sisters of accused, and   thereafter   deceased   joined   her   matrimonial   home   at Kondli.   She   further   deposed   that   after   about   one   or   two months,   when   she   used   to   have   conversation   on   mobile phone,   deceased   told   her   that   she   was   being   subjected   to cruelty   for   dowry   and   the   deceased   also   told   her   that   her mother­in­law, father­in­law, Tai Saas, brother­in­law Vijay Singh   were   subjecting   her   to   cruelties   and   demanded Rs.1,00,000/­ in cash and golden jaun (used for pooja) and deceased also told her that her mother­in­law also demanded golden jaun on the pretext that her  elder sister­in­law had also brought the same. She further deposed that deceased had also told her that she had become pregnant, but was forced to go for abortion and that on 05.03.2013, a quarrel had taken SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.27/39 place   and   that   on   06.03.2013,   she   was   informed   that deceased was no more and she had died in LNJP Hospital, and that on 07.03.2013, she was inquired by police and her statement  was  recorded. In her  cross­examination, she  has replied   that   deceased   Ajita   was   not   having   her   personal mobile phone and whenever she used to make the call, she was   making   the   phone   call   from   the   phone   of   her   Jeth (brother­in­law), Jethani (sister­in­law) or from the phone of accused   Dharamveer.   She   further   answered   that   she   was having mobile pone No. 9211954888. She used to receive phone from deceased on the said number and she used to make call to the deceased from the said number. She also stated the fact that after about one and half months of her sister when she used to have conversation with her on mobile phone,   her   sister   Ajeeta   told   her   that   her   mother­in­law, father­in­law, Tai Saas and Nandoi vijay were subjecting her to cruelty and demanding Rs.1,00,000/­ cash and gold jaun (used for puja), and she was confronted with her statement Ex.PW10/DA,   where   it   was   not   so   recorded,   and   she volunteered that her jeth had also harassed her and she had stated all the facts to the police but she did not know whether all the facts were incorporated by the police or not. She had also stated to the police in her statement that Ajita also told her that her mother­in­law had demanded golden jaun on the pretext that her elder sister­in­law (jethani) had also brought SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.28/39 the   same,   and   she   was   confronted   with   her   statement Ex.PW10/DA where it was not so recorded. She had also stated to the police that her sister had also told her that she became pregnant and was forced for abortion, and she was confronted with her statement Ex.PW10/DA where it was not so recorded, and she volunteered that she was given some medicine   to   cause   abortion.   She   had   stated   to   the   police about this voluntary portion, and she was confronted with her statement Ex.PW10/Da where it was not so recorded. She also told the police in her statement that a quarrel had taken place   and   volunteered   that   she   was   told   about   the   quarel taken place on 5th of March by her mother on mobile phone and   stated   to   the   police   in   her   statement   that   fact   about quarrel was told to her by her mother on mobile phone and she was confronted with her statement Ex.PW10/DA where it   was   not   so   recorded.   She   further   stated   in   her   cross­ examination that she did not recollect the date when she had telephonic conversation with her deceased sister when she was   told   about   the   cruelty   and   demand   and   facts   about termination   of   her   pregnancy.   She   also   stated   that   sagai ceremony had taken place at the house of her father i.e. at Pratap Vihar, Khora Colony, Ghaziabad, U.P. She had not attended   the   marriage   as   there   was   function   at   her matrimonial home. Her husband had also not attended the marriage of her sister. She and her husband had attended the SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.29/39 ring ceremony. Her sister Bala and her husband reached at Pratap   Vihar,   Khora   Colony   afer   the   finishing   of   the function.   She   admitted   that   she   had   never   disclosed   the phone number to which she talked with Ajeeta nor police asked her about those numbers. 

33.  PW11 Smt. Bala in her examination­in­chief deposed on the same lines on which the other relatives have deposed. In her cross­examination on behalf of the accused, she stated that she had no personal knowledge about the money spent in the marriage of Ajeeta. Her parents had conveyed her that Rs.9,00,000/­ were spent in the marriage of Ajeeta and some cash was also given in the dowry. On coming to know about sufferings   of   Ajeeta,   she   had   not   lodged   any   complaint before any authority. Her parents used to console Ajeeta as it was   new   marriage.   First   of   all,   her   parents   conveyed   her about sufferings of Ajeeta and volunteered that Ajeeta had also   conveyed   her   telephonically   later.   She   had   a   mobile phone and she was not having mobile phone with her when marriage of Ajeeta was performed and till her death. She also did not remember the mobile number of Ajeeta and Ajeeta used   to   contact   her   with   mobile   phone   number   of   her husband.   She   also   stated   that   her   parents   did  not   file   any complaint   against   the   accused   even   after   having   all   the knowledge   of   torture   and   harassment   of   Ajeeta   prior   to August   2011.   She   did   not   receive   any   phone   call   on SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.30/39 05.03.2013 from anyone regarding the incident and she had received the phone call on the mobile phone of her neighbour on 06.03.2013 around 2.30am or 3.00am, but now she did not   recollect   the   name   of   her   neighbour   as   he   had   been shifted from that place about one and half years ago. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing false facts to that effect that she had received a phone call on the mobile number of her neighbour on 06.03.2013. She had conveyed the mobile phone number of her neighbour to her parents. She   did   not   recollect   the   mobile   phone   number   of   her neighbour now. She had personally spoken to her mother on phone on 06.03.2013 and her mother called her from her own mobile phone and she again said, she did not remember if she had called from her own mobile phone or otherwise and she was having cordial relations with her parents at the time of marriage of Ajeeta. She was not present at the time of phera ceremony of Ajeeta because her Dadi­sa was sick and she was attending her and she had never visited the H.No. A­ 103, Harijan Basti, Kondli and her parents had conveyed her that   they   had   visited   A­103,   Harijan   Basti,   Kondli,   on 05.03.2013 and they had conveyed telephonically this fact to her after their visit during night hours. 

34.  So   far   as   Section   304B   IPC   is   concerned,   Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has laid down essential ingredients as follows: 

    Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in   Durga Prasad & Anr Vs. State of M.P., reported as 2010 (3) JCC 1852, has held that in order to hold an accused guilty of an offence of dowry death, it has to be shown that apart from the fact that the woman died on account of burn or bodily injury, otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years   of   marriage   but   it   has   also   to   be   shown   that   soon before   her   death   she   was   subjected   to   cruelty   and harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. It was further held that in order to bring home a conviction under Section   304B   IPC,   it   will   not   be   sufficient   to   only   lead evidence showing that cruelty or harassment had been meted out to the victim, but that such treatment was in connection with the demand of dowry. 

35.  So far  as  death of  the  deceased  is concerned  in the present case, it is not disputed that it was "otherwise than under   normal   circumstances".   It   is   not   disputed   that   the deceased died due to asphyxia consequent upon antemortem hanging via ligature which is corroborated by the PM report Ex.PW15/A. 

36.  The   second   ingredient   that   such   death   must   have occurred within seven years from the date of the marriage is also not disputed in the present case as the date of marriage is 09.07.2011 and the date of death is 06.03.2013. 

37.  The third ingredient is that soon before her death, the deceased must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband. The whole depositions   of   PW2   Smt.   Jal   Devi,   the   mother,   PW3,   the brother,   PW9   Sh.   Om   Prakash,   the   father,   PW10   Smt. Manisha Sharma, the sister, and PW11 Smt. Bala, the sister revolved around the fact that on 05.03.2013, the parents of the   deceased   had   gone   to   the   matrimonial   house   of   her daughter   Ajeeta   in   Kondli,   in   the   evening   time   at   about 6.00pm, and they remained there for two hours and during the   said   stay,   the   deceased   told   them   that   her husband/accused,   father­in­law   and   mother­in­law   causing harassment and demanding Rs.1 Lac in cash on the pretext that   the   accused   wants   to   install   a   cutting   machine   for manufacturing   number   plates   and   her   mother­in­law   also demanded gold jewellery and on the following day at about 2 or 3.00am they received telephone call from someone that deceased has died and was in LNJP Hospital. 

38.  Admittedly, the father­in­law, mother­in­law, sister­in­ law, brother­in­law or any other relative of the accused, are not the accused in the present case and as such whatever the mother­in­law allegedly demanded cannot be read in the case against a person who is not being tried before this Court. 

39.  "Soon before her death" is a proportionate and relative term and it is not an absolute term and it would depend upon SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.33/39 circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence and that it would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period and that brings the importance of proximity   test   both   for   the   proof   of   an   offence   of   dowry death   as   well   as   for   raising   a   presumption   under   Section 113B of the Evidence Act   and that the expression "soon before her death", used in the substantive section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test and the said expression has not been defined   and   suffice,   however,   to   indicate   that   expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question and that there must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death and that if alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough   not   to   disturb   mental   equilibrium   of   the   woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. Reference is of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, titled Heera Lal & Ors Vs. State of Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2865.

40.  In   the   depositions   of   the   said   witnesses,   who   are related to the deceased, the mother PW2, although claimed that a demand of Rs. 1 Lac for installation of cutting machine for number plates was made but she nowhere said that for not SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.34/39 fulfilling   the   said   demand,   the   accused   committed   any cruelty   upon   the   deceased   and   in   what   manner.   PW9   has another story to tell that her daughter was given beatings also and   that   the   accused   gave   lathi   blow   on   the   legs   of   her daughter in connection with dowry and that her daughter was killed on 05.03.2013 in the night time. He nowhere described that   the   said   alleged   beatings   were   given   for   the   non­ fulfillment of any demand of dowry, particularly, Rs. 1 Lac. Similarly,   in   the   deposition   of   PW10,   she   had   levelled allegations   against   almost   all   the   in­laws   of   deceased regarding demand of dowry but nowhere she has mentioned that the deceased was subject to any cruelty or harassment on that account. Although her deposition almost with regard to the demand of dowry before the Court was contradicted with her previous statement in which no such demand was alleged by   her.   In   the   same   fashion,   PW11   Smt.   Bala   levelled allegations   of   dowry   but   no   incidence   of   cruelty   or harassment   has   been   deposed   by   her.   Thus,   the   alleged incident of visiting the house of the deceased by PW2 and PW9 if taken as true, although there was a demand of Rs. 1 Lac   for   the   said   purpose   but   there   was   no   claim   of   any cruelty   or   harassment   committed   by   the   accused   or   any relative of the accused upon the deceased. 

41.  Coming  to  the  last  ingredient  of   Section 304B  IPC, such   cruelty   or   harassment   must   be   in   connection   with SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.35/39 demand of dowry. Even if, I take it as true   for the sake of arguments,   that   Rs.   1   Lac   was   demanded   for   installing   a registration   number   cutting   plate,   the   question   is   as   to whether it can be termed as "dowry" at all. The Hon'ble High Court   of   Delhi,   in   case   titled   Hasraj   Sharma   Vs.   State   of Delhi, reported as 2010 (2) JCC 972 was dealing with a case where demand was made by in­laws of the deceased to bring Rs.50,000/­ for the purchase of a shop by the husband and there   was   no   allegation   that   her   in­laws   subjected   her   to physical and mental cruelty nor there was any allegation of any of the appellants maltreating, torturing or taunting the deceased for not bringing the said demand. It was also not the case of the prosecution that the shop to be purchased was for   the   benefit   for   entire   family   and   it   was   held   that   one solitary instance of the alleged demand on the part of the appellants,   even   if   true,   will   not   constitute   dowry   death punishable   under   Section   304B   or   cruelty   or   harassment punishable under Section 498A of IPC. It was further held that   demand   of   money   to   purchase   the   shop,   which, admittedly, was never demanded or promised prior to, at the time of or after marriage and not even expected to be given in marriage,  cannot be said  to be something demanded  in connection   with   marriage   and   consequently   would   not constitute demand for dowry. It was further held that it was difficult to accept that the demands which are not referal to SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.36/39 the   marriage,   would   also   constitute   dowry   demand punishable under Section 304B IPC in case the woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with such   a   demand.   The   demand   which   was   not   in   the contemplation   of   the   boy   and/or   his   family   members   and which   is   neither   expected   by   them   to   be   given   in   the marriage nor which is an article usually given in a marriage cannot be said to be connected with marriage to attract penal offence under Section 304B IPC. 

42.  The said judgement is fully applicable to the facts of the present case, where admittedly the demand of Rs. 1 Lac, even if taken as true, was not made at the time of marriage, nor given at the time of marriage nor was a condition to the marriage and it was for installing the said machine and as such it cannot be said to be "dowry" as such. 

43.  The above said ingredients remained to be unfulfilled by the prosecution evidence on the record. 

44.  So far as the allegations of cruelty are concerned, all the   above   said   relatives   of   the   deceased   gave   not   only contradictory   facts   but   their   depositions   were   full   of improvements, deposed for the first time before the Court as has   been   discussed   above   while   narrating   the   "confronted portion" of their depositions. 

45.  The last jolt to the prosecution story has been given by the   suicide   note   left   by   the   deceased.   Although   the   said SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.37/39 relatives of  the deceased tried their level best to tell a lie about   the   suicide   note   not   to   be   in   the   handwriting   of deceased, but the handwriting expert PW13 who has opined that standard handwriting and signatures marked A1 to A70 and A73 to A182 were also written by the person who wrote the questioned writing and signatures marked Q1 and Q2. Vide his report Ex.PW13/A and Q1 and Q2 is the suicide note which has been compared with also by the admit card of the Secondary Education   Council, Allahabad, Ex.PW3/D1. The suicide note speaks as follows: 

  "I Rinki Singh is committing this suicide out of her own will and after my death my family members may not be harassed and that my husband, mother­in­law, father­in­law, brother­in­law (Jeth),  sister­in­law(  Jethani), brother­in­law (Devar) and sister­in­law (Nanad) must not be harassed and in it (the suicide) no fault is on their part and all this was done   by  me   out  of   my   will  and   I   am   committing   suicide because I have spoiled the lives of all due to which I have no right to live in this world, let me be forgiven by all.

Yours Rinki Singh (In Hindi)   Rinki Singh (In English)" 

46.  Surprising fact is that neither the IO nor the SDM even visited the spot of the incident as admitted by them in their respective   cross­examination   and   as   such   it   has   not   been established   beyond   reasonable   doubt   on   the   record   as   to SC No. 895/2016 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh Page No.38/39 which is the place where said suicide was committed by the deceased, whether at Delhi or at Tappal, Distt. Aligarh, U.P.

47.  In   view   of   my   said   discussion,   I   am   of   considered opinion   that   the   prosecution   has   miserably   failed   to   bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and rather   the   prosecution   failed   to   establish   any   of   the ingredients of the offences charged against the accused and as such accused is acquitted of the offences under Section 304B/498A IPC. His PB and SB are discharged. However, accused   shall   furnish   his   bail   bonds   in   compliance   of provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C.

48.  File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced in the Open Court                      (Rakesh Tewari) 
          th
On this 30  day of Nov., 2017           District & Sessions Judge, East
                                           Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 




SC No. 895/2016                 State Vs. Dharam Veer Singh             Page No.39/39