Delhi District Court
S.C. No. 32/11 Fir No. 126/11 State vs . Sachin Aggarwal Etc. 1 /71 on 30 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJEEV BANSAL,
ASJ-03 (SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
SC No.: 32/11
(Unique ID No 02406R0147652011)
FIR No.: 126/11
PS: Mehrauli
U/S: 498A/304B/34 IPC
State
Versus
(1) Sachin Aggarwal
S/o Late Sh. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal
R/o House No. 452/3, Ward No.3,
Mehrauli, New Delhi.
(2) Padma Rani
W/o Late Sh. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal
R/o House No. 452/3, Ward No.3,
Mehrauli, New Delhi.
(3) Dheeraj Aggarwal
S/o Late Sh. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal
R/o House No. 452/3, Ward No.3,
Mehrauli, New Delhi.
(4) Lalit Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal
R/o House No. 452/3, Ward No.3,
Mehrauli, New Delhi.
S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 1 /71
Date of Institution : 08.06.2011
Date of Institution in Session Court : 25.08.2011
Date of Pronouncement Order :30.08.2014
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons, who are husband, mother-in-law and unmarried brothers-in-law of deceased Renu @ Juhi have faced this trial as Juhi died due to hanging in unnatural circumstances in the house of her in-laws on 14.03.2011, after she had married Sachin on 24.02.2007. According to the parents and brother of the deceased the accused persons used to make dowry demands, used to beat her and torture her for dowry demands. The accused persons, on the other hand stated that mother of the deceased spoiled the matrimonial life of her daughter and insisted that her another daughter Ruchi should be married with Lalit - brother of Sachin.
2. The present FIR, under Section 498A/304B IPC, was registered on 15.03.2011 on the statement of Sushil Kumar which was made before the SDM. Sushil Kumar stated in his statement S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 2 /71 before the SDM that he runs an artificial jewellery shop at Chandausi, Moradabad. He married his elder daughter Renu @ Juhi on 24.02.2007 with Sachin Aggarwal, as per his capacity. For 3-4 months after marriage, Sachin and his family kept his daughter well but thereafter in November 2007, Sachin demanded a motorcycle from his daughter, who told about it in December 2007 to her parents when she came to Chandausi. He told Sachin that he does not have capacity to give motorcycle. In January 2008, his son Vaibhav went to drop back Renu @ Juhi at Mehrauli and at that time, Sachin and his mother Padma again demanded motorcycle and other things from Vaibhav and Juhi, at which Vaibhav telephoned them and told that the in-laws of Renu are demanding motorcycle and other things and had told him to take back Juhi, if they cannot give dowry. At this, on 14.01.2008, Sushil and his wife Suman went to Mehrauli, Delhi. They wanted to talk but Sachin and his mother demanded money from them. He, his wife and his daughter Renu were abused and given beatings by Sachin, his mother Padma and her sons Lalit and Dheeraj. For the sake of their daughter, they took no action and came back, S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 3 /71 leaving Renu in the house of her in-laws. On 06.05.2008, Renu gave birth to a son and at that time Sachin demanded Rs. 50,000/- and other things from Juhi and gave beatings to her. On 16.05.2008, when they went to bring Juhi, Juhi told them that she is being beaten for bringing Rs. 50,000/-. When Sushil Kumar told that he would take police action, Sachin apologized at the intervention of the family members and gave an assurance that he would not make any further demand of dowry or to give beatings. Thereafter, Sachin never talked with them in proper manner and used to abuse them and he also never allowed Renu @ Juhi to speak with her parents. On 21.11.2008, he alongwith his wife and children went to Delhi to bring his daughter and even at that time, his daughter told them that Sachin, his brothers Lalit and Dheeraj and their mother give beatings to her and Sachin and his mother taunt and torture her for bringing Rs. 50,000/- and other dowry articles. Suhsil also gave a written complaint DD No. 46B on 21.11.2008 in this regard where after the accused persons agreed to send Renu @ Juhi with them. However, they did not send Juhi with them. In January 2009, he and his son Vaibhav went to their S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 4 /71 house to bring Renu @ Juhi but they were pushed out of the house. Whenever, they used to telephone, Sachin threatened them and never allowed Renu @ Juhi to speak with them. On 14.03.2011, police informed him by telephone about the death of Renu @ Juhi. He suspected that Renu had been killed by Sachin, his mother Padma Rani and his brothers Lalit and Dheeraj. On this statement, Rukka was prepared and the FIR in question was registered.
3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC against Sachin Aggawal whereas names of Padma Rani, Lalit Kumar and Dheeraj Aggarwal were kept in Column No. 12 as they absconded. Subsequently, these three accused persons surrendered and supplementary charge-sheet was filed against them.
4. Since the offence under Section 304B IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the matter was committed to this court.
S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 5 /71
5. On 15.11.2011, charge was framed against all the four accused persons under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and 304A read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution examined 22 witnesses in support of its case. 6.1 PW-1 HC Nahar Singh is the Duty Officer, who proved the recording of FIR on 15.03.2011 at about 6:13 p.m. He proved the FIR as Ex. PW1/A and his endorsement on Rukka as Ex.PW1/B. He also proved recording of DD No. 43A on 14.03.2011 at about 10:09 p.m regarding suicide of wife of the caller and he proved the said DD as Ex.PW1/C. 6.2 PW-2 Ct. Ajay deposed that he collected Postmortem Report and sealed pullanda from AIIMS Hospital on 23.03.2011 and handed over the same to SI Kailash, with permission of SDM. 6.3 PW-3 HC Jaibir is MHC(M), who proved relevant entries in Register No. 19 regarding handing over the pullanda containing Chunni and the pullanda containing viscera of the deceased as Ex. S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 6 /71 PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B. 6.4 PW-4 SI Mahesh Kumar is the Draftsman, who stated that on 19.04.2011, he took rough notes and measurement of the spot and on the basis of those rough notes and measurement, he prepared scaled site plan which he proved as Ex. PW4/A. 6.5 PW-5 Ram Swaroop Bhasin is a neighbour of the accused persons. He stated that on 14.03.2011 at about 8:45-9:00 p.m, he heard some noise and came out. He went to the house of Sachin and found Renu to be hanging from the ceiling. Sachin was holding her legs. With the help of neighbours, she was brought down after cutting the ligature material. Sachin was advised to rub her feet. Doctor was also called, who declared her dead. Sachin informed the police at 100 number.
6.6 PW-6 Asha is also a neighbour of the accused persons, who also deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-5 Ram Swaroop. In her cross-examination, she stated that she was on speaking terms with deceased Renu. Renu had good relations with her S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 7 /71 mother-in-law, which was as good as between a real mother and a daughter.
6.7 PW-7 Sushil Kumar is the father of the deceased. He stated that he is a Jeweller by profession. In October 2007, a lady named Om Wati, who lives in their locality, came to him with a proposal of marriage for his daughter Juhi. The proposed match was from Delhi and at this, he and his wife told her that they do not know much about Delhi and generally proposals from Delhi are exaggerated. She, however, assured that it was a good match. He told her that he does not have much money but she assured him that within his budget, this marriage was possible. She suggested him to have a look at the boy. She also told him that the proposed groom and his two brothers were employed in good jobs and were earning Rs. 15,000/- each. They went to see the boy and approved the match. Nana, Nani of groom Sachin stated that Sushil could perform the marriage of his daughter even with one rupee. About after one week, they took their daughter Juhi to Delhi for showing her to Sachin and his family. They approved Juhi and the match S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 8 /71 was fixed and some ceremonies were also performed on that day. When they were still there, after a little while, Om Wati came to him and told him that he will have to pay Rs. 3 lacs for Sachin and his family. He showed his inability to pay this amount. At the counselling of Om Wati, he agreed to pay the amount of Rs.3 lacs in January 2007 and he paid that amount of Rs.3 lacs to Sat Prakash, who is Mama of Sachin at Faridabad in the presence of Sachin, Lalit and Padma Rani. The date of marriage was fixed as 24.02.2007. The groom side demanded solemnization of marriage at Faridabad, to which, he agreed. The place of marriage was Delite Hotel, which was a 3 star Hotel. Immediately after Jaimala, Om Wati came to him and told him that another sum of Rs. 2 lacs are being demanded by the groom side. He refused to pay that amount and an altercation took place. He even told not to perform marriage and to take back Juhi with him unmarried. Relatives of both the sides gathered together but no solution could be found. Finally, he borrowed Rs. 2 lacs from his relatives and paid that amount to Om Wati and thereafter the marriage was performed. He further stated that his daughter was happy for 3-4 months. In May S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 9 /71 2007, she came to their house for appearing in an examination and told that she had been beaten by Sachin. He telephoned Sachin to know the reason of beatings, at which, he apologized and assured him not to repeat the same. In June 2007, Juhi was sent back with customary gifts. On the occasions of Karvachauth and Diwali, he sent his son to the house of Sachin with customary gifts but her in- laws were unhappy with the gifts. In December 2007, Juhi again came to their house and was sent back with his son on 12.01.2008 with customary gift. Again her in-laws were unhappy with the gifts and they demanded more jewellery and cash. Juhi telephoned them in the evening. He asked her to come to Chandausi and told her that he will go to her house in the next morning. On 13.01.2008, he and his wife reached at the house of Sachin. At that time, Renu @ Juhi was being beaten by all the four accused persons. On seeing them, all four of them were startled. They inquired as to why she was being beaten, at which, they replied that since dowry was not paid to them, she was being beaten. A demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle was made by them at that time which he refused to pay. A lot of altercation took place S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 10 /71 between them. They were shut in a room and were beaten with legs and belts by all the four accused persons. The door was bolted from outside and they were confined in the room till morning. They were allowed to come out of that room on 14.01.2008. They went to Police Station from there and lodged a complaint but since no visible injuries were found by the police, they refused to take action and suggested to go to CAW Cell or Human Rights Commission. They, however, came back to Chandausi as they had no knowledge about the CAW Cell or Human Rights Commission. After 3-4 days, they talked with Juhi at telephone and she confirmed that her in-laws were demanding dowry and he showed his inability. On 06.05.2008, Juhi gave birth to a son. However, her in-laws did not give this information to him and Juhi herself telephoned them after coming out of OT. After 3-4 days, she again telephonically informed that on 16.05.2008, Naamkaran ceremony of her son has been fixed. On 16.05.2008, he, his wife, his son and his daughter Richa went to the house of Sachin at Mehrauli and they gifted them Rs. 50,000/- cash, silver and gold jewellery and clothes. They found their daughter to be frightened. On being S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 11 /71 asked, she started weeping and her temple was red. Keshav was sitting there, who stated that he had been telling Juhi for the last 3-4 days not to narrate her sufferings. They were not allowed to talk with Juhi in seclusion. With great difficulty, they were allowed to talk with her only for three minutes and she told that her in-laws will not allow her to go to Chandausi and she has been beaten due to which reason, her temples had turned red. They were not even offered a glass of water by the in-laws of Juhi and they returned back in the evening. After 5-6 days, he telephoned Sachin as his daughter had no independent telephone, however, Sachin did not receive his call and disconnected it. His daughter was not allowed to make telephone call. Whenever, Sachin used to answer his call, he used to say that he will not allow them to speak with Juhi unless his demand of motorcycle is met. In this manner, 3-4 months passed away. They did not get any information about their daughter. On 21.11.2008, they went to PS-Mehrauli and got a complaint registered which was proved as EX.PW7/X. Ct. Arun accompanied them to the house of Sachin to verify the contents of the information. He took the statement of Juhi. After her statement, S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 12 /71 Ct. Arun called the police from Police Station. SI Brahm Prakash took detailed statement of Juhi. In the meantime, Padma Rani came there. She asked Dheeraj and Lalit to come to home. 20-25 lady neighbours had also come. Lot of altercation and manhandling took place with them. Lalit telephoned his brother Sachin and asked him to come soon as Juhi had given a statement to the police. A compromise Mark 'A' was made between them which was reduced into writing. The photocopy of the said compromise is on record, which is Mark-A. A week before 14.03.2011, his son Vaibhav received a phone call from Juhi, wherein, she informed that her life is in danger. She told that since, the dowry demand of her in-laws were not met, she could be done to death at any time by them. On 14.03.2011, at 11.00pm, police telephonically informed him about death of Juhi. Next day, at 10.00am, he reached the Police Station. He was told that the dead body had been sent to AIIMS for postmortem. His statement and his wife's statements were recorded by the SDM in his Office. He proved his statement as EX.PW7/A. He proved his identification statement of the dead body of his daughter, as EX.PW7/B and receipt of her dead body as S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 13 /71 EX.PW7/C. On 29.05.2011, he handed over the marriage card of his daughter to the IO, which was proved as EX.PW7/D, photograph of marriage was proved as EX.PW7/E and the list of dowry articles was proved as EX.PW7/F. The same were seized by the IO vide Seizure Memo EX.PW7/G. He identified the accused persons in the Court. Some material questions were put to him by the Ld. Addl. PP at which the witness stated that Sachin used to make demand of cash and motorcycle in November 2007 through Juhi. He stated that there was no demand at the time of birth of son to his daughter on 06.05.2008, but after 3-4 days of his birth, a demand was made by her in-laws and was confronted with the statement EX.PW7/A, where, it was recorded that a demand of Rs. 50,000/- and other articles were demanded by Sachin on 06.05.2008 and Juhi was also beaten. In his cross examination he stated that he met SI Kailash Suyal firstly after reaching PS- Mehrauli after receipt of information of death of his daughter. He made inquiries about his daughter from him and his statement was recorded. He admitted that statement EX.PW7/A was the same statement, which was recorded at that time by SI Kailash Suyal. He S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 14 /71 identified a diary to be in the handwriting of his daughter Juhi of pre-marriage period which was proved as EX.PW7/DE. He stated that he paid Rs.50,000/- cash on 16.05.2008. Most part of his statement was confronted to him as the same were not part of Ex. PW 7/A. He denied the suggestion that he misbehaved with Sachin or his daughter whenever they came to Chandausi or that he used to pressurize his daughter for getting fixed the marriage of his younger daughter Richa with Lalit- younger brother of Sachin or that he or his wife and his daughter Richa used to misbehave with Juhi. The statement was recorded in the first instance in 'rough' and then the same was got typed by the SDM and he signed the typed statement. He denied the suggestion that the marriage between Sachin and Juhi was a dowry-less or that deceased Renuka committed suicide due to regular ill-treatment and harassment done by her parents and due to their deliberate interference in the matrimonial life of Renuka.
6.8 PW-8 Dr. Uttam Mech, is the doctor who prepared the MLC of the deceased. He stated that on 15.03.2011 at 2:37 a.m, S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 15 /71 one Renuka Aggarwal W/o Sachin Aggarwal, aged 25 years female was brought in the casualty by Police alongwith one Naveen, with the alleged history of suicidal hanging. There was strangulation mark present above hyoid bone. After examination, the patient was declared brought dead. He proved the MLC No. 17764 as Ex.PW8/A. 6.9 PW-9 HC Ashok Kumar is the Duty Officer. He stated that on 21.11.2008 at about 4:30 p.m., one Sushil Kumar came in the PS and presented a complaint which he recorded vide DD No.46B and proved the same as Ex.PW9/A. In his cross examination, he stated that the fate of the DD entries/complaints are not mentioned in the Roznamcha.
6.10 PW-10 Ct Ashok Kumar stated that on 15.03.2011he took dead body of deceased Renu to AIIMS, Mortuary and remained in the hospital till the post-mortem. On 16.03.2011, he alongwith IO/SI Kailash Chand reached at the house of accused Sachin Aggarwal but he was not found there. From a secret informer they came to know that Sachin would go to some place via Metro and S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 16 /71 when they reached near Jain Dadabari Road they saw Sachin on the pointing out of the IO. He was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW10/C. On 28.03.2011, he took one sealed pullanda which was duly sealed with the seal of 'KC' which contained Chunni, to AIIMS, Mortuary for opinion and the same was deposited vide RC No.143/21/10. In his cross-examination, he stated that at the time of arrest of accused Sachin Aggarwal, no other person was present there. He denied the suggestion that accused Sachin was present at the house at the time of occurrence and was also present in the mortuary. He could not admit or deny that the accused Sachin Aggarwal never tried to flee away after the occurrence or remained present in the mortuary. He denied the suggestion that Sachin Aggarwal was detained on 15.03.2011 and his arrest was later on shown on 16.03.2011.
6.11 PW11 Ct. Naveen stated that on 14.03.2011, at about 10:09 p.m, SI Kailash received a DD No.43A regarding suicide and thereafter they reached at place of incident i.e House No. 452/3, S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 17 /71 Ward No.3, Mehrauli, and there they saw one dead body of lady on a bed. Inquiries revealed that the name of the deceased to be Renu @ Juhi, wife of Sachin Aggarwal. At the spot, two pieces of Chunni and one scissors were lying. IO/SI Kailash informed the concerned SDM. They searched for suicide note but could not find any suicide note. SI Kailash Chand also informed the parents of the deceased. Thereafter, dead body was shifted to AIIMS where Doctor declared her brought dead and from there dead body was preserved in the mortuary. On next day i.e 15.03.2011, statements of parents of the deceased were recorded by the SDM, Hauz Khas and thereafter SI Kailash Chand prepared a Rukka and the same was handed over to him for registration of the FIR. He went to the PS alongwith the rukka and got the case registered. In his cross- examination he stated that when they reached at the spot after receipt of DD, accused Sachin Aggarwal, his mother, his brothers and some neighbours were present. He could not tell if the first call regarding the suicide of a girl was made by Sachin Aggarwal to the police. Family members of accused informed about the telephone number of the deceased to SI Kailash and then SI S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 18 /71 Kailash informed to the parents of deceased Renu. SDM, Hauz Khas had also arrived at the spot nearby the same time when the Crime Team reached at the spot. SDM, Hauz Khas remained at the spot for about 1-2 hours. He saw the SDM, Hauz Khas, second time after the occurrence on the next day at his office situated at Mehrauli. Parents of deceased met him at the office of SDM, Mehrauli. Statements of the parents of deceased were recorded in his presence by the SDM in his office. At the time of recording of the statements of the parents of the deceased, he, SI Kailash, and SDM were present in the office. Statement of the mother of deceased was recorded first and then the statement of father of the deceased was recorded by the SDM. Statements of the parents of deceased were recorded by SI Kailash in the presence of SDM. He could not tell in which manner the statements were recorded but they were recorded between 2:00 to 2:30 p.m and it took about 1- 1½ hours in recording the statements. At the time of recording of the statement of mother of deceased, the father of deceased was present outside the room of the SDM. He denied the suggestion that statements of the parents of the deceased were not recorded in S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 19 /71 his presence in the office of the SDM.
6.12 PW-12 Ct. Hanuman stated that on 30.03.2011, he took one sample pullanda containing viscera to FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 164/21/11.
6.13 PW- 13 HC Ram Niwas deposed that on 21.11.2008, he received a complaint vide DD No. 46B (Ex. PW-7/X) which was marked to him by then SHO for investigation. On receipt of that complaint, he reached at House No. 452/3, Ward No.3, Mehrauli and there one Renuka Aggarwal met him and he also inquired from her about that complaint and she also told that she had no grievance against anyone. In this regard, she also gave him a written reply and the same was proved as Ex. PW13/A. Later on, he filed the complaint. In his cross-examination he stated that he does not remember on what date the complaint was marked to him but he had recorded the statement of Renuka Aggarwal in this regard on 09.12.2008. He denied the suggestion that Renuka Aggarwal (deceased) had given a written statement to him Ex. PW7/DC. He denied the suggestion that he had asked Renuka S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 20 /71 Aggarwal to make another statement in short because the statement Ex.PW7/DC was in a detailed form.
6.14 PW- 14 Dr. Asit Kumar Sikary, is one of the doctor who conducted post mortem on the body of deceased Renu on 16.03.2011, alongwith Dr. Sudhir Gupta, Dr. Sudipta Ranjan Singh, Dr. Hari Prashad and Dr. Kartik Krishna, vide postmortem report No.268/11. He stated that during postmortem, on external examination of the body, an incomplete grooved parchmentised brownish ligature mark was present over the upper part of neck running obliquely upward and backward and merging with hair line over back of neck. The mark was 5 cm below the chin, 9 cm above the suprasternal notch over mid line of neck. The mark was 8 cm from right mastoid bone and 3 cm from left mastoid bone over respective lateral side of neck. Mark was 1 cm in width over mid line of neck. Total neck circumference was 30 c.m. On dissection the underlying sudcutaneous tissue was pale, hard and glistening. There was no extravasation of blood. Thyrohyoid complex was intact tracheal mucosa was normal. A reddish brown contusion of S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 21 /71 size 2 x 1 cm present over upper part of left leg on the inner aspect adjacent to the knee. The cause of death was opined as asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. No other injury suggestive of assault/torture was present. He proved the detailed PM Report as Ex. PW14/A. He further proved his subsequent opinion dt. 1.4.2011 vide No. 47/11 for PM No. 268/11 as Ex. PW-14/B. He opined that the hanging could be possible with the Chunni shown and the ligature mark present over the neck of the deceased could be possible with the Chunni. In his cross-examination he stated that injury on knee might have been caused in bringing down the dead body from the hanging.
6.15 PW 15 Suman Agarwal is mother of the deceased. She stated that she married her daughter Juhi on 24.02.2007 with Sachin Aggarwal. After her marriage, Juhi lived happily for about 3-4 months. Thereafter, demand of motorcycle was made from her, to which she refused on the ground that they had spent a lot in the marriage. Juhi also telephoned her in this regard and told her that a motorcycle, Rs.50,000/- and a few articles are being demanded, to S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 22 /71 which she replied that all this will cost about Rs.1,50,000/- and she does not have the financial capacity to meet this demand. She called Juhi to her house so that she could take the examination of Aacharya in Sanskrit language in the month of May, 2007. At that time, she told her certain things about her in-laws and she consoled her telling that she should maintain peace. She sent her back on 25.06.2007. She sent her usual gifts on festivals. At the time of Karva Chauth, she sent the gifts, silver coins and a pair of Laxmi- Ganesh through her son Vaibhav to her house, to which mother-in- law of Juhi asked for hatri. She also demanded money for motorcycle and cash also. She also telephoned her and made these demands from her and she told her that all this is beyond her capacity. Thereafter, two days before the Purnima of Kartik month, Padma sent the mediator Om Wati to her house, who also asked her to fulfill the demands of motorcycle on the ground that Juhi will ride the motorcycle. She told her that due to financial incapacity, she cannot meet these demands. After three days i.e next day to Purnima, Juhi was badly beaten by her in-laws which came to her knowledge when she telephoned at the house of her daughter to S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 23 /71 know as to what had been told by Om Wati to them. Juhi told her about the beatings and started weeping and thereafter phone was snatched from her hands. On 15.12.2007, she invited Juhi to her house and she remained with them till 13.01.2008. She sent her back with her son Vaibhav on that day with all customary gifts for Sakranti. However, when they reached there, again he was asked about the fulfillment of demands. Vaibhav replied that his mother has already talked to them in this regard. Vaibhav tried to pacify the issue but he was told to take back Juhi with him. Vaibhav informed her about this on telephone and she told him that he should come back alone, leaving Juhi there and she alongwith her husband will go and talk with them on 14.01.2008. On 14.01.2008, they both went there and told them about the financial problems. They were given beatings with belt by Sachin Aggarwal, Lalit Aggarwal and Dhiraj Aggarwal and Padma Rani Aggarwal and were locked in a room. Juhi was also beaten by them when she tried to save her parents. Then, Satya Prakash, maternal uncle of Sachin, came there with his wife, his son Kaishav and his brother Sudhir or Sushil. They told her that unless the demands were met, S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 24 /71 this will continue. They were kept inside the room throughout the night and were allowed to come out at 5:00 a.m next day. She or her husband did not approach the police and came back to their house. On 06.05.2008, Juhi gave birth to a son. On 12.05.2008, Juhi was badly beaten and even her left ear was damaged due to beatings as Sachin had demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with the customary gifts but this was not told to her by Juhi on the same day and in the evening, she was beaten. She talked with Juhi on 13.05.2008 to know about the well being of the child and at that time she told her about the demand and the beatings and that she was not given food entire day. On 16.05.2008, she alongwith her husband and her two children Vaibhav and Richa reached their house. They were allowed to talk with Juhi in a separate room but she did not tell anything. There was swelling on her face. She was not in a position to hear from her left ear. She then told about the demand of Rs.50,000/- and the beatings were given to her and that she was not given anything to eat entire day. On 17.06.2008, her husband and her son Vaibhav went to their house but they were not even allowed to enter the house and they could not even see Juhi. S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 25 /71 On 21.11.2008, she went to Police Station and got her complaint lodged vide DD No. 46B (already Ex. PW7/X) and she alongwith Arun Diwan, a police official from P.S. Mehrauli, went to her house to bring her. Arun Diwan asked from Juhi as to why her parents had come to meet her when she told that her in-laws demand Rs. 50,000/-, a motorcycle and she is given beatings by them due to non-fulfillment of these demands. The in-laws of Juhi had also called their neighbours and parents of Juhi were given beatings by all of them in the presence of the police official. Then, Arun Diwan called police by dialing 100 number. SI Braham Prakash, Ram Niwas and another police official came there. Lalit telephoned Sachin and told him that Juhi has given her statement to the police correctly and she should be stopped otherwise all of them will land in jail. Sachin came there. Before that, Juhi had given her statement to SI Braham Prakash regarding her torture and beatings for dowry. Sachin took away Juhi in a separate room and after sometime he came back and an agreement was made that he will send Juhi in January, 2009 to her parents' house. In January 2009, she alongwith her husband and her son Vaibhav went to their S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 26 /71 house but again they were not allowed to enter the house and were sent back from the main door without even allowing them to see Juhi. Juhi died on 14.03.2011. Juhi had telephoned Vaibhav about 10 days before her death and she had told Vaibhav not to make call on the number from which she had called. She also told Vaibhav that in case the demand of motorcycle and cash is not fulfilled immediately, they may kill her within next 8 to 10 days as she is being tortured and nothing is given to her to eat. Vaibhav told about this to her but she had her own financial difficulties. Before she could make any arrangement or could talk with them, she received the message of death of my daughter Juhi from the police. She stated that she reached Delhi next day at about 9:00 or 10:00 a.m and her statement was recorded in the PS and in the evening her statement was read over to her in front of the SDM and she was asked as to whether she had made this statement or not and she stated that she had made that statement. She proved the said statement as Ex.PW15/A. In her cross examination, many portions of her statement were confronted to her which were not found mentioned in Ex. PW 15/A. She stated that neither Om Wati nor S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 27 /71 the accused persons made any demand for dowry before or at the time of marriage. She admitted that Om Wati even gave a proposal to her for marriage of her younger daughter Richa with Lalit. She identified handwriting of her daughter Juhi in Ex. PW7/DC and Ex. PW7/DE. She admitted that Juhi used to write letters to her but it had never reached her. She admitted that the issue raised in DD No. 46B was settled with the assurance that they would send Juhi to their house in the first week of January, 2009. After death of Juhi, police recorded her and her husband's statement. Thereafter, statement of her and her husband was recorded by the P.A of SDM. The SDM made inquiries from them but did not record their statements but only, he read out the statement which was recorded by the police. She denied the suggestion that Juhi committed suicide due to her ill-behaviour with her and her in-laws or that she had created pressure on Juhi for getting Richa married with Lalit and due to this reason she was avoiding them.
6.16 PW-16 Ct. Girdhar Singh is photographer. He proved five photographs as Ex. PW16/P-1 to P-5 and the Negatives were S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 28 /71 proved as Ex. PW16/P-6 to P-10.
6.17 PW-17 SI Vijaypal Singh Kasana is Incharge, Mobile Crime Team. He proved his Scene of Crime Report as Ex. PW17/A. In his cross examination he stated that no suicide note was found at the spot. He stated that perhaps, accused Padma Rani was present at the spot at that time. He did not hand over any document regarding his inspection to the IO at that time. He denied the suggestion that a suicide note was found at the spot in which the deceased had stated that none of the accused was responsible and that the said suicide note was handed over by him to the IO.
6.18 PW-18 Kavita Goyal, proved her Chemical examination report as EX.PW18/A. 6.19 PW-19 Pravesh Ranjan Jha, is the then SDM. He stated that on 14.03.2011, he received information from PS-Mehrauli, regarding suicide of a lady in Ward No. 3, Mehrauli. On receipt of the information, he reached the place of incident at about 11.00 S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 29 /71 PM, where, he saw a lady lying on the bed, and piece of cloth which was cut in two pieces, was also lying near the dead body, and the persons who had gathered there, had informed that the deceased had committed suicide with the said pieces of cloth. Local police was present there, and the husband of the deceased and the relatives of the husband, were also present there. On the next day i.e. 15.03.2011, IO presented the father and mother of the deceased before him at his office, and he got their statement recorded, which he proved as EX.PW7/A and EX.PW15/A. After recording their statements, he gave directions to the SHO, PS- Mehrauli, that since the parents of the deceased, have alleged cognizable offence, appropriate action as per law, may be initiated. He proved his directions to the SHO, as EX. PW19/A. On 15.03.2011, he made a request to Autopsy Surgeon, AIIMS hospital, for postmortem of deceased-Renu @ Juhi, which he proved as EX. PW19/B, and Form No. 25/35 was proved as EX. PW19/B-1. On 25.03.2011, he received the postmortem report of deceased-Renu @ Juhi, in a sealed cover, which he forwarded to the SHO, vide letter- EX. PW19/C. In his cross examination he S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 30 /71 stated that on 15.03.2011, he recorded the statements of the parents of deceased, in his office room at about 4.00 PM, one-by-one. He stated that the statements were recorded by a policeman, who was called by him for the purpose of writing the statements. Subsequently, he himself read out the statements before the parents, who were satisfied before putting their signatures, and then he endorsed it. He admitted that he did not mention on EX.PW15/A and EX.PW7/A, that the statements were recorded by a policeman although he voluntarily added that he had stated that the statements were recorded before him. He admitted that he had complete staff of Steno, Typists and Reader but it was a Constable who had reduced into writing the statements of the parents of the deceased-EX.PW7/A and EX.PW15/A. 6.20 PW 20 Vaibhav Garg is brother of the deceased Renu @ Juhi. He stated his sister Juhi Garg was married on 24.02.2007 with Sh. Sachin Agarwal at Mehrauli. She remained happy in her matrimonial home for about 3-4 months. In the month of May, 2007, his sister came to Chandausi to give examination and she S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 31 /71 told his mother that her in-laws are demanding dowry. As it was already agreed that the in-laws of Juhi would not demand any dowry, so his mother did not pay any attention towards it. In 2007 on the eve of Karvachauth, he went to the house of Juhi at Mehrauli to give gifts on the occasion of Karvachauth and Deepawali. At that time, Juhi's mother-in-law namely Smt. Padmarani had asked him as to why he did not bring money for the motorcycle. Next day, he went back to Chandausi. In December, 2007, he again went to the house of Juhi and brought her to Chandausi and she told regarding the demand of motorcycle and other articles by her in-laws, to her mother. She also told that she was also beaten by her husband and her in-laws, but they later apologized for the same to her. On 12/13.1.2008, he once again went to the matrimonial home of Juhi to drop her back along with gifts on the eve of Makar Sankranti. Again the husband and in- laws of Juhi raised the issue of motorcycle and other articles and they also told that if he could not pay them the money for motorcycle, he could take back Juhi. He told about it to his mother after making call from STD-PCO and on her asking he went back S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 32 /71 to Chandausi. In the evening of 14.01.2008, his parents went to the house of Juhi at Mehrauli. Next day, when his parents returned back to Chandausi, his mother told him that when they reached at the house of Juhi, she was being beaten by her husband Sachin and mother-in-law and when his mother asked them as to why they were beating Juhi, his parents were confined in a room and they were also beaten with belt and shoes and they were released from there in the morning at around 05:00 AM on 15.01.2008. On 06.05.2008, Juhi gave birth to a baby boy. On this, Juhi telephoned that her in-laws are demanding Rs.50,000/- along with goods/gifts of 'Talua' and for that demand, she was also beaten. On 16.05.2008, he along with his younger sister Richa and his parents, went to the house of Juhi along with goods/gifts of 'Talua' and cash Rs.50,000/-. When they reached there, they found Juhi to be lying unconscious on her bed and they woke her after sprinkling water on her face. On being asked from her as to why she was lying on her bed unconscious, she replied that she was beaten by her husband and her brother-in-laws as well as mother-in-law. His mother asked for it from Sachin and he apologized for the same S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 33 /71 and promised that he will not beat Juhi in future and said that he will bring Juhi to Chandausi on his own after one month. Till one month, Juhi was allowed to talk with her parents on telephone but after month she was not allowed to talk to them and Sachin also told that he will not bring Juhi to Chandausi and whenever her parents used to call there, he used to abuse them. On 21.11.2008, they made a complaint against accused persons at P.S. Mehrauli regarding cruelty and demand of dowry as well as for not allowing Juhi to come to Chandausi. On this complaint, one police person accompanied them to the matrimonial house of Juhi and the police official had enquired from Juhi and she had also told him about the cruelty and dowry demand by her husband as well as other accused persons and she also told that her parents had fulfilled their demands even by paying Rs.50,000/-. The said police official also called his senior officers and at that time it was agreed by the accused persons that they will allow Juhi to go to Chandausi, however, subsequently it was agreed that she will be sent to Chandausi in the month of January, 2009. The report which was initially prepared by the police official at that time, was torn down S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 34 /71 and a new report was prepared in this respect. Thereafter, in the first week of January, 2009 he along with his father went to the matrimonial house of Juhi and they were forcibly turned out of the house by her in-laws. On this, they went to P.S. Mehrauli along with the report which was later prepared by the police official. On their complaint, police official was sent to the house of Juhi and at that time, she told to him that she does not wish to go to her parental house and she will remain at her matrimonial home in the way she is living. Thereafter, they returned back to their home. On 30.04.2009, he along with my one known person, went to P.S. Mehrauli. On this occasion, one police official also visited to the house of Juhi and from there she made a call to the police station and he also talked to her. She said that she does not wish to go to her parental house and she will remain at her matrimonial home in the way she is living. They also tried to talk to Juhi over telephone, but they could not talk to her as after seeing their number, her husband used to switch off her mobile. Prior to 8-10 days of her death, Juhi made a call to him and asked them either to fulfill the demand of motorcycle and other articles of her in-laws or else she S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 35 /71 will be killed by them. Even she was not allowed proper food and she used to be beaten. Thereafter the call got disconnected suddenly. He told these facts to his parents. In the night of 14.03.2011, they received a call of a police person from P.S. Mehrauli regarding suicide of Juhi. On this, his parents along with his sister Richa went to Delhi. Later on, police officials from P.S. Mehrauli had come to his shop at Chandausi and recorded his statement. In his cross examination he could not tell when his statement was recorded by police. He stated that he had made the same statement to police, which he stated in his examination-in- chief before the Court, but the police recorded his statement in brief. Many portions of his statement were confronted to him which were not found mentioned in his statement recorded by the police. He admitted that his mother played a dominant role, to choose the suitable match for his sister, to arrange the pre-marriage functions, to bring the gifts and to arrange the marriage of his deceased sister. He stated that his elder sister-Richa was 18 ½ years old at the time of marriage of Juhi. He admitted that Richa was still unmarried and they do not own any house. He never met S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 36 /71 the family members of the accused at any time, prior to marriage. He stated that he used to stay in night at the in-laws' house of Juhi and was given normal treatment, whenever he stayed in night, at her house. He could not tell if he was treated properly or not in the house of Juhi, in December 2007. When he went to Juhi's house on 12.01.2008, demand was made from him as well, by Padmarani, and on Karvachauth of year 2007, a motorcycle was demanded from him, by Padmarani. On 12.01.2008, demand of a motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- was made by Padmarani. This demand was raised at the house of in-laws of sister-Juhi, when he stayed there overnight. He could not tell what were the 'other articles' demanded, as stated by him in his examination-in-chief but he voluntarily stated that his mother may be knowing this fact. The demand of motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- was made simultaneously by Padmarani on the same day. On 21.11.2008, he alongwith his father, mother and his sister-Richa had come to Delhi in a private hired car, for the purpose of lodging a complaint with police, against the accused persons. At that time, Juhi was in the house of her in-laws. He denied the suggestion that Juhi had severed her S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 37 /71 relations with them, after 2008 or that it was his family who had harassed and tortured Juhi and because of this reason, she had committed suicide.
6.21 PW-21 SI Kailash Chand, stated that on 14.03.2011, at 10.09 PM, he received DD bearing No. 43-A, for investigation, which pertained to suicide of caller's wife at House No. 452/3-A, near Garment wali Gali, Mehrauli. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Naveen reached at the spot, and on the ground floor in the last room of the house, found one lady lying dead on a bed, and 8-10 persons were present in that room. He informed Crime Team (South District) as well as SDM, Hauz Khas, and parents of the deceased were also informed telephonically. Crime Team reached at the spot and subsequently, SDM-Rajeev Shukla also reached there. Crime Team as well as SDM inspected the spot. Photographer also clicked the photographs of the spot. He recorded the statements of the neighbours and search of the room was also conducted, but no suicide note was recovered. On right side of the dead body, a chunni of red colour, in two pieces, was S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 38 /71 lying on bed and one scissor was also lying there. He seized them vide seizure memo already EX.PW11/A. Thereafter, he sent the dead body to AIIMS hospital at about 12.15/12.30 AM through Ct. Naveen alongwith an application Ex. PW21/A requesting CMO, AIIMS, to preserve the dead body for 24 hours. On 15.03.2011, at about 3.00 PM, he alongwith Ct. Naveen took parents of the deceased to Office of SDM at Mehrauli, where, as per the directions of SDM - Rajeev Shukla, he recorded statements of parents of deceased, and SDM also dictated the same. Thereafter, on the directions of SDM, he prepared rukka, which he proved as EX.PW21/B, on the statement of complainant-Sushil Kumar. After preparing rukka he handed over the same to Ct.Naveen for registration of FIR and he reached at the spot and recorded statement of neighbour namely Amit Bhasin. On 16.03.2011, he went to mortuary AIIMS on the direction of IO and postmortem of deceased was got conducted vide request Ex.PW21/C. On the same day he alongwith IO and Ct.Ashok went in search of accused Sachin at his house but he was not found there. From there on secret information which was already received by IO they reached S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 39 /71 near MG Road near Dadabari Jain Mandir from where accused Sachin Aggarwal was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex.PW10/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo already Ex.PW10/C. On 19.04.2011, he took SI Mahesh Draftsman to the spot and at his instance he took rough notes and measurement of the spot. On 20.04.2011, on the direction of IO he went to AIIMS mortuary from there he obtained the opinion with regard to the ligature material and the same was handed over to IO. On 21.05.2011, he reached at the house of complainant Chandausi at Moradabad where no one met him and he came to know that they may be present at their shop. He went there where Vaibhav Aggarwal son of the complainant met him. He obtained the copy of old complaint and copy of compromise and the same were seized vide memo Ex.PW21/D. He also recorded the statement of Vaibhav Aggarwal U/s 161 Cr P.C. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was in uniform when he produced the complainant before SDM for recording their statement. SDM recorded the statement of complainant in his office. At that time when the statement of Sushil Aggarwal was recorded he, Sushil Aggarwal S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 40 /71 and SDM were only present. The complainant had stated to the SDM and the SDM was dictating to him to write in his own language. Whatever the complainant deposed the same was dictated by the SDM to him and he reduced the same into writing. At the time when he wrote the statement of the complainant in the presence of SDM he was Sub Inspector and was having total four stars on his both shoulders. He denied the suggestion that he himself recorded the statement of parents of deceased in the manner or that complainant and mother of deceased were never produced before the SDM in order to record their statement. He could not tell if any documents pertaining to the complaint dated 21.11.2008 and compromise document were taken from the IO HC Ram Niwas. On the day of incident when he reached at the spot, the family members including Sachin Aggarwal were present at the spot. He denied the suggestion that from the spot Sachin Aggarwal was taken to the police station and his arrest was deliberately shown from Dadabari Mandir after two days.
S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 41 /71 6.22 PW-22 Insp. Pankaj Singh, is the 2nd IO. He stated that on 15.03.2011, he got investigation of this case. Thereafter, on the same day, he alongwith SI Kailash visited the place of incident i.e. House No. 452/3, Ward No. 3, Mehrauli and prepared site-plan, without scale and proved the same as EX.PW22/A. On 16.03.2011, accused Sachin Aggarwal was apprehended from Dada Baari Road, near M.G. Road. On 29.05.2011, Sushil Kumar Aggarwal came in the police station and he handed over marriage- card of marriage of Renu @ Juhi with accused Sachin, marriage photographs and list of dowry articles. The same were proved as EX.PW7/D, E and F and he seized the same vide seizure memo already EX.PW7/G. After completing the investigation in respect of accused Sachin Aggarwal, he filed the Challan in the court, as the other accused persons were absconding at that time. On 10.06.2011, accused Lalit Kumar, Dheeraj Aggarwal and Padma Rani surrendered themselves before the concerned court at Saket, and they were arrested in the present case, after taking permission from the concerned court. He proved their arrest memos and their personal search memos as EX.PW22/B to EX.PW22/G. He filed S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 42 /71 Supplementary Charge-Sheet against these accused persons also.
7. The accused persons did not dispute the PCR form which was exhibited as X-1. Similarly, the ligature material i.e Chunni and the scissor, were exhibited as Ex. PX and PY respectively.
8. All the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused persons but they denied the same. It was stated by the accused Sachin Aggarwal that there was a suicide note in which the deceased had given a clean chit to all the accused persons and had leveled allegations for committing suicide upon her parents and sister but the IO concealed the said suicide note. It is stated that the SDM did not reach the spot and had not recorded the statement of any witness, rather he put his signatures and seal on the statements written by the IO/SI Kailash. Accused Sachin Aggarwal stated that he was with the police after the incident and he never tried to run away. He stated that PW-5 Ram Swaroop and PW-6 Asha deposed true facts in the court. He stated that father of the deceased leveled false allegations against him in order to extort money, who had already taken a loan of Rs. 2 lacs from him from S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 43 /71 time to time, through his daughter and was insisting the deceased to pressurize his family to be ready to perform marriage of his younger brother Lalit with sister of the deceased, namely, Ruchi. Regarding mother of the deceased, he stated that he spoiled his matrimonial life and created such a cruel atmosphere which resulted into a death of her own daughter. He stated that mother of the deceased is a short tempered lady and always tried to disturb his matrimonial life without any reason. He also stated that some material and documents which proved his innocence were concealed and have not been placed on record. The deceased herself gave a statement to the IO vide DD No. 46B in her own handwriting. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The other accused persons also deposed on the same lines.
9. No defence witness was produced by the accused persons although at the time of cross examination of various witnesses, a few documents were produced by them.
S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 44 /71
10. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons argued that family of the accused Sachin Aggarwal consist of himself, his mother and his two brothers. He does not have any sister and his father is no more. It has been stated that all alive persons in his family have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. It has been stated that the marriage of Sachin took place with Renu @ Juhi on 24.02.2007 and thereafter a son was born on 06.05.2008, who is being reared by the accused persons and is studying in class I. It is stated that Renu @ Juhi died on 14.03.2011 by hanging. Ld. Counsel argued that there is a delay of 20 hours in registration of FIR. It is stated that the manner of recording of statements of witnesses by the SDM is highly doubtful. It is stated that no fair proceedings were carried out by the SDM under Section 176 Cr.P.C. Further, it has been argued that there is a considerable delay in recording of the statement of Vaibhav - brother of the deceased, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He argued that not only major improvements were made by the witnesses in the court, but also there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. It is stated that testimony of PW-5 and PW-6 is in favour of the S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 45 /71 accused persons, who are their neighbours, who stated that the accused himself was holding legs of Juhi when she was hanging. It is stated that there were no dowry demands, more so there was no such demand 'soon before death' and hence the necessary ingredient of Section 304B IPC is not fulfilled. It is stated that the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked as the prosecution first has to prove its case that there was harassment on the part of the accused persons for the purpose of dowry demand 'soon before death'. He argued that the alleged call made before 8-10 days of death of deceased, as stated by the witnesses in their depositions, is nothing but an after thought as the same is mentioned neither in the statement made to the SDM nor in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It has been stated that the customary gifts cannot be called 'dowry' as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appasahib's case. It has been stated that various documents were brought on record by defence during the examination of the prosecution witnesses by putting those documents to them and those documents show that there was no cruelty or dowry demand on the part of the accused S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 46 /71 persons and rather, it were the parents of the deceased, who used to intervene in the matrimonial life of accused Sachin and deceased Juhi. Acquittal has thus been prayed for the accused persons.
11. Ld. Addl. PP, on the other hand, has argued that the deceased committed suicide in the house of her in-laws and there is no explanation from the accused persons as to why she committed suicide, if she was happy in the house of the accused persons. It is stated that a story of interference by the parents of the deceased has been projected by the accused persons but there is no such complaint by the accused persons in this regard. He argued that the SDM, parents and brother of the deceased are material witnesses and all of them have supported the prosecution case. He argued that there were dowry demands even before marriage when father of the deceased gave Rs. 3 lakhs. Then even at the time of Jaimala, a demand of Rs. 2 lakh was made which was met by the father of the deceased. After child birth, there were demands of motor cycle and Rs. 50,000/- and the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by father of the deceased on 16.5.2008 at the time of S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 47 /71 naamkaran of the child. He argued that all the statements corroborate with each other and hence the accused persons may be convicted for the offences u/s 304 B and 498 A IPC.
12. I have heard both the sides and have perused the records of the case. In order to prove a charge u/s 304-B IPC, prosecution is required to prove that
a) there was an unnatural death of a woman
b) such death was within 7 years of her marriage
c) that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relative
d) and that the said cruelty was in connection with dowry demand.
13. The word 'dowry' has the same meaning as defined u/s 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. The definition of dowry is as under:
"2. Definition of "dowry". In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given ei- ther directly or indirectly-
S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 48 /71
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the mar-
riage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by a other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or after the marriage as consideration for the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. Explanation I.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby de- clared that any presents made at the time of a marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of cash, orna- ments, clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this section, unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the said parties."
14. So far as the first two ingredients are concerned, there is no dispute about them. The Post-mortem report has proved that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia due to ligature hanging and as such the death is an unnatural death and it cannot be called a natural death. So, the first ingredient is fulfilled. It is also not disputed that the death has taken place within 7 years of marriage as the marriage had taken place on 24.2.2007 and the deceased S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 49 /71 Renu @ Juhi died on 14.3.2011. Hence, the second ingredient is also fulfilled.
15. Now, let us see if the prosecution has been able to prove that there was dowry demand by the accused persons from the parents of the deceased and that cruelties were committed on the deceased for the said dowry demands.
16. Prosecution is first required to prove that there was/were dowry demand by the accused persons and once that is established, the prosecution is then required to prove that the said dowry demand was 'soon before' the death of the deceased. Dowry demand and that too 'soon before' the death of the deceased is a sine-qua-non for an offence u/s 304B IPC. It is well settled that the expression 'soon before' has not been explained in the statute and the same is to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. The proximity test is to be applied to ascertain whether the demand for dowry was 'soon before' death of the deceased bride and there should be 'live link'. In Kailash v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2006) 12 SCC 667 it has been held:
S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 50 /71 "No presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would be drawn against the accused if it is shown that after the alleged demand, cruelty or harassment the dispute stood resolved and there was no evidence of cruelty or harassment thereafter. Mere lapse of some time by itself would not pro- vide to an accused a defence, if the course of conduct relat- ing to cruelty or harassment in connection with the dowry demand is shown to have existed earlier in time not too late and not too stale before the date of death of the victim. This is so because the expression used in the relevant provi- sion is "soon before". The expression is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circum- stances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. The expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. It cannot be said that the term "soon before" is synonymous with the term "immediately before". This is because of what is stated in Section 114 Il- lustration (a) of the Evidence Act. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or ha- rassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link."
S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 51 /71
17. This being the legal position and requirement of law, let us examine as to what is the nature of evidence in this case. Four witnesses namely PWs 7 Sushil Kumar Agarwal - father of the deceased, PW 15 Suman Agarwal - mother of the deceased, PW-19 Pravesh Ranjan Jha - the SDM and PW-20 Vaibhav Garg - brother of the deceased are the important witnesses in this case who can throw light in this respect regarding dowry demands.
18. As noted previously, the FIR was registered on the basis of statement made by father of the deceased before the SDM. He proved the said statement as Ex. PW7/A. A perusal of the said statement shows that five allegations of dowry demands were made. It was stated that the marriage of deceased Juhi took place with Sachin Aggarwal on 24.02.2007, as per his capacity and she remained happy for 3-4 months after her marriage. The first allegation of dowry demand was stated to be made in the month of November 2007 by Sachin from Juhi when a motorcycle was demanded by him. This demand was communicated by Juhi in December 2007 to her parents when she came to Chandausi, at S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 52 /71 which, her father told Sachin that he does not have capacity to give the motorcycle. The second allegation relates to January 2008 when Sachin and his mother demanded motorcycle and other things from Juhi and her brother Vaibhav, which was communicated by Vaibhav to him on telephone. Third demand was made on 14.01.2008, parents of Juhi went to the house of the accused persons when Sachin and his mother demanded money from them and they were abused and beaten by all the four accused persons. The fourth demand was made by Sachin on 06.05.2008 from Juhi when he demanded Rs. 50,000/- and other things. This demand was communicated by Juhi to her parents on 16.05.2008. The fifth demand was made on 21.11.2008 when father of Juhi with his wife and children went to the house of the accused persons and at that time Juhi told them that the accused persons give beatings to her for Rs. 50,000/- and other dowry articles. What is important to note from Ex. PW 7/A is that there is no mention in Ex. PW7/A that at any point of time, the aforesaid five demands or any of these five demands were fulfilled by the parents of the deceased.
S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 53 /71
19. This Sushil Kumar deposed before the court as PW-7 and made material improvements in his deposition as compared to his statement Ex.PW7/A. Firstly, he stated that before the marriage, a demand of Rs. 3 lacs was made from him and he paid the said amount of Rs. 3 lacs to Sat Prakash at Faridabad in the presence of Sachin, Lalit and Padma Rani. Then, he stated that another sum of Rs. 2 lacs were demanded from him immediately after Jaimala which he refused to pay initially and thereafter an altercation took place and he even offered not to perform the marriage and to take back his daughter with him without marriage. Then his relatives and relatives of Sachin gathered there but no solution could be found and he paid a sum of Rs. 2 lacs after borrowing this amount from his relatives. Even this payment of Rs. 2 lakh was not mentioned in Ex. PW 7/A. Regarding first allegation noted in Ex. PW 7/A, he deposed that in the month of December 2007, Juhi came to his house but he did not mention that Juhi communicated to him that Sachin had demanded a motorcycle from him whereafter he told Sachin that he does not have capacity to give motorcycle. Regarding the second demand noted S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 54 /71 in Ex. PW7/A, he deposed that on 12.01.2008, Juhi was sent back with his son with customary gifts but demand of more jewellery and cash (as opposed to the demand of motorcycle and other things mentioned in Ex. PW7/A) was made which was communicated to him by Juhi (not Vaibhav unlike stated in Ex. PW7/A) and he asked her to come to Chandausi. Regarding third demand, he stated that on 13.01.2008, he alongwith his wife went to the house of in-laws of Juhi and at that time, she was being beaten by the accused persons. At that time, a demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle was made from them which he refused to pay (as against the averment that Sachin and his mother demanded money as stated in Ex. PW7/A). He then stated that they were beaten with legs and belts and were not allowed to come out of that room till 14.01.2008 whereafter they went to Police Station and lodged a complaint. In Ex. PW7/A, he had stated that for the sake of their daughter, they took no action and came back, leaving Juhi in the house of her in-laws. He stated that on 16.05.2008, he gifted Rs. 50,000/- cash, silver, gold jewellery and clothes whereas in Ex.PW7/A, there is no mention of giving Rs. S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 55 /71 50,000/- cash, silver and gold jewellery and clothes. He further stated that on 21.11.2008, he and his wife went to PS Mehrauli and gave a complaint to police and finally the matter was compromised. As against this, in Ex. PW7/A, he had stated that on 21.11.2008, he alongwith his wife and children went to Delhi to bring his daughter when she told that the accused persons demanded Rs. 50,000/- and other dowry articles and gave beatings to her. There are thus material improvements and contradictions in the statement Ex. PW7/A and deposition of PW-7 in the court which make the prosecution case doubtful.
20. Mother of the deceased was examined by the prosecution as PW-15. She did not state in her statement that any amount of Rs. 3 lacs was paid before marriage or Rs. 2 lacs were paid at the time of the marriage. In fact, in her cross-examination, she admitted that there was no demand for dowry before or at the time of the marriage. She stated about demand of motorcycle, Rs.50,000/- and few other articles upto May 2007 and about sending gifts, silver coin etc. at the time of Karvachauth and even at the time of S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 56 /71 Karvachauth, demand of motorcycle and cash was made, which was repeated in the month of Kartik and for not fulfilling these demands, Juhi was beaten up. However, this part of her statement was not found mentioned in her statement Ex. PW15/A, although, she claimed to have stated these facts in the said statement to the police. She stated that on 13.01.2008, she sent Juhi back with her son Vaibhav with customary gifts but Vaibhav was told as to what happened about the fulfillment of demand and when he informed this to his mother, she asked him to come back and next day, she alongwith her husband went to their house. Both of them were given beatings by all the accused persons and were locked. When Juhi tried to save them, she too was beaten. Sat Prakash, his wife, his son etc were also there and they also told that they would be beaten unless their demands were met. She further stated that they were cautioned not to approach the police and in the interest of marital life of their daughter, they did not approach the police and came back to their house. If this statement is compared with the statement of her husband, he does not mention anything about the presence of Sat Prakash, his wife, son Keshav etc. Regarding S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 57 /71 going or not going to police, he had stated that they went to the PS and lodged a complaint but since no injury was found by police, they refused to take any action and suggested them either to go to CAW Cell or to Human Rights Commission but as they knew neither of them, they came back to Chandausi. There are thus material contradictions inasmuch as mother of the deceased stated that on 15.11.2008, instead of going to police, they came back directly to Chandausi whereas father of the deceased stated that they went to PS and lodged a complaint. PW-15 then stated that on 12.05.2008, Juhi was badly beaten as Sachin demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- which was told by Juhi to her on 13.05.2008. There is no such mention in the statement of her husband - Sushil Kumar. She then stated that on 16.05.2008, they went to the house of Juhi and she was told regarding demand of Rs. 50,000/-. Besides their being improvements in her statements to this effect, it is noticed that on the contrary, her husband Sushil Kumar deposed that on 16.05.2008, they gifted Rs. 50,000/- cash, silver and gold jewellery and clothes. Clearly, Suman Aggarwal has not stated anything that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid on 16.05.2008. There is thus S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 58 /71 material disconnect in the deposition of parents of the deceased which cause further doubts in prosecution version.
21. The statement of PW-20 Vaibhav - brother of the deceased, was found mainly to be improvement.
22. One incident which all these three witnesses stated is that Juhi telephoned Vaibhav about 10 days before her death that in case demand of motorcycle and cash is not fulfilled immediately, she may be killed within next 8-10 days. Father and brother of the deceased also deposed about it. First of all, this call has not been proved by prosecution by Call Detail Record of either the deceased's phone or of Vaibhav's phone. In the absence of it, it is not very wise to rely on such call, particularly when the other allegations of dowry demand are doubtful, being self contradictory and improvements. There is no mention about any such call even in the statement of Suman Agarwal Ex. PW 15/A which she made before the SDM. Besides, it is not understood if as per father of the deceased, amount of Rs. 50,000/- had already been paid on 16.05.2008, why a demand for motorcycle and cash would be made S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 59 /71 again. Let us try to know as to what would be natural conduct of family members of a married girl who informs her brother to either fulfill the demands of her in-laws otherwise she would be killed in 8 to 10 days and the brother communicates it to his parents. As a general and natural course of action, the parents would get panicked, more so when their daughter was already tortured for dowry demand by her husband and her in-laws. They would either visit the house of their daughter or would at least speak to them on telephone in this regard or would make a complaint in this regard to police. But in no situation, any parent would prefer to sit silent to be mute spectators. And if they neither visit the house of their daughter nor make any telephonic call to her house nor make any police complaint, the only inference which can be drawn from such a conduct is inescapable that no such incident had taken place. All the three witnesses deposed that about 10 days before her death, Juhi telephoned Vaibhav and told him that that in case demand of motorcycle and cash is not fulfilled immediately, she may be killed within next 8-10 days. However none of them stated as to what action was taken by them to tide over this situation. Their silence S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 60 /71 on this aspect speak volumes and cast serious doubts over the veracity of this statement and in the circumstances of the case, much reliance can be placed on such a claim.
23. One more aspect which needs attention is that according to parents of the deceased as per their statements made before the SDM i.e. Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW-15/A, the last incident before the death of Juhi happened in January 2009 when father and brother of the deceased went to house of Juhi but they were pushed out of the house. There is no mention of any such phone call made by Juhi to Vaibhav about 8-10 days before her death. Although it is true that FIR is not encyclopedia but nevertheless there has to be a mention about the events which can well be elaborated by the witness in his Court deposition but if the FIR is silent about a relevant fact, such as the one relating to phone call of the deceased just about 10 days before her death, it is to be assumed that no such incident took place and the same is nothing but an after thought. Clearly, the averments made in court testimony in this regard, is an attempt to make a case of cruelty for dowry 'soon before death'. S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 61 /71 This being the position that the making of call about 8-10 days prior to death by the deceased is highly doubtful, the last incident relates back to January 2009 whereas the deceased committed suicide on 14.3.2011, the element of harassment for dowry 'soon before death' would be missing in the present case.
24. Apart from all this, the statement of the father of the accused recorded by SDM is also not free from doubts. PW-7 Sushil Agarwal stated that after receiving information of death of his daughter, he came to Delhi and went directly to police station Mehrauli and met SI Kailash Suyal (PW-21) where he recorded his statement. He was shown Ex. PW-7/A and after seeing that statement he confirmed that it was the same statement which was recorded by SI Kailash. This statement is one which was purportedly recorded by SDM. PW-15 Suman Agarwal in this regard stated that her statement and her husband's statement were recorded by police in the police station and thereafter, their statements were recorded by PA of SDM. PW-19 SDM Pravesh Ranjan stated it was a Constable who had reduced into writing the S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 62 /71 statements of parents of the deceased Ex. PW7/A and PW 15/A. He also stated that he had complete staff of steno, Typists and Reader in his office. It is not understood why the statement was not recorded by the SDM himself when the law mandates him to record the said statement u/s 176 Cr PC and if at all he needed assistance for recording those statements, why his own staff was not used and rather police Constable was utilized, rather mis- utilized for this purpose. The proceedings become doubtful as the parents stated that their statements were first recorded by the police in police station and then they were taken to the office of SDM. Deposition of other witnesses will create further doubts about the person who recorded those statements. PW-21 SI Kailash in his cross examination stated that SDM dictated the statements to him (SI Kailash) and he reduced them into writing and he was in uniform at that time and had total four stars on his both shoulders. He nowhere stated that he himself initially recorded the statements of parents of the deceased in police station. Who is speaking truth
- parents or the IO? Reading all these evidences together, the statements purportedly recorded by the SDM, become highly S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 63 /71 doubtful.
25. The initial call to police was given by Sachin Agarwal, husband of the deceased. PW-1 HC Nahar Singh proved DD No. 43 A that on 14.3.2011 at about 10.09 pm a call through PCR intercom was received that wife of the caller had committed suicide in house no. 452/3-A, Mehrauli, New Delhi. This circumstance goes in favour of the accused although this circumstance in itself is not conclusive that the accused is innocent.
26. The arrest of the accused Sachin Agarwal as claimed by the prosecution, is also doubtful. PW-5 Ram Swaroop Bhasin and PW-6 Asha both stated that when they heard cries on 14.3.2011, they went to the house of the accused persons at about 9 pm and found accused Sachin to be holding legs of deceased Juhi and Sachin made call at 100 number to police. Similarly, PW-11 Ct. Naveen stated that after receipt of call of suicide at about 10.09 pm, he went to the house of the deceased and found all the four accused persons there. PW-19 SDM Pravesh Ranjan Jha also stated that when he visited the house of the deceased at about 11 S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 64 /71 pm accused Sachin Agarwal and his relatives were present there. PW-21 SI Kailash also stated after receipt of call of suicide at about 10.09 pm, he went to the house of the deceased and found accused Sachin to be present there. In such circumstances, when the accused Sachin was found present in the house immediately after the incident, his arrest after his alleged abscondance, becomes doubtful.
27. One more circumstance which came on judicial record during the course of evidence was that on 21.11.2008 a complaint was made by Sushil Kumar - father of the deceased in PS Mehrauli which was diarised as DD No. 46 B. A copy of this DD was proved as Ex. PW-7/X. Ex. PW-15/DA is a document dt. 21.11.2008 which was given by the deceased to police to the effect that she does not want any action on the complaint made by her father as she had been permitted to go to the house of her parents in January 2009. On 9.12.2008, the deceased Renuka gave in writing to police that her father had given a complaint against her husband and in-laws due to some misunderstanding but she was living S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 65 /71 happily with her husband and in-laws in their house. A copy of this writing was proved as Ex. PW 13/A. PW-13 HC Ram Niwas also deposed that after receipt of DD No. 46B (Ex.PW7/X), he went to the house of the deceased and she stated that she had no complaint against her in-laws. Exhibit PW-7/DC is a copy of the letter written by the deceased that her in laws never demanded any dowry from her and her parents insisted her to make complaints of dowry demand against her in laws. She also wrote in this letter that her parents want her to end her matrimonial life and she prayed that interference of her parents and her siblings be stopped in her matrimonial life. There is another Exhibit PW-7/DD which is a letter written by deceased to her father in which she wrote that she was always happy in her in-laws house. She even requested her mother not to telephone her and disturb her. A diary was also brought on record as Ex. PW 7/DE and father of the deceased admitted that the handwriting in the said diary is that of deceased. A perusal of the handwritings in Ex. PW 7/DE, Ex. PW 7/DC and Ex. PW 7/DD show that all these documents are in same handwriting. All these documents give an indication that the S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 66 /71 deceased was living peacefully in the house of her in-laws with her husband but her parents were interfering.
28. When the evidence which came on record is minutely perused it is observed that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused persons that they demanded dowry from the deceased or her parents and that they were instrumental in the death of the deceased or that the deceased was harassed for dowry 'soon before her death'.
29. Both Section 498-A and Section 304 B IPC require that not only there should be dowry demand but there should also be cruelty or harassment meted out by the husband or his relatives of the wife of such husband. Mere making of dowry demand is not the only pre-requisite for proving an offence u/s 304-B IPC. In Rani vs. State (2011) 1 JCC 668 Delhi it was held:
"To bring home an offence u/s 304 B IPC it is an obligation of the prosecution to prove in those cases where death of a woman occurs within 7 years of her marriage, that soon S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 67 /71 before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any other relative, in connection with a demand of dowry. Mere making of demand is not the only pre-requisite for proving an offence under section 304 B IPC. The prosecution was thus supposed to prove that the demand made by the accused was coupled with a harassment or cruelty in connection with the demand. Unnatural death can be called a dowry death only if, after making a demand of dowry, the accused perpetuates cruelty on the victim so that the demand made by him is got fulfilled by perpetuation of cruelty on the victim. If the alleged demand of dowry is not coupled with cruelty, harassment or any other such act on the part of the accused, Section 304 B IPC would not be made out. In this case, none of the three brothers stated that cruelty was perpetuated on Janaki or she was harassment by the appellant or by any other relative for not fulfilling the demand. I consider in these circumstances conviction of the appellant under section 304 B IPC was totally illegal and unjust."
30. To the same effect is the judgment of Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in State vs. Sohan Lal reported in 2011 (3) JCC 1966.
S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 68 /71
31. Even Section 113 B of the Evidence Act cannot aid the prosecution. Section113B of the Evidence Act reads as under:
"113B. Presumption as to dowry death When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "dowry death"
shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code(45 of1860).]"
32. Section 113 B of the Evidence Act provides for statutory presumption against the husband and his relatives in case of dowry death. However, this presumption comes into play only when the aforesaid ingredients are fulfilled as laid down in Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2003 SC 3828.
33. In 'Narender Singh Arora Vs. State', 2010 (3) DLT Crl. 1019, Delhi High Court held as under about suicide in a case u/s 498-A, 304-B, 302 read with Section 34 IPC:
S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 69 /71 "6. Suicide is a known phenomenon of human nature.
Suicides are committed by living human beings for various reasons, some are not able to bear the normal stresses which are common in life. Some are not able to cope up with the circumstances in which they are placed. Some commit suicide because of frustration of not achieving the desired goals. There are many cases where students commit suicide because they failed to achieve certain percentage of marks. Some commit suicide because they are not able to retain top position, some commit suicide because they are not able to cope with the demands of life. Some commit suicide because they suffer sudden loss, some commit suicide out of fear of being caught. There are various reasons for which suicides are committed by men and women. All suicides are unnatural death. Suicide is a complex phenomenon. One, who commits suicides, is not alive to disclose as to what was going on in his or her mind when he or she committed suicide. There is no presumption that every suicide committed by a married woman in her in-laws' house or at her parents' house has to be because she was suffering harassment at the hands of her husband or her in-laws."
34. Taking a cue from the pronouncements noted above and the observations and analysis of the various depositions led before me, S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 70 /71 the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Juhi committed suicide because of any dowry demand made by her husband or the relatives of her husband. It is cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that suspicion howsoever, strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof. It is also trite that prosecution is duty-bound to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Demand of dowry is a must to be proved by the prosecution in a case u/s 304-B IPC, which the prosecution has not been able to prove in this case. Same is the requirement of Section 498-A IPC. As a result, the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted of the charges u/s 498-A/ 304-B/34 IPC and they are accordingly acquitted.
Announced in the open Court. (Rajeev Bansal)
Dated:30.08.2014 ASJ-3/South District
Saket Courts, New Delhi
S.C. No. 32/11 FIR No. 126/11 State vs. Sachin Aggarwal etc. 71 /71