Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Farid Etc on 27 July, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT,
(New Delhi & South East District)
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No.121/09
FIR No.846/07
U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC
PS Sangam Vihar
State
Vs.
1. Mohd. Farid s/o Sh.Yamin
2. Yamin s/o Nasim Ahmed
3. Smt.Vakila w/o Yamin
4. Farukh s/o Yamin
........ Accused
Challan filed on : 30.11.07
Received by Fast Track Court on:27.11.09
Reserved for Order on : 22.07.2010
Date of Pronouncement : 27.07.2010
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.08.07 on receipt of DD no. 44B SI Kishan Kumar alongwith Ct.Kishan reached in Mazidia Hospital and collected the MLC of Sahana w/o Farid r/o D-130/5 Sangam Vihar, New Delhi and on the MLC 'patient brought dead' was mentioned. In the hospital Mohd. Farid husband of Sahana met and he disclosed that their marriage had State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 1 of 40 been solemnized on 13.04.05 and Sahana was ill so, he had gone to Mazidia Hospital. The death was caused within 7 years of marriage so, Sh Alok Kumar, Executive Magistrate, Kalkaji was apprised and as per his direction the dead body was removed to AIIMS Hospital. Next day i.e. 28.8.07 mother, father, and brother of deceased Sahana were present in the mortuary where Executive Magistrate arrived and recorded their statement. In his statement complainant Nawab Ali had made certain allegations against the accused persons for harassing his daughter and demand of dowry by the accused persons. So, SDM directed the SHO to take legal action. The SHO made his endorsement which is Ex.PW15/D to register the case on the basis of statement Ex.PW1/D of Nawab Ali. The investigation had been carried out and accused persons were arrested. After completion of the investigation, challan u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC has been filed in the court.
2. This case being triable by the court of session, after committal proceedings, it was committed by the Ld.MM and received by the court of sessions on 06.12.07.
3. The charge against accused persons has been framed u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC on 28.02.09 by Sh J.R.Aryan, Ld. ASJ to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 2 of 40
4. The prosecution in all has examined as many as 15 witnesses.
5. The evidence against the accused persons were put to them in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C in which they have pleaded their innocence and deposed that they have been falsely implicated in this case. In defence the accused persons have examined five witnesses including DW5 Mohd. Farid who is an accused in this case and he has been examined u/s 315 Cr.PC. Thereafter the case was fixed for final arguments.
6. I have heard the Ld.counsel for the accused as well as Ld.APP for the State and perused the testimonies of all the PWS and exhibited documents carefully.
7. In view of the arguments advanced by the Ld.APP and Ld.counsel on behalf of the accused persons, I have perused the testimonies of all the PWS.
8. PW1 Nawab Ali is the complainant and father of deceased Sahana and he has deposed that he got solemnized the marriage of his daughter with accused Mohd. Farid on 13.4.05 as per Muslim Rites and Customs and in Nikha/marriage he gave sufficient gift items as State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 3 of 40 per list Ex.PW1/A. After one month of marriage, the accused Mohd. Farid, mother in law Vakila, Father in law Yamin and brother in law Farook started torturing and harassing his daughter for bringing maruti 800 car with Rs.25,000/- and it was disclosed by his daughter just one month prior to her death. As and when his daughter used to visit his house she complained him and his family members regarding harassment and torture by the accused for bringing Rs.25,000/- with maruti 800 car. She used to be beaten by the accused persons. Accused Mohd. Farid used to remain adamant and not happy with him and his family for not fulfilling the demand and used to call his daughter outside his house and took back her to his house and whenever he came he did not take the food there. He visited to the house Sahana one day prior to her death with some gifts and at that time his daughter was quite healthy and after giving him due respect she was not allowed again by the accused persons to meet him till he remained present in the house. He has further stated that prior to one month of death of his daughter she told him and his family members that the accused persons uttered that they will kill her and then they will solemnize second nikah of their son. Then he went there and tried to made them understand. On 27.8.07 at about 9.30 p.m he was told by the wife of his son that Jaibun (his wife) and Ruby (his daughter) had gone to hospital to see his daughter as she was admitted there. He also went there and came to know that Sahana had already expired. He State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 4 of 40 identified the dead body vide statement Ex.PW1/D and received the dead body vide memo Ex.PW1/E. SDM recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/D.
9. PW2 Jaibun has deposed that after one month of nikah, her daughter was started bearing by Mohd. Farid, his father and mother and brother and started harassing for demand of maruti car. Prior to one month of death of her daughter her husband Nawab Ali went to the house of accused persons and at that time she told her husband that she was being so harassed and tortured for demand of maruti car and they started beating mercilessly. She has further stated that she has also told her father that accused persons will kill her and perform second nikha from where they can get sufficient dowry and maruti car. On 27.8.07 he alongwith Ruby went to hospital and came to know that Sahana had already expired. She has casted full doubt on the accused persons that they had killed her daughter due to demand of dowry and car. She gave statement Ex.PW2/A to SDM.
10. PW3 Hakim Ali is the uncle of deceased and he has deposed that on 13.4.05 Sahana was got married to Mohd. Farid as per Muslim Rites and Customs and after one month of marriage she was started beaten by her husband and his family members for demand for maruti 800 car. They used to taunt her for not bringing sufficient State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 5 of 40 dowry and used to taunt that they will get done the nikah of Farid in a well settled (bada gharana) family. One day suddenly he went to the house of Sahana and asked his niece as to how she is residing and she replied that she is not residing there well. She disclosed to her that her in laws say to her husband either to leave her or kill her on the pretext that they will get more dowry in second nikah. On 27.8.07 he received call from Nawab Ali regarding death of Sahana. He saw Sahana in the hospital and found her nails bluish and entire body turned bluish and some froth was coming from her mouth.
11. PW4 Dr. Ashish Jain has conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Sahana and prepared report which is Ex.PW4/A. He has gave subsequent opinion Ex.PW4/B.
12. PW5 HC Arun Pal has deposited the exhibits to FSL Rohini, New Delhi.
13. PW6 Mohd. Shahid is the brother of deceased Sahana and he has stated that after one month of marriage his sister was started harassing by the accused persons for less dowry. Accused Mohd. Farid used to make demand for maruti Car and he used to beat his sister and other accused used to support him. He received telephonic message from his sister that her in laws used to tell her husband to kill her or State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 6 of 40 turn her out from the house and then they will perform his second nikah in which they will take huge dowry and car. She told him that she will not be alive. He came to know about death of his sister on 27.8.07 and he has full doubt that his sister has been murdered after administering poison because of bringing less dowry. SDM recorded his statement which is Ex.PW6/B.
14. PW7 Rajuddin has deposed that deceased Sahana was his niece/bhanji and about 10 to 15 days prior to the death of Sahana, on Tuesday, he went to visit the in laws house of Sahana and he saw his niece was being beaten by accused Mohd. Farid and he was saying to his niece for not bringing the maruti van. He was also uttering that he will beat her like this if she will not bring the maruti car. Her mother in law, father in law and brother in law were also present there and uttering isko zeher de kar maar de ya ghar se nikal de hum teri tusri shadi kar denge'. After 10 days he came to know that his niece Sahana has expired.
15. PW8 L/ASI Nirmala has recorded the FIR no. 846/07 u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC copy of which is Ex.PW8/A.
16. PW9 Dr. Naushad Ahmad is the witness from Mazidia Hospital and he has appeared on behalf of Dr. Imtiaz Ahmed who State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 7 of 40 prepared the MLC of deceased Ex.PW9/A.
17. PW10 Ct. Krishan Kumar has deposed that on 27.08.07 SI Krishan Kr received DD no.44B and they reached in Mazidia hospital where IO collected the MLC of Sahana. He informed the SDM and got preserved the dead body in AIIMS. He has further stated that next day SDM Kalkaji came and recorded the statements of father, mother and brother of deceased Sahana. After post mortem viscera was handed over by the doctor which was seized vide memo Ex.PW10/A.
18. PW11 Alok Sharma is the then SDM and he has deposed that on 28.8.07 he reached in the hospital and recorded the statement Ex.PW1/D of Nawab Ali, Ex.PW6/B of Mohd Shahid and Ex.PW2/A of Jaibun. IO recorded the statements of identification of the dead body. He prepared the inquest proceedings and filled up form 25.35 Ex.PW11/A. He issued direction to concerned SHO to take legal action as per law. He made his endorsement on the post mortem report Ex.PW11/C.
19. PW12 Ct. Kunal Sharma has recorded DD no.44B copy of which is Ex.PW12/A and he handed over the DD to SI Kishan.
20. PW13 Sh Jitender Kumar, Sr. Scientific Assistant is the State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 8 of 40 witness from FSL Rohini and he examined the exhibits and gave report which is Ex.PW13/A.
21. PW14 HC Mohd. Harun is the MHCM who made entries in the register no.19 of malkhana regarding depositing of viscera and he has also stated that the case property was sent to FSL through Ct. Arun.
22. PW15 Insp. Kishan Kumar is the IO of this case and he has reached in the hospital on receipt of DD no.44B. He gave information to SDM. He got the dead body preserved in AIIMS vide application Ex.PW15/A. He has further stated that on 28.8.07 SDM came in the hospital and recorded the statement of father, mother and brother of deceased. He prepared the brief facts Ex.PW15/B and got conducted the post mortem. SHO on the direction of SDM made endorsement Ex.PW15/D and got the case registered. He seized the viscera. He collected the post mortem report. He arrested accused Mohd. Farid vide memo Ex.PW15/E and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW15/F. He was interrogated and he gave disclosure statement Ex.PW15/G. He sent the exhibits to FSL for analysis. He took into possession the marriage card and nikahnama vide memo Ex.PW1/C. State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 9 of 40
23. I have also perused the defence evidence led by accused persons. DW1 Dr. Prem Kapoor has stated that he examined deceased Sahana and she was suffering from sneezing, dry cough, wheezing. AS per his opinion she has cute spasmodic bronchitis with allergic rhinitis. On 27.8.07 Sahana was brought to him but she was already dead.
24. DW2 Gulfam Ahmad was present at the house of accused Mohd. Farid on the day of incident. He has stated that Sahana was suffering from cough so, she was taken to Dr. Prem Kapoor where he was directed to take her to Mazidia Hospital.The father, mother and sister of Sahana came to the hospital and told the police and given in writing that they do not want to take any action against the accused persons.
25. DW3 Rubina has stated that she used to visit the house of accused persons and that Sahana was residing happily and well. Sahana never complaint anything to her.
26. DW4 Dr.BL Chaudhary has conducted the post mortem on the dead body of deceased Sahana.
27. DW5 Mohd. Farid is the accused in this case and he has State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 10 of 40 been examined u/s 315 Cr.P.C. In his statement he has given all the details after marriage as to which placed he had gone with his wife Sahana. He has exhibited certain photographs in this respect. He has also deposed that he got the name of his wife registered in Mazidia Hospital during her pregnancy. He has got treatment for his wife from different doctors/hospital and marked the said documents. He has stated that his wife was suffering from asthma and that his wife died a natural death and it was because of asthmatic attack.
28. In the overall analysis of the testimonies of all the PWS it is revealed that PW1 Nawab Ali is the father of deceased, PW2 Jaibun is the mother of deceased, PW3 Hakim Ali is the uncle of deceased, PW6 Mohd. Shahid is the brother and PW7 Rajuddin is also the maternal uncle of deceased. These witnesses including PW11 Alok Sharma are the main star witnesses of the prosecution. PW1,2,3 6 & 7 are the near relatives of the deceased. Before discussing their deposition made in the court, I would like to mention here some case law relied upon by the ld. defence counsel. In case law Sunil Bajaj Vs. State of MP, 2001 (2) JCC (SC) 262 it is stated in head note:-
'Section 304B- It is pleaded that last letter of deceased did not mention any allegation of dowry demand - The letter of deceased does not speak of any demand of dowry and there is totally absence of demand of dowry and so sec.498A of IPC is not at all attracted - Thus the necessary ingredients of the offence of sec.304B of IPC is absence and so the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot sustain and so the appellant is State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 11 of 40 acquitted of the conviction u/s 304B IPC. It is further stated that : Both the courts below concurrently committed the appellant - But out of so many witnesses of the neighbour none could say that there was a dowry death and the deceased was soon before her death was subjected to demand of dowry which was necessary ingredient of the offence u/s 498A of IPC committed by the husband or by any of the family members or near relatives'.
In case law Baljeet Singh & Anr Vs. State of Haryana, 2004(1) JCC 627 it is stated in headnote that :
'Evidence Act. 1872 - Sec.113B- Presumption- Dowry death - Against accused persons to be drawn provided the prosecution establishes that soon before her death if the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment within 7 years of marriage'.
'Dowry death - Onus of proof- Preliminary facts - Proof of - Onus lies upon the prosecution - High Court erroneously shifted the burden upon the accused - About the date of marriage - Prosecution is required to prove that death occurred within 7 days of marriage - PW4 father of the deceased was not creditworthy - So were other related PW5 - Prosecution failed to discharge its initial onus of proof - PW5/ the mother stated that the deceased was depressed - This indicated that woman committed suicide in a state of depression - Hence conviction is set aside and appeal is allowed'.
In case Law Raman Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2009(3) JCC 1840 it is stated in head note that :
'Sec. 304B - Evidence Act, 1872 - Sec. 113B - Dowry Death - No incidence of demand of dowry or cruelty or harassment 'soon before death' - Letter relied on shows demand of articles by her parents by her own and not on the behalf of appellant - Improvements in the statements of prosecution witnesses - Prosecution squarely failed to establish accusations against appellant - Appeal allowed - Conviction set aside'.
In case law Harjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 1 SCC 463 it is State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 12 of 40 stated in head note that :
'Sec. 304B - Dowry death - soon before the death, deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband for or in connection with demand of dowry - Once this is established, a legal fiction is created under section 304B IPC whereby such death would be called dowry death - On facts held, ingredients of Sec.304B IPC r/ sec. 113 B Evidnce Act not satisfied'.
In case law Appasaheb & Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008(1) Crimes 110(SC) it is stated in head note that :
'Sec.304B - Dowry death- appellant convict under - Deceased died as a result of insecticide poisoning - Evidence of mother and father of deceased that when deceased visited her parents she used to narrate all treatment and beating for bringing money from her parents - Conviction by Trial court and upheld in appeal by High Court - Appeal - Both witnesses deposed that deceased was receiving ill treatment as a result of "domestic cause" as regards domestic cause they explained that there was a demand for money to meet expenses for mature and other domestic expenses - Evidence did not show that any demand for dowry was made - Essential ingredient of dowry death i.e. demand for dowry was not established - Conviction could not be sustained.
One Important point has been stated that :
'A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses cannot be termed as demand for dowry and conviction for dowry death on such demand could not be sustained'.
In case law Bhaskar Ramappa Madar & ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2009 (3) JCC 1622 it is stated in head note that :
'Sec.498A- Demand of dowry - The facts that husband of deceased owned a truck which need heavy repairs - The amount given for the purpose does not amount to demand of dowry'.
State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 13 of 40 In case law Tarsen Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2009 (1) JCC 372 it is stated in head note that:-
'One of the essential ingredients amongst others, is that the woman must have been 'soon before her death' subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with the demand for dowry - Nothing on record to show that any demand of dowry was made soon before her death- The cause of action appears to be an ego problem on the part of the appellant, namely the deceased had not been coming to her matrimonial home - Conviction u/s 304B not proved'.
'Cruelty or harassment - When the name of the appellant/husband and his parents were material in the FIR - It is clear that all of them had been ill treating deceased for non bringing of sufficient dowry and not bearing a child- Not correct to contend that FIR does not contain any statement of cruelty or harassment of the deceased especially when death occurred within 7 years of marriage and dead body was found in matrimonial home'.
It is stated in case Arvind Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2001(1) JCC (SC 341 that:-
'Sec.302, 304B and 498A - deceased wife died of burn injuries
- No independent and reliable witness - prosecution case based on evidence of interest witnesses and members of the family of deceased and also on the basis of dying declaration made to the mother of deceased. Deceased remained at the house and could not be admitted to hospital - parents of deceased informed - Oral dying declaration made at home and not in presence of any doctor or any other independent witness - Courts below acquitting other family members of the appellant/husband - Dying declaration not tained on basis of such dying declaration
- No clearcut evidence of dowry demand on record- no doctor's evidence - Benefit of doubt extended to appellant'.
It is stated in case Sabar Bhatti & Ors. Vs. State, 2009(v) AD (Cr) State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 14 of 40 (DHC) 209 that :-
'Improvements of material nature in depositions of parents of M - No Particulars of dates when dowry demands made and amounts paid, given - Conviction of Z, Mother in law, and S u/s 498A, set aside'.
In case law Jai Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995(1) Crimes 611 it is stated in head note:
'Sec.304B & 498A - Deceased, Wife of appellant, was married to appellant two and half year prior to incident - cause of death as per post mortem was asphyxia due to organo phosphorus poisoning - Evidence of father of deceased that deceased used to complain that her in laws maltreated and harassed her and taunted for insufficient dowry - Significant omission in FIR and statement before police regarding demand of motor cycle by appellant - Evidence regarding cruelty and maltreatment, quite vague, inconsistent and untrustworthy - Independent two witnesses, neighbours not produced - Co-accused acquitted by trial court on same evidence - Conviction of appellant is unsustainable'.
In case Law Kalyan & Ors. Vs. State of UP, 2001(2) JCC (SC) 203 it is stated in head note that :
'Appreciation of evidence -Incident stated in FIR, being the first version of the occurrence has to be given due weightage - The case of the prosecution, as sought to be proved at the trial, appears to be different than the one as narrated in the FIR - view taken by trial court in acquitting the appellants herein is justified'.
'Prosecution setting out a new case in evidence, which is in contradiction to the version stated in FIR - Witnesses are partisan witnesses and also inimical towards one accused - Conflict in oral evidence as against medical evidence- Was High Court right in disturbing the order of acquittal - Held (NO)'.
State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 15 of 40 In case law Babita Vs. State, 2009(2) JCC 1247 it is stated in head note that :
'Sec.304B and 498A- no specific demand have been made except the demand of Rs.1,50,000/- which according to the father of deceased was made at the time of marriage - Cannot make out a case of harassment soon before the death - No dying declaration of deceased was recorded - Not a single instance of harassment by petitioner who is sister in law of deceased soon before her death - No basis to frame charge against petition'.
In case law titled Basavaraja and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 329 it is stated in headnote that :
Criminal Trial - Charge - Appellant charged for causing death by setting deceased on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her - Such charge framed despite medical evidence that death was due to smothering and buns on deceased's persons were post mortem - while examining accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC, two questions put to them which supported their defence rather requiring them to explain circumstances appearing in vidence against them - such casual approach in framing charge and questioning the accused u/s 313, deprecated - conviction set aside.
29. Ld. APP for the state has relied upon case law titled Teyab Khan & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, 2006 Crl. L.J. 544 (SC) it is stated in head note that :
'mere absence of viscera report showing as to whether death occurred on account of consumption of poison - does not make any difference to fate the case - Fact remains that it is a case of unnatural death - evidence of witnesses showing that deceased was being constantly harassed for demands on account of dowry - Conviction of appellant accused and co State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 16 of 40 accused u/s 304B proper'.
Ld. APP for the State has also relied upon case law Kamesh Panjiyar Vs. State of Bihar, 2005 CRI. L.J. 1418 in which it is stated that : -
'No evidence showing that death of deceased was due to normal circumstances - Nor any material shown to explain injuries on neck of deceased in order to prove that death was normal - Plea of accused that possible cause of death was not ascertainable as per opinion of doctor - Not tenable - Evidence of witnesses established demand of dowry and ill treatment of deceased shortly before date of occurrence - Offence of dowry death made out - conviction of accused u/s 304B, proper'.
In case law titled Satbir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana 2005 CRI L.J. 4137 it is stated that :
'Evidence showing deceased was harassed for not bringing more dowry - Ingredient of sec. 304B established by prosecution - Onus lies on accused to rebut presumption u/s 113B of Evidence Act - Defence plea that deceased died of heart attack - not tenable in absence of any evidence showing that deceased was suffering from heart ailment - Conviction of accused persons, proper'.
In case titled Ram Narain & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2010 (CRI L.J (NOC) 517 (RAJ) it is stated that :-
'Dowry death and cruelty - Proof - Allegations that accused husband and in laws harassed deceased for demand of dowry and she was done to death as the lust was not satisfied - deceased died in suspicious condition at her in laws house -
State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 17 of 40 No cogent explanation by accused husband as to how the crime was committed in view of sec. 106 of Evidence Act - Accused husband held guilty for offence u/s 304 B and 498A and sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - Other accused persons are given benefit of doubt for charge of Sec. 304B'.
30. To bring the guilt of the accused persons u/s 498A/304B IPC it is necessary to discuss the relevant provisions. Section 304B relates to dowry death. The same was introduced in the Indian Penal Code and it reads as under:-
Sec.304 B (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demands for dowry such death shall be called dowry death and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
For the purpose of this sub section dowry shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the dowry prohibition Act 1961.
'Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life'.
And if the ingredients of section 304B have been completed then the presumption u/s 113 B in the Indian Evidence Act is required.
Section 113 B Presumption as to dowry death - when the question 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.
State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 18 of 40 In a case of dowry death cruelty on part of husband towards his wife by prosecution has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and section 113 B of Evidence Act does not alter this requirement of stick proof.
Section 498 A IPC reads as under:-
'Husband or relatives of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband or a woman subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall be liable to fine'.
31. There is explanation for the purpose of this section cruelty means:-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life ,limb or health (whether mental or physical ) of the woman or
(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
32. In the normal circumstances though cruelty at any time after marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and harassment envisaged by section 304B is to be seen before the death of a woman and it is the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is demand and then the atmosphere becomes calm and quiet and then again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of the husband within the short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 19 of 40 considerable difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as the torture and harassment is confined within the four walls of the house. However, the courts are to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in laws are strained for any reason whatsoever it might be.
33. Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological trouble or mental agony or such circumstances that the person committing suicide may think that the life he or she is living is more miserable than the pangs and agony of death. The power of tolerance would vary from person to person. Some persons try to make the life easy by tolerance while others even on petty points bring an end to their life.
34. Reverting back to the testimonies of witnesses, firstly I would consider the testimonies of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution who are related to deceased. PW1 Nawab Ali is the father of deceased Sahana and he is also the complainant in this case. He has stated that he solemnized the marriage of his daughter with Mohd Farid on 13.4.05 as per Muslim Rites and Customs and he gave State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 20 of 40 sufficient gift items as per list Ex.PW1/A. He has further stated that after one month of marriage accused persons started harassing and torturing his daughter for bringing Maruti 800 car with Rs.25,000/- and it was disclosed by his deceased daughter Sahana just one month prior to her death. This version of PW1 has been objected to by the ld. defence counsel. He has further stated that his daughter used to complained about harassment and torture by the accused persons for bringing Rs.25,000/- with Maruti 800 car but he was not in a position to give the same. Accused Mohd. Farid used not to be happy with him and his family members for not fulfilling the demands. He visited the matrimonial house of his daughter one day prior of her death with some gifts and at that time he saw his daughter quite healthy and after giving him due respect she was not allowed again by the accused persons to meet him till he remain present there. Prior to one month of her death his daughter told him that her husband, father in law, mother in law and brother in law uttered to her that they will kill her and then they will solemnize the nikah of their son somewhere else. He further deposed that he came to know about death of his daughter on 27.8.07. I have also perused his cross examination wherein he has staetd that he used to earn a sum of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- p.m. He used to live on rented accommodation. All the accused persons were known to him and his family members prior to marriage as the accused Yamin is the co brother/sadu of his cousin Zafruddin. The marriage of deceased was State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 21 of 40 arranged through his foofa/maternal uncle Noor Mohd and one Hafiz. He admitted that the engagement of his younger daughter Ruby was also done on the same day with the cousin of Mohd. Farid. But the said engagement has been broken later on prior to the marriage of his deceased daughter. When he reached in the hospital 5/6 person were present including his wife and daughter and accused Farukh and Farid and some police officials. He visited the house of accused persons 8 or 10 times after the marriage of his daughter. He does not know when his daughter was pregnant she used to take treatment from Majidia Hospital. He denied that his daughter was suffering from Asthma prior to her nikah. He admitted that he has not made any complaint regarding harassment and demand of dowry by the accused persons prior to the death of his daughter. In the above noted statement PW1 who is the complainant in this case and father of the deceased has made allegation against the accused persons that they demanded maruti 800 car with Rs.25,000/- and that accused persons uttered to her that they will kill her. After death of deceased Sahana, SDM has recorded the statement of PW1 on the basis of which the present case was registered. I have also perused the said statement Ex.PW1/D and it is necessary to reproduce the same.
Statement of Sh. Nawab Ali Saifi age 52 years r/o RZ 333/21 Tuglakabad Extension, New Delhi State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 22 of 40 I, Nawab Ali Saifi state that I have five children. Sahana was my daughter. The age of Sahana was 22 years. The Nikah of Sahana was performed on 14.4.05 with Mohd. Farid s/o Yamin R/oD-130 Gali no.5 Sangam Vihar. After about one month from nikah, his daughter was started harassing for dowry. It was disclosed to him by his daughter. His daughter also disclosed to him that her husband used to beat her and used to demand money. His damad/son in law stopped talking to him when he tried to make him understand. He never suspected that his daughter will expire in this way. On 27.8.07 at about 9.30 p.m he came back to his house and his daughter in law disclosed to him that Sahana is in Hospital and mother of Sahana and her daughter had gone there. He also went to the hospital where he came to know that Sahana had expired. His son in law has not disclosed anything to him. He suspect the hand of his son in law in the death of his daughter. By way of post mortem, the reason of death may kindly be known. He had gone to meet and give festival items to his daughter this Sunday. His daughter was quite well and she was not suffering from any disease. Investigation be carried out for her sudden death and action be taken against the culprits.
sd/-
Nawab Ali
35. Taking into consideration the above statement of PW1 Nawab Ali, it is revealed that there is no allegation against accused Yamin, State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 23 of 40 Vakila and Farukh and he has only stated that accused Mohd. Farid used to beat his daughter and used to ask for money. He has not disclosed to SDM as to what amount of money he used to demand. So, the version of PW1 for demand of Rs.25,000/- deposed before the court has come under improvement. He has nowhere stated about demand of maruti 800 car in his stated Ex.PW1/D. So,he has again made improvement in this respect before the court. The allegation that accused persons uttered to his daughter that she will be killed and they will get Farid married again is also missing from the statement recorded by the SDM. So, this version of PW1 is also cannot be considered. On perusal of the statement recorded before the court as well as statement recorded by the SDM it is revealed that he has made glaring improvements in this testimony. There is also no prior complaint with regard to harassment and demand of dowry prior to death of deceased Sahana available on file.
36. PW2 Jaibun is the mother of deceased and in her statement she has stated that after one month of nikah accused Mohd. Farid started beating her daughter and accused Smt. Vakila, Yamin and Farukh also started torturing and harassing for demand of maruti car. PW1 who is the father of deceased has stated about demand of Rs.25,000/- by the accused persons but PW2 who is the mother has not corroborated his version in this respect. She has further stated that State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 24 of 40 prior to one month of the death of her daughter, her husband went to the house of accused persons to see his daughter Sahana's well being and at that time she told her husband that she was being so harassed and tortured for demand for maruti car and when they refused they started beating her mercilessly. PW1 who had allegedly gone to the accused persons house has deposed differently on this aspect as he has stated that when he had gone there his daughter paid him due respect and after that accused persons did not allow her to meet him. He has not corroborated the version of PW2 that his daughter has disclosed to him about harassment, torture and demand of maruti car at that time. Infact PW1 has stated that he saw his daughter healthy at that time. PW2 has further stated that her daughter also told her husband Nawab Ali that accused Yamin, Vakila nad Farukh used to tell her husband Mohd. Farid that they all will kill her and they will perform his second nikah from where they can get sufficient dowry and maruti car. On perusal of the testimony of PW1 in this respect he has stated that her daughter told this to him and his family members while as PW2 it was told to PW1 only. It seems that this version has not been stated at the time when PW1 had gone to the house of Sahana because in examination in chief he has stated that after meeting once, accused persons did not allow her to meet with him again. PW2 has further stated about receiving of information regarding admission of her daughter in the hospital on 27.8.07. She has casted doubt on the State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 25 of 40 accused persons. SDM has recorded her statement which is Ex.PW2/A. I have also perused her cross examination wherein she has stated that SDM has explained her statement. She denied that accused Mohd. Farid gave information about admission of Sahana in hospital. She has been confronted with her statement regarding allegation of demand of maruti car alleged by her in her statement. It is revealed that she has improved her statement in this respect. She has further stated that she does not recollect whether she has stated to the SDM regarding going of her husband to the house of accused persons one month prior to her death. This has also come under improvement. She has further stated that there was no middleman in the marriage of deceased Sahana and it was arranged directly by her husband. PW1 who is the husband of PW2 has stated that it was arranged through Noor Mohd and Hafiz. She does not know whether her daughter had gone to Shimla after her marriage or not. She does not know whether her daughter used to be check up in Majidia Hospital or not. After marriage till death her daughter came to her residence 3-4 times. Further she has stated that during the said period her daughter told her that she is used to be taken to Majidia Hospital for her medical check up by the accused Mohd. Farid for her pregnancy. First she denied about medical check up in Majidia Hospital and then she admitted about the same. She cannot say as to who were present from the side of accused in the hospital, AIIMS. She also admitted that engagement State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 26 of 40 of their younger daughter Ruby was done with cousin of Mohd Farid. The said engagement was broken due to Mohd. Farid. The version of PW2 that the said engagement was broken due to Mohd. Farid smells some enmity between them. In her entire statement PW2 has levelled the allegations against the accused persons for demand for maruti but that has come under improvement. I have also perused her statement recorded by the SDM which is Ex.PW2/A. In the entire statement she has not levelled any allegation against the accused Yamin,Farukh, Vakila and Farid. She has stated that Mohd.Farid used to say "mai car kay layak hun" (I am eligible for car). But this cannot be taken as demand for car. On the other hand the versions of PW2 made before the court has come under improvement. PW6 Shahid is the brother of deceased has also stated that accused Mohd. Farid used to demand maruti 800 and when it was not fulfilled he used to beat Sahana and other accused used to support him. PW1 & 2 have stated that they all used to demand Maruti while PW6 has stated that accused Farid used to demand Maruti. However, he has improved his statement in this respect before the court. He has further stated that Sahana told him that she will not live alive and when he asked about the reason she had disconnected the phone. PW6 is the brother of Sahana and when his sister has uttered such wording to him she should have made call to her again. But there is no evidence that he made her phone again. Also he has not taken any step to inform the police. He has stated that he State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 27 of 40 has full doubt that his sister has been murdered after administration of poison. I have also perused his cross examination. He has made improvement in his statement regarding giving beating to his sister by the accused persons, demand of maruti 800 & supporting accused Mohd. Farid by other accused for giving beating. So, whatever allegations he has levelled against the accused persons, all have been improved by him in his statement and these cannot be taken into consideration. He has further stated in cross examination that he did not see anyone from the side of accused persons in the hospital while PW1&2 have admitted that they were there. He also admitted about breaking of engagement of his sister. He has stated that at the time of death of his deceased sister her male child was around one year old and they did not take any action to take the custody of that child. He denied that his sister was suffering from Asthma and she used to take treatment from Majidia Hospital as well as some other hospitals. On perusal of his testimony also nothing incriminating could come on record against the accused persons. All the witnesses PW1,2 & 6 who are the family members of deceased Shana have made glaring improvements in their testimonies as well as they have made contradictory statements which create doubt in the case of the prosecution.
37. PW3 Hakim Ali is the uncle of deceased Sahana and PW7 State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 28 of 40 Rajuddin is the maternal uncle of Sahana. He has stated that accused used to demand maruti 800 car and used to taunt his niece Sahana. This witness has failed to state as to what does not mean by taunt. He has not explained as to what the accused persons used to utter. He has not stated as to who disclosed to him about demand of maruti 800 by the accused persons. He has further stated that one day suddenly he went to the inlaws house of deceased and asked his niece as to how she is residing there and she replied that she is not residing there well. He has not specified as to what he does he mean by not residing well. It may be that she was not keeping well because of her illness. He has further stated that her in laws used to say to her husband either to leave her or kill her. PW1,2 & 6 have not stated that PW3 had also gone to the house of Sahana and if version had been disclosed to PW3 by Sahana, he must have stated the same to PW1&2 but there is no evidence that it was disclosed by PW3 to PW1&2. On perusal of his cross examination it has revealed that he has made improvement that Sahana was started beating by her in laws, about well settled gharana, and not residing well of Sahana. He has stated that his son was married four years ago and Farid and Sahana attended the said marriage. If accused Mohd. Farid was not having speaking terms with the in law family as per version of PW1&2, he would not have joined the said marriage ceremony also. He has stated that accused family is known to him. He denied that Sahana had died natural death. PW7 Rajuddin State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 29 of 40 who is maternal uncle of deceased Sahana had gone to the house of accused persons 10 to 15 days prior to her death and he has stated that he saw that his niece was being beaten by accused Mohd. Farid at that time. But in cross examination he has stated that he did not make any complaint to the police but he informed his brother in law. PW1,2 & 6 have not corroborated his version that PW7 has ever visited the house of Sahana and disclosed about the beating incident of that day. So, this version of PW7 did not find any corroboration. He has stated that in laws of his niece were uttering that 'isko zeher de kar maar de ya ghar se nikal de him teir tusir shadi kar denge'. In cross examination he has stated that there is no other house after the house of accused as the gali is closed. In the adjoining house there are other houses. Since PW1, 2 & 6 have not corroborated his deposition, it is not believable. PW1,2&6 were the main relatives of deceased Sahana in this case.
38. Considering the above discussion, to prove the case u/s 304B IPC three ingredients have to be proved (i) unnatural death (ii) within 7 years of marriage and (iii) soon before death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relative of her husband (iv) such cruelty must be in connection with demand of dowry (v) such cruelty is shown to have been meted to the woman soon before her death. In this case the death did not occurred by hanging. To know the cause of death the testimony of PW4 Dr. Ashish State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 30 of 40 Jain is very significant. He has conducted the post mortem on the death body of deceased Sahana. He has found three injuries :-
1. A contusion of size 2x1 cm over anterior aspect of the left thigh, 4 cm above left knee joint.
2. A contusion of size 1x1 cm present over shin of tibia on the left side which is 7 cm below left knee joint.
3. A contusion of size 1x0.5 cm over shin of tibia on the right side which is 7 cm below right knee joint.
39. PW4 has stated that he gave opinion Ex.PW4/B after going through the post mortem report and FSL report regarding toxicological analysis of the viscera that the cause of death in this case cannot be ascertained as there are no significance positive findings in the post mortem examination and FSL analysis report. Injuries mentioned in the post mortem report are insufficient to cause death independently. However, poisoning as a cause of death cannot be ruled out. PW13 Sh Jitender Kumar, Sr. Scientific Assistant has given the result of FSL which is Ex.PW13/A. I have also perused the same. AS per result, the preserved viscera was examined by PW13 and he has opined that on examination, thin layer chromatography and atomic absorption spectroscopy examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and insecticides could not be detected in Ex.1A i.e. stomach and piece of small intestine, Ex.1B piece of liver, spleen and kidney, Ex.1C i.e. State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 31 of 40 blood sample vol. 25 ml. and Ex.1D i.e. preservative samples saturated solution of common salt. As per allegation of PW1,2&3 they suspected that deceased Sahana was administered some poisonous substance. But as per FSL result no poison could be detected while as per Post mortem report Sahana was brought death with allegation of taking unknown poisonous substance. As per opinion Ex.PW4/B of doctor who conducted the post mortem it seems to be a natural death. So, the death in this case of deceased Sahana is not unnatural death. So, the first ingredient of sec.304 B is not proved. However, the death occurred within 7 years of marriage. It not necessary to find out as to whether the deceased was harassed soon before her death because the Ist ingredient of sec.304 remained unproved. However, considering the deposition of PW1,2,3,6 &7, there is no evidence that deceased Sahana was subjected to cruelty or harassment on account of demand of dowry and that she died unnatural death. Hence, ingredients of Sec.304B IPC are not complete in this case.
40. I have also perused the testimonies of other official witnesses. PW5 HC Arun Pal is the formal witness who took the exhibits to FSL vide RC no.389/21. PW8 L/ASI Nirmala is also the formal witness who recorded the FIR no. 846/07 u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC copy of which is Ex.PW8/A. PW9 Dr. Naushad Ahmed is also a State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 32 of 40 formal witness who prepared the MLC of deceased Shana in Majidia Hospital which is Ex.PW9/A. PW12 Ct. Kunal Sharma has recorded DD no.44B on the receipt of which IO had reached in Majidia Hospital. However, he has stated that Ex.PW12/A is not in his hand. So, DD no.44B could not be proved as per law. PW14 HC Mohd. Harun is a formal witness who made entries regarding depositing of case property in the malkhana. PW11 Sh Alok Kumar, the then Executive Magistrate had recorded the statements Ex.PW1/D of Nawab Ali, Ex.PW6/B of Shahid and Ex.PW2/A of Jaibun. He also conducted the inquest proceedings. In cross examination he has stated that he has recorded the statements correctly and as per the version of father, mother and brother of deceased. PW10 Ct. Krishan Kumar and PW15 Insp. Kishan Kumar both reached in Majidia Hospital after receiving DD no.44B. Both have stated that the dead body was got preserved as per the direction of SDM in AIIMS Hospital and SDM came on next date and recorded the statements of mother, father and brother of deceased Sahana. PW10 has stated in cross examination that his statement was recorded by the IO but the same is not available on file. PW15 has further stated that inquest proceedings were conducted and dead body was handed over to father and brother of deceased. He got the case registered. He arrested accused Mohd. Farid on 3.9.07 from his house and recorded his disclosure statement. On the basis of said disclosure statement no recovery has been effected. So, it State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 33 of 40 is not admissible in evidence. In cross examination he has stated that during his interrogation he came to know that on the day of incident Sahana went for walking after having taking dinner. Vol. she went to the doctor on foot also. He came to know only that she was ill but he did not come to know that she was suffering from asthmatic problem. He made search of entire house to search any clue regarding the incident. He admitted that he did not find any clue like any point of vomiting in any place of the house. He also made enquiry from the neighbourhood. He did not record any statement of any person in Majidia Hospital. He denied the suggestion that he recorded the statements of parents of deceased as well as Mohd. Farid in Majidia Hospital. He further denied that no allegations was made in those statements by the father and mother of deceased. He did not serve any notice to Hakim Ali and Rajuddin but they came to PS on their own. He further denied the suggestion that he did not record the statements of the persons present at the house of accused persons on 28.8.07 because they were not supporting the case of the prosecution. From the version of PW15 Insp. Kishan Kumar who is IO of this case it has come in cross examination that he came to know that on the day of incident Sahana went to the doctor on foot and he came to know that she was ill but he did not come to know that she was suffering from asthma problem. It is emphatically clear from the statement of PW15 that on the day of incident deceased Sahana was ill. It is also the State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 34 of 40 defence of the accused persons in this case that deceased Sahana was suffering from asthma. So, I have also taken into consideration the testimonies of defence witnesses.
41. DW1 Dr. Prem Kapoor has examined the deceased on 18.8.07 and he has stated that she was suffering from sneezing, dry cough, wheezing. He also examined her on 22.8.07. He has stated that as per his opinion the patient was having acute spasmodic bronchitis with allergic rhinitis. He has also stated that on 27.8.07 Sahana was brought to him but she was already dead. He checked her and found the pupils were semi dilated and non reacting and froth was coming out from her mouth. From the deposition of DW1 it is crystal clear that deceased Sahana was suffering from acute Spasmodic bronchitis with allergic rhinitis. DW2 Gulfam Ahmad has stated that Sahana Sahana was suffered from coughing so he alongwith Farooq took her to Dr. Prem Kapoor and thereafter she was taken to Majidia Hospital where she was declared brought dead. Family members of Sahana also reached there and gave in writing that they do not want any action against the accused persons. PW3 Rubina has stated that Sahana was residing happily and well. In cross examination she has stated that she came to the court at the instance of accused persons and they told her that whatever she had seen with her own eyes she have to depose the same. DW5 Mohd. Farid who is accused in this case has examined State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 35 of 40 himself u/s 315 Cr.PC and in his statement he has deposed right from the marriage till death of deceased Sahana. He has stated that he took Sahana to various places. The photographs are also available on file. I have perused the photographs and in the photographs, Sahana is looking happy. He got the name of Sahana registered in Majidia Hospital during pregnancy tenure. The hospital record has been produced by the accused in this respect. It has been marked by the accused. Though not exhibited, but it seems that deceased had been registered in the said hospital for delivery. He has further stated that he took Sahana to Dr. Julfikar at Guru Karkishan Hospital when she started feeling leg pain and she developed problem of coughing and sneezing. He took her to Dr. Qaisar Alam and then he took her to Majidia Hospital for Unani treatment of coughing where Dr. Shakeel treated her. He has also stated that on 18.8.07 she was taken to Dr. Prem Kapur by his father where doctor stated that it is problem of Asthama. He has also stated that on 27.8.07 Sahana was taken to Dr. Prem Kapur's Clinic by his younger brother and Gulfam and on the way she suffered an asthmatic attack and when Dr. Kapur examined her he said to take her to hospital. He was informed and Sahana was taken by them to Majidia Hospital where she died. He has stated that he kept his wife happily and she died a natural death because of asthmatic attack. As per the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution, it could not be established that the death of Sahana was State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 36 of 40 unnatural death. So, from the testimony of DW1 it seems that Sahana was suffering from Asthma and she died natural death. In case Law 2002 (1) JCC 385 State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh with Rai Sahab & Anr Vs. State of Haryana it is stated in head note that :-
'Defence Witnesses - Appreciation of evidence of - Held: that the evidence tendered by defence witnesses cannot always be termed to be a tainted one, and the defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment and equal respect as that of the prosecution - Held:
further that the issue of credibility and the trustworthiness ought also to be attributed to the defence witnesses at par with that of the prosecution - Since the High Court rejected the evidence of defence witnesses quite casually - Practice deprecated - Appellant acquitted'.
42. In view of the above overall analysis of the testimonies of the witnesses and in brief no allegations have been levelled by complainant Nawab Ali who is father of the deceased Sahana in his complaint Ex.PW1/D. Whatever allegations he had made in the statement recorded in the court, that has come under improvement and he had made glaring improvement in his testimony. Other Pws PW2,3,6 & 7 have also not levelled any allegations and whatever allegation they have levelled that has come under improvement and even they have also made glaring improvements in their testimonies.
PW1 has stated about demand of Rs.25,000/- which has not been State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 37 of 40 stated by other PWS and all the above relatives have stated about demand of Maruti 800 car but that has also not been mentioned by them in their statements recorded by the SDM. So, they have improved their statements in this respect. The main allegation in the statement recorded by the SDM was that Sahana had been administered some poisonous substance. But as per FSL result no such poisonous substance could be detected. They have not levelled any allegation for demand of any household items. Prosecution could not proved that the death of Sahana was unnatural. So, in this case ingredients of section 304B IPC is absent and there is no allegation for soon before death of harassing for demand of dowry of deceased Sahana because whatever allegations have been made in the statements recorded before the court that has not been stated before the SDM. So, I am of the opinion that Sahana was not maltreated soon before death or even at any time after marriage by the accused persons. It has been established on record that deceased Sahana had been suffering from Asthma and even on the day of her death she was taken to DW1 Dr. Prem Kapoor but she expired on the way and he advised them to take her to big hospital. PW2 Jaibun who is the mother of deceased Sahana has stated that the marriage of her younger daughter has broken due to accused Mohd. Farid. It seems that it was an opportunity with her to level allegation against the accused persons when her daughter Sahana has expired.
State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 38 of 40
43. In view of my above discussions and considering the case laws discussed above, this case does not fall under the category of section 304B IPC and no presumption can be taken against the accused persons u/s 113 B of Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.
44. It is well settled principle of law in AIR 2003 SC 3609, State of Punjab Vs.Karnail Singh that :-
"Golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the views which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of the guilty is not less than from the conviction of an innocent".
45. In over all analysis of the testimonies of the witnesses this case does not fall under the category of 304B IPC and I also did not find any evidence against the accused persons u/s 498A IPC keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. So, I am of the State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 39 of 40 considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons. In such circumstances, the accused persons are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. I therefore give the benefit of doubt to accused Mohd. Farid, Yamin, Smt. Vakila and Farukh and I therefore, hereby acquit accused Mohd. Farid, Yamin, Smt. Vakila and Farukh from the charges levelled against them u/s 304B/498A/34 IPC. All the accused persons are on bail. Their bail bond are cancelled and sureties are discharged. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on 27.07.2010.
(SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (Fast Track Court-New Delhi and South East District) NEW DELHI State Vs.Mohd. Farid etc FIR no.846/07 Page No. 40 of 40