Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Veer Singh S/O Jai Singh, on 9 December, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEIII: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
SC No.136/08
ID No.02404R0657392007
FIR No.522/07
PS S.P. Badli
U/s 498A IPC
State Vs. 1. Veer Singh S/o Jai Singh,
R/o B42, Kewal Park, Azad Pur,
Delhi.
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE:
09.12.2011
Present: Sh. A.K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for the state.
Convict is present with his counsel Sh. R.P. Bhardwaj.
It is stated by the ld. Counsel for the convict that, convict
has already spent four years in JC, during the trial and the maximum
State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07
2
punishment u/s. 498A IPC is three years, therefore, it is prayed that
he be sentenced for the period already undergone, during the trial.
On the other hand, Shri A.K. Srivastava, ld. Addl. PP for
the State submits that fine be also imposed upon him.
I have gone through the rival contentions.
Since the convict has already spent around four years in
JC during the trial, the fine part is also taken care of by extra year
spent by him in JC. Consequently, the interest of justice shall be met
if the convict is sentenced to the period already undergone during the
trial u/s. 498A IPC.
Copy of the judgment and that of sentence be provided to
the convict free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Sanjeev Aggarwal)
On 09.12.2011 Addl. Sessions Judge
Rohini Courts: Delhi.
State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07
3
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEIII: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
SC No.136/08
ID No.02404R0657392007
FIR No.522/07
PS S.P. Badli
U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC
State Vs. 1. Veer Singh S/o Jai Singh,
R/o B42, Kewal Park, Azad Pur,
Delhi.
2. Dhan Pati W/o Jai Singh,
R/o B42, Kewal Park, Azad Pur,
Delhi.
3. Kanwar Singh S/o Jai Singh,
R/o B42, Kewal Park, Azad Pur,
Delhi.
4. Hawa Singh S/o Jai Singh,
R/o B42, Kewal Park, Azad Pur,
Delhi.
State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07
4
5. Jai Singh S/o Prabhu Ram,
R/o B42, Kewal Park, Azad Pur,
Delhi.
6. Roshni W/o Ravindra,
R/o C3, Ramgarh, Jhangir Puri,
Delhi.
7. Raj Wanti W/o Sukhbir,
R/o VPO Jharoda Mazra, Delhi.
8. Rukmani W/o Sher Singh,
R/o VPO Jharoda Mazra, Delhi.
Date of institution in Session Court : 09.01.2008
Date of transfer to this Court : 05.12.2008
Date of Judgment : 05.12.2011
JUDGEMENT:
1. In brief the prosecution story is that on 06.06.2007 following statement was made by one Smt. Laxmi Devi to the SDM:
"That she had married her daughter Poonam as per Hindu State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 5 Rites and rituals, around 6 years ago on 26.11.2001 with Veer Singh. In the marriage they had given dowry as per their status, but the in laws of Poonam were not happy with the same and they started harassing her from the very beginning. They had also given one scooter in the marriage, which was returned by their soninlaw. Thereafter, he demanded motorcycle from them, which they did not fulfill. Due to this, Veer Singh and motherinlaw of Poonam, Dhanpati, fatherinlaw Jai Singh, Dewar Lala and Babu quarreled with her, and three sisters of Veer Singh also used to quarrel with her. Veer Singh had also demanded Rs. 15,000/ through Poonam, which they had given in order to save her matrimonial life. Despite that they continued to harass her, and when she became pregnant they left her at their house, and thereafter she gave birth to one female child. State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 6 After that, her in laws took her back to their back and started beating her again, and her motherinlaw and husband gave her beatings as a result of which her hand was broken and they again left her at their house. Thereafter, Poonam gave birth to another male child, namely, Rahul. Thereafter, they lodged a complaint against Veer Singh and other family members at CAW Cell, Dhaula Kuan. Thereafter, matter was compromised there and Veer Singh took Poonam and children to his house, where Veer Singh was constructing one house with the help of his father, to build the said house he also demanded Rs. 1,00,000/ from them, which demand they could not fulfill, due to this they killed Poonam. When, they came to see Poonam along with their relatives and neighbours, at that time Veer Singh along with his brother Babu and Lala and other relatives quarreled with them".
State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 7
2. After recording of the said statement by the concerned SDM, the opinion of the autopsy surgeon regarding the cause of death was awaited and pending that report and endorsement was made by the SDM, directing the SHO PS S.P. Badli to register an FIR U/s 304B/498A IPC and the investigation were handed over to Inspector Sanjeev Kumar.
3. During the investigation(s), the I.O prepared the site plan of the spot. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The chief electrical inspector Govt. of NCT was informed for inspection of the site. After that, accused Veer Singh was arrested. His disclosure statement was also recorded and he was arrested.
4. During the investigation(s), the site was inspected by electrical inspector, who gave his report. The postmortem report regarding the cause of death of deceased Poonam was obtained. However, the State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 8 cause of death was not given by the autopsy surgeon awaiting the FSL Report, as it was stated that the cause of death would be given, as and when the FSL report would be received.
5. The report of the electrical inspector was obtained. The remaining accused persons were released on anticipatory bail by the concerned court and they were also later on formally arrested in this case and released on bail. The complaints made by Poonam before the CAW Cell were collected and filed along with the charge sheet.
6. After completion of the investigation(s), a charge sheet U/s 302/304B/498A/34 IPC was filed in the court.
7. Upon committal of the case to the court of sessions, a charge U/s 498/A/304B/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons, vide order, dt. 03.092008, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 9
8. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case has examined 17 witnesses. PW1 is Dr. Sanjay Kumar, from BJRM Hospital, who has proved the MLC of the deceased, dt. 29.07.2007, which is Ex.PW1/A. PW1 is again Laxmi, mother of the deceased. The said witness be read as PW1A. She is the star witness of the prosecution. PW2 is Sh. Mukesh Sharma, Assistant Electrical Inspector. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, who has proved his detailed report, Ex.PW2/A. PW3 is HC Chander Mohan with whom case property pertaining to the present case was deposited by the I.O for safe custody during the investigations. PW4 is Dr. K. Goyal, who has proved his postmortem report, Ex.PW4/A, and has deposed regarding his opinion pertaining to the cause of death. PW5 is Sh. Vijay Dogra, then SDM, who had recorded the statement of the mother of the deceased Laxmi Devi on 29.06.2007 and who had also carried out inquest proceedings and State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 10 directed the SHO PS S.P. Badli to register the FIR. PW6 is HC Devender, the duty constable at BJRM Hospital, who informed the PS S.P. Badli, regarding the admission of the Poonam in the said hospital. PW7 is SI Manohar Lal draftsman, who has proved the scaled site plan of the spot, which is Ex.PW7/A. PW8 is Deepak, the brother of the deceased. PW9 is HC Satish Kumar, DD writer, who has proved the DD No.34B, Ex.PW9/A, dt. 29.06.2007. PW10 is Daya Nand, cousin of the deceased. PW11 is HC Rajbir, who took some part in the investigation(s), including in the arrest of the accused Veer Singh. PW12 is Ct. Mahesh Kumar, who was present at the time of postmortem and other investigation(s). PW13 is ACP Jagpal Kaur, who was posted at CAW Cell on 12.02.2007, who had received one complaint, Ex.PW13/A, given by the deceased and had made inquiries on the same and had mediated State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 11 between the parties for compromise.
PW14 is Suresh Bajaj, the landlord of the house, where the incident took place and who had given the house on rent to accused Veer Singh. PW15 is HC Jagbir Singh, a formal witness. PW16 is Sh. Pawan Kumar, then SI posted at PS S.P. Badli, who first of all went to the spot on receipt of DD No.34B, Ex.PW9/A on 29.06.2007 and who had carried out initial investigation(s) in this case before the investigation(s) were handed over to Inspector Sanjeev Kumar, PW17 is Inspector Sanjeev Kumar, the I.O of this case, who has deposed regarding the investigation(s), as were carried out by him during the course of the present case.
9. Thereafter, separate statements of all the accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC, in which all the incriminating evidence was put to all the accused persons. The accused Veer Singh State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 12 admitted that he was married with the deceased on 26.11.2001. However, he denied that all the allegations appearing against him were false and he never harassed or demanded any dowry, rather he was having cordial relations with his wife. The matter before CAW Cell was amicably settled between the parties and after that Poonam started living with him peacefully and he was innocent.
10. All the remaining accused persons also denied the allegations appearing against them in evidence and stated that they never demanded any money or dowry nor they harassed the deceased in any manner and they had been falsely implicated in this case.
11. Thereafter, all the accused persons also examined two witnesses in their defence, namely, DW1 Rajender Singh and DW2 Bhudev, regarding their innocence.
12. I have heard the Ld. Defence counsel Sh. R.P. Bhardwaj on State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 13 behalf of all the accused persons and Sh. A.K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for the state and have also gone through the written submissions, preferred on behalf of the accused persons.
13. The Ld. Defence counsel has argued that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statement of PW1 Shanti Devi and she has also made material improvements in her testimonial deposition before the court, which makes her testimony unworthy of reliability. He has further argued that the said witness has levelled false allegations against all the family members, including old parents, married sisters and married and unmarried brother, just to falsely implicate them in false case of dowry, whereas all the sister were married and were living far away from the matrimonial house of the deceased and they never demanded any dowry articles at any point of time or harassed the deceased in any manner. State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 14
14. He has further argued that the father of Veer Singh had disowned his son, as he had filed a suit against his father and further it is a tendency on the part of the complainant in a matrimonial dispute to rope in all the family members of the accused/husband.
15. He has further argued that as per the prosecution case itself a compromise had been arrived at between the parties at CAW Cell, in the month of March, and April, whereafter deceased had shifted to village Mukundpur, where she was residing with her children in a rented house along with her husband happily. Thereafter, there was no demand of any dowry of any nature from deceased or her parents, which is also corroborated by the statement of Shyam Wati and Bhudev, Ex.PW5/D & Ex.PW5/E, recorded before the SDM, which shows that deceased was living happily with her husband at village Mukundpur and there was no quarrel between them over demand of State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 15 dowry or harassment of any nature. Therefore, no offence U/s 304B IPC was made out, as there were no allegations that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death.
16. He has further argued that as per the report of electrical inspector, Ex.PW2/A, it has reported that the cooler and electrical fittings, installed at the house of the deceased was not meeting the requirement of Indian Electricity Rules, which shows that death had taken place, due to electrocution. He has further argued that the postmortem report also corroborates the said version.
17. He has further argued that PW8, the real brother of the deceased and PW10 Daya Nand have not deposed anything against the accused persons, rather PW8 stated that his mother Laxmi Devi had deposed in the court at the instance of the villagers.
18. He has further argued that PW5 SDM Vijay Dogra, who had State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 16 conducted the inquest proceedings and ordered for postmortem and had also recorded the statements of mother of the deceased and that of the neighbours as pointed above, has ratified the stance of the defence, which clearly proves that no offence U/s 304B IPC is made out in the present case.
19. He has further argued that PW13 ACP Jagpal Kaur, who was the inquiry officer in the proceedings before the CAW Cell had settled the dispute between the parties on 15.03.2007 and the said matter was also closed on 23.04.2007 and thereafter, the deceased had joined her husband at village Mukundpur, where they were living separately and peacefully till the date of her death. Consequently, in these circumstances, he has argued that no offence U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC is made out any of the accused persons and they are all liable to be acquitted.
State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 17 He has also relied upon the following judgments:
AIR 1979 SC 1408, 1990 CRI. L.J. 511, 2002 (1) RCR (Crl.) Page 83, 2002 (1) RCR (Crl.) Page 163, 2009 (2) RCR (Crl.) Page 559, 1997 (3) Recent CR Page 85, 2000(2) RCR (Crl.) Page 695.
20. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the state has refuted the aforesaid arguments of the Ld. Defence counsel and has argued that there are no ambiguities in the statement of PW1 Laxmi Devi and there were some minor contradictions and improvements in her testimonial deposition, which cannot be termed as contradictions, they are at the most minor variations, which are bound to occur in the testimonial deposition of any witness, due to difficulty in recollection and narration of the incident in the court. He has further argued that PW1 has categorically stated regarding the various demands of dowry and harassment and cruelties committed by all the accused persons State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 18 with the deceased by giving specific instances of the same in her testimony. From her testimonial deposition, it is also clear that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death by all the accused persons, which resulted in her death under unnatural circumstances.
21. He has further argued that as per the postmortem report, no electro thermal injury was found on the body of the deceased, which discards the defence version that the deceased had died due to electrocution.
22. He has further argued that the very fact that the matter between the accused persons and the deceased had been settled before CAW Cell shows that all the accused persons had the propensity to harass the deceased constantly, which resulted into her death taking place, due to the said harassment soon before her death, and all the State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 19 accused persons continuously harassed her even after the settlement arrived at between the parties at CAW Cell.
23. He has further argued that none of the judgments, relied upon by the Ld. Defence counsel are applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, he prays that the prosecution has been able to make out a case U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC against all the accused persons and they are liable to be convicted.
24. I have gone through the rival contentions.
25. In the judgement 2009 Cr. LJ 3034, the law pertaining to dowry death cases has been clearly laid down.
26. Section 304B IPC deals with dowry death which reads as follows:
304B. Dowry death (i) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 20 under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death', and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation: For the purpose of this subsection, 'dowry' shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(ii) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
2. The provision has application when death of a woman is caused by any bums or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 21 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 relatives of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. In order to attract application of Section 304B IPC, the essential ingredients are as follows:
(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance.
(ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.
(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.
State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 22
(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
3. Section 113B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the case at hand. Both Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act were inserted as noted earlier by Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113B reads as follows:
113B. Presumption as to dowry deaths. 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. State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 23 Explanation. For the purpose of this section, 'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
4. The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been amply analysed by the Law Commission of India in its Twenty first Report dated 10.08.1988 on "Dowry Deaths and Law Reform". Keeping in view the impediment in the preexisting law in securing evidence to prove dowryrelated deaths, the legislature thought it wise to insert a provision relating to presumption of dowry death on proof of certain essentials. It is in this background that presumptive Section 113B in the Evidence Act has been inserted. As per the definition of "dowry death" in Section 304B IPC and the wording in the presumptive Section 113B of the Evidence Act, one of the essential State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 24 ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions is that the woman concerned must have been "soon before her death"
subjected to cruelty or harassment "for or in connection with the demand for dowry". Presumption under Section 113B is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials:
(i) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman, (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304B IPC).
(ii) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 25 husband or his relatives.
(iii) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry.
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.
5. A conjoint reading of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the "death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances". The expression "soon before" is very relevant where Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 26 case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led in by the prosecution. "Soon before" is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act is present, with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" is not defined. A reference to the expression "soon before" used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 27 relevant. It lays down that a court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods soon after the theft, is either the thief who has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon 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 harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 28 concerned, it would be of no consequence.
27. In view of the provision(s) under section 304B IPC r/w 113B of the Evidence Act, it has to be seen, whether the evidence lead by the prosecution in the present case succeeds on the touch stone of the said provisions, so as to make out the culpability of the accused persons.
28. It is the admitted case of the prosecution as well as of the defence that the deceased died on 29.06.2007, whereas her marriage with the accused Veer Singh took place on 26.11.2001, which fact has also been admitted by the said accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr. PC, therefore, the deceased Poonam died within seven years of her marriage with the accused Veer Singh.
29. Regarding the ingredient, whether the death of deceased Poonam had been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 29 under normal circumstance(s) that is to say that the death was either homicidal or suicidal. Only in those cases, it can be said to be that the death had taken place in unnatural circumstances, which further means that the death had not occured in usual course, but under suspicious circumstances, if not caused by burns or bodily injury.
30. In the present case, as per the deposition of PW4 Dr. K. Goyal, though he in his postmortem report, Ex.PW4/A, stated that there was no apparent electro thermal injury found at the time of conducting the postmortem. However, at the same time, he in his further examinationinchief stated that the postmortem findings in brain, lungs and heart were possible in electrocution. In view of the said deposition of the autopsy surgeon, the death of the deceased Poonam due to electrocution, which is also the defence of the accused persons is quiet probable.
State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 30
31. Further, it is generally seen that even if a person gets electrocuted even then there are no burn injuries present on the body of the person, even after receiving electric shock and current and it is not necessary that in all the cases of electric shock, there should be some apparent electro thermal injury, which is also the case in hand.
32. In the present case, the prosecution had also examined one PW2 Sh Mukesh Sharma, Assistant Electrical Inspector, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, who has prepared his report Ex.PW2/A, after examining the dessert cooler at the spot, where the death of the deceased Poonam took place and in his report, he observed that some of the provisions of Indian Electricity Rules 1956 had not been complied with i.e the electric installation of the dessert cooler had not been maintained in a safe condition in the following respect, in contravention of the provisions of rule 30(4) of the said rules: State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 31 a. The piano type switch meant for controlling electric supply to the pump motor was found hanging loose and had not been fastened to the body of the cooler, and its terminals were found very close to the metallic body of the desert cooler. b. The metallic frame of the desert cooler had not been earthed, in contravention of the provisions of rule 61(3) of the said rules.
33. In view of the said report, given by the Electric Inspector that even the dessert cooler was not properly earthed and some of the switches were found in loose condition, the defence taken by the accused persons that deceased had died by electrocution appears to be a probability in this case more so, which is also the view of the autopsy surgeon, as he had observed certain findings in the brain, lungs and heart consistent with the electrocution. In these State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 32 circumstances, it can not be said that the deceased Poonam died of suspicious circumstances that is to say that the death was unnatural either homicidal or suicidal, rather the death in the present case appears to be accidental. Therefore, the same would not come in the preview of section 304B IPC.
34. Regarding the remaining ingredients that whether the deceased Poonam was harassed or treated with cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death either by her husband or by the relatives of her husband. The testimonial deposition of PW1 Laxmi Devi is relevant, who in her testimonial deposition in her examinationinchief has deposed as under: Deceased Smt. Poonam was my daughter and she was married with accused Veer Singh in the year of 2001. I do not remember the exact date of marriage. In the marriage, we had given scooter to Veer Singh. But, after few days of marriage, Veer Singh and his family State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 33 members were demanding motorcycle and they started quarreling with my daughter. We had given Rs. 15,000/ to them. But thereafter the same treatment was continued. When my daughter was in her family way she was left in my house and she delivered a female child at our house. Thereafter, my daughter and her child were taken to her inlaws house but these accused persons made quarreled with her and continued to demand dowry from her. Accused Veer Singh, Dhanpati, Kanwar Singh, Hawa Singh, Jay Singh, Roshni, Rukmani and Rajwanti all the accused present in court today (correctly identified) were quarreling with her and demanding dowry.
When again my daughter conceived for nd 2 time she was left at our house and she gave birth to a male child. Thereafter, they had not come to take her back to her matrimonial house. Then a case was filed at CAW Cell Nanakpura where Veer Singh, in presence of his brother Jai Singh had made a compromise and my daughter was taken to a rented accommodation at Mukundpur. Even at that place all the accused present in court today were regular visitor and they also harassed my daughter and quarreled with her for demand State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 34 dowry.
About 4 days prior to her death my daughter came to our house and told that Veer Singh had sent her with direction to bring Rs. 1 lac otherwise they would kill her. My sister was also insisting for the money of Rs. 1 lac to be given to her otherwise her Devars and Jeths and her husband would kill her. We showed our inability to meet this demand. She had left to her matrimonial house. Thereafter we only received news of her death. We reached at Mukundpur and from there we went to hospital situated at Jhangirpuri. I and my son Deepak went to the hospital where accused Hawa Singh, Kanwar Singh, Veer Singh & others gave beating to us. The police was present there but no action were taken against the accused for this. My statement was not recorded. No action was taken by any authority against the accused persons on our repeated request.
35. Further PW1 Laxmi Devi has deposed in her testimonial deposition on being crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP on certain aspects as under: State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 35 "It is correct that I put my thumb impression on a statement which was recorded by SDM after the death of my daughter. The statement is Ex.PW1/A which bears my thumb impression at point A. It is correct that I had stated to the SDM all the accused present in court today demanding dowry/money from my daughter.
It is also correct that I identified the dead body of my daughter in the hospital and police recorded my statement Ex.PW1/B, which bears my thumb impression at point A. Accused Veer Singh and Poonam's motherinlaw had also given a beating to my daughter Poonam on the point of dowry and even they had fractured her hand in the beating and thereafter, she was left in our house. It is also correct that on one occasion accused Veer Singh had left the scooter at our house and demanded motorcycle and on our inability to meet the demand Veer Singh, Dhanpati, Jai Singh, Lala and Babu made a quarrel with Poonam and even all the three sisters of Veer Singh had quarreled with her on the point of demand of dowry. It is wrong to suggest that deliberately I was not stating the true facts". State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 36
36. She was subjected to extensive crossexamination on behalf of Ld. Defence counsel. She in her crossexamination stated that she does not remember the date, when amount of Rs. 15,000/ was given to Veer Singh, nor she can tell the denomination of the currency notes, nor she can tell the exact date of beatings of her daughter by the accused with regard to the demand of motorcycle, but it was soon after the marriage of her daughter.
37. She further admitted that accused Jai Singih, his wife Dhanpati and his sons Hawa Singh and Kanwar Singh were residing at Kewal Park. Accused Jai Singh, father of Veer Singh was having three sons and three daughters, namely, Veer Singh, Kanwar Singh, Hawa Singh and Roshni, Rajwanti and Rukmani and all the daughters were married. One was residing at Ramgarh and other two were at village Jharoda and they were having their own family. State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 37
38. She further stated in her crossexamination that she does not know whether Veer Singh had any dispute with his father regarding partition of property or he had filed any suit for partition and she does not know whether Veer Singh had been disowned by his father from his properties, as per advise of the court, but she stated that accused had not given any money to her after selling plot of Swaroop Nagar.
39. She also admitted that she used to accompany her daughter whenever she appeared before CAW Cell, Nanakpura, and that it was correct that the said matter was amicably settled at CAW Cell and the same was duly recorded in CAW proceedings.
40. She further stated that her daughter stayed at her house for about 8 to 9 months before she was taken to Mukundpur. Her daughter was having about 3 months male child at that time. She was pregnant. She was sent to their house and on one occasion when she visited her daughter at Mukundpur, all the accused persons State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 38 were present there, but she had not reported to the police, regarding the quarrel.
41. She was also confronted with certain improvements made by her in her examinationinchief vizaviz her previous statement made before the SDM, as she stated that she had stated to the police that her daughter had come 4 days prior to her death and asked her that she had been sent by Veer Singh to bring 1 lakh rupees, otherwise she would be killed by the accused persons. However, when this fact was confronted with the previous statement Ex.PW1/A, where the factum of four days was not found mentioned. She further stated that she had stated to the police that dewars of her daughter Poonam had threatened to kill her. However, she was confronted with her previous statement Ex.PW1/A, where the said fact was not found mentioned.
42. The other material witness, namely, PW8 Deepak, son of PW1 State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 39 Laxmi Devi and PW10 Daya Nand, cousin of the deceased Poonam have not supported or corroborated the version of PW1, regarding the fact in issue.
PW8 Deepak has only stated in his examinationinchief that after the marriage of his sister with accused Veer Singh, some dispute arose between his sister and in laws, but the same was settled with the intervention of the family. Thereafter, his sister was living peacefully in her matrimonial house. A minor altercation took place between his sister and Veer Singh, but the matter was patched up and they again started residing together. He further stated that he had no grudge against the accused Veer Singh or other accused persons. They were not responsible for the death of deceased Poonam and after the delivery of female child to his sister, she was taken back to her matrimonial house by her husband and she State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 40 remained there and was never illtreated thereafter.
43. The aforesaid witness was declared hostile by the Ld. Addl. PP as he did not support the earlier prosecution version, taken by him in his previous statement, regarding the cruelty and harassment meted out to the deceased Poonam by the accused persons in relation to the demand of dowry soon before her death. In his crossexamination, he rather stated that his mother Laxmi Devi had deposed, as PW1 in the court at the instance of villagers and whatever he was stating in the court was the actual account.
44. Similarly, the other cousin of deceased Poonam, namely, Daya Nand has deposed, that after marriage, there was a cordial atmosphere in the matrimonial house of Poonam, but there used to be quarrel between Veer Singh and Poonam, but she never told him about the quarrel, as he was her elder brother and she used to tell her State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 41 grievances to her mother and his wife. Sometimes she used to stay at the house of her parents for about two months and after compromise, she again used to join the company of her husband and she even gave birth to a female child at her parents house and his brother Deepak had also lodged a complaint in Mahila Mandal and there was a compromise during the proceedings at Mahila Mandal and Poonam was taken to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, she started living with her husband at village Mukundpur, and she used to visit them during the said stay at Mukundpur village and she was living happily and that she had died an accidental death and accused persons were not responsible for her death.
45. The aforesaid witness was also crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP in his crossexamination, though he stated that accused Veer Singh used to beat his cousin Poonam. However, he denied the State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 42 rest of the allegations, which he made in his previous statement, Ex.PW10/A, when the same were put to him in his crossexamination by the Ld. Addl. PP. In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence counsel, he stated that he cannot be tell whether any quarrel or beatings were committed by the accused persons nor he knows the date, month or time when such incident had happened and he cannot say anything about any quarrel, as he had never visited the matrimonial house of Poonam.
Even otherwise, the testimonial deposition of PW10 Daya Nand appears to be of hearsay nature, as he in his examinationinchief clarified that the deceased Poonam never told him anything about their quarrel, as he was her elder brother and she used to confide her problems with her mother and his wife. Therefore, all his utterances in the court are apparently hearsay in nature, as he had never visited State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 43 the matrimonial house of Poonam, as admitted by him in his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel. Therefore, his testimony is not direct or relevant to the controversy in issue, as he had no first hand information, regarding the alleged continuous harassment and cruelty being meted out to the deceased by the accused persons in relation to the demand of dowry.
46. Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon the following judgments.
Ms. Anu Gill v. State 2002 (1) RCR Criminal Page 82 , in which it was held as under: "It has almost become a practice that whenever a police report is lodged consequent upon a matrimonial discord, there is always a tendency on the part of the complainant to involve practically all the relations of her inlaws family either out of vengeance or to curl out appropriate settlement Such a tendency ought to be deprecated."
State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 44 Further, it has been held in Judgment Mukesh Rani v. State of Haryana 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) Page 163 as under: "Whenever there is a matrimonial dispute between husband and wife, for the fault of the husband, other relations of the husband i.e. brothers, sisters and parents, are also roped in the litigation on the allegation of demand of dowry, whether they are living joint or separate -
Sometimes, the parents who are aged about 80 to 90 years and unable to walk or talk and the sisters living at far off places in the matrimonial house are also involved
- In such like situation the courts while framing charge should be very cautious."
47. It would be relevant to mention here that as per the testimony of PW1, discussed above, the main and specific allegation of cruelty and harassment have been levelled against the accused Veer Singh and regarding the other accused persons, there are general and vague allegations of cruelty and harassment without any specific State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 45 instances of the same. PW1 has also made certain material improvements in her testimonial deposition vizaviz her previous statement, recorded by the SDM. The I.O and PW1 have admitted in their crossexamination that all the other accused persons, except Veer Singh were living separately and the married daughters were also residing at their matrimonial houses alongwith their family and children. PW1 has also admitted in her crossexamination that the matter before CAW Cell was compromised, which is also recorded in the CAW Cell proceedings.
48. The proceedings of the CAW Cell have been proved by then Inspector (now ACP Jagpal Kaur), who was the I.O, who had mediated between the parties to effect compromise between them. The proceedings before CAW Cell have also been proved as Ex.PW13/A to F. Even the perusal of the proceedings before CAW State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 46 Cell reveals that the main grievance of the deceased with regard to beating, harassment and cruelty was directed, mainly against the accused Veer Singh, her husband, which is recorded in the document Ex.PW13/B.
49. The I.O was also confronted with the proceedings of the civil suit, filed by the accused Veer Singh against his father Jai Singh and his brother Hawa Singh and Kanwar Singh, Ex.PW17/DA, which was a suit for partition and permanent injunction and in the said suit, bearing No.434/04, the matter was compromised between the parties vide their statements, recorded on 01.10.2005 and as per the said statement, the accused Veer Singh had agreed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of a room and common veranda and gallery in the ground floor portion of the property owned by his father, bearing No. B42, Kewal Park, Azadpur, Delhi, in favour of his father State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 47 and similarly his father Jai Singh had agreed to give him a plot of land, ad measuring 60 sq. yards in the village Libaspur.
50. The said compromise apparently took place on 01.10.2005 much prior to the death of the deceased on 29.06.2007. The accused persons could not be said to have concocted the said statement two years prior to the present incident. Therefore, it appears that there was some sort of family dispute between accused Veer Singh and his father Jai Singh and his brothers Hawa Singh and Kanwar Singh, for which they had also litigated with each other by filing a civil suit.
51. Admittedly in the present case, the complaint filed before CAW Cell was compromised between the accused Veer Singh and deceased Poonam, and thereafter deceased Poonam was living in a rented accommodation at village Mukundpur separately from rest of her family members, which fact has also been proved by the State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 48 testimonial deposition of PW15 Suresh Bajaj, who was the landlord of accused Veer Singh at the said house.
52. The concerned SDM had also recorded the statements of one Shyam Wati and Bhudev, the neighbourers of accused Veer Singh at Mukundpur Village, which are Ex.PW5/.C & Ex.PW5/D, in which both of them had stated before the SDM that both accused Veer Singh and deceased Poonam were residing at the said house peacefully and they had not seen any quarrel between them, while they were residing at the said place. In fact, one of the said person, namely, Bhudev also appeared as defence witness, as DW2.
53. From the statements of Shyam Wati and Bhudev, which were recorded by the SDM, Ex.PW5/C & Ex.PW5/D, it is clear that after deceased Poonam shifted to Village Mukundpur in a rented accommodation along with her husband Veer Singh, where she was State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 49 residing separately from the rest of the family members of Veer Singh, there was no marital discord between them and they were living their peacefully, and as discussed above, PW1 had made improvement regarding the fact that four days prior to her death deceased Poonam had come and confided with her and asked her that accused Veer Singh had demanded Rs. 1 lakh from her, otherwise he would kill her.
54. Prosecution witness PW8 Deepak, the brother of deceased and PW10 Daya Nand, cousin of the deceased have not stated a single word, relating the alleged cruelty and harassment being meted out to the deceased by the accused persons in relation to the demand of dowry soon before her death. In these circumstances, it would not be safe to convict the accused persons on the testimonial deposition of PW1 alone, which statement is neither corroborated by her son or her State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 50 relation Daya Nand and PW1 has made general allegations against all the accused persons, regarding the demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment in relation to the demand of dowry, without giving any specific instances against any of them, except accused Veer Singh. However, there is no evidence at all on the record that the accused persons harassed or illtreated the deceased with cruelty soon before her death in relation to the demand of dowry, which is necessary to make out a case U/s 304B IPC.
55. Further Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon judgment (supra) Shyam Lal Vs. State of Haryana 1997(3) Recent CR, page 85 in para 11 & 12, in which it was held as under:
11. "It is imperative, for invoking the aforesaid legal presumption, to prove that "soon before her death" she was subjected to such cruelty or harassment.
Here, what the prosecution achieved in proving at the most was that there was State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 51 persisting dispute between the two sides regarding the dowry paid or to be paid, both in kind and in cash, and on account of the failure to meet the demand for dowry, Neelam Rani was taken by her parents to their house about one and a half years before her death. Further evidence is that an attempt was made to patch up between the two sides for which a panchayat was held in which it was resolved that she would go back to the nuptial home pursuant to which she was taken by the husband to his house. This happened about ten to fifteen days prior to the occurrence in this case. There is nothing on record to show that she was either treated with cruelty or harassed with the demand for dowry during the period between her having been taken to the parental home and her tragic end.
12. In the absence of any such evidence, it is not permissible to take recourse to the legal presumption envisaged in Section 113B of the Evidence Act. That rule of evidence is prescribed in law to obviate the prosecution of the difficulty to further State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 52 prove that the offence was perpetrated by the husband, as then it would be the burden of the accused to rebut the presumption".
56. The law laid down in the said judgment also appears to be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as in the present case also admittedly the matter between the parties was patched up before the CAW Cell, and thereafter deceased was taken to a separate accommodation by the accused Veer Singh, where she was residing separately from rest of the family members, including the father of accused Veer Singh, his brothers and his sisters and mother and there is no evidence that thereafter soon before her death she was subjected to any cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry, rather two of the statements recorded by the SDM, namely, that of Shyam Wati and Bhudev, support the defence version, that the deceased along with the accused Veer Singh after shifting State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 53 there in a rented accommodation were living happily and peacefully and there was no sort of marital discord with them.
57. Usually, whenever a quarrel takes place between husband and wife, the neighbourers are the best persons to know about the same, as they are in the most proximate or vicinity of the place, where the said discord or quarrel takes place and usually the tone of the voice also goes on high pitch during the said quarrels, but in the present case, the I.O has also admitted that he had not recorded the statement of any neighbourer of accused Veer Singh, which was imperative on the part of the I.O, as the said witness would have been the best witness to say about the quarrel taking place between the deceased and the accused Veer Singh soon before her death or few days prior to her death more so in relation to the demand of dowry and in order to coerce her to cough up more dowry. State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 54
58. However, PW1 in her testimonial deposition has given specific instances that soon after the marriage, accused Veer Singh had demanded motorcycle instead of scooter, which was given to him at the time of marriage and that he had left the scooter at their house and in lieu of that they gave Rs. 15,000/ to him and in the proceedings before CAW Cell also her grievance was mainly directed against the accused Veer Singh, with regard to the beatings given by him, which are recorded in the order sheet of CAW Cell, and also in the deposition of PW1 that on two occasions when her daughter was in family way, she was left at their house by the accused Veer Singh and other accused persons (though against the other accused persons, there are general allegations), but there are specific allegations that accused Veer Singh had left the deceased Poonam, when she was in family way twice at the house of her parents for State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 55 delivery of child. The said act of accused Veer Singh in living his wife at the house of her parents when she was in most need of his love and affection at the time of impending birth of his children, would clearly fall within the definition of cruelty, as defined U/s 498A IPC along with the demand of motorcycle in lieu of scooter and accepting of Rs. 15,000/ in lieu of the same, after he had left the scooter at the house of the parents of the deceased Poonam.
59. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the prosecution has failed to make out a case U/s 304B/34 IPC against all the accused persons. Further the prosecution has also not been able to make out a case U/s 498A/34 IPC against all the accused persons, except accused Veer Singh. Prosecution has only been able to make out a case U/s 498A IPC against the accused Veer Singh. Consequently, all the accused persons, except accused Veer Singh State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07 56 stand acquitted of the charge(s) U/s 498A/304B IPC. On the other hand, accused Veer Singh stands acquitted U/s 304B/34 IPC, but stands convicted U/s 498A IPC.
60. The previous bail bonds of the accused persons, except accused Veer Singh, who are on bail stand cancelled and their sureties stand discharged. Original document(s), if any be returned after cancelling the endorsement(s), if any on the same.
All the accused persons are directed to furnish fresh bail bonds, as prescribed U/s 437A IPC.
To come up for hearing on the point of sentence qua accused Veer Singh on 09.12.2011.
Announced in the open court (Sanjeev Aggarwal)
On 05.12.2011 Addl. Sessions Judge
Rohini Courts: Delhi.
State Vs. Veer Singh etc. PS S.P. Badli FIR No.522/07