Delhi District Court
State vs Chand Sagar And Ors on 20 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
CNR No. DLSH01-004758-2020
SC No. 151/2020
FIR No. 107/2019
PS Shahdara
U/s 498-A/304-B/120-B/34 IPC
STATE
Vs.
1. CHAND SAGAR,
S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sagar.
2. RAMESH KUMAR SAGAR,
S/o Late Sh. Raghubir Saran,
3. SUMAN LATA SAGAR,
W/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sagar,
All R/o: H.No. 203, Gali No. 13,
Balbir Nagar Ext., Shahdara, Delhi.
4. SHYAMBIR,
S/o Late Sh. Lachhe Singh.
5. RAJESH KUMARI,
W/o Sh. Shyambir,
Both R/o: H.No. F-147,
3rd Floor, Lado Sarai,
New Delhi-30.
........ Accused Persons
State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 1 of 62
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20
16:11:49 +0530
Date of Institution of case 07.09.2020
Date of case reserved for 13.12.2025
Judgment
Judgment Pronounced on 20.12.2025
Decision (i) Accused Chand Sagar, Ramesh
Kumar Sagar and Suman Lata Sagar
are acquitted of the offences u/s 498-
A/304-B/34 IPC.
(ii) Accused Chand Sagar, Ramesh
Kumar Sagar, Suman Lata Sagar,
Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari are
acquitted of the offences u/s 302/120-
B IPC & 120-B IPC.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. As per the case of prosecution, on 06.05.2019, SI Kaushik Ghosh received DD No. 103A and he along with Ct. Mohit reached at the spot i.e. H.No. 203, Gali no. 13-14, 3 rd Floor, Balbir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and met one Rohit and Chand Sagar. Rohit stated that his sister Bandish was married to Chand Sagar five months ago and at about 11.30-12 midnight, his brother-in-law Chand Sagar told that Bandish had committed suicide. The said room of Bandish was bolted from inside and from the ventilation, he saw that Bandish had hanged herself and his mother had called at 100 number.
2. Crime Team was called by SI Kaushik Ghosh at the spot and one yellor colour chunni, which was used to commit State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 2 of 62 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20 16:11:54 +0530 suicide was seized and her both legs were on the floor at that time and there was bleeding and photographs were taken. Since, 7 years of marriage of deceased were not completed, SDM Shahdara was informed regarding the incident on telephone and Bandish was taken to GTB Hospital and articles were taken into possession. She was declared brought dead by the hospital and at the mortuary, Executive Magistrate Alka and family members of Bandish met IO. Executive Magistrate Alka recorded the joint statement of Rohit and Jaiwanti (brother and mother of deceased). The stated that Bandish was married to Chand Sagar on 19.11.2018 and after 3-4 months, deceased used to tell them about her harassment and that her in-laws used to demand car and money and one Mausa of the accused used to instigate them and she was beaten. They had transferred money in the account of Chand Sagar on the asking of deceased Bandish as Chand Sagar and his mother Suman Lata Sagar taunted her by saying that they had not given sufficient dowry. On 05.05.2019, they went to matrimonial house of Bandish where all the accused persons and Mausa and Mausi and Bandish told that they were planning something and told her that she would no longer reside in her matrimonial house and 3-4 days prior on the demand of accused Chand Sagar, they had transferred Rs. 49,500/- in the account of Bandish to fulfill his demand of AC and for the said demand of dowry, accused persons had killed Bandish.
3. On the complaint of the complainants, the FIR was registered vide FIR No. 107/2019, dt. 07.05.2019 in PS Shahdara u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 3 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:11:59 +0530 filed against the accused Chand Sagar, Ramesh Kumar Sagar, Suman Lata Sagar, Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari u/s 498-A/304- B/120-B/34 IPC and after filing of charge-sheet, cognizance of offence was taken against the accused persons.
CHARGE
4. Charge for the offences punishable u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC was framed against the accused Chand Sagar, Ramesh Kumar Sagar and Suman Lata Sagar and additional charge for the offences punishable u/s 302/120-B IPC & 120-B IPC was framed against the accused Chand Sagar, Ramesh Kumar Sagar, Suman Lata Sagar, Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari by the Ld. Predecessor on 07.10.2023. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
5. Admission/denial of documents u/s 294 Cr.PC/330 BNSS was conducted on 17.09.2025 & 03.12.2025. Accused persons admitted the following documents:
Sl. Documents Exhibits
no.
1. FIR No. 107/2019 dt. 07.05.2019, PS Shahdara Ex.PA1
(without admitting its contents)
2. Certificate u/s 65B IEA regarding the FIR Ex.PA2
3. DD No. 103A dt. 06.05.2019 Ex.PA3
4. MLC of deceased Bandish bearing No. BD-1421/4/19 Ex.PA4
of GTB Hospital dt. 07.05.2019
5. Site plan dt. 07.05.2019 Ex.PA5
6. RC No. 57/21/19 and 58/21/19 dt. 19.06.2019 Ex.PA6 &
Ex.PA7
7. Acknowledgment of acceptance dt. 19.06.2019, vide Ex.PA8 &
memos No. 830 and 829 respectively Ex.PA9
State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 4 of 62
KUMAR Digitally signed by
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT 16:12:04 +0530
Date: 2025.12.20
8. 6 Photographs of the deceased Bandish Ex.PW11/A
9. PM Report and the other exhibits Ex.PW1/A
10. Your arrest memo and personal search memo dt. Ex.PA10 &
07.05.2019 Ex.PA11
11. Seizure memo of the exhibits dt. 12.06.2019 Ex.PA12
12. FSL report dated 29.08.2021. Ex.PA13
13. FSL report dated 26.07.2019. Ex.PA14
14. Subsequent opinion dated 18.07.2022 Ex.PA15
In view of the above-said admission, the requirement of evidence of following witnesses was dispensed with :
Sl. No. Name of the witnesses
1. W/HC Poonam Yadav (at Sl. No. 15 in the LoW)
2. ASI Vikal Singh (at Sl. No. 14 in the LoW)
3. Dr. Rohit, JR, GTB Hospital (at Sl. No. 13 in the LoW)
4. Ct. Mohit (at Sl. No. 8 in the LoW)
5. ASI Praveen Kumar (at Sl. No. 16 in the LoW)
6. Ct. Prakash (at Sl. No. 23 in the LoW)
7. SI Shashikant (at Sl. No. 20 in the LoW)
8. Ct. Sumit (at Sl. No. 9 in the LoW)
9. Ct. Ankush (at Sl. No. 10 in the LoW)
10. Ct. Ram Avtar (at Sl. No. 11 in the LoW)
11. Dr. Adesh Kumar, SSO, FSL (at Sl. No. 1 in supplementary list of witnesses)
12. Dr. Monika Shahi, SSO, FSL(at Sl. No. 2 in supplementary list of witnesses)
13. Dr. Rishi Kumar Solanki, Assistant Professor, GTB Hospital (at Sl.
No. 3 in supplementary list of witnesses)
14. Inspector Yuvraj Prasad (at Sl. No. 4 in supplementary list of witnesses) PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. Prosecution examined fifteen (15) witnesses in its favour to prove the case.
State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 5 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMARKUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:12:07 +0530
7. PW1 Dr. Pankaj Malia deposed that on 08.05.2019, he was posted as SR at Department of Forensic Medicine, UCMS and GTB Hospital, Delhi. On the same day, Smt. Alka, Executive Magistrate, Shahdara along with Ct. Ankush gave request for the postmortem of the deceased 'B' wife of accused Chand Sagar, aged about 23 years, female. The body was identified by Rohit, brother of the deceased and Sunil. The postmortem started at 2 PM on 08.05.2019 and concluded at 3 PM on the same day. As per the inquest papers, there was alleged history of hanging on 06.05.2019 at 11.35 PM and she was brought to the casualty of GTB Hospital in unconscious and unresponsive state on 07.05.2019 at 1.45 PM, whereby she was declared brought dead vide MLC No. BD/142/4/19.
8. PW1 further deposed that on general observation, the dead body was wrapped in white plastic bag wearing red T-shirt, red salwar and gray colour under garments. The dead body was weighing about 58 kg and 158 cm of height. Both eyes and mouth were open and other natural orifices were normal. Rigor Mortis was passed off. Tongue was clenched in between teeth and blood clots were present in the nose and blood stains were present over right side of face. She was wearing bangles in both the hands. On external examination, a reddish abraded, dry, hard, parchmentized, ligature mark was present completely, obliquely above the thyroid cartilage in front of neck. The mark was 3.5 cm wide and 4 cm below chin in mid-line. 3 cm below right angle of mandible, the mark was 3 cm wide going upwards and backwards. 4 cm below, right mastoid process the mark was 5.5 State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 6 of 62 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 cm wide going upwards and backwards. On back of neck, 11 cm below occipital protuberance, the mark was 2.5 cm wide. 3.5 cm below left mastoid process, the mark was 5.5 cm wide coming downwards and forwards. 4 cm below, left angle of mandible, the mark was 1.9 cm wide coming downwards and forwards. The mark further goes downwards and forwards and meet in mid-line. Total neck circumference was 28 cm.
9. PW1 further deposed that ligature material, which was found wrapped around neck was cut opposite to the knot, which was present on left side of neck, sealed with the seal of PM and handed over to investigating officer. Ligature material was yellow colour 'chunni' with pink prints over it. The knot was a loose knot. The dimension of ligature are mentioned in the postmortem report. On internal examination of head and neck, scalp and skull were normal, brain was weighing about 1210 gm and was congested. On examination of neck, extravasation of blood was present in the soft tissue and muscles of neck. Epiglottis was congested. Bruising of bilateral carotid sheath was present. Osteocartilagenous structures were intact.
10. PW1 further deposed that on internal examination of thorax, ribcage was normal, right lung was weighing about 390 gms and left lung was weighing about 340 gms. Petechial hemorrhages were present over the interlobar surface of both the lungs. Heart was weighing about 230 gms and petechial hemorrhages were present over anterior surface. On examination of abdomen, stomach was found to have about 10 ml of yellow colour fluid, walls were congested, intestines were found to have State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 7 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:12:16 +0530 faeces and fluid and were distended due to decomposition. Liver was weighing about 1070 gms and greenish black discoloration was present over whole liver. Other abdominal organs were normal and congested. Uterus was found to be empty. After postmortem examination, the viscera, cloths of the deceased and ligature material were preserved and along with sample seal, sealed with seal of PM and handed over to IO. He also handed over inquest papers (10) to the IO SI Kaushik Ghosh. It was opined by him after post-mortem that time since death was about one and a half day (36 hours). Cause of death was 'Asphyxia due to antemortem hanging'. His detailed PM Report bearing No. 806/19 dated 05.08.2019 (running into 4 pages) is Ex.PW1/A.
11. PW1 further deposed that on 01.07.2019, a request was given to provide final opinion by ASI Kaushik Ghosh. The final opinion given by him was time since death was about one and a half day (36 hours). Cause of death was 'Asphyxia due to antemortem hanging, however report of viscera was pending to rule out any associated poisoning/intoxication. The said final opinion dated 01.07.2019 is Ex. PW1/B.
12. PW2 Ms. Alka deposed that on 07.05.2019, she was posted as Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar) at SDM Office Shahdara, Nand Nagri, Delhi. On that day, an information was received from SI Kaushik Ghosh, PS Shahdara regarding the death of wife Bandish of accused Chand Sagar at H. No. 203, Balbir Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. The marriage of Bandish was solemnized on 19.11.2018 with accused Chand Sagar. In the morning of 07.05.2019, she along with Assistant State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 8 of 62 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20 16:12:21 +0530 Section Officer (ASO) Deshraj went to the above said house where crime team was already present. She saw that the above said lady Bandish was laid down on a bed and her parents were not in a position to give statement due to grief. Again said, mother and brother of the Bandish were present there as the father of Bandish had already expired. Thereafter, both brother and mother of deceased Bandish were taken to her office. She recorded their joint statement dt. 07.05.2019, Ex.PW2/A bearing her signature at point A and signature of SDM Shahdara at point B, signature of mother, brother and sister of deceased Bandish at point C, C1 and C2 and at point D, D1 and D2 respectively. In the statements of the mother and brother, they stated that deceased was harassed for money by accused Chand Sagar, his mother, father and his mausa-mausi and on their demand, they had deposited Rs. 49,500/- in the account of accused Chand Sagar for Air Conditioner.
13. PW2 further deposed that in their statements, they also stated that Bandish had disclosed to her mother that " usko maarne ki planning ki ja rhi hai". PW2 handed over the statement, Ex.PW2/A to SI Kaushik Ghosh for registration of FIR. On that day, postmortem of deceased Bandish could not be done and the same was done on the next day i.e. 08.05.2019. The relatives of deceased Bandish were also not ready for postmortem on 07.05.2019. The request forms for postmortem, form 25.35(1)(B), identification statements dt. 07.05.2019 are Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D respectively. The dead body of deceased was handed over to SI Kaushik Ghosh after State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 9 of 62 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20 16:12:25 +0530 postmortem.
14. PW3 Varsha deposed that she got married with Sunil in 2006 and her younger sister Bandish got married with accused Chand Sagar on 18.11.2018. Her mother and brother namely Rohit gave all usual dowry articles including gold jewellery to accused Chand Sagar on the occasion of marriage of her sister Bandish. All went well for about 3-4 months with her sister Bandish at her matrimonial home. Around 1.5 month prior to the date of incident (death of her sister Bandish), she called her on phone and disclosed that accused Chand Sagar had beaten her due to the non-disclosure of a private job done by Bandish prior to the marriage at Krishna Cosmetic Shop. She further disclosed that she stated to accused Chand Sagar that "agar aap logo ne pucha hota to hum batate. Maine Apne bahan ko bola ki Chand Sagar ko samjhaungi and Choti-Choti baton par pareshan nahi hona". After 2-3 days, accused Chand Sagar called her brother Rohit and stated to him that he would not keep Bandish at his house and they should take her back.
15. PW3 further deposed that "mere bhai ne Chand Sagar ko bola ki vo apne family member ke sath Monday ko unke paas ayega, baat-chit ke liye". On 05.05.2019, she along with her bhabhi Sangeeta, mother Jaiwanti, brother Rohit and sister Snehlata went to matrimonial house of her sister Bandish at Balbir Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. When they had conversation with accused Chand Sagar, he was adamant not to keep her sister Bandish with him and he kept on saying that they had got married Bandish with him, withholding the fact of her State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 10 of 62 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20 16:12:29 +0530 previous job at Krishna Cosmetic Shop prior to the marriage. Her sister Bandish was crying and her dupatta/chunni was also in a torn condition and she was also beaten by accused Chand Sagar. They all tried to make him understand, but in vain. "Chand Sagar ke maa-baap (Suman Lata Sagar and Ramesh Kumar Sagar) aur mausa- mausi (Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari) ne bhi apna palla jhad diya, ye kehte hue ki use rakhna hai Bandish ko, uski marji hai, uski jid ke aage vo bhi kuch nahi kar sakte". "Itne me uske mausa-mausi ne bola ki, vo Bandish ki khoobsurti pe mar gaya, kuch dahej nahi diya, hum to uski 50 lakh ki shadi karwate aur chaar pahiyo ki gadi bhi dilwate". "PW3 ne un sabse bola ki uski bahan ko kuch dino ke liye uske paas bhej do, par un sabne mana kar diya, ye kehte hue ki Chand Sagar ka exam hai".
16. PW3 further deposed that her sister kept on crying, but they all returned to their house. On 06.05.2019, at about 12:00-12:30 am (midnight), accused Chand Sagar called at the mobile number of her mother and she picked the same."Phone utha kar PW3 ki mummy ne bola hello Bandish, to udhar se accused Chand Sagar bola ki vo bol rahe hai, aur Bandish ne to fasi kha li hai (laga li hai)". Thereafter, they immediately rushed to the matrimonial house of her sister Bandish and when they reached there, no one was present at the matrimonial house of Bandish and police team was already present there. In the meantime, police official produced accused Chand Sagar at the spot. After sometime, police official took her sister Bandish to the hospital and directed them to come there. On the next day in the morning i.e. 06.05.2019, they all went to the mortuary of the State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 11 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2025.12.20 16:12:33 +0530 hospital. On that day, one SDM was also present there at the mortuary and called them at SDM office where the statement of PW3, her brother Rohit and mother Jaiwanti was recorded. PW3 correctly identified her signature on statement, Ex.PW2/A.
17. PW3 further deposed that on 08.05.2019, after the postmortem of her sister, her dead body was handed over to her brother Rohit and her cremation was done as per Hindu rites. In the month of April, 2019, accused Chand Sagar demanded money for purchase of Air Conditioner from her mother. PW3 had deposited Rs. 50,000/- in the bank account of her sister Bandish to the above said AC. PW3 correctly identified the 6 photographs in which her sister Bandish was seen hanging with dupatta/chunni. The photographs are Mark-A (colly).
18. PW3 admitted in the cross-examination of Ld. Additional PP that her brother and mother spent Rs. 14-15 Lakh in the marriage of her sister Bandish and one month prior to her death, her sister called her on phone and stated that her husband and her in-laws (saas-sasur) used to taunt her for bringing deficient dowry and also used to beat her for demand of dowry and also demanded more dowry articles from her. PW3 also admitted that accused Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari (mausa- mausi of accused Chand Sagar) used to provoke/instigate accused Chand Sagar and his parents by saying that "unhone kis kangle garib ke ghar ke shadi ki hai, jo dahej me kuch nahi laai, agar vo kuch din aur ruk jaate to vo Chand Sagar ke liye kaafi ache paise wale ghar ki ladki se shadi karwa dete". PW3 correctly identified accused Chand Sagar, Suman Lata Sagar, State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 12 of 62 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:12:37 Date: 2025.12.20 +0530 Ramesh Kumar Sagar, Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari in the court.
19. PW4 Rohit Kumar further deposed that he has 6 sisters including his deceased sister Bandish, who was younger to him. Bandish got married with accused Chand Sagar on 19.11.2018 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After around 5 months of marriage on 06.05.2019 at about 11:30 pm, he received a call from accused Chand Sagar that she had committed suicide. PW4 along with her mother Jaiwanti, sister Varsha and his wife Sangita went to matrimonial house of his sister at H. No. 203, Gali No. 13/14, Balbir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. When they reached there at 3rd floor of the house, his sister's room was bolted from inside, he saw that she was hanging from the frame of iron gate of her room, which he could see only from the roshandan situated above the door. Police official also reached there and she was taken to GTB Hospital where her postmortem was conducted. PW4 identified the dead body of his sister Bandish vide identification memo, Ex.PW2/D. After postmortem, her dead body was handed over to him vide handing memo, Ex.PW4/A. One official from SDM office was also present at the hospital and that official took his signatures and that of his mother and sister Varsha. PW4 correctly identified accused Chand Sagar, Suman Lata Sagar, Ramesh Kumar Sagar, Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari in the court.
20. PW5 Sunil Kumar deposed that he used to work in a factory of manufacturing marriage cards at Chandra Vihar, Nilothi, Nangloi, Delhi and he knew Bandish (deceased) as she was his real sister-in-law (saali) and he was married to Varsha in 2006. The State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 13 of 62 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:12:41 +0530 marriage of Bandish had taken place in November, 2019 with accused Chand Sagar at Babarpur, Shahdara Delhi. Bandish is no more as she had expired after some months of her marriage. PW5 was at the place of his work, when he had come to know about the death of Bandish that she had died due to hanging. He did not recollect any date, month and year, however, this incident had taken place after 3-4 months of her marriage. PW5 was informed by his wife about the death of Bandish. Thereafter, he had come to his house. At that time, he was residing with his wife in her parental house. When PW5 had come to his home, everyone in the house were weeping and thereafter, they went to matrimonial home of deceased Bandish at Balbir Nagar, Delhi. On reaching there, police official present, however, no other occupants of the house was present there. Police official had brought down the body of Bandish from 2 nd floor of the house and police had taken down the body of Bandish, but it was lying hanging with ligature with the frame of the door (chokhat). Police had taken the body of Bandish to GTB Hospital where postmortem of the dead body used to be performed. In-laws of PW5 made complaint to the police, however, he did not know the grounds of complaint. PW5 did not know against whom the complaint was made, but it must have been against accused Chand Sagar and his relatives. After the complaint was made by his in-laws to the police at PS Shahdara, no police official came to meet him or made any enquiry from him. His wife Varsha did not disclose any reason of hanging of Bandish. PW5 correctly identified accused Chand Sagar, Suman Lata Sagar and Ramesh Kumar Sagar in the court.State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 14 of 62 Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20 16:12:46 +0530
21. PW6 Jaiwanti deposed that as far as she remember, the marriage of her daughter Bandish was performed with accused Chand Sagar as per Hindu rites and rituals in October, 2018. She had given dowry articles in the marriage of her daughter as per their means. Her daughter was happy for about 4- 5 months after her marriage. Thereafter, she had not told her anything about her living condition at her matrimonial house. As far as she remember, on 06.05.2019, accused Chand Sagar had telephonically informed her that her daughter had committed suicide by hanging herself at her matrimonial house. Thereafter, PW6 along with her son Rohit, son-in-law Sunil, daughter Varsha and some other neighbours reached at the matrimonial house of her daughter where police officials were present. PW6 started weeping and Rs. 50,000/- was deposited in the account of her daughter for purchasing AC, which was demanded by accused Chand Sagar. No inquiry was made from her. The seizure memo of customer slip of Central Bank of India dt. 31.07.2019, Ex.PW6/A was handed over to the police. PW6 correctly identified accused Chand Sagar, Suman Lata Sagar, Ramesh Kumar Sagar, Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari in the court.
22. PW7 Sangita deposed that deceased Bandish was her nand. The marriage of Bandish was performed with accused Chand Sagar as per Hindu rites and rituals on 19 th of the month in 2018. Her in-laws had given dowry articles in the marriage of her nand as per their means. She was happy for about 4-5 months after her marriage. Thereafter, she had not told her anything about her living condition at her matrimonial house. She did not State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 15 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:12:50 +0530 remember when she along with her mother-in-law, husband and nand Varsha had gone at the matrimonial house of Bandish to meet her. PW7 admitted in the cross-examination of Ld. Addl. PP that the marriage of Bandish was performed on 19.11.2018 with accused Chand Sagar, but due to lapse of time, she could not recollect the same. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, PW7 admitted that said marriage was performed on 19.11.2018. PW7 correctly identified accused Chand Sagar, Suman Lata Sagar, Ramesh Kumar Sagar, Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari in the court.
23. PW8 Deshraj deposed that on 07.05.2019, he was working as Assistant Section Officer at SDM Office, Nand Nagri, Delhi. On 07-08.05.2019, he joined the investigation of the present case along with Ms. Alka, Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar). On 07.05.2019, he along with Ms. Alka went to Mortuary of GTB Hospital where the postmortem of deceased Bandish could not be done due to strong opposition by the family members of the deceased. On 08.05.2019, after the postmortem, dead body of deceased Bandish was handed over to her brother Rohit.
24. PW9 Triloki deposed that in the month of June, 2019, he was residing at H.No. 14, Gali No. 1, Kardampuri, Delhi. PW9 was the mediator in the marriage of deceased Bandish and accused Chand Sagar and marriage was performed on 19.11.2018 and in the said marriage, family members of Bandish had given LED TV, fridge, bed, washing machine etc.
25. PW10 Retd. ACP Mahesh Kumar deposed that on 28.05.2019, he was posted as Inspector Draftsman at Crime Branch PHQ, Delhi and on that day, on the request of State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 16 of 62 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20 W/Inspector Jamuna, he went to PS Shahdara and then he along with W/Inspector Jamuna and SI Kaushik Ghosh visited the place of incident i.e. H.No. 203, 3rd Floor, Gali No. 13/14, Balbir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. At the spot, he took the measurement and prepared rough notes at the instance of SI Kaushik Ghosh and W/Inspector Jamuna. On 17.06.2019, on the basis of notes and measurements, he prepared scaled site plan, Ex.PW10/A and handed over the same to IO. PW10 destroyed the rough notes after preparation of the scaled site plan.
26. PW11 ASI Arvind Kumar deposed that on 07.05.2019, he was posted as Head Constable/Photographer in Mobile Crime Team, Shahdara District, Delhi. On that day, on receiving information at control room, he along with I/C Mobile Crime Team SI Shashikant and HC Tara Chand (fingerprint proficient) reached at the spot i.e. H. No. 203, Gali No. 13-14, Balbir Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi where they met SI Kaushik Ghosh and other police officials of PS Shahdara. PW11 had clicked 35 photographs of the spot with official digital camera make Nikon from different angles and the dead body was found hanging at the scene of crime. SI Shashikant had inspected the scene of crime and prepared the crime scene report and handed over the CD containing the 6 photographs, Ex.PW11/A (colly) to the IO along with certificate u/s 65B IEA, Ex.PW11/B regarding the above said photographs.
27. PW12 Debasis Biswal deposed that on 07.05.2019, he was posted as SDM Shahdara. On that day, Ms. Alka was posted as Tehsildar of Shahdara Sub-Division. On that day, the statement State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 17 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:12:59 +0530 of Jaiwanti was recorded by Ms. Alka and he had made endorsement on the said statement, Mark-X and forwarded it to the SHO, Shahdara for taking appropriate action.
28. PW13 SI Kaushik Ghosh deposed that on 06.05.2019, he was posted as SI at PS Shahdara. On that day, on receiving DD No. 103A, he along with Ct. Mohit Rana reached at the spot i.e. 3rd Floor, H.No. 203, Gali No. 13/14, Balbir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi where they met one person namely Rohit (brother of deceased) and accused Chand Sagar. Rohit disclosed that her sister Bandish had got married with accused Chand Sagar 5 months ago and on 06.05.2019 at about 11.30 PM - 12 midnight, he received a phone call from accused Chand Sagar, who disclosed that Bandish had committed suicide and he along with other family members went to his house.
29. PW13 further deposed that accused Chand Sagar stated that his parents were residing on the ground floor of the house and at about 11.30 PM, accused Chand Sagar went upstairs at 3rd Floor and saw that his room was bolted from inside and despite several requests/knocking, Bandish did not open the door and then accused Chand Sagar saw from the ventilation (above the door) that Bandish was hanging from the Chaukhat of door. Accused Chand Sagar stated that he informed about the same to his parents and then, his mother called at 100 number. His parents i.e. Ramesh Kumar Sagar and Suman Lata Sagar were not present at the spot. PW13 also seized 4 mobile phones from the adjoining room vide seizure memo, Ex.PW3/B after sealing the same with the seal of 'KGY'.
State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 18 of 62Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2025.12.20 16:13:04 +0530
30. PW13 further deposed that on 07.05.2019, at about 12.15 AM, he called the Crime Team at the spot. He opened the door after breaking the same and saw that one lady was hanging with a yellow colour dupatta and her both knees were touching the floor and blood was oozing out from her nose. PW13 got the spot and body of girl photographed through Crime Team and also got inspected the spot. SHO, PS Shahdara and other police staff also reached at the spot. PW13 gave information at the office of SDM, Shahdara telephonically regarding the incident. The dead body was brought down and sent to GTB Hospital through Ct. Mohit Rana. PW13 seized the broken kundis (bolts) of the door vide seizure memo, Ex.PW3/A after sealing the same with the seal of 'KGY'. At about 3 AM, Ct. Mohit came at the spot and handed over MLC of deceased Bandish. Thereafter, PW13 along Ct. Mohit went to mortuary of GTB Hospital where Executive Magistrate, Ms. Alka and relatives of deceased were present. The statement of Jaiwanti (mother of deceased) was recorded by Executive Magistrate and handed over the same to him for necessary action. The relatives of deceased were not ready for her postmortem due to which it could not be done on that day. The dead body of deceased was identified by her brother Rohit and Jija (Sunil).
31. PW13 further deposed that he prepared the site plan, Ex.PA5. On 07.05.2019, PW13 prepared the rukka, Ex.PW13/A and got registered the FIR. After registration of FIR, further investigation of the present case was marked to Inspector Jamuna Thapa. Accused Chand Sagar was arrested and personally State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 19 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 searched vide memos, Ex.PA10 & Ex.PA11. On 08.05.2019, the postmortem of deceased was got conducted at mortuary of GTB Hospital and her dead body was handed over to Rohit vide handing over memo, Ex.PW4/A. On 14.05.2019, he again joined the investigation of the present case and Jaiwanti (mother of deceased) produced the photographs of marriage along with the marriage card to 2nd IO Jamuna Thapa and the same were seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW13/B. She also produced Customer Deposit Slip/Form (Central Bank of India) and the same was seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW13/C.
32. PW13 further deposed that on 29.07.2019, he again joined the investigation of the present case and went to KKD Court along with IO Inspector Jamuna Thapa. Accused Ramesh Kumar Sagar and Suman Lata Sagar surrendered before the Court and they were arrested and personally searched vide memos, Ex.PW13/D and Ex.PW13/E and Ex.PW13/F & Ex.PW13/G respectively. The disclosure statements of accused Ramesh Kumar Sagar and Suman Lata Sagar were also recorded vide statements, Ex.PW13/H and Ex.PW13/I respectively. Both the accused persons were sent to JC by the Hon'ble Court. IO recorded his supplementary statement in the PS.
33. PW13 further deposed that on 31.07.2019, Smt. Jaiwanti came at the PS and produced Customer Deposit Slip (Central Bank of India, Rs. 40,000/-) and the same was seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW6/A. PW13 correctly identified deceased Bandish, the spot, yellow colour dupatta and two kundis in the photographs, Ex.PW11/A (colly). PW13 correctly State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 20 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:13:12 +0530 identified accused Chand Sagar, Suman Lata Sagar and Ramesh Kumar Sagar in the court.
34. PW14 Pramod Kumar deposed that the accused persons i.e. accused Chand Sagar, his parents and mausa Shyambir and mausi Rajesh Kumari were known to him. The deceased Bandish and her parents were also known to PW14 prior to the marriage of Bandish. PW14 was mediator in the said marriage, which was solemnized in November, 2018.
35. PW15 Inspector Jamuna Thapa deposed that on 07.05.2019, she was posted as Inspector at PS Shahdara. On that day, after registration of FIR, the further investigation of the present case was marked to her. She collected the case file from 1 st IO/SI Kaushik Ghosh. On that day at about 11:00 pm, she along with SI Kaushik Ghosh and Ct. Sumit reached the spot i.e. Gali No. 13/14, Balbir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi where SI Kaushik Ghosh pointed towards accused Chand Sagar, who tried to run away, but apprehended with the help of SI Kaushik and police staff. A ccused Chand Sagar was arrested and personally searched vide memos, Ex.PA10 and Ex.PA11 and his disclosure statement, Ex.PW15/A was recorded and he was sent to lock-up after medical examination. On 08.05.2019, she recorded the statements of Executive Magistrate Ms. Alka, Debasis Biswal, Deshraj (ASO), Ct. Mohit Rana, Ct. Sumit, Ct. Ankush, SI Kaushik Ghosh and Rohit (brother of deceased) u/s 161 Cr.PC.
36. PW15 further deposed that on 08.05.2019, the postmortem of deceased was got conducted at the mortuary of GTB Hospital and her dead body was handed over to Rohit vide handing over memo, Ex.PW4/A. On 10.05.2019, PW15 recorded the State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 21 of 62 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:13:17 +0530 Date: 2025.12.20 statements of Jaiwanti and Rohit u/s 161 Cr.PC. On 13.05.2019, PW15 recorded the statements of Varsha, Sangeeta and Sunil Kumar u/s 161 Cr.PC. On 14.05.2019, Jaiwanti (mother of deceased) produced the photographs of marriage along with the marriage card to her and same was seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW13/B. Jaiwanti also produced Customer Deposit Slip/Form (Central Bank of India) and the same was seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW13/C. On 28.05.2019, she along with Insp. Mahesh Kumar (draftsman) went to the spot where he took measurement of the spot for the purpose of scaled site plan. On 05.06.2019, she recorded the statements of Pramod Kumar and Triloki u/s 161 Cr.PC. On 12.06.2019, PW15 seized the duly sealed case property i.e. ligature material, viscera, wearing cloth of deceased and sample seal vide seizure memo, Ex.PW15/B and recorded the statement of Ct. Ramavtar u/s 161 Cr.PC.
37. PW15 further deposed that on 19.06.2019, she got deposited the sealed exhibits at FSL Rohini through Ct. Prakash and recorded the statement of Ct. Prakash and ASI Praveen [MHC(M)] vide RC Nos. 58/21/19 and 57/21/19. On 01.07.2019, she collected the final opinion on the PM Report of deceased Bandish, Ex.PW1/B. On 13.07.2019, she recorded the statements of HC Arvind (photographer) and ASI Shashikant (I/C Crime Team) u/s 161 Cr.PC. On 16.07.2019, accused Shyambir Singh and Rajesh Kumari were interrogated by her vide interrogation report, Ex.PW15/C and Ex.PW15/D respectively. On 29.07.2019, accused Ramesh Kumar Sagar and Suman Lata Sagar surrendered before the Court and they were arrested and personally searched vide memos, Ex.PW13/D & Ex.PW13/E and Ex.PW13/F & Ex.PW13/G and State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 22 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:13:20 +0530 their disclosure statements were also recorded vide statements, Ex.PW13/H and Ex.PW13/I respectively. On 31.07.2019, Smt. Jaiwanti came at the PS and produced Customer Deposit Slip (Central Bank of India, Rs. 40,000/-) and the same was seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW6/A. PW15 recorded the statement of Jaiwanti u/s 161 Cr.PC. PW15 correctly identified two customer copy of paying slip (Central Bank of India), one of Rs. 49,500/- dt. 02.05.2019 and other of Rs. 40,000/- dt. 17.12.2018, Ex.PW15/E and Ex.PW15/F as the same were seized by her vide seizure memo, Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW6/A and she also correctly identified two marriage photographs, Ex.PW15/G (colly), one marriage card, Ex.PW15/H as the same was seized by her vide seizure memo, Ex.PW13/B. After completion of investigation, she prepared the charge-sheet u/s 304B/498A/120B/34 IPC against the accused persons and submitted it before the Hon'ble Court. PW15 correctly identified accused Chand Sagar, Suman Lata Sagar, Ramesh Kumar Sagar, Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari in the court.
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS u/s 351 BNSS.
38. Statements of accused Chand Sagar, Ramesh Kumar Sagar, Suman Lata Sagar, Shyambir and Rajesh Kumar were recorded u/s 351 BNSS on 09.12.2025 and they denied the incriminating evidence put to them. They stated that none from the relatives/family members of the deceased from her parental home is deposing against them and they were falsely implicated by the police officials in the present case without any fault on their part and they are innocent and they had not committed the alleged offence and praying for acquittal as they were falsely implicated in the present case.State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 23 of 62 Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20 16:13:25 +0530 APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS OF WITNESSES AND FINDING ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSELS FOR ACCUSED PERSONS
39. It is argued by Ld. counsels for accused persons that they have been falsely implicated by the police and they had never caused any injury to the victim/deceased nor they ever harassed her in any manner nor they committed any cruelty with her and even did not demand any dowry at any point of time nor received any dowry. It is submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses has supported the case of prosecution, which shows the innocence of accused persons and they have not levelled any iota of allegation against the accused persons and PW3 Varsha is completely hostile in her cross-examination and the Executive Magistrate, who recorded the initial statement of mother and brother of deceased and other such witnesses like ASO Deshraj and SDM concerned, had no knowledge of any procedure of inquest and they had not conducted proper inquest nor submitted the correct report/recommendation for registration for FIR. Due to her contradictory statements, PW3 is an unreliable witness.
40. No offence u/s 304-B IPC is made out as no demand of dowry soon before the death could be proved by the prosecution. Prior to the suicide by deceased, the relations between the accused persons and the deceased were cordial and they were living happily and there is no external antemortem injury mentioned in the PMR, which points towards the innocence of accused persons and she had committed suicide due to her health condition that her menstrual cycle was disturbed State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 24 of 62 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20 16:13:29 +0530 and she could not conceive as opined by the doctor. Since, there was no demand of dowry by any of the accused persons, no presumption u/s 113B Indian Evidence Act can be drawn against any of the accused persons. The inquest was not properly conducted as per law and the contents of complaint and FIR could not be proved and the seized articles i.e. kundis and mobile phones were not produced for inspection of court and from the CDR analysis of the mobile phones of accused and deceased, no iota of evidence came forth during investigation as deposed by the IO. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as even nothing has come in the cross-examination of all the hostile public witnesses in favour of the prosecution as all of them have denied the suggestions of Ld. APP and disowned their statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the police. There was no prior complaint against any of the accused persons. All the relatives of the deceased and the mediators have not supported the case of prosecution and as such no offence of murder of deceased on part of the accused persons could be proved during trial and even the prosecution failed to prove the charge of cruelty and dowry death punishable u/s 498-A/ 304-B/34 IPC.
It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused Rajesh Kumari and Shyambir that there was no charge against them u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. There was no criminal conspiracy amongst the accused persons as there is no evidence came on record during trial regarding any meeting of minds or conspiracy to murder the deceased and there is no evidence that deceased was State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 25 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 murdered by the accused persons in pursuance of said criminal conspiracy. PW1 has categorically ruled out the finding of Ld. Predecessor that it was a case of homicide due to 'O' shaped ligature mark, then 'V' shaped and reiterated in his deposition that it was a case of suicide and partial hanging, which is possible when the feet or lower body of deceased touches the ground due to loose knot. Thus, prosecution also failed to prove the charge u/s 120B and 302/120B IPC against accused persons.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDL. PP FOR THE STATE
41. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as the deceased committed the suicide within 7 years of marriage and PW2, Executive Magistrate had recorded the statements of the brother and mother of deceased and she proved the same as PW2/A in which they had levelled allegations of cruelty, harassment and demand of dowry against the accused persons and PMR has proved that death was caused due to hanging and the deceased took the extreme step due to the cruelty and harassment by the accused persons after a short period of marriage between the deceased and accused Chand Sagar and presumption u/s 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act has to be raised against the accused persons, which they failed to rebut. All the police witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and the marriage between the deceased and the accused is not disputed and the statements of witnesses and the PMR shows that she died because of hanging and it was not a natural death and this report is admitted by the accused along with the MLC of the State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 26 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:13:38 +0530 deceased and photographs of place of incident. PW13 had proved the pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused persons and they admitted their guilt in their disclosure statements. PW3 Varsha and PW6 Jaiwanti have deposed about demand of dowry i.e. AC and deposition of Rs. 49,500/- in the account of deceased, who was harassed, ill treated and beaten by accused persons as told to them by deceased herself.
42. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records.
43. The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses to prove its case.
44. The charge against accused persons are u/s 498-A/34 & 304-B IPC and alternatively u/s 302 IPC.
498-A IPC: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
304-B IPC. Dowry Death:
(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 demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
(2) 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.] State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 27 of 62 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20 16:13:42 +0530
45. As per the case of prosecution, the marriage between deceased Bandish and accused Chand Sagar was solemnized on 19.11.2018 according to Hindu customs and rites at Delhi. The FIR was registered on the complaint/statement of mother and brother of deceased Babdish namely Jaiwanti and Rohit Kumar respectively, Ex.PW2/A, which was also signed by her sister Varsha.
46. The family members alleged in Ex.PW2/A that after 3-4 months of marriage, everything was alright, but one month before her death, deceased Bandish used to call them that she was harassed by her in-laws, who were demanding car and money and one Mausa of accused Chand Sagar used to instigate him and sometimes they had credited amount in the account of Bandish on the demand of Chand Sagar, who used to taunt deceased for not bringing enough dowry and on 05.05.2019, when they visited the matrimonial house of deceased, her in-laws and Mausa and Mausi of Chand Sagar were present and deceased stated that they were planning to throw her out of her matrimonial house and told her family members that the said marriage was not for them and they had deposited Rs. 49,500/- in the account of Bandish on the demand of Chand Sagar, four days before her death.
PUBLIC WITNESSES
47. PW3 Varsha reiterated during her deposition that Bandish and Chand Sagar got married on 18.11.2018 and dowry articles including gold jewellery were given to Chand Sagar and around 1.5 month prior to incident, deceased State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 28 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:13:47 +0530 Bandish called her on phone and disclosed about beating by Chand Sagar due to non disclosure of private job done by her at Cosmetic Shop, prior to marriage and then, Chand Sagar refused to keep Bandish and told this fact to Rohit on phone and on 05.05.2019, PW3 along with her mother and brother and Bhabhi Sangita and sister Snehlata went to matrimonial house of Bandish, but accused Chand Sagar was adamant not to keep Bandish, who was crying and her Dupptaa was torn and she was beaten by accused Chand Sagar. Accused Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari also taunted Chand Sagar that he only leaned towards the beauty of Bandish, else they could have married him for 50 lakhs and Bandish kept on crying and on 06.05.2019, accused Chand Sagar informed her mother that Bandish had committed suicide and then, the concerned officials recorded statements of her family members, Ex.PW2/A and in April, 2019, Chand Sagar demanded money for purchase of AC from her mother and she deposited Rs. 50,000/- in the account of Bandish.
48. PW3 did not tell the complete facts and she was cross-examined by APP and only then, she admitted that Rs. 14-15 lakh were spent in the marriage and she told her that her in laws used to taunt her for deficient dowry and used to beat her and accused Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari used to instigate them. PW3 denied that accused Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari used to beat Bandish or that it was told to PW3 by deceased or that they had deposited money in the account of Bandish many time or that on 05.05.2019 when she along with her family State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 29 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2025.12.20 16:13:52 +0530 members visited matrimonial house of deceased, she disclosed that all accused persons demanded car and money from her, which she refused or that her mother Jaiwanti asked Bandish to accompany them, but she refused for not to become burden on her family. PW3 also denied that site plan was prepared at her instance or that two kundis were seized by IO in her presence. Even site plan was not put to her.
49. PW3 denied the said contents even after she was confronted with her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 13.05.2019, Mark B, but she admitted her signatures on seizure memo of said kundis, Ex.PW3/A and stated that she could not say police have seized the said kundis. PW3 also denied that 4 mobile phones including of Bandish and Chand Sagar were found from the table of adjoining room of deceased, which were seized and sealed vide seizure memo, Ex.PW3/B.
50. PW3 in her cross-examination admitted that at the time of marriage of deceased Bandish, the financial condition of her family was not sound and Ex.PW2/A was not recorded at her instance nor in her presence and that Deshraj had obtained her signature on the same and when she put her signature on Ex.PW2/A at the instance of Deshraj, who accompanied the SDM concerned, the said statement was not fully recorded and her mother Jaiwanti and brother Rohit did not give their statement in her presence. PW3 admitted that IO Jamuna Thapa did not make any inquiry from her. The distance between parental home and matrimonial home of State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 30 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:13:56 +0530 deceased was just 1 km, which shows that she could have come to her parental home at any point of time to make complaint against accused, but she did not make any prior complaint, even though deceased used to visit her parental home twice or thrice a week and sometimes alone and sometimes with accused Chand Sagar till 04.05.2019 as admitted by PW3, which further shows that she used to visit her parental home constantly, but did not make any hue and cry nor made any complaint to police or any authority in writing.
51. As per MHC(M), HC Mahender of PS Shahdara, there was no mobile phone or kundi lying the Malkhana of PS Shahdara, which further shows the gross negligence on the part of the police to investigate the matter properly as the same was shown seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B and makes the said seizure memos doubtful.
52. PW3 also admitted in her cross that two weeks prior to the occurrence i.e. 25.04.2019, she along with her family and deceased Bandish and accused Chand Sagar went to Mata Vaishno Devi, Jammu and Kashmir and deceased was very happy having no complaint from in-laws at her matrimonial home and they had clicked photographs, Ex.PW3/D1 to Ex.PW3/D4. It shows that the victim had no grievance against accused persons and she was happy and contended. PW3 had identified herself at Point X in one of the photographs and the photographs were objected by Ld. APP, which is not sustainable in view of the admission by PW3.
State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 31 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMARKUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:14:00 +0530
53. PW3 has also admitted that one year prior to marriage of deceased, she was suffering from hormonal imbalance and there was no menstrual cycle and she was under
medical supervision of many doctors and PW3 used to accompanying her to Dr. Sneha Shri, Gynecologist and she had stated that medical prescriptions dated 16.02.2019 was prepared by said doctor in her presence, which is Ex.PW3/D5 and the same is objected, but it was issued by the concerned doctor in the presence of PW3 and it is for reference only. Certain path lab tests of deceased, Ex.PW3/D6 were also put to the witness, but she has no knowledge of the same, but said documents shows that deceased had some medical problem prior to her death. Further, PW3 admitted that on 04.05.2019, after returning from Vaishno Devi, she along with deceased and accused Chand Sagar visited said Gynecologist, who opined that deceased may not conceive due to hormonal imbalance and deceased became subdued, but PW3 made her understand that she would be Okay with the medicines. It further, shows that victim was vary sad when she came to know that she may not conceive due to hormonal imbalance as it is always the wish of a woman to become mother and it has very shocking and deepening mental effect on the body of a woman when she comes to know that she can't conceive.
54. PW3 admitted that she had deposed for the first time during her examination in chief that "around 1.5 month prior to the date of incident (death of her sister Bandish), she called her on phone and disclosed that accused Chand Sagar State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 32 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:14:04 +0530 had beaten her due to the non-disclosure of a private job done by Bandish prior to the marriage at Krishna Cosmetic Shop and she had not stated the same to anyone during investigation. PW3 could not tell any time and date, when she received phone calls from deceased or the number from which, she received the call and that she did not have mobile phone prior to the occurrence, which makes her version in her examination in chief doubtful and improved.
55. She also admitted that during initial negotiations of marriage with the family of accused persons, her mother and brother Rohit had disclosed about working of deceased at Krishna Cosmetic Shop, Jyoti Nagar, Delhi, prior to marriage, to accused Chand Sagar and his family members, which shows that her in-laws including her husband were not unhappy with her work in the past and they had prior knowledge of that and it is not that it was hidden from them or they came to know it after marriage to cause any shock to them.
56. PW3 admitted that she had deposed for the first time in the court in her examination in chief that Bandish disclosed that she stated to accused Chand Sagar that " agar aap logo ne pucha hota to hum batate. PW3 told Bandish that she would make accused Chand Sagar understand and not to worry on trivial matters. After 2-3 days, accused Chand Sagar called her brother Rohit and stated to him that he would not keep Bandish at his house and they should take her back".
57. PW3 did not tell these facts to the police during investigation, which makes her version in her examination in State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 33 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2025.12.20 16:14:07 +0530 chief doubtful and improved.
58. PW3 also admitted that deceased wanted to marry boy, having government job, but family members of PW3 made her understand by saying that financial condition of family of accused Chand Sagar was sound, it shows that initially deceased was reluctant to marry accused. PW3 also admitted that on 04.05.2019 upto 6 PM, deceased Bandish was at her parental home and she was happy having no complaint against anyone from his matrimonial home and on 05.05.2019 at 4 PM, PW3 along with her family members went to matrimonial house of deceased to pacify her as she was mentally disturbed and they remained there till 8 PM and had taken dinner with deceased and accused persons remained at ground floor during that period and nothing was heard from accused that day and even accused persons pacified deceased that she would be medically fit and they would provide medical treatment. Deceased was crying on 04.05.2019, due to her medical condition and accused Chand Sagar had not beaten her till 05.05.2019. This version of PW3 shows that deceased was happy at her matrimonial home having no grievances with her in-laws or husband, but she was mentally disturbed due to her medical condition. PW3 had also not told said facts to either SDM/Deshraj during investigation and she had not stated to them that accused Chand Sagar was ready to keep Bandish.
59. PW3 had also not stated to SDM/Deshraj or Police that deceased was crying and her dupatta was torn and she was State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 34 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:14:10 +0530 beaten by accused Chand Sagar. PW3 also admitted that deceased and Chand Sagar were residing on different floors than her parents-in-laws and all the accused persons never intervened in the married life of deceased and Chand Sagar and also admitted that she had not given any statement against accused persons to the police or SDM concerned or that accused Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari had taunted her for bringing less dowry and that they would have married for 50 lakhs as she had never heard any such conversation during her stay at the matrimonial house of deceased. It shows that she was never ill treated or beaten by the accused persons including Chand Sagar nor she was taunted or harassed for bringing less dowry in marriage.
60. PW3 had not admitted that she had not stated before SDM/Deshraj or Police that in April, 2019, Chand Sagar demanded money for AC from mother of deceased and PW3 deposited Rs. 50,000/- in the bank account of Bandish and even she could not tell the account number of Bandish or date when she deposited the money and PW3 admitted that accused persons never demanded Rs. 50,000/- for purchainsg AC from her or her family members and deceased never made telephoic call to her informing that accused persons used to taunt her and beat her for bringing insufficient dowry and demanded more articles nor she was taunted by accused Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari and they did not instigate other accused persons for asking more dowry from deceased or taunted her and deceaesd had not told these facts to her on State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 35 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2025.12.20 16:14:14 +0530 phone. This shows that there was no demand of AC from accused Chand Sagar or Rs. 50,000/- were given to him for the said purpose. One document i.e. list of articles, Ex.PW3/D7 was shown to the witness in which one AC has been mentioned, which was given to the accused in marriage and it is admitted by PW3, but the author of the same had not proved it and it was objected, so the documents cannot stand proved as per law even though the witness has admitted it, but her admission that AC was given in the marriage proved this fact. PW3 admitted from the bank statements of deceased, Ex.PW3/D8 that there was no entry of deposition of Rs. 50,000/-.
61. PW3 admitted that whatever she stated in cross- examination by Ld. APP, was stated without understanding the questions and she just answered in affirmative and her version in her cross-examination is true state of facts.
62. PW3 was further re-examined by Ld. APP on the facts, which were admitted as correct by PW3, thereby making no allegations against the accused persons at all and stating that deceased was not subjected to any mental or physical harassment by the accused persons nor there was any demand of dowry by them and no Rs. 50,000/- was transferred for AC demanded by accused Chand Sagar and accused Shyambir and Rajesh Kumar instigated other accused to demand dowry and that deceased used to remain medically upset and subdued due to the opinion of the doctor that she could not conceive, but PW3 denied all the suggestions against said facts, coming up State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 36 of 62 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:14:18 Date: 2025.12.20 +0530 in her cross-examination by accused persons. Thus, from the testimony of PW3, it emerged that:
A. There was no demand of dowry by accused persons and there was no demand of Rs. 50,000/- for AC by accused Chand Sagar. B. The deceased was mentally upset for not being able to conceive as opined by the concerned doctor in the presence of PW3. C. She was happy a day before her death as PW3 and other family members visited her at her matrimonial house and remained there till 8 PM on 05.05.2019.
D. PW3 had made material improvements in her examination in chief as she had not stated about the conduct and accusation against accused Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari to either police or SDM or Executive Magistrate or that they instigated Chand Sagar to re-marry or the accused persons committed the murder of deceased. E. Accused Chand Sagar had not stated that he would not keep Bandish with him and that deceased and Chand Sagar and parents of Chand Sagar were residing on different floors and other co-accused Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari were not residing there, rather at some distant place. F. PW3 never heard accused persons that they wanted to throw deceased outside her matrimonial house and the kundi and mobile phones were seized, but they were not brought to Court by the prosecution and she had not stated the facts recorded in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., Mark B and also Ex.PW2/A and that she had not signed on the complete statement and she had not gone through the same and that deceased had revealed to accused persons about her working at Cosmetic Shop prior to marriage. G. Deceased never called PW3 on her mobile to tell about her ordeal and harassment by accused persons and that accused persons had not caused any injury to deceased prior to her death.
63. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2012 SC 3157, held the concept of sterling witness and observed in para-22 as State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 37 of 62 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20 16:14:22 +0530 under:-
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness "should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 38 of 62 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:14:26 +0530 Date: 2025.12.20 on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged".
In the present case, PW3 changed her versions and is not consistent in her testimony and thus, she can't be said to be a witness of 'sterling quality'.
64. PW4 is the brother of deceased and he was also the complainant in the present case and he reiterated that marriage of deceased Bandish and Chand Sagar happened on 19.11.2018 and she came to know from Chand Sagar on 06.05.2019 that deceased committed suicide and when he along with his mother, wife and PW3 went to her matrimonial home, her sister's room was bolted from inside and he saw her hanging from ventilation and he identified dead body of Bandish. The identity of deceased is not disputed by accused persons. PW4 also deposed that one official from SDM Office took his, his mother and sister's signature on blank paper and relationship of her sister with accused Chand Sagar and other accused persons was cordial.
65. PW4 did not support the case of prosecution at all and was declared hostile. During cross-examination by Ld. APP, PW4 denied that Bandish called her one month prior to her death and said that her in-laws were harassing her on the instigation of uncle of Chand Sagar, who was instigating him to beat her and demand dowry or that they had deposited money in the account of Bandish. PW4 also denied that accused Chand Sagar and Suman Lata Sagar used to taunt his sister for not bringing sufficient dowry and on 05.05.2019 when he went to matrimonial house of deceased, all the State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 39 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:14:30 +0530 accused persons were present and she told him that accused persons were planning to make her leave matrimonial house and harassed her and demanded cash and car or that accused persons had also stated that the marriage was not upto their standard. PW4 also denied that Rs. 49,500/- was deposited in the account of Bandish 3-4 days prior to her death on the demand of Chand Sagar for AC and PW4 also denied that in his statement dated 07.05.2019 to Executive Magistrate, he stated that due to the aforesaid acts, the accused persons had killed her sister and showed it as suicide by hanging. Said contents were denied even after PW4 was confronted with Ex.PW2/A, which was signed by him. PW4 also denied that Rs. 14-15 lakh was spent in the marriage and also denied any instigation by accused Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari or that they used to beat Bandish as disclosed by her. PW4 also denied that Chand Sagar demanded Rs. 2 Lakh before barat ceremony and he handed over the same to accused Ramesh Kumar Sagar and on 05.05.2019, Bandish disclosed about her harassment to her mother and PW4 denied seizure of 4 mobile phones including deceased and Chand Sagar's mobile and the two kundis vide seizure memos, Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/A respectively and PW4 also denied the contents of his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 10.05.2019, Ex.PW4/B even after he was confronted with the same. Thus, PW4 has not supported the prosecution in any manner, rather further creates doubt on the case of prosecution.State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 40 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:14:34 +0530
66. PW5 Sunil Kumar is brother-in-law of deceased and husband of PW3 Varsha, who deposed about marriage between accused Chand Sagar and deceased and that he came to know from PW3 that she died due to hanging and did not remember date, month and time of the same. He had seen the body of Bandish hanging from the second floor, which is contradictory to the statements of other witnesses, who stated that it was 3rd floor. PW4 also deposed that the body was hanging with ligature with frame of door and he did not know reason of her hanging and he had no knowledge as to against whom complaint was made in this case. This witness did not support the case of prosecution qua cruelty, demand of dowry or mental or physical harassment by accused persons and was declared hostile.
67. He was cross-examined by Ld. APP and he denied that his statement was recorded by the IO on 13.05.2019 or that Rs. 14-15 lakhs in the marriage of deceased or that PW3 his wife, told him that one prior to her death, deceased told PW3 that accused persons used to beat her and taunt her for bringing less dowry. PW3 also denied that Bandish told his wife on phone that accused Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari used to provoke Chand Sagar and his parents to remarry Chand Sagar due to deficient dowry or that Bandish used to remain disturb due to demand of dowry by accused persons and on 05.05.2019, Bandish told his wife and other family members, at her matrimonial home that she was being harassed by accused persons for the last two months and they demanded State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 41 of 62 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20 16:14:38 +0530 dowry and he had denied the said facts of his said statement, Mark PW5/A, even after he was confronted with the same. He had not given any positive reply regarding seizure of kundis and denied that he was won over by accused. Thus, even PW5 has not supported the case of prosecution.
68. PW6 Jaiwanti, mother of deceased and complainant deposed that she had given dowry articles as per her capacity and on 06.05.2019, accused Chand Sagar informed her that deceased committed suicide by hanging at her matrimonial house and she along with her son Rohit, daughter Varsha and Sunil went there and Rs. 50,000/- was deposited in the account of deceased for purchasing AC demanded by accused and slip of Central Bank of India, was seized vide memo, Ex.PW6/A.
69. PW6 identified her signature on her complaint, Ex.PW2/A made to Executive Magistrate, but states that when she signed nothing was written on it and as such neither PW3 nor PW4 and PW6 could prove the contents of Ex.PW2/A on the basis of which, FIR was registered and consequently the contents of FIR, Ex.PA1 could not be proved.
70. PW6 was declared hostile and she was cross- examined and she could not tell the date of marriage and denied that 3-4 months after her marriage, deceased telephonically informed her that accused persons were harassing and torturing her and demanding car and money and accused Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari were instigating other accused for the same. PW6 also denied that on demand of Chand Sagar, she had deposited money several times in the State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 42 of 62 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20 16:14:42 +0530 account of Bandish or that Chand Sagar and her mother Suman told her that marriage was not upto their standards or that on 05.05.2019, when she visited matrimonial house of deceased all the accused persons were present and deceased told her that they were planning to eliminate her from there. PW6 also denied that demands raised by Chand Sagar were not fulfilled by them due to which accused persons murdered her daughter or that she did not commit suicide, but they hanged her. She denied these facts even after she was confronted with Ex.PW2/A.
71. PW6 denied the fact that one month prior to death of her daughter, PW6 received her call, who stated that her husband and his parents were beating her for bringing insufficient dowry and demanding more money or that accused Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari instigated them to remarry Chand Sagar or that they had also beaten deceased or that on 19.11.2018, Chand Sagar demanded Rs. 2 lakh from them and her son Rohit had given it to accused Ramesh Sagar or that they had deposited money in the account of deceased on the demand of accused persons or that they were not allowed to meet deceased. PW6 also denied that due to continuous demand of dowry, harassment and torture by accused persons, she along with her daughter and son went to matrimonial house of deceased on 05.05.2019 where all the accused persons were present and deceased was crying and accused persons demanded money to bring car. PW6 also denied that she had told accused persons that PW6 could not fulfill their State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 43 of 62 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:14:46 Date: 2025.12.20 +0530 demand and she was weeping or that PW6 asked deceased to accompany them, but she refused saying that she did not want to be burden on them. She denied these facts even after she was confronted with her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 10.05.2019, Mark Z1.
72. In her cross-examination by accused, PW6 admitted that deceased was living happily at her matrimonial house till she committed suicide and she never deposited Rs. 50,000/- in the account of deceased and Chand Sagar never demanded AC from her or deceased and deceased had no grievance from accused persons.
Thus, this complainant and mother of deceased did not support any allegations of demand of dowry, torture and harassment of deceased by the accused persons.
73. PW7 Sangita deposed that deceased was happy for 4-5 months after marriage, but she did not tell about her living condition. She had not supported the case of prosecution and was declared hostile. She denied that one month prior to her death deceased called her and stated that her husband and parents-in-laws were beating her for bringing deficient dowry or that accused Shaymbir and Rajesh Kumari instigated them by taunting her about bringing less dowry and they had also beaten her or that on 19.11.2018, Chand Sagar demanded Rs. 2 Lakhs, which was given by Rohit to Ramesh Sagar or that Rs. 49,500/- was deposited in the account of Bandish as per demand of Chand Sagar for purchasing AC. PW7 also denied that due to continuous demand of dowry and harassment and State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 44 of 62 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:14:50 +0530 Date: 2025.12.20 torture, she along with her husband and family members visited her matrimonial house on 05.05.2019, where Bandish was weeping and told that accused persons were demanding car, which she refused citing poor financial condition of her mother. She denied these facts even after she was confronted with her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 13.05.2019, Mark Z2.
74. PW9 Triloki had only deposed that marriage was performed on 19.11.2018 and did not depose anything else and was declared hostile and during cross-examination by Ld. APP, he denied that family members of deceased gave gold ring, gold chain, silver payal, gold ring (father), AC and cash of Rs. 51,000/- to accused Chand Sagar and other accused as dowry. He denied these facts even after he was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 25.05.2019, Ex.PW9/A. PW9 mediator has also not deposed about any demand of dowry by the accused persons and in his cross-examination by accused, he stated that those articles were gifted by parental family of deceased out of their wishes. Thus, even if said articles were given, they cannot be termed as dowry as they were given voluntarily by the family of deceased as per rituals and without any demand. PW9 also clarified that there was no demand of dowry by accused persons till the death of deceased and she committed suicide after being opined by the doctor that she could not conceive due to hormonal imbalance and she was mentally disturbed and he knew both the families having visiting terms with them.
State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 45 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMARKUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:14:53 +0530
75. PW14 Pramod Kumar deposed that he was also the mediator of the said marriage of deceased and accused Chand Sagar and he did not depose anything incriminating against the accused persons and was declared hostile and in his cross- examination, he denied that the parents and other family members of deceased Bandish gave LED TV, Fridge, AC, Gold Ring, Gold Chain, Gold Ring for parents-in-law of deceased, Silver Payal for mother-in-law and sister-in-law and Rs. 51,000/- cash to accused Chand Sagar and his parents. He denied these facts even after he was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.PW14/A.
76. Thus, even the mediators PW9 and PW14 have not stated about any demand of dowry or harassment or torture or cruelty being caused to deceased by the accused persons.
77. In Mustafa Shahadal Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 11 SCC 397, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that to prove the charge of Section 304B IPC and to convict the accused, the following essentials must be satisfied:
(i) The death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii) Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(iii) Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband;
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, demand for dowry.
78. In the present case, the victim had died within 7 years of her marriage, but no injury was found on her body either by burns or otherwise and there was only ligature mark State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 46 of 62 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20 16:14:57 +0530 and "soon before her death", she was not subjected to any cruelty or harassment by accused Chand Sagar or other accused persons and there was no demand of dowry by the accused persons, which is reflected from the testimonies of family members of deceased i.e. PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7 and mediators PW9 and PW14, as discussed in the preceding paras and as they had not stated about any demand of dowry by accused persons and even accused Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari were living far away from the matrimonial house of deceased as they were Mausa and Mausi of accused Chand Sagar and had nothing to do with demand of dowry. Said PWs have also categorically stated that there was no injury caused to the deceased and PW3 and PW6 have clarified in their testimonies that there was no demand of any AC by accused Chand Sagar or others and any transfer of money by the complainant side could not be proved by the prosecution and deceased was happy in her matrimonial house and PW3 has categorically stated that deceased was happy a day before her death, when she visited her matrimonial house on 05.05.2019.
79. Section 113B Indian Evidence Act: Presumption as to dowry death, whether attracted:
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.
The presumption u/s 113B is a presumption of law and once the prosecution establishes the essential ingredients mentioned therein it State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 47 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2025.12.20 16:15:01 +0530 becomes the duty of the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death - State V. Jaggu Ram (2008) 12 SCC 51.
Supreme Court while often dwelling on the scope and purport of Section 304B of the Code and Section 113B of the Evidence Act have pronounced that the presumption is contingent on the fact that the prosecution first spell out the ingredients of the offence of Section 304B. Reference may be made to Shindo v. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 517; echoed in Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana (2013) 16 SCC 640; and Baijnath v. State of M P (2017) 1 SCC (Cri) 225.
Presumption and its rebuttal.- Initial burden of proof lies on the prosecution. Burden would not shift on the accused merely on the fact that unnatural death had occurred within seven years of marriage without even proving the demand of dowry prior to the incident . Reference may be made to State v. Teg Bahadur (2004) 13 SCC 300; Yashoda vs. State (2004) 3 SCC 98; Nallam vs. Public Prosecutor (2004) 10 SCC 769; State v. Raj Gopal (2004) 4 SCC 470; Baljeet v. State (2004) 3 SCC 122: Thakkan vs. State (2004) 13 SCC 348; Davinder v. State (2005) 12 SCC 104:
When the said ingredients of Section 304B IPC are established by reliable and acceptable evidence, such death shall be called dowry death and such husband or his relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death. If the abovementioned ingredients are attracted in view of the special provision, the court shall presume and it shall record such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved by the accused. However, it is open to the accused to adduce such evidence for disproving such compulsory presumption as the burden is unmistakably on him to do so and he can discharge such burden by getting an answer through cross-examination of State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 48 of 62 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20 16:15:06 +0530 the prosecution witnesses or by adducing evidence on the defence side. Reference may be made to Maya Devi v. State of Haryana, (2015) 17 SCC 405.
80. In the present case, the prosecution has not proved that there was a demand of dowry and that too soon before the death or that deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty by the accused persons as all the prosecution witnesses including the family members i.e. PW3 Varsha (sister), PW4 Rohit Kumar (brother), PW5 Sunil Kumar (brother-in-law), PW6 Jaiwanti (mother), PW7 Sangita (sister-in-law/Nanad), PW9 Trilok (Mediator) and PW14 Pramod Kumar (mediator) have not supported the case of prosecution qua the charges and turned hostile and have made no such allegations against either of the accused persons and even in the cross-examination by Ld. APP, they did not support the case of prosecution even after being confronted with their previous statements and they also did not prove any circumstance prior or post the death of deceased Bandish or if her relation with accused Chand Sagar was strained or any dowry was demanded by accused persons or if deceased was harassed by them or cruelty being caused to her in any manner by the accused persons and PW4 and PW6 have also disowned their statements before Executive Magistrate, Ex.PW2/A. In their cross-examination by accused persons, PW3 and PW6 have rebutted the allegations made in complaint and then examination in chief qua demand of dowry or harassment of deceased.
State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 49 of 62 Digitally signedKUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:15:11 Date: 2025.12.20 +0530 Thus, the prosecution has not laid the foundational facts to raise presumption u/s 113B Indian Evidence Act or to prove the offence u/s 304-B IPC.
INQUEST
81. The inquest is conducted as per the procedure laid down in Section 174 Cr.P.C. when an information is received by the police regarding a suicide of a person or that he has been killed by another or by animal or machinery or accident or has died under circumstances raising reasonable suspicion that some person has committed an offence and the information is given to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquest and the DM or SDM shall proceed to place where body of deceased was found shall make an investigation in the presence of two respectable inhabitants of neighbourhood and draw the report of apparent cause of death describing wounds, fractures, bruises or any injury.
82. The power to conduct inquest is bestowed on DM/SDM or any other Executive Magistrate especially empowered by the government of DM. In this case, matter was reported to the SDM Debasis Biswal, who was examined as PW12, who deposed that statement of PW6 Jaiwanti was recorded by PW2 and he had made endorsement on the same and forwarded it to SHO, Shahdara for taking appropriate action. In his cross-examination, PW12 admitted that he never visited place of occurrence or mortuary and never met Jaiwanti, Varsha and Rohit, whose signatures were taken on Ex.PW2/A, which was recorded as per their versions and he State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 50 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:15:16 +0530 did not know, who recorded the same and he admitted that even he did not know under which provisions of rule and law, he delegated powers to PW2 and why inquest proceedings are being conducted and there were no findings given by PW2 to him. PW12 has violated the provision by not visiting the place of occurrence.
83. PW2 Ms. Alka, who was the Executive Magistrate deposed that on 07.05.2019 after being informed about the death of Bandish by SI Kaushik Ghosh, she along with Assistant Section Officer, Deshraj went to the 203, Balbir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and saw that Bandish was laid down on bed and her mother and brother were present there and she recorded their joint statement, Ex.PW2/A, which was also signed by her sister and they alleged that she was harassed for money by the accused persons and on their demand, they had deposited Rs. 49,500/- in the account of accused for AC. Postmortem was conducted on next day i.e. 08.05.2019.
84. PW2 has deposed contrary to the content of Ex.PW2/A wherein the said amount of Rs. 49,500/- was alleged to be deposited in the account of deceased and not the accused persons, as deposed by PW2. The demand for money was made by accused Chand Sagar as per Ex.PW2/A, but PW2 deposed that it was demanded by all the accused persons. In her cross-examination, PW2 stated that she did not remember the time when she reached the spot and she has no knowledge about the provisions of law under which inquest is done and for what reasons. She stated that she recorded the versions of State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 51 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:15:20 +0530 mother and brother of deceased as stated by them. She admitted that she was told by ASI Kaushik Ghosh that the room where suicide was committed was bolted from inside and the door was broken opened by crime team and broken kundis were seized.
85. PW2 had not given any finding after recording of Ex.PW2/A, which was in the handwriting of ASO, Deshraj, who was examined as PW8, who only deposed that he joined the investigation with PW2 and went to GTB Hospital, Mortuary with her on 07.05.2019. In his cross-examination by accused, PW8 stated that he had no knowledge of any circular/order/notification of delegation of powers by SDM to conduct inquest and it was his first inquest and he recorded, Ex.PW2/A in his handwriting and even this witness did not know why inquest has been conducted.
86. PW4 and PW6 denied the contents of Ex.PW2/A and so as PW3 and PW2, Executive Magistrate stated that she did not know the procedure to conduct inquest and she took assistance of PW8 Deshraj, who was Assistant Section Officer and even PW8 stated that in her cross-examination that Ex.PW2/A was written in his own handwriting and not by PW2, but he did so at her direction and PW2 and PW6 have no knowledge, if SDM Debasis Biswal visited the spot or not. PW8 in his cross-examination admitted that he cannot identify the family members of victim, whose statement was recorded by him and even he had joined the inquest for the first time. Inquest was delegated to PW2 by the order of SDM, but she State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 52 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.12.20 16:15:24 +0530 failed to show any circular or written order from any manual that such powers can be delegated to a Section Officer like PW2 and even PW2 had not given findings after the recording of Ex.PW2/A.
87. From the testimonies of PW2, PW8 and PW12, it is apparent that none of them knew anything about the procedure and reason for inquest, which itself states about the sorry state of affairs that such officers are being assigned the duty of conducting inquest, which is the primary requirement for registration of FIR in such heinous offence affecting the life and liberty of a citizen and they all did it very casually thereby casting serious adverse inferences on the recommendations made and for the same, they need to be taken for task.
88. Thus, no injury was reported in the inquest on the body of the deceased and it is apparent from the testimonies of said witnesses that it was a case of suicide. From said testimonies of the witnesses, no cruelty caused to deceased by accused persons could be proved to prove the charge u/s 304B/498A/34 IPC.
MEDICAL/FORENSIC EVIDENCE WHETHER DECEASED COMMITTED SUICIDE OR MURDERED
89. The accused persons were charge-sheeted u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC, but Ld. Predecessor of this Court framed the alternative charge against all the accused persons u/s 120B IPC and also 302/120B IPC and the reason assigned for the same was that from the photographs of the victim, it was seen that her body below knees was touching the ground and from State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 53 of 62 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20 16:15:28 +0530 the PMR, the ligature mark of chunni was round 'O' in shape and not 'V'.
90. PW1 Dr. Pankaj Malia, who conducted the postmortem of deceased had deposed that as per inquest, there was alleged history of hanging on 06.05.2019 and deceased was brought dead in the GTB Hospital and rigor mortis had passed off and tongue was between the teeth. Ligature material was yellow colour chunni with pink prints and knot was a loose knot and the cause of death was 'Asphyxia due to antemortem hanging' and the PM Report is PW1/A and no injury was mentioned therein and in the final report, Ex.PW1/B also, same cause of death was given and the Viscera Report was pending.
91. In his cross-examination PW1 admitted that except ligature mark on neck, there was no other mark, abrasion or injury on the body of deceased and the mark was oblique, as mentioned in PMR, going upwards and backwards, which signifies that mark was 'V' shaped and 'O' shaped is ruled out and on seeing the photographs also, PW1 stated that his opinion was same and he also admitted that it is possible that in suicidal hanging due to weight of body and suspension, the knot of chunni can be loosened resulting into touching of lower limbs on floor and that the present case is of partial hanging and suicide by partial hanging is possible and dribbling of saliva from mouth also signifies suicidal hanging.
92. Accused admitted the FSL Report of Viscera of deceased, Ex.PA13 vide which there was no metallic poison, State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 54 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.12.20 16:15:32 +0530 ethyl or methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, pesticides, barbiturates and tranquilizers found. Accused also admitted the FSL report, Ex.PA14 vide which it was opined that the chunni having knot was examined physically, which was strong enough to sustain weight of 58 kg, but that is opinion only and has to be correlated with the postmortem report, which ruled out the murder as reflected from the testimony of PW1. Accused also admitted the MLC of deceased Bandish, Ex.PA4 in which it is mentioned that she was declared brought dead and no injury is mentioned therein.
93. Accused also admitted the subsequent opinion that cause of death was Asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging, Ex.PA15 given by Dr. Rishi Kumar Solanki. In the Modi's Jurisprudence also, it is specifically mentioned that partial hanging and suicide by hanging is possible, though in rare cases, in which the feet or the body of person touches the ground.
94. Thus, from the said medical/forensic reports/PMR, inquest and the testimonies of said witnesses, it is apparently proved that deceased had died due to suicide by hanging and she was not killed by any accused. From the testimonies of witnesses, even it is not proved that they had hatched any criminal conspiracy to kill the deceased as there is no evidence of any meeting of minds amongst the accused persons wherein they had agreed to kill the deceased on the alleged date, place and time. Consequently, the charge of Section 120B IPC and 302/120B IPC against the accused persons could not be proved State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 55 of 62 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20 16:15:37 +0530 by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
POLICE WITNESSES
95. The accused persons admitted recording of FIR, Ex.PA1 and GD No. 103A, Ex.PA3 vide which call was made to the police by the mother-in-law of deceased that deceased had locked herself in her room and perhaps she had committed suicide. It shows that first call was made by the mother-in-law of deceased i.e. Suman Lata Sagar, which shows that they did not hide anything and promptly called the police and had they committed murder, they would have fled or destroyed the evidence, but it was not so done by the accused persons.
96. PW10 ACP Mahesh Kumar proved the scaled site plan, Ex.PW10/A. The accused persons have also not disputed the same and admitted non scale site plan, Ex.PA5, but the place of occurrence is not disputed by the accused persons.
97. PW11 ASI Arvind proved the photographs of the spot and dead body of deceased, Ex.PW11/A and had given the relevant certificate, Ex.PW11/B, but that is not disputed by the accused persons.
98. PW13 Kaushik Ghosh deposed that he visited the spot and met brother of the deceased namely Rohit, who disclosed that she was married to Chand Sagar 5 months ago and Chand Sagar informed Rohit about suicide by Bandish. PW13 also deposed that accused Chand Sagar stated that his parents were residing at ground floor and at 11.30 PM, he went to 3rd floor and saw his room bolted from inside, which was not opened by Bandish despite knocking and he saw from State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 56 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:15:40 +0530 ventilation that she was hanging and he informed his parents and his mother called at 100 number, which is corroborated by GD No. 103A, Ex.PA3.
99. PW13 seized mobile phones vide seizure memo, Ex.PW3/B and door was broken open and yellow colour dupatta was taken and her body below knees was touching the floor and he also seized two kundis vide seizure memo, Ex.PW3/A. During the entire trial, the prosecution could not bring the said mobile phones and kundis seized as they were not traceable as per the report of MHC(M) for which strict action should be taken against PW13 SI Kaushik Ghosh and IO Jamuna Thapa for withholding the evidence deliberately and an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution as per Section 114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act. Departmental action has already been initiated against these police officials.
100. PW13 proved the rukka, Ex.PW13/A and got registered FIR and he proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Chand Sagar, Ex.PA10 & Ex.PA11 respectively, but the FIR and the arrest and personal search of accused are not disputed. PW13 proved seizure memo of photographs of marriage, Ex.PW13/B, but that is not disputed. PW13 and PW15 IO proved the arrest and seizure memo of accused Ramesh Kumar Sagar and Suman Lata Sagar, Ex.PW13/D & Ex.PW13/E and Ex.PW13/F & Ex.PW13/G, but that is not disputed by accused persons. PW13 and PW15 IO proved their disclosures, Ex.PW13/H and Ex.PW13/I, but State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 57 of 62 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.20 16:15:45 +0530 the same are not admissible in view of the embargo u/s 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW13 and PW15 also proved the Customer Deposit Slip, produced by Jaiwanti of Rs.
40,000/- of Central Bank of India, Ex.PW13/C and its seizure memo, Ex.PW6/A, but PW6 Jaiwanti had denied making any payment to anyone on account of demand of dowry by any accused and categorically deposed that there was no demand of dowry by the accused persons.
101. In his cross-examination PW13 admitted that first call to police was made accused Suman Lata Sagar. He did not record the statement of Rohit, but only made inquiries and entire investigation was done by IO Jamuna Thapa.
102. PW15 Jamuna Thapa deposed that she collected the case file from PW13 and visited the spot at Balbir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and accused Chand Sagar, who tried to run away, was arrested vide memo, Ex.PA10, but his arrest is not disputed and nothing was recovered from his personal search and PW15 proved his disclosure, Ex.PW15/A recorded by her, but the same is not admissible in view of the embargo u/s 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW15 proved seizure of ligature material, Viscera and wearing cloth of deceased vide memo, Ex.PW15/B, but nothing was found in the Viscera Report of deceased. PW15 collected the two customer copies of paying slip of Central Bank of India of Rs. 49,500/- dated 02.05.2019 and Rs. 40,000/- dated 17.12.2018, Ex.PW15/E and Ex.PW15/F, but none of the family members have proved the same that they had made the said payments to either of the State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 58 of 62 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:15:50 +0530 Date: 2025.12.20 accused persons in connection with any demand of dowry by the accused persons.
103. In her cross-examination PW15 stated that CDR of deceased Bandish and others were analyzed by her and nothing material was observed and no evidence was forwarded on the basis of CDR analysis, which is reflected in her handwritten report, Ex.PW15/DX1. PW15 also admitted that the said mediators did not level any allegation against the accused persons.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS
104. Accused Chand Sagar, Ramesh Kumar Sagar, Suman Lata Sagar, Shyambir and Rajesh Kumar stated in their statements u/s 351 BNSS that none of the relatives/family members of the deceased from her parental home deposed against them about demand of dowry or cruelty or criminal conspiracy to kill deceased and they were falsely implicated by the police officials. Since the prosecution has not laid the foundational facts, so there is no presumption u/s 113B Indian Evidence Act drawn against the accused persons and their defence is immaterial.
105. In Kailash Gour and Ors. Vs. State of Assam reported in MANU/SC/1505/2011, Apex Court has observed that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a principle that cannot be sacrificed on the altar or inefficiency, inadequacy or inept handling of the investigation by the police. The benefit arising from any such faulty investigation ought to go to the accused and not to the State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 59 of 62 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20 16:15:53 +0530 prosecution.
106. In Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka, dt. 13.10.2022, in Crl. Appeal No. 242/2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that it is settled principle of law that when two views are possible from the prosecution evidence, the one which is favourable to the accused shall have to be taken and the benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused.
107. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the accused, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may be made to the Judgments titled as 'Nallapati Sivaiah Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur', reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC) in this respect. Reference may also be made to the Judgment titled as 'Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan', reported as (2013) 5 SCC 722, wherein it was held that the large distance between 'may be' true and 'must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied and the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused persons.
State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 60 of 62 Digitally signedKUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20 16:15:57 +0530
108. The evidence led by prosecution is not reliable, cogent and has lot of infirmities as there are lot of material variations, omissions, inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of all the public witnesses led by the prosecution. The charge was not framed against accused Rajesh Kumari and Shyambir u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC and they were charged u/s 120B, 302/120B IPC along with other accused, but considering the above infirmities in the evidence, the prosecution could not prove all the ingredients of Section 498-A/34 & 304-B IPC against accused Chand Sagar, Ramesh Chand Sagar (Ramesh Kumar Sagar) and Suman Lata Sagar beyond reasonable doubt and also as discussed in preceding paras since there is no meeting of mind amongst the accused persons nor there is any eye witness to the hanging of deceased, nor there is forensic or medical evidence to prove that they had hatched criminal conspiracy to murder deceased Bandish or that they killed her in pursuance of the same, there is no evidence to prove the alternative charge u/s 120B & 302/120B IPC as even police had not claimed that deceased was murdered by accused persons and also there is no evidence brought on record qua this charge.
CONCLUSION
109. In the totality of the circumstances brought on record by way of evidence, it is observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Chand Sagar, Ramesh Kumar Sagar, Suman Lata Sagar, Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari qua offence punishable u/s 120B & 302/120B IPC and also to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 61 of 62 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.12.20 16:16:01 +0530 against accused Chand Sagar, Ramesh Kumar Sagar and Suman Lata Sagar u/s 498-A/34 & 304-B IPC, thus, a benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons on the basis of above-noted principles and facts established on record.
110. Consequently, the accused Chand Sagar, Ramesh Kumar Sagar, Suman Lata Sagar, Shyambir and Rajesh Kumari are acquitted of the offence u/s 120B & 302/120B IPC and accused Chand Sagar, Ramesh Kumar Sagar and Suman Lata Sagar are acquitted of the offence u/s 498-A/34 & 304-B IPC.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT Date:
RAJAT 2025.12.20
16:16:06
ON THIS 20 DAY OF DECEMBER 2025.
th +0530
(KUMAR RAJAT)
ASJ-07, Shahdara, KKD
Delhi/20.12.2025
State Vs. Chand Sagar & Ors. FIR No. 107/2019 PS Shahdara Page 62 of 62