Delhi District Court
Decision In Harjit Singh vs . State Of Punjab, 1 (2006) Dmc on 16 July, 2007
-:1:-
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURTS
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ROHINI DELHI
SC No. 127/06 dated 13.02.2006
Date of Decision: 16th of July 2007
STATE
Versus
1. Sanjay Sharma
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o C-486, Majlis Park,
Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.
2. Raj Rani
W/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o C-486, Majlis Park,
Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.
3. Ranjana
W/o Sh. Manottam
R/o E-195, Nehru Vihar,
Delhi
4. Praveen
S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash
R/o C-486, 1st Floor,
Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar,
Delhi.
FIR No. 308/2002
PS Adarsh Nagar
U/s. 498A, 304B read with Section 34 IPC
-:2:-
JUDGMENT
First the Facts Raj Rani (accused) is the mother in law; Ranjana (accused) is sister in law Praveen Kumar (accused) is brother in law and Sanjay Sharma (accused) is husband of Anita Sharma (since deceased). Allegations levelled against Sanjay Sharma and his relatives (accused) are that all of them subjected Anita Sharma to cruelty which led to her death, within 7 years of her marriage, and as a result they made themselves liable for offences U/s. 498A, 304B IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
Anita Sharma (since deceased), wife of Sanjay Sharma (accused No.1) left this world on 06.08.2002, while she was at her matrimonial home i.e. H.No. C-486, street No.11, Maljlis Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. As per history provided to the doctor, she died of electrocution, on 06.08.2002 at about 8 a.m. Police of Police Station Adarsh Nagar received information whereupon SI Bhawan Singh accompanied by HC Nanhe Lal and other staff reached H.No. C-486, street No.11, Majlis Park, and found dead body of -:3:- Anita Sharma lying there. Sanjay Sharma (accused) told the police that his wife had died of electrocution. The SI then informed SHO and SDM. Information was also given to the parents of Anita Sharma. Statements of Smt. Ram Murti Devi and Mahender Singh, parents of Anita Sharma, were recorded by the SDM on 07.08.2002 whereupon present case came to be registered for offences U/s. 498A and 304B IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
While making statements before SDM, Mahender Singh and Ram Murti Devi, parents of Anita Sharma, stated that their daughter used to complain them that she was being harassed. Demand of money for business is stated to have been put forth. Mahender Singh also told the SDM that there was demand that either the girl ( Anita Sharma) or the boy ( Sanjay Sharma accused) be got employed. Parents of Anita Sharma showed their inability to meet with either of the demand.
Dead body of Anita Sharma was subjected to autopsy. The doctors found that it was a case of antemortem electrocution. However, final report was deferred till receipt of report of Chemical Expert in respect of the viscera.
A team of Electricity Department is stated to have -:4:- visited the spot and prepared report that due to leakage of current, metallic body of desert cooler lying installed on a metallic stand, on the ground floor of matrimonial home of Anita Sharma, got electrically charged.
During investigation, the clothes, which Anita Sharma was wearing, were seized by the police. The cooler and a piece of cloth (used as pocha) were also seized. Photographs of the scene of crime were also taken. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Accused persons were arrested. On completion of investigation, challan was put in court.
After compliance with provisions of Section-207 CrPC, case came to be committed to Hon'ble Court of Session.
Prima facie case having been made out, charge for offences U/s. 498A and 304 B read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the accused persons, on 10.01.2005. Since accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, prosecution was called upon to lead evidence.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses.
PW5 Mahender Singh is father; PW7 Ram Murti -:5:- Devi is mother and PW15 Mukesh Kumar is brother of Anita Sharma.
Medical evidence is available in the statements of PW1 Dr. B.N. Acharya and PW4 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Punia who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Anita Sharma, on 07.08.2002 and prepared report Ex.PW1/A and also submitted opinion regarding cause of death Ex. PW1/AB.
PW2 HC Shanti Lal has been examined to prove recording of FIR Ex.PW2/B. PW3 Constable Raghubir Prasad deposed about removal of dead body to the mortuary of BJRM hospital on 06.08.2002 and delivery of dead body to its relatives after autopsy.
PW6 Constable Hukum Chand deposed about collection of a sealed wooden box from BJRM hospital alongwith one sample seal and handed over the same to Duty Officer HC Anita, who in turn, seized the same vide memo Ex.PW6/A. PW13 Sh. Arun Kumar Aggarwal, Electrical Oversear, has been examined to prove report Ex.PW12/DA after his visit to the spot in the company of Sh. Avinash Kumar Aggarwal, Assistant Electrical Officer. -:6:-
PW11 Smt. Laxmi Devi has been examined to prove receipt of telephonic call for Smt. Ram Murti Devi as her daughter was unwell. According to the witness, she delivered the message to Smt. Ram Murti Devi. However, the witness displayed ignorance as to how Anita Sharma was being treated at matrimonial home.
PW8 ASI Kamaljit Singh, PW9 ASI Anita, PW10 Constable Mahavir Singh, PW12 SI Bhawan Singh, PW14 ASI Gurmej Singh, PW16 ASI Bhagwan Devi and PW17 Constable Chunni Lal deposed about investigation part of prosecution story.
When examined U/s. 313 CrPC, the accused persons admitted factum of marriage of Anita Sharma ( since deceased )with Sanjay Sharma (accused) on 28.04.96 and their inter-se relationship with Anita Sharma (since deceased) as well.
The accused persons have denied all the circumstances appearing in evidence against them regarding demand of dowry and cruelty. As per plea put forth by the accused, Praveen (accused) used to separately reside on the first floor of H.No. C-486, Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi whereas Navneet, other brother of Sanjay Sharma, was living -:7:- in a separate house in the area of Shalimar Bagh.
Plea put forth by accused regarding death of Anita Sharma is that she died of electrocution.
Sanjay Sharma accused further pleaded in the manner as :
"Actually, when I and my wife were not blessed with any child, her parents and brother Mukesh wanted that we should adopt one of the nephews of Anita but I and my father refused to accept this proposal. In so proposing, they had their personal interest, keeping in view my business, personal bank balance, income and property. Because of all this, we have been falsely implicated in this case."
However, the accused persons opted not to lead any evidence in defence.
Arguments heard. File perused.
To prove the gravamen of charge under section 304 B IPC following essentials have to be established:
"(1) The death of a woman must have been
caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under
normal circumstances;
(2) Such death must have occurred within 7 years of
her marriage;
(3) Soon before her death the woman must have
-:8:-
been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand of dowry."
In this respect, reference may be made to decision in Harjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1 (2006) DMC 11 (SC).
Firstly, I would venture to consider and analyse as to whether the instant case is a case of dowry death. In this regard it is worth while to consider the definition of dowry as given u/s 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.. For the sake of convenience these provisions are re-produced here as under:
2. Definition of "Dowry". In this Act, dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly.
(a) by one party to a marriage to the
other party to a marriage; or.
(b) by the parents of either party to a
marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower -:9:- or mahr in the case of persons to who the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
So far as factum of death of Smt. Anita is concerned, prosecution has placed reliance on medical evidence available in the statements of PW1 Dr. B.N. Acharya, PW4 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Punia and postmortem examination report Ex. PW1/A. PW1 Dr. B.N. Acharya, on autopsy of the dead body, observed following internal and external injuries:
External Injuries:
1. Electric current mark on left arm on front and outer aspect of size 8.2 x 4.5 cm margin elevated base in tough pale. There was a corresponding multiple burn mark seen on the left side arm of the kurta suit.
2. Multiple small current mark present on the left forearm above the left wrist joint over an area of 2.5 x 0.5 c.m.
3. Linear in-pattern with inter-mining the normal skin. No other mark of injury was visible on the body.
Internal Examination On internal examination of the head, the scalp tissues were congested. Brain matter shows multiple petechial hemorrhage.
On the chest region, lungs were congested. -:10:- Petechial hemorrhage on lungs to heart surface.
Live, gallbladder, spleen, kidney and pancreas were intact and congested. Stomach was empty. Spinal column was NAD (No abnormalities detected).
In the opinion of the doctor, the findings recorded by him in the autopsy report are consistent with antemortem electrocution. Opinion given by the doctor regarding cause of death is Ex. PW1/AB. PW4 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Punia also joined Dr. B.N. Acharya in conducting autopsy on the dead body. There was no dissenting opinion between the two doctors. From the medical evidence available in the statements of PW1, PW4 and postmortem examination report, it transpires that it was a case of death because of antemortem electrocution.
Smt. Anita was married on 28.04.96. She left this world on 06.08.2002. This fact has not been disputed.
Thus, prosecution has been able to establish that Smt. Anita left this world within seven years of her marriage and she died of electrocution. But, it is to be seen as to whether it is a case where Smt. Anita has been intentionally electrocuted by any of the accused or it is a case of accidental death. Prosecution has come forward with the -:11:- allegation that all the accused persons were subjecting Smt. Anita to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and all this led to death of Smt. Anita on 06.08.2002.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has referred to the statements of PW5 Mahender Singh, father, PW7 Smt. Ram Murti Devi, mother and PW15 Mukesh, brother of Smt. Anita and argued that from their statements, it stands established that accused persons were demanding money from Smt. Anita, for the purpose of establishing business for her husband, and when the demand was not fulfilled, all of them subjected her to cruelty. Thus, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that in this case, accused are liable to be held guilty of the offences U/s. 498A and 304B read with Section 34 IPC.
On the other hand, learned defence counsel has contended that this is a case where prosecution has miserably failed to prove any demand by any of the accused. Learned defence counsel has referred to the statements of the parents and the brother of the deceased, and argued that there are material contradictions and improvements in their statements which make the version put forth by them highly doubtful. It has also been contented by learned defence -:12:- counsel that once it is established that accused persons did not put forth any demand of dowry, it cannot be said that anyone of them subjected Smt. Anita to cruelty so as to attract provisions of Section 498A and 304 B IPC. Learned defence counsel has cited Appasaheb & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 1(2007) DLT (CRL.) 1 (SC) and argued that even if the statements of the PWs regarding demand of money for starting of business by the husband of Smt. Anita is said to have been established, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, such a demand is not covered by the expression "Dowry" so as to hold any of the accused liable for commission of an offence U/s. 498A IPC or 304B IPC. As regards cause of death of Smt. Anita, learned defence counsel has referred to report Ex. PW12/DA proved by PW12 and PW13, and argued that in the given circumstances, it can safely be held that Smt. Anita died an accidental death.
Demand of dowry and harassment of Smt. Anita:
It is not case of the prosecution that any dying declaration was made by Smt. Anita before her death. There is also nothing on record to suggest that during her life time, she lodged any report with police or Crime Against Women -:13:- Cell, leveling any allegation of demand of dowry or any other article or harassment by any of the accused. Present case was registered on the statement made by Smt. Ram Murti Devi, mother of Smt. Anita, on 07-08-2002.
Statement made by Smt. Ram Murti Devi was recorded on 07.08.2002 by Sub Divisional Magistrate. On the same day, Mahender Singh, father of Smt. Anita, also made statement Ex. PW5/A. Both the statements were recorded by Sh. J.N. Kataria, SDM have been proved on record.
While making statement dated 07.08.2002 before the SDM, Smt. Ram Murti Devi stated that for a year after her marriage, her daughter Smt. Anita lived well at the matrimonial home and that it was thereafter that she was harassed. As regards demand, she stated before the SDM that her daughter demanded Rs. 40,000/- from her for business, at the time, she visited the parental house, but she could not pay this amount to her.
While appearing in court as PW7, Smt. Ram Murti Devi deposed that after the marriage of her daughter, all the four accused were maltreating her. In her statement made in court, she nowhere deposed that on such and such date, -:14:- time and place, she was maltreated. She also did not state if her daughter was maltreated in her presence or that she was told about it by her daughter or anyone else. She even did not state that her daughter lived happily at her matrimonial home for about a year. It is in her cross examination that no complaint was ever filed by them against the accused persons. She was confronted with her previous statement dated 07.08.2002, made before the SDM, where it does not find mentioned that all the four accused were maltreating her daughter. Thus, PW7, while making statement in court, did not state in consonance with the version narrated before the SDM so far as the aspect of maltreatment and harassment is concerned. Furthermore, she nowhere stated that the accused persons were maltreating or harassing her daughter on such and such account. From the statement of PW7, it becomes doubtful if Smt. Anita was ever maltreated by any of the accused persons, while she lived at the matrimonial home.
PW5 Mahender Singh is father of Smt. Anita. While deposing in court, he stated that his daughter lived at the matrimonial home peacefully and happily for about one year, after her marriage. According to him, after one year of -:15:- the marriage, Sanjay; his father Om Prakash; and other family members of the in-laws of his daughter started harassing her, while demanding money; that they were eager to get money and for that purpose, they were demanding that either Anita or her husband Sanjay should be given some employment. At this stage, when we advert to statement Ex.PW5/A, made by this witness before the SDM, on 07.08.2002, it would transpire that therein he nowhere stated that after one year of the marriage of his daughter, such and such accused persons maltreated his daughter. In that statement, he stated that his daughter used to visit parental house and complain of harassment. It does not stand recorded therein as to on what ground and which of the accused used to maltreat or harass her. Therefore, from the statements of Mahender Singh, made in Court and the one made before the SDM, it does not transpire that his daughter was maltreated on such and such date, time and place or by such and such accused and on such and such ground.
As regards factum of employment of his daughter Smt. Anita or her husband, as stated by PW5 in court as well as in his statement Ex. PW5/A, it may be mentioned here that his wife (PW5 Smt. Ram Murti Devi) nowhere stated about -:16:- this fact. In Ex. PW5/A, Mahender Singh nowhere stated before the SDM that Sanjay, husband of Anita, ever put forth any such demand of getting him (Sanjay) or his daughter (Smt. Anita) employed. In Ex. PW5/A, it stands recorded that about three months prior thereto his daughter Anita came to the parental house to see them and when she stayed there for a period of one month, one day, her father in law Om Prakash telephonically asked him (PW5) that he was a patient of heart and that he should send his daughter Smt. Anita with Sanjay and at the same time get either Sanjay or Smt. Anita employed. However, while appearing in court as PW5, Mahender Singh did not state that Om Prakash, father of Sanjay accused, ever rang up him or so asked him for employment of Sanjay or Smt. Anita. Thus, statement made by PW5 Mahender Singh is not in consonance with the statement made by him before the SDM. Furthermore, as noticed above, on this aspect, his statement does not find support from the statement of his wife Smt. Ram Murti.
On this aspect, prosecution has also examined PW15 Mukesh Kumar, brother of Smt. Anita. According to Mukesh Kumar, his sister Smt. Anita, lived at the matrimonial home for about a year after her marriage but thereafter -:17:- whenever she visited parental house, she used to complain that she was being harassed. He further stated that his sister used to complain that her husband Sanjay, father in law, mother in law, Ranjana, sister in law and brothers-in-law Navneet and Praveen used to beat her and compel her to bring dowry in the shape of money. As noticed above, parents of Smt. Anita, and Mukesh Kumar stated that she was being harassed or maltreated by all these accused persons and her father in law Om Prakash. PW15 did not state that father in law of Smt. Anita, ever asked them to get Sanjay or Smt. Anita employed. Thus, PW15 has not supported the statement of his father (PW5) on the allegation that Om Prakash, father in law of Smt. Anita, ever asked them for employment of Anita or her husband Sanjay.
As regards demand, it may be mentioned here that PW7 Ram Murti Devi and PW15 Mukesh Kumar have categorically stated that for about a year of her marriage, Smt. Anita lived happily and peacefully at the matrimonial home. There is nothing in the statements of PW5, PW7 or PW15 that before or at the time or after marriage of Smt. Anita, any demand was put forth by any of the accused for or in connection with marriage. In her statement dated -:18:- 07.08.2002 made before the SDM, Smt. Ram Murti Devi stated that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was demanded by her daughter from her for business. Therein, Smt. Ram Murti Devi did not state that this amount of Rs. 40,000/- was demanded by any of the accused or that her daughter put forth this demand on behalf of any of the accused. Therein, it also does not stand mentioned as to for whose business this sum of Rs. 40,000/- was demanded by her. Furthermore, as stands recorded in this statement dated 07.08.2002, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was demanded by Smt. Anita from her mother near the celebration of birth of her grandson Prashant.
While making statement in court, PW7 deposed that it was one month prior to the death of her daughter that she ( Smt. Anita) came to the parental house and demanded Rs. 50,000/- stating that she was being maltreated. She further stated in court that she gave Rs. 50,000/- to Smt. Anita. This version narrated by the witness in court is not in consonance with her statement made before the SDM as firstly therein she stated that the amount demanded was Rs. 40,000/- and not Rs. 50,000/-; secondly, therein she stated that Smt. Anita demanded this much amount stating that she was being maltreated; thirdly that, it does not stand recorded -:19:- therein that sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by her to Smt. Anita. What stands recorded therein is that she (PW7) could not pay the amount of Rs. 40,000/- demanded by her daughter as she was not having this much amount. Thus, the version narrated by PW7 in court is different from the one stated by her before the SDM.
In her statement made in court, PW-7 made improvement on another aspect also. According to her, prior to the supply of Rs.50,000/-, demand of Rs.10,000/- and sometimes of Rs.20,000/- was put forth by the accused persons. This fact does not find mentioned in her statement made before SDM. This fact has also not been mentioned by her husband (PW-5) or her son (PW-15). Furthermore, in court, PW-7 could not tell as to why accused persons were raising demand of money. There is nothing in the statement of PW-7 to suggest as to when this demand of Rs.10,000/- or Rs.20,000/- was put forth and by which of the accused and at which place.
As noticed above, PW-7 wife of PW-5 nowhere stated that her daughter demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/- (forty thousand) in connection with establishment of business of Sanjay Sharma, accused.
-:20:-
It may be mentioned here that PW-5 Mahender Singh deposed that she demanded Rs.40,000/- for being given to her husband for establishment of business and he paid this amount to her. In this respect, it is pertinent to refer to his previous statement Ex.PW-5/A made before SDM. Therein it does not stand recorded that any sum of Rs.40,000/- was demanded by her daughter at the time of her visit to the parental house or that any such amount was paid to her. Had any such demand been put forth by his daughter and met with my him, he would not have omitted to state so in Ex.PW-5/A. Therefore, PW-5 has improved upon his previous version narrated before the SDM on the aspect of demand. It is pertinent to mention that although neither demand nor supply of Rs.40,000/- has been proved by the prosecution, in Appa Saheb's case Supra, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that a demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry.
PW-15 Mukesh Kumar stated in court that his sister used to complain that the accused persons and her father in law used to beat and compel her for dowry in the -:21:- shape of money. However, he did not state so as to on which date, his sister so complained him. He also did not state as to how much amount she was compelled to bring from her parents.
It is in the statement of PW-15 that his sister Anita used to complain that the accused persons and her father in law were representing that articles given at the time of marriage were not good and that more articles should be given. In this respect it may be noticed that PW-15 nowhere stated as to which of the articles given at the time of her marriage were not liked and by which of the accused and which more articles were demanded and by which of the accused. Had his sister ever so complained him, he would have specified the articles not liked by the accused persons and the articles demanded by them. Furthermore, neither PW-5 nor PW-7, parents of Anita, stated anywhere that any of the accused persons also did not like any of the articles given by them to their daughter at the time of her marriage or that they demanded any article.
According to PW-15, he visited matrimonial home of her sister twice or thrice, and even on that occasion she wept and complained in the manner indicated above. But the -:22:- fact remains that neither PW-5 nor PW-7 stated that their son (PW-15) visited the matrimonial home of Anita or on return told them that their daughter had made such and such complaint to him at that time. In absence of any corroboration from the statements of his parents, it is difficult to believe that Mukesh visited the matrimonial home of his sister.
A perusal of cross examination of PW-15 would reveal that he improved upon to a greater extent, the version narrated by him before the police. Mukesh Kumar did not make any statement before the SDM. It does not stand recorded in his previous statement Ex.PW-15/DA made before police that his sister used to complain that her husband, her father in law, mother in law, sister in law and brother in law, used to beat her and compel her to bring dowry in the shape of money. Therein PW-15 is recorded to have stated that the accused persons used to beat Anita. He did not state therein that she was given beatings while being compelled to bring dowry in the shape of money. PW-15 admitted in his cross examination to have not stated before the police that his sister used to complain that the accused persons were representing that articles given at the time of -:23:- marriage were not good and that more articles should be given. It also does not stand recorded therein that the witness visited the matrimonial home of his sister twice or thrice or that at that time she wept before him.
While making statement in court PW-15 stated that about 2½ years after the marriage, his sister telephonically informed him that the accused persons were giving her beatings and hurling abuses at her. But in his cross examination, he admitted to have not so stated before investigating officer. In chief examination, he stated to have contacted Shankar Lal Sharma, husband of his father's sister and then having accompanied him to the matrimonial home of his sister and that on seeing them, all the accused started abusing them and remarking that Anita was a simpleton, nothing knowing and she having been forcibly married in their family, should be taken back to their house. However, in his cross examination, PW-15 admitted to have not stated before the police that on reaching the matrimonial home of his sister he and Shankar Lal Sharma found that accused persons were present there or that on seeing them all of them started abusing them. In his previous statement Ex.PW15/DA, it does not stand recorded that the accused persons remarked -:24:- that his sister was simpleton nothing knowing or that she was forcibly married in their family or that she should be taken back to the parental house.
In his chief examination, PW-15 deposed that at the time of his visit to the matrimonial home of his sister, the accused persons demanded Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) or a car in lieu of a scooter. However, in his cross examination, he admitted to have not stated before the police that the accused persons demanded Rs.50,000/- or car in lieu of a scooter. So much so that he admitted to have not stated before the police in his previous statement factum of any quarrel between him and Sanjay, Navneet and Praveen, which he stated in court while making statement in chief examination. He also admitted to have not stated before the police that mother in law and sister in law hurled filthy abuses at him and Shankar Lal Sharma, or that any of them asked them to take back Anita to the parental house as she was barren or that despite repeated requests the accused could not be persuaded.
In his chief examination, PW-15 deposed that his sister came out of the matrimonial home and showed him sign of injuries on her back and Sanjay, Navneet and -:25:- Praveen and their father Om Prakash asked them to immediately take Anita to parental house. Surprisingly, in his cross examination, witness stated to have not so stated in his statement before the police. He also admitted to have not stated before the police, that at about 10 p.m., Shankar Lal accompanied him and persuaded Om Prakash, father in law of Anita in his own way, and that at last they agreed to send cash by next date. He further admitted to have not stated before the police that leaving Anita at the matrimonial home he and Shankar Lal Sharma came out or that Sanjay, Navneet and their father Om Prakash assured them that nothing utoward would happen to Anita in case they send cash and articles.
In his chief examination, PW-15 stated that about a year after the above incident, he went to the house of accused and brought his sister to his own house in Village Tateri, when she told him that in case she was not taken away she would be killed at any time. However, in his cross examination, the witness candidly admitted to have not so stated before the police.
In his chief examination, PW-15 is stated to have paid Rs.15,000/- (fifteen thousand) to Sanjay and Om -:26:- Prakash with a promise to pay the balance amount of Rs.35,000/- (thirty five thousand only) against total demand of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand only). However, in his cross examination PW-15 admitted to have not stated before the police that Anita complained that the accused had asked her to return to the matrimonial home only with a sum of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand only). He also admitted to have not stated before the police that he paid Rs.15,000/- to Sanjay and Om Prakash or promised to pay balance amount of Rs.35,000/-.
The above discussed evidence of PW-15 would reveal that improvements are galore in his statement made by him in court in comparison to the statement made before the police. There is no explanation from PW15 about the improvements noticed above.
Whether any incident dated 06-08-2002 i.e soon before death of Anita, took place at her matrimonial home:
Case of prosecution is that on 06-08-2002, police of P.S. Adarsh Nagar received information about a quarrel at C-486, Majlish Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. The information was recorded in DD Ex.PW-12/A at 12:22 p.m. Thereupon, Head Constable Nanhey Ram accompanied by Constable -:27:- Raghubir and Ct. Mukesh left for the spot. PW-12 SI Bhawan Singh is stated to have accompanied the aforesaid police staff to C-486 and found dead body of Anita lying there. According to PW-12 SI Bhawan Singh, at that time Sanjay accused was found present there and he told them that his wife had died on account of electrocution. It is in his statement that parents of Anita were informed. PW-5 Mahender Singh, father of the deceased deposed that on receiving information about death of his daughter from his neice, he reached the matrimonial home of his daughter and found that she was lying there dead. PW-7 Ram Murti Devi, mother of the deceased, deposed that she learnt from one Laxmi of her village about death of her daughter Anita and accompanied by co villagers reached the matrimonial home and found her dead body lying there. PW-15 Mukesh Kumar, brother of the deceased deposed that he was telephonically informed by wife of Shankar Lal that Anita had been killed and as such reached Delhi and found her dead body lying at the matrimonial home.
A perusal of the aforesaid statements of the four witnesses do not reveal that any one of the accused were seen subjecting Anita to electrocution. Smt. Laxmi wife of Jai -:28:- Bhagwan, a co villager of PW-5 and PW-7 has displayed ignorance as to how Anita was being treated at her matrimonial home. She simply deposed on 06-09-2006, when her statement was recorded in court, that four years prior thereto she received telephonic message that Smt. Murti be informed that her daughter was unwell, and that she informed her accordingly. The witness was then put leading question by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor after seeking permission from the court but nothing useful to the prosecution could be elicited from her. She categorically denied the suggestion put forth by learned Addl. P.P. for State that Anita was being maltreated by her in laws on the point of demand of dowry. She even denied to have made any statement made before the police. The investigating officer did not join anyone from the neighbourhood to investigate as to whether any quarrel or dispute used to take place at the matrimonial home of Anita or that on 06-08-2002 any dispute took place at her matrimonial home between her and any of the accused.
PW-17 Ct. Chunni Lal deposed that on 06-08- 2002 he reached the spot on a call that a lady had got electrocuted. PW-17 took photographs which are Ex.PW- -:29:- 17/1 to PW-17/9 developed from the negatives Ex.PW-17/10 to PW-17/18. Statement of PW-17 is formal in character.
PW-13 Sh. Arun Kumar Aggarwal, Electrical Oversear, deposed to have accompanied Sh. Avinash Kumar Aggarwal, Assistant Electrical Officer, to house no. C-486, Street No.11, Majlish Park, Delhi, on 07-8-2002, and found a desert cooler installed there. The desert cooler was found resting on a metallic stand in the window of a room situated on the ground floor. At the time of inspection, PW-13 and his companion found that earth wire had not been connected to earth pin of the three pin plug. On testing insulation resistance of the electrical installation of the said desert cooler, PW-13 and his companion observed leakage of current and that due to leakage of this current, the metallic body of the cooler and metallic stand on which it was resting, had got electrically charged. In this respect, report is Ex.PW-12/DA.
It is in the statement of PW-12 SI Bhawan Singh that on 07-08-2002, he seized cooler and a piece of cloth meant for sweeping of floor (generally called "pocha") vide memo Ex.PW-12/D. A perusal of recovery memo Ex.PW- 12/D would reveal that in the heading of this memo, words -:30:- "and pocha" can safely said to have inserted/written later on in a different pen. Similarly, in the body of the memo, sentence "a pocha has been taken into police possession vide this memo, by way of proof" can also be said to have been inserted later on. All this makes it doubtful if any "pocha" was seized by the police from the spot on 07-08- 2002 or that any such "pocha" was found lying at the matrimonial home of Anita either on 06-08-2002 or on 07-08- 2002. Furthermore, contents of the memo Ex.PW-12/D and the statement of PW-12 or any other relatives of the deceased do not reveal that any such piece of cloth (pocha) was found lying by the side of the cooler or touching the cooler.
In view of the medical and other evidence led by the prosecution, it transpires that Anita died because of electrocution but there is nothing on record to suggest that she was subjected to electrocution by any of the accused.
While appearing in court as PW-5 Mahender Singh deposed that at the time he reached the matrimonial home of Anita, the accused persons grappled with him and abused him but in the meanwhile police came there. In this respect, it may be mentioned here that PW-5 has improved -:31:- upon his previous version narrated before the SDM as it does not stand recorded therein that accused persons grappled with him or abused him, or that in the meanwhile police reached there.
A perusal of statement of PW-7 Ram Murti Devi would reveal that she nowhere deposed that any of the accused grappled with her husband on 06-08-2002 at the time of their visit to the matrimonial home of Anita.
PW-15 Mukesh Kumar son of PW-5 and PW-7 deposed that a day prior to 06-08-2002 while present at office, he received telephonic message from Om Prakash that he should listen as to what his sister Anita wanted to say. Thereupon his sister told him that her in laws were demanding cash and that she was being threatened by them with dire consequences in case of non fulfillment of their demand of cash.
He deposed that on the next day, he received telephonic message from wife of Shankar Lal that Anita had been killed; that on reaching the matrimonial home of his sister, he found all the accused persons present in the courtyard of the house and all of them started abusing and quarreling with them. He further stated that Om Prakash -:32:- instigated his sons Navneet, Pradeep and Sanjay to bring revolver from inside the house as to why he (PW15) and his parents had come there. They are also stated to have given them beatings and asked for removal of all the articles given at the time of marriage.
But, in his cross examination, PW15 admitted to have not so stated before the police. Furthermore, PW12 SI Bhawan Singh nowhere deposed that at the time he and his staff reached the spot, any of the accused persons was found quarreling with the parents or brother of Anita. On the other hand, Sanjay Sharma (accused) has come forward with the plea that when PW15, his brother, his cousin brother accompanied by several co-villages came to their house , they started quarreling with them, and as such, he informed police of P.S. Adarsh Nagar.
The above discussed evidence goes to show that prosecution has failed to substantiate the allegation that any of the accused quarreled with or hurled abuses at the parents or other relatives of Smt. Anita.
As regards demands conveyed on 05-08-2002 to PW15 when we advert to his cross-examination, it would transpire that he admitted to have not stated before the police -:33:- that Smt. Anita telephonically told him that her in-laws were demanding cash or they were threatening her with dire consequences in case of non-fulfillment of demand of cash. He also admitted to have not stated before the police that on the following day, Smt. Anita called him and told that he should visit her matrimonial home. He also admitted to have not stated before the police that he expressed his inability to visit the matrimonial home of his sister, he being in office.
As regards day of occurrence i.e 06.08.2002, PW15 stated that he received telephonic message from the wife of Shankar Lal that Smt. Anita had been killed. In this respect, PW15 has made improvement in his version narrated to the police as therein he simply stated that he was telephonically informed by Premwati wife of Shankar Lal about death of Smt. Anita. He did not state therein that Smt. Anita had been killed.
It is pertinent to mention here that statements of parents of Smt. Anita were recorded on 07.08.2002 by the SDM. PW15 Mukesh Kumar was very much present there. He too could make statement before the SDM on the same day. In his cross examination, he admitted that on 07.08.2002 statements of his parents were recorded by the -:34:- SDM at about 2/3 p.m. He further admitted to have not made any statement before the SDM. There is no explanation coming forth from him as to why he did not narrate his version before the SDM soon after his parents made their statements. PW15 admitted that his statement was recorded by the investigating officer in the police station. The delay in recording of statement of PW15 by the police and his having not made any statement before the SDM on 07.08.2002, further adversely affects his testimony.
In view of the above discussion, this court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to bring home charge against any of the accused that they or anyone of them put forth any demand of dowry or of money or of any article or that any of the accused subjected Smt. Anita to cruelty at any point of time. This Court also comes to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish that Smt. Anita was subjected to electrocution by any of the accused on 06.08.2002 at the matrimonial home. As a result, all the four accused are acquitted of the offences U/s. 498A and 304 B read with Section 34 IPC.
Case property be destroyed in accordance with rules on expiry of period of appeal/revision, if none is -:35:- preferred or subject to decision thereof.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court on Dated: 16th of July, 2007 [NARINDER KUMAR] Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court: Rohini: Delhi