Delhi District Court
State vs . Rakesh Kumar I.D. No. 579/16 on 24 November, 2016
In the court of Additional Session Judge04, District Shahdara, Room
No.51, Second Floor, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Rakesh Kumar I.D. No. 579/16
FIR No.456/2010 S.C. No.40/14
PS Bhajanpura Decision reserved on: 17.11.2016
U/s : 498A/304B/34 IPC Date of decision : 24.11.2016
In the matter of
State (NCT of Delhi) ...State
versus
Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir Singh
r/o Village Shikanderpur, P.S. Khatoli,
District Muzaffar Nagar (U.P.)
Presently residing at C1/28,
Third Floor, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. ...Accused
J U D G M E N T
1.1 (Introduction) - On 12.04.2010 at 12.55 p.m., a DD No.13A
(now MarkX1) was recorded in the police station Bhajanpura, this
information was received from constable Karamvir from GTB hospital
that one namely Tina, aged about 28 years, wife of Rakesh Kumar,
resident of A4/84, Gali No.27, Bhajanpura has been admitted in
unconscious state by her father, she has been declared dead. This DD
entry was handed over to SI Ajeet Singh (now PW13), who went to GTB
hospital where he met Manvir Singh, father of deceased and it was
S.C. No.40/14 State v. Rakesh Kumar Page 1 of 18
discovered that his daughter Renu had married about three years back,
it was also informed to SHO/Inspector Hansraj Thakran, area SDM Sh.
A.K. Sharma was also informed, the spot at K4/85, Gali No.27,
Bhajanpura was also viewed by them, the dead body was also seen
and the Crime Team was also called, who inspected the spot and
photographed the same. Inquest proceedings U/s 176 Cr.P.C were
being carried by the area SDM. No paper or any substance was found
at the spot. Statement of father of deceased was recorded by the SDM.
It was also directed by SHO to preserve the dead body in mortuary of
GTB hospital and a constable was deputed. This information was
recorded in returned entry DD No.76B dated 12.04.2010 at 9.55 pm.
1.2 On 12.04.2010, under the DD no. 13A dated 12.04.2010,
statement of Sh. Manbir Singh was recorded. He had stated that "he is
resident of Bhajanpura since 1984, where he alongwith his family has
been living. His eldest daughter Renu was married to Rakesh about
three years back, Rakesh lives in Vijay Park. Complainant's daughter
Renu was living with him for the last one year. Her inlaws were
harassing her. Her brotherinlaw (Jeth) Sanjay and brotherinlaw
(Nandoi) Suraj had asked twice for a house for Renu and Rakesh and
they also tried to burn Renu. Because of these harassment Renu was
living with the complainant. Once, it was tried to strangulate her. Today
at about 67 am when we woke up, we found Renu was perplexed and
immediately she was brought to GTB Hospital and after some time of
arrival she expired. It appears that she had had something and that is
why she died. He concludes his statement that statement is given
S.C. No.40/14 State v. Rakesh Kumar Page 2 of 18
without any influence and in his perfect state of mind. It is his correct
statement."
1.3 Seizure memo in respect of gastric lavage and sample seal
was also seized as per seizure memo dated 1.4.2016 (Ex. PW7/A).
1.4 Thence, postmortem of body of Smt. Renu was got done, the
inquest proceedings were completed by the area SDM, the dead body
of Renu was given to her father Sh. Manbir Singh and to her brother Sh.
Pawan Kumar, the viscera box was handed over to constable Sita Ram,
which was seized by memo (now Ex. PW13/A), under the DD No. 13A
on 13.04.2010. On 13.04.2010 vide arrival entry DD No. 51B police
station Bhajanpura, all these facts were incorporated in the rojnamcha.
2. On receipt of opinion on MLC, the circumstances were apprised
by report (now Ex. PW13/B) to the area SDM and Sh. A.K. Sharma,
Sub Division Magistrate, Seelampur by his remarks (now Ex. PW6/E)
directed action be taken as per law by considering the postmortem
report and statement of father of the victim. Therefore, SI Ajeet Kumar
endorsed a ruqqa (Ex. PW13/C) on the statement dated 12.04.2010 of
Shri Manbir Singh (Ex. PW1/A, its narration has already been given in
para 1.2 above) and formal FIR u/s 498A IPC was directed, accordingly
FIR no. 456/2010 (now Ex. PW11/A) in police station Bhajanpura u/s
498A IPC was registered on 07.09.2010.
The investigation was carried and after collecting all kind of
evidence, either in the form of statement of witnesses or medical record.
The accused Rakesh and Renu had married on 24.04.2008 and Renu
S.C. No.40/14 State v. Rakesh Kumar Page 3 of 18
died on 12.04.2010 by unnatural death within period of seven years of
her marriage. It result into charge sheet u/s 498A/406/304B IPC
against accused Rakesh Kumar. He was summoned by the court of
Metropolitan Magistrate and case being triable by court of session, it is
committed to Sessions Court.
3. (Charge) - Accused Rakesh Kumar has been charged u/s 498A
IPC that on or before 12.04.2010 (date of death of Ms. Renu), he being
husband, harassed, coerced and subjected his wife Renu with cruelty
with view to meet his unlawful demand of dowry, he forced her and her
father to meet such demand after 24.04.2008 (being date of marriage)
and committed an offence punishable u/s 498A IPC. He has been
further charged u/s 304B(2) IPC that in the aforementioned period and
date and place he being husband, soon before the death of his wife
Renu, subjected her with cruelty and harassed her physically and
mentally on account of insufficiency of dowry and by harassing her with
a view to force and coerce her and her parents to meet his unlawful
dowry demand, which resulted in her dowry death otherwise than
normal circumstances. However, the accused pleaded not guilty and
claim trial. Thus, the case was put to the prosecution evidence.
4.1 (Prosecution Evidence) In order to prove the charges and to
establish the prosecution case, the prosecution got examined 11
witnesses, their names are given below with brief introduction of
purpose of their examination :
(i) PW1 Manbir Singh - To prove that he is father of Renu (since
deceased) as well as the allegations of demand of dowry by the inlaws
S.C. No.40/14 State v. Rakesh Kumar Page 4 of 18
of Renu and for want of fulfilling such demand, the said Renu was
harassed, she was living with the complainant about one year prior to
her death with her parents. Further to prove his statement (Ex. PW1/A)
given to the police immediately on death of his daughter as well as the
police complaint in writing given subsequently on 13.04.2010 (now Ex.
PW1/B).
(ii) PW2 Pawan - To establish that he is younger brother of Renu as
well as to prove allegations of harassment of dowry demand against the
accused besides to corroborate the statement of his father Manbir.
(iii) PW3 Subhash Chandra - To prove that Renu was his niece and
her inlaws used to demand separate plot/house and because of that
Renu was harassed and she was upset visavis she was being
harassed by calling her on telephone by accused Renu.
(iv) PW6 A.K. Sharma, Retired Dy. Secretary, Department of Law &
Justice, Delhi Government- To prove that he was area SDM on
12.04.2010 and on receipt of telephonic message from the then SHO
Bhajanpura, he reached GTB Hospital and recorded the statement of
Sh. Manbir Singh (Ex. PW1/A) in vernacular and on 13.04.2010 inquest
proceedings were carried, appropriate forms (Ex. PW6/A, Ex. PW6/B)
were filled in and dead body of Renu was got postmortem and after
postmortem it was handed over to her father. On 30.07.2010 on receipt
of status report, an appropriate action was directed at the earliest on the
statement (Ex. PW1/A). ....................
(v) PW9 Dr. P.K. Phukan - Dr. Rahul Parekh was working in GTB
Hospital on 12.04.2010, he prepared MLC of Renu, as he had
examined her, however, he left the services of hospital, that is why in
order to prove MLC, Dr. P.K. Phukan/PW9 has appeared, who
identified signature and writing of Dr. Rahul on the MLC which is now
Ex. PW9/A.
(vi) PW10 Dr. Neha Gupta To prove that on 13.04.2010 she carried
the postmortem on the body of Renu and gave her report (Ex. PW10/A)
and on 17.10.2011 opinion (Ex. PW10/B) was given on MLC about the
cause of death of Renu was due to shock as a result of ingestion of
sulphuric acid and it was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course
of nature. ......................
S.C. No.40/14 State v. Rakesh Kumar Page 5 of 18
(vii) PW11 SI Naveen Rathee - To prove that on 07.09.2010 he was
duty officer in police station Bhajanpura and on receipt of statement
alongwith ruqqa sent by SI, he recorded FIR no. 456/2010 u/s 498A
IPC (Ex. PW11/A), he made an endorsement as Ex. PW11/B on the
ruqqa.
(viii) PW4 HC Yashvir Singh - To prove that he was posted as
Malkhana Moharar on 12.04.2010 and SI Ajeet Kumar had deposited
sealed parcel of gastric lavage alongwith sample seal, which he
recorded in register no. 19 (Ex. PW4/A). On 13.04.2010 parcel viscera
box with sample seal was deposited for which he also carried entry in
the register no. 19 (Ex. PW4/B). On 21.07.2010 the said exhibits were
sent to FSL through Head Constable vide road certificate, which was
also entered in registered (Ex. PW4/B).
(ix) PW13 SI Ajeet Kumar - To prove that he carried appropriate
inquiry and investigation from the inception of receipt of DD no. 13A on
12.04.2010, not only he went to the spot but also apprised time to time
information to senior officers, who also called crime team, area SDM at
the spot, the postmortem was carried during his investigation, the dead
body was handed over to the relatives visavis statement of
complainant was recorded, he also obtained MLC and opinion on
postmortem report and then matter was apprised to the area SDM,
lastly not only the FIR was got registered by endorsing the ruqqa but
also consequent investigation was carried. PW7 Constable Sita Ram
also remained associated with him during such inquiry/investigation.
(x) PW7 Ct. Sita Ram - To establish that he participated the
investigation with PW13 SI Ajeet Singh on 12.04.2010 and 13.04.2010
and also joined investigation with SI Sunil Kumar/PW5 and constable
Ashok Kumar/PW12 on 29.09.2011, as in his presence accused
Rakesh was interrogated after surrender in the court visavis arrest and
personal search of accused was carried, he also given his disclosure
statement, he is a witness to all the memos prepared. He also got
examined the accused medically.
(xi) PW8 ASI Raghu Raj - To prove that he is the second
Investigating Officer and he was posted to PS Bhajanpura on
25.01.2011 and he carried further investigation consequent to mark of
the case to him. IN further investigation not only he took the permission
S.C. No.40/14 State v. Rakesh Kumar Page 6 of 18
for arrest of the accused but also recorded supplementary statement
and on receipt of further opinions, the accused was arrested. It result
into charge sheet. .............
(xii) PW5 SI Sunil Kumar - To establish that on 29.09.2011 he was
posted as Sub Inspector in the police station and at that material time
main IO was not there visavis there was application for surrender/bail
by the accused and he was deputed to lift into the matter, consequently
he alongwith PW7 Ct. Sita Ram and PW12 Ct. Ashok Kumar went to
the court where appropriate investigation was carried inclusive of arrest
and interrogation of accused, his disclosure statement, his personal
search etc. His bail application was dismissed and he briefed the
circumstances to SHO.
(xiii) PW12 Ct. Ashok Kumar - To prove that on 29.09.2011 he
remained in association of Sub Inspector Sunil Kumar in respect of
investigation of the case, which was carried in the venue of
Karkardooma Court Complex. ..........................
(xiv) FSL result U/s 293 Cr P C that exhibits/visera preserved were
examined and they were found to be containing sulphuric acid.
..........................
4.2 The prosecution witnesses have been thoroughly cross examined
on behalf of accused to show that neither there was any demand of any
thing by the accused from his wife or inlaws at any point of time nor
from his fatherinlaw. Renu was under treatment of some mental
disease, even prior to her marriage and she was undergoing treatment
of Ojha (Quack) from Balaji, which came to the knowledge of accused
subsequently when Renu was being taken medical hospital, PW1 asked
that she is not to be treated in Hospital as she is under treatment at
Balaji. PW1 has also asked that she will be recovered and for recovery,
the accused and said Renu has to live separately and that is why she
was living with her father for more than one year. Otherwise, the
S.C. No.40/14 State v. Rakesh Kumar Page 7 of 18
accused had visited them as well as the complainant had invited
accused and others in marriage of Renu's younger sister Gudia on
16.2.2010 (wherein accused had given presentation of washing
machines & cash). Moreover, Renu's jewellery articles were stolen by
her parents, when she demanded it, her parents had killed her.
5.1 (Statement of accused & defence evidence) - After the
conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s 313
Cr.P.C, without oath, he replied all the questions put to him, he denied
all allegations. In fact, his Renu has been murdered by complainant and
his other family members, a false report was lodged against accused to
implicate him. When he received information of death of his wife, he
approached the police also, who recorded his statement but for want of
action on his statement, he lodged complaint in the court, which is still
pending. Moreover, his wife's jewellery was stolen by her parents and
when she demanded, she has been murdered by them. The accused
also put his this plea and other defences to the prosecution witnesses
during their cross examination. Accused also opted for defence
evidence.
5.2 The accused got examined three witnesses namely DW1 Anil
Gupta and DW 2 Sunil Kumar to prove that in the month of May/June,
2008 and also in the month of December, 2008, when Rakesh's wife
Renu was ill and under fits, they have taken her to the clinic of doctor in
Maujpur at the request of accused visavis Manvir Singh was also
present and he was saying that Renu is under treatment of one Bhagat.
Accused also got examined DW3 Kalyan Singh, court clerk to prove that
S.C. No.40/14 State v. Rakesh Kumar Page 8 of 18
a private complaint dated 19.9.2011 (Ex DW3/A) against Manbir Singh
and two others is pending trial before the court of metropolitan
magistrate, Karkardooma, Delhi against Manbir and othes. All the three
witnesses were cross examined on behalf of the State. Then, defence
evidence was closed. Thus, case came for final hearing.
6.1 (Final submissions on behalf of accused) - At the juncture of
final hearing, Ld. Counsels Sh.Sandeep Tyagi alongwith Sanjeet
Kumar, Advocates opened oral submissions, with request to file written
synopsis, which have also been filed by giving copy to State. In nutshell
there is no evidence to prove charge U/ss. 498A/304B IPC to held the
accused guilty. There are unsubstantiated allegations as well as
improved statement in court from the statement given to police. Ms
Renu was living with her father for the last more than one year, as
accused was asked that they shall live separately as a prevention for
her better treatment but she died there at residence of her father. There
was no demand of dowry and in fact in the subsequent complaint also,
which was prepared an after thought, the complainant himself refers
that certain 'gifts' were given in marriage, this shows that there was no
demand at all. Neither in the first statement to area SDM nor in the
subsequent complaint there is any specific allegation against the
accused Rakesh of demand of dowry or of plot for residence of accused
and for Renu. Hence there is no proof of cruelty or harassment by
accused in connection of dowry or soon before death of Renu vis a vis
there is no recovery of suicide note to infer anything against the
accused. Moreover, it is not only delayed FIR but also the Renu was
brought to Hospital by her father after much delay, as arrival in the
S.C. No.40/14 State v. Rakesh Kumar Page 9 of 18
hospital is about 11.30 am but the incident is of early morning of
6.30am; the hospitals were at a distance of 3 4 kms to 78 kms from
the residence of complainant as per versions of witnesses. There are
material contradictions and improvements in the statement of
witnesses, which have also been confronted with. It was duty of the
prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, however,
none of the charges have been proved so, the benefit of doubt goes in
favour of accused, certain extract of evidence has been reproduced in
the written synposis. Ld counsels are also relying upon:
(i) Ramaiha Alias Rama v. State of Karnataka - (2014) 9 SCC 365
"113B. Presumption as to dowry death - When the question is whether
a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown
that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such
person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand
for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the
dowry death"
"A plain reading of the aforesaid provision would demonstrate that
to attract the presumption as to dowry death stated in the aforesaid
provision, it is necessary to show that soon before her death, she had
been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry. When this essential ingredient
has not been established in the present case, the question of drawing
any presumption by invoking of the aforesaid provision would not arise".
(ii) Bharat Bhushan and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(2014) 13 SCC 525 (para 7). "...the criminal liability under Section 304
B is attracted not just by the demand of dowry but by the act of cruelty
or harassment by the husband or any relative or her husband in
connection with such demand; thus, unless such an act of cruelty or
harassment is proved to have been caused by the accused to the
deceased soon before her death in connection with the demand of
dowry, the accused cannot be held to be liable for the offence of dowry
S.C. No.40/14 State v. Rakesh Kumar Page 10 of 18
death under Section 304B IPC. Similarly, Section 498A IPC provides
that the act of cruelty to a woman by her husband or his relative would
be punishable and would be attracted only if the husband or his relative
commits an act of cruelty within the meaning of clauses (a) and (b) in
the Explanation to Section 498A IPC.
(iii) Major Singh & Another Vs. State of Punjab, 2015 [2] JCC 1385 -
(para 15) "The determination of the period which can come within the
term "soon before" is left to be determined by the courts, depending
upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to
indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the
interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment
concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a
proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry
demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is
remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental
equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence."
(iv) State of Karnataka v. Dattaraj & Ors, 2016 [2] JCC 967 while
discussing about 'soon before death' it was concluded in para 18 that
"In so far as the demand of Rs.20,000/ for the purchase of agricultural
land is concerned, it is apparent that the same was allegedly made
when Dattaraj was in Dubai. The said demand was allegedly made by
Ningesh (respondent - accused no.2), the father of Dattaraj, when he
had gone to leave Savita at her maternal home. Dattaraj is stated to have returned to India from Dubai eight to ten months, after the above demand. A female child was born to Savita about a year after the return of Dattaraj to India. After the birth of the female child, Savita had remained in her maternal house, for about four to five months. Therefore, even if the above oral allegation is accepted as correct, it was a demand made about two years before the occurrence. The same was too remote to the occurrence, and therefore, would not satisfy the requirement of "soon before her death" contemplated under Section 304B (1) of the Indian Penal Code."
S.C. No.40/14 State v. Rakesh Kumar Page 11 of 186.2 (submission of State) - Whereas Sh. Shahbuddin, Ld. APP for the State opposed the submissions rendered on behalf of State that the entire evidence is to be read together as it is not a case of direct evidence but of circumstantial evidence. The victim died within seven years of her marriage, it was unnatural death and statement of star witnesses, clearly indicate of demand of dowry by way of demanding plot from Renu and her parents. She was under constant harassment and cruelty. There is no straight jacket formula or fixed period for determining for 'soon before death' and each case has to be seen from its own prospective. She was living with her parents as she was being harassed by the accused. The evidence on record prove the charges. There are some contradiction, but the same are minor or not material one to give any benefit to the accused persons. Lastly, the accused is projecting different defences, which have also not been proved, this also shows that prosecution has succeeded to prove the charges against accused.
7.1 (Findings) - The contentions of both the sides are considered and assessed, keeping in view the material/evidence on record, opinions rendered by experts as well as the provisions of law besides the case law presented. In order to appreciate the contentions, it would be appropriate to mention ingredients of section 498A and section 304B IPC, the same are : Section 498A
(i) the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment;
S.C. No.40/14 State v. Rakesh Kumar Page 12 of 18(ii) such cruelty or harassment was shown either by the husband of the women or by the relative of the husband;
(iii) such cruelty was (1) with a view to drive her (a) to commit suicide; or (b) to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical; or
(iv) such harassment was (1) with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security; or (2) on account of failure by such woman or any person related to her to meet such unlawful demand.
Section 304B IPC (1) Death of woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances.
(2) Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.
(3) She must have subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.
(5) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been met out to the woman soon before her death.
7.2 On assessment and analysis of record, the following relevant facts are undisputed facts
(a) Ms. Renu and accused Rakesh were married on 24.04.2008, Renu expired on 12.04.2010 by unnatural death, therefore, she died within seven years of her marriage.
(b) Renu was living with her parents from December, 2008 and she died by consuming sulfuric acid (as opined in FSL result Ex.PW8/B) as well as by opinion (Ex.PW10/B) by Dr. Neha Gupta that 'Renu died due S.C. No.40/14 State v. Rakesh Kumar Page 13 of 18 to shock as a result of ingestion of sulphuric acid and is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature'.
(c) Complainant/PW1 admitted that her daughter Gudia was married on 16.02.21010, accused Rakesh and his relatives were invited there, accused Rakesh gave washing machine and some cash as gifts on the eve of marriage of Ms.Gudia.
(d) The incident had happened in the early morning on 12.04.2010 when PW2 and his brother had seen Renu lying in her room, PW1 was also informed so and PW1 also says that Renu was seen by him in the morning. Renu was brought to GTB hospital at 11.30 am, where she was declared brought dead as per MLC (Ex.PW9/A).
(e) Witness/complainant Manbir Singh confirms his first statement (Ex.PW1/A) given to the SDM, he also identified his signature on his statement. PW1 is not knowing about the contents of his complaint dated 30.04.2016 (ExPW1/D).
(f) PW3 Subhash chander, uncle of deceased Renu, is not the witness of any event and he deposed whatever he heard from his brother PW1 or from others. Accused or his relative had not joined the last rites of deceased Renu as no information was reached to them about the demise of Renu.
7.3 By keeping in view the evidence on record and requirements of law of charges framed, the following conclusions are drawn: S.C. No.40/14 State v. Rakesh Kumar Page 14 of 18
(i) PW2 says that there was quarrel by the accused to his wife Renu after two months of marriage and she was brought back to her parents house and then after one month, she was sent back to her matrimonial home. On the the other side, PW1 says that Renu was sent to matrimonial home after three months of marriage on the eve of gona ceremony. However, could there be occasion for quarrel in two months of marriage, when Renu was at her parents house for three month of her marriage. Witness PW3 is not an eye witness to any event and he stated whatever he heard from others.
(ii) It was Sanjay and Suraj (brothersinlaw of Renu), who asked for plot as per narration given by PW1 in his statement to the police (Ex.PW1/A) and subsequently the said PW1 filed a typed complaint (Ex.PW1/D) naming six persons. PW1 in his cross examination deposed that he was not knowing about the contents of his later complaint. The other witness PW2 also deposed that it was Renu's brothersinlaw, who asked for a plot to be given to accused Rakesh. This shows that there was no demand or dowry demand or demand of plot by accused Rakesh.
(iii) There is no complaint or police complaint either by PW1 Manbir Singh or by his daughter Ms. Renu or by other relative in respect of demand of plot, if so made after marriage, prior to the registration of FIR in the year 2010 visavis Renu was residing with her parents for the period more than one year prior to her death.
S.C. No.40/14 State v. Rakesh Kumar Page 15 of 18(iv) There is no specific instance given as to when demand of plot was made nor any specific evidence that plot was demanded by accused Rakesh either from Renu or from PW1 Manbir Singh.
(v) PW1 in his statement before the court had narrated certain facts, which had not been mentioned either in his first statement (Ex.PW1/A) to SDM or in his subsequent complaint of 30.04.2010 (Ex.PW1/D) and PW1 says that he had stated those facts to the SDM or to the police in his statement, the same were shown to him and confronted that such facts were not mentioned in his statements, which was also read over to him. Those are substantial improvements.
(vi) PW1 also stated that his daughter used to tell him on telephone about beatings or harassment met to her for demand of plot and otherwise to kill her, however, neither it is so mentioned in his statement given to police or to area SDM.
(vii) PW1 in his statement to SDM as well as in his statement to the court narrated the incident that it was about 6 am or 7 am when he found his daughter was perplexed, she was brought to hospital. Whereas PW2 in his statement explains that he and his brother Chaman were sleeping on the top floor, their employee Yogender was sleeping on the roof of top floor, his parents were sleeping on the ground floor; the Renu was on the first floor. The said servant Yogender heard voices coming from the room of Renu and he got woke up PW2 and his brother Chaman, when PW2 went to the room of Renu, she was found lying on the bed. Then PW2 called his father.
S.C. No.40/14 State v. Rakesh Kumar Page 16 of 18The matrix of statements of PW1 and PW2 are materially contradictory on this aspect, as on the one side PW1 had seen his daughter perplexed and on the other side, they people were sleeping and PW2 was got woke up by servant and PW2 called his father from ground floor.
(viii) As per the MLC (Ex.PW9/A), the said Renu was brought to GTB hospital at 11.30 am and she was also declared 'brought dead'. There is a gap of 5.30 hours to 4.30 hours from timings 6 am to 7 am, when PW1 stated to have been seen Renu perplexed, she was brought to hospital. Simultaneously PW1 also says that the distance between his residence and the hospital was 7 to 8 kilo meters. PW1 also mentions about Rupali Nursing Home at a distance of 4 Km from his residence and also named it first time in court that he had taken Renu there, but they asked to take to other hospital. Immediately, she was brought to this GTB hospital, which was in further way from Rupali Nursing Home. No record of Rupali Nursing Home has been produced. It does not take 4.30 hours to 5.30 hours to cover distance of 7 to 8 km to reach from residence of PW1 to GTB Hospital.
(ix) The Investigating Officer carried the inquiry on receipt of information and spot was visited by him besides by area SDM ( in view of above it would be after 11.30 am, when Renu was declared brought dead), however, during investigation, no substance or container of substance was discovered at the spot where Renu was found lying or seen by PW2 and his brother Chaman. There is also no investigation or report in the chargesheet with regard to substance, if found lying at the S.C. No.40/14 State v. Rakesh Kumar Page 17 of 18 spot. In opinion of cause of death, the substance has been opined as sulfuric acid, which is an acid and it could be kept in some physical container. There is no recovery of any container from the room of Renu or from other part of the house of PW1.
(x) As per the evidence on record, the said Renu was living with her parents or PW1 since December, 2008 and she expired on 12.04.2010, moreover, on the eve of marriage of her younger sister Gudia on 16.02.1010, accused and his other relatives were present in the marriage being invitees, visavis accused has given presentation of washing machine and some cash. Nothing has appeared in evidence that there was any harassment or cruelty immediately before death or she was subject to cruelty or she was under constant cruelty.
7.4 By taking stock of undisputed facts mentioned in para 7.2 above and conclusion drawn in para 7.3 above, they do not satisfy the requirement of either section 498A IPC or of section 304B IPC enumerated in para 7.1. above, the charges have not been proved. Thus the accused is acquitted of charges U/s 498A/304B IPC.
Announced in open court today Thursday, Agrahayana 3, Saka 1938 (Inder Jeet Singh) Additional Sessions Judge04 (Shahdara), KKD Courts, Delhi 24.11.2016 S.C. No.40/14 State v. Rakesh Kumar Page 18 of 18