Delhi District Court
The State vs Jagdev Singh S/O Sh. Imrat Singh on 30 March, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03
OUTER DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. : 640/04
PS : S. P. Badli
U/s : 306/498-A/34 IPC
Unique Case ID : 02404R0 115452005
In the matter of
The State
Versus
1. Jagdev Singh s/o Sh. Imrat Singh
R/o Village Nagla Chamaru
PS Jarodha, Dist Gautam Budh Nagar
U.P.
2. Imrat Singh s/o Sh. Badhai Singh
R/o Village Nagla Chamaru
PS Jarodha, Dist Gautam Budh Nagar
U.P.
3. Smt. Chirongia Devi w/o Sh. Imrat Singh
R/o Village Nagla Chamaru
PS Jarodha, Dist Gautam Budh Nagar
U.P.
...ACCUSED
Session Case No. : 279/09
Date of Institution : 15.02.2005
Date of Committal : 01.03.2005
Date of reserving judgment/order : 30.03.2012
Date of pronouncement : 30.03.2012
J U D G M E N T
1. Accused Jagdev was sent up by police of PS S. P. Badli to stand FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 1 of 31 2 trial for offence punishable u/s 306/498-A//34 IPC. Subsequently accused Imrat Singh and Smt. Chirongia Devi, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of deceased, were also sent to stand trial by way of supplementary charge sheet.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 18.12.2007 on the receipt of DD No. 20A at about 3:20 a.m. IO alongwith constable reached at the spot i.e. H. No. 560, Jatav Mohalla, Village Badgli, Delhi where in the interior room of the house one dead body female namely Smt. Manju @ Kanti w/o Jagdev aged about 30 years was lying on cot. The dead body was removed to Mortuary, Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital, Delhi and got preserved. The postmortem was got conducted vide report No. 1000/04 wherein doctor mentioned that no mark of injury on her body, contents in stomach - green matter fluid, greyish material attached and garlic like smell. It is also mentioned that opinion regarding cause of death will be given on receipt of chemical analysis report and time since death is given as about 24 hours back. In the mortuary, brother of deceased Sh. Niranjan Kumar met and he got his statement recorded that her sister Manju @ Kanti was married on 8.12.1993 with accused Jagdev and at the time marriage they had given dowry more than their capacity but their family members were not happy and on this issue they used to taunt her and beat her and on this account his sister was troubled and used to inform them by way of telephone that they are threatening her to kill.
FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 2 of 31 3Accused persons torturing her day and night and used to threat to kill her. He stated that about four years ago on the occasion of chochak Rs.50,000/- was given which they told to be lesser and they had abused them and turned them out after insulting them and also tried to beat them. On 17.12.2004 at about 2:30 p.m. noon on the information of death of his sister, he immediately came to Badli from Pilibhit and saw the circumstances where her sister was lying dead and his has suspected that she was killed by accused persons. On the basis of the same FIR u/s 306 IPC was registered. Thereafter supplementary statement was recorded and offence u/s 498A IPC was added. Accused Jagdev was arrested. During the investigation complainant gave photocopy of HMA Petition No. 582/04 u/s 09 of Hindu Marriage Act. After completion of the investigation accused persons were chargesheeted.
3. After supplying the necessary copies, the case was committed to the court of session vide order dated 01.03.2005 by Ld. MM.
4. My Ld. Predecessor, after finding prima-facie case, charged accused Jagdev Singh, Imrat Singh and Smt. Chironjia Devi for offences punishable U/s 498-A/34 IPC and 306/34 IPC vide order dated 11.05.2006 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution in support of their case examined as many as FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 3 of 31 4 eleven (11) witnesses.
6. The prosecution examined following material witnesses :
i) PW-1 Sh. Niranjan Kumar is the brother of deceased and complainant. He proved his statement as Ex.PW-1/A, seizure memo of photocopy of petition u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act as Ex.PW-1/B, dead body identification statement as Ex.PW-1/C, receipt of dead body as Ex.PW-1/D, his statement during inquest proceedings as Ex.PW-1/E.
ii) PW-2 Sh. Sohan Pal is the co-villager of father of deceased.
iii) PW-3 Dr. Somveer Singh is the friend of brother of deceased.
iv) PW-6 Sh. Lekh Raj is another brother of deceased. He proved his dead body identification statemente as Ex.PW-6/A.
7. The prosecution also examined following formal witness :
i) PW-4 Dr. B. N. Acharya is the doctor who conducted postmortem upon the dead body of deceased Manju @ Kanti and proved the postmortem report as Ex.PW-4/A. He gave his opinion after receipt of viscera and opined the cause of death to be due to ingestion of substance FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 4 of 31 5 containing aluminium phosphide and proved the opinion as Ex.PW-4/B.
ii) PW-5 ASI Nigam Singh is the the duty officer who on the basis of rukka recorded FIR of this case and proved the carbon copy of the same as Ex.PW-5/A and his endorsement as Ex.PW-5/B. He also proved the photocopy of kayami DD No. 12/A as Ex.PW-5/C.
iii) PW-7 HC Naresh Kumar is the witness who also reached at the spot on the receipt of DD No. 20A and got removed the dead body to mortuary and guarded the same there.
iv) PW-8 HC Om Prakash is the MHC(M) with whom the case properties were deposited and who got deposited exhibit to FSL and received the receipt. He proved the photocopy of relevant entry as Ex.PW-8/A, photocopy of road certificate as Ex.PW-8/B and photocopy of receipt of FSL as Ex.PW-8/C.
v) PW-9 SI Jagdish Rai is the witness of formal arrest of accused Imrat Singh and Smt. Chiranjo Devi and filed supplementary chargesheet qua them and collected the FSL report Ex.PX.
vi) PW-11 is the Senior Scientific Officer, Chemistry who examined the exhibit chemically and gave positive test for the presence of aluminium phosphide and proved the FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 5 of 31 6 report as Ex.PW-11/A.
8. The prosecution also examined following witnesses of investigation :
i) PW-10 SI Dhananjay Gupta is the investigating officer. He in addition to other memos proved DD No. 20 A as Ex.PW-10/A, form 25.35 Ex.PW-10/B, request for postmortem as Ex.PW-10/C, site plan as Ex.PW-10/D, seizure memo of viscera and sample seal as Ex.PW-10/E, arrest memo of accused Jagdev as Ex.PW-10/F and his personal search as Ex.PW-10/G.
9. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons was recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC wherein they denied the prosecution evidence and claimed innocence. Accused persons admitted that on 8.12.1993 Manju @ Kanti was married with accused Jagdev. They stated they have been falsely implicated and they examined four witnesses in their defence.
10. I have heard Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for the state and Sh. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for accused persons. I have also gone through the record.
11. PW-1 Sh. Niranjan Kumar testified that deceased Manju @ Kanti was his younger sister and she was married to Jagdev Singh on 8.12.1993 and at the time of marriage of his sister, household FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 6 of 31 7 articles and the jewellery articles were given to the in-laws namely father of accused Jagdev, Imrat Singh, mother namely Chiraunji Devi, grand father and grand mother of the accused Jagdev by his father. Shortly after the marriage when his sister visited their house, she told him and other members of the family that accused Jagdev, his father Imrat Singh, mother Chiraunji Devi used to demand more dowry and used to physically and mentally torture her on not complying with the demands. He further stated that later on, when the telephones were installed at their house as well as the house of the accused persons, his sister used to telephonically speak to him and his elder brother and tell them about the demands and tortures by the accused persons. He stated that in the year 2004 (it should be 2000), his sister was blessed with a son namely Tarun and at that time a function was organized and they were asked to meet the expenses and they spent about Rs.50,000/- for the function including the gifts for the child and the accused persons.
12. He stated that on 13.12.2004 about 7:00 p.m. his sister called him upon telephone at Pilibhit, where he was then posted, and told him that all the three accused persons were beatings her and demanding Rs.2 lacs for Jagdev to start a business. He also stated that Jagdev was interested in another girl who lived nearby and she was told that she did not arrange for the money, Jagdev would marry her, after killing her or after dumping her. On 17.12.2004 at FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 7 of 31 8 about 10:00 a.m. he again received a phone call from his sister that all the three accused persons were present and planing to kill her for failure to meet with the demand of Rs.2 lacs and on the same day at about 2:30 p.m. he received a phone call from his village informing him that his sister Manju @ Kanti had expired and then he reached Delhi. He stated that during the investigation IO told him that accused Jagdev Singh had filed a petition under section 9 HMA against his sister and he collected the copies of the same and handed over to the IO on 18.01.2005 who seized the same. He also stated that till death of his sister, she was living with the accused and she was threatened by the accused persons to leave the matrimonial home lest, she should be arrested by the police. Even on 3.6.2004 when the petition under section 9 of HMA was filed, she was living in the matrimonial home with accused.
13. PW-6 Sh. Lekh Raj is also the elder brother of deceased. He also corroborated his brother and stated that at the time of marriage household articles, jewellery were given to the accused persons. After the marriage his sister Manju @ Kanti had lived in her matrimonial home at village Nangla, UP where accused persons used to reside and after three/four years, his sister alongwith accused Jagdev shifted to Delhi at Samaypur Badli and shortly after the marriage when his sister visited his house, she told him and other members of the family that accused Jagdev, his father FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 8 of 31 9 Imrat Singh and mother Smt. Chiraunji Devi used to demand more dowry and used to physical and mental torture for non-complying the dowry demands. He stated that as and when they came to know that his sister was being harassed by the accused persons, they used to go to Village Nangla where they earlier resided and then to Delhi when they shifted to Delhi to discuss the issue with them and persuade them not to harass his sister and stated that accused persons used to demand Rs.2 lacs.
14. He also stated that on 13.12.2004, his sister Manju @ Kanti made a phone call at about 7:00 p.m. to his younger brother Niranjan Kumar and told him that all the three accused persons were beating her for demand of Rs.2 lacs and his younger brother Niranjan Kumar told this fact to them on telephone which was installed at their neighbour's house. He further stated that on 17.12.2004 at about 11:00 a.m. a phone call was made to his younger brother Niranjan Kumar by his sister that all the three accused persons are planning to kill her for failure to meet the demand of Rs.2 lacs and his younger brother Niranjan Kumar told the aforesaid facts to them on telephone installed to their neighbour's house.
15. He stated that on 17.12.2004 his neighbour Om Prakash received a phone call from Delhi that Manju @ Kanti has expired, who gave the message to him and then he informed his brother Niranjan Kumar at Pilibhit. Then he started for Delhi alongwith FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 9 of 31 10 other relations and friends. He was partly declared hostile by the prosecutor, however, on being cross-examined he admitted that at the time of Chochak ceremony of her son Taran they had gifted clothes and other items worth Rs.50,000/- to the accused persons which was not liked by them and they taunted that they had brought useless items and also admitted that on the Chuchak ceremony had insulted them and attempted to cause them beatings. He also admitted that his sister had told him that accused Jagdev had illicit relation with another woman and he used to say that he will get marry again and collect huge amount of money in dowry.
16. PW-2 Sh. Sohan Lal is the neighbour of father of deceased. He testified that dowry articles were given to the accused in the marriage but they were not happy with the said dowry articles and when the girl Manju @ Kanti came to the village after the marriage they enquired from her that whether she was living happily in her matrimonial home, she told him that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law had tortured her and demanded more dowry articles. He stated that she also told him that they had beaten her and asked more dowry articles or Rs.2 lacs. He stated that they tried to pacify the girl that all will become right after sometime but they continued to torture her. He stated that thereafter accused Jagdev brought the girl to Delhi at Samaipur Badli and father-in-law and mother-in-law used to visit the house FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 10 of 31 11 regularly and demanded Rs.2 lacs as dowry for doing some business and if the money was not paid they would kill her.
17. He further stated that on 17.12.2004 accused persons had given poison to the girl Manju and killed her and they received information at 2:00 p.m. that girl Manju @ Kanti had died. They reached Delhi. Thereafter they made inquiries from the neighbourers and they came to know that the girl had been killed by the accused persons by giving her some poisonous substance.
18. PW-3 Dr. Somveer Singh is the friend of brother of deceased. He testified that he has been running nursing home in the name of Sunita Nursing Home at L-619, Shastri Nagar, Meerut U.P. Since 1997. He stated that he knows Sh. Niranjan Kumar brother of the deceased since 1983 as they had completed their graduation from the same college and they have been visiting terms with each other. He attended the marriage of deceased and dowry articles were given. He stated that in June, 2004, when deceased Manju @ Kanti came to Meerut she had contusion on her both legs on lateral aspects and when he enquired she had told him that this was caused by her husband. He alongwith his wife had given OPD treatment to deceased Manju @ Kanti and he had suggested her to file a police complaint but she declined for the same as she wanted to settle in matrimony.
19. He stated that when she was residing at Badli, he had come to FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 11 of 31 12 know through Niranjan, that a divorced petition had been filed by the accused Jagdev against her at Tis Hazari Courts. He stated that on 11.10.2000, he and about 8-10 other persons of the family of the deceased had gone to village Nangla Chamru, for the Chuchak ceremony of her son Taran and the complainant family had gifted clothes and other articles worth about Rs.50,000/- for the said ceremony and despite such costly gifts, the accused persons had expressed their unhappiness over less gifts. They had returned on the same night at about 11:00 p.m. and had stayed at Meerut. Niranjan has been living in Meerut since 1999.
20. He stated that on 13.12.2004, Niranjan had called him up from Pilibhit at about 8:00-9:00 p.m., he told him that 'accused Jagdev, Chiraunji and Imrat had demanded Rs.2 lacs and had threatened that on non-payment, Manju shall be killed and he had suggested to Niranjan that they can leave for her village and he should also come to Meerut. He stated that on 17.12.2004 at about 12:00 p.m. Niranjan again called him up and repeated the same narration as on 13.12.2004 and on the same day, Niranjan had again called him up at about 3:00 p.m. that Manju had died at her matrimonial home at Badli.
21. On the request of Ld. Addl. PP, leading question is allowed in which he stated that she told him that in June, 2004 accused Jagdev had caused her beatings in the presence of co-accused and when they went to the house of accused at the time of Chuchak FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 12 of 31 13 ceremony, they had demanded more dowry and cash.
22. PW-4 Dr. B. N. Acharya is the doctor who conducted postmortem upon the dead body of deceased Manju @ Kanti. He stated that on external examination no mark of injury was found on the body of the deceased. He stated that on internal examination abdomen and pelvis, liver, spleen, pancreas, kidney were found to be congested and stomach contents were found to be 100 ml of thin watery fluid with greyish white material attached to mucosa and garlic like smell was also present with mucosa congested. After going through the viscera report he opined cause of death to be due to ingestion of substance containing alumunium phosphide and proved the opinion as Ex.PW-4/B.
23. PW-11 Smt. Kavita Goyal, Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry) examined the exhibits and gave positive test for the presence of aluminium phosphide and proved report as Ex.PW-11/A.
24. PW-10 IO SI Dhananjay Gupta is the investigating officer. He testified that on 18.12.2004, on the receipt of DD No. 20A, he alongwith Ct. Naresh reached at the premises No.560, Jatav Mohall, Ct. Neeraj Kumar also reached there. On reaching the spot, he found one dead body of female lying on a cot in the inner room of the house and the dead body was shifted to mortuary of BJRM Hospital. He got conducted the postmortem. He He stated that during the investigation on 18.01.2005 Niranjan Kumar FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 13 of 31 14 handed over him the documents of petition, filed under Hindu Marriage Act and he seized the same.
25. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that the offence u/s 306 IPC is not made out as there is no abetment to commit suicide and further submitted that there are material inconsistency in the testimony of the witnesses and the prosecution has failed to prove even the offence punishable u/s 498A IPC. He cited judgments of our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Shailender v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 169 (2010) DLT 563; Ashok Goyal v. State [Delhi], 2011 [3] JCC 1592; and Rani v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2011 [1] JCC 668. He also cited judgment of hon'ble Bombay High Court in case titled as Radhakishan Kachru Khandagale & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra, 2011 (4) Criminal Court Cases 037 (Bombay). He also cited judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as State of H.P. v. Nikku Ram, AIR 1996 SC 67.
26. Before venturing into analysis of the evidence, firstly let us examine the petition allegedly filed by the accused against the deceased. The certified copy of the same Ex.PX was filed. This is a petition filed by the accused for restitution of conjugal right u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. This petition was filed on 4.6.2004 and notice of this petition was issued on 24.08.2004. The petition continued even on 10.12.2004 and the same was fixed for 5.1.2005. As per the record, the address of the deceased was given FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 14 of 31 15 that of village Dairy Gujran, PO Dankore, Tehsil Dankore, Dist. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. and the process was received with the report that she is living in her matrimonial home in Delhi on rent somewhere but they do not know the address. Meaning thereby she was not served with the present petition and was living with the accused. And the petition continued even after she has expired and accused was in judicial custody.
27. Further facts is that deceased has expired after approx. 10 years of her marriage, therefore this is not a case where presumption u/s 113 A IPC is attracted if the prosecution succeeded in proving that she has committed suicide within seven years of marriage and she was subjected to cruelty. Therefore, it has to be proved that deceased was abeted to commit suicide as defined in Section 107 of Indian Evidence act. Section 107 of Indian Evidence Act defines abetment and such case falls within ambit of first clause that instigate any person to do that thing. Now question arises whether under the circumstances of this case, the accused persons have instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
28. PW-1 stated in his cross-examination that his sister had started complaining of the demand of dowry and consequential torture within one month of marriage, though he cannot specify the date when she had first made such a complaint to them. Telephone facilities were available at their house and that of the accused persons about five-six years earlier from the death of her sister FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 15 of 31 16 and again stated that the telephone was installed at his house in the year 1999. Accused Jagdev and his sister had shifted to Delhi about 3-4 years prior to his sister's death. Accused Imrat Singh works as a mason in Sikandarabad and his wife is housewife. On shifting to Delhi accused Jagdev used to drive a Metador and they started living in Jatavpura, Badli, Delhi. His sister had three daughters and a son and approximate age of the children are Tanya aged about 8 years, Himanshi aged about 5 years, Ritu aged about 11 years and Tarun aged about 6 years as on today. He stated that at the time of birth of daughters no demand was raised as no large scale function are held in village for the birth of daughters and voluntarily stated that some simple gifts were given at the time of birth of daughters as well. At the time of function of birth of Tarun, accused persons had demanded gifts of particular description and nature to be brought. He admitted that accused Jagdev and his sister resided in a tenanted house in Delhi and there is no telephone installed at the said house and voluntarily stated that sister of the accused Jagdev resides in Badli near the house of accused Jagdev and a telephone is installed in the said house. The phone calls were also made from PCOs. He stated that he does not know as to when the telephone was installed at the native house of the accused persons. On the receipt of call on 13.12.2004, he advised her sister to maintain cool. The information regarding death of his sister was given to him by his brother Mr. Vijender Pal Singh from Village Deri Gujran, but he FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 16 of 31 17 stated that he does not know who had informed Vijender about the same. He stated that there is no other close relation living in Badli who could have informed them of the death of his sister. He denied that accused gave information to his parents as well as to his parents regarding the unnatural death of Manju @ Kanti. He admitted that children are still living with the accused persons. He stated that he had discussed with his wife and elder brother about the phone calls received from Manju to him at Pilibhit.
29. He also stated that a notice of the petition under section 9 HMA had come to his village in the name of Kanti, which was returned by his elder brother as Kanti did not live in the village.
30. Whereas his brother PW-6 Lekhraj stated in his cross-examination that he have studied upto class 7th or 8th and can read and write in Hindi. After seeing his complaint made to SHO, PS S.P. Badli Ex.P1, he stated that the same is not in his handwriting and he had made the complaint on 18.12.2004 after arrival of his brother Niranjan Kumar from Pilibhit. He had signed the same on the asking of Niranjan. He did not know the contents of this documents when he signed the same. He did not make any other statement of this nature to the police. He went to the accused persons on the complaint of Manju, for the first time about 1 ½ months after the marriage. At that time, Manju had told him that accused persons were asking for Rs.2 lacs for business which is contrary to his brother that this demand was made at a later point FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 17 of 31 18 of time.
31. The chuchak was given on 11.10.2000 at village Nangla. Accused Jagdev was working in the corporation at Sikunderabad and after shifting to Delhi he started driving a Metador. He admitted that sister and brother-in-law of Jagdev also lived in Badli. He stated that he himself or his brother Niranjan had never made a complaint to the police regarding the harassment, torture and demand of dowry by accused persons, prior to the present complaint. He stated that accused Imrat works as a mason in a construction complany at Sicunderabad and accused Chiraunji is a housewife. His neighbour Om Prakash has telephone number 25816 and deceased Manju also knew this number. He does not know as to who had called up Om Prakash regarding the death of Manju. IO did not record the statement of any other neighbour or relations who had come with him from Dehri Gujran. He admitted that between 7:00 p.m. to 2:30 a.m. no complaint was made by any person to the police. He had not lodged any complaint to the police on 11.10.2000 when the accused persons tried them to give beatings. Accused did not visit their house after 11.10.2000 and again stated that he used to visit occasionally though his sister and her children used to visit regularly.
32. Ex.P1 is a letter given to SHO PS S.P. Badli by Lekhraj, in which it is mentioned that on 13.12.2004 at about 7:00 p.m. his sister called his younger brother at Pilibhit that her husband and parents FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 18 of 31 19 in-laws are demanding Rs.2 lacs and stated accused is having illicit relation with girl living in neighbourhood. On 17.12.2004 again his sister given call to his younger brother in which his sister told that they are demanding Rs.2 lacs or otherwise they will kill her and marry with other girl. This witness claims that he does not know contents of the documents and the same was recorded on the basis of information given by her brother, nor the same is in handwriting. He had categorically stated that he had given those information after arrival of his brother Niranjan Kumar from Pillibhit and he had signed the same on his instruction. Question arises whether as to why action was not taken on this complaint and on the other hand the statement of brother Niranjan Kumar was recorded subsequently after the postmortem on which the case was registered.
33. PW-2 Sohan Lal stated in his cross-examination that the distance between his house and that of the complainant is about 16 feet and the same are opposite to each other across the road. Manju had come for the first time, after about one month of her marriage and on that very visit she had mentioned about demand of Rs.2 lacs by the accused persons. The deceased had lived in the village with accused Jagdev and others for a period of three/four years and thereafter she had shifted to Delhi and accused Imrat Singh and Chiraunji Devi had not shifted to Delhi but were frequent visitor to the matrimonial home of the deceased with Jagdev. The FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 19 of 31 20 deceased has been visiting village of her parents even after shifting to Delhi and even after after shifting to Delhi she used to mention about the demand by accused persons. Vijender is brother of the deceased and on 17.12.2004, no complaint was made to the police by them. He admitted that when Niranjan Kumar brother of the deceased reached the spot at 3:00 a.m. and was accompanied by the police. He does not know whether they were accompanied by a doctor or an advocate and if Niranjan had made the phone call to police after discussion with the doctor and the advocate. His statement was recorded at the spot. Whereas as per prosecution itself, the statement of the brother of deceased namely Niranjan Kumar, on whose statement the FIR was registered, was recorded at the mortuary. He stated that dead body was given during the day after postmortem and then they left for his village.
34. PW-3 Dr. Somveer Singh stated in his cross-examination that he was not his batch-mate but was his room partner and voluntarily stated that they had taken a room on rent at Bulandshahar and lived together for one year i.e. 1983-84 and after 1985, they did not study or live together but remained in touch by telephonically and also by visiting each other. He had attended the marriage of accused Jagdev at the house of Niranjan and had not visited the house of Jagdev at that time. He went to the house of accused at the time of Chuchak ceremony on 11.10.2000 for the first time.
FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 20 of 31 21Accused Jagdev has four children in all, one was born after October, 2000. He does not know the name of the eldest daughter but the other children are Sonu, Tarun and Himanshu respectively. He does not know if Niranjan and his family had visited the house of the accused Jagdev at the time of birth of first child also. He did not attend any other Chuchak Ceremony except in October 2000. He denied the suggestion that he did not attend the chuchak ceremony in October, 2000 or that he is deposing about this visit only because the complainant has alleged about demand in the year 2000. He stated that Niranjan was not employed and was preparing for IAS examination. He stated that he had met the deceased at Meerut when she used to visit Niranjan during vacation of children, after 1999. In June, 2004, she had come alone at Meerut, though with her son Tarun and told that she had come from Badli.
35. He admitted that Tarun was born in Delhi but could not say if Tarun was born on 1.10.2000 and voluntarily it was about a month prior to Chuchak. His statement was recorded on the day of death. He was confronted with the portion of his statement that Niranjan had called him up on 17.12.2004 at 12:00 noon, then at 3:00 p.m. IO might have recorded the statement on 9.1.05 though he was enquired only on 18.12.2004. His statement was recorded at PS Badli on 18.12.2004 at 6:00 p.m. whereas the statement of this witness is dated 9.1.2005. He admits that accused Imrat and FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 21 of 31 22 accused Smt. Chiraunji do not reside at Delhi. The deceased had not visited her in the capacity of patient and when she told him of the beatings he provided her the treatment. He did not make available any prescription slip or treatment proof to the I.O. Nor the IO asked for the same. He stated that deceased had told him of torture by the accused persons whenever she met him prior to June, 2004. The relative of Niranjan were already present in Delhi when he reached on 18.12.2004 at 2:00 a.m. He does not know whether accused Jagdev had informed the parents of deceased about her death. He does not know if accused Imrat and Chiraunji had also come with the parents of deceased together, on that night. IO had recorded statement of Niranjan and Lekh Raj in his presence whereas statement of Niranjan and complaint was made on the basis of the statement of Niranjan and as per the complaint made by Lekhraj.
36. This witness claims that he examined deceased in June, 2004 but there is no prescription slip to corroborate this fact by given by this witness or by any other witness regarding that deceased had contusion on her leg for which he had given treatment. He claims that he is conversant with the family affairs of Niranjan who was closed to him and therefore he was calling him from Pilibhit and had himself attended the chuchak. But when he was questioned, he claimed that Niranjan had resided with him only for one year and had visited the house of accused Jagdev on the occasion of FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 22 of 31 23 chuchak for the first time. He could not tell name of eldest daughter and also could not tell about as to when other children were born and given the year of birth of one boy as October, 2000 and one of the alleged demands was made at the time of chuchak. He claims that he had visited on the chuchak ceremony on 11.10.2000 but in his cross-examination he could not say whether the child on whose chuchak he has gone was born on 1.10.2000 and said that it was about one month prior to the chuchak. Therefore he was not even aware of the date when he visited for chuchak as according to this witness he has visited one month after the birth and one would be in the month of November. Therefore the date of his visit is incorrect and also version given by this witness appears to be not believable.
37. Further as regard the alleged torture on the person of deceased, the same also lacks corroboration and statement of this witness was also recorded after much delay, therefore it does not inspire any confidence.
38. The most crucial aspect of the matter is two phone calls were received by the brother of deceased which were made immediately prior to the occurrence. One was made on 13.12.2004 and next on 17.12.2004 and thereafter on the same day, he received phone call from his village at 2:30 p.m. that she has expired. Niranjan claims that telephone facilities were available at their house and that of the accused persons about FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 23 of 31 24 five-six years earlier from the death of her sister and again stated that the telephone was installed at his house in the year 1999. He also admitted that no telephone was installed at the house of accused when accused was living in tenanted house and voluntarily stated that telephone was installed at the house of sister of accused Jagdev who lives nearby house of accused. He does not know as to when telephone was installed at the native village of the accused persons. Telephone calls were also made from PCO. Meaning thereby sister had made telephone call either from PCO or from the house of sister of accused. If she had made call from the house of sister of accused Jagdev, would have told about this demand appears to be highly improbable. In case she made telephone call from PCO, would mean that deceased had opportunity to move around and liberty to make telephone call to her brother. He had also discussed about telephone call received from Manju at Pilibhit with his wife and his brother.
39. Surprisingly, PW-6 the brother of deceased claims that on 13.12.2004 when sister made telephone call at 7:00 p.m. to his younger brother Niranjan Kumar, who told this fact to him on telephone which was installed at their neighbour's house. Although brother Niranjan claims that they had telephone installed at their house. The second call was made on 17.12.2004 to Niranjan who also informed PW-6 on the telephone installed at the house of neighbour and PW-6 claims that on the same day his FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 24 of 31 25 neighbour Om Prakash received a phone call from Delhi that Manju @ Kanti has expired and he gave message to him and then he informed his brother Niranjan Kumar at Pilibhit. Although the telephone was installed at that house, surprisingly Niranjan also gives the telephone call at the telephone installed at the neighbour house and even the information regarding the death was also received at the telephone of Om Prakash, however, the said Om Prakash had not been cited as witness. He would have been more crucial witness stating about the fact of receipt of telephone call. Quite surprising one another witness from the village has been cited as witness but not this Om Prakash.
40. PW-2 stated that on the receipt of information they reached at Delhi and found Manju lying on a cot in a dead position and they made enquiries from the neighbours and they came to know that the girl had been killed by the accused persons by giving her some poisonous substance. But no such neighbourer has been examined. From the testimony of witnesses, it has come on record that deceased and accused were living in Delhi in tenanted premises for about 6/7 years and during the subsistence of marriage four children were born and youngest was born in the year 2000 i.e. about four years of her death. Accused had filed suit for restitution of conjugal right stating therein that on 1.3.2004 she had left his home and was living in his parent's house with his minor child Himanshu and it appears that during the subsistence FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 25 of 31 26 of this petition she rejoined the matrimonial home and was living of the accused.
41. The version of receiving of telephone calls on 13.12.2004 and 17.12.2004 regarding the demand, do not appear to be believable.
42. In the cited case of Shailender v. State (supra), police recovered a register from the room of deceased containing two personal notes and they were found to be that of deceased wherein she had noted about quarrel taken place between her and the accused which had resulted in her death. The hon'ble High Court observed from the reading of the contents, there appears to be matrimonial disharmony between deceased and accused and there used be quarrel between them wherein some utterance used to be made by accused which is not to liking of the deceased, she used to remain disturbed because of that. No evidence has come on record to suggest that Shailender had been making such utterance wilfully and intentionally in order to instigate the deceased in taking extreme steps of ending her life, the prosecution has been unsuccessful in proving that there was element of mens rea on the part of accused. In the present case from the petition of restitution of conjugal right, one can infer that there was matrimonial disharmony between deceased Manju @ Kanti and accused Jagdev. Further from some evidence of the witnesses that accused had interest in another girl, the deceased might have taken the extreme steps, which does not amount to instigate within Section FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 26 of 31 27 of 107 of Indian Penal Code.
43. Similarly in the cite case Ashok Goyal (supra) case, it was held by hon'ble High Court of Delhi that there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide and mere fact that the husband treated the deceased wife with cruelty is not enough.
44. In the cited case of State of H. P. v. Nikku Ram (supra), hon'ble Supreme Court held that presumption under S. 113-A of Evidence Act cannot be raised as there was no evidence showing that deceased was harassed within meaning S. 498 A IPC. The presumption under S. 113 A of Indian Evidence Act is even otherwise is not applicable to the facts of the present case as deceased has not died within seven years of her marriage.
45. Accordingly as per discussion above, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove that there was instigation on the part of the accused persons to abet her to commit suicide and accordingly offence punishable u/s 306 IPC is not made out against accused persons.
46. Now we are left with the offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC. The deceased was living at Delhi with accused Jagdev after 3/4 years of her marriage and all the witnesses have accepted that accused Imrat and Smt. Chiraunji Devi, who are father-in-law and FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 27 of 31 28 mother-in-law respectively of the deceased were living at village at their native place, however, they stated that they were visiting them frequently. Allegations that deceased was living with them and they were harassing her for dowry but they are not specific. The specific demand as alleged is of the year 2000 when they have spent Rs.50,000/- on the occasion of chuchak, however it is stated that birth function was organized and they were asked to meet the expenses. It is not clear that there was demand of Rs. 50,000/- The second demand is of Rs.2 lacs made on 13.12.2000 prior four years of her death which is for starting business of accused Jagdev and he has also shown interested in another girl who lived nearby and if she did not arrange for the money, Jagdev would marry her, after killing her or after dumping her. Later part of his statement he stated that till the death of his sister she was living with the accused and she was threatened by the accused persons to leave the matrimonial home lest, she should be arrested by the police. Both are inherently inconsistent. Either there was demand for opening the business or that she should be thrown away as the accused wanted to marry another girl. The petition under section 9 of HMA further shows that everything was not fine between them.
47. The demand with respect to Rs.2 lacs made on 13.12.2004, as already discussed, is not believable. All witnesses are inconsistent. PW-2 claims initially demand of Rs.2 lacs was made FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 28 of 31 29 and that demand was made even before Jagdev had brought the deceased to Delhi. The demand of Rs. 2 lacs was not told by the deceased to PW-6 Lekhraj and his statement to this effect is from hearsay. Further even otherwise, except the allegations that chuchak function was organized and they were asked to meet the expenses and they spent about Rs.50,000/- for the function including the gifts for the child and the accused persons, remaining demand was told by the deceased to them. The same is inadmissible in evidence for the purpose for Section 498A IPC as the same is not admissible under section 32 of Indian Evidence Act.
48. Now coming to the defence of the accused persons. DW-1 Sh.
Sharad Tandon testified that he knows Imrat Singh and he has been working in the abovesaid company since 1979 as a mason. On 17.12.2004 Imrat Singh was present in his abovesaid company and at about 2:00 p.m. when he came at his office, after lunch, he found present him near his office, outside his office. On his asking why he was roaming outside the office, then he told that his daughter-in-law had expired and he wants leave and thereafter after taking half day leave, he had left the office at 2:30 p.m.
49. DW-2 Jai Singh testified that accused Smt. Chiraunji Devi used to work in her agriculture field. On 17.12.2004, he was present at his agriculture filed and at about 3:00 p.m. Imrat Singh reached there and told regarding the incident of death of his daughter-in-law and FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 29 of 31 30 thereafter he alongwith Smt. Chiraunji Devi left the agriculture field and proceeded to their house. In his cross-examination he stated that he never visited the house of accused Jagdev in Delhi and stated that the accommodation in Delhi was very small and he told the above said facts on the basis of hearsay.
50. DW-3 Jitender testified that accused Jagdev was known to him and he is an auto driver and Jagdev is a tempo driver and both of them have common parking situated at village Badli, Delhi. He stated that on 17.12.2004, Jagdev came to him in the night time, again said lunch time and asked him to take his wife to hospital as she is not well. He took his wife in his auto to City Hospital, Samaypur and she was referred for a private hospital, situated at Adrash Nagar, where she was examined and they stated that she has already expired and asked her to take her back.
51. DW-4 Sh. Rajpal similarly stated that Jagdev is his brother-in-law (sala) and he is employed as driver on his tempo TATA 407 and on 17.12.2004 at about 1:00 p.m., he was present at his tempo stand Badli alongwith the accused Jagdev and the elder daughter of Jagdev came and told that her mother (wife of Jagdev) in complaint of vomiting, hence he sent Jagdev to his house. Thereafter he (witness) left for his job and at about 4:00 p.m. he received information from Jagdev that his wife has expired. In his cross-examination he stated that he have never met the wife of accused Jagdev.
FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 30 of 31 3152. The defence version was substantiated by prosecution witnesses that accused Chiraunji Devi and Imrat Singh were living in the village and therefore the alleged demand and cruelty does not appear to be believable. As per defence accused had made efforts to get the deceased treatment done after he came to know she was vomiting. In view of discussion above and totality of the facts and circumstances, alleged demand and cruelty on account of the demand is not believable. Therefore I am of the opinion that offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC is not proved against accused persons.
53. Therefore, as per above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove their case against the accused Jagdev, Imrat Singh and Smt. Chironjia Devi beyond reasonable doubt. Hence they are entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the charges. Bail bonds of accused persons stands cancelled. Their sureties discharged. Case property, if any, be destroyed after the expiry of period of appeal. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today i.e. on 30.03.2012 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-03/Outer/Rohini/Delhi 30.03.2012 FIR No. : 640/04, PS : S. P. Badli Page 31 of 31