Delhi District Court
State vs Saurabh Gugnani on 18 December, 2024
Digitally
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
SHIVALI
signed by
SHIVALI
SHARMA
SESSIONS JUDGE-03: WEST DISTRICT, THC, DELHI.
SHARMA Date:
2024.12.18
15:45:46
+0530
CNR No. DLWT01-001198-2013
SC No. 57606-2016
State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani Etc.
FIR No. 62/2012
U/s. 306/34 IPC
PS Patel Nagar
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of the case : 57606/2016
2. Date of Committal to Sessions : 28/05/2013
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Surjeet Singh
4. Date of Commission of Offence : 25/04/2012
5. Name and Parentage of Accused : (1) Saurabh
Gugnani
S/o Late Subhash
Gugnani
(2) Smt. Sushma
Gugnani
S/o Late Subhash
Gugnani.
Both R/o L-67,
Malviya Nagar, New
Delhi-110017.
6. Offence complained of : U/s 306/34 IPC.
3/4 Dowry
Prohibition Act
7. Offence Charged : U/s 306/34 IPC
and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition
Act
SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 1
8. Plea of Guilt : Not guilty
9. Final Order : Acquitted
10. Date on which Order Reserved : 16.12.2024
11. Date on which Order Announced : 18.12.2024
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. On 25/04/2012 at about 04.45 AM, vide DD No. 7A (Ex. PW-8/A) an information was received at PS- Patel Nagar, whereby it was informed that at H. No. 28/71/72, 3 rd floor, West Patel Nagar, a girl has committed suicide. The call was marked to IO SI Jogender Singh, who reached the spot and found the dead body of Ms. Manjeet Kaur lying near the bed in a room. IO was informed by the grand-father of deceased Sh. Surjeet Singh that his grand- daughter had committed suicide. He also informed that his son Balvinder Singh and his wife had gone to attend a wedding at Amritsar on 21/04/2012 and he was alone at the house with his grand-daughter Manjeet Kaur. At about 03.30 am in the night, when he woke up, he found that lights of her room were on and Manjeet Kaur was not present in her room. When he opened the other room, he saw that his grand-daughter Manjeet Kaur was hanging with the ceiling fan by a saree. He immediately cut the saree and brought Manjeet Kaur to the floor but on checking, he found that she had already expired. He informed his son about the same, who in turn called his friend Balvinder, who informed the police.
2. After coming to know about these facts, IO initiated inquiry u/s 174 CrPC. He called the crime team at the spot and took the SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 2 exhibits on record and sent the dead body to the mortuary.
3. Thereafter, in the evening of 25/04/2012, father of the deceased namely Sh. Balvinder Singh came to the PS and gave a written complaint against accused Saurabh Gugnani and his mother (Ex. PW-3/A). It was alleged in the complaint that deceased Manjeet Kuar was engaged with the accused Saurabh Gugnani on 14/04/2011 and various articles including jewellery and electronics were given to the relative of accused Saurabh Gugnani in the ceremony that was organized at City Banquet. The date of the marriage was fixed as 30/10/2011 and the booking of Gurudwara Hall for marriage was also done on 26/05/2011. Thereafter, they were preparing for the marriage ceremonies but accused Saurabh Gugnani and his mother started pressuring him and his daughter for giving a Honda City Car and cash of Rs. 05 lacs in marriage and also demanded that marriage be solemnized in a Farm House. When he showed his inability to fulfill the said demands, the accused persons started avoiding him and his daughter and also refused to marry his daughter. The marriage date already fixed passed. A family meeting was held to sort out the issue and accused Saurabh Gugnani and his mother agreed to return the articles given in the engagement as well as reimburse the amount spent on the ring ceremony and various purchases made thereafter but they did not return the articles or the money. He got issued a legal notice dated 02.04.2012 to accused Saurabh Gugnani through his counsel, Sh. Surinder Singh asking him to either fix a new date of marriage or pay Rs. 10 Lacs spent by him on various functions and purchases. After receiving the legal notice, accused Saurabh Gugnani started threatening his daughter Manjeet Kaur with dire SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 3 consequences if the legal notice was not withdrawn. Three days prior to the incident, his daughter Manjeet Kaur went to the office of his counsel to enquire if accused Saurabh Gugnani had replied to legal notice or fixed any appointment with him to amicably settle the matter. She also informed his Advocate that accused Saurabh Gugnani had told her that he will neither marry her nor make any payments or return the articles given in the ring ceremony. She also informed her advocate that when she asked accused Saurabh Gugnani as to where should she go, accused had told her to commit suicide.
4. It was further mentioned in the complaint that he was in Amristar since last 3 days and received a call in the morning that his daughter Manjeet Kaur had committed suicide by hanging herself with the ceiling fan. On this complaint, present FIR was registered on 25.04.2012 u/s 306/34 IPC and 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
5. After investigation, chargesheet was filed agaisnt accused Saurabh Gugnani and his mother accused Sushma Gugnani u/s 306/34 IPC and 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
CHARGE:
6. Detailed arguments were heard on charge from Ld. Counsel for accused persons and Ld. Additional PP for State. Vide order dated 01.09.2017, charges were directed to be framed against both the accused persons u/s 306/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Charges were framed accordingly on 23.09.2017 to which both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 47. The prosecution led evidence and examined 11 witnesses in all to bring home the charge against the accused persons.
8. PW-1 Sh. Surjit Singh is the grandfather of the deceased Manjeet Kaur who deposed about engagement between Manjeet Kaur and accused Saurabh Gugnani and about the fact that the marriage could not be performed between them. He stated that accused persons were making demands of Honda Car and cash of Rs. 5 Lacs and also solemnization of the marriage in a farmhouse which demands were beyond their capacity and they could not fulfil the same. Accordingly, the marriage was called off.
9. He deposed that prior to the engagement, there were no demands from the side of accused persons but after the engagement, when they expressed their inability to fulfil the demands, accused persons told his grand-daughter that accused Saurabh Gugnani would not marry her until and unless the demands were fulfilled. His granddaughter Manjeet Kaur had informed about the same to him and other family members.
10. He further deposed that on 24th February, he was not sure about the year, he had come to his house from his factory at Anand Parbat and saw that his grand-daughter was working on computer. At that time, his son Balwinder Singh, his daughter in law, his grandson and elder grand-daughter were not present in the house and had gone to Punjab. He found Manjeet Kaur upset and asked for the reason on which Manjeet Kaur told him that accused Saurabh Gugnani had refused to marry her and told her, "Main shadi nahi karunga, mummy ne bhi mana kar diya hain, hamari demand jab tak poori nahi hogi, hum shadi nahi karenge, hamari taraf se marti hai to mar jaa". He tried to pacify Manjeet Kaur and SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 5 thereafter, went to his room after having dinner. Manjeet Kaur also went to her room. In the night, at about 02:30-03:00 AM, he woke up and saw that the lights of the room of Manjeet Kaur were switched on. He went there but Manjeet Kaur was not present in her room. He went to the adjacent room and saw that Manjeet Kaur was hanging with the ceiling fan. He immediately went towards kitchen and took a knife and cut the rope from the ceiling fan and put Manjeet Kaur on the ground. He sprinkled water on her face but there was no response. He immediately called his son Balwinder and intimated about the incident. His son Balwinder called his friend Balwinder Singh who was residing nearby. Friend of his son came to their house and informed him that he had already informed the police. Thereafter, police officials came to their house and shifted the dead body to the hospital. Police seized pieces of rope, mobile phone of Manjeet Kaur and the knife vide seizure memos Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B respectively. On the same day, in the evening, his son Balwinder returned from Punjab. He identified the knife for cutting the ligature material which is Ex. P-1, mobile phone of his grand-daughter which is Ex. P-2, pieces of saree/rope which are Ex. P-3(colly) and one underwear which is Ex. P-4. He stated that he could not identify accused Saurabh Gugnani and his mother due to poor eyesight and old age. He admitted that the date of incident was 24-25.04.2012.
11. PW-2 ACP Rituraj is the then SHO PS Patel Nagar who deposed that on 25.04.2012, on the complaint of one Balwinder Singh which was endorsed by SDM Patel Nagar for registration of FIR, he gave directions to the Duty Officer to register a case under Section 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and 306/34 IPC. He proved his SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 6 endorsement as Ex. PW-2/A.
12. PW-3 Balwinder Singh is the complainant and father of deceased Manjeet Kaur. He deposed that his daughter Manjeet Kaur and accused Saurabh Gugnani were friends and were working in the same company, however, in different offices.Accused Saurabh had got his daughter Manjeet employed in his company. In 2011, Manjeet told him that she and accused Saurabh Gugnani wanted to marry each other. They met accused Saurabh Gugnani and his mother Sushma Gugnani and their other relatives. Both the sides were in agreement for marriage. The ring ceremony was fixed for 14.04.2011 and was performed at City Banquet Hall, Rama Road, Moti Nagar. He spent about Rs. 4-5 Lacs on the ring ceremony including booking of the banquet hall, electronic items, jewellery and cash given to the accused persons. He had given one split AC, microwave Oven and some more electronic items to the accused in ring ceremony. The marriage was fixed for 30.10.2011 and he made a booking at Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Rajendra Nagar on 25.04.2011 or 25.05.2011.
13. He further deposed that after 10-15 days of booking of the marriage hall, both the accused persons started raising demands of Rs. 5 Lacs cash, a Honda City car as well as solemnization of marriage at a farmhouse. He told them that these demands were beyond his capacity and he was not in a position to fulfil the same after which accused persons started avoiding him and postponing the marriage date. They also refused to perform the marriage. His daughter Manjeet Kaur started becoming upset as she had doubts about the intentions of accused persons regarding marriage. He confronted the accused persons but they did not give any SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 7 satisfactory reply. After about 1-2 months prior to 30.10.2011 i.e. date fixed for the marriage, the accused persons told him that till the time, their demands were fulfilled, accused Saurabh will not marry Manjeet Kaur. He sent a legal notice dated 02.04.2012 to accused Saurabh Gugnani through his Advocate for refixing a fresh date of marriage or for returning the gifts given in ring ceremony and expenses incurred by him. Probably, his daughter Manjeet Kaur had also visited the office of his advocate.
14. He further deposed that on 21.04.2012, he along with his wife and son went to attend a marriage at Amristar. His daughter Manjeet Kaur stayed back with his father. On 25.04.2012, at about 03:30-03:45 AM, his father called him and told him that Manjeet Kaur had expired. He called his friend Balwinder Singh who was residing nearby who called the police and went to his house. Dead body of his daughter was shifted to DDU Hospital. He returned back to Delhi and went to the hospital. Thereafter, he made a written complaint to the police which is Ex. PW-3/A. On the next day, he identified the dead body of his daughter vide statement Ex. PW-3/B and received the dead body after postmortem. During investigation, he handed over photocopies of the bills of articles purchased by them for the ring ceremony along with booking receipt of gurudwara to the IO. On directions of Court, he along with the accused persons went to Mediation Centre of Delhi High Court where it was settled that accused persons will give Rs. 4 Lacs to him for the expenses incurred by him on the ring ceremony and both the parties will return the gifts exchanged between them at the time of ring ceremony. Accused persons paid Rs. 4 Lacs to him by way of two demand drafts and also returned the jewellery as well SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 8 as split AC and microwave oven given by them in the ring ceremony. He also returned the jewellery given to his daughter Manjeet Kaur in the ring ceremony by the accused persons. It was also agreed that the present FIR will be quashed, however, when the matter was listed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for hearing on the quashing petition, Hon'ble Court refused to quash the FIR.
15. He produced the copy of booking receipts of Shree Ganesha Enterprises for booking city Banquet hall for the ring ceremony which are Ex. PW-3/C and Ex. PW-3/D; copy of bill of Tanishq for purchase of jewellery for ring ceremony which is Ex. PW-3/E; copy of bill of purchase of AC and microwave which is Mark 3B; copy of booking receipt of AC and microwave which is Ex. PW- 3/F and copy of receipt of clothes purchased by his daughter which is Ex. PW-3/G. He also produced the bills of jewellery and clothes purchased by his daughter after the ring ceremony for her marriage. Copy of bills of clothes purchased from Tamanna Boutique is Ex. PW-3/H; copy of bill of jewellery purchased from Vasundhra Jewellers is Ex. PW-3/I and copy of bills of jewellery purchased from Kanak Jewellers is Ex. PW-3/J and Ex. PW-3/K. He identified both the accused persons.
16. PW-4 Ct. Vijay Singh is a formal witness being the constable who had deposited the exhibits of the present case with FSL Rohini vide RC No. 40/21/12 dated 24.07.2012 after receiving them from MHC(M).
17. PW-5 Vijay Kumar is the Photographer who had taken photographs and videos of engagement ceremony of Manjeet Kaur with Saurabh Gugnani at City Banquet Hall, Moti Nagar held on SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 9 14.04.2004.
18. PW-6 Retired HC Shyam Narayan deposed that on 25.04.2012, on receipt of DD no. 7A, he along with SI Jogender Singh reached the spot i.e. Third Floor of property no. 28/71-72, West Patel Nagar, where dead body of one lady Manjeet Kaur was lying in the room. One saree cut into two pieces was also lying nearby along with one underwear and one vegetable knife. Surjeet Singh, grandfather of the deceased met them at the spot. Crime team was called and spot was inspected and photographed. SHO also reached there. On instructions of SI Jogender Singh, he shifted the dead body to the mortuary of DDU Hospital.
19. PW-7 Amit Rawat is the Assistant Director (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini who had examined the exhibits of the present case that are the viscera of the deceased. He proved his report (Ex. PW-7/A) as per which after chemical and TLC examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilisers and pesticides could not be detected in the viscera of the deceased.
20. PW-8 Retired SI Sumer Singh is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who proved the registration of DD No. 7A dated 25.04.2012 (Ex. PW-8/A) regarding suicide committed by a girl which was marked to SI Jogender Singh.
21. PW-9 Deepak is a witness from Tanishq who proved the printout of the tax invoice dated 14.01.2011 as Ex. PW-9/A, copy of which is already Ex. PW-3/E.
22. PW-10 Retired ASI Vinod Kumar is a formal witness being the MHC(M) who proved the deposit of the case properties pertaining to the present case in the malkhana vide entries made in SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 10 register no. 19 which are Ex. PW-10/A and Ex. PW-10/B. He also proved movement of the case property to FSL on 24.07.2012 through Ct. Vijay Singh vide RC No. 40/21/12 and acknowledgment of FSL as Ex. PW-10/C.
23. PW-11 SI Jogender Singh is the IO of the case. He deposed that on 25.04.2012, on receipt of DD No. 7A, he along with Ct. Shyam Narayan went to the spot where dead body of one Manjeet Kaur was lying near bed in a room. One saree cut into two pieces was also lying on the bed. One underwear and one vegetable knife were also lying there. One mobile phone was also found lying at the spot. Sh. Surjeet Singh, grandfather of the deceased and other neighbours were also present there. He called the crime team and got the spot inspected and photographed. He seized two pieces of saree, underwear and knife vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/B and the mobile phone vide memo Ex. PW-1/A. He shifted the dead body to the mortuary of DDU Hospital through Ct. Shyam Narayan and deposited the case property in the malkhana.
24. On the same day, Sh.Balwinder Singh, father of the deceased came to the PS and handed over one complaint. Inspector, Investigation Harish Chander took him to the office of SDM Patel Nagar where SDM Patel Nagar made endorsement on the complaint for registration of FIR. On directions of SHO, present FIR was registered and investigation was marked to him. He again went to the spot and prepared the site plan Ex. PW-11/A. SI Sunil got the post mortem of the deceased conducted. He obtained the PM report and sent the viscera to FSL. Accused persons filed anticipatory bail applications wherein they were sent to Mediation and they were granted anticipatory bail.
SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 1125. On 03.10.2012, he formally arrested accused persons vide memos Ex. PW-11/B and Ex. PW-11/C. During investigation, he obtained the FSL result, CDRs of relevant mobile numbers and got verified the bills of expenses made in the engagement. He also obtained printouts of g-mail chats between deceased Manjeet Kaur and Saurabh Gugnani from the computer installed at the place of incident. He recorded statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed the chargesheet.
26. In addition to the above evidence, accused persons admitted under section 294 Cr.P.C. the SOC report dated 25.04.2012 prepared by SI Pankaj Kumar (Ex. P-1), photographs of the crime scene clicked by crime scene photographer Ct. Gurmeet (Ex. P-2) Colly, Retail invoice/cash memo of Hindustan Traders Ltd. Dated 12.04.2011 (Ex. P-3), Retail bill/cash memo of Ganesh enterprises dated 14.04.2011 (Ex. P-4), receipt dated 29.03.2011 issued by Ganesha enterprises (Ex. P-5) vide their statement dated 08.07.2024. They also admitted the post mortem report no. 422/2012 dated 26.04.2012 prepared by Dr. Komal Singh (Ex. P-6) vide their joint statement dated 21.09.2024. Accordingly, the relevant witnesses to prove these documents were dropped by Ld. Additional P.P for the State.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED SAGAR:
27. All the incriminating evidence that came on record in the deposition of prosecution witnesses was put in detail to both the accused persons and their statements were recorded U/s. 313 Cr.PC on 21.09.2024 (accused Saurabh Gugnani) and 05.10.2024 (Accused Sushma Gugnani). They denied all the incriminating evidence and asserted that they were innocent and falsely SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 12 implicated in the present case. They admitted the relation between accused Saurabh Gugnani and Manjeet Kaur but stated that no demands were ever made by them and the marriage between them was called off due to mutual differences between the families.
Father of the deceased had placed an unreasonable demand regarding accused Saurabh Gugnani being a manglik because of which the disputes arose and marriage was called off. They also stated that after the marriage was called off in October 2011, father of deceased and his friend continuously threatened them and demanded an amount of Rs. 10 Lacs stating that in default of payment, they would file proceedings against the accused persons. They denied the allegations that they had ever provoked the deceased to commit suicide.
28. Accused Saurabh Gugnani stated that the last conversation that he had with the deceased was in the evening of 24.04.2012 by way of SMS and google chat in which he had confronted the deceased about the legal notice received on behalf of her father demanding a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs. Deceased expressed her ignorance about the said legal notice. The last conversation also records the pressure being faced by the deceased at her professional workplace and at her home from her father. Deceased had communicated about her state of mind with him in the last conversation they had on google chat.
29. They also stated that the present FIR was got registered by father of the deceased merely to pressurize them and coerce them to pay exorbitant money.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
30. Accused Saurabh Gugnani examined himself as DW-1 after SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 13 taking permission from the court u/s 315 CrPC.
31. He deposed that he had met the deceased Manjeet Kaur around 2008-2009 through a common friend and soon thereafter their friendship transformed into a love affair in 2011. Both of them used to work in sister concerns of the organisation called Ravikant Jaisurya Corporation dealing with food & beverages retails. While he worked as a Deputy Manager, Human Resources at Devyani International Limited, the deceased worked as co-ordinator, supply chain management at Devyani Food Street Private Limited. At that time, he used to live with his mother in a rented accommodation in Tagore Garden, Delhi and the deceased lived in Patel Nagar, Delhi. The marriage between him and deceased was finalised with the intervention of their families and their engagement ceremony took place on 14.04.2011 and the marriage date was decided to be on 30.10.2011. That amongst other expenses incurred by his family on the engagement function, he had bought a couple of diamond jewelleries, ring and a gold set for the deceased.
32. He deposed that the allegations of demands raised by them for giving Rs. 5 Lakhs as cash and a Honda City Car in addition to the marriage being solemnized at a farm house were false. No such demands were ever made by them. He further deposed that differences arose between the families when the complainant raised concern over him being a manglik. His family did not believe in these superstitious rituals. The complainant started pressurising him and his mother to indulge in superstitious rituals with respect to him being a manglik, such as getting married to a tree etc. Due to these differences, the decided date of marriage passed and eventually the marriage was called off. During this period, several SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 14 genuine efforts were made by him and his mother to reconcile the marriage. However, the complainant had started misbehaving and started abusing on a regular basis because of which it was impossible to proceed with the marriage ceremony. When the marriage was called off in October 2011, it was decided that they will return all the articles to the complainant which were given at the time of ring ceremony. In pursuance of his malafide intentions, complainant started making frivilous demands in order to exploit him and his mother.
33. He further deposed that the marriage was called off between him and the deceased on amicable terms which is evident from the e-mail dated 06.02.2012 wherein the deceased categorically stated that he was a nice person and deserved a better person than her in life and that it was destiny that they could not be together. Even after breaking off the marriage, he and the deceased remained good friends and used to support and help each other in their respective professional lives. Even during that time, the complainant kept on making frivilous demands through his friend Balvinder Singh and he used to constantly threaten him and his mother. An intimation about such threats was made by him and his mother on 13.04.2012 to SHO, PS Tagore Garden and PS Patel Nagar. He and the deceased were constantly communicating through e-mail & google chats. In these conversations, the deceased used to share the traumas being faced by her at her work place from her boss Harpreet as well as at her home from her father. The deceased used to tell him how the complainant used to constantly make derrogatory remarks about her and pass negative taunts and comments.
SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 1534. He further deposed that on 02.04.2012, a legal notice was sent to him by the complainant wherein it was demanded that either a new date of marriage be fixed or Rs. 10 Lakhs be paid to the complainant. This legal notice was a mere afterthought and there was no intention of the complainant to get the deceased married with him. The legal notice was only sent with a motive to extract undue monies from him and his mother. It has been falsely alleged by the complainant that he and his mother threatened the complainant to withdraw the legal notice. It has also been falsely alleged that he told the deceased Manjeet to go and commit suicide. Between 23.04.2012 to 24.04.2012, a lot of SMSs were exchanged between the deceased and him where they showed support to each other. In these SMSs it was decided that the news of breaking off the marriage should not be further disclosed at their respective work places. It was also stated in one of the messages that the deceased still liked him and used to cherish their relationship. She was extremely frustrated because of her boss constantly pressurising her as well as the complainant constantly condemning her. Both these pressurising situations at her work place and her home led her to take the drastic step of ending her life. On 24.04.2012, in the last google chat that he had with the deceased, he asked the deceased as to whether she was aware about the legal notice dated 02.04.2012 sent on behalf of her father, to which the deceased replied that she had no clue about the same and was extremely embarrassed at the low level the complainant had stooped to. In this chat it was again reiterated that he and his mother never wanted a fancy wedding or gifts or any such demands from the deceased or her family, rather they were extremely happy SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 16 in a simple wedding ceremony in the local Gurudwara.
35. He further deposed that he and his mother have not created any circumstances or situation for the deceased to take such a drastic step. On 25.04.2012 the deceased in the early morning hours committed suicide. This fact was revealed to him and his mother by a common friend in the evening. He was extremely shocked and saddened to hear about it. He stated that the unfateful event has occurred approximately one year after the marriage being called off, and therefore the allegations levelled against him and his mother by the complainant regarding the calling off the marriage being the reason of suicide are completely baseless, false & frivolous. Once the present case was lodged and they had applied for anticipatory bail before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, a mediation took place between the complainant and them wherein an amount of Rs. 4 Lakhs was agreed to be given to the complainant along with the exchange of the respective articles. The settlement concluded with the execution of the settlement deed dated 13.08.2012 before the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre whereafter they were granted anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. In the settlement agreement, it was also agreed by the complainant that he did not wish to pursue the present matter, however, they still kept receiving calls for further demands from the complainant and his friend Balvinder Singh.
36. He relied upon the complete record of chats and e-mail exchanged between him and the deceased collected by the IO during investigation which is Ex. PW11/D1 (colly) as well as their CDRs collected during investigation which are Ex. PW11/D2 (colly). He also relied upon the settlement agreement dated SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 17 13.08.2012 which had taken place at Mediation Center of Delhi High Court (Ex PW3/DA).
37. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the State. No other witness was examined by the accused persons in support of their defence.
38. Final arguments have been heard and record is carefully perused.
JUDICIAL RESOLUTIONS:
39. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on the judicial file by leading cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence beyond reasonable doubts. The case of prosecution has to fall or stand on its own legs and it cannot derive the benefit from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. It is not for the accused to disprove the case of the prosecution and the onus to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts never shifts and always remains on the prosecution. Further, benefit of doubt in the prosecution story always goes to the accused and it entitles the accused to acquittal.
40. In the present case, the accused persons are charged with offences 306/34 IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
41. Section 306 IPC provides punishment for the offence of abetment to commit suicide. The basic constituents of an offence under Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. To attract the ingredients of abetment, the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide is necessary. Suicide is an act of self killing by any means.
42. In order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 18 to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he or she committed suicide.
43. Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides penalty for demanding dowry.
44. Section 34 IPC provides exception to the general rule that no man can be held responsible for an independent act and wrong committed by another. It lays down the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is to be found in the existence of common intention, emanating from the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. It deals with doing of separate acts, similar or adverse by several persons, if all are done in furtherance of common intention, each person is liable for the result thereof as if he had done the act himself. The soul of Section 34 IPC is the joint liability of doing a criminal act. This section only provides a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. Two elements are necessary to fulfil the requirement of Section 34 IPC. One is that the person must be present on the scene of occurrence and the second is that there must be a prior concert or a pre-arranged plan. Unless these two conditions are fulfilled, a person cannot be held guilty of an offence by operation of Section 34 IPC.
45. Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuance to that plan. Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of act in point of time which need not be a long gap. The common intention to give effect to a particular act may even develop at the spur of the moment between a number of SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 19 persons with reference to the facts of a given case. Where there is no direct evidence of common intention, it has to be inferred from circumstantial evidence.
46. Now, let us apply the above discussed definitions of the offences with which accused persons have been charged to the facts of the present case and evidence brought on record.
FINDINGS:
47. In the present case, accused persons have been charged for abetting the suicide of deceased Manjeet Kaur with whom marriage of Accused Saurabh Gugnani was fixed. The fact that the deceased Manjeet Kaur committed suicide by hanging herself by neck is not in dispute. The factum of her death is duly proved on record by her post mortem report (Ex. P-6) as well as testimonies of her grandfather(PW-1), her father(PW-3) as well as the police officials. The PMR of the deceased Manjeet Kaur has been duly admitted by accused persons under section 294 Cr.PC. The opinion regarding the reason for death as contained in PMR (Ex. P-6) is "death due to asphyxia caused by ante mortem ligature hanging. Manner of death is suicide" Thus, it is duly proved on record beyond any reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased Manjeet Kaur was suicidal in nature caused due to hanging by neck.
48. Now, in order to convict the accused persons for offence under Section 306 IPC, in addition to suicidal death of Manjeet Kaur, the prosecution was required to prove on record that the accused persons had aided, instigated or abetted the suicide of deceased Manjeet.
49. Section 306 of the IPC can be extracted below to see the real nature of the offence.
SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 20"Abetment of suicide- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine".
50. What is abetment is defined in Section 107 of the IPC which is as under:
"Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing who- First -Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1. A person who by wilful misrepresentation or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2 -Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
51. Section 107 IPC defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
52. Before we advert further, at this stage we may notice a few decisions of the Apex court, relevant for the purpose of this case.
SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 2153. In Swamay Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. and Anr. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306, IPC on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked the deceased "to go to and die". The Apex court was of the view that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased "to go and die" were not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
54. In Mahendra Singh Vs. State of MP 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC based on dying declaration of the deceased which read as under:- " My mother in law and husband and sister in law (husband's elder brother's wife)harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahindra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister in law. Because of those reasons and being harassed, I want to to die by burning."
55. The Apex Court considering the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC and found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegations of the harassment of the deceased. The Apex Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abatement are attracted on the statement of the deceased.
56. In Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Apex Court while considered the charge framed and conviction for an offence under Section 306 IPC on the basis of a dying declaration, recorded by an executive Magistrate, in which she had stated that previously there had been a quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence, she had a quarrel with the husband who had said that she could go wherever SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 22 she want to go and thereafter, she had put Kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused, the Apex court held, " A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quiet common to the society to which victim belong and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in the given society to commit suicide, the consciences of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
57. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the allegations against accused persons are that after the engagement of accused Saurabh Gugnani with accused Manjeet Kaur on 14.04.2011 and before their marriage scheduled for 30.10.2011, the accused persons had raised demands of dowry in the form of Rs. 5 Lacs cash, Honda City Car and solemnization of marriage in a farmhouse. Father of the deceased was unable to fulfil the said demands, however, the accused persons kept on pressurizing them. Due to these demands, the marriage could not be solemnized on the fixed date i.e. 30.10.2011. Even thereafter, though repeated requests were made to the accused persons for fixing a fresh date of marriage, they continued with their demands. It is alleged that it SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 23 was this pressure created on the deceased Manjeet Kaur due to demands and calling off the marriage that she took the extreme step of ending her life and committed suicide.
58. In order to prove these allegations, prosecution is relying upon the original complaint on the basis of which, present FIR was registered which is Ex. PW-3/A; the testimony of grandfather of the deceased Sh. Surjit Singh who is examined as PW-1 and testimony of the father of the deceased, Sh. Balwinder Singh who is examined as PW-3 as well as one legal notice sent by the complainant Sh. Balwinder Singh to accused Saurabh Gugnani on 02.04.2012 which is Mark 3A (Ex. PW-11/D3). Perusal of all these documents and testimonies clearly show that no specific dates of demands of dowry have been mentioned either in the legal notice Ex. PW-11/D3 or in complaint Ex. PW-3/A or in the testimonies of PW-1 or PW-3. Although, there is mention of these three demands in both the testimonies and both the documents, however, the dates of demands and the manner in which the demands are raised are not mentioned in any of the documents or testimonies. It is an admitted fact that the engagement of accused Saurabh Gugnani with deceased Manjeet had taken place on 14.04.2011 and the date of marriage was fixed as 30.10.2011. There is no clarity on entire record as to during this period of more than 6 months when the alleged demands were made by the accused persons and in what manner. While in legal notice Ex. PW-11/D3, in paragraph no.4, it is mentioned that as the date of marriage was coming closer, the accused persons started harassing the complainant and raised demands of dowry. In complaint Ex. PW-3/A, it is mentioned that when complainant started purchasing and preparing for the SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 24 marriage, accused persons started raising demands and pressurising them. In contradiction to these statements, PW-3 deposed that after 10-15 days of booking of hall of marriage at Gurudwara (i.e. 26.05.2011), the accused persons started raising demands of dowry. Accordingly, the statements regarding when these demands were made by the accused persons are completely contradictory to each other. There is no other evidence on record regarding the alleged demands of dowry made by the accused persons.
59. In addition to this, there are chats and e-mail records of the deceased Manjeet Kaur with accused Saurabh Gugnani that have been collected by the IO from the PC of the deceased and filed with the chargesheet which clearly show that there was no issue of demands of dowry between them. These chats are proved as Ex. PW-11/D1(colly) and a careful perusal of the same clearly show that deceased and accused Saurabh Gugnani were in continuous communication with each other till about 10:00 PM on 24.04.2012 i.e. few hours before the deceased committed suicide. However, these chats do not reveal any kinds of demands or pressure on the deceased from the side of accused Saurabh Gugnani. Rather, there are repeated messages from accused Saurabh Gugnani that he always wanted a simple wedding. Although, from the chats on record, it is amply clear that the marriage between the parties was first fixed and then called off due to some mutual differences between the families and this failure of relationship had immensely pressurized both the deceased as well as accused Saurabh Gugnani, however, the chats nowhere reveal that the reason for calling off the marriage was dowry demands raised by the accused persons. There is no inkling of evidence in the entire chats and e-mails SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 25 exchanged between the parties and collected during investigation which is Ex. PW-11/D1 to the effect that there were any dowry demands raised by the accused persons or the deceased was in any manner being pressurized by the accused persons to fulfill the said dowry demands. There is no iota of evidence as regards any kind of instigation from the side of accused Saurabh Gugnani leaving the deceased Manjeet Kaur with no other option but to end her life by committing suicide.
60. In addition to this, no overt act of abetment has been alleged against accused persons. The entire focus of the prosecution case is on the alleged dowry demands made by the accused persons which led to calling off the marriage between the deceased and accused Saurabh Gugnani. Accordingly, the prosecution was required to prove on record beyond any reasonable doubt that the said dowry demands were made by the accused persons from the deceased and her family members, however, as discussed above, these dowry demands in themselves have remained unproved. Neither any specific dates of the alleged dowry demands nor the manner of making dowry demands have come on record. In addition to this, there are no allegations of dowry demands in the conversations between the deceased and accused Saurabh Gugnani in the form of chats and e-mails till few hours before the unfortunate incident. Moreover, accused Saurabh Gugnani has stepped into the witness box as DW-1 and categorically deposed that the allegations of dowry demands were false and fabricated and the marriage was called off due to the family differences as father of the deceased/complainant found out that accused Saurabh Gugnani was a manglik and wanted him to perform certain rituals, to which the SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 26 accused persons were not agreeable. This defence of the accused as the reason for calling off the marriage appears to be quite probable as there is reference of this issue even in the conversations between Accused Saurabh Gugnani and deceased Manjeet in the form of chats and e-mails which are Ex. PW-11/D1 (colly). This probability is sufficient to cloud the entire case of the prosecution with doubt.
61. Thus, there is no evidence on record to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, the alleged fact that accused persons had made dowry demands from the deceased and her family or had called off the marriage on account of non-fulfilment of the dowry demands or were pressurizing the deceased in any manner to fulfil the said dowry demands which forced or compelled the deceased to commit suicide. There is no evidence on record to hold that accused persons had abetted or instigated deceased Manjeet Kaur to commit suicide in any manner. The word instigate means goad or to urge forward to provoke inside urge or encourage to do an act. However, in the present case, there is no evidence of any active engagement on behalf of accused persons to encourage or incite the deceased to commit suicide. No wilful act has been proved to have been committed by the accused persons to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Even the ground of alleged harassment to the deceased Manjeet Kaur i.e. cancellation of marriage on account of non-fulfilment of dowry demands has not been proved on record beyond any reasonable doubt. Thus, the evidence on record is highly insufficient for convicting the accused persons for offences charged against them.
CONCLUSION:
62. In view of the reasons given above and considering the SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 27 evidence on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove on record the offence charged against accused persons, beyond any reasonable doubt. The evidence on record is highly insufficient for convicting the accused persons for the offence charged. Accused persons are accordingly, acquitted for the offences under Section 306/34 IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act as charged against them giving them the benefit of doubt.
63. File be consigned to record room.
64. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open court SHIVALI by SHIVALI SHARMA Dated 18.12.2024. SHARMA Date: 2024.12.18 15:45:56 +0530 (SHIVALI SHARMA) ASJ-03/WEST/THC/DELHI 18.12.2024 SC No. 57606-2016 State Vs. Saurabh Gugnani & Anr. FIR No. 62/2012 Page No. 28