Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu Etc on 1 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SANGWAN :
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT - 01):
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
SC No.2132/2016
STATE Vs SONU & ORS.
FIR No.: 06/2011
U/S 498A/304B/302/34 IPC
PS : SUNLIGHT COLONY
Particulars of the case
1. Date of offence : 24.03.2007 to 05.01.2011
2.Offence complained of : u/s 498-A/304-B/302/34 IPC
3.Name of the complainant : Smt. Meena
4. Name of the accused no.1 : Sonu
his parentage s/o Om Prakash,
his residential address R/o: H. No. T-173, Harijan Basti,
Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi.
Name of the accused no.2 : Anil @ Sunil Kumar
his parentage s/o Sh. Om Prakash,
his residential address R/o: H. No. T-173, Harijan Basti,
Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi.
Name of accused no.3 : Manoj Kumar
his parentage s/o Sh. Om Prakash,
his residential address R/o: T-173, Harijan Basti,
Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi.
Name of accused no.4 : Gayatri
her parentage w/o Sh. Manoj Kumar,
her residential address R/o: T-173, Harijan Basti,
Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi.
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6.Final order : Accused Sonu convicted u/s 498A IPC
SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 1 of 38
FIR No. 06/2011
Other accused Anil @ Sunil Kumar,
Manoj Kumar and Gayatri are
acquitted
Date of Institution : 02.05.2011
Date of Judgment reserved on : 06.11.2023
Date of Judgment : 01.12.2023
Ld. Addl PP for State : Sh. Ashok Debbarma
Ld. Counsel for accused
Sonu, Anil @ Sunil Kumar,
Manoj Kumar and Gayatri : Sh. Haneef Mohammad
JUDGMENT
1. CHARGESHEET 1.1 As per chargesheet, on receipt of DD No.5, PP Sarai Kale Khan dated 05.01.2011, SI Nitin along with Ct. Mahinder reached at the spot i.e. T-173, Harijan Basti, Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi where there was a small house of two storeys having two rooms on the ground floor with entry gate opening into the first room. There was another room inside. In the second room on the ground floor, the dead body of one lady wearing black colour suit-salwar was lying. Deceased's name was revealed as Parinita w/o Sh. Sonu, aged about 24 years. Body was having strangulation marks on her neck. A light yellow colour chunni with a knot was lying near the dead body. Cotton had been put on the nose of the deceased and thumbs of both her feet were tied with a thread.
1.2 On investigation, IO came to know that Parinita got married four years back and she had a two years old daughter. Accordingly, Sh. Parvesh Ranjan Jha, SDM of the area was informed about the incident through SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 2 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 phone. He directed to call the crime team at the spot and hence, the crime team was given message to come to the spot. SDM arrived at the spot and inspected the spot in presence of the crime team. During inspection, small traces of blood were found on the clothes, on the bed, on the chunni, on the floor and at other places inside the room and small pieces of glass were scattered on the floor. On instruction of SDM, photographer HC Raj Singh took photographs of place of incident from different angles. On the instruction of SDM, dead body of deceased Parinita was shifted to AIIMS hospital by Ct. Gangadhar. Thereafter, said constable came back at the spot and produced the MLC of said deceased wherein she was declared dead by the doctor. On the instructions of SDM, the door outside the place of incident was locked and its key was taken into the possession of police. SDM recorded the statements of deceased Parinita's mother Meena and her grandmother Vimla Devi and provided one forwarding letter for getting the FIR registered.
1.3 In her statement, the mother of deceased stated that she was working as a Safai Karamchari at MCD, Nizamuddin East, Delhi. She was having four daughters namely Parinita, Prathana, Priyanka and Sneha. Her elder daughter Parinita did not get married as per their wishes. Parinita married with Sonu s/o Om Prakash in December, 2006 after elopement. Sonu works with one person namely Mehraj in Printing Press at Bhogal. Her daughter was aged about 17 years when she got married to Sonu by elopement and a complaint regarding the same was lodged in PS Sarai Kale Khan. After marriage, they lived in their home in Aligarh. One child was born out of the said wedlock and when said child was aged about 08 months, Sonu and Parinita came back to Delhi and started living in her SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 3 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 neighbourhood and they have been living in her neighbourhood for the last two years. Sonu used to beat her daughter Parinita. Apart from this, he also tried to beat Meena herself last month and she got lodged a complaint in Sarai Kale Khan regarding the same. She stated that today at about 6.00 pm she called her daughter Parinita from her house and she replied "yes mummy". About 15/20 minutes after feeding her granddaughter Chinki she sent her granddaughter along with her seven-year-old daughter namely Sneha to Parinita's house and after coming back from there, her daughter Sneha told her that inside the room at Parinita's house, some broken glass bottles were lying but Meena did not visit Parinita's house on that day and she went to Trilok Puri along with her daughters Priyanka and Sneha for taking her medicines. Even though she had a mobile phone but in laws of Parinita did not call her. At about 09.00 pm her son in law made a call to her elder brother Bishan, who was working in Gurgaon and was on duty at that time. They told him that condition of Parinita was serious and she was admitted in a Gurudwara Hospital. After about half an hour, her son in law Sonu called her elder son Bishan again and told that Moni @ Parinita had died. She has a suspicion that her daughter Parinita was killed by Sonu (her son in law), Manoj (Sonu's brother), his wife Gayatri, and Anil (Sonu's younger brother) in connivance with each other. Her daughter Parinita was having strangulation marks on her neck.
1.4 On the basis of facts and circumstances and the statement of mother of deceased, offence u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC was made out against the accused and case was accordingly registered and investigation was marked to the Inspector Kishan Kumar.
SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 4 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 1.5 During investigation, IO prepared the site plan on the pointing out of SI Nitin, recorded statement of witnesses and took the chunni lying near the dead body into police possession. He also took into possession the photocopy of complaint given by the deceased Parinita to Shape India GRC SK. Husband of the deceased was interrogated in the present case. During interrogation, her husband told that about four years ago, he got married to a girl, who used to reside in his neighbourhood after elopement. He did not have any permanent work and for starting his work, he demanded Rs.1 lakh from his wife but when his demand was not fulfilled, he started harassing her. He demanded a motorcycle from the family members of her wife and same was not provided by them and for the said reason on 05.01.2011 at about 06.30 pm after closing the door of the room, his wife Parinita committed suicide by hanging herself with a fan with the help of a chunni.
Since there was sufficient evidence for arresting deceased's husband, he was arrested.
1.6 On 07.01.2011 post mortem was conducted on the dead body of deceased Parinita and after post mortem dead body of the deceased was handed over to her legal heirs. On SDM's instructions, the spot was also got inspected by the FSL Rohini Expert team and pullandas were taken into police possession.
1.7 On 20.01.2011 SDM checked the PM report and handed over the same to the Inspector for necessary action. In said PM report, the doctor opined the cause of death as hanging, however, it was further mentioned that viscera be preserved to rule out any intoxication. 1.8 On 28.02.2011 all pullandas were deposited in FSL, Rohini for obtaining expert opinion.
SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 5 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 1.9 On 07.03.2011 co-accused Anil @ Sunil Kumar was arrested and during interrogation, he stated that on 05.01.2011 he was out of his house and when he returned to his house at about 06.30 pm his bhabhi Gayatri who lived upstairs in the same house was banging the door of Parinita for opening the door below but no response was received from inside. He put his hand through the door and forcefully opened the door but while opening he got hit by some patti in the door and blood started oozing from his hand. On opening the same he found that Parinita has hanged herself from the fan with the help of her chunni. He and his bhabhi Gayatri brought her down and called Sonu and took her to the Gurudwara's hospital where she was declared dead by the doctor. He stated that he used to joke with Parinita but Parinita used to feel bad about the same as Sonu used to suspect him and Parinita and due to said reason Parinita remained in trouble. The blood oozed out of his hand when his hand got hurt while opening the door and hence blood splattered and blood was seen in the room and he had also wiped his hand with chunni.
On 09.03.2011 co accused Manoj and his wife Gayatri were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court and they were arrested on 11.03.2011 and then released on bail.
1.10 From the investigation conducted so far, offences u/s 498A/304B/34/306 IPC were made out against all four accused persons and they all were charge sheeted accordingly 1.11 Result of exhibits was received from FSL, Rohini, Delhi and same was filed by way of application dated 26.11.2011.
SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 6 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011
2. CHARGE 2.1 On the basis of the chargesheet, charge u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC was framed against all four accused persons. Further an alternative charge u/s 302/34 IPC was also framed against all four accused persons. All accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed trial. Accordingly, prosecution was directed to lead evidence in support of the chargesheet.
3. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 3.1 In support of its case, prosecution has examined 24 witnesses :-
S. No. Name of the witnesses Nature of the evidence PW-1 HC Rajender Singh Duty Officer PW-2 Ct. Satish DD Writer who proved DD No.32 regarding killing of one girl by her in laws PW-3 Ct. Mahender Singh Police official who reached the spot along with SI Nitin Kumar and was also witness to the proceedings conducted therein PW-4 Smt. Meena Complainant/mother of the deceased PW-5 Smt. Vimla Grandmother (Nani) of the deceased Parinita.
PW-6 Ct. Vijay Kumar Witness to arrest and personal
search of accused Sonu
PW-7 HC Lakhan Singh MHC(M)
SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 7 of 38
FIR No. 06/2011
PW-7 Ct. Ganga Dhar Witness to seizure memo of
(wrongly three sealed parcels containing
numbered clothes of the deceased, blood
as PW7) sample in gauze and viscera
box along with two sample
seals
PW-8 Ct. Anuj Witness who on instructions
of MHC(M) deposited the
sealed parcels in FSL, Rohini
and obtained the receipt
PW-8 Bishan Kumar Uncle of deceased Parinita
(wrongly who identified her dead body
numbered in AIIMS
as PW8)
PW9 Suresh Uncle of accused Sonu who
was witness to the marriage of
Sonu and Parinita
PW10 Ct. Ravinder Kumar Witness to arrest and personal
search of accused Anil Kumar
PW11 ASI Raj Singh Photographer of Mobile Crime
Team who took 19
photographs of the spot at the
instance of IO and SDM
PW12 SI Vijay Pal Singh Kasana Incharge Crime Team who
inspected the spot
SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 8 of 38
FIR No. 06/2011
PW13 Ms. Meenakshi Agnihotri Advocate/Legal Advisor
working with NGO Shape
India GRC-Samajik Suvidha
Kendra, Saria Kale Khan to
whom deceased Parinita had
given her written complaint
regarding her harassment in
her matrimonial home
PW14 Inspector Mahesh Kumar Draftsman who prepared
scaled site plan
PW15 Rajni Aunt of deceased Parinita
PW16 SI Nitin Kumar Police official who firstly
reached the spot and
conducted the initial
proceedings
PW17 Dr. Surender Kumar Doctor who prepared the
MLC of deceased Parinita
PW18 Sh. Pravesh Ranjan Jha SDM PS Sunlight Colony who
conducted the inquest
proceedings, recorded the
statement of mother as well as
maternal grandmother of
deceased Parinita and
recommended the registration
of case.
SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 9 of 38
FIR No. 06/2011
PW19 Dr. Hari Prasad Doctor who conducted post
mortem on the dead body of
deceased Parinita and
prepared his detailed report.
PW20 Rajesh Kumar Mishra Priest who performed the
marriage rituals of Sonu and
deceased Parinita in Vedic
Mandir on 24.03.2007
PW21 Sunita Gupta FSL expert who conducted
biological and serological
examination of case exhibits
PW22 Inspector Kishan Kumar IO of the case
3.2 The prosecution has exhibited following documents/objects in support of its case:-
No.of exhibit Nature of exhibit
Ex.PW1/A FIR
Ex.PW1/B Endorsement on the tehrir
Ex.PW2/A DD No.32 regarding killing of one girl by her
in laws at Harijan Basti
Ex.PW3/A Seizure memo of seizing of two chunnies
Ex.P-1 (colly) Case property i.e. Chunnies
Ex.PW4/A Statement of complainant/mother of deceased
Ex.PW4/B Seizure memo of complaint given by Moni @
Parinita to the NGO namely Shape India GRC-
SK to the IO
Ex.PW4/C Dead body identification memo of deceased
Parinita
Ex.PW4/D Dead Body delivery memo of deceased
Parinita
Ex.PW5/A Statement of maternal grandmother of
deceased Parinita recorded by SDM
SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 10 of 38
FIR No. 06/2011
Ex.PW6/A Arrest memo of accused Sonu
Ex.PW6/B Personal search memo of accused Sonu
Ex.PW6/C Disclosure statement of accused Sonu
Ex.PW7/A deposition of one sealed parcel, sealed with the
seal of KK in the malkhana vide entry in
register no.19 at serial no.5
Ex.PW7/B Deposition of 15 sealed parcels, sealed with
the seal of KK along with sample seal in the
malkhana vide entry in register no.19 at serial no.6 Ex.PW7/A Seizure memo of three sealed parcels, (exhibited wrongly containing clothes of the deceased, blood again with same sample in gauze and viscera box along with exhibit number) two sample seals Ex.PW8/A Statement of PW8 Bishan Kumar regarding identification of dead body of deceased Parinita Ex.PW9/A Seizure memo of marriage certificate of Sonu with deceased Parinita Ex.PX Marriage certificate of Parinita with accused Sonu Ex.PW10/A Arrest memo of accused Anil Kumar Ex.PW10/B Personal search memo of accused Anil Kumar Ex.PW11/A1 to 19 photographs of spot of incident Ex.PW11/A19 Ex.PW11/B (colly) Negatives of above-mentioned photographs Ex.PW12/A Crime Team Inspection Report Ex.PW13/A Complaint of deceased Parinita given to Ms. Meenakshi Agnihotri, Advocate/Legal Advisor to NGO Shape India GRC-Samajik Suvidha Kendra, Sarai Kale Khan regarding her harassment by her husband Ex.PW13/B Handwritten Advice of Ms. Meenakshi Agnihotri, Advocate/Legal Advisor to deceased Parinita Ex.PW14/A Scaled Site plan SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 11 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 Ex.PW16/A Direction of SDM to PW16 SI Nitin Kumar on the statement of mother of deceased namely Meena Ex.PW16/B Endorsement made by SI Nitin on the statement of mother of deceased namely Meena Ex.PW16/C Seizure memo of exhibits lifted by the FSL, the pillow and the dupatta Ex.PW16/D Seizure memo of splinters of glass lying on the floor Ex.P-2 (colly) Case properties i.e. the dupatta and the pillow Ex.P-3 (colly) Glass splinters Ex.PW17/A MLC of deceased Parinita Ex.PW18/A Endorsement of SDM, PS Sunlight Colony on statement of deceased's mother namely Ms. Meena Ex.PW18/B Endorsement of SDM, PS Defence Colony on statement of deceased's grandmother namely Smt. Bimla Ex.PW18/C Death Report of deceased Parinita Ex.PW18/D Post mortem report of deceased Parinita duly forwarded by SDM, PS Defence Colony to the SHO, PS Sunlight Colony Ex.PW19/A Post Mortem report of deceased Parinita prepared by Dr. Hari Prasad Ex.PW21/A & Detailed report dt. 08.09.2011 of biological Ex.PW21/B and serological examination of the case exhibits Ex.PW22/A Disclosure statement of accused Sunil @ Anil Ex.PW22/B & Arrest memos of accused Gayatri Devi and Ex.PW22/C Manoj Kumar Ex.PW22/D Chargesheet of the present case 3.3 Though 24 witnesses have been examined by prosecution but the main witnesses of the case are:
SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 12 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 i. PW- 4 Smt. Meena, complainant/mother of the deceased Parinita, ii. PW-5 Vimla, maternal grandmother of the deceased, iii. PW8-Bishan Kumar, maternal uncle of the deceased, iv. PW13- Ms. Meenakshi Agnihotri, Advocate at NGO Shape India GRC-Samajik Suvidha Kendra, v. PW-15 Rajni, maternal aunt of deceased Parinita and vi. PW-22, Inspector Kishan Kumar, IO of the case 3.4 PW-4 Smt. Meena, complainant of the case deposed that in the year 2011, she was residing at Sarai Kale Khan along with her family and at that time she was working as a sweeper in MCD, Nizamuddin East. She was having four daughters and name of her eldest daughter was Parinita (now deceased). The names of her second, third and fourth daughters are Prarthana, Priyanka and Sneh respectively. She does not have any male child.
She stated that her daughter Parinita got married with accused Sonu without her consent and in fact, her daughter was taken away by accused Sonu from her house without her consent in the month of December, 2006. Thereafter, both of them got married. At that time, accused Sonu was working with one Mehraj in his Printing Press at Bhogal and at the time of marriage of her daughter Parinita with Sonu, she was aged about 17 years and at that time, she lodged a complaint in PP Sarai Kale Khan. After the marriage, Sonu and Parinita lived together in their house at Aligarh. After about 1½ years of the marriage, Sonu along with his wife Parinita and one female child aged about eight months old came back to Delhi and started living as her neighbor in their locality. Till the death of her daughter Parinita and accused Sonu resided nearby her house. During said period, SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 13 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 accused Sonu used to beat her daughter Parinita and about one month prior to death of her daughter Parinita, Sonu tried to beat even PW4 with hockey and she lodged the complaint in this regard in PP Sarai Kale Khan.
She further deposed that on 05.01.2011 at about 06.00 pm she called her daughter Parinita from her house and she replied in affirmative as "Han Mammi". After 15-20 minutes, after giving food to her granddaughter Chinki, she sent her daughter Sneha, aged about 07 years to Parinita's house and when her said daughter returned, she informed that some glass bottles were lying broken on the floor in the house of the accused. PW4 was not well and therefore she went to Trilokpuri for taking medicines along with her daughter Priyanka and Sneha. She was not informed by the in-laws of Parinita but they knew very well that she was having mobile phone. At about 09.00 pm, she was informed by her brother Bishan, who was working in Gurgaon and was on duty at that time that he has got information from her son in law Sonu on his mobile that the condition of her daughter Moni @ Parinita was bad and she was admitted in Gurudwara Hospital. After that, at about 09.30 pm she was informed by her brother Bishan again that her daughter Moni @ Parinita had expired. She had informed the SDM in her statement that accused Sonu, Manoj and his wife Gayatri and Anil were responsible for the death of her daughter. Her statement is Ex.PW4/A recorded by the SDM at about 03.00 am on the following morning i.e., 06.01.2011.
She also gave statement to the police on the same day i.e., on 06.01.2011 and in her statement, she told them that accused Sonu was not working anywhere and he was a vagabond and he used to harass her daughter and torture her for dowry. Accused Sonu used to say that no SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 14 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 dowry was given to him and that they would have given dowry to their daughter Moni @ Parinita if she was married off by them. Said accused further used to demand cash amounting to Rs.1 lakh and one pulsar motorcycle from them. She had purchased one LIC Policy in the name of her daughter Moni @ Parinita and accused Sonu used to torture her daughter to bring money of Rs. 1 Lakh of LIC after breaking the same. However, she had not given the said amount. All the accused persons were residing in the same house on ground and 1st floor. Accused Sonu used to allege her daughter that she was having illicit relations with his brother Anil and due to said reason, said accused used to abuse, beat and torture her deceased daughter. Accused Gayatri and Manoj also used to torture and taunt her deceased daughter that she had come from beggar's house and she had not brought anything in the marriage. All the accused persons were present at their home at the time of alleged incident. All the accused gave beatings to Moni @ Parnita and caused her death by strangulating her with chunni. At the time when she saw the dead body of her daughter Moni @ Parinita, she noticed that she was having cut mark on her left hand and the blood was also seen near her nose. She further deposed that she was not present in her house on the relevant date and time but she came to know that a quarrel took place between accused Sonu and her deceased daughter Moni @ Parinita in the noon time.
During investigation on 06.01.2011, she gave the photocopy of complaint given by her deceased daughter to an NGO namely Shape India GRC-SK to the IO. IO had taken the said letter Mark A into his possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 15 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 Next day i.e. on 07.01.2011 she went to AIIMS mortuary where she identified the dead body of her daughter and she signed the statement regarding such identification vide memo Ex.PW4/C. After the post mortem, she had received the dead body of Parinita and she signed the dead body delivery memo Ex.PW4/D. At that time, her brother Bishan was also accompanying them.
PW4 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
3.5 PW5 Vimla, maternal grandmother of deceased Parinita, deposed that deceased Parinita @ Moni @ Priya was her granddaughter. In the year 2011, PW5 was residing at Sarai Kale Khan with her daughter Meena, who was having four daughters and Parinita was the eldest of her daughters. Her deceased granddaughter was aged about 21 years of age when accused had taken her for marriage without their consent. Her deceased granddaughter eloped with the accused Sonu three years prior to the date of incident and they had got married. They came to know that after marriage, Parinita was staying with accused Sonu in a village at Aligarh and one daughter namely Chinki was born out of their wedlock. When Parinita came from the village, she told them that accused Sonu used to beat her regularly and did not provide her any food etc. and also used to demand money from her. Accused Sonu used to ask her deceased granddaughter to bring money from her parents. They i.e., PW5 and her daughter Meena used to provide money to Parinita Rs.200/- - 300/- for household expenses.
She further deposed that after coming to Delhi, Sonu and her deceased granddaughter started residing in their neighbourhood. They tried to counsel accused Sonu and also talked to his parents and brother. Accused SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 16 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 Anil was the younger brother of accused Sonu, who also used to harass Parinita as he wanted her to be his keep. Accused Manoj had bad eyes on Parinita and he also used to harass her. She complained to his parents who stated that Parinita was telling lies. All the accused persons were responsible for the death of Parinita @ Moni. They used to demand Rs. 1 lakh in cash and pulsar motorcycle but they could not fulfill the demand as they were the poor persons and on non-fulfillment of their demands, the accused killed Parinita.
She further deposed that accused Sonu had made telephone call to his son Bisan, who was on his job at Gurgaon at that time, firstly that Parinita was serious and secondly that she had expired. Bishan informed them on phone and she and her daughter Meena were in Trilokpuri at that time. On receipt of information, they reached at Sarai Kale Khan at accused persons' house where Parinita @ Moni was lying dead on the floor. On asking accused Sonu replied that she was found hanging from the fan and that he had taken her down from the fan and was about to take her to the hospital. Her statement Ex.PW15/A was recorded by the SDM. Police inquired her and recorded her statement.
She further deposed that accused Sonu also confessed in the police station that he had killed his wife, Parinita.
PW5 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
3.6 PW8 Bishan Kumar, maternal uncle of the deceased deposed that in the year 2011 he was residing at Trilokpuri with his family and on 01.01.2011 at about 09.00 pm, he was informed by accused Sonu through mobile phone that condition of Parinita was serious and they were taking SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 17 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 her to the hospital. After some time, Sonu again called him and informed that Parinita had died. He was shocked to hear this and he told him that he had called him earlier stating that condition of Parinita was serious and now he is informing that she had died. What was the matter? He will complain the same to the police. Thereafter, he immediately informed her sister Meena regarding death of Parinita and then he returned to his home and made complaint to the police. He suspected that Parinita was killed by Sonu and his family members.
Next day, he identified the dead body of Parinita in AIIMS and IO recorded his statement regarding the identification of dead body of Parinita Ex.PW8/A in presence of SDM.
Ld. Addl. PP for the State put some leading questions to the witness in respect of the dates.
In answer to the leading question, he admitted that the call regarding hospitalization and death of Parinita was received by him on 06.01.2011 and he identified her dead body on 07.01.2011. He further admitted that the call regarding hospitalization and death of Parinita was received by him on 05.01.2011 and he had identified her dead body on 07.01.2011.
PW8 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
3.7 PW13 Ms. Meenakshi Agnihotri, Advocate deposed that in the year 2011 she was working as legal Advisor with NGO Shape Indian GRC- Samajik Suvidha Kendra at Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi and nature of her work was to counsel the aggrieved ladies, who came to said Kendra and she also held awareness programs for the ladies.
SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 18 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 On 19.01.2011 IO of the present case came at her office and showed her a photocopy of a document related to her NGO. After perusing the said document, she informed the IO that Parinita had visited their NGO on 08.02.2010 and Parinita informed that she solemnized love marriage with Sonu about four years back but Sonu used to beat her and was not working anywhere permanently. Parinita had given a written complaint Ex.PW13/A to her. PW13 produced the original complaint of Parinita from the register of Shape India NGO. She further deposed that after receipt of her complaint, she had advised Parinita to bring her husband to the NGO for counseling and that if he continues to give her beatings, she should inform the police at number 100 for help. Said advice is Ex.PW13/B. PW13 was informed by the IO that Parinita had committed suicide on 05.01.2011. About one week prior to her death, PW13 had also received a phone call from deceased Parinita wherein she stated that her husband and in laws were harassing her for dowry. Deceased Parinita's husband was giving beatings to her and her in laws were asking her to bring money from anywhere. She advised Parinita to inform the police for help. Thereafter, IO recorded PW13's statement.
PW13 was cross examined nil, despite opportunity to the accused persons.
3.8 PW15 Rajni, maternal aunt of the deceased, deposed that her deceased bhanji Parinita @ Moni got married with accused Sonu 3-4 years prior to her death. She was having a daughter from the said wedlock. The said marriage was a love marriage. After the marriage, accused Sonu kept Parinita @ Moni at his village District Aligarh and thereafter, they came to Delhi and she started residing with her husband, devar Manoj and devrani SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 19 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 Gayatri, devar Anil and jeth Mohan at Sarai Kale Khan near their house. Vimla was PW15's mother residing in Trilokpuri and her sister Meena Devi was residing at Sarai Kale Khan.
On 04.01.2011 PW15 came at the house of her sister Meena where Parinita @ Moni met her and she informed PW15 that her husband Sonu gave beatings to her and suspected her character and demanded Rs.1 lakh from her. Parinita also informed that her devar Anil abused her and also tried to make illicit relations with her and she informed the same to her husband Sonu but Sonu did not believe her and tortured her and other family members also harassed and tortured her. PW15 also observed injury marks on Parinita's hands and face and she was looking upset and was not happy with her in laws. In the evening PW15 returned to her matrimonial house. On the following day at 11.00 pm she came to know about the death of Parinita @ Moni from her husband, who received a telephone call from her brother.
PW15 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for all accused persons.
3.9 PW-22, Inspector Kishan Kumar, IO of the case, deposed as per the contents of the chargesheet.
PW22 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
4. EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CrPC 4.1 After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused were questioned u/s 313 CrPC regarding incriminating circumstances appearing against them. They stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 20 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 4.2 Accused Sonu admitted that he got married to Parinita and it was a love marriage after elopement. Accused further admitted that initially they lived in Aligarh and after about two years of marriage, they came and started living in the same locality as their house. Accused claimed that he had gone to his work at Bhogal with Mehraj and he received a phone call from Parinita who stated that her mother was abusing her verbally and whenever she used to see them, she used to abuse them verbally and, on that day, there was too much verbal abuse by her mother and there was also a big altercation between Parinita and her mother. Parinita apprised him about such alternation. Accused told her to keep calm and stated that he will talk when he returns home.
Accused Sonu further stated that later on he received a call from his brother namely Anil who stated that his wife was not well and she was being to be taken to Gurudwara Hospital. Accused Sonu left from his work place for the hospital and on his way he called mother of Parinita but her mother's phone was switched off. Accused stated that firstly he reached their house but it was locked. Accused again called her but her phone was off. Then he called Parinita's mama namely Bishan and told him that Moni was unwell and she was being taken to Gurudwara Hospital. Then he reached hospital wherein he got to know that Parinita had passed away and she had committed suicide. Accused Sonu again called Bishan and informed him about the death of Parinita.
Accused stated that there was no question of dowry as he had solemnized a love marriage with her wife. He admitted that they all were residing on ground and first floor in the same house. He used to live at ground floor and rest of accused were living on the upper floor. He stated SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 21 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 that the allegations against Gayatri and Manoj were false and he was not present in the house. He stated that he had not seen any such cut mark on the hand of Parinita or blood near her nose. He had left for his duty at 08.00 am. He did not have any quarrel with Moni @ Parinita in the afternoon. He stated that he does not know if alleged complaint was made to the NGO by Parinita. Parinita's family members i.e., PW5 Vimla, her grandmother and her mother Meena did not provide any money to Parinita. Rather Parinita was not on visiting terms with her family after the marriage. She had not visited her paternal house even once after marriage. He stated that he and his family members were not responsible for the death of his wife and rather mother of his wife was responsible for her death. 4.3 Accused Gayatri admitted that it was a marriage by elopement between accused Sonu and deceased Parinita. She admitted that initially Sonu and Parinita resided in Aligarh and then they shifted to Delhi near the house of PW4 Smt. Meena i.e., the mother of the deceased Parinita. She stated that allegations regarding beatings were false. She stated that there was no phone call between Parinita and her mother but she does not know about other facts regarding phone call to Bishan. She stated that Parinita was not even visiting her family. She admitted that she herself, her husband and Anil were residing at the first floor whereas Sonu and Parinita were residing at the ground floor. She stated that allegations against her and her husband were false. Neither she nor other accused were present at the time of incident at the house. She stated that she was doing a housekeeping job at National Heart Institute, Nehru Place, Delhi and she was present at her workplace. She further stated that the allegations regarding beatings and strangulation were false. She stated that Sonu, Parinita's husband told her SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 22 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 that there was altercation between Parinita and her mother on the date of incident. She stated that Sonu and Parinita's had a love marriage and Parinita was not even visiting her family and there was no question of dowry demand. She admitted that Mohan did not used to reside at Sarai Kale Khan.
She further stated that there was no dispute between Sonu and Parinita. They were living on the first floor. Mother of Parinita used to abuse them verbally and used to threaten them. Parinita's mother lodged the present case out of vengeance and shock as her daughter had committed suicide.
4.4 Accused Manoj Kumar stated that Sonu and Parinita married after elopement in Arya Samaj Mandir. After marriage, they lived in Aligarh for two years and then shifted to Delhi. He stated that allegation regarding beating is false and no complaint was made as alleged. He stated that Sonu and Parinita got married on their own will and there was no question of dowry. He admitted that they resided in the same house. He along with his wife and Anil used to reside on 1 st floor and allegations against Sonu and Anil are false. He stated that allegations against him and Gayatri are false. None of the accused were present in the house. He was on his job at Ozone GYM, Defence Colony and his wife called him and informed him that Parinita was not well and was being taken to Gurudwara hospital by her and Anil. He told his wife that he was also coming to the hospital but when he reached the hospital, they had already returned to their home. Nobody met him in the hospital. When he reached home, Anil and Sonu were found present there. Police had already reached there and he came to know that SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 23 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 Parinita had passed away. He stated that the allegations regarding beatings and strangulation are false.
He stated that Parinita was not on visiting terms with her family. There was no meeting between PW5 and his parents regarding allegations of beatings by Sonu to Parinita, not providing food to her etc and dowry demands from her and her family.
4.5 Accused Anil @ Sunil Kumar admitted that Parinita married Sonu after elopement. They both married by their own consent. Parinita was about 18 years of age. He further admitted that Sonu was working with one Mehraj in the Printing Press at Bhogal. He further admitted that initially Sonu and Parinita were residing at Aligarh and later on they shifted to Delhi in the neighbourhood of PW4. He stated that allegations regarding beatings are false and no complaint was made in PP Sarai Kale Khan.
He stated that he does not know about the alleged phone call between PW4 i.e., Parinita's mother and Parinita. There was no broken glass in their house. He stated that PW4 was not having cordial relations with Parinita or their family.
He admitted that they were residing in the same house and on the ground and first floor. He used to reside on the first floor along with Manoj and his wife whereas Sonu used to reside on the ground floor.
He stated that none of the accused i.e., he himself, Sonu, Gayatri and Manoj were present at the home and they all had gone to their respective workplace. He stated that allegations regarding beatings and strangulation are false.
He further admitted that he was arrested in the present case but he claimed that police had obtained his signatures on the blank papers.
SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 24 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 He stated that he had broken the door of the room and he received injury while breaking the same and blood started oozing from his hand. He stated that probably his blood was there in the room.
He stated that whenever they or Parinita used to cross the house of her mother, she used to abuse them by saying "tumhe dekh lungi". His brother Sonu told him that even on the date of incident there was a big altercation between Parinita and his mother.
5. DEFENCE EVIDENCE 5.1 None of the four accused persons chose to lead any defence evidence and accordingly, matter was listed for final arguments.
6. ARGUMENTS 6.1 Thereafter, arguments of both parties were heard. 6.2 Ld. Addl. PP for State has submitted that it has been proved and also admitted by the defence that deceased Parinita was married to Sonu and she died an unnatural death by suicide. It is also not disputed that such death occurred within seven years of the marriage. Further, the mother of deceased and the other witnesses have deposed against accused persons regarding dowry demand and the harassment of deceased on non- fulfillment of such demand. Even one complaint given by deceased herself soon before her death has been proved by the prosecution wherein allegations have been made against the accused persons by deceased herself. Accordingly, the offences alleged against the accused persons stand proved.
SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 25 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 6.3 On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused has argued that there is no evidence against any accused regarding the offence u/s 302 IPC. Rather there is no evidence about offence u/s 302 IPC itself. In regard to other offences, it is submitted that none of the prosecution witness regarding the alleged dowry demands is a reliable witness. It is submitted that all of them are interested witness. It is admitted case of prosecution that it was a love marriage between the deceased and the accused Sonu. Therefore, there was no chance of any dowry demand as dowry demand is made in arranged marriages. Further, immediately after the marriage admittedly the accused and deceased did not even reside in Delhi. Further, no specific dates on which such demands were made have been mentioned by any witness. It is submitted that on the contrary, the family of deceased had severed its ties with the deceased and they were not even on talking terms. The family of deceased had hatred for the accused Sonu and his family since he married the deceased after elopement and without the consent of the family. Therefore, to take out such vengeance against accused Sonu and his family, they have made false allegations against them. Same is apparent as no such demand was mentioned in the statements of PW4 and PW5 recorded by the SDM. It is submitted that even the testimony of PW15 Rajni regarding alleged dowry demands is not reliable. As far as alleged complaint of deceased is concerned no handwriting expert has proved it to be in writing of the deceased. Accordingly, it is submitted that none of the material witness is a reliable witness and there is no other evidence against any accused. Hence, all of the accused are entitled to be acquitted.
SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 26 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011
7. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 7.1 The relevant legal provisions applicable in the present case are reproduced herewith:
Section 498A IPC provides "Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine." Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
Section 304-B IPC provides "(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."
Section 302 IPC provides "Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine"
Section 34 IPC provides "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
7.2 From the facts of the case, arguments of the parties and relevant provisions of law, the following points for determination arise: -
SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 27 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011
1. Whether there is any evidence regarding the alternative charge u/s 302/34 IPC against any accused?
2. Whether the testimonies of the family members of deceased are reliable regarding dowry demands?
3. Whether the testimony of non-family members i.e., PW13 reliable in regard to dowry demands?
4. Whether the complaint allegedly made by deceased has been duly proved, and if so, effect thereof?
5. Whether accused persons are liable to be convicted for any of the alleged offences?
8. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND APPLICATION OF LAW 8.1 The accused persons have been charged for the offences u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC along with alternative charge u/s 302/34 IPC. However, except the allegations by the family of deceased, there is no other evidence that it was a case of murder. Rather, prosecution has presented the case as a case of suicide only. Even the evidence led by the prosecution i.e., the post mortem report of deceased Ex.PW19/A shows that it was a case of hanging. As per said report, the ligature mark was present over upper part of neck running upward and backward merging with hair line posteriorly. Ligature mark was situated anteriorly 7 cm from chin, 8cm from suprasternal notch and at sides of neck touching the tip of right mastoid process and 8 cm from tip of left mastoid process. As per said report, no subcutaneous hemorrhage was found on dissection of neck issue and the muscles and blood vessels were intact. Hence, the findings in the post mortem report are regarding hanging (from fan) only and do not correspond to SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 28 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 strangulation by a second person by hands or by tightening of any cloth around the neck. As per post mortem report, it was concluded that the cause of death is hanging. However, the viscera was preserved to rule out any intoxication. However as per the viscera report dt. 25.04.2011 no common poisons/pesticides were detected in the same. Accordingly, there is no evidence regarding strangulation and consequently the offence u/s 302/34 IPC. Now we shall proceed further to analyze the evidence qua the main charges.
8.2 The main witness of the case is mother of deceased i.e., PW4 Smt. Meena. During her cross examination, she has categorically deposed that she was not happy with the marriage between her daughter and deceased Sonu and even her family was not happy with the said marriage. Accordingly, the court has found force in the submissions of the defence Counsel that since the deceased married accused Sonu by way of elopement and against the wishes of her family including PW4, therefore, the family of deceased never had any good feelings for the husband and other in laws of deceased. Accordingly, the court has to be circumspect in relying upon the testimony of such witness unless same is corroborated by other witnesses and the facts and circumstances of the case.
PW4 has alleged that accused Sonu used to harass her daughter for dowry. He used to demand cash of Rs.1 lakh and pulsar motorcycle. PW4 had purchased one LIC policy in the name of Moni @ Parinita and accused Sonu used to torture her to bring money of Rs. 1 lakh of LIC after breaking the same. However, it is to be noted that in her statement to the SDM Ex.PW4/A, she has only mentioned about beating of Parinita by accused Sonu. In the said statement, there is no mention of any dowry demand SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 29 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 whatsoever. There is no mention of demand of any motorcycle make Pulsar or otherwise. There is no mention of any demand of Rs.1 lakh by breaking the policy or even otherwise. It cannot be ignored that when SDM recorded the statement of PW4 regarding the circumstances of death of her daughter such material facts were omitted by her. Moreover, during her cross examination when she was questioned about such omissions she admitted that she had not stated said facts to the SDM. However, during her entire examination, she failed to come up with any explanation regarding the reason for such omission. Accordingly, serious doubt is created as to whether such demands of dowry were in fact made by accused Sonu or his family members.
Further, as pointed out by Ld. defence counsel no specific or even approximate dates have been mentioned when such demands were made or when deceased told her mother about such demands.
As far as PW5 Vimla Devi is concerned, she has also deposed that the accused persons used to demand Rs. 1 lakh in cash and pulsar motorcycle and that on non-fulfillment of the demand, they killed Parinita. However, in her statement to the SDM vide Ex.PW5/A there is no mention of any dowry demand whatsoever. Since such dowry demands were too crucial and allegedly connected to the death of Parinita, PW5 ought to have stated about the same to the SDM. Hence, the omission to state such fact is too crucial to be ignored.
PW5 has also deposed that accused Sonu used to ask Parinita to bring money from her family members and she and PW4 Meena used to provide money to Parinita i.e., Rs.200/- Rs.300/- for household expenses. However, no such fact has been stated by PW4 in her testimony.
SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 30 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 It is also to be noted that PW5 has deposed that in the year 2011 (i.e. the year of the incident) she was residing at T159, Harijan Basti, Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that PW5 was not residing in Sarai Kale Khan and was rather residing at Trilok Puri and thus, there was no occasion for PW5 to meet the deceased on regular basis. It is to be noted that PW8 Bishan Kumar who was son of PW5 has deposed in his cross examination that his mother lives separately with his younger brother who resides in Trilok Puri. Moreover, PW15 Rajni i.e., the other daughter of PW5 has deposed in her examination in chief itself "Vimla is my mother who was residing in Trilokpuri. My sister Meena Devi was residing at h. no.159, Sarai Kale Khan". Accordingly, it does appear that PW5 was not residing at Sarai Kale Khan and therefore, it was unlikely that she was having first-hand knowledge about the family circumstances of deceased Parinita. It may also be noted that during her cross examination, she has deposed "after eloping my granddaughter i.e. deceased by Sonu, none from my family members visited the house of accused persons." She has also deposed "I had not seen the house of accused persons from inside". She also deposed "I had not gone to the house of accused in Delhi after they came back from Aligarh. No other family members of my side were visiting terms with the family of accused." Thus, it appears that there was no communication between the in laws of deceased Parinita and her paternal family. Thus, there is force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel that the paternal family of deceased had severed all its ties with the in-laws of deceased once she eloped with the accused Sonu and got married. In the given circumstances, the claim of PW5 that accused made alleged dowry demands and they tried to make accused Sonu understand SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 31 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 and also talked to his parents and brothers appear to be highly improbable.
The third witness from the family of deceased who has deposed about the dowry demands is PW15 Rajni i.e. the maternal aunt of deceased. She has deposed that on 04.01.2011 when she came to the house of her sister Meena at Sarai Kale Khan, she met Parinita who informed her about physical beatings by her husband and that he suspected her character and he demanded Rs.1 lakh from her. However, she has not deposed about any demand about any motorcycle make pulsar or otherwise as claimed by other prosecution witnesses. Further, as per PW15 deceased Parinita also informed her that her devar Anil abused her and also tried to make illicit relations with her. However, as discussed in succeeding paras no such allegation was made by deceased herself about accused Anil in her complaint to an NGO and rather she stated it was her husband who used to suspect her to be having such relations with Anil. Further, PW15 has deposed that Parinita informed her that besides accused Sonu the other family members also harassed and tortured her. However, it has come in the examination of PW15 that no such fact was mentioned in her statement u/s 161 CrPC Ex.PW15/DA. Further, Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that PW15 is a planted witness as she has deposed about the deceased apprising her about the alleged dowry demand and harassment just a day prior to the suicide by deceased, when PW15 visited the house of PW4. Ld. Counsel has submitted that there is contradiction in the statement of PW4 Meena and PW15 Rajni regarding the timing of such visit itself. I have considered said submission. As per PW15, she left to her matrimonial house at the evening time on 04.01.2011. Accordingly, she left her sister's house in the evening of 04.01.2011. However, PW4 Meena has deposed in her cross SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 32 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 examination that on 04.01.2011 her sister went back at about 10.00 pm. Moreover, PW4 has deposed that her sister came on 03.01.2011 and also on 04.01.2011 to her house. However, PW15 has deposed about her visit on 04.01.2011 only. Thus, there appear certain doubts regarding the visit of PW15 Rajni just a day before the alleged incident.
It is also to be noted that prosecution itself has relied upon one complaint made by deceased herself to an NGO. Said complaint has been proved as Ex.PW13/A. However, in the entire complaint, there is not a single word about any dowry demand much less any specific dowry demand for Rs.1 lakh or any pulsar motorcycle. Moreover, there is no allegation against any other accused in the said complaint except the accused Sonu. If the deceased was facing harassment in consequence to dowry demand and she even approached an NGO for help in regard to the physical assault by her husband, it was natural that she would have sought help from the NGO in this regard also. However, the omission to state such facts in the complaint goes against the case of prosecution. It may also be noted that said complaint Ex.PW13/A is dated 08.12.2010 and Parinita died on 05.01.2011. Thus, such complaint was not an old complaint much prior to the circumstances leading to death of Parinita. This complaint has compelled the court to disbelieve the allegations of dowry demands made by other witnesses to a large extent.
Thus, after considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Court is of the view that testimonies of family members of deceased are not reliable regarding alleged dowry demands.
8.3 The fourth witness examined by the prosecution regarding the dowry demand is PW13 Ms. Meenakshi Agnihotri. She has deposed that about SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 33 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 one week prior to her death, deceased Parinita called her on phone wherein she stated that her husband and in laws were harassing her for dowry. As per PW13, deceased also stated that her husband was giving beatings to her and in laws had stated to Parinita that she will have to bring money from anywhere. However, the IO has failed to file any proof of any phone call between the deceased and PW13. No CDR has been filed to show that any such call was ever made. Further, the date and time of call is not mentioned by PW13. Even no register or other record from the NGO has been produced about such telephonic complaint by the deceased. Moreover, the details of the dowry allegedly demanded is also not mentioned by PW13. Further, it is not the case of prosecution that dowry demands and harassment of deceased started few days or a month before the incident. As discussed earlier, there is no mention of any dowry demand whatsoever in the written complaint of deceased which was given less than a month ago from the incident. Accordingly, court has reservations in relying upon testimony of PW13 in this regard. Accordingly, there does not appear any definite evidence against any accused qua the offence u/s 304B/34 IPC. 8.4 As far as the offence u/s 498A/34 IPC is concerned, no concrete evidence is there against the accused Anil, Manoj and Gayatri regarding the same. As far as accused Sonu is concerned, PW13 has produced the original complaint Ex.PW13/A and has identified signatures of deceased Parinita on the same at point A. Her testimony is unrebutted since accused persons failed to cross examine PW13 despite two opportunities. Even PW4 has deposed about said complaint and has identified the signatures of her daughter at point A on Mark A (copy of complaint which was later on exhibited as Ex.PW13/A). As PW4 was the mother of deceased, it was SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 34 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 natural that she could have identified the signatures of her daughter. Even otherwise the testimony of PW4 is unrebutted in regard to the signatures of deceased on the said complaint. Thus, the argument of defence counsel that said complaint was not proved as it was not examined by any handwriting expert, holds no ground.
As far as contents of said complaint dated 08.12.2010 is concerned, in the said complaint deceased Parinita has alleged that her husband Sonu has been causing beatings to him for last four years. He is not doing any regular work and he works for 2-3 months and then leaves the job and sits idle. If Parinita takes some job, he asks money from her and does not let money stay in her hand. He also suspects her and alleges that she has illicit relations with her devar. He even beats her on this issue. She was doing parlour course but her husband Sonu keeps on asking her to leave her study/course and to go to his village. When she goes to the village with him, he beats her too much. He suspects her with everyone. She is too much troubled and requires help.
The contents of the aforesaid complaint categorically show that the acts of accused Sonu mentioned therein fall within the mischief of section 498A IPC Explanation A. As per said explanation, any wilful conduct of the husband/his relative which is of such a nature as is likely to derive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman then it shall amount to cruelty and such husband/relative shall be liable to punishment u/s 498A IPC. Causing physical beatings and making allegations on character of a woman definitely falls in the wilful conduct of a nature which is likely to cause grave injury to her physical and mental health.
SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 35 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 The aforesaid complaint is relevant u/s 32 of the Indian Evidence Act as it is a written statement of relevant facts by a deceased person and the statement has been made as to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death and the present case is a one where the cause of the death has come into question. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Surendran v. State of Kerala Criminal Appeal No.1080 of 2019 date of decision 13.05.2022 that in some circumstances the evidence of a deceased wife with respect to cruelty could be admissible in a trial for a charge under section 498A of the IPC u/s 32(1) of the Evidence Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that same is subject to two conditions i.e. firstly her cause of death must come in question in the matter viz. the accused must be charged u/s 302 or 306 or 304B IPC and secondly the prosecution has to show that evidence in respect to section 498A must relate to circumstances of the transaction of the death. Both the conditions are satisfied in the present case as the accused has been charged for 304B and 302 IPC and further considering the nature of allegations in the complaint and its proximity to the time of suicide, the complaint of deceased is invariably connected to the transaction leading to her death. It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that it shall be irrelevant whether the charge relating to death (u/s 302/306/304B IPC) are proved or not. Thus, the said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
Besides the contents of the complaint, PW13 herself has deposed that Parinita visited her NGO and informed that her husband Sonu used to beat her. She even proved her advice Ex.PW13/B wherein she advised Parinita to bring her husband to the NGO for counseling and that if he continues to SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 36 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 give her beatings, she shall contact police for help. As mentioned earlier, defence failed to cross examine PW13 despite two opportunities. Even otherwise there does not appear any cause to suspect the bonafides of PW13. She was an Advocate by profession working with an NGO as a Legal Advisor. There is nothing on record to show that she was related to deceased or her family. Nor there appears any other motive with said witness to depose against the accused. Accordingly, the aforesaid written complaint and even oral allegations by deceased to PW13 have been duly proved by the prosecution against accused Sonu. Further, there appears no cause with the deceased to make a false complaint against her husband to an NGO. It may be noted here that though the testimonies of PW4 and PW5 are not reliable in regard to the dowry demands, however, they have categorically deposed about beatings being caused by accused Sonu to the deceased and have specifically mentioned said fact in their statements to SDM also (as opposed to dowry demands). The Principle of Falsus In Uno, Falsus In Omnibus is not applicable in the Indian Judicial System. Further, their statements were recorded by the SDM within few hours after the death of deceased and there was little or rather no time with the family of deceased to cook up any facts before recording of such statement. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances, the offence u/s 498A IPC stands proved against the accused Sonu.
9. CONCLUSION 9.1 Thus, in view of the above said discussion, accused Sonu is convicted for the offence u/s 498A IPC whereas all other accused are acquitted from all the charges.
SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 37 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011 Digitally signed by SACHIN SANGWAN SACHIN Date: SANGWAN 2023.12.01 (Announced in the Open Court on 16:21:07 +0530 1st December, 2023) (Sachin Sangwan) Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-01): South East: Saket District Court: New Delhi. SC No. 2132/2016 State v. Sonu & Ors. Pages 38 of 38 FIR No. 06/2011