Delhi District Court
State vs Accused on 19 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF DR. T.R. NAVAL:ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02:EAST DISTRICT:KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI SC NO. 54/10 Date of Institution :24.09.2010 FIR No. 323/10 Date of Argument :06.01.2012 PS Mandawali Date of Order :19.01.2012 U/S 498A/304B IPC State Versus Accused 1 Vijender Yadav S/o Sh. Ram Sahay R/o C-120, Chander Vihar Mandawali Delhi 2 Davender Yadav S/o Sh. Ram Sahay R/o C-120, Chander Vihar Mandawali Delhi 3 Sushila Devi W/o Sh. Ram Sahay R/o C-120, Chander Vihar Mandawali Delhi JUDGMENT
The facts in brief of the prosecution case are that on 18.06.2010 an information was received at PS Mandawali Delhi that a lady hanged herself in House No.C-120, Chander Vihar near Baba Balak Nath Mandir, Delhi. On this information DD No.8A at 7:25 a.m. was recorded and police arrived at the place of occurrence/incident. Investigation Officer inspected the scene of crime and informed the SDM and Crime Team about the incident. SDM and Crime Team arrived at the spot. Crime Team also investigated the place of incident and also SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 1 of 38 conducted proceedings and took photographs of scene of occurrence. SDM recorded statement of Durgesh Kumar, brother of the deceased and directed SHO PS Mandawali for registration of case and accordingly FIR No.323 dated 19.06.2010 under section 498A/304B IPC at PS Mandawali, Fazadpur was record. Sh. Durgesh Kumar disclosed that he was resident of Piconra Dattu Rai, Darya Khan, Post Gandhi Nagar, District Basti, U.P. and deceased was his younger sister Smt. Sandhya. Deceased was married on 25.05.2005 with Vijender Yadav s/o Sh. Ram Sahay Yadav r/o C-120, Chander Vihar, Mandawali, Delhi-92, according to Hindu rites and customs and dowry articles as per their wishes. The family members of her inlaws started annoying her and also tried to kill her by putting pillow on her mouth. Her sister had informed him in this regard. A female child was born out of their wedlock about 1 and 1/2 years ago from the date of incident and thereafter her husband, mother in law and sister in law started harassing her. She had applied for admission in B.P. Ed. but her husband and inlaws had refused to bear the expenses of her study and asked her to bring all the expenses from her father and brother. They were also harassing her for making demand of dowry. On 17.06.2010 at about 7 p.m. his sister told his younger sister Pooja Yadav on telephone that her mother in law, husband and brother in law (Devar) Davender were gave beating to her and asked her to take her to Basti. In the next morning they received another telephone SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 2 of 38 call and it was told to them that his sister had absconded and that he should take his niece. Thereafter, his sister Pooja was informed by Davender that Sandhya died by hanging. He alleged that Sh. Vijender Yadav, husband, Smt. Sushila Devi, mother in law and Sh. Davender brother in law (devar) of his sister are responsible for her death. The dead body was removed to LBS hospital, Khichripur where Doctor on examination declared her dead. Her dead body was referred to mortuary where postmortem on her body was conducted. Dead body after postmortem was handed over to the relative of deceased. Accused Vijender Yadav was arrested by police on 19.04.2010. His arrest memo and personal search memo were prepared. He was interrogated. He made a disclosure statement which was recorded. After completion of investigation police filed present charge sheet against the accused persons for their trial for the offences punishable u/s 498A/304B IPC. Accused Sushila Devi was arrested on 04.01.2011 and her arrest memo and personal search memo were prepared. Accused Davender Kumar was arrested on 12.01.2011. His arrest memo and personal search memo were prepared. Police filed supplementary charge sheet.
2. On appearance, copies of the charge sheet were supplied to the accused persons. On committal this case was assigned to this court. Supplementary charge sheet was also assigned to this court.
SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 3 of 383. My Ld. Predecessor vide his order dated 27.01.2011 opined that a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons for framing of charge u/s 304- B/498-A IPC. She also opined that alternate charge for the offences punishable u/s 302 IPC is required to be framed. A common charge against accused persons for offences u/s 498A/304B/302/34 IPC was framed and read over to them. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined HC Rampal Singh as PW1; Sh. Ajay Kumar Yadav father of the deceased as PW2; Sh. Durgesh Kumar, brother of deceased as PW3; Smt. Pooja Yadav younger sister of the deceased as PW4; Sh. Hukam Singh as PW5; Ct. Daya Ram as PW6; Ct. Parivendra Kumar as PW7; Dr. B. Anacharya as PW8; SI Rajeev Ranjan as PW9; Dr. B.D. Singh CMO as PW10; and SI Rohit Srivastava as PW11.
5. After closing of prosecution evidence statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In their statements all the accused persons admitted that deceased Sandhya daughter of PW2 Sh. Ajay Kumar Yadav was married with Vijender Yadav on 18.05.2005 according to Hindu rites and customs. They also admitted that articles of dowry were presented in the marriage. Deceased Smt. Sandhya was studying in B.P. Ed., District Ghonda. During vacations in the SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 4 of 38 month of May 2010 accused Vijender had taken the deceased from the house of her parents to her matrimonial home. After three years of the marriage a female child namely Disha was born out of their wedlock. Deceased Smt. Sandhya died an unnatural death on 18.06.2010. An information about unnatural death was recorded at PS Mandawali. SI Rohit Srivastava PW1 on getting the information arrived at their house and found the dead body of the deceased on the first floor. Deceased Smt. Sandhya was taken to LBS Hospital where she was medically examined and she was declared dead. Postmortem on her body was conducted in the mortuary of the hospital. Accused Vijender also admitted that he was arrested and his personal search memo and arrest memo were prepared. Accused Davender Yadav and Sushila Yadav also admitted that they were arrested by the police. All the accused persons denied remaining incriminating evidence and pleaded that they did not know the reason as to why Smt. Sandhya ended her life by hanging. She was living happily with them. Accused persons opted not to lead any evidence in their defence.
6. After closing of evidence by Counsel for accused persons, I have heard arguments addressed by Ld. Defence Counsel and arguments addressed by Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor and perused the file.
SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 5 of 38DOWRY DEATH.
7. The prosecution in order to prove its case against accused persons for the offence of dowry death punishable u/s 304-B IPC has to establish firstly that death of Mrs. Sandhya occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; secondly that Mrs. Sandhya died within seven years of her marriage; thirdly that Mrs. Sandhya was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband; fourthly that such cruelty or harassment was in connection with the demand of dowry; and fifthly that such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.
8. In a case Gurdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors., MANU/SC/1087/2011, relied on by Ld. Defence Counsel, it was held that:
"A bare reading of Section 304B pre-supposes several factors for its applicability, they being: (1) death should be of burns or bodily injury or has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances: (ii) within seven years of marriage; and (iii) that soon before her death she had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or her relatives. This Court in Suresh Kumar Singh's case supra has held that even if one of the ingredients is not made out, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would not be available to the prosecution and the onus would not shift to the defence."
9. Let us examine, evaluate and discuss the evidence on these aspects.
SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 6 of 3810. The following facts stand established on the basis of prosecution evidence and admission thereof by the accused persons in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C.:
(i) Accused Vijender was married with deceased Sandhya on 18.05.2005 according to Hindu rites and customs.
(ii) That family members of deceased Sandhya had presented some dowry articles in their marriage according to their capacity.
(iii) That in the year 2010 Smt. Sandhya was studying in B.P. Ed. at District Ghonda and at the time of her death she was found dead in her matrimonial home.
(iv) That a female child namely Disha was born out of their wedlock.
(v) That on 18.06.2010 Smt. Sandhya died an unnatural death by hanging herself with the help of chunni.
(vi) In the postmortem report death by hanging was confirmed with the help of chunni.
(vii) That accused persons were arrested and their arrest memo and personal search memo were prepared.
Death of Mrs. Sandhya otherwise than under normal circumstances.
11. As discussed above accused persons have admitted unnatural death of Mrs. Sandhya. The postmortem SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 7 of 38 report Ex.PW8/A and other documents Ex.PW5/B have established that Smt. Sandhya died otherwise than under normal circumstances.
Death of Mrs. Sandhya within seven years of her marriage.
12. Date of marriage of deceased Sandhya with Vijender Yadav on 18.05.2005 and her death by hanging on 18.06.2010 is not in dispute. On calculation, the period from the date of marriage and date of death comes to less than 7 years. Thus the evidence on record has established that Sandhya died within seven years of her marriage.
Mrs. Sandhya was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband and such cruelty or harassment was in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death.
13. It has been argued on behalf of Ld. Defence Counsel that prosecution has failed to prove that Mrs. Sandhya was either subjected to cruelty or harassment either by husband or by any relative of her husband in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death. He further argued that all the material witnesses namely PW2, father of the deceased, PW3 complainant and brother of the deceased and PW4 sister of the deceased did not support the prosecution case and testimonies of other witnesses are of formal in nature.
SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 8 of 3814. On the other hand it has been argued by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that initially they did not support the prosecution case but during the cross examination conducted by him, the witnesses supported the prosecution case. He further submitted that their entire statement cannot be discarded and the portions of their statements in which they have supported the prosecution case may be taken into consideration.
15. In support of his arguments, he relied on a case, State v. V. Sejappa, (Karnataka), 2008 Cri.L.J. 3312, wherein the Karnataka High Court observed:
"27. As far as the acceptance of evidence of the hostile witness is concerned, it is a well settled law that part of the hostile witness which goes well with the prosecution case can be accepted and rejecting only that portion of the evidence which does not support the prosecution case. Therefore applying such yardstick in the instant case, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the evidence of P W. 1 has to be ignored in totality merely because of a witness not supporting the prosecution case in certain minor aspects which do not have any bearing on the core of the prosecution case. ***Therefore, on the very same analogy of accepting the evidence of a hostile witness to the extent that it supports the prosecution case, the testimony of P.W. 2 also will have to be accepted in regard to that part of the evidence, which supports the prosecution case."
16. I have analyzed the prosecution evidence and I find that testimony of PW1 is of formal nature as he has only proved registration of FIR against the accused persons. Copy of FIR has been proved as Ex.PW1/A on the basis of Asal Tehrir Ex.PW1/B. SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 9 of 38
17. PW2 is the father of the deceased. He, inter alia, deposed on the above aspects that after three years of marriage of his daughter Sandhya, a female child namely Disha was delivered by her and after delivery of her daughter, no problem started in his family as well as family of Vijender Yadav. His daughter was studying in B.P.Ed. from District Ghonda in the year 2010. During vacations in the month of May 2010, Vijender Yadav, husband of the deceased took deceased Sandhya from her village. On 17.06.2010 Sh. Vijender Yadav informed that his daughter Sandhya run away and later on he informed that Sandhya expired. On receiving the information his son Durgesh Yadav who was residing with them at his village came to Delhi alongwith his elder sister Shashi Bala and other relatives. He did not know anything about the incident. He could not tell the reason about the death of his daughter. There was some quarrel between her and her husband in Delhi. His daughter was probably killed by accused persons. He was declared hostile. During cross examination conducted by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor, he admitted that accused persons started quarreling with his daughter and they used to say, "Kaise Bachchi Pali Jayegi". He further admitted that he made a statement that on 03.01.2010 accused persons had badly beaten his daughter Sandhya and his daughter telephoned to his son to take away her from her matrimonial home. He made a statement that on 20.05.2010 Vijender reached at his village for taking SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 10 of 38 his daughter and also demanded Rs.2 lacs for opening NGO and he threatened, "Aapki Ladki Ki Halat Kharab Kar Denge Aur B.P.Ed. Chhudwa Denge". He stated to the police that Sandhya disclosed that she was beaten by accused persons and they used not to give food to her and they taunted about the birth of female child Disha and such type of taunt was made by her mother in law Sushila and her sister in law (nanad) Priyanka. She also disclosed that Davender also beaten her and harassed her for bringing minimum dowry and he mentally harassed her and that he also told the police that he suspected that accused persons killed their daughter due to dowry and that he also made a statement to the police that on 17.06.2010 last time Sandhya talked with Pooja in the evening and she disclosed that she was under stress for the last one month and that she will return to her parents either on 27 or on 28.06.2010. He further stated that inlaws of Sandhya were responsible for killing of their daughter due to dowry. He also disclosed that Davender Yadav had threatened them that if they would not compromise he would shoot them.
18. Although during the cross examination, conducted by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor, PW2 supported the prosecution case but when he was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel, he changed his testimony and inter alia stated that till death of his daughter, she was living happily with the accused persons. She did not make any complaint SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 11 of 38 against accused persons till her death regarding demand of dowry or anything. The case was lodged against the accused persons due to sentiments and his son lodged that against the accused person under influence of emotions. He made statement against the accused persons during the cross examination by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor as he could not understand the questions and he simply answered all the questions in affirmative. His son in law Vijender, his brother Davender and mother Sushila Devi did not harass his daughter in any manner. Accused persons never made a call regarding demand of dowry or personally they never demanded anything. His deceased daughter was happilly living in her matrimonial home. Accused persons never demanded Rs.2 lacs for opening the NGO. He did not know the reason as to why his daughter committed suicide. Thus the statement of PW2 is not consistent. Initially he did not support the prosecution case but in cross examination conducted by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor he supported the prosecution case but in cross examination he again changed his testimony.
19. PW3 is complainant and brother of deceased. He, inter alia, stated on this aspect that he did not know how his sister expired in her matrimonial home. As he did not support the prosecution case, he was also declared hostile. During cross examination by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor, he SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 12 of 38 denied the suggestion that he made a statement Ex.PW3/B before SDM on 19.06.2010 or that in his statement he stated that accused persons were manhandling his sister and they also tried to kill his sister by keeping a pillow on her mouth or that accused persons used to demand dowry or that his deceased sister informed his younger sister Pooja Yadav that her husband Vijender Yadav, mother in law Sushila Devi and brother in law (Devar) Davender Yadav gave beatings to her and she requested her younger sister Pooja Yadav to take her to the parents house. However, he admitted that he stated that his sister got admission in B.P.Ed. in Faizabad University and her inlaws refused to bear expenses of her education and that she was asked to take the expenses of her education from her brother and that a telephone call was received from the matrimonial home of deceased Sandhya about her death by hanging or that in the bottom of statement he wrote himself that he was making his statement in his full understanding. During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel he also changed his testimony by stating that there was no complaint of demand of dowry before the death of his sister against accused persons. Deceased Sandhya was living happily in her matrimonial home with her inlaws before her death. She never made a complaint to him against any of the accused for her harassment. Husband of Sandhya was not in job and there was a mutual understanding that parents of Sandhya wound bear the expenses of her education. He SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 13 of 38 made complaint against the accused persons due to sentiments after suddenly knowing the fact of death of his sister. Infact he did not want to make any complaint against inlaws of his sister. Thus the testimony of PW3, brother/complainant also remained inconsistent.
20. PW4 is the younger sister of deceased. She, inter alia, on this aspect deposed that she never received any telephone call from her sister Sandhya at any point of time regarding complaint about the conduct of her inlaws. On 17.06.2010 he made a telephone call to his sister Sandhya. During conversation it was further told that everything was all right. She never told to her that she was never happy in the family of her inlaws. On 18.06.2010 his brother Durgesh received a telephonic call about the death of his sister Sandhya. She was not aware about the complete conversation with his brother or she did not know anything about the case. She was also declared hostile as she did not support the prosecution case.
21. During cross examination conducted by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the state, she stated that her sister Sandhya did not tell to her that her husband and her brother in law (devar) intentionally used to press her mouth by putting pillow or sometime they used to beat her with paper weight or taunt her for dowry. She did not make these SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 14 of 38 type of statements to the police. She denied the suggestion that on 17.06.2010 her sister Sandhya on telephone told her that she was not mentally well in family of her inlaws or that she was coming to Basti. Thus during cross examination conducted by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor she failed to support the prosecution case. During cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel she stated that on 17.06.2010 her sister was talking with her in a happy mood. There was no complaint of dowry before the death of his sister by the accused persons. Her sister was living happily in her matrimonial home with her inlaws before her death. She did not make any statement to the police and the police obtained her signature on a blank paper and she did not want any action against accused persons.
22. PW5 is the Area SDM. His testimony is of formal nature. In cross examination he admitted that he did not record statement of any person except Durgesh. He proved statement of Durgesh as Ex.PW3/A and his endorsement thereon as Ex.PW5/A. Testimony of PW6 is also of formal nature. He deposed about the arrest of accused Vijender Yadav and proved arrest memo as Ex.PWPW6/A and personal search memo as Ex.PW6/B; disclosure statement as Ex.PW6/C. PW7 is a Constable who took the dead body to the Mortuary and proved memo regarding identification of dead body as Ex.PW7/A. PW8 is a Doctor who conducted SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 15 of 38 postmortem and proved postmortem report Ex.PW8/A and opined that cause of death due to asphyxia caused due to hanging. PW9 is investigation officer. He proved various documents and deposed that on 19.06.2010 investigation was assigned to him. On 22.06.2010 he had gone to the spot. He, inter alia, deposed as to how he made the investigation. PW10 is Doctor of LBS Hospital who medically examined deceased Sandhya and declared her dead and proved MLC as Ex.PW10/A.
23. PW11 is the another investigation officer. He also deposed about the manner in which he conducted the investigation and prepared various memos. In cross examination he admitted that when he brought deceased from her house, her husband Vijender Yadav was present there.
24. It has been argued on behalf of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that Smt. Sandhya was found dead in the house of accused persons. It was their duty to give cogent explanation as to how she died but accused persons have failed to give any such explanation. Therefore, presumption should be drawn against them particularly against husband Vijender that he was responsible for the death of Smt. Sandhya.
SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 16 of 3825. In support of his arguments he relied on a case, Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 681. The Apex Court held that:
"The demand for dowry or money from the parents of the bride has shown a phenomenal increase in the last few years. Cases are frequently coming before the courts, where the husband or in-laws have gone to the extent of killing the bride if the demand is not met. These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it would be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence is insisted upon by the courts. A judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision.*** In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete.*** Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 17 of 38 they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime."
(Emphasis supplied)
26. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further relied on a case, Prem Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan, 2009 CRI. L.J. 1123 wherein, the Apex Court held that:
"The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 304-B, IPC which makes "demand of dowry" itself punishable. Demand neither conceives nor would conceive of any agreement. If for convicting any offender agreement for dowry is to be proved, hardly any offenders would come under the clutches of law. When Section 304-B refers to "demand of dowry, it refers to the demand of property or valuable security as referred to in the definition of "dowry" under the Act. The argument that there is no demand of dowry, in the present case, has no force. In cases of dowry deaths and suicides, circumstantial evidence plays an important role and inferences can be drawn on the basis of such evidence. That could be either direct or indirect. It is significant that Section 4 of the Act was also amended by means of Act 63 of 1984, under which it is an offence to demand dowry directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride. The word "agreement" referred to in Section 2 has to be inferred on the facts and circumstances of each case. The interpretation that the accused seek, that conviction can only be if there is agreement for dowry, is misconceived. This would be contrary to the mandate and object of the Act. "Dowry" definition is to be interpreted with the other provisions of the Act including Section 3, which refers to giving or taking dowry and Section 4 which deals with a penalty for demanding dowry, under the Act and the IPC. This makes it clear that even demand of dowry on other ingredients being satisfied is punishable. It is not always necessary that there be any agreement for dowry."SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 18 of 38
27. On the other hand Ld. Defence Counsel argued that rulings referred to by Additional Public Prosecutor are not applicable on the facts of present case as the facts and evidence of the present case and those case were quiet different. He argued that not only father of the deceased but also his brother and sister exonerated the accused person by not deposing against them. The death of Smt. Sandhya was not a result of homicide but it was a suicide committed by Mrs. Sandhya due to reason best known to her. He submitted that accused persons are entitled for acquittal on getting benefit of doubt.
28. In support of his arguments Ld. Defence Counsel relied on a case, Nepal Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 418. It was observed by Apex Court that:
"38. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the Judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice. This position was illuminatingly stated by Venkatachaliah, J.(as His Lordship then was) in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, (1988(4) SCC
302).
41. During cross-examination he accepted that all this was not stated during investigation. He also accepted that it was not SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 19 of 38 mentioned in the FIR that gifts and other articles were given as dowry. He accepted that his father in law Udai Singh (DW1) has stated that there was no demand from the side of the accused at the time of marriage. The deceased and her parents had never complained to him that the accused or any member of his family was raising any demand of any kind when confronted with the statement made during investigation, PW5 accepted that he had not stated many vital things during investigation which for the first time he was speaking in Court. Similar is the position with PW7 the brother of the deceased. He also accepted on being confronted with the statement made during investigation that he had not stated particularly certain relevant aspects. Similar is the position with the evidence of mother of deceased(PW6).
42. As was rightly noted by the trial court there was no evidence towards the claim regarding any demand of dowry. That being so the High Court ought not to have interfered with the well reasoned judgment of the trial court directing acquittal. The reasoning of the High Court that something must have happened and otherwise deceased would not have committed suicide is clearly indefensible. That certainly could not have been a reason to set aside the trial court's judgment of acquittal."
29. Counsel for accused further relied on a case State v. Sohan Lal & Ors., 2011 [3] JCC 1966. The Delhi High Court observed that:
"28. We would here recall the decision in State of Punjab v. Gurdip Singh, (1996) 7 SCC 163, where a young bride Jyoti Bala died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and the allegations of maltreatment and cruelty with regard to the demand of dowry had not been substantiated by the prosecution; the Supreme Court held that:
".............. It appears to us that Jyoti Bala, quiet young and yet to be seasoned with discord and unpleasantness in social intercourse and not yet gaining the practical wisdom and capability of adjustment against petulance and disharmony, became very sensitive and lost the normal frame of mind which might have induced her to end her life before it could fully blossom."SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 20 of 38
30. Counsel for accused further relied on a case, Net Ram v. The State (Delhi Admn.), 2011 [1] JCC 174 wherein, the Delhi High Court held that:
"32. In view of the discussion above, we find that prosecution has not been able to firmly establish either circumstance No.
(i) and circumstance No. (ii). We may note that circumstance No. (iii), (iv) and (vi) are dependent upon circumstance No.
(ii). Therefore, in view of the discussion above, those three circumstances also are not firmly established. Thus, we are left with only circumstance No. (v), which is not firmly established and which by itself, is not sufficient to lead to an irrefutable conclusion that the deceased had been killed by the appellants in furtherance of their common intention, particularly when the motive for commission of crime is not established. Thus, we find it difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC also."
31. Counsel for accused further relied on a case, Durga Prasad And Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 73 wherein the Supreme Court observed that:
"Accordingly, we are unable to agree with the views expressed both by the trial court, as well as the High Court, and we are of the view that no case can be made out on the ground of insufficient evidence against the appellants for conviction under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The decision cited by Ms Makhija in Anand Kumar case deals with the proposition of shifting of onus of the burden of proof relating to the presumption which the court is to draw under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and does not help the case of the State in a situation where there is no material to presume that an offence under Section304-B IPC had been committed."
32. Counsel for accused further relied on a case, Narayanamurthy v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2008(2) Crimes 365 (SC), wherein it was observed by Supreme Court that for SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 21 of 38 invoking Section 304 IPC, it is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with the demand of dowry at sometime but it must have been soon before her death.
33. Counsel for accused further relied on a case, Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2006 SC 680, wherein it was observed by Apex Court that:
"The ingredients of Section 306 and Section 304-B are different and distinct. In any event, no evidence has been brought on record to show that there has been any act of omission or commission on the part of the accused, before the death of the deceased to demonstrate that the appellant was responsible for the same. We have noticed hereinbefore that the High Court, for the first time, in its judgment on a hypothesis observed that when her father came to see her, he must have been insulted or felt hurt as she might have been subjected to harassment. Unfortunately, no evidence whatsoever has been brought to our notice to enable us to sustain the said finding and in that view of the matter we are unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent State."
34. My attention goes to a case of Bhagwan Das v. State (NCT of Delhi), in criminal appeal No.1117 of 2011 dated 09.05.2011, wherein, the Supreme Court observed that:
"(ii) As per the postmortem report which was conducted at 11:45 am on 16.05.2006 the likely time of death of Seema was 32 hours prior to the postmortem. Giving a margin of two hours, plus or minus, it would be safe to conclude that Seema died sometime between 2.00 am to 6.00 am on 15.05.2006.
However, the appellant, in whose house Seema was staying, did not inform the police or anybody else for a long time. It was only some unknown person who telephonically informed the police at 2.00 pm on 15.05.2006 that the appellant had murdered his own daughter. This omission by the appellant in not informing the police about the death of his daughter for SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 22 of 38 about 10 hours was a totally unnatural conduct on his part.
(iii) The appellant had admitted that the deceased Seema had stayed in his house on the night of 14.5.2006/15.5.2006. The appellant's mother was too old to commit the crime, and there is not even a suggestion by the defence that his brother may have committed it. Hence we can safely rule out the possibility that someone else, other than the appellant, committed the crime.
Seema had left her husband sometime back and was said to be living in an adulterous and incestuous relationship with her uncle (her father's cousin), and this obviously made the appellant very hostile to her.
On receiving the telephonic information at about 2.00 pm from some unknown person, the police reached the house of the accused and found the dead body of Seema on the floor in the back side room of the house. The accused and his family members and some neighbours were there at that time. The accused admitted that although Seema had been married about three years ago, she had left her husband and was living in her father's house for about one month. Thus there was both motive and opportunity for the appellant to commit the murder.
vii) The accused made a statement to the SDM, Shri S.S. Parihar-PW8, immediately after the incident and has signed the same. No doubt he claimed in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC that nothing was asked by the SDM but he did not clarify how his signature appeared on the statement, nor did he say that he was forced to sign his statement nor was the statement challenged in the cross examination of the SDM. The SDM appeared as a witness before the trial court and he has proved the statement in his evidence. There was no cross examination by the accused although opportunity was given."
35. Now it has to be seen as to what is the evidentiary value of testimonies of PW2, PW3 and PW4. On analyzing their testimonies I am of the view that portions of their testimonies which are reliable and trustworthy and has been duly corroborated by other evidence on record can be taken SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 23 of 38 into consideration while deciding this case. The principles of law laid down in Bhagwan Das v. State (NCT of Delhi), (supra), support my decision wherein it has been observed that:
"No doubt Smt. Dhillo Devi was declared hostile by the prosecution as she resiled from her earlier statement to the police. However, as observed in State vs. Ram Prasad Mishra & Anr.:
"The evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused, but can be subjected to close scrutiny and the portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted."
Similarly in Sheikh Zakir vs. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 911 this Court held:
"It is not quiet strange that some witnesses do turn hostile but that by itself would not prevent a court from finding an accused guilty if there is otherwise acceptable evidence in support of the conviction."
In Himanshu alias Chintu vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 2 SCC 36 this Court held that the dependable part of the evidence of a hostile witness can be relied on.
Thus it is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff, and the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India vide Nisar Alli vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 366. In the present case we are of the opinion that Smt. Dhillo Devi denied her earlier statement from the police because she wanted to save her son. Hence we accept her statement to the police and reject her statement in court. The defence has not shown that the police had any enmity with the accused, or had some other reason to falsely implicate him."
(Emphasis supplied)
36. The second reason for my decision is that although statement made to the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. is ordinarily not admissible in evidence in view of Section 162(1) Cr.P.C., yet as mentioned in proviso 2 Section 162 (1) Cr.PC, it can be used to contradict the testimony of a witness. In the SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 24 of 38 present case PW2 in her cross examination conducted by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor admitted that he had made his statement to the police on 03.01.2010 to the effect that accused persons had badly beaten his daughter Sandhya and his daughter telephoned to his son to take away her from matrimonial home and that on 20.05.2010 Vijender reached at his village for taking his daughter and also demanded Rs.2 lacs for opening NGO and he threatened "Apki Ladki Ki Halat Kharab Kar Denge Aur B.P.Ed. Chhudwa Denge" and that Sandhya disclosed that she was beaten by accused persons and they used not to give food to her and they taunted about the birth of female child Disha and such type of taunt was also made by her mother in law Sushila and that she disclosed that Davender also beaten her and harassed her for bringing minimum dowry and he mentally harassed her and that he suspected that accused persons killed their daughter due to dowry and that he also made a statement to the police that on 17.06.2010 Sandhya talked with Pooja in evening and she disclosed that she was under stress for the last one month. He further stated that inlaws of Sandhya was responsible for killing of their daughter due to dowry and that Davender Yadav threatened them that if they would not compromise he would shoot them. These portions of his testimony is admissible in evidence. My decision in this regard finds support from the principles of law laid down in case, Bhagwan Das v. State (NCT of Delhi), (supra), support SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 25 of 38 my decision wherein it has been observed that:
(v) The mother of the accused, Smt. Dhillo Devi stated before the police that her son (the accused) had told her that he had killed Seema. No doubt a statement to the police is ordinarily not admissible in evidence in view of Section 162(1) Cr.PC, but as mentioned in the proviso to Section 162(1) Cr.PC it can be used to contradict the testimony of a witness. Smt. Dhillo Devi also appeared as a witness before the trial court, and in her cross examination, she was confronted with her statement to the police to whom she had stated that her son (the accused) had told her that he had killed Seema. On being so confronted with her statement to the police she denied that she had made such statement.
We are of the opinion that the statement of Smt. Dhillo Devi to the public can be taken into consideration in view of the proviso to Section 162(1) Cr.PC, and her subsequent denial in court is not believable because she obviously had afterthoughts and wanted to save her son (the accused) from punishment. In fact in her statement to the police she had stated that the dead body of Seema was removed from the bed and placed on the floor. When she was confronted with this statement in the court she denied that she had made such statement before the police. We are of the opinion that her statement to the police can be taken into consideration in view of the proviso of Section 162(1) Cr.PC."
(Emphasis supplied)
37. The third reason of my decision is that PW9, Investigating Officer of the case inter alia stated that on 24.06.2010, father, i.e. PW2 and sister, i.e. PW4 of deceased came to the PS. He made inquiries from them and recorded their statements correctly. They had produced copy of documents Ex.PW2/B to Ex.PW2/I. He had taken those documents and also recorded supplementary statements of the witnesses. There is no cross examination of PW2 to the effect that he recorded statement of PW2, PW3 and PW4 SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 26 of 38 incorrectly. No ill will or hostility of police against accused persons has been alleged or proved. This has further established that the statements of PW2 and PW4 made to police were recorded by IO correctly.
38. The fourth reason of my decision is that the portions of statement of PW3 which have supported the prosecution case can be taken into consideration. Even whole of his statement can be considered for adjudication of the present case. The principles of law laid down in Bhagwan Das v. State (NCT of Delhi), (supra), support my decision wherein it has been observed that:
"We see no reason to disbelieve the SDM as there is nothing to show that he had any enmity against the accused or had any other reason for making a false statement in Court."
39. In the present case SDM who was examined as PW5 deposed that he recorded statement of brother of Sandhya namely Durgesh on 19.06.2010. He proved his statement as Ex.PW3/B and his endorsement thereon as Ex.PW5/A. In cross examination he stated that statement of Durgesh Ex.PW3/B and his endorsement Ex.PW5/A were in his handwritings. There is no cross examination of SDM that he recorded the statement of PW3 incorrectly. Even PW3 in his cross examination admitted that he made statement to the SDM and he admitted that he himself had written in the bottom line of statement Ex.PW3/B that:
SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 27 of 38"Maine Uprokt Bayan Padh Liya Hai, Hosh Aur Hawash Main Rehkar Apni Marzi Se Diya Hai" (I have read over my above recorded statement and I made it out of my free will and with full understanding.) In his cross examination, he further admitted that he stated in his statement Ex.PW3/B that husband Sh. Vijender Singh, mother in law Smt. Sushila Devi and Devar Sh. Davender Yadav were responsible for the death of his sister and that he had prayed for initiating legal actions against these persons. There is no reason to disbelieve the SDM as the accused persons had neither alleged nor proved any enmity against the accused and there appears no reason for the SDM to to record false statement of PW2 or to make a false statement in the court. Therefore, those portions of statement of PW3 which have supported the prosecution case may be taken into consideration while deciding the present case.
40. Now, it has to be adjudicated upon whether on the evidence available on record and discussed here in above it would be safe to conclude that prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution on the above aspect. I am of the view that on the basis of evidence available on record it would be safe to conclude that Mrs. Sandhya was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death.
SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 28 of 3841. The reasons which support my decision are firstly that material witnesses PW2 father and PW3 brother have supported the prosecution case, though reluctantly in the court but completely during the investigation. The portions of their testimonies which have supported the prosecution case, duly corroborated by other witnesses have established that Smt. Sandhya was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and that harassment was in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death.
42. The second reason of this decision is that though it is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that let hundred criminals may go unpunished but one innocent person should not be punished yet it is also a basic principle that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished, a Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. In the present case the testimonies of material witnesses PW2 & PW3, on close scrutiny is found reliable, despite of the fact that they changed their statements frequently.
Presumption As To Dowry Death
43. It would be appropriate to reproduce Sections 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under:
113B. Presumption as to dowry death.- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 29 of 38 or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section "dowry death"
shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)".
44. In a case Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2009(1) Crimes 168 (SC) it was held that:
"Presumption in terms of Section 113 B is one of the law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials:
(1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304B IPC. (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.
13. Harassment caused to the deceased was on three counts:
1. Insufficient dowry;
2. Inability to bear a child; and
3. Insistence by her parents that every time appellant must go to her parents' house for bringing her back."
45. The third reason of my decision is that as it has been established on record by the prosecution that soon before her death Smt. Sandhya was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry so as mentioned in Section 113 B Indian Evidence Act and laid down in a case Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (supra), a presumption as to dowry death can be drawn against the accused persons.SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 30 of 38
46. The fourth reason of my decision is that accused persons have failed to produce an evidence to rebut the presumption which have arisen against the accused persons u/s 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The accused persons have failed to give any explanation or probable cause of her death in their house. Therefore it can be presumed that accused persons caused the dowry death of Smt. Sandhya.
The principles of law laid down in case Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (supra), support my decision in this regard, wherein it has been observed by Supreme Court that:
"Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case is entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.***"
47. The Fifth reason of my decision is that the principles of law laid down in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (supra), and Prem Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan, (supra) relied on by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State are attracted on the facts of present case. The arguments of ld. defence counsel that said rulings are not applicable on the facts of present case is not convincing. The SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 31 of 38 main emphasis of Ld. Defence Counsel was on the point that in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (supra), the neighbourers of the deceased have supported the case of prosecution and many injuries on the body of deceased were found. In case of Bhagwan Das v. State (NCT of Delhi), (supra), it was observed by Apex Court that:
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no independent witness in the case. However, as held by this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Teja Ram and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1776:
"The over-insistence on witnesses having no relation with the victims often results in criminal justice going awry. When any incident happens in a dwelling house, the most natural witnesses would be the inmates of that house. It is unpragmatic to ignore such natural witnesses and insist on outsiders who would not have even seen anything. If the court has discerned from the evidence or even from the investigation records that some other independent person has witnessed any event connecting the incident in question, then there is a justification for making adverse comments against non-examination of such a person as a prosecution witness. Otherwise, merely on surmises the court should not castigate the prosecution for not examining other persons of the locality as prosecution witnesses. The prosecution can be expected to examine only those who have witnessed the events and not those who have not seen it though the neighbourhood may be replete with other residents also."
Similarly, in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra (2006)1 SCC 681 this Court observed:
"These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence. No member of the family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come forward to depose against an other family member. The neighbours, whose evidence may be of some assistance, are generally reluctant to depose in court as they want to keep aloof and do not want to antagonize a neighbourhood family. The parents or other family members of the bride being away SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 32 of 38 from the scene of commission of crime are not in a position to give direct evidence which may inculpate the real accused except regarding the demand of money or dowry and harassment caused to the bride. But, it does not mean that a crime committed in secrecy or inside the house should go unpunished."
(Emphasis supplied) In view of these principles which are applicable on the facts of present case, non examination of neighbour will not provide any benefit to the accused persons.
48. The sixth reason of my decision is that the statement of PW4, i.e. sister of Sandhya who in her cross examination stated that there was no complaint of demand of dowry before the death of her sister against the accused persons and her sister was living happilly in the house of her inlaws will not provide any benefit to the accused persons as the evidence on record has established otherwise.
49. The last reason of my decision is that the principles of law laid down in cases Nepal Singh vs. State of Haryana, (supra), State v. Sohan Lal & Ors., (supra), Net Ram v. The State (Delhi Admn.), (supra), Durga Prasad And Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (supra), Narayanamurthy v. State of Karnataka & Anr., (supra), Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (supra), relied on by defence counsel will not provide any benefit to the accused persons as facts of those cases and present case are different. Moreover, the general principles SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 33 of 38 of law laid down in said cases have been considered for arriving on conclusions narratted here in above.
Murder of Deceased Sandhya
50. As mentioned above alternate charge against accused persons for commission of murder of deceased Sandhya was framed against the accused persons. Entire material evidence has been discussed here in above. The testimonies of witnesses and the evidence on record has established beyond the suspicion or reasonable doubt that accused persons caused the dowry death of Smt. Sandhya. However, statement of prosecution witnesses and evidence on record is not sufficient to conclude that either the accused persons inflicted any injury with the intention of causing her death or there was any injury inflicted by them which are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death or the accused persons committed any act which was so eminently dangerous that it must, in all probability caused death of Smt. Sandhya. Conversely, in the postmortem report, it has been specifically mentioned that there was no other injury except ligature mark on the neck of the deceased. In the MLC Ex.PW10/A no injury was mentioned by doctor. In view of the above reasons and discussion, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove alternate charge of murder against any or all the accused persons.
SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 34 of 38CRUELTY BY HUSBAND AND RELATIVE OF HUSBAND.
51. The prosecution in order to prove its case against accused persons for the offence of cruelty by husband or his relatives punishable u/s 498-A/34 IPC has to prove that accused persons being husband or relative of husband of deceased Sandhya subjected her to cruelty. That cruelty was inflicted or committed either by any willful conduct by husband Vijender or his family members of such a nature which was likely to drive Mrs. Sandhya to commit suicide or there was harassment of Mrs. Sandhya with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property.
52. All the material evidence on record has already been discussed here in above. PW2 inter alia stated that his daughter was probably killed by accused persons. He admitted that he had made statement before the police that on 03.01.2010 accused persons had badly beaten his daughter Sandhya and his daughter telephoned to his son to take her away from her matrimonial home and that on 20.05.2010 Vijender reached at his village for taking his daughter and also demanded Rs.2 lac for opening NGO and threatened "Apki Ladki Ki Halat Kharab Kar Denge Aur B.P.Ed. Chhudwa Denge" and that he stated to the police that Sandhya disclosed that she was beaten by accused persons and they used not to give food to her and they taunted about SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 35 of 38 the birth of female child Disha and such type of taunt was made by her mother in law Sushila and that Davender also beaten her and harassed her for bringing minimum dowry and he mentally harassed her and that he suspected that accused persons killed his daughter due to dowry and that inlaws of Sandhya was responsible for killing their daughter due to dowry and that Devender had threatened them that if they would not compromise he would shoot them. PW3 in her statement admitted that his sister got admission in B.P.Ed. in Faizabad University and her inlaws refused to bear expenses of her education and that she was asked to take the expenses of her education from her brother. Thus the evidence on record has established that the husband Vijender Yadav and relative of husband Sh. Davender Yadav brother in law and Smt. Sushila Devi mother in law harassed and subjected Smt. Sandhya to cruelty and such harassment and cruelty was meted out on her so as to coerce her to bring dowry from her parents and that has driven Smt. Sandhya to commit suicide.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
53. As the prosecution has proved on record that deceased Mrs. Sandhya was married with accused Vijender and she died within seven years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances and deceased Sandhya was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband Vijender and relative of her husband, Davender Yadav, brother in law SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 36 of 38 (Devar) and Sushila Devi, mother in law and that cruelty and harassment was in connection with the demand of dowry and that was soon before her death, therefore, it is held that prosecution has successfully proved its case against all the accused namely Vijender Yadav, Davender Yadav and Smt. Sushila Yadav beyond any suspicion and reasonable shadow of doubt. Therefore, all the accused are held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under section 304-B/34 IPC. It is further held that as the evidence on record has further established that cruelty and harassment meted out to deceased Smt. Sandhya by Vijender (husband), Davender Yadav, brother in law (Devar) and Sushila Devi, mother in law with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand for the dowry and that drove her to commit suicide, therefore, it is held that prosecution has successfully proved its case against all the accused namely Vijender Yadav, Davender Yadav and Smt. Sushila Yadav beyond any suspicion and reasonable shadow of doubt. Therefore, all the accused are held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under section 498-A/34 IPC.
54. As the prosecution has failed to establish all the ingredients which are required to be proved for the offence of murder as punishable u/s 302 IPC, therefore, it is held that case against accused persons namely Vijender Yadav, Davender Yadav and Smt. Sushila Yadav for the offence SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 37 of 38 punishable u/s 302 IPC could not be proved by the prosecution.
55. Accordingly, all the three accused named above are held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable u/s 304-B/498-A/34 IPC and all of them are acquitted for the offence of murder punishable u/s 302 IPC.
56. Accused persons be taken into custody and case be put up for arguments on the quantum of punishment on 20.01.2012.
Announced in the open court on 19.01.2012 (DR. T.R. NAVAL) Addl. Sessions Judge-02 East District:KKD Courts:Delhi SC No. 54/10 State Vs. Vijender Yadav & Ors. Page 38 of 38