Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . (1) Tej Pal on 8 July, 2011

    IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS 
      JUDGE­II (NORTH­WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

Session Case No. 945/08
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0445122008
State                  Vs. (1)   Tej Pal
                                 S/o Late Puran Singh
                                 R/o WZ­22A, Nangli Zalib,
                                 New Delhi
                                 (Acquitted)

                                                        (2)          Praveen
                                                                     S/o Sh. Tej Pal
                                                                     R/o WZ­22A, Nangli Zalib,
                                                                     New Delhi
                                                                     (Convicted)

                                                        (3)          Murti Devi
                                                                     W/o Sh. Tej Pal
                                                                     R/o WZ­22A, Nangli Zalib,
                                                                     New Delhi
                                                                     (Acquitted)

                                                        (4)          Manoj Tanwar @ Mannu
                                                                     S/o Sh. Tej Pal
                                                                     R/o WZ­22A, Nangli Zalib,
                                                                     New Delhi
                                                                     (Acquitted)

                                                        (5)          Smt. Poonam
                                                                     W/o Sh. Ved Prakash
                                                                     R/o 113, Vasant Village,
                                                                     New Delhi


St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri                                               Page No. 1 
                                                                      (Acquitted)
                                                        (6)          Smt. Uma
                                                                     W/o Sh. Naresh
                                                                     R/o WZ­262, Nilothi Gaon,
                                                                     Delhi
                                                                     (Acquitted)
FIR No.:                                                 63/2008
Under Sections:                                          498­A/304­B/302/34/IPC
Police Station:                                          Janak Puri 

Date of committal to Sessions Court:                                        2.7.2008 

Date on which judgment was reserved:                                        16.5.2011

Last date for filing written synopsis:                                      3.6.2011  

Date on which judgment pronounced:                                          8.7.2011


JUDGMENT:

As per the allegations, during the period 18.11.2005 to 21.2.2008 at WZ­22, Zangli Zalib, New Delhi all the accused namely Tej Pal, Praveen, Murti Devi, Manoj Tanwar @ Mannu, Smt. Poonam and Smt. Uma in furtherance of their common intention subjected Smt. Renu cruelty for demand of dowry and on 21.2.2008 they committed dowry death by causing the death of Smt. Renu within seven years of her marriage.

BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

The case of the prosecution is that on 21.2.2008 on receipt St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 2 of DD No.37­A regarding hanging of a girl at WZ­21A, Nangli Jalib, Janakpuri, Delhi ASI Babu Lal reached the spot where they came to know that the incident took place at House No. 22A after which he reached at House No. 22­A where he found that the dead body of a girl aged about 22 years was lying on the floor of the room at ground floor and a large number of persons gathered there. After few minutes Addl. SHO Inspector Pratap Singh came to the spot who met one young girl aged about 12 years namely Shanti @ Sanjana who took the police to the room at second floor and showed them the room in which she had seen the deceased Renu hanging on the ceiling fan. On 22.2.2008 SDM Patel Nagar came to the spot and inspected the spot and found one chunni of red, green and blue colour which chunni was taken into possession and seized. The SDM recorded the statements of Smt. Gyano Devi mother of the deceased and Shiv Lal father of the deceased. In their statements the parents of the deceased had alleged that their daughter Renu was married to Praveen and soon after her marriage she was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry. They have named all the accused i.e. Tej Pal father­in­law of the deceased; Murti Devi mother­in­law of the deceased; Praveen husband of the deceased;

Manoj Tanwar brother­in­law/ Dewar of the deceased and Poonam and Uma married sisters­in­law/ Nanand of the deceased. On the basis of statement of Smt. Gyano Devi the present FIR was got St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 3 registered and all the accused were arrested and charge sheeted.

CHARGE After hearing the arguments from both the sides, Ld. Predecessor of this court has settled the charges under Section 498­ A/304­B/34 Indian Penal Code against the accused Tej Pal, Praveen, Murti Devi and Manoj Tanwar and charges under Sections 498­A Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Uma and Poonam to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, an alternative charge under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code was framed against all accused namely Tej Pal, Praveen, Murti Devi, Manoj Tanwar @ Mannu, Smt. Poonam and Smt. Uma to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as twenty three witnesses.

Public witnesses/ eye witnesses:

PW1 Shiv Lal is the father of the deceased Renu who has deposed that he had two daughters and two sons and the deceased Renu was his youngest child who was married with accused Parveen in the year 2005. According to him, for the marriage of his daughter Renu with the accused Praveen, he gave one suit, one box of sweets St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 4 at the time of roka and at the time of marriage he gave clothes for the family of accused and for his daughter, toom (jewellery of silver weighing 250 grams, gold was 25 grams) sofa set, almirah of godrej, cooler, T.V. Gas and other household articles. He has deposed that after marriage, Renu shifted to the house of in laws at Nangli Jalim, Near Distt. Centre, Janakpuri, Delhi where accused namely Praveen, Tej Pal, Murti Devi, Manoj @ Mannu, sister Neelam and Poonam, including other relations viz wife of accused Manoj @ Mannu lived in the matrimonial home of his daughter Renu. The witness has deposed that Neelam and Poonam, sisters­in­law of his daughter rejected the sarees which he had given for them to his daughter and in the box of his daughter, one the second day of her marriage some loop (condoms) were kept by Neelam, Poonam, Praveen and Murti Devi and on the discovery of such objects in her box, she was ridiculed by the said persons. According to the witness, thereafter life of Renu went on smoothly but after three ­ four months of marriage, accused persons demanded a motor cycle from her which demand she explained to him (the witness) but being a poor man he could not afford to gift a motorcycle on which the accused suggest that she should arrange for cash in installments, so that motorcycle can be purchased. The witness has testified Renu used to inform him of these demands telephonically and also during her visits of his house and on such visits, she was given some money by his wife St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 5 towards consideration of motorcycle. He has further deposed that after one and half years of marriage, Renu was blessed with a son on which they went to their matrimonial home voluntarily carrying clothes for the entire family and some jewellery articles for accused Praveen, Murti Devi and his daughter Renu and her newly born son but none of the accused persons were happy with the gifts which they had carried on the occasion and Renu was sitting in a separate room on a cot without any bed clothing. PW1 has further deposed that five months thereafter he (the witness) was blessed with a grand son i.e. son to his son Krishan on which Krishan went to the house of accused persons to invite them for a function but the accused persons declined to send Renu for the function, unless a refrigerator was gifted to them. Krishana reported this to his wife who spoke to accused Murti Devi, Praveen and Tej Pal on telephone and promised that she would attempt to arrange for refrigerator but they should send Renu. The witness has also deposed that on the day of function accused Praveen came to their house and was heavily drunk and he reiterated his demand of refrigerator to his son Krishan. He has testified that four to five days later, Krishan Purchased a refrigerator on loan and send the same to the matrimonial house of Renu by a rehri and Renu was also sent to their house by bus but in the evening Murti Devi asked Renu as to why she had brought a fridge, she should have brought cash, as accused Praveen was out of work and St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 6 that electricity charges cannot be borne by the family which fact Renu reported to her mother and in the evening Renu was physically beaten and insulted by Praveen, Murti Devi and Mannu.

The witness has also deposed that on 03.02.2008 accused Mannu got married and prior to the marriage, Renu had asked his wife (her mother) to arrange for Rs.30,000/­ on the asking of all the accused persons as accused Praveen was out of work. According to him on 01.02.2008, his wife handed over Rs.20,000/­ in cash to Renu, after arranging for the same on loan. He has testified that for the marriage, his son Manoj carried gifts i.e. clothes for accused Mannu and his newly wedded wife which were not liked by the accused persons and accused Mannu threw them on the face of her daughter and said that they expected Rs.20,000/­ to be paid as gifts. The witness has also deposed that all the accused persons abused Renu on the day of the wedding and she could not participate in the function and in the next morning, Renu told his son Manoj that accused persons had been harassing and torturing her extremely on which his son told her that they would speak to accused Praveen when he visited their house. PW1 Shiv Lal has also testified that on 12.02.2008, his son Manoj got married on which accused Praveen demanded Rs.2,100/­ as Shagun for a ceremony at the time of "Gurchadi" and was drunk. According to the witness, they anyhow St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 7 gave him Rs.1,100/­ only and after marriage when Manoj and his wife returned to their house, accused Praveen did not let the bride enter the house unless he was paid Rs.5,000/­ or a gold chain. With great persuasions, they gave him Rs.1,100/­ and made a promise to gift the gold chain subsequently and on the next day, the accused returned to his house. He has deposed that on 15.02.2008, the accused Praveen returned to take Renu with him and at that time he was again under the influence of liquor. According to the witness, the accused Praveen declared that he had been insulted at their house and that he and his family members would create such a situation in their house, which would drive Renu to commit suicide on which they counseled Renu that he was speaking so only under the influence of liqour and sent her with him. PW1 has further deposed that on 21.02.2008, his son Krishan took his nephew to a doctor in Vikaspuri but since he could not locate the clinic of doctor, therefore, he called accused Praveen to help him in locating the address.

Accused Praveen took him to the clinic and at the clinic Praveen received two phone calls on his mobile phone and said that he was urgently required at his house and he left Krishan and the child at the Nangli Metro Station and discouraged Krishan to visit his sister, though his house was very near from the metro station. The witness has also stated that when Krishan had travelled for a few stations he received a call from the family of accused persons telling him that St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 8 Renu had suffered a heart stroke on which Krishan confirmed the news from Praveen by speaking on his mobile phone and Praveen confirmed that Renu had suffered a heart stroke and expired after which Krishan informed their family members about the occurrence. According to PW1, Krishan had called up Manoj on his mobile phone and had intimated him that the mishap had taken place and they should arrange for money after which they all reached Sector­10, Dwarka Metro Station and were waiting for Manoj at that time and thereafter they went to their house collected money and started for Nangli by two wheeler scooter. The witness has deposed that when they reached the house of accused persons at Nangli, it was between 11 to 12 night and there was a large crowd outside their house and when he went through the crowd, he saw that his daughter Santosh was coming out of their house who intimated that accused persons had killed Renu and the story of heart attack was false. According to him, in the meantime, Balraj @ Balli elder brother of husband of Santosh called up at number 100 and PCR officials reached at the spot and subsequently officials of police station Janakpuri had also reached and they carried out their proceedings. He has deposed that body of Renu was taken to DDU hospital where SDM had also reached and on the directions of SDM postmortem of Renu's body was carried out. He has further testified that the SDM had reached at the hospital at about 10­11 am and recorded the St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 9 statement of his wife and probably that of his son Krishan also and after postmortem dead body of Renu was handed over to them vide statement which is Ex.PW1/A and the receipt in this regard is Ex.PW1/B. He has further deposed that when Renu's son Kaku had infection in his ear, he was brought by her to a doctor at Palam area when accused Murti Devi had threatened that Renu should not come alone to the doctor for treatment of Kaku.

In his cross­examination the witness Shiv Lal (PW1) has deposed that the marriage between Praveen and Renu was materialized through one Rati Ram, whom he considered as a brother, who also knows the family of accused persons. He is not aware since when Rati Ram knew the family of the accused persons and states that he knew Rati Ram for more than ten years prior to the marriage of Renu. According to him, his elder daughter Santosh was married about 14 years earlier at the age of 18 years. He has testified that Renu was married in the year 2005 in winters but he does not remember the month of marriage. The witness has further deposed that his son Krishan was married about ten years earlier at the age of about 25 years and younger son Manoj was married in the month of February, 2008. According to the witness, he did not have a regular shop but he operated from a pavement in Manglapuri Market and was in possession of area of about 4 feet x 6 feet for which he used to pay the license fee to MCD on every Wednesday. He has further St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 10 stated that he used to save about Rs.5,000/­ per month and both of his sons were also associated with him in the business. According to the witness, he had stated to the investigating officer during his statement and had also made available to him the list of dowry articles mentioning 250 grams silver jewellery, 25 grams gold, sofa set, alimirah, cooler, T.V. Gas etc. The witness has been confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/DA made to the police where these details are not mentioned. He has deposed that his statement was recorded a few days after the cremation of the dead body of Renu, but inquiries were made by the investigating officer in the night of occurrence also. He has denied that his statement was recorded fifteen days after the occurrence. PW1 has also deposed that prior to marriage of Renu with accused Praveen, they had made their inquiries about the family and their status but states that few days after the marriage they changed their behaviour. The witness has testified that he had not stated to the investigating officer about keeping of some condoms by Neelam in the box of his daughter since his complete statement was not recorded by the investigating officer as he was not in totally composed state of mind. According to him, Neelam and Poonam did not live in the matrimonial home of daughter but were frequent visitors and at the time of marriage Praveen was working at a Petrol Pump and must be drawing about Rs.3,000/­ per month and was not owning a motor cycle at that time St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 11 though he used the motorcycle of Manoj and Renu had told him that the motor cycle was owned by Manoj. He has denied that accused Manoj owned a motorcycle since the beginning or that he did not make any demand for motorcycle. According to PW1, Renu had told her of the demand of the motorcycle by Praveen for the first time three months after the marriage and he had mentioned about the demand of motorcycle and cruelty for the same reason with Renu to Rati Ram but he had not made any police complaint as he wanted to save the marriage of his daughter. The witness has denied that Praveen had all the affection and love for Renu and states that the child was born to Renu shortly after one year of her marriage which child is now being looked after by accused Tej Pal, Murti Devi and wife of accused Manoj. He has denied that all the six accused persons never demanded any dowry from him or from Renu or they did not harass Renu for any such demand. He has also denied that the accused persons did not taunt Renu or did not commit any cruelty towards her for demand of dowry. PW1 has also testified that he did not give any motorcycle or money for the same to the accused Praveen as he had no resources to arrange for the same and states that had they arranged for money or motorcycle, probably his daughter would have been alive. According to him, there was no demand by the accused persons prior to or at the time of her marriage of Praveen or Renu. He has admitted that accused Tej Pal, Praveen, St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 12 Murti and Manoj were earning sufficiently good but states that they used to splurge on intoxicants. He has denied that on 01.02.2008 Renu had not visited their house and states that Renu had come to their house at about 9 am. The witness has further deposed that the travelling distance between his house and the matrimonial house of deceased was half an hour by Metro. He has denied that his daughter did not tell him of any demand of Rs.30,000/­ by the accused persons or that they did not pay Rs.20,000/­ to her on that day. According to him, they arranged Rs.20,000/­ from one Amit, a money lender which money was given to Renu on 01.02.2008 during her visit in the forenoon session. He has denied that the amount of Rs.20,000/­ taken on loan from said Amit was not given to Renu but the same was used for the expenses in the marriage of his son Manoj, which was solemnized on 11.02.2008. PW1 has also denied that on 03.02.2008, Renu was not harassed by accused Manoj and accused Tej Pal. The witness has further deposed that the photographer in the marriage of accused Manoj was the Devar of his elder daughter Santosh. After seeing the photographs which are Ex.PW1/DB and Ex.PW1/DC showing his daughter Renu dancing, the witness has stated that the expressions on her face show that she was unhappy. He has denied that no harassment was meted out to Renu or that accused Manoj did not ill­treat or harass his daughter on 03.02.2008. He has admitted that despite all these conduct of the accused they did St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 13 not convene any Panchayat, however, he had spoken to Rati Ram and Mange Ram (brother in law of accused Tej Pal) who assured him of better behaviour. The witness has also denied that there was no demand of fridge by the accused persons or that he had voluntarily gifted the said fridge to his daughter. PW1 Shiv Lal has further stated that he did not state to the police that on 12.02.2008 accused Praveen demanded Rs.2100/­ as Shagun at the time of Gurchari of Manoj or that they gave him Rs.1100/­ or that he did not let the bride of Manoj enter the house unless he was paid Rs.5,000/­ or a gold chain or that with great persuasion, they gave him Rs.1100/­ and promised to gift gold chain subsequently. He has denied that they had good relations that is why Praveen took nephew of Krishan Kumar for treatment to a doctor at Vikaspuri on 21.02.2008. He did not remember the cell phone number of his younger son Manoj on which Krishan had made phone calls intimating about the death of Renu. The witness has denied the suggestion that his daughter was short tempered or that in a fit of rage she could take any extreme step or that in one of such fits of rage she committed suicide without any provocation. PW1 has denied that Renu used to physically assault accused Praveen and states that accused Murti Devi had advised his daughter Renu to assault Praveen as he was a habitual drunkard but his wife advised his daughter not do do so. He has admitted that accused Manoj was employed at Noida but has denied that Praveen St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 14 used to leave the house at 8 a.m. or returned at 9 p.m. He has denied that there was no demand of dowry or consequential cruelty to his daughter by the accused persons or that she committed suicide in a fit of anger.

PW2 Smt. Gyano Devi is the mother of the deceased who has corroborated the testimony of PW1 Shiv Lal. She has deposed that Renu was married with the accused Praveen on about three years back. According to her, accused Murti was the mother­in­law of Renu, accused Tej Pal was the father­in­law of Renu, accused Manoj @ Mannu was the brother in law (Devar) of Renu and accused Poonam and Uma are the sisters­in­law of her deceased daughter Renu. She has deposed that at the time of marriage Renu had completed the age of twenty one years and they had given sufficient dowry articles at the time of marriage of her daughter. She has testified that for about about two to three months Renu was treated well after the marriage but thereafter they started harassing her and thereafter, the in­laws of her daughter started treating her with cruelty and used to give abuses in filthy language to her. PW2 has also deposed that the accused also used to demand motorcycle from Renu as dowry and Renu used to tell her that she was being harassed and pressurized for bringing motorcycle by her in­laws which fact was told to her and her other family members by her daughter on telephone and also when she used to visit to them. The accused St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 15 persons asked her daughter that if she could not bring the motorcycle she should bring the money from her parental house so that they could purchase the motorcycle. She has further deposed that accused Praveen used to catch hold of her daughter Renu by her hairs and the accused Poonam and Uma used to give physical beatings to Renu. According to the witness, at the time of birth of his son to Renu they had gifted all the necessary items to the accused persons including jewellery and they had given 16 sarees at the time of birth of child but two sarees were removed by someone of the accused persons. She has testified that after five months thereafter her son Krishan was blessed with a son who had two daughters previously and at the time of ceremony of the birth of child to Krishan, he (Krishan) went to invite to Renu and her in­laws but accused Murti Devi declined to send Renu or join the celebrations unless a fridge was gifted to her. PW2 Smt. Gyano Devi has further deposed that all the other accused persons has also joined for the demand of fridge and on the day of celebration accused Parveen came to their house but did not participate in the function and did not enter in the house. She has also deposed that at the time of going back with Renu he demanded fridge from her son Krishan. She has further deposed that marriage of accused Manoj was solemnized on 03.02.2008 and prior to the marriage Renu called her up and told that Rs.30,000/­ were demanded by the accused persons and she also told that she needed St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 16 Rs.60,000/­ as accused Parveen had to return the said amount to some person. The witness has deposed that she told Renu that they would not be able to arrange the amount, however, they would make some arrangements on which Renu came to their house on 01.02.2008 and she called up her sons directing them to arrange for some money as Renu had arrived. According to PW2, the marriage of her son Manoj was fixed on 13.02.2008 and her daughter Renu came on the said occasion and at the time of departure of Barat accused Praveen demanded Rs.2,100/­ and they gave Rs.1,100/­ after great persuasion. She has further deposed that when bride of Manoj arrived in the house, he did not let her enter the house and demanded Rs.5,000/­ or a gold chain and was drunk at that time. However, he left after they had promised to arrange for a chain subsequently. She has testified that on 15.02.2008 accused Praveen returned to their house and had created nuisance and reiterated his demand of Rs. 5,000/­ or gold chain and threatened that he would create a situation for Renu that she would commit suicide. According to PW2, Renu was apprehensive to join him as she feared of misbehaviour by the accused persons but they still sent her with him. She has deposed that all the accused persons conspired together and killed her daughter. She has further deposed that at the time of birth of child to her daughter accused Murti Devi delayed taking her to the hospital and made her to walk for about one kilometer to the hospital, despite St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 17 the fact that she was in great pain. She has proved that after the death of her daughter she had gone to DDU hospital where her statement was recorded by the SDM which is Ex.PW2/A. In her cross­examination the witness has deposed that the marriage between accused Praveen and her daughter is introduced through one Rati Ram who was known to both the families. According to her, they know Rati Ram for the last 14 years but she did not know since how long he knew the accused persons. Her elder daughter Santosh is about 29 years of age who had been married for about 13 years. The witness has further deposed that her husband and both the sons sell vegetables in Manglapuri Market, on a pavement and her husband used to save about Rs.30­40,000/­ per month from his business. She has also deposed that at the time of marriage or prior thereto no demand of dowry was made by the accused persons. The witness has also deposed that accused Praveen was not owning or possessing a motorcycle at the time of his marriage but has denied that Praveen owned a motor cycle prior to his marriage but he purchased a motorcycle about five to six months after the marriage with Renu. She has admitted that accused Tej Pal is a Government Employee and accused Praveen, Manoj and Murti Devi were also gainfully employed and owned two floors of a building which had a house of four rooms. According to her, there was a telephone installed at the house of accused persons but she did St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 18 not remember the number. She has deposed that they did not have a land line number but her son Krishan owned a mobile phone. She has denied that Praveen or other accused persons did not harass Renu for any demand of motorcycle or that Praveen owned a motorcycle for himself. According to the witness, accused Praveen came to her house at times on a car, at times on a motor cycle and sometime in auto­rickshaw. She has also deposed that Renu used to visit her once or twice in a week and she used to call up daily. According to her,a land line phone was got installed in their house by accused Manoj but they got the same removed prior to death of Renu, as exorbitant bill was being raised. She has denied that none of the accused persons ever harassed or committed cruelty towards Renu for demand of dowry or otherwise. She has further deposed that on 01.02.2008 Renu had come to her house in the morning at about 9 am and had returned within one hour. According to her, they had given her money in the denomination of Rs.500/­ and money was brought by her son Krishan on the same day after borrowing from his friend namely Amit. She has denied that no money was given to Renu on 01.02.2008 or the amount of Rs.20,000/­ taken on loan from said Amit was used for expenses in the marriage of her son Manoj, which was solemnized on 11.02.2008. The witness has also denied that on 03.02.2008 accused persons had not taunted Renu regarding gift. She has further denied that no fridge was demanded by the St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 19 accused persons at the time of birth of her grandson or that all the accused persons joined and participated in the marriage functions or other celebrations at their house. According to the witness, they did not convene any Panchyat on account of cruelty meted out to her daughter but all of her family members had advised accused persons to behave properly and they had also spoken to Rati Ram who also discussed the issue with the accused persons. She has denied that accused Praveen did not make a demand of Rs.5,000/­ and after great persuasion he was given only Rs.1100/­ at the time of marriage of her son Manoj or that on 15.02.2008 at about 8 p.m. Praveen came to her house and told them that he has been humiliated. She has further denied that the accused Praveen told her daughter in their presence that she would be made to suffer for not getting paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/­ or that he has never drunk and was in full senses. The witness has denied that no harassment was meted out to Renu or that accused Manoj did not ill­treat or harass her daughter on 03.02.2008. PW2 has also denied that her daughter was short tempered or that in fit of rage she could take any extreme step or that in one of such fits of rage she committed suicide without any provocation. She has denied that Renu used to physically assault accused Praveen or that there was no demand of dowry or consequential cruelty to her daughter by the accused persons. PW2 has also denied that she committed suicide in a fit of anger or that there was no demand of St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 20 fridge by the accused persons on the occasion of birth of her grandson or that they had voluntarily gifted the same to her daughter Renu. She has further deposed that on getting knowledge of the death of Renu she went to her matrimonial home and she did not visit the hospital or mortuary. According to the witness, her statement was recorded outside the house of the accused persons but she did not remember if she had signed or put her thumb impression on her statement. She is not aware if her statement was recorded by SDM or some police official. After seeing her statement Ex.PW2/A she could not say if it bear her thumb impression or not. It was observed by the court that at the bottom of statement Ex.PW2/A a circle has been drawn over portion marked as RTI Gyano Devi at point A but no thumb impression is visible.

She has further deposed that she did not remember if she had stated in statement Ex.PW2/A that accused Manoj had also harassed, humiliated or demanded dowry or Rs.30,000/­ from her daughter. She was confronted with statement Ex.PW2/A where there is no allegation against accused Manoj. The witness has testified that she had also stated to the investigating officer and SDM that at the time of delivery of Renu, Murti Devi took her by foot for a distance of about one km despite pain. She was confronted with Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/DA where there was no mention of any St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 21 such incident. She has denied that accused Poonam and Uma were very infrequent visitors to the matrimonial house of her daughter or that they never harassed or committed cruelty towards her daughter. The witness has further deposed that one of the sisters­in­law lives in village Nilothi and another in village Vasant. She has admitted that they were both married and have their own families including children. PW2 has denied that all the accused persons had participated and joined the marriage of her son Manoj or that on the day of wedding of her son Manoj her daughter had joined the proceeding in a very happy and jubilant mood or that she had no signs of cruelty or harassment.

PW3 Sh. Krishan Kumar is the brother of the deceased who has deposed that his sister Renu was married with accused Praveen on 18.11.2005 at village Nangli Jalib, Janakpuri, New Delhi and after marriage she came to know that accused Praveen is a habitual drunkard. According to the witness, the accused Praveen used to beat his sister under the influence of liqour and demanded a motorcycle from her which facts were revealed by his sister to his mother telephonically, after about one and a half month of the marriage. He has also deposed that his sister on her visits to their house had told his mother that her mother in law Murti Devi, father in law Tej Pal and brother in law Manoj used to harass her and commit cruelty towards her and accused Poonam and Uma who were St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 22 married used to call up telephonically from their respective matrimonial homes and abet the other accused persons to commit cruelty towards Renu, so as to meet their demands. The witness has correctly identified the accused Tej Pal, Murti Devi, Praveen, Manoj and Poonam but he is unable to identify accused Uma. He has testified that whenever his sister made complaints against the accused regarding demand of dowry, they used to counsel her and send her back to her matrimonial home saying that they were not in financial position to meet their demands. According to him, his sister Renu had requested him not to visit her matrimonial home as she feared that accused persons would further harass and taunt her. The witness has further deposed that they told about her harassment and cruelty at the hands of accused persons to Rati Ram, who was the mediator for the marriage who tried to counsel the accused persons and advise them not to misbehave with his sister but accused persons did not change their behaviour. He has deposed that his sister narrated her story of woes to his mother as he used to be away for work. According to the witness, his sister had told them that the accused demanded motorcycle and cash from her and taunted her for not having brought sufficient dowry. The witness has further deposed that on 21.02.2008 his nephew Chetan was unwell, therefore, he took him to Dr. B.N. Chhabra at Vikaspuri and he requested accused Praveen to pick him up from doctor's clinic and St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 23 drop him at Janakpuri, Metro Station. He has testified that at about 9 pm when Praveen was with him, Praveen received two phone calls from his mobile phone and told him that the calls were from his house and that he was being asked to return early. PW3 has further stated that after he sat in the metro, he received a phone call on his mobile phone from Praveen intimating him that Renu had suffered heart attack which fact he re­confirmed by making another call to Praveen and only thereafter he informed his parents after which his father and brother started on their scooter for the house of accused persons and advised him to return by Metro to their house and he also called up elder brother of his brother in law namely Balli. According to him, when he reached the house of accused on 21.02.08, a crowd had gathered and he was not allowed to meet his sister and the accused also snatched his mobile phone. In the meantime, Balli reached their house and called up the police at number 100 and on arrival of police they saw that there were reddish marks of injuries on the neck of his sister.

The witness has testified that on 01.02.2008 his sister Renu came to their house and told his mother that the marriage of her brother in law Manoj had been fixed and she stated that the in­laws are demanding a sum of Rs.30,000/­, which amount Praveen had taken from Manoj for his marriage. He has deposed that his mother called him up and asked him to arrange for the money pursuant to St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 24 which he borrowed Rs.20,000/­ from his friend Amit and returned home to hand over the amount to his mother, which amount was given by his mother to his sister Renu and she then left their house. PW3 has also testified that on 03.02.2008 i.e. on the day of marriage of accused Manoj, his sister was taken to the first floor room by accused Praveen where she was beaten by accused Uma and Poonam which fact was told to him by Renu on telephone, two three days after the marriage. He has further deposed that at the time of birth of his son, he went to the house of the accused to invite Parveen and his sister to attend the Kuan Poojan ceremony but accused Praveen and accused Tej Pal insulted him and said that Parveen and Renu would join the function only if he was presented a refrigerator. According to him, he returned home and narrated this incident to his parents who told him to go back to their house and get Renu with him and make a promise to them to arrange for a refrigerator after the function, as they were not in a capacity to pay at that time after which he picked up a fridge from a shop at Palam, in installments and sent the same to the house of accused Praveen. The witness has testified that his brother Manoj got married on 12.02.2008 when accused Praveen misbehaved under the influence of liquor and demanded Rs.5,000/­ for his honour and a gold chain and said that he had been insulted by only giving Rs.1,100/­. He has also deposed that on 15.02.2008, accused Praveen came to their house at about St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 25 8:00 pm to take back Renu and was drunk at that time also and said that he had been insulted in the marriage ceremony and threatened that Renu would face dire consequences at their house and it would be made difficult for her to live. According to PW4, Renu was not willing to go back with Praveen but with the intervention of family members and neighbours, she was asked to go with accused Praveen. He has proved the identification statement of the dead body of his sister which is Ex.PW3/A. He has also proved that the police got recovered the refrigerator from the house of the accused persons which was seized vide memo Ex.PW3/B. He has further proved the seizure of the wedding card of his sister, one photograph of his sister and accused Praveen, cash memo of refrigerator, details of payment of installments of refrigerator and receipt of payment of installments of refrigerator vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW3/C. The witness has correctly identified the above articles i.e. wedding card which is Ex.P­1, photograph which is Ex.P­2, cash memo which is Ex.P­3, detail of payment which is Ex.P­4 and receipt which is Ex.P­5. According to him, he had also handed over list of dowry articles to the investigating officer which was seized vide memo Ex.PW3/D which list is Ex.P­6. The witness has also deposed that a chunni was seized from the first floor room of the house of accused vide memo Ex.PW3/E and after postmortem the dead body of his sister was St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 26 handed over to them vide memo Ex.PW1/B. He has proved his statement which was recorded by the SDM, which is Ex.PW3/F and has identified the refrigerator which was given to the accused persons on their demand which is Ex.P­7.

In his cross­examination the this witness has stated that the matrimonial alliance between the accused Praveen and deceased was finalized on a proposal by Sh. Rati Ram he is father of his elder sister's Jethani whom he address as Tauji. According to him, they knew Rati Ram since 1995 who had told them that the boy and his family were good after which he along with his father and one more person namely Mange Ram had gone to the house of accused to see Praveen. He has deposed ostensibly the family seemed well off and they were well taken care of and on the same evening accused Tej Pal, Manoj and Murti came to their house, met his sister and approved her and gave a Shagun of Rs.100/­ and a sweet box and finalized the relation. The witness has stated that they did not make any investigations as regards the conduct and antecedents of accused Praveen as they trusted Rati Ram and the accused persons had told them that Praveen was employed at a petrol pump. He has further deposed that they were also told that Tejpal working in PWD and Murti Devi was working in Aanganbari. According to him, he was a vegetable seller at the time of marriage of deceased and his other brother was also selling vegetables on a Thia at Managlapuri Subzi St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 27 Mandi and they were working together with their father. They had a 6 x 6 feet in their possession and they did not possess any license to operate from Thaiya and used to sell vegetables from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. and used to save about Rs.400/­ to Rs.500/­ per day. According to PW3, accused Praveen had come to his house on several occasions to pick up his sister and was in drunken state at that time. He has testified that his (Praveen's) first visit to their house was two days after the marriage and his first visit in drunken state was about a month after the marriage when he came to their house at about 6 pm and returned the same night. The witness has deposed that there was no discussion with him on that day and thereafter he visited their house on couple of occasions subsequently also but he did not speak to him much. He has testified that the accused started pressing for a motorcycle to be gifted about one and a half month after marriage. He has denied that accused Praveen was not habitual drunkard or that he never demanded any motorcycle. He has admitted that he used to visit their house on a motorcycle but states that the motorcycle belonged to Manoj. According to him, he had not seen the registration certificate of the motorcycle regarding ownership of Manoj and states that since Praveen had been demanding a motorcycle from them, he presumed that he did not own the motorcycle used by him. He has denied that Praveen owned and possessed a motorcycle or that he never demanded the same from St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 28 them. He is unable to tell if accused Manoj owned a motorcycle of the make Victor as he was illiterate but has admitted that Praveen possessed a motorcycle of make Bajaj and states that this vehicle was purchased by him about six months after the marriage from his own resources. The witness has admitted that his sister never told him that accused persons committed cruelty towards her or demanded any dowry but states that she used to tell this to his father, who further told the same to him. According to PW3, his visits to the house of the accused persons were very few and infrequent and he visited their house only about ten times and it was his younger brother who used to make frequent visit. The witness has testified that about ten days prior to her death his sister had advised him not to visit her matrimonial home least there should be some confrontations and disputes. According to him, she had spoken to him from a land line phone installed in her matrimonial home on his mobile phone bearing number 9818270554 which call was received between 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. The witness has deposed that he had told this fact to his parents but he did not speak to accused Praveen in this context and had also told this fact to Rati Ram. He has denied that the deceased had very good and cordial relations with all the accused persons. The witness has further deposed that his sister was blessed with a son in August, 2006 which child is in the custody of the accused persons. He has admitted that when his nephew Chetan was taken to hospital St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 29 accused Praveen had reached there on his request but has denied that he reached on his request as they maintained cordial relations. According to him, he was at the clinic of Dr. Chhabra when accused Praveen received two phone calls on his mobile phone, from his house and thereafter, he left him and went away. PW3 has admitted that Praveen had once taken his son for treatment to Dr. Chhabra but he did not remember the date. According to him, there were about 200 persons in and around the house of accused when he reached there and all the persons present told him that Renu had suffered heart attack. He has deposed that police arrived only on a call made by him and the brother of his Jija namely Balli who resides at Nanakpura, Village Mochi Gaon and it took about half an hour to reach the house of Balli by car from the house of accused. The witness has further deposed that he left his house on 01.02.2008 at 12 a.m. and slept at Manglapuri, from there he reached at Azadpur Mandi 6:30 p.m. and on that day he received a phone call from his mother at about 9 to 10 a.m. He has admitted that a Reliance phone got installed by accused Manoj was available in their house at that time but states that he did not know if it was functional. According to him, he reached home between 11 a.m. to 12 noon after arranging Rs.20,000/­ and all the notes were in the denomination of Rs.500/­ but he is not aware the time when his sister left their house. He has denied that the amount of Rs.20,000/­ was arranged by him for the St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 30 marriage of his brother or that there was no demand of Rs.30,000/­ by the accused persons or that no amount of Rs.20,000/­ were given by his mother to deceased Renu. He is not aware if on 01.02.2008 the Sagai Ceremony of accused Manoj had taken place nor does he remember the phone number from which Renu had call him up, intimating the occurrence of 03.02.2008. He has stated that he did not attend the wedding of the accused Manoj and has denied that he had attended the Sagai and marriage ceremony of accused Manoj or that no occurrence of 01.02.2008 or 03.02.2008 had taken place or was told to him by his sister. According to PW3, his younger brother, his sister and brother in law namely Devender might have attended the marriage of accused Manoj. He further deposed that his son was born in 2007 and has denied that when he went to the house of accused to invite Praveen and his sister to attend the Kuan Pujan ceremony, accused Praveen and accused Tej Pal did not insult him or that the fridge was voluntarily gifted by them to their sister as a token of love and affection. He has also denied that the same was not used by the accused persons till its recovery but has admitted that the fridge was in a packed condition when it was recovered from the house of accused persons by the police. PW3 has denied that on 12.02.2008 accused Praveen did not misbehave at the time of the marriage of his brother under the influence of liquor or that he did not demand a sum of Rs.5,000/­ for his honour or that he did not St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 31 demand a gold chain or that he never uttered a word that he was being insulted by giving only sum of Rs.1100/­. He has also denied that on 15.02.2008 Praveen came to their house to take back Renu and was not in a drunken state at that time or that Renu was not willing to go back to Praveen. The witness has also denied that Renu went along with Praveen of her own sweet will and was having cordial relations. He has denied that the list Ex.P­6 has been fabricated by them with connivance of investigating officer that is why it did not bear the signatures of accused persons but states that the accused persons had refused to sign the list. He has further deposed that on night intervening 21/22.2.08, dead body of his sister was lying on the ground floor portion of the house of accused persons and his statement was recorded by the SDM in the afternoon at DDU hospital. According to him, his statement was also recorded by the investigating officer after the cremation of his sister but he did not remember if he had stated before the SDM regarding any demand of dowry by the accused persons or any consequential cruelty to her. The witness was confronted with his statement Ex.PW3/F where there was no mention of demand of dowry or cruelty to meet the said demand. According to him, he had not stated to the SDM about the demand of Rs.30,000/­ and visit of his sister on 01.02.2008 to their house when Rs.20,000/­ was given to her. He had also not stated to the SDM that on 03.02.08 his sister was beaten by accused Praveen, St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 32 Uma and Poonam. He has denied that the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are after thought and on consultation with other family members to falsely implicate the accused persons.

PW4 Smt. Santosh is the elder sister of the deceased Renu who has deposed that her younger sister Renu was married with accused Praveen on 18.11.2005 and on 21.02.08, her sister Renu died who was 22 years old at that time. According to the witness, her sister Renu was of a cool temperament and was having special attachment with her and she used to give due regards to everybody. She has deposed that accused Praveen is husband of Renu; accused Manoj is the brother in law (Devar) of her sister; accused Tej Pal is the father in law; Smt. Murti Devi is the mother in law; Poonam and Uma were the sisters in law of her sister Renu whom she has correctly identified in the court. She has also testified that her sister Renu was treated well for about two three months after her marriage and thereafter all the accused persons started ill­treating her sister for demand of motorcycle and they used to pressurize her sister to bring motorcycle from her parents. According to PW4, they used to taunt her sister and also used to give physical beatings and her sister used to give telephonic call to her and used to tell her that the accused persons were demanding motorcycle and ill­treating her and it was told to her while she was weeping. She has deposed that when she suggest to Renu that they should talk to Parveen for not ill­treating St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 33 her she replied that they should not intervened in the affairs of the matrimonial affairs and if they would intervene, in that situation they would give her more beatings. According to the witness, she further told her on telephone that mother in law, sister­in­law namely Poonam and Uma and her dever Manoj and her father in law Tej Pal were ill treating her and due to their ill­treatment, she was very unhappy. She has further deposed that in the year 2007, on the occasion of Holi, accused Parveen came to her house in village Mochi Gaon, New Delhi in a drunken condition and consumed more liquor after reaching their house after which he called bad names to her father and her brother and said that he was not being given a motorcycle, despite his demand. She has testified that the accused Praveen had stated that he would be harassing and torturing Renu, till the motorcycle was given to him and since the accused was heavily drunk, he was not in a position to travel back, hence he stayed in their house for the night and in the next morning her husband Vijender dropped him at his house. According to PW4 Smt. Santosh, her younger brother Manoj got married on 12.02.2008 and at about 10 p.m when bride of Manoj came to their house, accused Parveen who was badly drunk demanded Rs. 5,000/­ as 'neg', and even laid before the vehicle in which bride was being brought and said that he would get up only if the amount of Rs.5,000/­ is gifted to him. The witness has deposed that she was present in her parents house at that St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 34 time and watched the entire occurrence. She has further testified that accused was helped by other family members and relations to get away from the spot and the accused even abused Renu and said that she had promised him a 'neg' of Rs.5,000/­ for the ceremony. After two three days of the marriage of Manoj, Renu told her that her brother Krishan had given the dresses on the occasion of the marriage of Manoj which were disliked by the accused persons and threw the clothes on her (Renu's) face and also abused her and were demanding more dowry on which her sister told the accused that her parents were poor and they were unable to give the costly gifts on which the accused dragged her in the room and the mother in law abused her and her sister in law namely Uma and Poonam caught hold Renu with the hairs, Parveen caught hold of the hands of Renu and gave severe beatings to her. The witness has further deposed that these facts were narrated to her by Renu while she was weeping and she again suggested her sister that they would intervene and persuade the accused persons not to repeat beatings and harassing her, however, she told her that in case they would intervene the accused persons would ill treat her with more cruelty. PW4 Smt. Santosh has also deposed that on 21.02.2008 she received information from her brother after which she along with her jeth Charan Singh and Jethani Dayawati reached the matrimonial house of her sister Renu in village Nangli Jalim and on inquiry from the St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 35 accused persons they told them that Renu had suffered heart attack and subsequently they said that she had committed suicide by hanging.

In her cross­examination the witness has deposed that she is aged 28 years and the deceased Renu was about five or six years th younger to her. According to her, she has studied up to class 8 and th Renu had studied up to class 6 . According to her, she and her husband had not gone to the house of accused persons before the marriage of Renu and the proposal was made by Rati Ram and it was her father and brother namely Krishan who had visited the house of accused persons prior to the marriage. The witness has further deposed that they had finalized the groom on their visit but had not carried out any ceremony and the Roka ceremony was carried out about two or three months later. She has denied that she had come to know that Tej Pal was employed in PWD and Smt. Murti Devi was also in service but has admitted that Renu lived happily in the matrimonial home for about three months of her marriage. The witness has further deposed that a Tata phone bearing no. 65127104 was installed in her house for the last four five years and Renu used to speak to her from a land line phone installed in the house of accused persons. She used to make phone calls between 9.00 a.m and 10.00 a.m or after 9.00 p.m. According to the witness, her working hours were 10 a.m to 7.00 p.m and travelling time from St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 36 house to the office was five minutes and they used to speak frequently at least one in two three days. She has testified that she did not lodge any complaint to police regarding the harassment caused by accused persons to her sister and reported by Renu to her. She has denied the suggestion that no phone call was ever made by Renu to her as no Tata phone was installed in her house at that time or that accused persons did not ill treat her sister Renu or that she was never unhappy. She does not remember the date of Holi festival, when accused Parveen came to their house in drunken condition but states that he reached at about 7.00 p.m on a motorcycle. She has denied the suggestions that accused Parveen owned a motorcycle or that he did not abuse her family members or that he did not say that he would harass Renu till his demand of motor cycle is made. According to the witness, her husband is a waiter in Hotel Ashoka and he also drinks but has denied the suggestion that accused Parveen did not visit their house on the occasion of Holi in 2007 or that he was not drunk. The witness has also denied that he did not stay at their house at the night of Holi and has deposed that the bride of Manoj had come in Indica car after marriage. She has denied the suggestions that Parveen was not drunk at that time or that he did not create a scene or that he did not demand Rs.5,000/­ as 'neg' or that demand of Rs.5,000/­ was made by husband Vijender or that he had laid down before the car or that he was in a drunken condition. PW4 St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 37 has further denied the suggestions that accused Parveen did not consume liquor on 12.02.08 or that he was not lifted by the relations from the spot. According to her, on 01.02.08 she had reached the house of accused persons at about 4.00 p.m when Renu was present in her house and at that time she did not mention to her about the demand of Rs.30,000/­ or giving of Rs. 20,000/­ by their parents. She is unable to tell if deceased Renu was in a happy and jovial mood at the time of marriage of accused Manoj in photograph Ex.PW1/DB and DC. PW4 has denied that that two three days after the marriage of accused Manoj she did not receive any phone call from Renu or that she did not inform her of any demand or harassment to her. She has also denied the various suggestions put by the Ld. Defence Counsel and has deposed that her statement was recorded at the house of the accused persons on the night of 21.02.08. PW4 has been confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/DA and has denied that her statement has been introduced by the Investigating Officer to create a false evidence against the accused persons in order to secure their conviction.

PW5 Rati Ram has deposed that he has three sons and two daughters who have all married and happily settled and both of her daughters were married to sons of Goverdhan Dass namely Kishori Lal and Charan Singh. According to him, he was working as gardener in Horticulture department of DDA and he knew Shiv Lal St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 38 resident of Pochhan Pura, Delhi as his daughter was married to younger brother of his son in law Kishori Lal namely Vajinder @ Davinder. He has testified that Shiv Lal was looking for a suitable match for his younger daughter Renu and hence he suggested to them the accused Praveen S/o Tej Pal, for the said marriage which th marriage was solemnized on 18 of a month of two and a half year earlier. He has further deposed that Shiv Lal had given some dowry as per his capacity and the list of dowry articles were prepared on which he and Krishan S/o Shiv Lal had signed the list as witnesses but he does not remember if accused Tej Pal had signed the list or if he was asked to sign the same. According to the witness, on 22.02.08 he received a phone call from Krishan in the morning hours that Renu had expired at her matrimonial home. The witness has deposed that he used to meet Shiv Lal quite often and the usual complaint of harassment at the matrimonial home were made on couple of occasions and he tried to counsel Shiv Lal that these were usual wears and tears of life but Shiv Lal did not tell him of any demand by the accused persons or consequential harassment to Renu. The witness has further testified that at the time of birth of son to Renu, Shiv Lal had given a refrigerator and other usual gifts. According to him, he did not ask Tej Pal not to demand dowry or harass Renu since no such situation had arisen to his knowledge and no occurrence had taken place at the time of Kuan Poojan Ceremony St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 39 with respect to demand of dowry by accused persons.

The said witness was cross­examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State during which he has stated that his statement was recorded by the investigating officer. He has admitted that on getting knowledge of death of Renu he received a shock as Shiv Lal had told him previously on telephone that accused namely Parveen, Manoj, Murti Devi, Uma and Poonam had been harassing Renu for demand of dowry and that they were all hungry for dowry. He has also admitted that accused persons were demanding motorcycle since the beginning but he does not remember if Shiv Lal had told him that despite giving fridge, other small articles and also some money, accused persons still use to harass Renu or that Shiv Lal had also told him that her father in law Tej Pal had also been blinded by hunger for dowry or that he also harassed Renu. The witness has been confronted with portion A to A of statement Ex.PW5/DA where it is so recorded. The witness has admitted that he told Shiv Lal that he would expose Tej Pal in the society and only then he would learn a lesson. PW5 has also admitted that at the time of marriage, when list of dowry articles were signed, Tej Pal had not signed the same on the pretext that it was matter of confidence so there was no need to sign the same and that is why he and his family members had not signed the list of dowry articles. He has further admitted that Shiv Lal had asked him not to talk to Tej Pal and his family members as they St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 40 thought that they were calling a panchayat and that at that time of birth of his son to Renu he was invited at the "Kuwa Pujan" and at that time Shiv Lal and Krishan had spent beyond their expectation. The witness has further admitted that at that time one gold ring of Tej Pal, one gold ring of Renu, gold chain of child, Chand and Sooraj of gold and silver, silver kundal and pajeb, 27 sarees, 23 pant shirt were given. He has denied that on that day in the evening at around 7.00 p.m before starting of dinner he took a side Tej Pal and told him that it was not correct to pressurize for more dowry after the marriage. The witness has been confronted with his statement Ex.PW5/DA of portion B to B where it is so recorded. He has admitted that when he told Tej Pal that he should not pressurized Renu for dowry and it did not like in the society on this accused Tej Pal kept mum. He is unable to tell that accused Parveen and Manoj were under the influence of liquor but states that they have not misbehaved with him. PW5 has denied the suggestion that he had stated to the police that Renu was killed by accused persons for demand of dowry. He was confronted with portion D to D of statement Ex.PW5/DA where it was so recorded. He has also denied that he was deposing falsely as accused persons were known to him and he did not want to indulge in the matter others.

In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence counsel for all the accused this witness has deposed that he knew Tejpal and his St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 41 family since the childhood of Tej Pal. According to him, at the time of marriage of Renu the accused Parveen was working at some Petrol Pump at Gurgaon and accused Tej Pal was in some government job and he did not know about Moorti Devi. He has testified that at the time of marriage of Renu and Parveen, a list of dowry articles was prepared in his presence and that all the said articles as mentioned in the said list was given in his presence. He has denied the suggestion that list Ex.P6 did not bear his signatures at point A and B or that the said list was not prepared in his presence. The witness has further admitted that Shiv Lal never told him that Tejpal and his family members were demanding dowry but states that Shiv Lal did tell him on one or two occasions that Renu was harassed by her in­laws. He is not aware whether at the time of marriage Parveen was having any motor cycle or not. According to PW5, Shiv Lal never told him that accused Parveen or his family members had ever demanded motorcycle from him or his family members ever demanded a fridge but states that the fridge was however given at the time of birth of son of Renu. The witness has testified that in his presence nothing was demanded by the accused persons from Shiv Lal and his family members at the time of Kuan Pujan function and Shiv Lal also did not tell him about such demand. PW5 has admitted that whatever was given by Shiv Lal was on his own sweet will and in his presence accused did not make any demand even at the time of marriage and St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 42 that whatever was given by Shiv Lal was as per his own will. He has denied that list Ex.P6 was not prepared at the time of marriage or that for the said reason Tejpal did not sign it. The witness has also denied that Shiv Lal never told him that Renu was never harassed at her in­laws house by anyone and has admitted that in the two months prior to the death of Renu, Shiv Lal had not told him that Renu was being harassed at her in laws house.

PW12 Bijender is the real brother­in­law of the deceased (Jija) who has deposed that he got married on 27.11.1995 with Santosh D/o Shri Shri Shiv Lal who at that time was residing at Bhola Nath Enclave. According to him, deceased Renu was his real sister in law/Sali and was married to accused Praveen in November, 2005 and after her marriage he was a frequent visitor to her house. The witness has testified that Praveen at that time was working on a petrol pump at Mehrauli Road and was an alcoholic due to which reason he lost his job on petrol pump and was also regularly consuming Gutkha. He has testified that after Praveen lost his job, Praveen, his father Tejpal, mother Moorti Devi, sister of Praveen namely Uma and his brother Manoj started harassing Renu making demand of money and she was frequently abused and taunted for taking insufficient dowry. The witness has testified that at the time of her marriage a demand of motor bike and cash was made. According to him, Renu was a lady of cool temperament and St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 43 whenever she was mentally tortured she used to inform his wife (i.e. Santosh) or her mother and his wife in turn informed him about the harassment being caused to Renu and requested him to advise Praveen on which he advised Praveen to desist from making any demand for dowry as it was improper but he told him that he wanted a bike and he would create such a situation that the family of Renu would be compelled to give him bike. According to him, in the year 2007 during Holi, after consuming alcohol Praveen came to their house and brought another bottle of alcohol and consumed more liquor and thereafter started abusing the father and the brother of Renu stating that they have no standard/ status and that he had been married of to a poor family. The witness has further deposed that Praveen was not in a position to go back to his house and hence he was made to sleep at their house under these circumstances and on the next day morning, he himself took Praveen to his residence and informed his father and brother regarding his illegitimate demand of bike but his father and brother told him to keep out of it, as it was their business as they know how to get the bike after which he came back to his house. The witness has also stated that his brother­in­law namely Manoj got married on 12.2.2008 and at the time when Manoj got his doli home, Praveen consumed a lot of alcohol and lay down in front of his car stating that he would not get up till he was given Rs.5,000/­ by his in laws and he was forcibly got removed from the St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 44 front of the vehicle by relatives after persuasions and promise that the money would be paid to him later. According to the witness, after the marriage of Manoj he along with his wife and Praveen along with Renu came back on 15/16.2.2008 and thereafter Renu was regularly complaining his wife that Praveen and his family comprising of his parents, sister in law, brother in law were harassing, abusing and taunting her for not giving anything to Praveen. He has further deposed that on 22.2.2008 they received a phone call from his brother in law/Sala Kishan that Renu had suffered a heart attack and since he was on duty at that time, hence after making a request to his employer he went to the residence of Praveen where he found that the dead body of Renu was lying in a small room of the size of a small garage which can accommodate one or two bikes. According to him, the body was covered with the cloth and there were were family members of Praveen but Praveen was missing and it was only after they reached the spot that the family members started coming there. He has deposed that when he saw this situation, he and his elder brother Charan Singh were present at the spot and Charan Singh called the PCR which was despite protests by the family members of Praveen who claimed it to be a family affair.

Ld. Addl. PP for the State has also with the permission of the court put some leading question to the witness on the aspect of St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 45 fulfillment of demand and last call during which PW12 has admitted that his brother in law Kishan had informed to him that Praveen his family have raised the demand of a fridge and states that he advised them not to submit to their illegal demand as it would only encourage them to ask for more but Kishan fulfilled this demand by taking the fridge on installments stating that Renu would otherwise be harassed more. He has also deposed that he had received the call on 21.2.2008.

In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that no other sister, real or cousin of Santosh was married in his family and his marriage with Santosh was an arrange marriage. According to him, he occasionally visited his in­ laws and the marriage between Praveen and Renu was arranged by Shri Rati Ram father­in­law of his brother. The witness has also deposed that Shri Rati Ram was not a frequent visitor to his house and he had never spoken to Rati Ram regarding Praveen and Renu nor Shri Rati Ram has ever spoken to him on this subject. PW12 Bijender has also testified that distance between his house and the house of Praveen may be about 20­25 kilometers and after the marriage of Praveen and Renu, he had visited their house on two to three occasions only. According to the witness, on one occasion he had gone to leave Praveen on the next day of holi when he was not in a position to go back, on one occasion he had to attend his brother's St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 46 wedding and on one occasion he had gone at the time of birth of child of Renu. He has further deposed that at the time when he visited the residence of Praveen, he met Poonam and Uma on two occasions who both were married but he could not tell whether they have been married in Delhi or outside. He has deposed that the house of the accused was measuring 25­28 sq. yards and must be having approximately three rooms which include the ground and the top floor and after the marriage of Renu, he first time visited her matrimonial house in the year 2007. He has testified that on all the occasions he visited the matrimonial house of Renu alone and nobody accompanied him and it was only on the day of kuan poojan that he had met his father­in­law in the matrimonial house of Renu. The witness has further deposed that on the said date, Renu did not say anything to them and states that she never used to discuss her affairs with them. According to PW12, Renu came to their house after her marriage on one occasion in the year 2007 and when she visited he was not at home. The witness has further deposed that his wife was employed in an export company for the last one and a half year but he is unable to tell the details of her employer and states that she normally leaves the house at about 8.00 am and come back at around 7.00pm. He has testified that Renu was not residing with them prior to their marriage and he stayed in a joint family along with his brothers Charan Singh, Nand Kishore, Hukum Chand and St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 47 others and he was not aware of the income status of Praveen at the time of marriage. According to him, he never consumed alcohol with Praveen and the first time he had personally seen Praveen consuming alcohol was at the time of Holi when he came to their house which fact he did not inform to Rati Ram, his father in law and brother in law. He has admitted that father of Praveen was a government servant but he is not aware if the mother of Praveen was also in the government job, though at the time when he visited Renu on the birth of her son, she was working. He is not aware if the younger brother of Praveen was also in government job and states that at the time of his visit of his house he was working in a mobile company. He is unable to tell if Tejpal, Manoj and Praveen were residing together but states that he hardly visited their house and when he visited the house of Praveen, a telephone was installed there. The witness has also deposed that he had telephones installed at his residence along with the mobile phone and has admitted that Renu never personally told him that she was being harassed by Praveen and this aspect of harassment was told to him by his wife. He has also admitted that he never asked Renu personally with regard any of the harassment despite having told to him by his wife and states that the communication made to him by his wife was correct as there was no occasion for her to speak a lie. He has denied that Renu was a short temper lady. He, however, admits even on the St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 48 occasion of the birth of the child of Renu, her in­laws celebrated the kuan poojan for which he was invited and even his in­laws were invited. According to him, at the time when Praveen was got marriage he was having a motorcycle but states that it was an old motorcycle. PW12 has denied that since Praveen was already having a motorcycle, no question of demand of motorcycle from Renu did not arise and has admitted that his statement was recorded by the police and he informed them about the demand. He is unable to tell whether his signatures were obtained on the statement. He has been shown his statement which is Ex.PW12/DA where the fact regarding demand a new motorcycle did not find mention. He has denied that Praveen and his family member never told him that they knew how they get motorcycle and the story had been concocted by him. He has admitted that no money was given to Praveen during the marriage of Manoj or that he had concocted this incident of demand of Rs. 5000/­ by Praveen during the marriage of Manoj. According to PW12, he had never seen the fridge alleged to have been given by Kishan to the in­laws of Renu but states that Kishan had told him about it. He has denied that the fridge was given to Praveen by the parents of Renu of their own accord and there was no such demand. He has denied that there was no quarrel or dispute between Tejpal, Moorti Devi, Praveen and Renu and he had falsely implicated the entire family including the married brother in law and married sister St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 49 in laws of the deceased at the instance of his wife and in laws.

PW13 Darshanbir Singh has deposed that he was running photo studio with the name of M.K. Films at WZ­276, G Block, Hari Nagar, New Delhi and on 22.02.08 he was called by Insp. Pratap Singh of police station Janak Puri at DDU Hospital Mortuary and in the mortuary he took 19 photographs of the dead body at the time of postmortem examination at the instance of doctor which photographs are Ex.PW13/A1 to Ex.PW13/A­19 and the negatives are Ex.PW13/B1 to Ex.PW13/B19. In his cross­ examination the witness has denied that he did not visit the DDU hospital mortuary and had not taken the photographs.

PW17 Charan Singh has deposed that Vijender is his brother and was married with Santosh who is the sister of Renu (deceased). According to him, Renu was married to Parveen who was in the habit of taking liquor and on many occasions he used to come to his house in a drunken condition and used to abuse them. He has testified that one day Praveen came to their house and straight way he went to the room of his brother Vijender and was well received by his brother. The witness has further deposed that Praveen told his brother that Renu's father had not given a motorcycle in the dowry and they are beggars. He has deposed that he heard this conversation because he was present in the adjoining room and thereafter accused Praveen left his house and he did not St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 50 know what happened thereafter. The witness has stated that on 21.02.2008, he received the telephone from Krishan who told him that Renu had suffered a heart attack on which he his wife Dayawati and Santosh went to Nangli Zalib, the house of accused persons. He has testified that when he reached there he found many people had gathered outside the house of accused persons and when they went inside the house he found a dead body lying on the ground floor in a room which dead body was covered with a cloth and on removing the same he had seen a ligature mark on her neck. According to him, the in­laws of deceased Renu had snatched the mobile of Krishan and the sister of Manoj (accused) caught him, when he told her that he was going to inform the police and she insisted that this matter be compromised but even then he called the police at number 100 and after about fifteen minutes police and media reached there.

In his cross­examination the witness has deposed that he had joined the marriage of deceased Renu with Parveen but he did not remember the date and month of the marriage and after her marriage she met him twice at his house. He did not remember the date, month or year of her meetings. According to him, during these meetings the deceased made no complaints whatsoever against her husband or her in­laws and he never visited the house of Parveen after the marriage of Renu but he visited her house when he visited her house and found her dead. Witness has admitted that outside the St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 51 court he was briefed by Naib court regarding the dates required to be given in his statement and hence he mentioned the dates on the summons Ex.PX1. He has admitted that his brother Vijender was having very good relationship with deceased and she used to come to his house. He has also admitted that the family members of Parveen used to object regarding her visits to the house of his brother but he is not aware whether they were raising objections regarding her relationship with his brother. According to him, accused Parveen visited their house on three­four occasions, but he is not aware the dates and months nor he spoke to the parents or other family members of deceased Renu regarding the alleged incident. He has admitted that Insp. Partap Singh reached the spot after he reached there and no inquiry was made on 21.02.2008 from him by any police official but he noted down his name and address. According to the witness, on 21.02.2008 he had not told any fact to Insp. Partap Singh regarding Parveen coming to their house on Holi festival or taunting them about not having been given motorcycle. He has testified that he never received any notice from Insp. Partap Singh to join the investigation but states that he came to his house. The witness has admitted that his statement Ex.PW17/DA did not bear his signature and the same was not his statement. He has denied that accused Parveen never visited his house on Holi festival and no such incident ever took place or that he had manipulated the entire version St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 52 for the purpose of falsely implicating the accused persons or that he was colluding with the parents of deceased Renu. He had no knowledge if any meeting took place at the house of Kushal who was neighbour of accused Parveen in the month of January, 2008 on second Sunday in which accused Parveen had complained to the members of Panchayat that his brother Vijender was having illicit relations with deceased Renu and used to speak to her on mobile phone and used to take her to unknown places or that in the said meeting his brother had been asked to apologized and assured that in future he would mend his ways. According to the witness on 21.02.2008 statement of the sister of Renu, namely Santosh or his wife or that of Vijender were not recorded either by SDM or by police.

PW21 Shanti/ Sanjana has deposed that she is residing at WZ­21A, Nangli Zalib, Janakpuri, Delhi and they are three sisters and two brothers. According to the witness, her actual name is Sanjana but she is known as Shanti at home. She has deposed that th she is a student of class 8 in Sarvoydhya Vidhayala, Posangipur, Janakpuri and is known to Murti Aunti whom she called as Maa who was residing at her adjoining house, two houses away from her house at WZ­22 and she frequently visited her house as she used to watch TV there and also used to help her in small house hold works. She has further deposed that Murti was the mother­in­law of Renu St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 53 bhabhi, who was the wife of Parveen (chiku bhaiya). According to her on 21.02.2008 at about 3 PM Renu bhabhi had come to her and handed over her small child Kaku to her stating that she had some work in the market on which she kept the child and she (Renu) went to market for purchasing a sarree. She has deposed that Renu bhabhi returned by 6 PM but did not come to her house to take Kaku so she went to Murti aunty's house at about 9 PM and found that choti bhabhi Neetu was making food and Murti aunty was sitting on the ground floor. She handed over Kaku to Maa /Murti aunty and told her that perhaps the child was hungry on which Maa told her to go to Renu bhabhi on the second floor and tell her to come down and have her food. The witness has deposed that she went up to the second floor and found that the door of room was partially shut and only one door was opened whereas the other was closed and she called out to her from outside the door to have her food and thereafter when she did not get any reply she went inside and found Renu Bhabhi hanging from the ceiling fan. The witness has deposed that she screamed and thereafter she was in such a state of shock that her voice would not come out. According to her, on hearing her screams large number of neighbourers started gathering and she went down and told Neetu bhabhi and Maa that Renu bhabhi was hanging from the ceiling fan on which they did not believe what she had said but thereafter they themselves went to the second floor and saw St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 54 themselves that Renu Bhabhi was hanging from the fan. She is not aware what happened thereafter because she was in a state of shock and went to her house crying and at about 3:00 AM (at night) she was called to the house of Murti aunty by the police who made inquires from her and recorded her statement.

In her cross­examination, the witness has admitted that after coming from school she used to spend most of the time at the house of Murti aunty. She has stated that the daughters of Murty Aunty namely Poonam and Uma used to visit their parental house only during school vacations and were residing at their matrimonial home at distance places. She is not aware of any unpleasantness in the family of Murti aunty between her and the family of the accused. According to her, Renu bhabhi was not having mobile and she did not see any quarrel taking place between Renu bhabhi and Parveen bhaiya at any time.

PW22 Sh. Amit Kumar has deposed that he is a resident of RX­14/B, Gali No. 4, Kailash Puri, New Delhi and had studied th only till class 8 . According to him, his father had a vegetable shop and also give money on loan on easy installments to persons and he also helped in his work in recovering of said loan amount. The witness has deposed that one Krishan Kumar who was also a shopkeeper in Mandi often took money from them on installments and on 01.02.2008 Krishan came to him at about 10.00 AM and told St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 55 him that he was in a dire need of Rs.30,000/­. He has deposed that he asked him what would he do with Rs.30,000/­ on which Krishan told him that his sister had come home as her brother in law/ Devar namely Manoj was getting married on 03.02.2008 and in­laws have made a demand of Rs.30,000/­. According to PW22, he was only having Rs.20,000/­ at that time which he gave to Krishan and entered the amount in the diary maintained by him which amount Krishan returned in installments of Rs.2,000/­ and the entire amount has been returned. The witness has produced a small diary with his name written on the same and Rs.20,000/­ mentioned on the front page alongwith date of 01.02.2008 and the name of Krishan S/o Shiv Lal also mentioned in this diary which diary is Ex.PW22/A and page one of the diary bearing his signatures at various points encircled X from S. No.1 to 12.

In his cross­examination, the witness has admitted that it was his father who was indulged in the business of money lending but states that he only helped him. According to him, his father was not a registered/ certified money lender and they had no licence in this regard. He has deposed that Krishan was known to him and was his friend and while giving the money on loan, he did not get any pronote or written document executed. He also did not get the signatures of the person to whom the money had been given when he returned the same to him nor any document was to be given to him in St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 56 this regard. He has admitted that one similar diary is also given to the person with whom the loan transaction was done, which diary was original. According to the witness, they gave loans @2% per month but he did not recollect the dates on which the amount was returned and states that the same has been mentioned in the diary. The witness has further deposed that he had never met the sister of Krishan for whom he had taken the loan and did not give any photocopy of the diary to the police at the time when his statement was recorded and states that he had told the police officer that the recovery of his amount was still due and therefore he could not give him the diary which he would produce only in the court. He has admitted that he is not aware of the facts of the present case and he had come to the court to depose on the aspect of lending amount to Krishan. He did not remember the date or the month when his statement was recorded but according to him it was recorded at his house. He has denied that he did not lend any money to Krishan or that he had fabricated the diary produced in the court. Medical Evidence:

PW6 Dr. Komal Singh has deposed that on 22.02.08 she conducted a postmortem on the body of deceased Smt. Renu wife of Praveen Kumar, aged 22 years, female. According to the witness, there was an alleged history of found dead in a house of 21.2.08 at St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 57 11.30 pm and was wearing red flower printed shirt, red pajama under clothes and they were faecal contaminated. She has testified that on external examination the total circumference of the neck was 30 CM and there was ligature mark over the neck in circling the whole of the neck except at right lateral and posterior of the neck. It was bank of 21x3 cm and 10 cm above the manubriua sterint, 6 cm lower to the chin and 7 cm below the left mastoid and 9 cm below the right mastoid. She has deposed that on internal examination brain was found congested, Posterior surface of the cricoid cartilage has approximately 2 ml of clotted blood; both lungs were congested and oedematous stomach contained 200 ml of semi digested food and other body organs were also found congested. She has further deposed that he preserved the viscera, blood and the clothes were preserved sealed and handed over to the investigating officer. She has proved that she opined that cause of death as asphyxia due to constricting force of the neck produced by ante mortem hanging.

According to the witness, the viscera was sent for examination to rule out any concomittant poisoning. She has proved her detailed report which is Ex.PW6/A and deposed that on 13.03.08 a sealed parcel with the seal of SKH was received from investigating officer Insp. Pratap Singh who sought the opinion regarding the chunni seized from the spot. According to the witness, on opening the parcel a synthetic chunni was found which was 6 foot 8 inch in St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 58 length and 3 feet 7 inch in breadth which chunni could have sustain the weight of the body of the deceased during hanging. She has testified that the said Chunni was repacked and resealed and handed over to the investigating officer on the same day and her report in this regard is Ex.PW6/B. The witness has correctly identified the said chunni which is Ex.P1.

In her cross­examination the witness has denied that she had not examined the dead body or that she had given her report at the instance of investigating officer in order to suit the case of prosecution. She has also denied that the chunni Ex.P1 could not sustain the weight of deceased Renu.

PW11 Dr. Raj Kumar Kapoor has deposed that he was running a hospital with the name of J.K. Hospital and on 21.2.2008 at about 8.45 pm he was present in his hospital along with his junior doctor Dr. Shailender and one female patient was brought to his hospital by some people and ladies. According to him, he checked the patient and declared her brought dead after which the attendants took away the patient/ dead body and he informed to the police from his telephone No. 25534245, as the dead body was of a young lady. He has deposed that he was of the view that the persons who brought the lady was of the nearby village Nangli Zalib and later on police had shown him the photographs of the lady St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 59 on which he told that she was the same lady who was brought to his hospital. The photographs which were shown to him are Ex.PW11/1 and Ex.PW11/2.

In his cross­examination, the witness has deposed that he is orthopedic surgeon and is running his hospital in his house which is a 16 bed hospital. According to him, Dr. Shailender was junior to him and remained with him from 12.00 noon to 8.00/9.00 pm. He is unable to tell as to how many people came to him on that day along with that lady nor the number on which he made the call to the police but states that he had probably made a telephone call on No.100. He has deposed that when police came he was not present in the hospital but police came on the same day and he came to know about the arrival of police from his family members. He has denied that he did not examine the lady and no lady as aforesaid was brought to his hospital.

Police/ official witnesses:

PW7 SI Lalit Kumar has deposed that on 22.02.08 he was posted as Incharge Crime team West District and on that day, on receipt of information he along with his Crime Team comprising of photographer Rakesh Kumar and finger print expert const. Krishan Kumar went to the spot i.e. H. No. WZ­22/A, Nangli Zalib, Janak Puri where investigating officer Insp. Pratap Singh was already St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 60 present. The witness has deposed that he found dead body of a female lying on a ground and number of public persons had gathered there. He has proved having inspected the said room where the dead body was lying on the ground floor and room at the second floor where she had allegedly committed suicide and photographs at both the place were taken and efforts were made to pick chance print but none could be found. After inspection, he prepared his crime team report which is Ex.PW7/A which he handed over to the investigating officer.

In his cross­examination, the witness has deposed that he had seen a chunni lying over there being the ligature material so he had advised the investigating officer to seize it. He has denied that he did not inspect the spot.

PW8 SI Mahesh Kumar has deposed that on 05.03.08 at the instance of investigating officer Insp. Pratap Singh he inspected the spot i.e. Second floor room at house No. WZ22A, Nangli Zalib, Janak Puri and on the pointing out of investigating officer he took rough note of the place of incident after which on on 20.03.08, on the basis of said rough notes, he prepared scaled site plan at his office which is Ex.PW8/A and handed over the same to the investigating officer. He has further deposed that the rough notes were thereafter destroyed by him. In his cross­examination the witness has denied the suggestion that he did not inspect the spot.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 61

PW9 WHC Selesestine has deposed that on 22.02.08 she was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Janak Puri and was working as duty officer from 8 am to 4 pm. She has further deposed that SHO Janak Puri handed over her a ruqqa Ex.PW2/A and on the basis of which she got typed FIR No.63/08 from the computer operator on her dictation for the offence u/s. 498A/304B IPC.

According to the witness, after registration of the FIR, the copy of the FIR was entrusted to Insp. Pratap Singh for investigations. She has also proved having recorded DD No.16 A in this regard on the roznamcha of the police station and made an endorsement to that effect on the ruqqa; the computer print out of the said FIR which is Ex.PW9/A and the endorsement made by her on the ruqqa which is Ex.PW9/B. In her cross­examination, the witness has denied that she has deposed falsely.

PW10 ASI Prem Kumar has deposed that on 21.02.08 he was working as duty officer from 4 p.m. to 12 midnight and on that night at around 10 p.m. the wireless operator of the police station informed him on intercom that information had been received from telephone no. 25534245 from JK Hospital, Janak Puri by Dr. Kapoor that a lady probably of village Nangli has been brought dead but her address was not disclosed. According to the witness, the said information was received by their wireless operator from Const.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 62

Praveen No. 2201 of the PCR and he recorded the said information in the roznamacha vide No.33­A copy of which is Ex.PW10/A. He has also deposed that at around 11:30 p.m. the wireless operator again gave information on intercom that information had been received from lady Const. Mamta No. 2033/PCR that in house No. WZ21, Nangli Zalib, one girl had committed suicide. The witness has testified that DD No. 33A was handed over to SI Shri Kishan for necessary action who had left the police station along with Const.

Subhash and he recorded the said information in the roznamacha vide DD No. 37­A copy of which is Ex.PW10/B which was handed over to Const. Ashok for giving it to ASI Babu Lal for necessary action. He has not been cross­examined by the defence counsel.

PW14 Const. Rakesh Kumar has deposed that on

22.02.08 he was posted as photographer in mobile crime team, West District and on that day after receiving the information he along with mobile crime team incharge and other staff reached at WZ22 A, Nangli Zalib, Janakpuri where Crime Team Incharge inspected the spot and he took 13 photographs of the spot where one dead body of lady was lying, which photographs are Ex.PW14/A1 to Ex.PW14/A13 and the negatives are Ex.PW14/B1 to Ex.PW14/B13.

In his cross­examination, the witness has deposed that he St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 63 took the photographs in the presence of Addl. SHO Pratap Singh, who was present along with three to four other police officials and public persons were also standing but he is unable to tell if persons from the family were there or not. He is not aware if any investigations/ inquires were being made by the investigating officer from the family members but states that he only took the photographs. According to him, he stayed at the spot for about one hour and started from the police station at about 1 O'clock and reached the spot after about ten to fifteen minutes.

PW15 HC Islam Khan is the MHC(M) who has deposed that on 22.02.08 he was posted as MHC(M) in police station Janak Puri and on that day Insp. Pratap Singh had deposited three parcels sealed with the seal of "DFMT, DDU Hospital" alleged to be containing viscera, blood/clothes of the deceased along with sample seal. He has further deposed that the investigating officer had also deposited one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of 'SKH' alleged to be containing one chunni and he made entry in this regard at Serial No. 2903 of Register No. 19. According to him, on 01.03.08 Insp. Pratap Singh had deposited one refrigerator LG and entry in this regard was made at Serial No. 2932 of Register No. 19. The witness has also deposed that on 25.02.08 the exhibits of this case were sent to DDU Hospital through Const. Ravinder vide RC No. 74/21 and the same were redeposited on the same day. He has further testified St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 64 that on 15.03.08 the sealed pullandas were again sent to Kolkatta through Const. Ravinder vide RC No. 78/21 & on 25.03.08 Const. Ravinder redeposited the pullandas in the Malkhana and on 13.03.08 the pullanda containing chunni was sent to hospital for taking the opinion and thereafter the same was redeposited in the malkhana vide RC No. 72/21/08. He has also testified that 08.04.08 three pullandas were sent to FSL Rohini through Const. Ramvir vide RC No. 1/21/08 who deposited a receipt with him and on 07.11.08 pullandas were redeposited in the malkhana alongwith the FSL result. He has proved that the sealed pullanda remained intact during his custody and he did not interfere with them nor he allowed anyone to interfere with them.

In his cross­examination, the witness has denied the suggestion that that no sealed pullanda was deposited by Insp. Pratap Singh or that no refrigerator was deposited in the malkhana.

PW16 Sh. Parmod Kumar has deposed that deposed that on 22.2.2001 he was posted as SDM Patel Nagar and on the night of 21/22.02.2008 he received a telephonic message from Insp. Partap Singh, Police Station Janakpuri about the death of lady namely Renu, W/o Parveen at WZ­22A, Nangli Zalib, Janakpuri, Delhi after which he reached the above address on 22.02.2008 at about 9 AM where Insp. Partap Singh was present. According to the witness, on briefing of Inspector Pratap Singh he inspected the spot which was a St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 65 room at the second floor of the house where he he found a chunni lying on the sofa chair which he directed to seize as its seems to be used for hanging which chunni was seized vide memo Ex.PW3/E and it was converted into Pullanda sealed with the seal of SKH. He has proved having recorded the statement of Smt. Gyano Devi mother of the deceased and Krishan, Brother of the deceased which are Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW3/F respectively and also having made an endorsement at point A on Ex.PW2/A. The witness has further testified that he along with Insp. Partap Singh went to mortuary DDU Hospital where he prepared inquest papers i.e. application to conduct postmortem which is Ex.PW16/A1, brief facts which are Ex.PW16/A2 and Form No 25.35 which is Ex.PW16/A3. He has identified one chunni in the court which is Ex.P1.

In his cross­examination the witness has deposed that Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW3/F are in his handwriting and has admitted that RTI of Smt. Gyano Devi is not visible on Ex.PW2/A. The witness has further admitted that the words RTI Gyano at point A at the bottom of Ex.PW2/A is in his handwriting and states that he got Smt. Gyano Devi and Krishan identified from the investigating officer. The witness has further deposed that he remained at the spot for about one and a half to two hours and has admitted that a number of public persons of the locality had gathered at the spot but he did St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 66 not make any inquiry from the immediate neighbours regarding the cause of suicide of Smt. Renu. He has also proved having recorded the statements of Smt. Gyano and Krishan at the spot. He has denied the suggestion that the immediate neighbours told him that the allegations leveled by the complainant were false and there was neither any demand of dowry but he deliberately did not record their statements. The witness has also denied that he did not personally record the statements Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW3/F and the same were not in his handwriting. He has also denied that Ex.PW2/A was a manipulated document by the investigating officer and it did not bear either signature or thumb impressions of Smt. Gyano Devi.

PW18 HC Subhash has deposed that on 21.02.2008 he was posted as Constable at Police Station Janakpuri and on that day at around 11:45 PM he accompanied SI Shri Krishan to Nangli Zalib on the information regarding hanging by a lady. According to him, they reached the said house and found that ASI Babu Lal was already present there and the dead body was lying on the ground floor although she had hanged herself on the first floor. The witness has further deposed that he was directed by the SI Shri Krishan to safeguard the place of incident and the crime team was called after which on the instructions of the investigating officer he took the dead body to the mortuary DDU Hospital. He has testified that after postmortem he was handed over two pullandas sealed with the seal St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 67 of DFMT DDU hospital and he handed over the same to the investigating officer who seized it vide memo Ex.PW18/A signed by him at point A. The witness was cross­examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State with regard to the floor at which the incident took place during which he has admitted that the information about the incident having been taken place at second floor (Dusri manzil) as mentioned in his statement recorded by the investigating officer.

In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he has deposed that he does not remember if he made any departure entry in DD register while starting from police station to the spot. According to him, he went on his private motorcycle and reached the spot at 12 noon and remained there for about four hours. He has also testified that during this of four hours no proceedings what so ever took place at the spot except arrival of Crime Team but he is unable to tell if during those four hours any of the police officials left the spot. The witness has testified that he was present in the room on dusri manzil but he does not remember if any other official except police reached at the spot or carry out any proceedings. He has admitted that investigating officer was making inquiries from the immediate neighbours and had recorded their statements, but he is not aware of their names and particulars. He is also unable to tell as to how many statements of immediate neighbours was recorded by the investigating officer nor does he remember if those neighbourers St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 68 had disclosed to investigating officer the cause of suicide as he was on second floor/ dusri manzil. The witness is unable to tell as to whether any documents were prepared by the investigating officer at the spot and so far as he was concerned his signatures were not obtained on any spot proceedings. PW18 has further deposed that except two pullandas the doctor did not hand over to him anything else and he is unable to tell the name of the doctor who handed over pullandas to him and no memo regarding taking over of pullandas from the doctor was prepared by him or the investigating officer. He has denied that he did not visit the spot and no pullandas were handed over to him by the doctor or that Ex.PW18/A was prepared while sitting in the police station.

PW19 ASI Babu Lal has deposed that on 21.02.2008 he was posted at Police Station Janakpuri and on that day he had received DD No. 37A at around 11:30 PM which is Ex.PW10/B regarding the hanging of a girl at WZ­21A, Nangli Zalib, Janakpuri, Delhi on which he reached the spot where they came to know that the address where the incident had taken place was WZ­22A on which he reached house No. 22A. According to the witness, when he reached the ground floor of the premises WZ­22A he found the dead body of the girl aged approximately 22 years lying on the floor of the room of ground floor and large numbers of persons had gathered there. He has testified that only person from the family of the St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 69 deceased Renu whose name he came to know at the spot were present whereas none from her in­laws family were present and after a few minutes Addl. SHO Insp. Partap Singh came to the spot and he examined the dead body. The witness has further testified that he meet one young girl of 12 years namely Shanti who was also present at the spot who took them to the room of the second floor and showed them the room in which she had seen the deceased Renu hanging from the ceiling fan. He has also stated that the Addl. SHO Insp. Partap Singh informed to SDM Patel Nagar on telephone and also to district Crime Team on which the officials from the district Crime Team thereafter reached the spot and carried out the inspection and took photographs of the side and also the sketch/ site plan of the side. He has further deposed that thereafter the investigating officer had left HC Mukesh at the site to preserve the site of incident and he along with the investigating officer and SI Shri Krishan conducted the search of the room where the incident had taken place and also the ground floor and first floor but could not find any suicide note or any other clue after which he along with SI Shri Kishan and Addl. SHO tried to search for the husband of the deceased and his family members but could not find them there. According to him, on 22.02.2008 SDM Patel Nagar came to the spot at about 9 AM when he carried out the inquest proceedings and during the inspection the SDM found one chunni of red, green and St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 70 blue color measuring about 6 feet 8 inches long and 3 feet 7 inches wide which appeared to have been used by the deceased for hanging herself which chunni was kept on a single chair type sofa and the chunni was taken into possession and seized vide memo Ex.PW3/E. The witness has testified that the brother of deceased Krishan Kumar was also present at that time and his signatures were present at point mark A. He has proved that his statement was recorded by Insp. Partap Singh at the spot itself. He has identified the case property i.e. chunni which is Ex.P1.

In his cross­examination, the witness has admitted that before he had deposed in the court on that day, he had read his statement recorded by the investigating officer and had a copy of the same. According to the witness, he reached the spot after about six minutes of receiving the call at 11:30 PM and has deposed that Shanti was the daughter of the neighbour Amar Singh who herself told him that her name was Shanti. PW19 has also testified that inquest proceedings were conduct in his presence and the statement of Gyano Devi was also recorded in his presence and the signature of Gyano Devi was taken on her statement by the SDM in his presence. According to the witness, he did not sign anywhere on the inquest proceedings and he does not recollect whether the SDM had recorded the statement of Gyano Devi first or prepared the inquest papers first. He is not aware if the SDM had taken the signatures of any persons St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 71 present the spot or not but states that the SDM must have recorded the statement of Gyano at about 9:15 AM. He has testified that he remained at the spot till 12 noon to 1:00 PM on 22.02.2008 and his signature was taken on the site plan at the site. He has further deposed that in his presence no statement of any neighbour was recorded but has admitted that some inquiries were made from the neighbours. He is not able to tell the name and address of the persons from whom the inquiries were made and states that the statement of Gyano Devi was written in the handwriting of one person from the staff who had come along with the SDM. PW19 is also not aware whether the same person from the staff had also prepared the inquest papers and states that all the police officials who were present at the spot remained there till about 12 to 1:00 pm. He is not aware of the name of the photographer who had come from the Crime Team, nor is he able to tell the names of other persons who had come from the crime team. He has further deposed that they had searched for the accused persons i.e. in­laws of the deceased in the neighbourhood and in the adjoining areas before 12:00 to 1:00 PM but he is unable to tell the names and addresses of persons from whom they had made inquires with regard to the whereabouts of the accused. He has denied the suggestion that he did not go to the spot, nor had he conducted the proceedings as stated, nor any proceedings were conducted by the SDM. The witness has also denied that the St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 72 investigating officer had recorded the statements of Gyano and Krishan Kumar at the police station and not at the spot PW20 SI Shri Krishan has deposed that on the intervening night of 21/22.02.2008 he was posted at Police Station Janakpuri and on that day he received DD No. 33A copy of which is Ex.PW20/A after which he along with one Constable reached at J.K Hospital, Janakpuri where he meet Dr. Shailender who told that some person had brought a lady on a hand cart (rehri) and that he checked the lady casually and found that she had expired after which those persons without disclosing their names taken back the lady and he could identify those persons if shown to him. The witness has further deposed that thereafter DD No. 37­A was received in the Police Station on which he along with Insp. Partap Singh reached at WZ ­21A Nangli Zalib, where one dead body of Smt. Renu, W/o Parveen, R/o WZ­22A, Nangli Zalib was found lying at the ground floor. According to him, initially they received the call of dead body at WZ­21 but when they reached at the spot they found the dead body at WZ­22A, Nangli Zalib and on the spot mother, brother and other neighbourers of deceased Renu were present apart from ASI Babu Lal and Ct. Subhash. PW20 has further testified that Crime Team was called and the SDM was informed and on inquiry it was revealed that Renu had hanged herself with fan on the second floor of the house. He has deposed that Crime Team reached at the spot St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 73 who inspected the spot and took photographs and dead body was sent to DDU hospital Mortuary and the accused were searched but they were not found. According to him, on 22.08.2008 at about 9 AM, SDM Patel Nagar came at the spot who made the inquiries and recorded the statement of Smt. Gyano Devi and Krishan Kumar after which SDM made endorsement on the statement of the Gyano Devi for registration of the FIR and rukka was handed over to HC Mukesh for getting the FIR registered. The witness has testified that during inspection of the spot one chunni was found from the second floor with which deceased has hanged herself which chunni was of red, green and blue color and the said chunni was seized by putting a same into pullanda and sealed with the seal of SKH and seized vide memo Ex.PW3/E. He has also deposed that SDM made inquiry from the neighbourer after which he along with Insp. Partap Singh and SDM reached DDU Hospital where SDM prepared the inquest papers. The witness has further deposed that the dead body was identified by Shiv Lal and Krishan Kumar vide their statements Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW3/A and the postmortem examination was got conducted and after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to the LR's of the deceased vide receipt Ex.PW1/B. He has also testified that thereafter they again reached at the spot where the investigating officer prepared the site plan and they searched for the accused and on inquiry came to know that accused were in the St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 74 nearby area. According to him, Krishan Kumar brother of the deceased and lady Ct. Munita were called at the spot and thereafter on the basis of secret information accused Parveen, Tejpal, and Murti Devi were arrested vide memos Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW20/C and Ex.PW20D respectively and their personal search were conducted vide memos Ex.PW20/E, Ex.PW20/F and Ex.PW20/G respectively. He has proved that their disclosure statements were recorded which are Ex.PW20/H, Ex.PW20/J and Ex.PW20/K respectively and after medical examination accused persons were sent to police lockup. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has put a leading question to this witness regarding the showing of place of hanging by witness Shanti on which the accused has admitted that one girl Shanti had met the investigating officer and she had shown a room of the second floor of the house where she had seen the deceased hanging with the ceiling fan. The witness has identified the accused Parveen, Tejpal and Murti Devi in the court and has also identified the chunni which is Ex.P1.

In his cross­examination, the witness is unable to give the exact address of J.K. Hospital but it was on the main road in B­1 Block, Main Najafgarh Road, Near Nagli Zalib and the investigating officer had not recorded statement of Dr. Shailender at that time. He has further deposed that no name of the persons was revealed who St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 75 had brought the lady at J.K. Hospital but it was revealed that they were of village Nangli, Zalib and that they reached at the spot at about 11:40 PM, where he found ASI Babu Lal, Ct. Subhash present there. According to him, they remained at the spot upto 6 AM and when they had reached the spot at about 11:45 PM the family members including the mother and brother of the deceased had also reached there. He has testified that the investigating officer made inquiry from them but he had not recorded their statements. The witness has deposed that Insp Partap Singh had informed the ACP of the area regarding the position at the spot and the fact that he suspected the involvement of accused persons i.e. in­laws of the deceased. According to him, the SDM Patel Nagar had been informed by Insp. Partap Singh at night itself regarding the incident but he cannot tell the reason why the SDM did not come at night. He has also stated that Insp. Partap Singh had made inquiries from the neighbours who were present at the spot but to his knowledge their statements were not recorded. According to PW20, when the SDM had come, his staff was also with him and the statement of the complainant and her son namely Krishan Kumar were written in his presence which statements were recorded in the handwriting of SDM. She has also testified that Gyano Devi must have put her thumb impression on the statement but he is not sure of the same since he was at some distance. According to him, the proceedings St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 76 were completed by the SDM by 11:30 AM and the statement of complainant and Krishan Kumar were recorded first and thereafter the inquest proceedings were completed. He is not aware if the SDM had mentioned any names in the inquest proceedings of persons who were suspects nor is he aware whether any persons had signed the inquest proceedings. The witness has testified that he did not sign the inquest proceedings carried out by the SDM at the spot and that the endorsement on the statement of Smt. Gyano Devi was not made by the SDM in his presence since he was at a distance. According to PW20, the chunni had been seized and sealed with the seal of SK but he is not very sure and thought that the seal after use were handed over to Ct. Vinod or Ct. Subhash but no handing over memo of the seal was prepared in his presence. The witness has further testified that HC Mukesh had taken the tehrir on his personal bike at about 11:45 AM and returned back to DDU hospital at about 12:30 PM and they went to DDU hospital at about 12 PM on 22.02.2008 and prior to that investigating officer had not recorded any statement of any witness. He has also deposed that all the three accused were arrested from the metro station East Janakpuri and that the investigating officer did not reduce this secret information in writing but states that when he came to know of it he deputed the staff including a lady Constable to apprehend the accused persons. According to him, his statement was recorded at the house of the accused itself and has St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 77 admitted that his statement was not recorded at the police station and that he had mentioned to the investigating officer in his statement that his statement was recorded at the police station. According to him, he got confused at that time and reaffirms that his statement was recorded at the police station and not at the house. The witness has denied the suggestion that he had never gone to the spot nor to the metro station nor to the hospital and that in fact the accused were all present at their house from where they were apprehended. He has also denied that the signatures of the accused persons were obtained on blank papers which they filled up later on and that no statement was recorded by the SDM in his presence, nor any proceedings were conducted by him in his presence. The witness has also denied that no tehrir was sent to the police station for registration of the FIR or that FIR was ante time and that the names of the accused were inserted after due deliberations with the family of the deceased.

PW23 Inspector Pratap Singh has deposed that on 21.02.2008 on receipt of DD No.37­A regarding hanging of a lady at WZ­21/A,Village Nangli Jalib, Janak Puri, Delhi he along with staff of Police Station had gone to the spot at WZ­22/A, Village Nangli Jalib, Janakpuri, Delhi where dead body of a lady namely Renu was found lying on the ground floor of this house. According to him, on enquiry made from the spot, it was found that the lady had hanged herself from ceiling fan in second floor of this house and he along St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 78 with staff had gone to the room at second floor and on enquiry it was found that this was a hanging case of lady within seven years of marriage after which he informed SDM and then called crime team to the spot who submitted scene of crime report which is Ex.PW7/A. He has proved that thereafter he inspected the spot, prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW23/A and Ex.PW23/B and on physical examination of dead body ligature mark was seen on neck after which the dead body was shifted to DDU Hospital for postmortem examination. The witness has also deposed that later SDM visited the spot and inspected the spot and seized one Chunni used as ligature for hanging and the seizure memo of the same is Ex.PW3/E after which SDM conducted inquest proceeding at the spot during which he recorded the statements of Smt. Gyano Devi and Sh. Krishan, mother and brother of the deceased which are Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW3/F respectively. According to PW23, on the basis of the statement of Smt. Gyano Devi, FIR was registered at Police Station after an endorsement was made by SHO Police Station Janak puri and the investigations thereafter were handed over to him. The witness has further deposed that during the inquest proceedings the SDM got the postmortem conducted on the body of the deceased after which the dead body was handed over to the family members of the deceased and the doctor handed over the exhibits which were St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 79 seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A. According to him, the said exhibits were deposited by him in the Malkhana after which he started searching the accused persons and three accused persons namely Smt. Murti, Praveen Tanwar and Tejpal Tanwar were arrested by him vide arrested memo Ex.PW20/B to Ex.PW20/D and their personal search were conducted vide memos Ex.PW20/E, Ex.PW20/F and Ex.PW21/G (wrongly typed as Ex.PW21/G, Ex.PW20/D and Ex.PW21/E whereas the said memos are Ex.PW20/E to Ex.PW20/G and are required to be read as such). He has also proved having recorded their disclosure statements which are Ex.PW20/H, Ex.PW20/I and Ex.PW20/J (wrongly typed as Ex.PW21/K, Ex.PW21/H and Ex.PW21/J whereas the disclosure statements are Ex.PW20/H to Ex.PW20/J and are required to be read as such). He has testified that during further investigation he also seized photographs and certain documents like marriage card, joint photograph and receipt of refrigerator etc. vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A and the refrigerator was also seized on the pointing of Krishan Kumar who was the brother of the deceased vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. According to him, he collected the list of dowry articles from Krishan Kumar which was seized vide memo Ex.PW3/D which list is Ex.P­6. He has proved having collected the St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 80 postmortem report from the concerned doctor which is Ex.PW6/A and also having sought opinion from the doctor regarding the chunni which was used for hanging by the deceased and the concerned doctor gave opinion which is Ex.PW6/B at the backside of the postmortem report. The witness has testified that he had sent the exhibits and viscera to the FSL Rohini through some constable whose name and date he does not remember now. He has further proved having collected report from the FSL which is Ex.PW23/C and deposed that SI Mahesh prepared the scaled site plan on his instruction which is Ex.PW8/A. The witness has also proved that the statements of relevant witnessed were recorded and thereafter the charge sheet was filed in the court. He has correctly identified the accused persons in the court and also identified the case property i.e. chunni which is Ex.P­1.

In his cross­examination, the witness has deposed that he reached at the spot at about 11.45 PM to 12.00 midnight and a crowd was present at the spot. He has admitted that out of those public persons some of them were immediate neighbours of accused persons and has deposed that he informed the SDM through his personal mobile phone around 12.30 AM, but no separate DD was got prepared with regard to the same and states that he was busy in investigation at the spot. According to him, the SDM did not come St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 81 to the spot during night time and did not come to the hospital although body had been removed from the spot to the hospital. The witness has further deposed that when he reached at the spot some of the family member from paternal side of the deceased met him but he did not record their statements because they were crying and not composed enough to make a statement immediately. He has denied that he had not recorded the aforesaid fact in the case diary because he deliberately not record the statement of the family member of the deceased for the purposes of giving them enough time for deliberation and consultation amongst themselves to make out a false case against the accused persons. According to the witness, he requested the neighbours to give their statement who all of them refused to cooperate in the investigations but he did not give any notice to them. He could not record their names and address because on his asking them to disclose their names and addresses and tell the facts what they know about this matter, they left the place without telling about their names and addresses. He has denied that he did not make any enquiry from the independent persons of the locality since he was actively colluding with the complainant party to make out a false case against the accused persons and states that a minor girl Shanti was examined who disclosed the sequence of incidents whose narration was found to be credible and he was entirely satisfied for her statement. He does not remember the exact dates St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 82 when he recorded the statements of different witnesses in this case. According to the witness, he found out that one Rati Ram was the mediator in the marriage related to the same community but he did not remember his address and states that it was disclosed by both the parties that Sh. Rati Ram was the mediator and got arranged the marriage. The witness has testified that he reached the spot in the morning at about 9.00AM and he did not see the SDM writing the statement since he was standing at a distance and remained at the spot for about three to four hours during night time. He has also deposed that during night time he made inquiries from a number of persons of the area regarding the facts of this case and according to him those were the secret informers and not required to mentioned in the case diary. He has denied the suggestion that he did not carry out the fair investigation or that he was actively colluding with the complainant party or that this case came to be registered based upon the false statements, which were given by them based upon deliberations and consultations with him and his staff or that a false case was foisted upon the accused persons. The witness has testified that as per his knowledge he thought that a special report was sent to the Senior Officer and Area MM but he does not remember the name of the Constable who took the special report. He has admitted that he did not record any statement under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure in this regard.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 83 Statement of the accused/ defence evidence:

After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied.

The accused Uma has stated that the family members of the deceased being the interested and police witnesses have deposed falsely since the family members of the deceased wanted to extort money by falsely implicating her and her family members.

According to her, she is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

She has stated that the deceased was a short tempered lady and was having illicit relations with her brother­in­law (Jija) Vijender which was objected to and even a Panchayat was also held on second Sunday January 2008 in this regard. The accused has further stated that the deceased never wanted to marry with her brother and was not happy with this marriage. She has also stated that she was married more than ten years and living separately and has no concern with the family matters of accused Praveen and his deceased wife.

According to the accused, she has nothing to do with the alleged incident.

The accused Praveen has similarly stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to him, the St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 84 family members of the deceased wanted to extort money by falsely implicating him and his family members. He has stated that the deceased was a short tempered lady and was having illicit relations with her brother­in­law (Jija) Vijender which was objected to and even a Panchayat was also held on second Sunday January 2008 in this regard. The accused has further stated that the deceased never wanted to marry him and was not happy with this marriage.

According to the accused, he has nothing to do with the alleged incident.

The accused Tej Pal, Murti Devi and Manoj Tanwar have similarly stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. According to them, the family members of the deceased wanted to extort money by falsely implicating them and their family members. They have stated that the deceased was a short tempered lady and was having illicit relations with her brother­in­law (Jija) Vijender which was objected to and even a Panchayat was also held on second Sunday January 2008 in this regard. The accused have further stated that the deceased never wanted to marry Praveen and was not happy with this marriage. According to the accused, they have nothing to do with the alleged incident.

Similarly the accused Poonam has stated that family members of the deceased being the interested and police witnesses have deposed falsely since the family members of the deceased St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 85 wanted to extort money by falsely implicating her and her family members. According to her, she is innocent and has been falsely implicated. She has stated that the deceased was a short tempered lady and was having illicit relations with her brother­in­law (Jija) Vijender which was objected to and even a Panchayat was also held on second Sunday January 2008 in this regard. The accused has further stated that the deceased never wanted to marry with her brother and was not happy with this marriage. She has also stated that she (Poonam) was married for more than fourteen years and living separately and has no concern with the family matters of accused Praveen and his deceased wife. According to the accused, she has nothing to do with the alleged incident.

However, the accused have preferred not to examine any witness in their defence.

FINDINGS:

I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence counsels appearing on behalf of the accused. I have also gone through the written synopsis/ memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused and the State and the evidence on record.

First I propose to deal with all the allegations/ averments made by the public witness individually in a tabulated form as under St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 86 and later on comprehensively.

  Sr.            Name of the                                      Details of deposition
  No.              witness




St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri                                               Page No. 87 
 1.          Sh. Shiv Lal                  He   is   the   father   of   the   deceased   Renu   who   has  
            (PW1)                         deposed on the following aspects:
                                          1. That   Renu   was   his   youngest   child   who   was  

married with accused Parveen in the year 2005.

2. That for the marriage of his daughter Renu with the accused Praveen, he gave one suit, one box of sweets at the time of roka and at the time of marriage he gave clothes for the family of accused and for his daughter, toom (jewellery of silver weighing 250 grams, gold was 25 grams) sofa set, almirah of godrej, cooler, T.V. Gas and other household articles.

3. That after marriage, Renu shifted to the house of in laws at Nangli Jalim, Near Distt. Centre, Janakpuri, Delhi where accused namely Praveen, Tej Pal, Murti Devi, Manoj @ Mannu, sister Neelam and Poonam, including other relations viz wife of accused Manoj @ Mannu lived in the matrimonial home of his daughter Renu.

4. That Neelam and Poonam, sisters­in­law of his daughter rejected the sarees which he had given for them to his daughter and in the box of his daughter, one the second day of her marriage some loop (condoms) were kept by Neelam, Poonam, Praveen and Murti Devi and on the discovery of such objects in her box, she was ridiculed by the said persons.

5. That thereafter life of Renu went on smoothly and after three four months of marriage, accused persons demanded a motor cycle from her which demand she explained to him (the witness) but being a poor man he could not afford to gift a motorcycle on which the accused suggest that she should arrange for cash in installments, so that motorcycle can be purchased.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 88

6. That Renu used to inform of these demands, telephonically and also during her visits of his house and on such visits, she was given some money by his wife towards consideration of motorcycle.

7. That after one and half years of marriage, Renu was blessed with a son on which they went to her matrimonial home voluntarily carrying clothes for the entire family and some jewellery articles for accused Praveen, Murti Devi and his daughter Renu and her newly born son but none of the accused persons were happy with the gifts which they had carried on the occasion and Renu was sitting in a separate room on a cot without any bed clothing.

8. That five months thereafter he (the witness) was blessed with a grand son i.e. son to his son Krishan on which Krishan went to the house of accused persons to invite them for a function but the accused persons declined to send Renu for the function, unless a refrigerator was gifted to them.

9. That on the day of function accused Praveen came to their house and was heavily drunk and he reiterated his demand of refrigerator to his son Krishan.

10.That four to five days later, Krishan purchased a refrigerator on loan and send the same to the matrimonial house of Renu by a rehri and Renu was also sent to their house by bus but in the evening Murti Devi asked Renu as to why she had brought a fridge, she should have brought cash, as accused Praveen was out of work and that electricity charges cannot be borne by the family which fact Renu reported to her mother and in the evening Renu was physically beaten and insulted by Praveen, Murti Devi and Mannu.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 89

11.That on 03.02.2008 accused Mannu got married and prior to the marriage, Renu had asked his wife (her mother) to arrange for Rs.30,000/­ on the asking of all the accused persons as accused Praveen was out of work.

12.That on 01.02.2008, his wife handed over Rs.20,000/­ in cash to Renu, after arranging the same on loan.

13.That for the marriage, his son Manoj carried gifts i.e. clothes for accused Mannu and his newly wedded wife which were not liked by the accused persons and accused Mannu threw them on the face of her daughter and said that they expected Rs.20,000/­ to be paid as gifts.

14.That all the accused persons abused Renu on the day of wedding and she could not participate in the function and in the next morning, Renu told his son Manoj that accused persons had been harassing and torturing her extremely on which his son told her that they would speak to accused Praveen when he visited their house.

15.That on 12.02.2008, his son Manoj got married on which accused Praveen demanded Rs.2,100/­ as Shagun for a ceremony at the time of "Gurchadi" and was drunk.

16.That they anyhow gave him Rs.1,100/­ only and after marriage when Manoj and his wife returned to their house, accused Praveen did not let the bride enter the house unless he was paid Rs.

5,000/­ or a gold chain.

17. That with great persuasion, they gave him Rs.

1,100/­ and made a promise to gift the gold chain subsequently and on the next day, the accused returned to his house.

18.That on 15.02.2008, the accused Praveen returned to take Renu with him and at that time he was again under the influence of liquor.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 90

19.That the accused Praveen declared that he had been insulted at their house and that he and his family members would create such a situation in their house, which would drive Renu to commit suicide on which they counseled Renu that he was speaking so only under the influence of liqour and sent her with him.

20.That when Renu's son Kaku had infection in his ear, he was brought by her to a doctor at Palam area when accused Murti Devi had threatened that Renu should not come alone to the doctor for treatment of Kaku.

21.That on 21.02.2008, his son Krishan took his nephew to a doctor in Vikaspuri but since he could not locate the clinic of doctor, therefore, he called accused Praveen to help him in locating the address.

22.That accused Praveen took him to the clinic and at the clinic Praveen received two phone calls on his mobile phone and said that he was urgently required at his house and he left Krishan and the child at the Nangli Metro Station and discouraged Krishan to visit his sister, though his house was very near from the metro station.

23.That when Krishan had travelled for a few stations he received a call from the family of accused persons telling him that Renu had suffered a heart stroke on which Krishan confirmed the news from Praveen by speaking on his mobile phone and Praveen confirmed that Renu had suffered a heart stroke and expired after which Krishan informed their family members about the occurrence.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 91

24.That Krishan had called up Manoj on his mobile phone and had intimated him that the mishap had taken place and they should arrange for money after which they all reached Sector­10, Dwarka Metro Station and were waiting for Manoj at that time and thereafter they went to their house collected money and started for Nangli by two wheeler scooter.

25.That when they reached the house of accused persons at Nangli, it was between 11 to 12 night, there was a large crowd outside their house and when he went through the crowd, he saw that his daughter Santosh was coming out of their house who intimated that accused persons had killed Renu and the story of heart attack was false.

26.That in the meantime, Balraj @ Balli elder brother of husband of Santosh called up at number 100 and PCR officials reached at the spot and subsequently officials of police station Janakpuri had also reached and they carried out their proceedings. He has deposed that body of Renu was taken to DDU hospital where SDM had also reached and on the directions of SDM postmortem of Renu's body was carried out.

27.That the SDM had reached at the hospital at about 10­11 am and recorded the statement of his wife and probably that of his son Krishan also and after postmortem dead body of Renu was handed over to them.

2. Smt. Gyano Devi She is the mother of the deceased who has (PW2) corroborated the testimony of PW1 Shiv Lal on the following lines:

1. That Renu was married with accused Praveen on about three years back.

2. That at the time of marriage Renu has completed the age of twenty one years and they had given sufficient dowry articles at the time of marriage of her daughter.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 92

3. That for about about two to three months Renu was treated well after the marriage but thereafter they started harassing her and thereafter, the in­ laws of her daughter started treating her with cruelty and used to give abuses in filthy language to her.

4. That the accused also used to demand motorcycle from Renu as dowry and Renu used to tell her that she was being harassed and pressurized for bringing motorcycle by her in­laws which fact was told to her and her other family members by her daughter on telephone and also when she used to visit to them.

5. That the accused persons asked her daughter that if she could not bring the motorcycle she should bring the money from her parental house so that they could purchase the motorcycle.

6. That accused Praveen used to catch hold her daughter Renu by her hair and the accused Poonam and Uma used to give physical beatings to Renu.

7. That at the time of birth of his son to Renu they had gifted all the necessary items to the accused persons including jewellery and they had given 16 sarees at the time of birth of child but two sarees were removed by some of the accused persons.

8. That five months thereafter her son Krishan was blessed with a son who had two daughters previously and at the time of ceremony of the birth of child to Krishan, he (Krishan) went to invite to Renu and her in­laws but accused Murti Devi declined to send Renu or join the celebrations unless a fridge was gifted to her.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 93

9. That all the other accused persons have also joined for the demand of fridge and on the day of celebration accused Parveen came to their house but did not participate in the function and did not enter in the house.

10.That marriage of accused Manoj was solemnized on 03.02.2008 and prior to the marriage Renu called her up and told that Rs.30,000/­ were demanded by the accused persons and she also told that she needed Rs.60,000/­ as accused Parveen had to return the said amount to some person.

11.That she told Renu that they would not be able to arrange the amount, however, they would make some arrangements on which Renu came to their house on 01.02.2008 and she called up her sons directing them to arrange for some money as Renu had arrived.

12. That the marriage of her son Manoj was fixed on 13.02.2008 and her daughter Renu came on the said occasion and at the time of departure of Barat accused Praveen demanded Rs.2,100/­ and they gave Rs.1,100/­ after great persuasion.

13.That when bride of Manoj arrived in the house, he did not let her enter the house and demanded Rs.5,000/­ or a gold chain and was drunk at that time. However, he left after they had promised to arrange for chain subsequently.

14. That on 15.02.2008 accused Praveen returned to their house and had created nuisance and reiterated his demand of Rs.5,000/­ or gold chain and threatened that he would create situation for Renu to commit suicide.

15.That Renu was apprehensive to join him as she feared of misbehaviour by the accused persons but they still sent her with him.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 94

16.That at the time of birth of child to her daughter accused Murti Devi delayed taking her to the hospital and made her to walk for about one kilometer to the hospital, despite the fact that she was in great pain.

17.That all the accused persons conspired together and killed her daughter.

3. Sh. Krishan Kumar He is the brother of the deceased who has deposed (PW3) on the following aspects:

1. That his sister Renu was married with accused Praveen on 18.11.2005 at village Nangli Jalib, Janakpuri, New Delhi and after marriage she came to know that accused Praveen is a habitual drunkard.

2. That the accused Praveen used to beat his sister under the influence of liquor and demanded a motorcycle from her which facts were revealed by his sister to his mother telephonically, after about one and a half month of the marriage.

3. That his sister on her visits to their house had told his mother that her mother in law Murti Devi, father in law Tej Pal and brother in law Manoj used to harass her and commit cruelty towards her and accused Poonam and Uma who were married used to call up telephonically from their respective matrimonial homes and abet the other accused persons to commit cruelty towards Renu, so as to meet their demands.

4. That whenever his sister made complaints against the accused regarding demand of dowry, they used to counsel her and send her back to her matrimonial home saying that they were not in financial position to meet their demands.

5. That his sister Renu had requested him not to visit her matrimonial home as she feared that accused persons would further harass and taunt her.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 95

6. That they told about her harassment and cruelty at the hands of accused persons to Rati Ram, who was the mediator for the marriage who tried to counsel the accused persons and advise them not to misbehave with his sister but accused persons did not change their behaviour.

7. That his sister narrated her story of woes to his mother as he used to be away for work.

According to the witness, his sister had told that the accused demanded motorcycle and cash from her and taunted her for not having brought sufficient dowry.

8. That on 01.02.2008 his sister Renu came to their house and told his mother that the marriage of her brother in law Manoj had been fixed and she stated that the in­laws are demanding a sum of Rs.30,000/­ which amount Praveen had taken from Manoj for his marriage.

9. That his mother called him up and asked him to arrange for the money pursuant to which he borrowed Rs.20,000/­ from his friend Amit and returned home to hand over the amount to his mother, which amount was given by his mother to his sister Renu and she then left their house.

10.That on 03.02.2008 i.e. on the day of marriage of accused Manoj, his sister was taken to the first floor room by accused Praveen where she was beaten by accused Uma and Poonam which fact was told to him by Renu on telephone, two three days after the marriage.

11.That at the time of birth of his son, he went to the house of the accused to invite Parveen and his sister to attend the Kuan Poojan ceremony but accused Praveen and accused Tej Pal insulted him and said that Parveen and Renu would join the function only if he was presented a refrigerator.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 96

12. That he returned home and narrated this incident to his parents who told him to go back to their house and get Renu with him and make a promise to them to arrange for a refrigerator after the function, as they were not in a capacity to pay at that time after which he picked up a fridge from a shop at Palam, in installments and sent the same to the house of accused Praveen.

13.That his brother Manoj got married on 12.02.2008 when accused Praveen misbehaved under the influence of liquor and demanded Rs.5,000/­ for his honour and a gold chain and said that he had been insulted by only giving Rs1,100/­.

14.That on 15.02.2008, accused Praveen came to their house at about 8:00 pm to take back Renu and was drunk at that time also and said that he had been insulted in the marriage ceremony and threatened that Renu would face the consequences at their house and it would be made difficult for her to live.

15.That Renu was not willing to go back with Praveen but with the intervention of family members and neighbours, she was asked to go with accused Praveen.

16.That on 21.02.2008 his nephew Chetan was unwell, therefore, he took him to Dr. B.N. Chhabra at Vikaspuri and he requested accused Praveen to pick him up from doctor's clinic and drop him at Janakpuri, Metro Station.

17.That at about 9 pm when Praveen was with him, Praveen received two phone calls from his mobile phone and told him that the calls were from his house and that he was being asked to return early. St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 97

18.That after he sat in the metro, he received a phone call on his mobile phone from Praveen intimating him that Renu had suffered heart attack which fact he re­confirmed by making another call to Praveen and only thereafter he informed his parents after which his father and brother started on their scooter for the house of accused persons and advised him to return by Metro to their house and he also called up elder brother of his brother in law namely Balli.

19.That when he reached the house of accused on 21.02.08, a crowd had gathered and he was not allowed to meet his sister and the accused also snatched his mobile phone.

20.That in the meantime, Balli reached their house and called up the police at number 100 and on arrival of police they saw that there were reddish marks of injuries on the neck of his sister.

4. Smt. Santosh She is the elder sister of the deceased Renu who has (PW4) deposed on the following lines:

1. That her younger sister Renu was married with accused Praveen on 18.11.2005 and on 21.02.08, her sister Renu died who was 22 years old at that time.

2. That her sister Renu was of cool mind and was having special attachment with her and she used to give due regards to everybody.

3. That her sister Renu was treated well for about two three months after her marriage and thereafter all the accused persons started ill­ treating her sister for demand of motorcycle and they used to pressurize her sister to bring motorcycle from her parents.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 98

4. That they (accused) used to taunt her sister and also used to give physical beatings and her sister used to give telephonic call to her and used to tell her that the accused persons were demanding motorcycle and ill­treating her and it was told to her while she was weeping.

5. That when she suggest to Renu that they should talk to Parveen for not ill­treating her she replied that they should not intervene in the affairs of the matrimonial affairs and if they would intervene, in that situation they would give her more beatings.

6. That her sister further told her on telephone that mother in law, sister­in­law namely Poonam and Uma and her dever Manoj and her father in law Tej Pal were ill treating her and due to their ill­ treatment, she was very unhappy.

7. That in the year 2007, on the occasion of Holi, accused Parveen came to her house in village Mochi Gaon, New Delhi in a drunken condition and consumed more liquor after reaching their house after which he called bad names to her father and her brother and said that he was not being given a motorcycle, despite his demand.

8. That the accused Praveen had stated that he would be harassing and torturing Renu, till the motorcycle was given to him and since the accused was heavily drunk, he was not in a position to travel back, hence he stayed in their house for the night and in the next morning her husband Vijender dropped him at his house.

9. That her younger brother Manoj got married on 12.02.2008 and at about 10 p.m when bride of Manoj came to their house, accused Parveen who was badly drunk demanded Rs.5,000/­ as 'neg', and even laid before the vehicle in which bride was being brought and said that he would get up only if the amount of Rs.5,000/­ is gifted to him.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 99

10.That accused was helped by other family members and relations to get away from the spot and the accused even abused Renu and said that she had promised him a 'neg' of Rs.5,000/­ for the ceremony.

11. That after two three days of the marriage of Manoj, Renu told her that her brother Krishan had given the dresses on the occasion of the marriage of Manoj were disliked by the accused persons and threw the clothes on her (Renu's) face and also abused her and were demanding more dowry on which her sister told the accused that her parents were poor and they were unable to give the costly gifts on which the accused dragged her in the room and the mother in law abused her and her sister in law namely Uma and Poonam caught hold Renu with the hairs, Parveen caught hold the hands of Renu and gave severe beatings to her.

12.That these facts were narrated to her by Renu while she was weeping and she again suggested her sister that they would intervene and persuade the accused persons not to repeat beatings and harassing her, however, she told her that in case they would intervene the accused persons would ill treat her with more cruelty.

13.That on 21.02.2008 she received information from her brother after which she along with her jeth Charan Singh and Jethani Dayawati reached the matrimonial house of her sister Renu in village Nangli Jalim and on inquiry from the accused persons they told them that Renu had suffered heart attack and subsequently they said that she had committed suicide by hanging.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 100

5. Sh. Rati Ram This witness was the mediator who has deposed on (PW5) the following aspects:

1. That he was working as Gardener in Horticulture department of DDA and he knew Shiv Lal resident of Pochhan Pura, Delhi as his daughter was married to younger brother of his son in law Kishori Lal namely Vajinder @ Davinder.

2. That Shiv Lal was looking for a suitable match for his younger daughter Renu and hence he suggested accused Praveen S/o Tej Pal, for the said marriage which marriage was solemnized on 18th of a month of two and a half year earlier.

3. That Shiv Lal had given some dowry as per his capacity and the list of dowry articles were prepared on which he and Krishan S/o Shiv Lal had signed the list as witnesses but he does not remember if accused Tej Pal had signed the list or if he was asked to sign the same.

4. That on 22.02.08 he received a phone call from Krishan in the morning hours that Renu had expired at her matrimonial home.

5. That he used to meet Shiv Lal quite often and the usual complaint of harassment at the matrimonial home were made on couple of occasions and he tried to counsel Shiv Lal that these were usual bear and tear of life but Shiv Lal did not tell him of any demand by the accused persons or consequential harassment to Renu.

6. That at the time of birth of son to Renu, Shiv Lal had given a refrigerator and other usual gifts.

He has turned hostile on the aspects of demand of dowry but has admitted:

1. That on getting knowledge of death of Renu he received a shock as Shiv Lal had told him previously on telephone that accused namely Parveen, Manoj, Murti Devi, Uma and Poonam had been harassing Renu for demand of dowry and that they were all hungry for dowry.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 101

2. That accused persons were demanding motorcycle since the beginning.

3. That at the time of marriage, when list of dowry articles were signed, Tej Pal had not signed the same on the pretext that it was matter of confidence so there was no need to sign the same and that is why he and his family members had not signed the list of dowry articles.

4. That Shiv Lal had asked him not to talk to Tej Pal and his family members as they thought that they were calling a panchayat and that at that time of birth of his son to Renu he was invited at the "Kuwa Pujan" and at that time Shiv Lal and Krishan had spent beyond there expectation.

5. That at that time one gold ring of Tej Pal, one gold ring of Renu, gold chain of child, Chand and Sooraj of gold and silver, silver kundal and pajeb, 27 sarees, 23 pant shirt were given.

6. That when he told Tej Pal that he should not pressurized Renu for dowry and it did not like in the society on this accused Tej Pal kept mum.

6. Sh. Bijender He is the real brother­in­law of the deceased (Jija) (PW12) who has deposed:

1. That he got married on 27.11.1995 with Santosh D/o Shri Shri Shiv Lal who at that time was residing at Bhola Nath Enclave.

2. That deceased Renu was his real sister in law/Sali and was married to accused Praveen in November, 2005 and after her marriage he was a frequent visitor to her house.

3. That Praveen was working on a petrol pump at Mehrauli Road and was an alcoholic due to which reason he lost his job on petrol pump and was also regularly consuming Gutkha.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 102

4. That after Praveen lost his job, Praveen, his father Tejpal, mother Moorti Devi, sister of Praveen namely Uma and his brother Manoj started harassing Renu making demand of money and she was frequently abused and taunted for taking insufficient dowry.

5. That at the time of her marriage a demand of motor bike and cash was made.

6. That Renu was a lady of cool temperament and whenever she was mentally tortured she used to inform his wife (i.e. Santosh) or her mother and his wife in turn informed him about the harassment being caused to Renu and requested him to advise Praveen on which he advised Praveen to desist from making any demand for dowry as it was improper but he told him that he wanted a bike and he would create such a situation that the family of Renu would be compelled to give him bike.

7. That in the year 2007 during Holi, after consuming alcohol Praveen came to their house and brought another bottle of alcohol and consumed more liquor and thereafter started abusing the father and the brother of Renu stating that they have no standard/ status and that he had been married of to a poor family.

8. That Praveen was not in a position to go back to his house and hence he was made to sleep at their house under these circumstances and on the next day morning, he himself took Praveen to his residence and informed his father and brother regarding his illegitimate demand of bike but his father and brother told him to keep out of it, as it was their business as they know how to get the bike after which he came back to his house.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 103

9. That his brother­in­law namely Manoj got married on 12.2.2008 and at the time when Manoj got his doli home, Praveen consumed a lot of alcohol and lay down in front of his car stating that he would not get up till he was given Rs.

5,000/­ by his in laws and he was forcibly got removed from the front of the vehicle by relatives after persuasions and promise that the money would be paid to him later.

10. That after the marriage of Manoj he along with his wife and Praveen along with Renu came back on 15/16.2.2008 and thereafter Renu was regularly complaining his wife that Praveen and his family comprising of his parents, sister in law, brother in law were harassing, abusing and taunting her for not giving anything to Praveen.

11.That on 22.2.2008 they received a phone call from his brother in law/ Sala Kishan that Renu had suffered a heart attack and since he was on duty at that time, hence after making a request to his employer he went to the residence of Praveen where he found that the dead body of Renu was lying in a small room of the size of a small garage which can accommodate one or two bikes.

12.According to him, the body was covered with the cloth and there were were family members of Praveen but Praveen was missing and it was only after they reached the spot that the family members started coming there. He has deposed that when he saw this situation, he and his elder brother Charan Singh were present at the spot and Charan Singh called the PCR which was despite protests by the family members of Praveen who claimed it to be a family affair.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 104

13. That his brother in law Kishan had informed to him that Praveen and his family have raised the demand of a fridge and states that he advised them not to submit to their illegal demand as it would only encourage them to ask for more but Kishan fulfilled this demand by taking the fridge on installments stating that Renu would otherwise be harassed more.

7. Sh. Darshanbir This witness has proved that on 22.02.08 he was Singh (PW13) called by Insp. Pratap Singh of police station Janak Puri at DDU Hospital Mortuary and in the mortuary he took 19 photographs of the dead body at the time of postmortem examination at the instance of doctor which photographs are Ex.PW13/A1 to Ex.PW13/A­19 and the negatives are Ex.PW13/B1 to Ex.PW13/B19.

8. Sh. Charan Singh He is the brother of PW12 Bijender and has deposed (PW17) on the following aspects:

1. That Renu was married to Parveen who was in the habit of taking liquor and on many occasions he used to come to his house in a drunken condition and used to abuse them.

2. That one day Praveen came to their house and straight way he went to the room of his brother Vijender and was well received by his brother.

3. That Praveen told his brother that Renu's father had not given a motorcycle in the dowry and they are beggars.

4. That he heard this conversation because he was present in the adjoining room and thereafter accused Praveen left his house and he did not know what happened thereafter.

5. That on 21.02.2008 he received a telephone from Krishan who told him that Renu had suffered a heart attack on which he his wife Dayawati and Santosh went to Nangli Zalib, the house of accused persons.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 105

6. That when he reached there he found many people gathered outside the house of accused persons and when they went inside the house he found a dead body lying on the ground floor in a room which dead body was covered with a cloth and on removing the same he had seen a ligature mark on her neck.

7. That the in­laws of deceased Renu had snatched the mobile of Krishan and the sister of Manoj (accused) caught him, when he told her that he was going to inform the police she said that this matter be compromised but even then he called the police at number 100 and after about fifteen minutes police and media reached there.

9. Shanti/ Sanjana This witness was residing in the neighbourhood of (PW21) the accused and has deposed:

1. That her actual name is Sanjana but she is known as Shanti at home.

2. That she is known to Murti Aunti whom she called as Maa who was residing at her adjoining house, two houses away from her house at WZ­22 and she frequently visited her house as she used to watch TV there and also used to help her in small house hold works.

3. That Murti was the mother­in­law of Renu bhabhi, who was the wife of Parveen (chiku bhaiya).

4. That on 21.02.2008 at about 3 PM Renu bhabhi had come to her and handed over her small child Kaku to her stating that she had some work in the market on which she kept the child and she )Renu) went to market for purchasing sarree.

5. She has deposed that Renu bhabhi returned by 6 PM but did not come to her house to take Kaku so she went to Murti aunty's house at about 9 PM and found that choti bhabhi Neetu was making food and Murti aunty was sitting on the ground floor.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 106

6. She handed over Kaku to Maa /Murti aunty and told her that perhaps the child was hungry on which Maa told her to go to Renu bhabhi on the second floor and tell her to come down and have her food.

7. That she went up to the second floor and found that the door of room was partially shut and only one door was opened whereas the other was closed and she called out to her from outside the door to have her food and thereafter when she did not get any reply she went inside and found Renu Bhabhi hanging from the ceiling fan.

8. That she screamed and thereafter she was in such a state of shock that her voice would not come out.

9. That on hearing her screams large number of neighbourers started gathering and she went down and told Neetu bhabhi and Maa that Renu bhabhi was hanging from the ceiling fan on which they did not believe what she had say but thereafter they themselves went to the second floor and saw themselves that Renu Bhabhi was hanging from the fan.

10.That because she was in a state of shock, she went to her house crying and at about 3:00 AM (at night) she was called to the house of Murti aunty by the police who made inquires from her and recorded her statement.

10. Sh. Amit Kumar This witness is a money lender who has deposed on (PW22) the following aspects:

1. That his father had a vegetable shop and also give money on loan on easy installments to persons and he also helped in his work in recovering of said loan amount.

2. That one Krishan Kumar who was also a shopkeeper in Mandi often took money from them on installments and on 01.02.2008 Krishan came to him at about 10.00 AM and told him that he was in a dire need of Rs.30,000/­.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 107

3. That he asked him what would he do with Rs.

30,000/­ on which Krishan told him that his sister had come home as her brother in law/ Devar namely Manoj was getting married on 03.02.2008 and in­laws have made a demand of Rs.30,000/­.

4. That he was only having Rs.20,000/­ at that time which he gave to Krishan and entered the amount in the diary maintained by him which amount Krishan returned in installments of Rs.2,000/­ and the entire amount has been returned.

He has produced a small diary with his name written on the same and Rs.20,000/­ mentioned on the front page alongwith date of 01.02.2008 and the name of Krishan S/o Shiv Lal also mentioned in this diary which diary is Ex.PW22/A and page one of the diary bearing his signatures at various points encircled X from S. No.1 to 12.

Ld. counsel has placed his reliance on the following authorities:

1. Durga Prasade Vs State of M.P. reported in 2010 AIR SCW 3673.

2. Bijoy Uraon Vs State of Bihar reported in 2000(3) Crimes

183.

3. Swarna Singh Tirath Singh Dhanjal Vs State of Maharashtra reported in 2006 Cr.L.J. 185.

4. Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors. reported in 2003 Cr.L.J. 2759.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 108

5. Bhupender Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

reported in 2003 C.L.J. 3394.

6. Appa Saheb & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 (1) Crimes 110 (SC).

7. Mr Yadaiah Vs State of A.P. reported in 1996 Cr.L.J 1456.

8. Reguri Sampath Reddy Vs State of A.P. reported in 1996 Cr.LJ 1528.

9. Sarba Prasanna Panda Vs. State of Orrisa reported in 2006 Cr.L.J. 4027.

10. State of Karnataka Vs Pundalik reported in 1999 Cr.L.J. 4751.

11. Sarwan Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal).

12. T. A Runteperunjothi Vs. State through SHO, Pondicherry reported in 2006 (2) JCC 617.

13. Bejjanki Kishan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2005 Cri. L. J 3780.\

14. Ramanand and Smt. Sarwan Devi Vs State of Rajasthan reported in 2005 Cri. L. J 2522.

15. Sunil Bajaj Vs State of M.P. reported in AIR 2001 SC 3020. St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 109

16. State Vs. Surender and Anr. reported in 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal).

17. G. Venkatachandra Reddy & Ors Vs State of A.P. reported in 2001 Cri. L. J 2630

18. Bhakhar Ram & Anr Vs State of Rajasthan reported in II (1995) CCR 729.

19. Devender Singh Vs State of Haryana reported in 2006 (13) Scale 375

20. IndraSingh M. Rool Vs State of Gujarat reported in 1994 (4) Crimes 468.

21. Ravindra Pyarelal Biddan and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1993 Cri. L. J 3019.

22. Dharam Pal Vs State of Delhi reported in 1997 (3) CC Cases 1 (HC)

23. Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal & Ors Vs State & Anr. reported in 2007 (4) CC Cases (HC) 228

24. Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors. reported in 2003 (2) CC Cases (HC) 195.

25. Rajesh Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab reported in 2006(1) LRC66 (P&H) St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 110

26. Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2004 (3) RCR (Criminal)

27. Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors. reported in 2005 (2) JCC 1193 (SC)

28. Babaji Charan Barik Vs State reported in II (1994) DMC 382 (Orissa HC)

29. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nikku Ram and Ors.

reported in (1995) 6 SCC 219.

30. Kamesh Panjiyar Vs State of Bihar reported in 2005 (2) SCC 388

31. Kaliyaperumal Vs State of Tamilunadu reported in 2004 (9) SCC 157

32. Sunil Bajaj Vs State of MP reported in AIR 2001 SC 3020

33. State of Punjab Vs Deljeet reported in 1999 Cr. L.J. 2723.

34. Haldhar Behera Vs State of Orrissa reported in 2008 Cr.L.J. 3389 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities. Coming now to the microscopic examination of the evidence against all the accused.

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 111 Identity of the accused:

In so far as the identity of the accused is concerned, the accused Tej Pal is the father­in­law of the deceased Renu; accused Praveen is the husband of the deceased; Murti Devi is the mother­in­ law of the deceased Renu being the mother of accused Praveen;

Manoj Tanwar is the brother­in­law/ Devar of the deceased being the brother of accused Praveen; the accused Poonam and Uma are the married sisters in law of the deceased. The identity of the accused has not been disputed and the prosecution witnesses have named and identified all the accused in the court.

Allegations against the accused:

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Renu D/o Sh. Shiv Lal was married to accused Praveen Tanwar on 18.11.2005 during the period she remained at her matrimonial home at House No. WZ­21A, Nangli Zalib, Janakpuri, Delhi she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand for dowry ultimately leading to her suicidal death on 21.2.2008 which death was caused within seven years of her marriage. After her death the inquest proceedings were conducted and statements of the family of the deceased were recorded wherein it had been alleged that at the time of marriage no dowry was settled and whatever was gifted was out of free will but within three months of the marriage the accused St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 112 Praveen started torturing the deceased on account of demand of motorcycle from the parents of the deceased who were not in a position to meet their dowry demands. During her visits to the parental home Renu used to tell her mother that the accused before this court had collectively asked her to bring dowry and used to taunt, beat and torture her. On one occasion the mother of the deceased had even noticed that Renu had been beaten and she was found to have received injuries on her head and forehead. After about one year and three months, the brother of the deceased namely Krishan was blessed with a son and at that time the in­laws of the deceased i.e. the accused had demanded a Refrigerator which was given to them by her brother Krishan Kumar. It is further alleged that on 12.2.2008 the other brother of the deceased namely Manoj was married wherein the accused Praveen demanded gold chain which demand could not be met. Again on 1.2.2008 Renu had come to her parental house and asked for a sum of Rs.30,000/­ for the marriage of her Dewar Manoj and in consequence to that, the family of the deceased arranged for a sum of Rs.20,000/­ by taking a loan from a money lender which they gave to her. As per the allegations, it was on account of the repeated dowry demand/ cruelty inflicted upon Renu that she had committed suicide by hanging herself on 21.2.2008.

Death of the deceased at her matrimonial home:

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 113

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself from a ceiling fan. It was Shanti/ Sanjana (PW21) aged about 12 years residing in the neighbourhood who normally helped the deceased and the accused Murti Devi in household chores who discovered her body hanging from the ceiling fan. No suicide note has been recovered. Shanti @ Sanjana who has been examined as PW21 has proved that on 21.2.2008 at about 3:00 pm the deceased Renu had handed over her minor child Kaku to her on the pretext that she should take care of him as she wanted to go to market for purchasing a Saree. Thereafter when Renu did not came to take back Kaku from Shanti/ Sanjana, she went to the house of accused Praveen to handover the child and found the accused Murti Devi and other daughter in law namely Neetu in the kitchen on which Murti Devi asked Shanti @ Sanjana to handover the child to Renu who was present at the top floor of the house. When Shanti @ Sanjana (PW21) went to the second floor she found the door closed on which she pushed the door and found that Renu was hanging from the ceiling fan. On seeing this, she screamed and raised an alarm and Murti Devi and other members of the family rushed to the second floor and brought Renu down to the ground floor and made a call to the family of the deceased. Pursuant to the same the brother­in­law/ Jija and his brother Charan Singh also reached the spot and made a call to the police. In the meanwhile, St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 114 Renu was rushed to J.K. Hospital in a hand cart where Dr. Raj Kumar (PW11) examined her and declared her 'brought dead' on which the ladies who had brought her to the hospital also took the dead body away and he informed the police as he found that the dead body was of a young lady. During the investigations when Dr. Raj Kumar (PW11) was shown the photographs of the lady who told the police that it was the same lady shown in the photographs which are Ex.PW11/1 and Ex.PW11/2 which was brought to his hospital. It is evident from the aforesaid that Murti Devi and Neetu were the only ladies present in the house at the time of the death of the deceased and it stands established that they had rushed the deceased to the hospital in a hand cart after which she was declared dead and that her body was kept in a room on the ground floor where it was found when the police arrived at the spot.

Medical Evidence regarding suicide:

Dr. Komal Singh (PW6) has proved the postmortem report of the deceased Renu which is Ex.PW6/A according to which the cause of death was asphyxia due to constricting force on the neck produced by ante mortem hanging. She has further proved that a Chunni with which the body of the deceased was allegedly found hanging from the ceiling fan was also produced and she had given the opinion that the said chunni could have sustain the weight of the St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 115 body of the deceased during hanging which report is Ex.PW6/B. The medical evidence on record coupled with the testimony of the child Shanti @ Sanjana (PW21) proves that the deceased of the deceased was suicidal.

Section 498­A IPC and Section 304­B IPC/ Dowry Death­ Proximity Test:

In order to succeed in charge under Section 498­A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had subjected deceased to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the section. It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498­A of the Indian Penal Code. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498­A of Indian Penal Code, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health. The use of the expression "willful" in the explanation to Section 498­A of Indian Penal Code indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonable expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 116 his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative, as the case may be. Everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act and such a presumption must necessarily be drawn even if there is no intention to cause any injury or harm to the woman. Whether the conduct in question is likely to drive the woman to cause injury to her life, limb or health, will depend upon a number of factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of awareness of the aggrieved woman, her temperament, state of her health, physical as well as mental and how she is likely to perceive such a behavior. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, it will also constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section 498­A of Indian Penal Code.

The expression "Cruelty" takes in its ambit mental cruelty as well as physical torture of the woman. If the conduct of the accused with a woman is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life and safety, such a conduct would attract criminal liability, envisaged in Section 498­A of Indian Penal Code.

If the woman has harassed on account of her failure or the St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 117 failure of her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, that also constitutes cruelty, within the meaning of Section 498­A of IPC. The expression "harassment" has not been defined in Section 498­A of IPC, but its dictionary meaning is to subject someone to continuous vexatious attacks, questions, demands or other unpleasantness, etc. However, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under section 498­A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, by positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand.

Now, coming to the provisions of Section 304­B of the Indian Penal Code. In order to establish a charge under the said provisions, which deals with what is described as "dowry death", the prosecution must necessarily prove the following ingredients:­ i. The death of a woman must have been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstance;

ii. Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;

iii. Soon before her death, the woman must have St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 118 been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband;

iv. Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry;

v. Such cruelty or harassment is when to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.

The term "Dowry" has not been defined in Section 304­B of IPC, but, since this expression has been defined in Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it is required to be given the same meaning for the purpose of under Section 304­B IPC as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satvir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under:

"Definition of 'dowry'.­ In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly­ (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or (b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 119 before 3 or any time after the marriage 4in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case or persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."

Dowry would include that property or valuable security which is actually given or which is agreed to be given, in relation to the marriage of person in question. The property or valuable security may be given or may be agreed to be given before marriage or at the time of marriage or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the marriage. However, there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given and the marriage. If at any time before or at the time of or even during marriage, the parents of a woman or any other person related or connected to her agree to give some cash, valuable security or property to her husband or in­laws after marriage, that also would be covered within the definition of dowry as the agreement or promise in such a case would be attributable to the marriage or proposed marriage and if there is demand for any cash property, valuable security etc. which is promised, but not given, it would constitute demand for dowry. If the husband of the girl or any other person related or connected to him, demands something from the girl or her parents or any other person St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 120 related to or connected with her, saying that the article being demanded by them was expected to be given or ought to have been given in marriage, that would also, to my mind, constitute demand of dowry because even though such an article may not have been agreed or promised to be given by the girl or her family members, it might have been in the contemplation of the boy and/or his family members, on account of the expectation that such an article would be given at the time of marriage. Therefore, such demand would be considered to be a demand in connection with the marriage though made after the marriage has been solemnized. Even demand of articles such as T.V., fridge, jewellery, clothes, furniture, etc. which usually are given or expected in marriages in our country, would, considering the objective sought to be achieved by incorporating Section 304­B in Indian Penal Code and enacting Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 fall within the purview of Section 304­B of Indian Penal Code.

In the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1998 SC 958, the Apex Court has specifically held demand of T.V., Fridge, etc. though not agreed to be given or promised or even demanded prior to or at the time of marriage, to be a demand for dowry for the purpose of Section 304­ B of IPC. If cash or some property, etc. is demanded by the boy or St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 121 his family members, after marriage, saying that they were expecting such cash, property, etc. to be given in marriage, and the girl, or her parents or any other person related or connected to her promise to fulfill such a demand, that also may fall within the purview of dowry, as the promise though made after marriage, would nevertheless be referrable to the marriage, having been made with a view to preserve the marriage. In case, if the demand is made after marriage and it is in respect of a property or valuable security, which was not demanded, was not expected to be given and also was not in contemplation at any time up to solemnization of marriage, demand of such cash, property or valuable security, etc. cannot be said to be in connection with the marriage and, therefore, would not constitute demand of dowry.

In the case of Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45 while dealing with this issue, the Hon"ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:

"Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 122 said parties". This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304B should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage."

In the case of Appasaheb and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2007 SC 763, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

"In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 123 the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning........ A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.

The evidence adduced by the prosecution does St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 124 not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure." The Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act are both remedial and penal statutes. As such Courts are expected to construe the provisions in a way that the purpose is fulfilled through and within the limits of language employed in the statute. If a case is established then the Courts are to be stringent in dealing with the culprits. The Courts while taking a stringent view and despite the obligation of the Legislature enactment a success have also to keep in mind that the charge should be made out.

The main ingredients to be proved for establishing a case under Section 304­B IPC are (i) unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and (ii) she being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with any demand of dowry.

The words "it is shown" occurring in section 304­B IPC are of significance for the reason that the initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Section 304­B IPC do exist on the St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 125 prosecution. This being shown or established, the question of presumption under Section 113­B of the Evidence Act would arise. In other words, to draw a presumption under section 113­B of the Evidence Act the necessary ingredient that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry has to be proved. Only when these facts are proved then by virtue of the deeming provision of section 304­B IPC, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death. Though cruelty at any time after the marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and harassment envisaged by Section 304­B is to be soon before the death of a woman.

The Courts are required to scrutinize the evidence carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is a demand and then the atmosphere become calm and quiet and then again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of her husband within a short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as the torture and harassment is confined to the four walls of the house. The Courts are, however, required to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 126 relations between them and her in laws are strained for any reason whatever it might be.

Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological trouble or mental agony or such circumstances that the person committing suicide may think that life he or she is living is more miserable than the pangs and agony of death. The power of tolerance would vary from person to person . Some persons try to make the life easy by tolerance while others even on petty points bring an end to their life. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported as Gurditta Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1992 Crl. L.J. 309).

The importance of proximity test is both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under section 113­B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive section 304­B IPC and section 113­B Evidence Act is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" used in section 113­B of the Evidence Act, Illustration (a) of the Act is relevant. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 127 indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be too much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.

It is well settled by several judgments that mere suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt. In the case reported as State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 258, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:­ ''The circumstances of this case undoubtedly create suspicion against the accused. Suspicion, by itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of the accused.'' In another case reported as Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:­ Another golden thread which runs through the web St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 128 of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of this innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have benefit of that doubt........

It needs all the same to be reemphasized that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. The courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because the acquittal St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 129 might have an impact upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused..

In another case reported as AIR 1973 SC 2622, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :­ ''Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before the court can convict and the mental distinction between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure consideration.'' Further more, in another case reported as Mousam St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 130 Singha Roy & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :­ ''Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this Court in the case of "Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) stated thus: It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold­ blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 131 between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted.'' It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused.

Applying these principles to the facts and circumstances of the present case, at the very outset I may observe that at no point of time any complaint had been made by the family of the deceased to the police or any other authority complaining of harassment given to the deceased on account of dowry demand. However, it is alleged by the family of the deceased that they had spoken to the mediator Rati Ram through whom the marriage had been arranged and informed him that Renu was being harassed on account of demand of dowry. Rati Ram has also been examined as PW5 who has admitted that he was a mediator in the marriage and a complaint regarding the demand of dowry and harassment has been made to him but he has turned hostile on the specific allegations and incidents of harassment. It is a settled law that the statement of a hostile witness can always be read to the extent of its corroboration and hence, under these St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 132 circumstances the testimony of Rati Ram (PW5) to the extent that he was the mediator of the marriage and that a complaint had been made to him with regard to the harassment caused to Renu. He has testified that the father of the deceased had told him that Renu was being harassed at her matrimonial house on which he told Shiv Lal that these were normal wears and tears of life but according to him, Shiv Lal had never told him regarding any dowry related demand or harassment caused to Renu. He has also admitted that at the time of birth of the son to Renu, Shiv Lal had given a Refrigerator and other usual gifts but has stated that there was no incident of any demand of dowry by the accused during Kuan Pujan ceremony. He has admitted that the accused were demanding a motorcycle since the very beginning and that the Refrigerator was given by Shiv Lal as per his own sweet will. However, when confronted his statement and putting the leading questions by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State Rati Ram (PW5) has admitted that he had told Tej Pal that he should not pressurize Renu for dowry which is not liked in the society on which the accused Tej Pal kept mum. This proves that Rati Ram had in fact approached Tej Pal on the issue of dowry related harassment on which Taj Pal kept quiet. In his statement Rati Ram (PW5) does not say that any demand had been made in his presence at any point of time or that Tej Pal had contradicting him when he was advised not to make such demands. Rather according to Rati Ram (PW5) Tej Pal St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 133 had kept quite and did not contradict him on this aspect at all. It is evident from the testimonies of Shiv Lal (PW1) the father of deceased; Smt. Gyano Devi (PW2) mother of the deceased; Krishan Kumar (PW3) brother of the deceased; Smt. Santosh (PW4) sister of the deceased and Bijender (PW12) brother­in­law/ jija of the deceased being the husband of Santosh that at any point of time any demand was made directly by the accused Tej Pal or Murti Devi or Manoj Tanwar or Poonam or Uma. Rather, it is evident from the record that both Smt. Poonam and Smt. Uma are married sisters­in­ law and are residing separately in their matrimonial homes.

No allegations have been made against Manoj Tanwar at all and all the allegations of physical assault, cruelty and demand of dowry have been made against the accused Praveen.

Firstly it is evident that the accused Tej Pal was a government servant whereas the accused Praveen was initially working at a Petrol Pump but on account of his alcoholic ways had lost his job and was not working whereas the accused Manoj was a dance trainer and was earning handsomely.

Secondly it is evident that Smt. Renu had committed suicide by hanging herself with a Chunni on the ceiling fan of her room and it was the child from the neighbourhood namely Shanti @ Sanjana who had first discovered her body and reported the same to her mother in law Murti Devi and sister in law Neetu. St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 134

Thirdly it is evident from the testimony of Dr. Raj Kumar Kapoor (PW11) that the deceased had been rushed to his hospital in a handcart by some ladies but at the time when he examined her she was already dead and the said ladies took her back. It was later during the investigations that Dr. Raj Kumar identified the deceased from the photographs shown to him by the Investigating Officer. It is also evident from the testimony of Shanti @ Sanjana that it was Murti Devi and Neeu who were at home on the ground floor when the body was discovered. Murti Devi and Neetu being the only bodies at home, there is nobody else who could have rushed the deceased to hospital except them.

Fourthly it stands established that the accused Praveen was an alcoholic and often consumed alcohol and on many occasions had created a scene even in the parental house of the deceased.

Fifthly it is alleged by Smt. Gyano Devi (PW2) that when a son was born to her son Krishan and Krishan went to the matrimonial house of Renu the accused Murti Devi refused to send Renu with her unless a Refrigerator was gifted to her whereas Krishan Kumar (PW3) has in his statement deposed that it was accused Praveen and Tej Pal who demanded a fridge whereas Shiv Lal (PW1) is vague in his statement and has simply stated that it was the accused persons who declined to send Renu unless a Refrigerator was given and on the date of function it was the accused Praveen St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 135 who came to his house and was heavily drunk and reiterated his demand of refrigerator to his son Krishan on which Krishan purchased a Refrigerator on loan and dispatched the same to the matrimonial house of his daughter. It is also alleged that after the delivery of Refrigerator to the matrimonial house of Renu, the accused Murti Devi asked Renu as to why she had brought a fridge and she should have brought cash, as accused Praveen was out of work and that electricity charges cannot be borne by the family. In this regard, I may mention that testimonies of all the witnesses i.e. family members of the deceased only qua the accused Praveen but not in so far as the other accused are concerned. The aspect of delivery of fridge also stands confirmed from the testimony of Rati Ram (PW5) and when the said fridge was seized by the Investigating Officer during investigations vide memo Ex.PW3/C it was still found to be in wrapped condition showing that it was never operated or used. Had the mother in law of the deceased Murti Devi demanded the fridge she would certainly have used it for her own purpose which she did not do.

Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has vehemently argued that no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, since the Refrigerator having been given to the deceased out of free will as evident from the testimony of PW5 Rati Ram and it cannot be stated to be a dowry demand. In St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 136 this regard, I may mention that the question of giving a Refrigerator to the deceased four to five days after the function relating to the birth of son of Krishan would not have arisen unless a demand in this regard would have been raised as evidence from the testimonies of the witnesses. I may observe that Krishan Kumar (PW3) is only a vegetable vendor. Where is the question of the Refrigerator being given to the family of the accused and that too after four to five days of the ceremonies of his son unless demanded, which demand he fulfilled after buying the same on installments. Further, Rati Ram (PW5) is an outsider not staying with Shiv Lal and his family and was residing separately. His statement is irrelevant on the aspect whether it was voluntarily or involuntarily because he is not a family member of the accused residing in the same home and his testimony to that extent cannot be read. The demand of Refrigerator qua the accused Praveen stand established but not in so far as the other accused are concerned who have named indiscriminately in the statements by the witnesses. There is a general tendency of the family members of the deceased to exaggerate and involve the entire family of the in­laws of the deceased. It is evident that the names of father in law, mother in law, married brother in law and the married sisters in law have been introduced only to spread the net wide as often happened in cases under Sections 498­A/304­B Indian Penal Code. It is for the court to ascertain the credibility and truthfulness St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 137 of said witnesses. In the present case I hold that in so far as the accused Tej Pal, Murti Devi, Manoj Tanwar, Poonam and Uma are concerned, neither the dates of the alleged cruelty have been spelt out nor the manner in which the same has been committed is explained. The allegations against them are vague and non specific and no reliance can be placed on the same. Further, in view of the evidence of the parents of the deceased namely Shiv Lal (PW1), Gyano Devi (PW2) and brother of the deceased namely Krishan Kumar (PW3) it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that any cruelty had been inflicted upon the deceased by the accused Tej Pal, Murti Devi, Manoj Tanwar, Poonam and Uma or any demand in connection with the marriage.

Sixthly it is alleged by Shiv Lal (PW1) that when the accused Manoj was got getting married the accused Praveen had asked Renu to arrange for Rs.30,000/­ as he was out of work. This aspect finds due corroboration from the testimony of Gyano Devi (PW2) who has similarly deposed that in the year 2008 her daughter Renu had called her up and demanded Rs.30,000/­ and told her that in fact it was demanded by the accused persons and also told that she needed Rs.60,000/­ as the accused Praveen had to return the said amount to some person. It was on this that Krishan Kumar (PW3) took a loan for a sum of Rs.20,000/­ from one money lender namely Amit which amount was given to Renu by her mother Gyano Devi St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 138 (PW2). This testimony of Smt. Gyano Devi (PW2) and Krishan (PW3) finds due corroboration from the testimony of Amit Kumar (PW22) who has proved that on 1.2.2008 Krishan Kumar (PW3) had approached him and asked for a sum of Rs.30,000/­ and on query by Amit he told him that his sister had come to him as her Dewar was getting married on 3.2.2008 and her in­laws had made a demand of Rs.30,000/­. On this PW22 Amit Kumar advanced a sum of Rs. 20,000/­ in respect of which he made entry in the diary duly exhibited in the court which is Ex.PW22/A. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has tried to demolish the testimony of this witness by showing that the said witness Amit Kumar was not a registered money lender and diary Ex.PW22/A is a manipulated document created by PW22 in connivance with Smt. Gyano Devi (PW2) and Krishan Kumar (PW3). In this regard, I may observe that as matter of common practice a large number of persons are indulging into small time money lending and maintaining their accounts in diaries original of which diary is kept with the money lender and another duplicate diary is given to the person who has taken a loan and on the return of the entire amount a suitable entry is made in this regard. Amit Kumar (PW22) in his testimony has deposed that a similar diary had also been given to Krishan Kumar (PW3) wherein the relevant entry had been made. No doubt Krishan St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 139 Kumar (PW3) has not produced any such diary but the money lender Amit Kumar (PW22) having proved the original diary kept with him containing the necessary entries, the non production of the duplicate diary in itself would not fatal to the case of the prosecution and therefore, the aspect of Rs.20,000/­ taken as loan by Krishan Kumar (PW3) for giving the same to deceased Renu on the asking of accused Praveen, stands established and proved.

Seventhly it is further alleged that the marriage of the brother of the deceased namely Manoj was fixed on 13.2.2008 and on the date of the marriage the accused Praveen came to the ceremony after consuming alcohol and at the time of departure of Barat he demanded Rs.2,100/­ on which he was given Rs.1,100/­ and when the bridegroom arrived in the house, he lied before the vehicle not permitting the entry of the bridegroom and demanded Rs.5,000/­ or a gold chain and after great persuasions Rs.1,100/­ were given to him after which he went back. Again on 15.2.2008 the accused Praveen came back to their house and asked Renu to demand Rs. 5,000/­ or a gold chain and created a scene there. This testimony of PW1 Shiv Lal also finds a due corroboration from the testimonies of Smt. Gyano Devi (PW2) the mother of the deceased; Krishan Kumar (PW3) the brother of the deceased; Santosh (PW4) the sister of the deceased and Bijender (PW12) the brother­in­law/ jija of the deceased. I may observe that Smt. Santosh the sister of the deceased St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 140 was very close to her and Bijdender (PW12) being the husband of Santosh has proved this aspect that Renu often used to telephone Santosh and complained that Praveen had been harassing her and making the demands on which Santosh asked him to advise Praveen at his level and Bijender even advised Praveen in this regard but Praveen told him that he wanted a Bike and he would create such a situation that the family of Renu would be compelled to give him bike and the father and brother of accused Praveen told him to keep out of it since it was their business as they knew how to get the bike.

In this regard, Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has placed his reliance on the cross­examination of PW2 Smt. Gyano Devi who in her cross­examination has stated that the accused had purchased a motorcycle about five to six months after his marriage with the deceased. He has also highlighted the testimony of PW3 Krishan Kumar the brother of the deceased who in his cross­examination has admitted that accused Praveen used to visit their house on a motorcycle and states that the motorcycle belonged to Manoj though the witness is unable to tell if Manoj owned a motorcycle make Victor. Ld. counsel has also pointed out that Krishan Kumar in his cross­examination as admitted as correct that Praveen possessed a motorcycle of make Bajaj and states that the said vehicle was purchased by him about six months after the marriage from his own resources. Further, he has highlighted the St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 141 testimony of Bijender (PW12) who in his cross­examination has admitted that at the time when Praveen was got married, he was having a motorcycle. Ld. counsel for the accused has placed his reliance on the authority of Bijoy Uraon @ Phagu Oraon Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2000 (3) Crimes 183 (Patna High Court) wherein the allegations were made against the husband of the deceased regarding demand of a bicycle and subjected the deceased to harassment on account of said demand but in the cross­ examination the prosecution witnesses being the family members of the deceased had admitted that the accused had a bicycle of his own. The Hon'ble Patna High Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment was pleased to observe that if the appellant already had a bicycle there was no question of his pestering either the deceased or his in­laws in for the same and torturing the deceased for non fulfillment of the demand.

I have considered the submissions made. I may observe that the accused has not brought any material on record to show that after the marriage the accused Praveen had purchased a motorcycle out of his own resources or that he owned any motorcycle. Merely because the brother in law of the deceased or her brother Krishan have stated that the accused Praveen was having a motorcycle is not sufficient to discredit the statements of the parents of the deceased who have stated that at the time of marriage the accused did not St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 142 possess a motorcycle and about six months later one motorcycle had been purchased which was in the name of Manoj (also accused in the present case). In order to demolish the claim made by the parents of the deceased it was necessary for the accused under the given circumstances to have produced the documents regarding the purchase of the motorcycle in order to prove that it was the accused Praveen who had purchased the same and not Manoj. Merely because the accused used to visit the house of the deceased on a motorcycle does not establish that he had purchased a motorcycle. Rather, if his brother Manoj had purchased the motorcycle it was always open for him to use the same. I may observe that the accused Manoj is a dance trainer and has a comfortable earning whereas the evidence on record suggests that initially the accused Praveen was working on a Petrol Pump but on account of his alcoholic ways he lost his job. It also stands established that under the influence of liquor he used to physically assault the deceased and demanded money from his in laws on one pretext of the other. How under the given circumstances, when the accused Praveen himself was unemployed, he could have afford to purchase a motorcycle, is an aspect which has not been proved. I hold that the judgment in the case of Bijoy Uraon @ Phagu Oraon Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2000 (3) Crimes 183 (Patna High Court) will not apply to the facts of the present case because the aspect of the accused having St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 143 purchased the motorcycle out of his own resources does not stand established. Rather, the circumstances speak for themselves. The accused Praveen being unemployed and a habitual alcoholic, it was all the more reason why the accused Praveen demanded the motorcycle from his wife and in laws and that too when he found his brother Manoj possessing one. Therefore, in so far as the allegations against the accused Praveen are concerned they find sufficient corroboration from other sources but in so far as the allegations against the father Tehpal and brother of the accused Manoj are concerned, they do not stand established in this regard.

Eighthly the fact that the incident took place at the matrimonial house of the deceased cannot be ignored. It stands established that the marriage of the accused Manoj was solemnized on 3.2.2008 and thereafter the marriage of the brother of deceased namely Manoj was solemnized on 13.2.2008 when a scene was created by the accused Praveen at the parental home of the deceased and also on 15.2.2008 when he had gone to bring Renu and threatened her that they would create hell for her so much so that she would commit suicide. It is evident that the deceased had committed suicide at her matrimonial house just seven days after her return and hence, I hold that there is a proximity and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of deceased Renu St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 144 whose brother Krishan Kumar (PW3) had arranged for a sum of Rs. 20,000/­ for the marriage of accused Manoj after taking a loan from Amit Kumar (PW22) and thereafter the accused Praveen who was a habitual alcoholic having created a scene was making a regular demand, which was sufficient to destroy the mental equilibrium of the deceased. The harassment caused to the deceased was not only on account of demand for dowry but also the torture caused to her on account of the fact that Praveen was a habitual alcoholic and totally unemployed due to which reason he caused harassment to Renu and compelled her to meet the illegitimate demands raised by him.

Lastly it is evident that the deceased Renu had committed suicide at her matrimonial house in own her room on the top floor. The allegations regarding harassment for dowry and physical assault are against her husband Praveen Kumar. In so far as the accused Tej Pal, Murti Devi, Manoj Tanwar, Uma and Poonam are concerned, I hold that there does not appear to be any proximity between the death of the deceased and act of the accused persons and also there is no proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of deceased Renu. Rather, the incidents so alleged against the above accused Tej Pal, Murti Devi, Manoj Tanwar, Uma and Poonam do not stand established beyond reasonable doubt and have also become stale enough not to disturb St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 145 mental equilibrium of the deceased and would be of no consequence.

The allegations with regard to the above are only against the accused Praveen who not only used to harass and torture the deceased Renu his wife after consuming alcohol but also made unlawful demands of cash, motorcycle and fridge which demands of cash of Rs.20,000/­ and fridge have been duly proved to have been made by the family of the deceased.

FINAL FINDINGS:

In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are pre­requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:

1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;

2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 146

3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;

4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

Applying the above principles of law to the present case, it is evident that the identity of all the accused stands established. The accused Tej Pal is the father­in­law of the deceased Renu; accused Murti Devi is the mother­in­law of the deceased; accused Praveen is the husband of the deceased; accused Manoj Tanwar is brother­in­ law (Dewar) of the deceased and accused Poonam and Uma are the married sisters in law of the deceased. It also stands proved and established that the marriage between the accused Praveen and deceased Renu was solemnized on 18.11.2005. It has been established that after three months of the marriage the accused Praveen started torturing Renu and demanded a motorcycle from the St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 147 parents of the deceased. The prosecution has been able to establish that when Krishan Kumar (PW3) was blessed a son and when he went to the house of his sister i.e. deceased Renu the accused Praveen did not send Renu with him and raised a demand of fridge and it was only when Krishan Kumar made a promise to arrange for a fridge that Renu was allowed to go with Krishan Kumar and later on the refrigerator was sent to the matrimonial house of Renu. It also stands established and on 1.2.2008 the deceased Renu was compelled to ask Rs.30,000/­ from her parents since the marriage of her Dewar i.e. accused Manoj had to be solemnized on 3.2.2008 and a sum of Rs.20,000/­ was given to Renu by Krishan Kumar after taking a loan from Amit Kumar (PW22). It has also been proved during the marriage of the brother of deceased namely Manoj on 31.2.2008 the accused created a scene in intoxicated condition and demanded Rs. 5,000/­ or a gold chain and could only be pacified after he was given Rs.1,100/­ with an assurance that his demand would be duly met. The prosecution has been duly proved that the deceased Renu had committed suicide at her matrimonial house on 21.2.2008 in her room and the cause of death was asphyxia due to constructing force on neck produced by ante mortem hanging.

In so far as the accused Tej Pal, Murti Devi, Manoj Tanwar, Poonam and Uma are concerned, I hereby hold that the circumstances reflected from the material on record do not stand St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 148 conclusively established. The facts are also are not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. There is nothing on record to definitely establish which of the accused actually committed the offence and who did not participate in the crime. The chain of evidence is not so much complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused persons and it has not been established that in all human probability the act has been done by the accused. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Tej Pal, Murti Devi, Manoj Tanwar, Poonam and Uma beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to them who are acquitted of the charges under Section 498­A/304­B Indian Penal Code.

However, in so far as the accused Praveen is concerned, it has been proved he only used to harass and torture the deceased Renu his wife after consuming alcohol but also made unlawful demands of cash, motorcycle and fridge which demands of cash of Rs.20,000/­ and fridge. The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 149 materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link. Therefore, I hereby hold the accused Praveen guilty of the offence under Section 498­ A/304­B Indian Penal Code and convict him accordingly.

Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 13.7.2011.

Announced in the open court                                                  (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 08.7.2011                                                            ASJ­II(NW)/ ROHINI




St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri                                               Page No. 150 
     IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS 

JUDGE­II (NORTH­WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 945/08 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0445122008 State Vs. (1) Tej Pal S/o Late Puran Singh R/o WZ­22A, Nangli Zalib, New Delhi (Acquitted) (2) Praveen S/o Sh. Tej Pal R/o WZ­22A, Nangli Zalib, New Delhi (Convicted) (3) Murti Devi W/o Sh. Tej Pal R/o WZ­22A, Nangli Zalib, New Delhi (Acquitted) (4) Manoj Tanwar @ Mannu S/o Sh. Tej Pal R/o WZ­22A, Nangli Zalib, New Delhi (Acquitted) (5) Smt. Poonam W/o Sh. Ved Prakash R/o 113, Vasant Village, New Delhi (Acquitted) St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 151 (6) Smt. Uma W/o Sh. Naresh R/o WZ­262, Nilothi Gaon, Delhi (Acquitted) FIR No.: 63/2008 Under Sections: 498­A/304­B/302/34/IPC Police Station: Janak Puri Date of Conviction: 8.7.2011 Arguments heard on: 13.7.2011 Date of sentence: 18.7.2011 APPEARANCE:

Present: Sh. Taufique Ahmed, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

Convict Praveen Kumar in judicial custody with Sh.

R.N. Sharma, Advocate.

ORDER ON SENTENCE:

Vide my detailed judgment dated 8.7.2011, the accused Praveen Kumar has been held guilty of the offence under Section 498­A and 304­B Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. However, the accused Tej Pal, Murti Devi, Manoj Tanwar, Uma and St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 152 Poonam are concerned, they have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 498­A/304­B Indian Penal Code.

The marriage between the accused Praveen and deceased Renu was solemnized on 18.11.2005 through one Rati Ram who was known to both the parties. The accused Tej Pal is the father­in­law of the deceased Renu; accused Murti Devi is the mother­in­law of the deceased; accused Praveen is the husband of the deceased; accused Manoj Tanwar is brother­in­law (Dewar) of the deceased and accused Poonam and Uma are the married sisters in law of the deceased. After three months of the marriage the accused Praveen started torturing Renu and demanded a motorcycle from the parents of the deceased. When Krishan Kumar (PW3) was blessed a son and when he went to the house of his sister i.e. deceased Renu the accused Praveen did not send Renu with him and raised a demand of fridge and it was only when Krishan Kumar made a promise to arrange for a fridge that Renu was allowed to go with Krishan Kumar and later on the refrigerator was sent to the matrimonial house of Renu. Further, on 1.2.2008 the deceased Renu was compelled to ask Rs.30,000/­ from her parents since the marriage of her Dewar i.e. accused Manoj had to be solemnized on 3.2.2008 and pursuant to the same a sum of Rs.20,000/­ was given to Renu by Krishan Kumar after taking a loan from Amit Kumar (PW22) which fact stands proved. It has also been proved during the marriage of the brother of St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 153 deceased namely Manoj on 12.2.2008 the accused created a scene in a state of intoxication and demanded Rs.5,000/­ or a gold chain and could only be pacified after he was given Rs.1,100/­ with an assurance that his demand would be duly met. The prosecution has been duly proved that the deceased Renu had committed suicide at her matrimonial house on 21.2.2008 in her room and the cause of death was asphyxia due to constructing force on neck produced by ante mortem hanging.

On the basis of the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecutrix particularly the father, mother, brother, sister and brother in law (Jija) of the deceased this court has observed that in so far as the accused Praveen is concerned, there is a proximity and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of deceased Renu whose brother Krishan Kumar (PW3) had arranged for a sum of Rs.20,000/­ for the marriage of accused Manoj after taking a loan from Amit Kumar (PW22) and thereafter the accused Praveen who was a habitual alcoholic having created a scene was making a regular demand, which was sufficient to destroy the mental equilibrium of the deceased. The harassment caused to the deceased was not only on account of demand for dowry but also the torture caused to her on account of the fact that Praveen was a habitual alcoholic and totally unemployed due to which reason he caused harassment to Renu and compelled her to meet the St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 154 illegitimate demands raised by him. Therefore, this court has held the accused Praveen guilty of the offence under Section 498­A and 304­B Indian Penal Code and convicted accordingly.

However, in so far as the accused Tej Pal, Murti Devi, Manoj Tanwar, Uma and Poonam are concerned, this court has observed that there does not appear to be any proximity between the death of the deceased and act of the accused persons and also there is no proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of deceased Renu which allegations have not been substantiated and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, they have been acquitted of the charges under Section 498­ A/304­B Indian Penal Code.

I have heard arguments on the point of sentence qua the convict Praveen. He is aged about 31 years having a family comprising of aged parents, one son, one married brother and two married sisters. He is 8th class pass and was working as a salesman at a Petrol Pump in Gurgaon. He is not involved in any other case and has already remained in judicial custody for about three years and four months. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the convict has vehemently argued that the convict has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case. He has submitted that the convict is the helping hand of his family and has already remained in judicial St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 155 incarceration for a considerable period. He prays that a lenient view be taken against the convict. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State has prayed for a strict punishment keeping in view the allegations involved. He submits that the convict who is an habitual drinker used to harass the deceased and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty thereby compelling the deceased Renu to commit suicide due to which reason he is not entitled to any indulgence.

I have considered the rival contentions. The necessity of there being a proportion between the offences and punishment has been long felt. However off late various judgments of the higher courts of the land and various jurists have tried to provide certain rules to this moral arithmetic.

(i) The punishment sought to be inflicted for any given offence should be such that the evil of the punishment must be made to exceed the advantage of the offence.

ii) The more deficient in certainty a punishment is, the severer it should be.

iii) The greater an offence is, the greater reason there is to hazard a severe punishment for the chance of preventing it, and St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 156

iv) Same punishment for the same offence ought not to be inflicted upon all delinquents.

It is necessary to pay some regard to the circumstances which effect sensibility.

However, at the same time it must be kept in mind that the principle of there being a proportion between punishment and offences ought not to be so mathematically followed so as to render the laws subtle, complicated and obscured. Brevity and simplicity are a superior good. Something of exact proportion may also be sacrificed to render the punishment more striking, more fit to inspire people with a sentiment of aversion for those vices which prepare the way for crimes.

The convict Praveen is a habitual alcoholic and had lost his job on account of his alcoholic ways. The harassment caused by the convict to his wife compelling her to meet the illegitimate demands raised by him is unpardonable and he deserves no mercy. In view of the above, I hereby award the following sentence to the convict Praveen:

1. The convict Praveen is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three Years and fine for a sum of Rs.2,.000/­ for the offence under Section 498­A Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri Page No. 157 Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

2. I sentence the convict Praveen to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.10,000/­ for the offence under Section 304­ B Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Two months.

Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The convict is already in judicial custody. He is sent to custody for serving the sentence. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period undergone by him during the trial.

The convicts is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34­37, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.

Copy of the judgment and order of sentence be given to the convict free of costs and another be attached with their jail warrants.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court                                                 (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 18.7.2011                                                            ASJ­II(NW)/ ROHINI

St. Vs. Tejpal Etc. FIR No. 63/08, PS Janak Puri                                               Page No. 158