Delhi District Court
State vs Pradeep Sharma on 6 February, 2008
-:1:-
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURTS
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ROHINI DELHI
SC No. 184/2006 dated 06/12/2006
Date of Decision: 6th of February, 2008
State Versus Pradeep Sharma
S/o Sh. Darshan Lal
R/o RU-293, Pitam Pura,
Delhi.
(2) Darshan Lal
Son of Badri Dutt Sharma
R/o RU-293, Pitam Pura,
Delhi-110 088
(3) Madhuri Sharma
Wife of Darshan Lal Sharma,
R/o RU-293, Pitam Pura,
Delhi-110 088
........ Accused
FIR No.399/2002
Police Station: Shalimar Bagh
Under Section: 498A, 328, 34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. First The Facts Pradeep Sharma, Darshan Lal Sharma and -:2:- Smt. Madhuri Sharma (accused) have been facing trial for offences u/s 498 A and 328 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that all of them subjected Smt. Shanti Sharma, complainant, wife of the first mentioned accused and daughter in law of the co- accused, to cruelty by raising demand for and in connection with marriage; and that on 27.6.2002 all of them in furtherance of their common intention administered to Smt. Shanti Sharma, 15/20 tablets of Alprax which contained benzodiazepine.
Case of prosecution is that Smt Shanti Sharma was married to Pradeep Sharma accused on 19.10.1999 and from this wedlock, they were blessed with one female child. From the very beginning of the marriage, Pradeep accused started saying that his wife Shanti Sharma is not beautiful. He also used to assassinate her character in the words whatever he liked to use.
Case of prosecution is that Darshan Lal and Madhuri Sharma accused were not happy as only a scooter was given at the time of marriage of Pradeep Sharma accused and no car was given at that time. Pradeep accused used to mercilessly beat his wife. He also used to dip her head in bucket of water. Even while -:3:- his wife was in family way, Pradeep accused and his co accused Darshan Lal used to give her beatings mercilessly. Pradeep accused wanted that his wife and child in her womb should die. Articles like sofa etc. given to Shanti Sharma at the time of her marriage by her parents were dumped in a store for the reason that accused did not like that. Ever since Shanti Sharma was blessed with a female child she was pressurised to seek divorce.
Further case of prosecution is that on 25.6.2002 accused persons gave beatings to Shanti
Sharma. In the evening, parents of Shanti Sharma came to matrimonial home and took her along to parental house. During the period of her stay at parental house, Darshan Lal accused visited there and asked parents of Shanti Sharma to keep her there for about 5/6 months but on the very next day on 25.6.2002 her parents left her at matrimonial house.
Case of prosecution is that Pradeep accused kept his wife at the matrimonial home for two - three days cordially.
After 25.6.2002 Shanti Sharma was not allowed to cook meals on the ground floor of house -:4:- and Pradeep Sharma accused and his wife Shanti Sharma were made to live in the upper portion of the house, which was even earlier being used by accused and Shanti Sharma as bed room and the kitchen was joint.
On 27.06.2002 at about 7 p.m., Shanti Sharma returned to matrimonial house straightway from the office i.e. Udyog Bhawan New Delhi, where she was serving as Clerk. She went to market to buy vegetables and milk for the child. When she returned to house in the evening Pradeep Sharma asked her for mutual divorce and when she did not agree to it, he (Pradeep Sharma accused) started giving her beatings. Thereafter, Pradeep Sharma accused took out some tablets from his pocket and administered the same to Shanti Sharma forcibly, after holding her hand, then made her to lie on bed, pressed her jaw and poured some water in her mouth and she had to swallow the tablets and water. She started becoming unconscious. Darshan Lal and Madhuri Sharma accused were present at that time, in the adjoining room. They dragged Shanti Sharma to ground flood through stair case. When she regained consciousness she found herself lying admitted -:5:- in Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital.
On 27.6.2002 Pradeep Sharma is alleged to have forced his wife Shanti Sharma to write a suicide note, while Darshan Lal accused was present nearby by holding the child and she apprehended danger to her life.
Prior thereto, in the March/ April 2002 Pradeep Sharma forced his wife to write a suicide note so that no one could be held responsible for her death. The accused also wrote a suicide note but Shanti Sharma tore away the same suicide note written by him considering that it was a just a joke.
On 27.6.2002 after Pradeep Sharma and Darshan Lal accused mal-treated Shanti Sharma, her
father and brother reached matrimonial house at about 8.30 p.m. They found Darshan Lal present there with female baby in his lap. Initially he did not tell them that she (Shanti Sharma) was not there. But ultimately they took them to hospital.
At about 8:15 PM when Shanti Sharma was brought to the casuality of Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital with alleged history of poisoning of intake of Alprax tablets. Dr. Vinit Arora and Dr. Ashok Joshi medically -:6:- examined her and prepared case history. At that time Shanti Sharma was in altered sensorium Her gastric lavage was taken and handed over to police. Dr. Anil Shandil in the ICU of Bhagwan Mahabir Hospital prepared treatment sheet. She was ultimately discharged from the hospital.
Parents of Shanti Sharma rang up PCR staff by dialing no. 100. Police reached the hospital, where her statement was recorded. Constable Rakesh took rukka to the police station, where present case was registered and investigation was assigned to SI Laxmi Narain. The doctor produced before ASI Bhopal Singh one sealed parcel containing sample of gastric lavage. The ASI seized the same and on return to police station deposited the same with the MHC(M).
SI Laxmi Narain arrested Pradeep Sharma accused from Faridabad on 22.7.2002. His arrest and personal search memos were prepared. Darshan Lal and Smt. Madhuri were also arrested.
Sealed parcels were sent to FSL Malviya Nagar. On analysis of their contents, report was received from FSL.
On completion of investigation, challan was -:7:- put in court.
After compliance with provisions of Section 207 Cr.PC, case was committed to the Hon'ble court of Session.
2. Charge Prima facie case having been made out, charge for offences under Section 498 A and 328 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against all the accused. Since the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, prosecution was called upon to lead evidence.
3. Prosecution Evidence In order to prove its case, prosecution examined following eight witnesses:
Complainant Smt. Shanti Sharma appeared in Court as PW2 whereas her father appeared as pW3.
PW1 HC Ashok Kumar has proved recording of FiR Ex.PW1/A on the basis of ruqqa received by him.
Medical evidence is available in the statements of PW6 Dr.Vinit Arora and PW8 Dr.Anil Shandil.
Police officials have deposed about investigation conducted in this case. -:8:-
4. Plea of the accused When examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, the accused admitted their inter se relationship and factum of marriage of complainant Smt.Shanti Sharma but denied the allegation regarding demand of dowry, harassment and the incident dt.27.6.2002.
Plea put forth by Pardeep Sharma accused reads as follows:
"In our families, no demand of any kind of dowry is raised. In case of my marriage also, no such demand was made.
....The sofa was kept in the store because of scarcity of space in our space and not because we did not like it.
.... One day, father, sister and brother in law of PW2- my wife came to our house and took away her to parental house. It is wrong that I or my parents gave her beatings. Actually some dispute took place between my wife and the wife of tenant and accordingly my wife was taken away to maintain calm.
.... I and my father went to the house of my in laws and requested my in laws to keep my wife there at the parental house because of my transfer to -:9:- Vishakapatnam during those days, lest there may not be some dispute between my wife and the wife of the tenant once again. However, my wife returned to the matrimonial home only after a week. My wife was not ready to accompany me to Vishakapatnam.
.... My wife was kept at the matrimonial home nicely.
... I am not sure if my wife left for market to buy vegetables. Actually, I was away to my office. I returned from my office at about 06:30 p.m. It is possible that my wife left for the market and then returned by then.
.... in the next evening i.e. on 27.06.2002, I heard my wife talking to my father on the first floor. I reached the first floor and found my wife addressing my father that she was committing suicide saying that we did not want to keep her at the matrimonial home. My wife was having some tablets with her. She told that she had taken one of the tablets. My father then apprehended that my wife might have actually taken some tablet and that I should take her to hospital. Thereupon I and my mother removed my wife to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital. The doctor attended my -:10:- wife, we told the doctor that my wife might have some tablet as told by her to us. My in laws including parents of my wife, her two brothers in law and sisters reached Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital. They called the police to Mahavir Hospital and lodged report with the police saying that we had tried to kill my wife. That is how this false case has been planted.
.... My wife was fully conscious at the time we took her to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital. She was talking to me on way to the hospital.
.... Actually, my in laws straightway reached Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital. They did not meet us at our house.
.... We removed, my wife to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital. I do not know as to whether any MLC of my wife was prepared. However, my wife had shown to the doctor the tablets out of which she had consumed one tablet."
Plea put forth by Darshan Lal and Madhuri Sharma accused is almost similar to the one put forth by Pradeep accused.
In defence evidence, accused persons have examined DW1 Sh.Sheoraj, Finger Print Expert to prove -:11:- that no suspicious material was available from where any chance print could be developed. In this regard, DW1 has proved his report Ex.DW1/A already placed on record by the prosecution.
5. Arguments heard. File perused.
6. Discussion Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has referred to the statement of the complainant -PW1 and the medical evidence and argued that from the material available on record, prosecution case stands established that the accused persons subjected the complainant to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry, and on 27.6.2002 they administered her tablets to get rid of her, and thereby all of them made themselves liable for offences punishable under Section 498 A and 328 read with Section 34 IPC. The contention raised by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor is that all the accused are therefore liable to be convicted and sentenced.
On the other hand, learned defence counsel contended that prosecution has miserably failed to -:12:- establish its case. Assailing the testimony of the complainant, learned defence counsel contended that the version narrated by her that she was administered 15 tablets of Alprax is highly improbable, as she did not take any step to spit away any of the tablets and secondly because she is stated to have taken water in anger to swallow the tablets. Learned defence counsel then submitted that in her statement made before the police, the complainant stated to have herself taken water in anger, but while making statement in court she stated that her husband poured some water in her mouth and she had to swallow the tablets and the water. Thus, the contention of learned defence counsel is that the complainant has made contradictory statements which create doubt in the version narrated by her. While referring to other portions of her statement made in court and then referring to the statement made in Court, learned defence counsel submitted that there are improvements galore in her statement made in Court, which further create doubt in the version put forth by the prosecution regarding the manner in which the occurrence took place.
Reference has also been made to the version -:13:- put forth by the complainant in the petitions subsequently filed by the complainant so as to point out that the version regarding the incident dated 27.6.2002 recorded therein is not in consonance with the version narrated before the police and this Court.
Learned defence counsel referred to the statement of the complainant recorded in chief wherein she stated to have become unconscious after consumption of tablets and having regained consciousness at the hospital; and also to have stated that the accused made her to write a suicide note forcibly. Then, the learned counsel referred to the cross- examination of the complainant wherein she stated that she was made to write this suicide note after she was administered tablets. The contention raised by learned defence counsel is that had she become unconscious how could the accused extend her any threat or force her to write suicide note. It has also been contended that when prosecution has failed to prove on record any such suicide note, the prosecution version as put forth by the complainant is proved to be totally false.
As regards allegation of demand of dowry, learned defence counsel contended that prosecution -:14:- has failed to prove that any such demand was made by any of the accused at any point of time, and as such there was no reason for harassment of the complainant by any of the accused.
So far as allegation of beatings is concerned, learned defence counsel contended that at no point of time matter was reported to the police that any of the accused ever gave her beatings.
Learned defence counsel has referred to decisions made in Surender Kumar and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) I (2007) DMC 723; Narender Kumar and Anr. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2008 [1] JCC 1; Baldev Raj Vs. Chander Prakash II (2007) DMC 289; Ravinder Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 146 (2008) Delhi Law Times 392 (DB); Richhpal Kaur Vs. State of Haryana (P&H) 1991 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 53; Ram Dass Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1164 and Kamal @ Pappu Vs. State I (2008) DLT (CRL.) 153 (DB).
Learned defence counsel then argued that actually the complainant of her own consumed tablets with attempt to commit suicide as is available from the suicide note produced on record, without any -:15:- abetment from the side of the accused, and as such all the accused persons are entitled to acquittal.
On the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor contended that from the trend of cross- examination of the complainant and from the answers given by Pradeep Sharma accused to the questions put during his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, it can safely be said that Pradeep Sharma accused did not show any concern at all for his wife after the incident dated 27.6.2002, which conduct speaks volumes against him.
On 27.6.2002, Smt. Shanti Sharma, complainant, was got admitted by her husband - Pradeep Sharma (accused) at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital at 08:30 p.m., with alleged history of intake of Alprax Tablets, 20 in number. At 01:20 a.m. i.e. on 28.6.2002, she was unfit to make statement but at 11:15 a.m. she was declared fit to make statement. According to Dr. Vineet Arora (PW6), he and Dr. Alok Joshi medico legally examined the patient. At that time she was found in altered sensorium. Sample of gastric lavage of the patient was taken, sealed and then handed over to the police. The sealed sample was -:16:- ultimately sent to FSL for analysis. As per report received from FSL, on chemical examination the contents of the sample gave positive test for presence of Benzodiazepine. It has appeared in evidence that Alprax tablet is anti-anxiety, anti-psychotic and anti- depression tablet.
From the above evidence available on record, it stands established that it is a case of intake of tablets containing Benzodiazepine. But the question arises as to what led to intake of these tablets and whether these were forcibly administered to her, as stated by her or she herself consumed the same as argued by learned defence counsel.
7. Demand of dowry and cruelty Case of prosecution is that the accused persons were feeling aggrieved that no car was given to Pradeep Kumar accused at the time of his marriage, and as such they started harassing Smt. Shanti Sharma. According to the complainant, her in-laws were not happy and they used to say that only scooter was given at the time of marriage and that no car was given at that time. But it is significant to note that there is nothing in her statement to suggest as to on which date, time -:17:- and place and as to which of the accused so taunted her saying that no car had been given at the time of her marriage. It is pertinent to note that in her statement made before the police she leveled allegation that only her father in law and mother in law started taunting her for not having brought car at the time of her marriage. But while appearing in court as PW2 she deposed that her in laws were not happy as scooter was given and that no car was given at the time of her marriage. This shows that she has improved upon her previous statement on this material aspect of the case and there is no explanation for this improvement.
While appearing in Court as PW3 Sh.
Bishambar Dutt, father of the complainant deposed that after the marriage, all the three accused started harassing his daughter on account of non supply of car at the time of marriage and that thereafter her husband and father in law maltreated with intent to kill his daughter.
It is in the cross-examination of PW3 that articles to be given at the time of marriage of his daughter Smt. Shanti Sharma were sent to her matrimonial home 2/3 days in advance. About 80/90 -:18:- persons participated at the time of engagement. When the articles are stated to have been sent in advance, had the accused persons felt aggrieved for want of supply of car, they would have raised such a demand even at the time of marriage. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that any such demand was put forth by the accused at the time of engagement. Had it been so, anyone out of 80/90 persons present at the time of engagement could be examined to prove this fact. It is not case of prosecution that any demand was put forth by any of the accused before the marriage of Pradeep Kumar with Shanti Sharma. PW3 nowhere deposed as to on which date, time and place such a demand was put forth by the accused. No independent witness has been examined to prove this story of the prosecution. There is nothing in the statement of PW3 that such demand was raised by the accused in his presence. PW3 admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of departure of marriage party (Doli) none from their family accompanied Shanti Sharma to her matrimonial home. According to PW3, he visited the house of the accused 4/5 times after the marriage of his daughter. But he has not given any date of his visit to the -:19:- house of the accused. Had he visited the house of the accused, he could tell as to on which portion of the house his daughter and her husband were living. But in his cross-examination, he could not tell as to where his daughter and son in law used to live i.e. whether they were living on the first floor or on the second floor. From his ignorance in this regard, it becomes doubtful if PW3 ever visited the matrimonial house of Shanti Sharma after her marriage. There is nothing in his statement as to on which date and time, such a demand was raised before him. It is not case of PW3 that he learnt about any such demand from his daughter. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statement of PW3 regarding any demand of car from the side of the accused after the marriage of Shanti Sharma. Even otherwise, there is nothing in his statement to suggest that any such demand was raised for or in connection with marriage.
As regards harassment, it is not case of the prosecution that at any point of time any of the accused subjected Smt. Shanti Sharma to harassment or cruelty in presence of PW3.
Therefore, statement of PW3 does not come -:20:- to aid of the prosecution.
This brings us to the statement of the complainant herself as PW2. According to her, she was married on 19.10.1999 but from the very second day of her marriage, she was maltreated. When we advert to her cross-examination, it would transpire that she has improved upon her previous statement Ex.pW2/A made before the police as therein she did not specify that from the very second day of her marriage she was maltreated. What stands recorded therein is that after the marriage, her husband started giving her beatings. In her cross-examination she admitted to have accompanied her husband to Nainital for honeymoon and to have stayed there for 2/3 days. Had her husband actually given her beatings on the second day of marriage, she would not have omitted to state so before the police. In such a situation, she must have brought this fact to the notice of her parents. But there is nothing in the statement of PW3-her father that his son in law gave beatings to his daughter on the second day of her marriage. There is no evidence on record to suggest that this fact was ever brought to the notice of any common relative of the parties or to the police. Even otherwise, -:21:- PW2 nowhere stated as to what led to beatings at the hands of her husband on the second day of her marriage. In absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, it cannot be said that Pradeep Kumar accused started beating his wife from the second day of her marriage.
Further according to her, her husband used to remark that she was not beautiful; that he used to remark about her character assassinating the same. There is nothing on record to suggest that at the time of engagement or marriage Pradeep Kumar accused showed disinclination for marriage with the complainant on the ground that she was not beautiful. After the marriage, the couple went to Nainital for honeymoon and stayed there for 2/3 days. From this wedlock, Smt. Shanti Sharma was blessed with a child. All this falsifies the version narrated by the complainant in this regard.
Further, according to her, her husband used to mercilessly beat her and also used to bow down her head in the bucket of water; that when she was in family way, her husband and father in law used to give her beatings mercilessly as they wanted that she and the child, she was expecting, should die. At this stage, it is -:22:- pertinent to note that PW2 has improved upon her previous statement regarding dipping of her head in the bucket of her water as this version does not find mention in his previous statement made before the police. As regards the other allegation that her in-laws intended that she and the child in her womb should die, it is significant to note that in her cross-examination PW2 admitted that at the time of birth of child, entire medical expenses were met with by her husband. In view of this fact, it cannot be said that any of the accused wished that the complainant and the child in her womb should die. Furthermore, in her cross-examination when she was confronted with her previous statement it was found to have not been so recorded there. Therein, she leveled allegation only against her husband by stating before the police that her husband used to beat her during the days of pregnancy. Had it been so, she should have brought this fact to the notice of her parents or anyone from the neighbourhood. But there is nothing in the statement of her father-PW3 that her husband used to give her beatings during the days of pregnancy.
One of the allegations leveled by the complainant is that her Sofa was dumped in store for the -:23:- reason that it was not liked by them. Attention of the witness was drawn to her previous statement Ex.PW2/A where this fact does not stand recorded. On the other hand, accused Pradeep Kumar accused has tried to explain by stating in reply to question put in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC that the Sofa etc. was so kept as there was no space in the house. During investigation, the Investigating Officer did not try to verify the version narrated by the complainant that it was so kept there as the accused persons did not like the same.
In her cross-examination, the complainant displayed ignorance if she stated before the police that ever since she was blessed with female child she was pressurized to seek divorce. This fact does not find mentioned in her statement Ex.PW2/A made before the police.
In her cross-examination PW2 further displayed ignorance if she stated before the police that on 25.5.2002 her husband and his parents gave her beatings. When she was confronted with her previous statement Ex.pW2/A it was not found so recorded therein. She also did not state in her previous statement made before the police that her parents reached the -:24:- matrimonial home and took her to the parental house at that time. The witness was confronted with her previous statement in this regard, where it is not so recorded.
Incident dated 27.6.2002 As regards incident dated 27.6.2002, it is in her statement made in court that on that date at about 7 p.m she returned to her matrimonial home from her office. Then she left for market to buy vegetables and milk for the child. After making purchases when she reached home, her husband asked her that she should agree for mutual divorce, to which she refused. Thereafter, her husband started giving her beatings; then took out some tablets from his pocket and administered the same to her forcibly after holding her from both hands; that he made her to lie on the bed, pressed her jaw and poured some water in her mouth, and as such she had to swallow the tablets and the water.
In her cross-examination, the complainant deposed to have stated before the police that on return from office in the evening of 27.6.2002 she had left for market to buy vegetables and milk for the child, but this fact does not stand recorded therein. So in this regard, -:25:- the complainant has improved upon her statement. There is no explanation as to why she did not state so before the police.
As regards beatings given on 27.6.2002, it is significant to note that this fact does not stand recorded in her statement made before the police. So in this regard also she has improved upon her previous statement.
So far as act of administering tablets is concerned, the complainant stated before the police that 15/20 tablets of light yellow colour were administered to her by her husband forcibly, but therein it does not stand recorded that her husband also poured water in her mouth. What she stated before the police is that she of her own and in anger took water lying in front of her. Therefore, the complainant has made self contradictory statement in this regard. The contradiction in her statement as to pouring of water in her mouth further makes her version regarding administering of tablets to her highly doubtful. Furthermore, it is not believable her husband could administer her such a huge number of tablets, when according to her own version her husband caught hold -:26:- of her both the hands as well. She could raise hue and cry attracting others. There is nothing on record to suggest that at that time she raised any hue and cry so as to attract persons from the neighbourhood or so as to avoid administering of tablets. It is beyond comprehension that a victim like the complainant would just count the tablets and even notice the colour of the tablets, which are going to be administered than to resist any such move. It is in her statement that at that time her in laws were present in the adjoining room. She could draw attention of her in laws by raising hue and cry so as to save her from her husband. But there is nothing to suggest that she raised hue and cry or called her in laws to save her. Rather, it appears that she herself consumed tablets and swallowed water in anger with an attempt to commit suicide, but luckily she was saved when rushed by her husband to the hospital.
Available on record is Ex.PW2/DA. Prosecution has not proved this document. Complainant has admitted this document. Contents of Ex.PW2/DA would reveal that it is a suicide note. Learned defence counsel contended that even from this suicide note it can safely be said the complainant attempted to commit suicide. -:27:-
As per version narrated by the complainant, she regained consciousness on reaching the hospital. This goes to show that according to her she had become unconscious after intake of tablets. But she wants the court to believe that her husband got written a suicide note from her after he administered her tablets. Had she become unconscious, how could she know about execution of any such document. Rather, it transpires that before intake of tablets, she herself wrote suicide note Ex.PW2/DA and that she was not made to write the same by her husband.
As noticed above, as per the version of the complainant narrated in court as PW-2 she became unconscious after she was administered tablets and she regained consciousness on reaching the hospital. However when we advert to her statement Ex. PW2/A made before the police, it would transpire that therein she stated that after the tablets were forcibly put in her mouth, she swallowed the same with water lying in front of her, in anger. Her husband and in - laws dragged her and took her to the street as further stated by her therein. However, while appearing in court, she did not narrate this fact. There is no explanation as to why she -:28:- omitted to state so in court. Even otherwise, had she become unconscious, she could not know about her dragging by her husband and her in-laws. In that situation, persons from the public must have noticed her being dragged in the street or being removed to the hospital. However, no witness from the public has been examined to lend collaboration to the version that she was dragged to the street. A perusal of the MLC, would reveal that the complainant was brought to the hospital by her husband. The conduct of her husband in removing her to hospital immediately after the incident of intake of tablets, shows bonafide of her husband.
In her statement made in the court,complainant has come forward with the version that in March/April, 2002, son of 'Tauji' of her husband left this world after committing suicide. At that time, her husband forcibly made her to write a suicide note, so that no one could hold her responsible for her death. It is also in her statement that even her husband had written a suicide note. Further according to her, she tore away the suicide note written by her husband, considering that there was just a joke.
The above version put forth by the -:29:- complainant is doubtful, because this version appears to have been written in the statement Ex.PW2/A subsequently, as an after-thought. A perusal of Ex.PW2/A would reveal that this version has been written after the words "I have gone through my statement and understood the same. Same is correct." This sentence of going through the statement and accepting the same as correct is generally recorded at the conclusion of statement of the witnesses. This goes to show that the statement of the complainant concluded with this sentence. Had the complainant stated anything more, the same would have started with the the sentence that she had forgotten to state some fact and that she was going to state about the same. However, in Ex.PW2/A, the incident regarding the execution of suicide note 3-4 months prior thereto, has appeared in her statement subsequently and without any continuity. It appears that some space was left in between the signatures of the complainant at point A and after the recording of the last sentence reproduced above, for utilising the same later on. It also appears that the version regarding the execution of the suicide note by the complainant at the instance of the -:30:- accused, and also about the suicide note by the accused, 3-4 months prior to the present incident, has been inserted as an after thought with a view to meet the suicide note Ex.PW2/DA proved on the record by the accused persons and admitted by the complainant in her statement made in court. Had any such suicide note been got executed by husband of the complainant forcibly, she would have immediately brought this fact to the notice of her parents and then to the police. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that prior to the registration of this case, the complainant ever brought this fact to the notice of her parents. PW-3 Sh. Bishamber Dass, father of the complainant nowhere deposed about execution of any such suicide note from his daughter. All this goes to show that on 27.06.02 the complainant herself executed the suicide note and then consumed the tablets without any instigation from any of the accused.
8. Conclusion In view of the above findings, this court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish any of the accusation levelled against any of the three accused i.e either in respect of demand of -:31:- dowry or cruelty or administering of Alprax Tablets by any of the accused to the complainant on 27.06.02. As a result, all the three accused persons namely Pradeep Sharma, Darshan Lal and Madhuri Sharma are acquitted in this case.
Case property be destroyed in accordance with rules on expiry for period of appeal/revision, if none is preferred or subject to decision thereof.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court on dated 06th February, 2008 ( Narinder Kumar ) Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court Rohini : Delhi