Delhi District Court
Narayanamurthy vs . State Of Karnataka And Anr., Wherein It ... on 18 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 123/01
Unique Identification No. 02404R6287602004
State
Versus
1. Smt. Prem
W/o Khusali Ram
R/o Village & PO Khera Khurd,
Delhi.
2. Raj Kumar
Son of Khusali Ram
R/o Village & PO Khera Khurd,
Delhi.
3. Bijender @ Bunti
Son of Khusali Ram
R/o Village & PO Khera Khurd,
Delhi.
FIR No. 369/03
PS - Narela
U/s. 498A/406/304B/34 of IPC
Date of Decision: 16/08/2011
Date of order on Sentence: 18/08/2011
SC No. 123/1 1
ORDER ON SENTENCE
18/08/2011
Present. Ld. APP for State.
Convicts Smt. Prem, Raj Kumar and Bijender from J.C. with
counsel Sh. Sanjay Maan.
Heard on the point of sentence.
Learned defence counsel submits that convict Smt. Prem is aged
about 68 years and is not maintaining good health. She is neither previous
convict nor habitual offender. No other criminal case is pending against her.
She is a housewife. She has one unmarried daughter to lookafter.
Learned defence counsel further submits that convict Raj Kumar is
aged about 43 years and he has to look after his six years old daughter and
also to look after his agricultural land. He is neither previous convict nor
habitual offender. Convict Raj Kumar is also to look after his aged father, who
is aged about 72 years. No other criminal case is pending against him.
Learned defence counsel further submits that convict Bijender is
aged about 39 years and he has to look after his wife, daughter and son. His
son and daughter are school going. He is the sole bread earner of his family. He
is an agriculturist. He has no other source of income. He has to find a suitable
match for his younger sister and also to look after his ailing father, who is aged
about 72 years. He is neither previous convict nor habitual offender. No other
criminal case is pending against him.
Learned defence counsel further submits that in view of above facts
SC No. 123/1 2
and circumstances and considering the age, character and antecedents of the
convicts, a lenient view be taken.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that convicts all
be dealt with according to the punishment provided for offences, for which,
they have been convicted.
I have considered the submissions of learned defence counsel and
Ld. APP for the State. The nature of the offences is grave, for which, convicts
have been convicted.
Offence U/s. 498A of IPC is punishable with imprisonment, which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Accordingly,
sentence of three years SI is imposed upon all the three convicts U/s. 498A of
IPC read with Section 34 of IPC with fine of Rs. 25,000/ each. In default of
payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
nine months each.
Offence U/s. 304B of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a
term, which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life. Accordingly, after considering the age, antecedents and
character of the convict, sentence of seven years SI is imposed upon all the
three convicts each U/s. 304B of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.
Offence U/s. 406 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with
both. Accordingly, sentence of three years SI is imposed upon convict Smt.
Prem and Raj Kumar U/s. 406 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC with fine of
Rs. 25,000/ each. In default of payment of fine, they both shall further undergo
SC No. 123/1 3
simple imprisonment for a period of nine months each.
Convict Raj Kumar remained in custody from 07/10/2003 to
14/11/2003 and from 16/08/2011 till today.
Convict Smt. Prem remained in custody from 05/02/2004 to
09/03/2004 and from 16/08/2011 till today.
Convict Bijender remained in custody from 07/10/2003 to
23/12/2003 and from 16/08/2011 till today.
Benefit of Section 428 of Cr.PC be given to each convict.
If fine is deposited, then out of total fine of Rs. 1,25,000/, Rs.
75,000/ be given to the parents of deceased Anita as compensation after the
expiry of period of filing of appeal.
Fine not deposited.
All the three convicts are remanded to JC to serve the sentence.
Announced in Open Court on
th
dated 18 of August, 2011
(Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court
Rohini : Delhi
SC No. 123/1 4
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 123/01
Unique Identification No. 02404R6287602004
State
Versus
1. Smt. Prem
W/o Khusali Ram
R/o Village & PO Khera Khurd,
Delhi.
2. Raj Kumar
Son of Khusali Ram
R/o Village & PO Khera Khurd,
Delhi.
3. Bijender @ Bunti
Son of Khusali Ram
R/o Village & PO Khera Khurd,
Delhi.
4. Seema
D/o Khusali Ram
R/o Village & PO Khera Khurd,
Delhi.
FIR No. 369/03
PS - Narela
U/s. 498A/406/304B/34 of IPC
SC No. 123/1 5
Date of institution of the case: 06/05/2004
Arguments heard on: 04/08/2011
Date of reservation of order: 04/08/2011
Date of Decision: 16/08/2011
JUDGMENT
This case was registered on the statement of one Rai Singh, recorded by the SDM on 06/10/2003, U/s. 498A/406/304B/34 of IPC.
During investigation, brief facts were prepared. Statement of Smt. Murti was also recorded by the SDM. List of dowry articles was seized. Death report was prepared. Identification statements of dead body were recorded. Photographs of the dead body were got done. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over by preparing a handing over memo. Accused Raj Kumar and Bijender were arrested. Their personal searches were conducted. Accused Smt. Prem and Seema were also arrested later on. Wearing gold articles of the dead body were also seized by preparing a seizure memo and exhibits, which were recovered from the doctor, after the postmortem, were also seized in this case. Maruti car was also taken into possession. Postmortem report was also collected. Scaled site plan was also got prepared and collected. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against all the four accused persons U/s. 498A/406/304B/34 of IPC.
Case was committed to the Court of Session and was received on 30/09/2004.
Charge U/s. 498A/34 of IPC, 304B/34 of IPC and 406/34 of IPC was framed against all the accused persons on 03/11/2004 to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
SC No. 123/1 6
To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW22 in all. On completion of evidence of the prosecution, statements of accused all were recorded. They have denied the case of the prosecution.
Accused Prem has stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case being mother in law of deceased Anita. She never demanded any dowry from Anita or her parents and never harassed her for bringing dowry from her parents. They were very happy that their son Raj Kumar ultimately got married to a very sober and decent girl despite his bad habits. They had tried their level best to make the stay of their daughter in law comfortable. Separate room and separate kitchen were provided to them soon after their marriage.
Accused Raj Kumar has pleaded that he is innocent. He had developed few bad traits since childhood, like drinking and smoking. Due to his reckless and callous lifestyle in the childhood, he could not complete his education. He has been running away from his home time and again. Under these circumstances, his younger brother, who is younger to him by four years, was got married before him as he was looking after the house hold and agricultural activities and also looking after family members. Since he was not getting appropriate marriage proposals due to his bad habits and irresponsible attitude towards life, his family had almost disowned him. When his father got proposal of marriage from parents of Anita, they duly apprised them about his behaviour/bad habits. Despite that Anita and he got married. No dowry was demanded or given at the time of marriage or thereafter. No demand of dowry, motorcycle , buffalo or cash, was made after marriage. Anita was not harassed SC No. 123/1 7 or beaten up by him or his family members after marriage. Anita was not happy with him due to his bad habits and also due to wayward life style. Furthermore she was not happy that he was not taking his share of the property from his father, as he was incapacitated to do agricultural activities. Under these circumstances, Anita was under lot of depression. He had mended his ways. However, on and off, he used to drink and on fateful day, when he returned at his home, he was smelling due to consumption of liquor, taken on previous night. When, he entered his room, she confronted him and scolded him for her future and future of their daughter. Since, he was getting late, he left without confronting her and did not pay any heed to her advise. Due to these reasons and as she was under depression, she might have taken this extreme step to end her life. The parents of deceased Anita got registered false case against them to falsely implicate his all family members to take vengeance of unfortunate and untimely death of their daughter.
Accused Bijender has come forward with the plea that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. He and his brother have been living separately and running separate kitchen, soon after his marriage. He is looking after his family members and his brother Raj Kumar is residing separately from them as he developed some bad habits since childhood. His wife was having grievances for the same. She was under depression for this reason. He and his family members never harassed her for any demand of dowry. The marriage between his brother and deceased Anita was simple affair and dowry was not demanded or given at the time of marriage or thereafter.
Accused Seema has pleaded that she is innocent and has been SC No. 123/1 8 falsely implicated in this case being sister in law of deceased. She had never harassed or beaten up her sister in law Anita, for demand of dowry or otherwise. She had never demanded any dowry from Anita or her parents or instigated her family members to do so. Her family members have also not demanded any dowry from Anita or her parents nor harassed or torture or beaten up Anita for dowry.
I have heard learned Addl. PP for State, learned defence counsel for accused persons and have gone through the evidence brought on record with material placed.
Findings qua offence U/s. 498A/34 of IPC:
In the statement recorded by the SDM of Rai Singh Ex. PW1/A, 45 incidents of cruelty and harassment have been stated coupled with the demand of dowry. These are that deceased Anita was beaten by her mother in law and her brother in law (Devar) and also demanded money after six months of the marriage. They had paid Rs. 10,000/ to Anita. Her mother in law had demanded motorcycle, which was purchased by Rai Singh for a sum of Rs. 33,000/ and was given to them. About two years before, mother in law of Anita also demanded buffalo, which he purchased for a sum of Rs. 19,000/ and given to them, but again, Anita was beaten and she told that she was beaten by her mother in law and brother in law (Devar) and they were demanding more money. So, after selling wheat, Rai Singh handed over cash of Rs. 15,000/ to accused Raj Kumar, husband of Anita, when he had visited his village, but again, she was beaten by her mother in law and brother in law (Devar) and was sent back to her parental house. Anita was again sent back SC No. 123/1 9 after making understand her with the assurance that whenever he will receive money,he will send the money to them. About 10 days before the incident, again Anita came back to her parental house as accused Raj Kumar left her there. Anita told that she was beaten by her mother in law, elder Nanad, Devar Banti and her jewellery articles were taken and she was asked to bring Maruti car. It is also stated that after about three days, accused Raj Kumar came to the village and called Anita through Rai Singh's brother's son and she was sent at about 5.30 p.m. Later on, Rai Singh received information at about 11 that Anita had died.
So, from the statement of Rai Singh Ex. PW1/A, as recorded by the SDM, there were 4/5 demands, out of which, some were fulfilled and Anita was beaten on this pretext by her mother in law, brother in law and elder Nanad.
Rai Singh has been examined by the prosecution as PW1. Identity of accused persons and date of marriage is not in dispute. PW1 Rai Singh has stated that after about six months of the marriage, his daughter Anita used to be harassed by her Devar Banti and mother in law and they had beaten his daughter Anita and demanded Rs. 10,000/ and she was asked to bring Rs. 10,000/ from them. Anita told the above fact to them, when she came to their house alongwith her husband after the marriage. He had given Rs. 10,000/ to accused Raj Kumar, as demanded by Bunti and mother in law, at his house, in presence of his family members. Accused Raj Kumar took his daughter Anita to his house and for about four months, his daughter Anita resided at her matrimonial house peacefully.
PW1 Rai Singh has further deposed that thereafter , accused Raj SC No. 123/1 10 Kumar brought his daughter Anita to his house and Anita told that she was beaten by her Devar Bunti and mother in law in order to bring motorcycle, as demanded by them. He asked accused Raj Kumar to prevent his family members from demanding money and motorcycle, but accused Raj Kumar was a coward fellow and he could not do anything. On the next day, he purchased motorcycle make "Splendour" for Rs. 33,000/ from Dhajja Ram and gave it to accused Raj Kumar, as demanded by Bunti and mother in law. One Rajender is the witness about the transaction of the motorcycle. On the same day, at about 2.30 p.m., accused Raj Kumar took his daughter Anita and motorcycle to his house.
Learned defence counsel has contended that financial status of Rai Singh was not much sound and according to his cross examination, in "Sagai ceremony", they had given one rupee only and prior to marriage, no demand was raised by the accused persons. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW1 Rai Singh has further admitted in the cross examination that he was told that accused persons were having land measuring 12 Killas only. Learned defence counsel has further contended that 12 killas land is equivalent to 12 acre and even the market value of the land must have been between 25 to 50 lac per acre at that time. So, financial position of accused persons was much sound in comparison to PW1 Rai Singh. Hence, there was no occasion for the accused persons to demand Rs. 10,000/ or motorcycle, as deposed by the witness.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to PW1, in the engagement ceremony also, only Rs. 2200/ were given and that SC No. 123/1 11 too has not been disclosed to the SDM by PW1 Rai Singh in Ex. PW1/A. So, PW1 has made improvement. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW1 Rai Singh arranged marriage of Anita with accused Raj Kumar after making inquiries and after full satisfaction, marriage was solemnized despite knowing the fact that accused Raj Kumar used to consume liquor.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW1 Rai Singh has admitted that he is a farmer and used to get his field cultivated on hire and used to get Rs. 1012,000/ in a year as hire charges. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW1 Rai Singh has not been able to disclose any other source of income. So, it also not seems to be probable that from the income of Rs. 1012,000/ per year, PW1 Rai Singh could have been able to give Rs. 10,000/ to the accused persons and to purchase motorcycle worth Rs. 33,000/.
PW1 Rai Singh has further deposed that for some period, his daughter was kept properly. Mother in law of his daughter Anita had given a telephone call at his uncle's house and the same was attended by his aunt, wife of Rajender, with whom, mother in law of Anita raised the demand of buffalo from them. He purchased a buffalo for Rs. 19,000/ and got transported the same to the house of accused persons after spending an amount of Rs. 600/.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW1 Rai Singh has been confronted with his earlier statement Ex. PW1/A recorded by the SDM regarding the fact that he had purchased motorcycle Splendour for Rs. 33,000/ from Dhajja Ram of his village and gave the same to accused Raj Kumar, as demanded by the accused persons, and further that Rajender of his SC No. 123/1 12 village is the witness about the transaction of the same and on the same day, at about 2.30 p.m., accused Raj Kumar took his daughter Anita and motorcycle to his house. Learned defence counsel has further contended that improvement made by PW1 Rai Singh in this respect is material, so, he cannot be believed in any manner.
PW3 Smt. Murti Devi, mother of deceased Anita, has stated that after 23 months of the marriage, mother in law of her daughter Anita and her husband accused Raj Kumar asked for motorcycle and they had presented the motorcycle to accused Raj Kumar and his mother. PW3 has further deposed that her daughter told her that accused Raj Kumar, her eldest sister in law, mother in law and brother in law Bunti used to beat her in connection with the demand of dowry and they started beating her daughter Anita after six months of the marriage.
Learned defence counsel has contended that previously,no separate statement of PW3 Smt. Murti was recorded by the SDM, but only, she confirmed the statement recorded Ex. PW1/A of Rai Singh. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW1 Rai Singh has stated the motorcycle was demanded, but was given to accused Raj Kumar, husband of Anita, whereas PW3 Murti Devi has stated that mother in law and accused Raj Kumar demanded the motorcycle. So, both have contradicted each other, hence, they cannot be relied upon in any manner.
Another witness is PW5 Rajender Singh. He has stated that motorcycle was given to the accused persons as they were demanding the same and Anita was regularly being harassed for dowry by the accused persons and SC No. 123/1 13 they used to demand dowry articles from Anita and her parents. He himself bought the motorcycle on behalf of father of Anita, which was given to accused Raj Kumar.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW5 Rajender Singh can also not be relied upon as he has made improvement in his statement regarding demand of motorcycle, which is not appearing in his statement recorded U/s. 161 of Cr.PC and name of mother in law is mentioned only in this context. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW5 has also been confronted with his statement Ex. PW5/DA, wherein this fact is not appearing that he bought the motorcycle on behalf of father of Anita. So, these witnesses cannot be relied upon in respect of the fact that motorcycle was demanded and was purchased by Rai Singh for a sum of Rs. 33,000/ and was given to accused Raj Kumar.
PW10 Suresh Kumar has also deposed that Anita used to tell him about the demand of motorcycle, buffalo and cash, which used to be raised, and she used to be beaten at her matrimonial house. After about six months of the marriage of Anita, motorcycle and buffalo were taken by accused Raj Kumar from the house of PW1 Rai Singh.
Learned defence counsel has contended that this PW has also been confronted with his statement Ex. PW10/DA, wherein he did not tell to the police that Anita had told him that accused persons were demanding motorcycle, buffalo and cash. So, he has also made improvement in this respect to corroborate the other witnesses regarding the demand of dowry coupled with the harassment and cruelty caused to Anita. SC No. 123/1 14
PW14 Dhajja Ram has deposed that in the year 2000, in the month of August or September, Rai Singh, who is resident of his village, wanted to purchase one motorcycle, which he had to give to his son in law, resident of Village Khera. The motorcycle was purchased for Rs. 33,000/ from one person, who was resident of Village Cilana, Sonepat, and Rai Singh had paid the said amount. Rai Singh used to say that his son in law was demanding a motorcycle and some other articles and he had already given one buffalo to his son in law. Rai Singh had been telling that his son in law used to demand articles usually and he was having tears in his eyes in fulfilling the demands of his son in law.
Learned defence counsel has contended that this witness can also not be believed. Firstly, their statements were recorded U/s. 161 of Cr.PC after about nine months of the incident, which shows that police had concocted a story because it is not the case of the prosecution that witnesses were not available earlier. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Dhajja Ram has not been able to disclose the registration number of the motorcycle in the cross examination and has also not been able to disclose as to when it was purchased. He did not handover the documents to the police. So, the fact regarding the purchase of the motorcycle and further handing over the same to accused Raj Kumar is doubtful. Learned defence counsel has further contended that deposition of PW14 regarding demand is hearsay only.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that it is also evident from the cross examination of PW22 Inspector Mahipal Singh, who did not investigate the fact that the motorcycle was given in dowry. He also failed to SC No. 123/1 15 disclose about the motorcycle and its registration number and further in whose name it was purchased by whom and was given. Learned defence counsel has further contended that if the motorcycle was purchased and was given to accused Raj Kumar, then it could have been recovered from the house of accused persons after registration of the case and even if the police failed to recover any such motorcycle, then the particulars of the motorcycle could have been gathered from the seller of the motorcycle and further record of the motorcycle could have been traced from the RTO office, but no such efforts have been made by the IO during investigation, which shows that story of the witnesses regarding purchase of motorcycle for a sum of Rs. 33,000/ by PW1 Rai Singh and handing over the same to accused Raj Kumar is unbelievable.
PW3 Smt. Murti Devi has stated that on the occasion of birth of a daughter after 2½ years of marriage, accused persons demanded a buffalo, which they presented after purchasing for a sum of Rs. 19,000/. They had given the buffalo against their wishes.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW3 Smt. Murti Devi has also been confronted with her statements Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/DA, wherein the fact that the accused persons have raised the demand of buffalo is not recorded. Even it is not recorded that they had given the buffalo to the accused persons and it was against their wishes. So, the witness has made improvement, hence, she cannot be relied upon in any manner.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW3 Smt. Murti Devi has stated in the cross examination that she told to the SDM as well as to the police that the motorcycle was given to accused Raj Kumar and his mother SC No. 123/1 16 and she has been confronted with her statements Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/DA, where the names of accused Raj Kumar and his mother are not mentioned.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW4 Mohinder has also stated in the cross examination that he had told to the police in his statement that inlaws of Anita had demanded motorcycle and buffalo and he has also been confronted with his statement Ex. PW4/DA, where word "demand" by the inlaws is missing. Learned defence counsel has further contended that this witness even otherwise cannot be believed as he has admitted in the cross examination that he had written few important dates of this case on his hand, which shows that he was a tutored witness.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that PW1 Rai Singh has stated in the cross examination that he purchased a buffalo from Daya Nand, resident of his village and he borrowed a sum of Rs. 19,000/ from Rajender, but he cannot tell about the date, when he took Rs. 19,000/ from Rajender. Buffalo was sent by a tempo. Learned APP has further contended that PW1 Rai Singh has denied the suggestion that story of buffalo is concocted one and has been fabricated after the death of Anita in order to falsely implicate the accused persons.
Another witness is PW9 Khem Chand. He has also deposed that one motorcycle worth Rs. 33,000/ and one buffalo worth Rs. 19,000/ were also given by PW1 Rai Singh to accused and his family members. Learned defence counsel has contended that this witness can also not be relied upon as he has been confronted with the demand of motorcycle and buffalo with his statement Ex. PW9/DA, wherein it is not recorded that accused persons had demanded SC No. 123/1 17 motorcycle and buffalo, but it is mentioned that Rai Singh had given inlaws of Anita a motorcycle of Rs. 33,000/ and a buffalo of Rs. 19,000/.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that even if we presume that motorcycle and buffalo were given by PW1 Rai Singh to the in laws of deceased Anita, then they were given at his own and were not demanded by the accused persons in any manner nor on account of these demands, Anita was treated with cruelty and harassment and if these demands were not raised at any time, then there was no demand of dowry on the part of accused persons.
PW10 Suresh Kumar has also stated that after six months of marriage of Anita, motorcycle and buffalo were given and same were demanded by accused Raj Kumar from the house of Rai Singh.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW10 Suresh Kumar has also been confronted with his statement Ex. PW10/DA, where it is not recorded that he had told to the police that Anita had told him that accused persons demanded motorcycle, buffalo and cash. Learned defence counsel has further contended that even otherwise, according to the deposition of PW10 Suresh Kumar, demand of buffalo and motorcycle were raised within six months of the marriage, whereas according to statement of PW1 Rai Singh, demand of buffalo was raised about two years back, when Anita gave birth to a girl child. So, PW10 Suresh Kumar cannot be believed in any manner and it cannot be said that he was aware about the facts or that Anita had told to him about the demands of motorcycle and buffalo at any time.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW22 Inspector SC No. 123/1 18 Mahipal Singh has also stated in the cross examination that during investigation, he did not come across any witness, who had delivered the buffalo in Delhi on behalf of PW1 Rai Singh and he does not remember whether he made any inquiry from Kaki ( aunt) of Rai Singh as to whether any buffalo was given to the accused persons.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that in view of the above, the story of demand of buffalo is false and concocted and no such demand was raised at any time by the accused persons. Learned defence counsel has further contended that even according to Ex. PW1/A, demand of buffalo was raised by the mother in law of deceased by making a phone call at the house of Kaki (aunt) and had a talk with Rai Singh, but no such witness has been examined to corroborate this fact. Hence, the witness cannot be believed in any manner.
In Ex. PW1/A, Rai Singh has further told to the SDM that after delivery of the buffalo, Anita was kept for one month peacefully and thereafter she was again beaten by her mother in law and brother in law and she was sent back to her parental house for bringing some money. So, he sold wheat and handed over Rs. 15,000/ cash to accused Raj Kumar, husband of Anita, when he had visited his village and Anita went back to her matrimonial house. In this respect, PW1 Rai Singh has stated before the Court that after about 2030 days, his daughter Anita was beaten by the accused persons and accused Raj Kumar dropped his daughter at his house and asked him to keep Anita with them. Accused persons demanded Rs. 15,000/ from them through Anita. After about one week, accused Raj Kumar came to his house to take Anita back and SC No. 123/1 19 demanded Rs. 15,000/. It was the month of "Falgun", prior to year 2003. He told accused Raj Kumar that he would give him Rs. 15,000/ after reaping the wheat crop. Thereafter, accused Raj Kumar took Anita back to his house.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that in view of deposition of PW1 Rai Singh, it is clear that he cannot be relied upon regarding this demand of Rs. 15,000/ as before the SDM in Ex.PW1/A, Rai Singh told that he had given Rs. 15,000/ after selling the wheat to accused Raj Kumar, whereas before the Court, PW1 Rai Singh has stated that he made promise to pay Rs. 15,000/, which itself shows the conduct of PW1 Rai Singh that after the death of Anita, he was having motive to falsely implicate the accused persons in this case. Learned defence counsel has further contended that in the cross examination, PW1 Rai Singh has again admitted that after about one week, accused Raj Kumar came back to his house to take Anita back to his house and demanded Rs. 15,000/ from them. It was month of "Falgun", prior to year 2003. He told accused Raj Kumar that he will given him Rs. 15,000/ after reaping the wheat crop. So, accused Raj Kumar took his daughter back to his house. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW1 Rai Singh has been confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/A, wherein it has not been so recorded. So, PW1 Rai Singh cannot be relied upon in any manner.
PW3 Smt. Murti Devi has not deposed anything about the demand of Rs. 15,000/. PW4 Mohinder, PW9 Khem Chand and PW10 Suresh Kumar have not deposed about the demand of Rs. 15,000/. Learned defence counsel has further contended that in Ex. PW1/A, PW1 Rai Singh has named only mother in law and brother in law of deceased Anita, whereas before the Court, SC No. 123/1 20 they have named all the accused persons. In Ex. PW1/A, nothing has been stated against accused Raj Kumar that he caused any harassment or treated Anita with cruelty nor it is alleged that accused Raj Kumar had raised any demand of dowry. Rather, the demands of motorcycle and buffalo were raised by only mother in law and demand of Rs. 10,000/ was also raised by mother in law and brother in law. Rs. 15,000/ were also demanded by mother in law and brother in law. It has been alleged in Ex.PW1/A that Rs. 10,000/ were given to Anita. Motorcycle was taken by accused Raj Kumar. Buffalo was sent by PW1 Rai Singh himself. Rs. 15,000/ were also allegedly given to accused Raj Kumar. Learned defence counsel has further contended that this shows that PWs have made material improvements and later on in their depositions implicated all the accused persons to the extent that they were raising demands and treating with cruelty and causing harassment to Anita for these demands. So, the witnesses cannot be relied upon in any manner.
In Ex. PW1/A, PW1 Rai Singh has alleged that after the demand of Rs. 15,000/, Anita was kept at her matrimonial house for one or two months peacefully and thereafter she told on telephone that her mother in law and brother in law had again started beating her and sent Anita back to her parental house. Accused Raj Kumar dropped Anita at her parental house, but Rai Singh sent back his daughter after making her understand and with the assurance that as and when he will receive money, he will pay the same. It is further alleged that 10 days before the incident, Anita came back to her parental house with her husband, who dropped her and went back. His daughter told that her mother in law, her elder sister in law and her brother in law had given beatings to her and SC No. 123/1 21 took all her jewellery articles and also told that she could go back to her inlaws house only after bringing a Maruti car.
PW1 further alleged that after about three days, accused Raj Kumar came to their village. He did not visit his inlaws and from the Bus Adda, he asked son of the brother of Rai Singh to call Anita, who was sent at about 5.30 p.m. and on the next day, Rai Singh came to know that his daughter had died. So, the incident, just before the death, is about the demand of Maruti Car. PW1 Rai Singh has stated before the Court that 15 days prior to death of Anita, she was beaten by all the accused persons and accused Raj Kumar dropped his daughter at his house and prior to leaving the house, accused Raj Kumar demanded Maruti Car and told that otherwise the relationship would be finished. His daughter Anita told that she was used to be beaten by accused persons i.e. Raj Kumar, Bunti, mother in law and Nanad. She further told that her mother in law had told that she should die at her own or she would be killed by them. After about three days, accused Raj Kumar came to the shop of his nephew, which is situated near the bus stand Bahal Garh and called Anita through his nephew Anil Kumar. He further told that he would not come to his house and asked Anil Kumar to bring Anita immediately, otherwise he would finish the relationship with them. Anil brought his daughter Anita to his shop and from there, accused Raj Kumar took his daughter Anita to his house. His daughter Anita was slapped several times by accused Raj Kumar at the time, when he took Anita to his house from the Shop of Anil Kumar.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW1 Rai Singh has been confronted with this part of his statement with Ex. PW1/A, where it is SC No. 123/1 22 not so recorded.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that except this contradiction, PW1 Rai Singh has not been cross examined as to whether the Maruti car was demanded by the accused persons or not. Learned Addl. PP has further contended that deposition of PW1 Rai Singh is corroborating with Ex. PW1/A, wherein he has stated that about 10 days before, Anita was brought back at her parental house and demand of Maruti car was raised.
PW3 Smt. Murti Devi has stated that about 5 or six days before death of Anita, his daughter reached at their house alongwith her husband. Again said, her husband did not come to their house and left her in the village and went back. Accused persons had asked for a car. Her daughter also told that she was beaten by her Devar, Nanad and Saas. Learned defence counsel has contended that PW3 Murti Devi has been confronted with her statements Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/DA, where it is not recorded that Anita visited their house about 5/6 days before her death.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that PW3 Murti Devi has not been cross examined on the fact that Maruti car was not demanded and on this pretext, Anita was not dropped at her house by accused Raj Kumar, who left for his village. So, from the deposition of this witness, prosecution has been able to prove that demand of Maruti car was raised by the accused persons and on this score, Anita was sent back to her matrimonial house and was also beaten by the accused persons.
PW4 Mohinder has also stated that Anita visited her parental home 15 days prior to her death and thereafter demand of Maruti car was made by the SC No. 123/1 23 accused persons. Again learned defence counsel has contended that PW4 Mohinder has been confronted with his statement Ex. PW4/DA, wherein this fact is not mentioned that Anita visited her parental home 15 day prior to her death and thereafter accused persons had also demanded a Maruti Car, but it is recorded that demand was made by mother in law of Anita only. Learned defence counsel has again contended that this witness had written three important dates of this case on his hand, so, he cannot be believed in any manner.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that the confrontation of PW4 Mohinder with Ex. PW4/DA in regard to the accused persons whether it was mother in law or all the accused persons, but testimony of PW4 is inspiring confidence regarding the fact that demand of Maruti car was made by the inlaws of Anita.
PW5 Rajender Singh, PW6/9 Khem Chand and PW10 Suresh Kumar have not deposed regarding the demand of Maruti car.
In support of his contentions, learned defence counsel has reliled upon Manu/SC/7695/2008 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Narayanamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr., wherein it has been held that if the allegations of illtreatment, harassment and demand of dowry are not proved soon before the death, then no case is made out to invite punishment under Section 304B of IPC.
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon Phool Singh and another Vs. The State of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi decided on 22/03/2010, wherein it has been held that if prosecution witnesses, in their zest SC No. 123/1 24 to nail the appellants on all fronts, make exaggerations at the time of recording of their statements before the court, then they cannot be relied upon.
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon MANU/DE/3217/2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as State Vs. Ram Niwas & Ors, wherein it has been held that if on account of inherent contradictions, it is not established that deceased was beaten by accused on account of not bringing alleged dowry, it was resulted in deceased committing suicide by burning herself and deceased was not satisfied with the marriage on account of being forced into, thus in totality, demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment were not made out.
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon MANU/DE/2181/2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Narender Singh Arora Vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) and ors., wherein it has been held that there is no presumption that every suicide committed by married woman has to be because she was suffering harassment at the hands of her husband or her inlaws.
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon MANU/DE/2907/2010 of the Hon'ble high Court of Delhi titled as Pyare Lal Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi), wherein it has been held that if there are contradictions and testimonies of witnesses are contrary, then they cannot be relied upon.
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon MANU/DE/1809/2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as State Vs. Ravinder Chhabra and Ors, wherein it has been held that if testimonies are SC No. 123/1 25 glaring inconsistencies, then the same cannot be relied upon that demands of scooter and washing machine were made.
PW1 Rai Singh has stated that his statement was recorded by the SDM Ex. PW1/A and he had given list of dowry articles Ex. PA and Ex. PB, which were sized vide memo Ex. PW1/B. In the cross examination, PW1 Rai Singh has stated that he reached at Village Khera at about 1/1.30 p.m. alongwith 17 other persons of his village and they remained there for about four hours. Thereafter, they went to the office of SDM at Narela. His statement was recorded by the SDM at about 5.00 p.m. They remained at the office of SDM for about 45 minutes. His statement was recorded by the SDM in his own hands. Except this, PW1 Rai Singh has not been cross examined regarding the fact that he had given an afterthought statement to the SDM implicating the accused persons or that he had not given any statement to the SDM and it was recorded by the SDM at his own.
PW3 Smt. Murti Devi has stated that she put her thumb impression on the statement recorded before the SDM Ex. PW3/1, but in the cross examination, PW3 has stated that she made statement Ex. PW3/A to the SDM. PW7 Sh. G.P. Singh, the then SDM, Narela, has stated that on 06/10/2003, he was posted as SDM, Narela, NorthWest District. On that day, he received a call on his mobile phone from PS Narela at about 1.00 p.m. At that time, he was in his office at Alipur. Thereafter, he reached at the spot i.e. Village Khera pur Khurd. SHO Narela met him there. He inspected the spot. Thereafter, he directed the SHO to inform the parents of deceased. Thereafter, he came back to his office at Alipur. At about 4.00 p.m., father of deceased,namely, Rai SC No. 123/1 26 Singh came to his office. He recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. He also recorded statement of Murti Devi, mother of deceased, Ex. PW3/A and he handed over the statements to the police official with the direction to hand over the same to SHO for taking necessary action. In the cross examination also, PW7 has stated that he took half an hour in recording the statement of Rai Singh and has further denied the suggestion that he did not record statements of Rai Singh and Murti Devi or that the statements were produced before him and he simply signed the same and forwarded to the SHO.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW16 SI Panna Lal has stated in the cross examination that statements of parents of deceased were recorded by the SHO and were presented to SDM for his signatures. Hence, PW7, the then SDM, has deposed falsely before the Court that he had recorded statements of parents of deceased himself.
On the other hand, learned Addl PP has contended that PW16 SI Panna Lal has again stated that statements of parents were recorded by the SDM. So, the contention of learned defence counsel is not tenable in any manner.
PW22 Inspector Mahipal Singh has also stated that parents of deceased Anita reached at Delhi alongwith their relatives and family members. They accompanied him to the Office of SDM Narela at Alipur, where SDM recorded their statements and thereafter he gave directions to register the case as per provisions of law. In the cross examination also, PW22 Inspector Mahipal Singh has stated that statements of parents of deceased were recorded in the office of the SDM, but he does not know whether these were recorded SC No. 123/1 27 by the SDM himself or he got recorded the same through his staff. At that time, he was present outside the office of the SDM.
In view of above, the witnesses have been corroborating each other in respect of the fact that statements of PW1 and PW3 were recorded by the SDM in his office and in the cross examination also, the testimonies of the witnesses remained unshaken and they inspire confidence in this respect. The contradictions, as pointed out by learned defence counsel in the cross examination of PW16 SI Panna Lal, are not material to believe that statements were recorded by the SHO because immediately PW16 SI Panna Lal deposed that statements of parents were recorded by the SDM.
Learned defence counsel has contended that some of the witnesses have stated that due to illtreatment and cruelty caused to Anita, Panchayat was also convened, but PW1 Rai Singh nowhere stated that any Panchayat was held in this respect. So, in this respect, witnesses cannot be relied upon.
In this respect, PW5 Rajender Singh has stated that Rai Singh, father of Anita, told him that he alongwith 10 persons visited the house of accused persons and they reached at a compromise. This Panchayat was convened as Anita was beaten by the accused persons.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW1 Rai Singh has not stated anything about the Panchayat. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW5 Rajender has not been able to disclose date, month and year, when Panchayat was convened, but has stated that Panchayat has taken place at his house, so he cannot be relied upon.
PW6 Khem Chand has also stated that Panchayat was convened and SC No. 123/1 28 he also joined the Panchayat in order to solve the matter,but nothing worth. PW6 has also stated that he alongwith Rai Singh went to the house of accused Raj Kumar and requested him to keep Anita properly as his wife, but he did not pay any heed to his request.
Learned defence counsel has contended that this fact is not corroborated by PW1 Rai Singh in any manner that PW6 Khem chand accompanied him to the house of accused persons. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW6 Khem Chand has been confronted with his statement, who has stated that this fact was disclosed by him to the police, whereas it is not appearing in his statement Ex. PW9/DA.
PW10 Suresh Kumar has also stated that they had taken Panchayat to the village of accused persons. He also attended the Panchayat. During Panchayat, accused persons used to advise to have their proper behaviour towards Anita and used to say in positive.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW10 has also been confronted with this fact with his statement recorded U/s. 161 of Cr.PC Ex. PW10/DA, wherein this fact is not appearing. So, there is no corroboration in the depositions of the witnesses as to when the Panchayat was held and they have made improvements in this respect and all these facts have been deposed by the witnesses intentionally to show the conduct of the accused persons and in fact, no Panchayat was held because Anita was never harassed or treated with cruelty by the accused persons.
I have considered the submissions of learned defence counsel. They are forceful to some extent in respect of fulfillment of demands of motorcycle SC No. 123/1 29 and buffalo. The contention of learned defence counsels are also forceful regarding holding of Panchayat as PW1 Rai Singh has not corroborated with other witnesses in any manner that any Panchayat was held, although other witnesses have corroborated in this respect, but the details have not been given as to when and where Panchayat was held, but even then, if the witnesses have not corroborated about the Panchayat or they do not inspire confidence about the fulfillment of demand of motorcycle and buffalo and their further demand of Rs. 15,000/, for which, PW1 Rai Singh has stated that he had fulfilled the same and has also stated that he had made promise to fulfill the same, even then, these facts are not going to the root of the cause that no dowry demands were raised by the accused persons.
According to Section 498A of IPC, the woman should be subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband or relatives of the husband with a view to coerce her and her family to meet unlawful demand of property and valuable security or on account of failure to meet such demand. So, Section 498A of IPC deals with two situations only either the woman was treated with cruelty or harassment with a view to meet any unlawful demand or if the said demands has not been fulfilled. The demands, which have been disputed heavily by the accused persons are of motorcycle and buffalo. PW1 Rai Singh has made improvement regarding the payment of Rs. 10,00/, which, he had given to accused Raj Kumar, wherein it is not disclosed by him to the SDM in his statement Ex. PW1/A and fulfillment of demand of Rs. 15,000/ is itself doubtful as to whether the same was fulfilled or not, but in my view, the witnesses inspire confidence and are trustworthy regarding the demands raised SC No. 123/1 30 by accused Smt. Prem and Bijender i.e. mother in law and brother in law. Section 498A of IPC requires the treatment of woman with cruelty and harassment to raise demand of valuable property only and it is not concerned with the fulfillment of the same. So, even if, the witnesses have not been able to inspire confidence that demand of Rs. 10,000/, Rs. 15,000/ and demand of buffalo and motorcycle were fulfilled, then it cannot be said that witnesses cannot be relied upon regarding the demands made by accused Smt. Prem and Bijender.
This is evident from the conduct of the accused persons as deceased Anita was married with accused Raj Kumar on 08/03/2000 and she died on 06/10/2003. In between, she gave birth to a girl child and from the evidence of PW1 Rai Singh and PW3 Murti Devi, it is clear that she visited her parental house many times and every time she was dropped at her parental house by accused Raj Kumar and thereafter she was picked up by accused Raj Kumar and was kept peacefully for sometime. According to the depositions of PW1 Rai Singh and PW3 Murti Devi, it started within six months of the marriage and continued till the death of Anita. Accused persons have not raised any plea that Anita visited her parental house on the occasions of festivals or due to some other reasons. From the testimonies of the witnesses, it is proved that she was dropped at her parental house by accused Raj Kumar due to some demand made by accused Smt. Prem and Bijender, who had caused beatings to Anita and treated her with cruelty and harassment.
The contention of learned defence counsel that accused persons were having sound financial condition, does not mean that they were not having SC No. 123/1 31 any greed for such demands. If the witnesses have any intention to falsely implicate the accused persons, they could not have deposed about the demand of motorcycle and buffalo etc., but rather would have deposed about the other types of demands like cash or jewellery etc. It also fortified with the fact that the background of both the complainant party and accused persons is of village, so, demand of vehicle and buffalo seems to be more probable and it is proved from the depositions of the witnesses that such demands were raised and due to these demands, Anita was dropped at her parental house time and again within a short period of about three years, during which, she also gave birth to a female child.
If no dowry was demanded in the marriage, then, it cannot be said that after marriage, accused persons had not demanded dowry and same is not tenable in any manner because it depends as to what has been given in the marriage and if the same was not upto the expectations of the accused persons, then certainly, they had raised such demands through Anita, which were conveyed time and again during the period of three years.
The plea of accused Vijender that he is residing separately from his brother i.e. accused Raj Kumar is also not proved in any manner as nothing has been suggested to any of the witness nor any evidence has been brought on record to prove this fact that he has nothing to do with the family matters of accused Raj Kumar. It has not been explained as to why Anita was being dropped at her parental house by accused Raj Kumar again and again after a period of few months. If Anita was not ready to reside with accused Raj Kumar due to his bad habits, then it is not explained by any of the accused SC No. 123/1 32 persons that the relation of accused Raj Kumar with his wife was not cordial and Anita was not ready to settle down in her matrimonial house.
Certainly, witnesses have made improvements from their previous statements, but we have to consider the mental status of parents of a deceased girl in comparison to the time, when the statements were recorded by the SDM and when their statements were recorded before the Court. Certainly at the time, when they have deposed before the Court, they must have settled down mentally from the grief and sorrow of the death of their daughter and must have recalled so many other details regarding the family circumstances of Anita. We have to consider the circumstances also and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that in fact, these were improvements but earlier statements have been explained in more elaborate manner.
PW3 Smt. Murti Devi has specifically stated that she could not have visualized that her daughter would die in the manner her death took place and therefore, there was no question of keeping in her memory the date, month and year of information given to her by Anita. So, certainly, the parents of a girl cannot be expected to memorize each and every detail of her matrimonial problems in anticipation that she can be subjected to cruelty or could have died in unnatural circumstances and only after the incident of such nature, the parents or other witnesses can disclose even minor details, which earlier would not have been relevant for them because at that time, the utmost target of the parents and other family members could have been that the marriage should be survived and it is also a general perception that a new bride takes time to settle down in an unknown environment. So, the parents and other family members SC No. 123/1 33 avoid such confrontations in the early period of the marriage. More so, whether parents and family members of a bride can expect such unnatural events since the beginning of the marriage, then answer is certainly in negative. Hence, we cannot expect the parents and family members of the bride to depose the facts in a logbook manner and we have to gather the facts and to understand them from the evidence and conduct of the parties.
PW1 Rai Singh himself has stated that accused Raj Kumar was a coward fellow as he failed to protect his wife from the hands of accused Smt. Prem and accused Bijender, but certainly, accused Raj Kumar dropped Anita at her parental house each and every time and took her back after few days and thereafter she was kept happily and peacefully for few months.
The conduct of accused Raj Kumar is also relevant in the last days of Anita, when he dropped Anita at her parental house. It is doubtful whether demand of Maruti car was conveyed by accused Raj Kumar to the parents of Anita prior to leaving their house or by accused persons, but certainly, Anita was dropped at her parents house due to the demand of Maruti Car, as was told by Anita to her parents. The conduct of accused Raj Kumar is further evident and fortified about the intention of the accused persons because after about few days, he came to the shop of son of brother of Rai Singh and he did not come to his inlaws house and asked said son Anil Kumar to bring Anita immediately. She was sent at about 5.30 p.m. with Anil Kuimar and from there, accused Raj Kumar took Anita with him and thereafter on 06/10/2003, she died in unnatural circumstances. So, if the relations were cordial between accused persons and parents of Anita, then there was no occasion for accused Raj Kumar to reach at SC No. 123/1 34 the shop of Anil Kumar i.e. son of brother of PW1 Rai Singh and to call Anita there through Anil Kumar and took her with him to his house, which shows that there was something, which was preventing accused Raj Kumar to visit his in laws house to take Anita back with him and witnesses have stated that demand of Maruti car was raised. So, in absence of any other plausible explanation from the side of accused persons, it is proved that just before the death of Anita, demand of Maruti car was raised and she was treated with cruelty and was harassed in connection with the same.
From the depositions of the witnesses, it is clear that accused Prem and accused Bijender had raised demands and had beaten Anita for this purpose and treated her with cruelty and caused harassment. Accused Raj Kumar in furtherance of their common intention dropped Anita at her parental house and took her back after few days, which shows that demands were raised and thereafter, she was kept happily and peacefully for few months and again she was given the same treatment.
From the evidence of the witnesses, it seems to be doubtful whether accused Seema had raised any demand or had caused beatings to Anita. Only one incident has been deposed by PW1 Rai Singh that lastly she was beaten by accused Seema also and the demand of Maruti car was raised, but it is not specifically mentioned neither in Ex.PW1/A nor PW1 Rai Singh has deposed before the Court that accused Seema had raised demand of Maruti Car alongwith accused Smt. Prem and Bijender. PW3 Smt. Murti has also deposed that 5/6 days before the death, her daughter reached their house and her husband i.e. accused Raj Kumar did not come to their house and had left Anita SC No. 123/1 35 in the village and went back. The contention of learned defence counsel that PW1 Rai Singh and PW3 Murti Devi have contradicted each other as to whether accused Raj Kumar took Anita back with him thereafter either from their house or through Anil Kumar i.e. son of brother of Rai Singh, so, the witnesses cannot be relied upon, is also not tenable in any manner being a minor contradiction.
The contention of learned defence counsel that PW3 Murti Devi has admitted that accused Raj Kumar was not doing any work and also used to consume liquor, due to which, Anita was not happy and even after the birth of female child, accused Raj Kumar did not change his habits shows that Anita was under depression and she was not subjected to cruelty or harassment at any time with the demand of dowry, is also not tenable because Anita might have wanted to improve the habits of her husband i.e. accused Raj Kumar, but it has come in the evidence of PW1 Rai Singh that even before the marriage, it was disclosed by Bunty, brother of accused Raj Kumar that accused Raj Kumar consume liquor and it was upto them to arrange the marriage or not. So, the bad habits of accused Raj Kumar were well within the knowledge of parents of Anita and these must have been within the knowledge of Anita before marriage. So, it could not have been a ground for depression or could not have a ground for unnatural death of Anita.
In view of above facts and circumstances, the judgments relied upon by learned defence counsel are not applicable to the present case. The contention of learned defence counsel that Anita was not happy because accused Raj Kumar was not taking his share from the property from his father SC No. 123/1 36 as he was incapacitated to do agricultural activities is also not tenable as no such suggestion has been given to any witness that at any time Anita had asked accused Raj Kumar to claim his share of property from his father.
In defence, accused persons have examined DW1 Neelam, who has stated that she was married on 11/05/97. Her inlaws never demanded any dowry either at the time of engagement or at the time of marriage or afterwards. She is wife of one of the accused Bijender. She has two brothers in law. Accused Raj Kumar is elder brother of her husband. Accused Raj Kumar was married after her marriage. He was married late because he was habitual drinker and used to remain away from the house. In her presence,no dowry was demanded from the inlaws of accused Raj Kumar either before marriage or afterwards or at any time.
In the cross examination, DW1 has admitted that she did not make any complaint to senior police officers that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. She has not disclosed to the police that she was also a witness to the circumstances of this case. She has further admitted that she has come to the court to depose at the instance of accused persons. She is wife of accused Bijender. Hence, her testimony cannot be relied upon being interested witness.
Learned Addl. PP has contended that DW1 has also admitted in the cross examination that she resides in the same house with the accused persons, which is contrary to the plea of accused Bijender that he and his brother are residing separately. So, DW1 being interested witness cannot be relied upon.
DW2 Hari Singh is father of DW1 Neelam. He has stated that SC No. 123/1 37 family of accused Bijender was well off and before the marriage or after marriage, no demand of dowry was made from him. His daughter Neelam never complained of any harassment or cruelty caused by her inlaws. In my view, well off status is not a consideration that a person cannot raise any demand. More so, DW2 is also interested witness as he is father in law of accused Bijender. So, both DW1 and DW2 have deposed these facts to save accused Bijender from this case. Hence, they cannot be relied upon.
DW3 is known to the accused persons. He resides at a distance of 200250 yards away from the house of accused persons. He has attended each and every function of the marriage of children of Khushali Ram, father of accused Raj Kumar and Bijender. Khushali Ram had received only one rupee in the marriage of each and every child, but in the cross examination, DW3 has not been able to show any proof that he had attended the marriage of children of Khushali Ram and he does not know the date of marriage of accused Raj Kumar and Bijender. He retired from his job in the year 2006s and his duty hours were from 9.00 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. He used to leave his house at about 7.00 a.m. and used to come back at about 6.30 p.m., so, he cannot say what had happened in the house of accused persons, while he remained on his duty.
In my view, in such circumstances, it is difficult to believe DW3 that he was knowing each and every facts and circumstances, which had happened in the family of accused persons regarding harassment and cruelty alongwith demand of dowry from Anita. DW3 has further stated in the cross examination that he came to know about the case only after about one month of death, but he did not tell to the police that accused persons had not caused any SC No. 123/1 38 such harassment or cruelty, as alleged. So, DW3 is also not helpful to the accused persons in any manner.
In view of above discussion, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused Prem and accused Bijender treated with cruelty and caused harassment to Anita and raised demands of dowry articles and in furtherance of their common intention, accused Raj Kumar dropped Anita at her parental house at various times and took her back after few days and thereafter she was kept happy and peacefully for 34 months and it was repeated within three years for many times. So, offence U/s. 498A/34 of IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubts against accused Smt. Prem, Raj kumar and Bijender, for which, they are held guilty and convicted for the same.
In view of above, prosecution has not been able to prove any act of accused Seema in treating Anita with cruelty and causing harassment for demand of dowry, hence, accused Seema is acquitted for offence U/s. 498A/34 of IPC.
Findings qua offence u/s. 304B/34 of IPC:
PW1 Rai Singh has stated that on 08/03/2000, his daughter Anita was married to accused Raj Kumar. PW1 has further deposed that on 06/10/2003, at about 11. a.m., a telephonic message was received at his neighbour's house from Khera Khurd that his daughter has been killed. He alongwith his relatives and well wishers reached at Khera Khurd. So, it is clear that Anita died in unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage.
PW3 Smt. Murti Devi has stated that after about 4/5 days, on the eve of Dussehra, she received information about the death of her daughter. So, she SC No. 123/1 39 alongwith her family members reached at the house of accused persons and found her daughter hanging with the Gaddar. Accused persons had killed her daughter for nonfulfillment of demand of car. PW3 Murti Devi has not been cross examined in this respect.
PW4 Mohinder has stated that on the day of Dussehra, Anita died. PW10 Suresh Kumar has stated that they came to know about the death of Anita through a person of Village. Then, they all had gone to the house of accused persons.
PW15 HC Ramesh Lal has stated that on 06/10/2003, he was posted in PCR van commander 91 as Incharge from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. On receipt of a call that one female is hanging, they reached at H.No. 445, Khera Khurd, where they met with the owner of the house Khushali Ram. They entered in the house from the right side ground floor room, which was closed. He pushed the door and it opened. He saw one female hanging with the Gaddar with fanda/knot. One small girl child was crying there. They came to know the name of deceased as anita, wife of Raj Kumar. IO came there.
PW16 Retired SI Panna Lal has stated that on 06/10/2003, he was posted as SI at PS Narela and on receipt of DD No. 10A Ex. PW16/A, he alongwith Constable Dilbagh Singh reached at H.no. 445, Village Khera Khurd, Delhi, where PCR van Commander 91 was already present with staff. At the ground floor, they found one female Anita, wife of Raj Kumar, hanging with Dupatta tied with angle attached with the Gaddar. He informed the SHO, PS Narela on the wireless set. SHO came at the spot, who informed the SDM. SDM came there and inspected the site. SDM called the parents of the deceased SC No. 123/1 40 and recorded their statements. Dead body of the deceased was preserved on the direction of the SDM and was sent to mortuary. Wearing articles of deceased were seized vide memo Ex. PW13/A. PW17 SI Jagir Singh has stated that on 06/10/2003, he was posted as duty officer from 4.00 p.m. to 12 midnight at PS Narela. On that day, at 6.25 a.m., PW22 Inspector Mahipal Singh handed over rukka to him for registration of FIR and he recorded FIR of this case Ex. PW17/A. He also made endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW17/B. He has also produced the original FIR.
PW19 HC Ishwar singh has stated that on 06/10/2003, he was posted at PCR and was on duty from 8.00 am. to 8.00 p.m. On that day, on receipt of call about hanging of a female at Khera Khurd, they reached at the house of Khushali Ram. He alongwith Incharge HC Ramesh Lal reached there and to the right side room, ground floor, door was opened by HC Ramesh by pushing the same. One female was found hanging with the Channel/Gaddar and one small child was found weeping on the ground. They came to know that the female was Anita, wife of Raj Kumar. SI Panna Lal came at the spot. IO/SHO Narela also reached there.
PW22 Inspector Mahipal Singh has stated that on 06/10/2003, he was posted as SHO, PS Narela. On that day, DD No.10A was marked to SI Panna Lal for necessary action, who reached at the spot alongwith staff. SI Panna Lal informed him about the fact of hanging of one lady Anita, wife of Raj Kumar, at Village Khera Khurd i.e. house of accused Raj Kumar. Thereafter, he alongwith his staff reached there in his official gypsy and found the dead body of deceased hanging with the ceiling fan with the help of dupatta. SC No. 123/1 41 On inquiry, he came to know that present incident took place within seven years of marriage. So, he informed SDM Narela on phone. He also informed the mobile crime team and photographer to reach at the spot. Thereafter, Sh. G.P. Singh, the then SDM, Narela, alongwith staff reached at the spot, who inspected the place of occurrence. PW22 informed him about the parents of deceased, residents of District Sonepat, Haryana. SDM directed him to inform the parents of deceased about the incident and to produce them in his office. In the meantime, crime team and photographer reached at the spot. PCR van also reached at the spot. Mobile crime team inspected the place of occurrence. Photographs were taken.
PW22 has further deposed that thereafter, SDM left the spot and also directed him to send the dead body to the mortuary of BJRM hospital. Thereafter, the dead body was removed from the ceiling fan. The knot of the chunni was opened from the side of ceiling fan and the other knot, which was tied in the neck of the deceased, was found intact and was sent to the mortuary with the body of the deceased in the same condition. On the same day, parents of deceased reached at Delhi alongwith their relatives and family members and they accompanied him to the Office of SDM Narela at Alipur, where their statements were recorded. Thereafter, as per directions of the SDM, he gave directions Ex. PW22/A on the statement Ex. PW17/B, for registration of the case U/s. 498A/406/304B/34 of IPC. Thereafter, he handed over the endorsement alongwith statement Ex. PW17/B to the duty officer, PS Narela, for registration of the case.
PW22 has further deposed that thereafter he reached at the spot and SC No. 123/1 42 prepared site plan. Thereafter, he reached at the mortuary of BJRM hospital, Jahangir Puri. SDM also reached there. Dead body was duly identified by mother and father of the deceased. SDM prepared inquest proceedings and recorded statements of witnesses regarding identification of dead body. Thereafter, he made request to Incharge mortuary to get conducted the postmortem vide application Ex. PW22/B. After postmortem, doctor handed over three pullandas sealed with the seal of "MS BJRM Hospital" to Constable Dilbagh Singh alongwith one sample seal, which were seized by him vide memo Ex. PW12/A. PW22 has further deposed that case property was deposited in the malkhana in intact position. Dead body was handed over to the parents after postmortem on 07/10/2003 vide a receipt. Carbon copy of the same was kept by him and original was handed over to the parents.
PW22 has further deposed that he searched for the accused persons. On 07/10/2003, accused Raj Kumar and Bijender were arrested by him from their house. He prepared their arrest memos Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B and also their personal search memos Ex. PW8/C and Ex. PW8/d. Both the accused were interrogated and were produced before the Court and were remanded to JC. Thereafter, he came back to PS. He searched for accused Prem and Seema, but could not find them. Thereafter, on 19/112/2003, as per directions of DCP, NorthWest District, investigation of the case was transferred to Vigilance Branch, North West District.
PW2 Sanjay has stated that he has been running a photography Shop in Khera Khurd for the last three years. On the request of the police officials, SC No. 123/1 43 he reached at a house in Khera Khurd, where a lady was hanging. He took five photographs as per directions of IO. He developed the photographs and handed over the same to IO. The photographs are Ex. PW2/1 to 5.
PW7 Sh. G.P. Singh, the then SDM, has also stated that prior to sending the dead body for postmortem, IO concerned filled the inquest papers as per his directions and he signed the same at point A on Ex. PW7/A. He received the copy of FIR after 06/10/2003 in his office and after completing the proceedings, he reached at BJRM hospital on 07/10/2003. Parents of the deceased were present there. They had identified the dead body and their statements regarding identification were recorded by the IO. He signed the same at point A Ex. PW7/B and Ex. PW7/C. PW8 SI Ram Chander joined the investigation with PW22 SI Mahipal Singh regarding the proceedings of identification of dead body and postmortem of the dead body. He also joined the investigation regarding arrest of accused Raj Kumar and Bijender vide memos Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B and their personal searches were conducted vide memos Ex. PW8/C and Ex. PW8/d.
PW12 is Constable Dilbagh Singh. On 07/10/2003, he was posted at PS Narela. On that day, as per directions of IO, he went to mortuary of BJRM hospital, where postmortem on the body of deceased was conducted by the doctor. After the postmortem, dead body of Anita was handed over to Rai Singh, her father. The doctor handed over some articles duly sealed with the seal of BJRM Hospital to him and he handed over the same to IO, who seized the same vide memo Ex. PW12/A. SC No. 123/1 44 PW13 Satish Kumar was also present in the mortuary of BJRM hospital on 06/10/2003, when the dead body of Anita was taken for postmortem.
Most of the witnesses have not been cross examined by learned defence counsel in any manner. Death of Anita under such manner has not been disputed.
PW21 Inspector Ravinder Kumar has stated that on 25/11/2003, further investigation of this case was assigned to him. He came to know that two of the accused Seema and Prem were absconding. He made efforts to trace both the accused persons and took necessary steps. Accused Seema presented interim bail order, so , he interrogated her and completed case diary. Accused Prem was declared proclaimed offender. Thereafter, he was transferred and handed over the file on 13/01/2004.
PW18 retired ACP Sh. Narender Gulati has stated that on 02/01/2004, he was posted as Inspector Vigilance, North West District. Investigation of this case was marked to him. He conducted further investigation. He prepared seizure memo of dowry articles given by Rai Singh, which is Ex. PW1/B. The list of dowry articles is Ex. PA and Ex. PB. Marriage card of deceased Anita was also seized vide memo Ex. PW18/A, which was presented by brother of accused Raj Kumar. The card is Ex. PC. He recorded statements of witnesses U/s. 161 Cr.PC and arrested accused Seema vide memo Ex. PW18/B. Accused Prem was arrested vide personal search and arrest memo Ex. PW18/C and Ex. PW18/C1. Search of accused Prem was conducted by W/HC Jamuna. He completed the investigation and filed the challan through SC No. 123/1 45 SHO, Narela.
PW20 Inspector Chadner Shekhar has stated that in the year 2004, month January, he was posted at Vigilance, Northwest. The present case was handed over to him to attend the bail matter. Thereafter, brother of accused Bijender presented the marriage card of Anita, which he seized vide memo Ex. PW18/A. Complainant Rai Singh also presented list of dowry articles, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/B. Both these seizure memos were prepared by the then Inspector Vigilance Narender Gulati.
PW11 Dr. Anil Shandil has stated that on 07/10/2003, he was working as Senior Resident in BJRM hospital, Jahangir Puri, and has conducted postmortem on the body of Anita. He conducted internal and external examination. According to his opinion, cause of death was asphyxia with cerebral congestion resulting from ligature hanging. Clothes and blood in gauze piece and ligature material Chunni were preserved, sealed and handed over to the IO. Time since death was approximately about 32 to 34 hours. He prepared his report in this respect Ex. PW11/A. He also received inquest papers for postmortem, which were signed by him. PW11 has identified the Chunni before the Court as Ex. P1.
Learned defence counsel has contended that Anita committed suicide as she was fed up with the drinking habit of her husband and also that she gave birth to a girl child. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW1 Rai Singh has admitted in the cross examination that his daughter and he himself were frustrated due to the habit of drinking of husband of Anita i.e. accused Raj Kumar. Learned defence counsel has further contended that SC No. 123/1 46 PW3 Smt. Murti Devi, mother of the deceased, has also admitted that accused Raj Kumar was not doing any work and he used to consume liquor. She has further admitted that her daughter Anita was not happy because of habits of accused Raj Kumar and even after the birth of female child, accused Raj Kumar did not change his habits. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW3 Smt. Murti has further admitted that her daughter Anita used to remain quite concern after the birth of female child because of the habits of accused Raj Kumar.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that PW1 Rai Singh has denied the suggestion that his daughter was frustrated on account of drinking habit of accused Raj Kumar or that his daughter had given birth to a female child and on account of depression, she committed suicide. Learned Addl. PP has further contended that due to harassment, cruelty with the demand of dowry, Anita was beaten, so, she committed suicide.
I am not agree with the contentions of learned defence counsel. If Anita was frustrated due to these reasons as contended by learned defence counsel, then there was no need to drop her at her parental house by accused Raj Kumar and to pick her up again after few days. She could have lived at her parental house till accused Raj Kumar had mended his way of life. In such circumstances, it seems more probable that she was being treated with cruelty and was harassed for demand of dowry.
In view of above discussion, witnesses have corroborated each other regarding the unnatural death of Anita and recovery of her dead body. It is not disputed that Anita was found hanging. Witnesses have corroborated each other SC No. 123/1 47 and have inspired confidence. Nothing came out from their cross examination to disbelieve them in any manner. PW11 Dr. Anil Shandil has proved the postmortem report and according to his opinion, cause of death was asphyxia with cerebral congestion resulting from ligature hanging. Time since death was approximately about 32 to 34 hours. He has also proved his report Ex. PW11/A. According to Ex. PW11/A, postmortem was conducted on 07/10/2003 at about 11.20. So, the time of death comes to approximately 1.20 a.m. in the intervening night of 05/06.10.2003.
According to PW1 Rai Singh, they received information at about 11 a.m. about the death of Anita on 06/10/2003. PW11 has also identified the Chunni as Ex. P1, with which, Anita was found hanging with the Gaddar. PW11 has not been cross examined in any manner. So, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that within seven years of marriage, Anita died unnatural death and as it has already been held that prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that Anita was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before death by accused Smt. Prem, Bijender and Raj Kumar for and in connection with demand of dowry i.e. Maruti car. Accordingly, prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 304B/34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubts against accused Smt. Prem, Bijender and Raj Kumar, for which, they are held guilty and convicted for the same.
As prosecution has not been able to prove offence U/s. 498A of IPC against accused Seema, so, it has not been proved that soon before death of Anita, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry by accused Seema also. So, prosecution has not been able to prove SC No. 123/1 48 offence U/s. 304B/34 of IPC against accused Seema. Accordingly, she is acquitted for the same.
Findings qua offence U/s. 406 of IPC:
In this respect, PW1 Rai Singh has stated that he had given list of dowry articles consisting of two sheets and the same are Ex. PA and Ex. PB. These were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/B. In the cross examination, PW1 Rai Singh has denied that in the marriage, only one rupee was given.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW1 Rai Singh has admitted in the cross examination that list of dowry articles Ex. PA and Ex. PB were prepared by counsel for PW1 Rai Singh and he does not know from which shop the said articles were purchased. So, the list of dowry articles is itself doubtful. It is also further doubtful whether such articles were given in the dowry at the time of marriage or not.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that PW1 Rai Singh has denied the suggestion that list of dowry articles Ex. PA and Ex. PB have been fabricated in this case just to give a colour to case of the prosecution. PW3 Smt. Murti Devi has not stated anything about entrustment of dowry articles to the accused persons. PW4 Mohinder, PW5 Rajender Singh, PW6 Khem Chand and PW10 Suresh Kumar have also not stated anything about the entrustment of dowry articles to the accused persons.
PW22 Inspector Mahipal Singh and other police officials have nowhere stated that they have made any efforts to recover the dowry articles. Even efforts were not made by the police officials to recover motorcycle Hero SC No. 123/1 49 Honda Splendour and one buffalo. PW22 has denied the suggestion that he had conducted the search of accused persons, but 10 tolas gold jewellery was not recovered. He has further denied that he had not conducted the search of house of accused persons.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW13 Satish Kumar has stated that while he was present in the mortuary of BJRM hospital on 06/10/2003, the body of deceased Anita was taken for postmortem and it was found wearing some jewellery articles, which were seized by the police vide memo Ex. PW13/A. Learned defence counsel has further contended that whatever jewellery Anita was having, she was wearing at that time. So, the accused persons has not misappropriated the dowry articles of deceased Anita.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that according to the list of dowry articles, clothes, utensils, jewellery articles and other household articles, furniture and electrical goods were given, which have not been recovered from the house of the accused persons. Ld. Addl. PP has further contended that the articles given in the marriage are normal household articles and it cannot be said that even such articles have not been given by PW1 Rai Singh in the marriage of his daughter Anita. Learned Addl. PP has further contended that wearing jewellery articles, which were found on the body of Anita, were very few and rest of the articles have not been recovered from the accused persons despite efforts made by PW22 Inspector Mahipal Singh. So, prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 406 of IPC against the accused persons.
In this respect, PW1 Rai Singh has admitted in the cross SC No. 123/1 50 examination that in "sagai ceremony", they gave only one rupee, but has denied that in the marriage, one rupee was given. PW1 has further stated in the cross examination that at the time of engagement ceremony, accused persons demanded Rs. 2200/, but this fact has not been stated to the SDM by PW1 in his statement Ex. PW1/A, so, he cannot be relied upon in this respect that Rs. 2200/ were demanded by the accused persons in the engagement ceremony, however, its prevalent in the villages that engagement can be done by giving one rupee only. So, it was quite natural that at the time of Sagai ceremony, only one rupee was given and this fact itself does not prove that in the marriage, no dowry articles were given. List of dowry articles Ex. PA and Ex. PB has been given by PW1 to the police showing some gold articles, household furniture, electronic items etc. These are the general items, which are being given in the marriage by the parents of a bride alongwith the clothes and utensils etc. These articles have not been returned by the accused persons nor have been recovered by the IO during investigation.
From the evidence of PW22 Inspector Mahipal Malik, it is not certain whether any raid was conducted by him or whether he made any efforts to recover these articles including motorcycle and buffalo, but if these articles have not been recovered, then it does not mean that these articles were not given in the marriage because these are the normal articles, which are being given in the marriage by every parents and every parent make efforts to provide these articles in the marriage of their daughter. Parents of Anita were residing in Haryana, so, this might have been one of the cause that they might have not been able to pursue the case, while visiting Delhi again and again and due to SC No. 123/1 51 which, recovery could not have been effected.
The contention of learned defence counsel that dowry articles were recovered from the body of deceased Anita and were seized vide memo Ex. PW13/A are the only jewellery articles, which she was found wearing, hence, there was no criminal breach of trust. I have seen the list. According to it, two gold karas, one gold set, one finger ring, one gold chain, one gold Tika, one silver Tagdi (waist band), one anklet, one foot finger ring were given. Even if we assume that the jewellery articles, which were recovered from the body of deceased Anita as per seizure memo Ex. PW13/A were the only articles, even then, other articles were given in the marriage as per Ex. PA and Ex. PB, which neither accused persons have returned nor could be recovered by the police during investigation. PW1 Rai Singh has been cross examined regarding list of dowry articles. PW1 has styated that he does not know from which shop the articles were purchased as he had given money to his brother Meer Singh, who had purchased the articles and has further denied the suggestion that no dowry articles were given to the accused persons. So, only on this cross examination, PW1 cannot be disbelieved in any manner that no dowry articles were given to the accused persons in the marriage to accused Raj Kumar and Anita. Hence, the contention of learned defence counsel is not tenable in any manner.
Section 405 of IPC is in respect of criminal breach of trust. Certainly after the marriage, Anita had entrusted these dowry articles to her husband and her mother in law only because these were household articles. Accused Bijender had already been married. So, in no manner, he could have been entrusted by Anita with these stridhan articles given in the marriage. SC No. 123/1 52 These stridhan articles have neither been returned by the accused persons nor have been recovered during investigation, which shows that they have been dishonestly misappropriated and have been converted to their own use by accused Smt. Prem and Raj Kumar. From the circumstances, as deposed by the witnesses, it does not seem to be probable that the dowry articles given in the marriage were entrusted to accused Bijender and accused Seema. So, prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 406 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC against accused Smt. Prem and Raj Kumar only, for which, they are held guilty and convicted for the same. Accused Bijender and Seema are acquitted for offence U/s. 406/34 of IPC. Announced in Open Court on th dated 16 of August, 2011 (Virender Kumar Goyal) Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court Rohini : Delhi SC No. 123/1 53 SC No. 123/1 54