Delhi District Court
State vs Om Prakash Sharma on 21 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VANDANA JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 & SPECIAL JUDGE
(COMPANIES ACT) SOUTH WEST: DWARKA COURTS:
NEW DELHI
SC No. : 440480/2016
State Vs. : Om Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. : 239/2010
U/s. : 498A/304B/34 IPC
P.S. : Bindapur
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW01-000024-2010
2. Date of commission of offence : 22.11.2009 (date of
marriage) till intervening
night of 14/15.07.2010
3. Date of institution of the case : 12.10.2010
4. Date of committal to Sessions Court : 12.11.2010
5. Name of the complainant : Sh. Neeraj Sharma
6. Name of accused, parentage &
address : (1) Om Prakash
S/o Late Sh.Bhagwan
Dass Sharma,
R/o H. No. 60, Gali
No. 1, Sabhapur Gujran,
Karawal Nagar,
Delhi-110094.
(2) Shashi Sharma @
Rajni
W/o Ajit Sharma
R/o H. No. 60, Gali
SC no. 440480/2016
State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 1 of 41
No. 1, Sabhapur Gujran,
Karawal Nagar,
Delhi-110094.
(3) Ajit Sharma
S/o Om Prakash
R/o H. No. 60, Gali
No. 1, Sabhapur Gujran,
Karawal Nagar,
Delhi-110094.
7. Offences complained off : 498A/304B/34 IPC
8. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
9. Date on which order was reserved : 12.12.2023
10. Final order : 21.12.2023
11. Date of final order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
Facts
1. The criminal law machinery was set into motion on receiving DD No. 4A in the intervening night of 14/15.07.2010 at about 12:30 am at PS Bindapur with the fact that a girl had committed suicide at H. No. D-16A, Om Vihar, Bindapur, New Delhi and her husband had run away. On the said information, SI Krishan Kumar along with Const. V. Tiga reached the aforesaid house No. D-16A and found that the lady named Chitra Sharma, aged about 25 years was lying on the ground floor of the said SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 2 of 41 house. SI Krishan Kumar informed the concerned authority in the police station about the same, who in turn called the Ilaqa Magistrate. Crime team came to the spot. The crime team took the photographs of the spot and the dead body. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to DDU Hospital Mortuary. SDM Najafgarh reached DDU hospital wherein he met Vimla Sharma (mother of deceased, addressed as Bimla Sharma during her deposition and remaining proceedings. She shall be referred to as Bimla Sharma hereinafter), Neeraj (brother of deceased) and Bhagwat Swaroop (maternal uncle of deceased). He recorded their statement and inquest proceedings were conducted by the SDM Najafgarh. The postmortem was conducted on the body of the deceased and thereafter it was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.
2. Before proceeding to the complaint made by Smt. Bimla Devi (mother of the deceased), it is pertinent to mention here that the present judgment is being passed in respect of accused Om Prakash, Ajeet Sharma and Shashi Sharma, who are father-in-law (sasur), brother-in-law (jeth) and sister-in-law (jethani) respectively. Initially, they were discharged by the then Ld. Additional Sessions Judge. However, thereafter, the said order was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the revision petition vide order dated 03.12.2014. A direction was given to frame charges against the accused persons herein under Section 304B/498A/34 IPC. Accordingly, the charges were framed SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 3 of 41 against the said accused persons on 09.01.2015.
3. At the time when the aforesaid accused persons were discharged, accused Vishwajeet Sharma (husband of the deceased) and accused Asha Sharma (mother-in-law of the deceased) were charged for the offences under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC and they were put to trial wherein both of them were convicted for the offences charged by the then Ld. Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 24.01.2012. The trial regarding Vishwajeet Sharma (husband of the deceased) and accused Asha Sharma (mother-in-law of the deceased) shall be referred as 'previous trial' hereinafter.
4. After framing the charges against the accused persons herein, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused persons under Section 294 Cr.PC was also recorded on 08.03.2019 wherein they admitted the testimonies of witnesses i.e. PW-3, PW-4, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-17 recorded during previous trial. PE was closed on 11.03.2019.
5. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which have come on record. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the mother of the deceased Smt. Bimla Sharma had expired by the time the accused persons SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 4 of 41 herein were put to trial and her testimony could not be recorded. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are detailed as under:-
6. PW1 Inspector Deepak Kumar : He is witness of investigation.
7. PW2 Sh. Neeraj Sharma : He is the elder brother of deceased. He has deposed that Chitra Sharma was his younger sister and married to accused Vishwa Jeet Sharma on 22.11.2009. He further deposed that he had done roka ceremony in January, 2009. In June or July, 2009, he received phone call from accused Om Prakash Sharma, who told him that a meeting is to be convened. Within 2-3 days of the phone call, he alongwith his mother Smt. Bimla Sharma (since deceased) had gone to the home of accused Om Prakash Sharma at Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar where accused Om Prakash Sharma, Ajit Sharma, Asha Sharma and Rajni Sharma were present and they demanded vehicle i-10, 32 inches LCD TV, refrigerator, machine, air conditioner. Accused Asha Sharma and Rajni @ Shashi made demands of gold sets for ladies, golden rings and golden chains for male members and cash of Rs. 1,10,000/- in shagun which were complied by him and his family members. On 22.11.2009, marriage of his sister took place. After sometime, it was observed that Chitra Sharma (since deceased) was becoming weaker day by day and on asking, she told that she was being harassed by her SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 5 of 41 in-laws as she had brought less dowry and the brought gold articles were of light weight. Chitra Sharma also told him that she was taunted by her in-laws that her height was short and she was less beautiful as compared to Vishwa Jeet Sharma and a new demand of Rs.4 lacs was raised by her in-laws to compensate for bringing less dowry. He deposed that he assured Chitra Sharma that he would make arrangements despite the fact that he had previously taken loan. He further deposed that on the occasion of Holi, Chitra came to their home with her husband Vishwa Jeet Sharma when he noticed that there was swelling in her wrists and on asking, she told that she was beaten and she was given fist blow in her stomach by accused Vishwa Jeet Sharma. On 12.07.2010, on birthday of Chitra Sharma, he and his mother went to matrimonial home of Chitra to celebrate her birthday and also took sweets and fruits with them but accused Om Prakash Sharma, Ajit Sharma, Asha Sharma and Shashi @ Rajni became angry and said that they were expecting Rs.4 lacs and after that accused Asha Sharma threw the sweets and fruits brought by them. He further deposed that he assured that he was making arrangements for the money and pacified them. Chitra Sharma told them that arrangements be made early as she was being harassed physically as well as mentally. On 14.07.2010 at about 6.00 pm, there was a telephonic talk between Chitra and his mother and his mother told that "beta chinta mat kar, hum jaldi se jaldi arrangement karenge aur kal subah hi paise le kar aate hain". On the intervening night of 14.07.2010 and 15.07.2010 at SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 6 of 41 about 12.30 am, accused Ajit Sharma came to their home and told them that Chitra had died. They went alongwith accused Ajit Sharma to his home. Before their reaching there, neither ambulance nor police was called by accused persons and he after reaching there, called his maternal uncle Bhagwat Swaroop Vats. He reached there and then then they called ambulance and police. Accused persons were asking them not to call ambulance and police. He further deposed that he had seen the body of Chitra Sharma lying on the bed in the room near entrance at ground floor. Accused had also asked them not to call relatives. Police reached there and took the dead body of his sister to DDU hospital and asked them to go to their home. They went to their home on 15.07.2010 in the night at about 2 or 2.30am. They had also gone for postmortem and identified the dead body of his sister vide memo Ex.PW1/E and after that, they had received the body of deceased Chitra vide memo Ex.PW15/A and had cremated her. SDM had also recorded statement of his mother. He further deposed that he had handed over marriage photographs and invitation card regarding marriage of his sister to police vide memo Ex.PW-14/B.
8. During his cross examination, PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Sharma has stated as under:
"My earnings are never fixed. My annual income is approximately Rs.5 lacs. Police recorded my statement on 15.07.2010. I have started paying income tax since year 2013-2014 and before that I was not paying any income tax SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 7 of 41 and was not income tax assessee. It is incorrect to suggest that since I was not having any income, so I was not paying any income tax. I had no other source of income excepting earnings as priest. My residential accommodation is provided by the temple and is of two rooms. It is correct to suggest that before marriage, all meetings had taken place at aforesaid residential accommodation and our financial status was known to accused persons. It is incorrect to suggest that that after auka ceremony, till marriage, my sister used to meet Vishwajit.
I had told SDM in my statement that in June or July, 2009, I received phone call from accused Om Prakash Sharma. Confronted with statement Ex.PW-1/B where it is not so recorded.
I had not told SDM in my statement that "Accused Om Prakash Sharma told me that a meeting is to be convened. Within 2-3 days of the phone call, I alongwith my mother, now deceased, Bimla Sharma had gone to the home of accused. Om Prakash Sharma at Om Vihar. Unam Nagar. At that place, accused Om Prakash Sharma; accused Ajit Sharma; Asha Sharma, mother of accused Ajit Sharma; accused Rajni Sharma, were present in the meeting. In that meeting, demand of vehicle i-10, 32 inches LCD TV, refrigerator, washing machine, air conditioner was made from us. Asha Sharma and accused Rajni @ Shashi made demand of gold sets for ladies, golden rings and golden chains for male members. Demand of cash of Rs.1,10,000/- in shagun was also made."
I had not told SDM in my statement that "All aforesaid articles including jewelery were given by us to the family of Visinen Jeet Sharma on 18.11.2009 in shagun ceremony,"
I had not told SDM in my statement that, "After sometime, we observed that Chitra Sharma was becoming weaker day by day. We asked her persistently what was the trouble and why she was becoming weak."SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 8 of 41
I had not told SDM in my statement that, "Chitra Sharma told us that she was being harassed by her in-laws as she had brought less dowry and the brought gold articles were of light weight. In daily routine, Chitra Sharma was taunted by her in-laws that her height was short and she was less beautiful as compared to Vishwa Jeet Sharma."
I had not told SDM in my statement that, "Chitra Sharma also told that a new demand of Rs.4 lacs was raised by her in-laws to compensate for bringing less dowry."
I had told SDM in my statement that, "Sometimes, it was said that with Rs.4 lacs, business will be done, sometimes it was said that for service said money was required. I assured my sister Chitra and that I will make arrangements despite the fact that I had previously taken loan." Confronted with statement Ex.PW-1/B where it is not so recorded.
I had not told SDM in my statement that, "On the date of Holi in year 2010, we had called Chitra at our home for celebration of Holi. Chitra came to our home with her husband Vishwa Jeet Sharma. During the course of discussions, I noticed that in her wrists, Chitra had swelling. When Vishwa Jeet Sharma went to washroom in the course of talks, then Chitra told us that she was beaten and she was given fist blow in her stomach by Vishwa Jeet Sharma."
I had not told SDM in my statement that, "On 12.07.2010, on birthday of Chitra Sharma, I and my mother went to her matrimonial home. To celebrate her birthday, we took with us sweets and fruits. At that place, accused Om Prakash Sharma, accused Ajit Sharma, Asha Sharma, accused Shashi @ Rajni were present besides my sister. Having seen sweets and fruits in our hands, aforesaid persons namely accused Om Prakash Sharma, accused Ajit Sharma, Asha Sharma, accused Shashi @ Rajni became angry and said that we were expecting Rs.4 SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 9 of 41 lacs for happiness of our sister. Asha Sharma threw the sweets and fruits brought by us. I assured that I was making arrangements for the money and it will take time for such arrangements. On my assurance, aforesaid persons became somewhat pacified. All these persons went to their respective rooms. I, my mother and my sister Chitra Sharma were only left in the drawing room. Chitra Sharma told us that arrangements be made early as she was being harassed physically as well as mentally. I assured Chitra that I will make arrangement for the money as soon as possible. After meeting Chitra, we had returned to our home."
I had not told SDM in my statement that, "On 14.07.2010 at about 6pm, there was telephonic talk between Chitra and my mother. I was not able to hear what Chitra was saying from the other side of the phone. My mother said at that time to Chitra that, "beta chinta mat kar, hum jaldi se jaldi arrangement karenge aur kal subah hi paise le kar aate hain".
It is correct to suggest that my sister Chitra was doing service as temporary Fine Arts teacher in DAV Public School, Vikas Puri before and after marriage. It is correct to suggest that place of work of my sister Chitra was near to my home. After marriage Chitra did used to visit our home. I did not verify the bank balance o of Chitra sher het death. I have knowledge of only one bank account of Chitra in AXIS bank and I cannot say whether Chitra had two bank accounts. I do not know so I cannot admit or deny that in AXIS bank account. Chitra had balance of Rs.1,03,378/- at the time of her death or she did not withdraw large sums from that account. Later on after the death of Chitra, I came to know about bank account of Chitra in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vikas Puri but I do not remember what was the balance there after her death. I had withdrawn money from AXIS bank account of Chitra after her death. Voln. I had myself deposited money in said account. Since I was not asked about it, so I did not tell about it to the SDM or police. I had not withdrawn money from account of Chitra in OBC. I made efforts to know SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 10 of 41 bank balance of Chitra after her death. I do not remember what was the bank balance of Chitra after her death so I cannot admit or deny Rs.70,336/- was the balance in account of Chitra in OBC I had withdrawn the money from account of Chitra in AXIS bank perhaps by use of ATM card but I do not remember exactly. It is incorrect to suggest that my home expenses were also borne out from said money of account of Chitra. I had not checked from the account of Chitra in OBC whether any large sum was withdrawn.
I do not remember whether my sister Chitra appeared in exams for higher studies after marriage. I do not know so I cannot admit or deny whether to appear in Master of Fine Arts exam, Chitra had gone to Gwalior thrice after her marriage with her husband or that her admission was at the time of marriage. I cannot tell when my sister had conceived. I cannot tell what was the medical problem of my sister. Voln. She had no medical problem. I have no knowledge of abortion of Chitra. I have no knowledge of name of treating doctor of Chitra. I have no knowledge of complications of bleedings faced by Chitra during pregnancy. I do not know so I cannot admit or deny that due to excessive bleeding to Chitra, her abortion took place at Gandhi Nursing Home. My relations with Chitra were cordial. Sensitive talks of females are shared with mother and not with brother.
It is correct to suggest that after marriage, Chitra and her husband went outstation for visit, I do not know in 1 cane smit or deny whether Chitra with her husband went to Kulles Manali on 29.05.2010. I do not know so I cannot admit or deny whether Chitra with her husband attended mundan function on 200.06.2010. I do not know so 1 cannot admit or deny whether Chitra gave exam for drawing teacher on 27.06.2010 1 do not remember whether on the day of birthday, we had taken dinner at the matrimonial home of my sister Chitra.
I knew that accused Ajit Sharma was working in Delhi Police as Constable. Whenever I used to visit at SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 11 of 41 matrimonial home of my sister, I found accused Ajit normally there. I do not remember whether in May or June of year 2010, I visited the matrimonial home of Chitra. It is incorrect to suggest that accused Ajit used to go to office in day and return back in the evening. I do not know so I cannot admit or deny whether accused Ajit Sharma was on training for two months prior to 13.07.2010.
Since my sister Chitra was being tortured, so she remained unhappy around 10.07.2010. It is incorrect to suggest that since Chitra had abortion and was undergoing treatment so she remained unhappy around 10.07.2010. It is incorrect to suggest that on 12.07.2015, 1 had gone to home of Chitra to pacify her that she may conceive age she met not worry. Chitra was never got treated for pregnancy nearby our home by me, my family members of accused persons.
I do not remember when I had got the vehicle booked, which was given in marriage to my sister so I cannot admit be deny whether it was got booked 36 days prior to marriage.
It is wrong to suggest that no meeting was held in Jung or July 2009 or that I did not receive any phone call from accused Om Prakash Sharma or that I alongwith my mother (now deceased) Vimla Sharma had not gone to the home of Om Prakash Sharma at Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar or that no demand of 1-10 32 inches LCD TV, refrigerator, washing machine, air conditioner, was made to us by the accused or that no jewelery or cash was demanded by any accused. It is wrong to say that we did not observe Chitra Sharma weaker day by day or that we did not ask her persistently what was trouble or why she was becoming weak. It is wrong to say that my deceased sister never told us that she was being harassed by her in-laws for bringing less dowry or other articles. It is wrong to say that my deceased sister was being not taunted by her in-laws that her height was short and she was less beautiful an compared to Vishwajit Sharma, It is wrong to say that no demand of Rs.4 lack was ever raised by any accused SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 12 of 41 person to compensate less dowry. It is wrong to say that Rs. 4 lacs were never demanded for any purpose or that I never gave any assurance to my deceased sister. It is wrong to say that on the date of Holi in the year 2010, we had not called Chitra. I had not shown Chitra for her swelling in her wrist to any doctor. It is incorrect to suggest that there was no swelling on the wrist of Chitra It is wrong to say that accused did not threw sweets and fruits which we took to the house of Chitra on 12.07.2010 or that no demand of Rs.4 lacs or any kind were made by family of accused persons to us. I had not given the phone numbers of my mother and Chitra to police on which they had talks as police never demanded them from me I do not know whether police obtained any call detail records. It is wrong to say that there was no telephone talks between Chitra and her mother on 14.07.2010. It is wrong to say that I have concocted a story and presented the same before the court to falsely implicate the accused persons. It is incorrect to suggest that Chitra committed suicide as she was upset and depressed by the abortion. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
9. PW-3 Sh. Krishan Gopal Sharma : He deposed that on 22.11.2009, he solemnized the marriage of Vishwa Kumar Sharma and Chitra Sharma (since deceased) at H Block, Ram Mandir, Vikas Puri according to Hindu Rites and ceremony. He further deposed that he came to know that Chitra Sharma was disturbed and unhappy in her in-law's house.
10. Since PW-3 Sh. Krishan Gopal Sharma did not support the case of prosecution on some material aspects, he was cross examined by learned Addl. PP for the State. During his cross examination by learned Addl. PP for the State, he has admitted it to be correct that he come to know Chitra Sharma was being SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 13 of 41 harassed by her in-law's for demand of Dowry and he told this fact to the police u/s 161 Cr.PC.
11. PW4 Sh. Bhagwat Sarup : He has deposed that he was working as Assistant Ambulance Officer, in CATS Delhi Governments and deceased Chitra Sharma was his niece, who was married to accused Vishwa Kumar Sharma. He deposed that after her marriage when he used to visit the residence of his sister, his niece Chitra used to tell him that her in-laws used to harass her on account of housing chores and his sister told him that in-laws of Chitra used to demand money. He further deposed that in the intervening night of 14-15.07.2010 at about 12:05 am, Neeraj Sharma (PW-2) called him and informed that brother-in- law (jeth) of Chitra had come and informed that Chitra had committed suicide. He further deposed that he informed to his control room and he along his staff member and CAT ambulance reached at D-16/A, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi where Chitra was found lying on a bed in the drawing room. He further deposed that he checked her pulses and found that she was already dead and husband of Chitra had already fled away from the spot. He further deposed that in the meantime, Neeraj (PW-2) and his sister Bimla reached at the spot. He further deposed that police was not called by them, so he took the mobile phone of his colleague Sh. Hazari Lal Meena and informed to the police at 100 and after sometime, PCR and local police reached at spot and the dead body was taken to the hospital. He was duly cross SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 14 of 41 examined by ld. Counsel for accused persons.
12. PW4 HC Arun Kumar (to be read as PW4A) : He is a witness to investigation and deposed that on the direction of I/C Crime Team, he took 05 photographs of the spot from different angles and proved the same Ex.PW14/A1 to Ex.PW14/A5 and negatives as Ex. PW14/B1 to Ex.PW14/B5.
13. PW5 Inspector Mahesh Kumar : He has prepared rough note of the place of occurrence and later prepared scaled site plan Ex. PW 2/A on the basis of rough note.
14. PW6 Dr. B.N. Mishra : He has deposed that on 15.07.2010, he conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Chitra Sharma D/o late Sh. Gauri Shankar and opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to ante mortem ligature hanging and time since death was 14-15 hours prior to postmortem examination and manner of death was suicide. He proved his detailed report as Ex. PW 12/A. He further deposed that on 16.09.2010, Inspector Surender Kumar (PW-8) moved an application for want of subsequent opinion regarding consistency of ligature material that was chunni. He further deposed that he opined that the ligature mark present on the neck of the deceased could have been possible by produced ligature material i.e. chunni. He proved his subsequent opinion as Ex.PW12/B. SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 15 of 41
15. PW7 ACP Pyare Lal : He is a witness of investigation. He has deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW20/A at the instance of SI Krishan (PW-13), recorded the statements of complainant Bimla and brother of the deceased Neeraj (PW-2), who handed over two photographs of deceased Chitra. He has arrested the accused Vishwajeet vide arrest memo Ex.PW 16/A, recorded supplementary statement of Neeraj (PW-2) on 31.07.2010 and took the photocopies of 21 receipts of the dowry articles given to the deceased Chitra in his possession.
16. PW8 ACP Surender Kumar : He is a witness of investigation. He has deposed that Dr. B.N. Mishra (PW-6) gave the subsequent opinion Ex. PW12/B and that he filed chargesheet against accused Vishwa Kumar Sharma, Ajeet Sharma, Shashi Sharma and Om Prakash Sharma.
17. PW-9 SI Vishnu Prasad Sharma : He recorded DD No.4A Ex.PW6/A in respect of receipt of an information regarding suicide by one lady at B-16A, Om Vihar, Bindapur.
18. PW-10 SI Devender Kumar : He has deposed that on 08.10.2010, the investigation of the present case was marked to him and during further investigation he collected (i) duplicate copy of the invoice of Hyundai 1-10 car in the name of Smt. Chitra Sharma; (ii) photocopy of the invoice of LCD TV in the name of Smt. Chitra Sharma; (iii) photocopy of the bills SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 16 of 41 regarding jewellery in the name of Neeraj Sharma (PW-2) from M/s Gupta Jewellers at Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi; and (iv) invoice of an Air Conditioner, Refrigerator and a wrist watch in the name of Smt. Chitra Sharma and recorded the concerned witnesses in respect of the said bills/invoices.
19. PW-11 Sh. Om Prakash Gupta : He is the owner of Gupta Jewellers, Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi and has deposed that on 13.11.2009, one gold chain set, one chain, one pendent set, three gents rings, three tops and on 14.11.2009, one gold set were purchased in the name of Mr. Neeraj Sharma (PW2) vide bills Ex. PW-10/A and Ex. PW-10/B.
20. PW-12 Sh. Satender Singh : He is owner of showroom under the name and style Sound & Image at Jail Road, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and proved the bill Ex.PW8/A in respect of Videocon LCD purchased on 15.11.2009 in the name of Ms. Chitra Sharma.
21. PW-13 SI Krishan Kumar: He is a witness of investigation.
22. PW-14 Sh. Rajeev Shukla (earlier examined as PW-1 on 18.02.2011): He is the then SDM Najafgarh. He has deposed that on 15.07.2010, he received a telephonic information from PS Bindapur regarding death of one lady namely Smt. Chitra SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 17 of 41 Sharma and was asked to reach at DDU hospital where he met Smt. Bimla Sharma, mother of deceased, PW-2 Neeraj Sharma and Sh. Bhagwat Swaroop (maternal uncle of deceased) and he recorded their statements Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. He further deposed that dead body was identified by Smt. Bimla Sharma and PW-2 vide memos Ex.PW1/D and PW1/E. He further deposed that he filled up Form 25.35 Ex. PW1/F after inspection of dead body and prepared inquest report Ex. PW1/G and made endorsement on it and gave instructions to concerned SHO for taking necessary action as per law.
23. The testimonies of the witnesses in previous trial, which were admitted under Section 294 Cr.PC by the accused persons on 08.03.2019 are as under :
a) PW-3 SI Dominika Purti : She is the Duty Officer who recorded the FIR and made an endorsement on the rukka.
b) PW-4 Sh. Pawan : He is an official from Transport Authority, Delhi who proved that Hyundai i1o car was in the name of deceased Chitra Sharma and the registration number for the said car was issued on 23.11.2009.
c) PW-7 Sh. Surjeet Singh : He is a witness who proved that Hyundai i10 car was purchased on 15.11.2009 in the name of deceased Chitra Sharma from the dealer M/s Deep Hyundai Dealership of Hyundai Motors.
d) PW-8 Satyender Singh : He is a witness who proved that Videocon LCD TV was purchased from their showroom.SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 18 of 41
e) PW-9 Vishwajit Ghosh : He deposed with respect to purchase of washing machine, whirlpool refrigerator and whirlpool AC from their showroom.
f) PW-17 Lady Ct. Avinash : She deposed that on 15.07.2010 she was posted in PCR and her duty was in D shift from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. She further deposed that at about 12.30 am in the night, she received a call to the effect that a lady had committed suicide in H.No.D-16, Om Vihar, Delhi and her husband had absconded. She further deposed that she filled up PCR Form and uploaded the information on internet pertaining to South West District. She has proved the PCR Form as Ex.PW17/A.
24. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
Statement under Section 313 CrPC
25. Statements of all three accused persons under Section 313 CPC were recorded wherein they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present. Accused Om Prakash did not opt to lead DE, whereas accused Ajit Sharma and Shashi Sharma @ Rajni opted to lead defence evidence.
Defence Evidence
26. DW-1 Dr. Juhi Sharma : She had deposed with respect to treatment given by her to deceased on 10.07.2010 till 11.07.2010. She deposed that patient Chitra Sharma had come to the OPD SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 19 of 41 and complained for two months amenorrhea and bleeding PV off and on for the last 10 days. She had been taking treatment from some other gynaecologist and had the ultrasound report of missed abortion.
27. DW-2 Sh. Rajendra Prasad : He ha produced brought the bank statement of deceased Chitra Sharma maintained in OBC, Branch DAV Vikaspuri.
28. DW-3 SI Harsahay Singh : He has deposed that in the intervening night of 14/15.07.2010, he was on duty at CPCR Police Headquarter as HC and Duty Operator from 8pm to 8am. He further deposed that he has seen form no.1 regarding CRDD no. 15Jul101190020 extension no. 119 and said that the operator who received the information recorded in this form had sent him the information on computer to pass the call on nearest PCR van and to local police. Report received from van was recorded by him vide DCR no. 179 on said form as per information received from Zebra 21 and Tiger 47 and the said information recorded by him in said form is now in encircled portion of said form Ex.DW3/A.
29. DW-5 Ms. Subha : She has produced the statement of account of deceased in respect of her account at AXIS Branch, Vikas Puri Branch.
SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 20 of 4130. Accused Ajit Sharma and Shashi Sharma @ Rajni had examined themselves under Section 315 CrPC as DW-6 and DW7.
31. DW-6 Accused Ajit Sharma: He has deposed that Vishwajeet Sharma is his younger brother. He was married to deceased Chitra Sharma on 22.11.2009. Chitra was teacher of Fine Art subject and was working at DAV School, Vikaspuri, on temporary basis. She was further studying for Master of Fine Art from Gwalior. She went to Gwalior thrice for above course with Vishwa Kumar Sharma. The railway tickets were already produced in the cross examination of Smt. Bimla Sharma. After the marriage, the couple had gone to Mata Vaishno Devi shrine and Manali. The photographs of the same were also produced by him during the cross examination of Smt. Bimla Sharma. After the marriage, Chitra was having some medical problem and the treatment for the same was given to her from various Medical Practitioners. Chitra was residing with her husband at first floor of the house and he used to reside at ground floor with his family. In July 2010, Chitra had taken medical treatment in respect of pregnancy from Dr. Pushpa Jindal. She was having some bleeding problem during the pregnancy, because of which the doctor had advised her for abortion as there was no growth in the foetus. The second opinion was taken from Dr. Juhi at Gandhi Nursing Home and after that abortion was conducted on 10.07.2010 at Gandhi Nursing Home. The parents of Chitra were SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 21 of 41 also informed regarding this fact. Because of this fact, Chitra used to remain under stress. He further deposed that on 14.07.2010, at about 10:00 pm, his wife received a call from accused Vishwajeet, who stated that Chitra was not picking his phone, on this, his wife went upstairs in order to see Chitra but she did not open the door. He further deposed that thereafter he alongwith his father went upstairs and knocked the door but Chitra did not open the door and thereafter, they broke the door. Chitra was found in hanging condition. Thereafter, they removed her from hanging condition and then took her to Gandhi Nursing Home where the doctor had declared her brought dead. They have not demanded any dowry from Chitra and never harassed her or subjected her to cruelty on account of dowry demand at any point of time.
32. DW-7 Accused Shashi Sharma @ Rajni : She deposed that she was married to accused Ajit Sharma in the year 2004. Accused Vishwajeet is her brother-in-law. She deposed on the same lines as that of DW-6 Ajit Sharma, her husband.
Arguments on behalf of parties
33. Ld. Addl. PP for the State had argued that deceased Chitra Sharma was married to accused Vishwajeet Sharma. Ld. Addl. PP for the State had further argued that unfortunately the mother of the deceased Smt. Bimla Sharma expired when the matter was listed for prosecution evidence and her testimony could not be SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 22 of 41 recorded due to her death against these accused persons. He had argued that now the star witness of this case is PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Sharma who happens to be the brother of the deceased and during his deposition, he had categorically deposed with respect to demand of Rs.4 lakhs by in-laws of the deceased and had also deposed that she was harassed in connection with the said demand. Ld. Addl. PP for the State had submitted that the accused persons had taken a defence that deceased was depressed due to medical termination of her pregnancy and therefore, committed suicide but this defence had been turned down by the learned Predecessor who had convicted the husband and mother- in-law of the deceased in previous trial. He had further submitted that since there was a demand of Rs.4 lakhs and for non- fulfillment of which the deceased was harassed and she was forced to commit suicide, therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt for the charges framed under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC.
34. Written submissions were also filed by the complainant wherein apart from the submissions made by ld. Addl. PP for the State, it was mentioned that the accused persons have raised defence that deceased was having around Rs.2.5 lakhs in her bank account and had they been demanded dowry of Rs.4 lakhs, they would have at the very first instance not allowed her to keep that money and would have taken it out from her account or she SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 23 of 41 would have given it to them to save herself from cruelty. With respect to said arguments, it is mentioned that the brother of the deceased had clearly stated that he was not aware of other accounts of the deceased and it was in the control of the accused persons themselves and this is the reason why the deceased did not give this money to the accused persons when they were demanding Rs.4 lakhs.
35. On the other hand, ld. counsel for accused persons had argued that the star witness of this case i.e. mother of the deceased had expired and she had not entered the witness box against these accused persons. He had further argued that PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Sharma had made material improvements while deposing in the present case and he deposed on the facts in such a manner that he covered the statement of his mother who was not available for her deposition, which is not permissible under the law. Ld. counsel for the accused persons had argued that the accused persons had led evidence and had proved that the deceased was living a normal life in her matrimonial home and infact she was pursuing higher studies there and her husband and in-laws were facilitating the same. It was also argued that the main reason for committing suicide by her was medical termination of her pregnancy due to which she was depressed and was not able to come out of the same. Ld. counsel for the accused persons had argued that accused Ajit Sharma and Shashi Sharma had examined themselves under Section 315 CrPC and SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 24 of 41 had duly proved their defence. He had submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge framed against the accused persons and therefore, they are liable to be acquitted.
36. I have heard ld. counsels for the parties and have carefully perused record.
Analyisis, Reasoning & Findings
37. The relevant provisions of law which are relevant for the purposes of deciding this case are as follows:
"304-B. Dowry death-(l) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death," and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
*Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."
38. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 defines "dowry" as under :
"2. Definition of "dowry"-In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly -SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 25 of 41
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to an other person.
At or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of said parties, but does not include Dower or Mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation I-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any presents made at the time of a marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this section, unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the said parties. Explanation II- The expression 'valuable security' has the same meaning as in in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code."
39. Section 113B of Evidence Act raises a presumption against the accused and reads:
"113-B Presumption as to dowry death - When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such a person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code."
40. The legal position firmly established is that 'suicidal death' of a married woman within seven years of her marriage is SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 26 of 41 covered by the expression "death of a woman is caused..............or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances" as used in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. (Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, [2000] 8 SCC 663).
41. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand" 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454 has held that :
"13. A conjoint reading of Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act with reference to the presumption raised was discussed in para 32 of the aforesaid judgment, which is extracted below:-
"32. This Court while often dwelling on the scope and purport of Section 304-B of the Code and Section 113-B of the Act have propounded that the presumption is contingent on the fact that the prosecution first spell out the ingredients of the offence of Section 304-B as in Shindo v. State of Punjab [Shindo v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 517: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 394] and echoed in Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana [Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 16 SCC 640 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 346].
In the latter pronouncement, this Court propounded that one of the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304-B of the Code is that the accused must have subjected the woman to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death and that this ingredient has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and only then the Court will presume that the accused has committed the offence of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Act. It referred to with SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 27 of 41 approval, the earlier decision of this Court in K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao [K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, (2003) 1 SCC 217: 2003 SCC (Cri) 271] to the effect that to attract the provision of Section 304-B of the Code, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty and harassment "in connection with the demand for dowry".
With reference to the legal position as referred to above, the matter is now required to be examined as to whether the case in hand falls in the category where the presumption can be raised against the accused relieving the prosecution from proving its case and putting the onus on the accused/appellant.
42. Section 304B IPC is attracted only when the woman dies under unnatural circumstances. In this regard, the evidence of PW-6 Dr. B.N. Sharma who conducted autopsy on the body of deceased is relevant who has opined as under:-
"The cause of death was asphyxia due to ante mortem ligature hanging and time since death was 14-15 hours prior to postmortem examination. Manner of death was suicide. My detailed report is already exhibited as Ex.PW12/A bearing my signature at point-A."
43. Since the cause of death shows that the deceased died due to hanging and the manner of death was suicide, therefore it is clear that the victim had died under unnatural circumstances.
SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 28 of 4144. In the previous trial against mother-in-law and husband, mother of the deceased Smt. Bimla Sharma was the main witness. However, since she had expired during the trial of present case, therefore the only material witness who has been examined in the present case is PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Sharma.
45. Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act clearly provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. In catena of judgments, the Higher Courts have laid down that it is not the quantity but the quality of the evidence which is required to be judged by the Court to place credence on the statement. Reliance is placed on State of U.P. vs. Kishanpal 2008 (8) JT 650.
46. SDM Sh. Rajeev Sukla conducted inquest proceedings and has been examined as PW-14 in the present case. PW-14 Sh. Rajeev Shukla, SDM had deposed that on receiving the information with regard to the death of one lady namely Chitra Sharma, he reached at DDU hospital wherein Smt. Bimla Sharma (since deceased), mother of Chitra Sharma; Neeraj Sharma, brother of deceased and other relatives met him and he recorded the statement of Smt. Bimla Sharma running into three pages and exhibited the same as Ex.PW 1/A (as already exhibited in previous trial). He identified his signatures at points-A, B and C on the said statement and also stated that the said statement was recorded in his own handwriting. There is no cross examination SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 29 of 41 on this aspect, therefore the fact that PW-14 Sh. Rajeev Shukla, the then SDM had recorded the statement of Smt. Bimla Sharma
- mother of the deceased Sharma is not in dispute at all. Though Smt. Bimla Sharma had expired during the trial of the present case and her deposition could not be recorded, however, statement of Smt. Bimla Sharma Ex.PW1/A recorded by PW-14, the then SDM can very well be read in evidence as prosecution is relying upon the same. Additionally, the said statement has been recorded by the SDM in his own handwriting and is therefore, admissible and can be read in evidence. The said statement is reproduced herein under:-
"I reside at the address given above and housewife. My daughter Chitra Sharma w/o Vishwajeet sharma age 28 years, was married to Sh. Vishwajeet sharma on 22 Nov 2009 with Hindu custom at om Vihar, Uttam Nagar. Before marriage the in-laws of my daughter asked for i-10 car. I have given whatever I can to my daughter at the time of marriage. After two-three days of marriage the in-laws started to harass my daughter. The mother in-law (Asha Sharma) was very cruel to my daughter. She always taunted that my daughter is not expert in cooking, she has no manner, she has come without dowry and whatever I have given is of very bad quality. Her husband Vishwajeet Sharma was always supporting her mother and taunted that my daughter is not beautiful, she has small height. On 12/7/10, My daughter had her birthday and I visited her. The in-laws (mother-in-law) threw the sweets which I had taken for them. My daughter told me that my husband and mother-in-law is demanding 4 lac rupees so that new business can be started by my son-in-law. They even threatened that I have to give lac rupee otherwise they will either leave or kill her. I persuaded them that right now I can not give as I am widow and poor but I will try to arrange for it. On 14/7/10 at 6 o'clock my daughter SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 30 of 41 telephoned me that my life is in danger please save me then I assured him that nothing will happen. I also told that I will come tomorrow morning. My daughter was harassed on several issues. She was told that she don't know household chores like wasting cloth, cooking, etc. she has no manner. They told that specially mother- in-law that I will do remarriage of my son. On every festival they demanded she has to come with gifts. I tried to give them lent they were never happy. I am sure that my daughter was killed and she can not do suicide. I want justice and want that legal action against them may be taken. This statement is given and I understand what ever I have signed and it is read over to me."
47. PW-14 had also recorded the statement of brother of the deceased (PW-2) and maternal uncle of the deceased. The statement of PW-2 Sh.Neeraj Sharma which was recorded by the concerned SDM, Ex.PW1/B is translated and reproduced herein under:-
"Chitra was my younger sister who got married to Vishwajeet Sharma S/o Om Prakash R/o D-16/A, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi on 22.11.2009. After 2-4 days of marriage of Chitra, her in-laws started harassing her for dowry. Before one week of marriage, they demanded i10 car, LCD TV, AC, refrigerator, gold & diamond sets for mother-in-law, sisters-in-law i.e. jethani and nanad. After marriage, they started beating Chitra. Vishwajeet - husband of Chitra is working in private company and he required Rs.4 lakhs for doing business for which Chitra was forced and a demand of Rs.4 lakhs was made from us. Due to non-fulfillment of said demand by us, they started beating badly Chitra. On 12.07.2010 we went to meet Chitra on her birthday and at that time, Chitra told us in suppressed voice that her husband threatens her to kill and mother-in-law Asha, father-in-law Om Prakash, brother-in- law Ajit, sister-in-law Rajni give beatings to her. On 14.07.2010 at 6.00 pm, there was a telephonic SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 31 of 41 conversation with Chitra and at that time, she told that her in-laws wanted to kill her and we may take her to home but on 14.07.2010 in the night, she was killed."
48. Full deposition of PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Sharma has already been reproduced while discussing the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
49. From the reading of the deposition of PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Sharma, it is seen that the following allegations were made by him against the accused persons herein. Same shall be dealt with one by one.
(i) Demand of i-10 car, LCD TV, AC, Refrigerator, gold & diamond sets for mother-in-law and sisters-in-law (jethani and nanand).
50. PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Sharma had deposed that -
"In June or July, 2009, I received phone call from accused Om Prakash Sharma, now present in court, correctly identified. Accused Om Prakash Sharma told me that a meeting is to be convened. Within 2-3 days of the phone call, I alongwith my mother, now deceased, Bimla Sharma had gone to the home of accused Om Prakash Sharma at Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar. At that place, accused Om Prakash Sharma; accused Ajit Sharma, correctly identified; Asha Sharma, mother of accused Ajit Sharma; accused Rajni Sharma, correctly identified, were present in the meeting. In that meeting, demand of vehicle i-10, 32 inches LCD TV, refrigerator, Washing machine, air conditioner was made from us. Asha Sharma and accused Rajni @ Shashi made demand of gold sets for ladies, golden rings and golden chains for male members. Demand of cash of SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 32 of 41 Rs.1,10,000/- in shagun was also made."
51. During cross examination, he was confronted with statement Ex.PW1/B (statement made before SDM) wherein it was not found to be recorded. The allegations that accused Om Prakash had called PW-2 in June/July, 2009 for convening a meeting and raising demands is not in consonance with the statement Ex.PW1/B. In the said statement Ex.PW1/B, it is stated that just a week before the marriage (solemnized on 22.11.2009), demands were raised whereas in the deposition, he stated that this meeting was convened within two-three days of receiving of the phone call in June/July, 2009. There is a material improvement with respect to the time when the said demand was raised. It is worthwhile to mention here that the fact that i10 car, LCD TV, AC, washing machine and refrigerator were given in the marriage is not disputed but at the same time, levelling specific allegations against accused Om Prakash with respect to calling PW-2 in June/July, 2009 and asking him to convene a meeting is not proved. This finding is further fortified by the statement of mother (since deceased) which was recorded by SDM and was exhibited as ExPW1/A. The mother nowhere stated before the SDM that any such phone call was ever made by accused Om Prakash or any such meeting was held. Hence, this allegation against accused Om Prakash does not stand proved. It is also not proved that accused Ajit Sharma and Shashi Sharma were present at any such meeting as stated by PW-2 in SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 33 of 41 his deposition.
(ii) Demand of Rs.4 lakh by accused persons.
52. With respect to demand of Rs.4 lakhs by the accused persons, the relevant extract of deposition of PW2 Sh. Neeraj Sharma is herein under:-
"....Chitra Sharma also told that a new demand of Rs.4 lacs was raised by her in-laws to compensate for bringing less dowry. Sometimes, it was said that with Rs.4 lacs, business will be done, sometimes it was said that for service said money was required. I assured my sister Chitra Sharma that I will make arrangements despite the fact that I had previously taken loan."
53. In the said paragraph, it is seen that demand of Rs.4 lakhs was raised by her in-laws to compensate for bringing less dowry. The reading of the entire testimony of PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Sharma clearly shows that he had made a consistent allegation with respect to the fact that his sister was being harassed for bringing less dowry and he raised an allegation that Rs.4 lakhs were demanded to compensate for bringing less dowry. He also deposed said Rs.4 lakhs were required for either business or service. It is a settled law that raising of demand of money by the in-laws to compensate for bringing less dowry or for service or business of the husband attracts Section 304B IPC. However, the individual roles of the accused persons have to be seen. The word used by PW-2 is 'in-laws'. No specific role has been assigned any of accused persons herein i.e. father-in-law, brother-in-law or SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 34 of 41 sister-in-law as to when did they make such demand. It is also noticed that despite there being an allegation with respect to the demand of Rs.4 lakhs, it is not stated that which of the accused persons harassed the deceased in pursuance of non-fulfillment of the said demand which is a sine qua non for attracting Section 304B IPC. The statement of mother Ex.PW1/A is also referred to in hereinunder. From perusal of her statement before SDM, it is noticed that on 12.07.2010 when she alongwith PW-2 went to matrimonial home of deceased, the deceased told them that her husband and mother-in-law were demanding Rs.4 lakhs for starting new business by accused Vishwajeet Sharma (since convicted). Mother levelled allegations only against husband and mother-in-law of deceased whereas PW-2 (brother) has levelled them generally against all. In view of the said statement of mother, the allegation of demand of Rs.4 lakhs by accused persons herein does not stand established.
(iii) Visiting matrimonial home of the deceased on 12.07.2010 on the occasion of her birthday.
54. The relevant testimony of PW-2 in this regard is as follows:
"On 12.07.2010, on birthday of Chitra Sharma, I and my mother went to her matrimonial home. To celebrate her birthday, we took with us sweets and fruits. At that place, accused Om Prakash Sharma, accused Ajit Sharma, Asha Sharma, accused Shashi @ Rajni were present besides my sister. Having seen sweets and fruits in our hands, aforesaid persons namely accused Om SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 35 of 41 Prakash Sharma, accused Ajit Sharma, Asha Sharma, accused Shashi @ Rajni became angry and said that we were expecting Rs.4 lacs for happiness of our sister. Asha Sharma threw the sweets and fruits brought by us. I assured that I was making arrangements for the money and it will take time for such arrangements. On my assurance, aforesaid persons became somewhat pacified. All these persons went to their respective rooms. I, my mother and my sister Chitra Sharma were only left in the drawing room. Chitra Sharma told us that arrangements be made early as she was being harassed physically as well as mentally. I assured Chitra that I will make arrangement for the money as soon as possible. After meeting Chitra, we had returned to our home."
55. A careful reading of statement Ex.PW1/B and deposition of PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Sharma would show that in Ex.PW1/B he had stated that when they went to matrimonial home of deceased, she told them that her husband threats her to kill her and accused persons herein give beatings to her. It is not stated anywhere in testimony of PW-2 as to who was harassing her physically and mentally. In his deposition, it is stated that all the accused persons stated that they were expecting Rs.4 lakhs and he assured that he will make arrangement. There is a material improvement in the testimony of PW-2 Sh.Neeraj Sharma with respect to his visit to matrimonial home of the deceased on 12.07.2010 by him alongwith his mother and the sequence of events which occurred there. The statement Ex.PW1/A recorded by SDM as discussed in preceding para is also relevant here. There is a discrepancy in SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 36 of 41 the statement of mother and the son regarding this allegation. Mother stated everything against the husband and mother-in-law but PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Sharma had levelled allegations against all the family members. These additional allegations in the testimonies of PW-2 are apparently major improvements.
56. There is further deposition with respect to the date of 14.07.2010 wherein he had stated that at around 6.00 pm on 14.07.2010, he talked to the deceased on phone and she told that her in-laws wanted to kill her, however, in the testimony, it has come that the telephonic conversation took place between the mother of the deceased and the deceased and he was not able to hear anything, however, on hearing the deceased, his mother said "beta chinta mat kar, hum jaldi se jaldi arrangement karenge aur kal subah hi paise le kar aate hain". In the aforesaid statement, there is no specific allegation against any of the accused persons herein. Moreover, if at all mother heard anything, that has not been proved by prosecution in this case as she had already expired. Therefore, this incident is of not relevant against accused persons.
57. In the preceding paras, it is seen that PW-2, the only witness had made material improvement in his testimony. The law in respect of admissibility of testimony of a material witness containing material improvement is well settle. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled "S. Govindaraju Versus State of SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 37 of 41 Karnataka" (2013) 15 Supreme Court Cases 315 has observed that :
"It is well-settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions were of such magnitude so as to materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements in relation to trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not be made a ground for rejection of evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence available, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses, and the appellate court in the normal course of action, would not be justified in reviewing the same, without providing justifiable reasons for doing so. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of a witness, and the other witnesses also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it would not be safe to rely upon such evidence. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found not to be minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, the witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with the other evidence available or with a statement that has already been recorded, then in such a case, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."
58. The discussion made in preceding paragraphs wherein the testimony of PW-2 has been discussed clearly shows that the improvements in his testimony are so grave, that they have raised various doubts regarding the truthfulness of this witness and hence, it is not safe to rely upon his testimony. His testimony is not found to be creditworthy against these accused persons and, SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 38 of 41 hence, cannot be accepted.
59. Though the prosecution has not proved the charges framed for the offence under Section 498A/304B IPC against accused persons, and it is not necessary to discuss the defence of the accused persons, but since defence evidence has been led, it is the duty of the court to see whether a plausible defence was put forth or not.
60. The only defence of the accused persons is that the deceased was depressed due to her abortion and was under
immense mental pressure which she could not bear and eventually committed suicide. This defence has already been turned down by learned Predecessor in the previous trial however my finding in respect of the said submissions in the trial against the accused persons herein is that apart from submitting the documents and proving the fact that the deceased had underwent abortion, it has not been proved that she was under constant depression. There is no document to substantiate the averments that pursuant to the medical termination of pregnancy, she was under such a depression as would develop a tendency to commit suicide. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surinder Singh vs. State of Haryana (2014) 4 SCC 129 has held as under :-
"It was argued that the evidence of the doctors examined by the appellant show that the deceased's pregnancy was terminated, that she was told that she may not conceive a child again and, that, thereafter, she was in depression. It is SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 39 of 41 argued that, therefore, she committed suicide. It is not possible to accept this submission. Even if the pregnancy of the deceased was terminated, that would not necessarily lead to depression. In fact, DW-3 Dr. C. Vijayendra, who terminated the pregnancy of the deceased stated that it is not necessary that a patient may suffer from depression after termination of pregnancy. Neither DW-1 Dr. Mrs. Iqbal Kaur or DW-2 Dr. Mrs. Ritu Mago stated that the deceased was in depression. They stated that there was no imminent danger to the life of the deceased. No medical record was produced to show that the deceased was in depression and she was taking medicine for the same. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was told that she will never conceive a child. It is not, therefore, possible to say that the deceased committed suicide because she was in depression. xxx xxx"
61. In view of the same, the said defence of the accused persons is not at all plausible and therefore, the submission with respect to the same are turned down.
62. In view of the findings given above with respect to the testimony of PW-2, the court is of considered view that prosecution has failed to prove the case.
63. Hence, all three accused persons namely Om Prakash Sharma, Ajit Sharma and Shashi Sharma @ Rajni are acquitted of the charges framed under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC. Previous bailbonds of all accused persons stand cancelled and their previous sureties stand discharged. Original documents, if any, of the previous sureties be released to him/her after SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 40 of 41 cancellation of endorsement, if any, against acknowledgement.
64. Bail bonds under Section 437A CrPC have been furnished on behalf of all accused persons namely Om Prakash Sharma, Ajit Sharma and Shashi Sharma @ Rajni. Their sureties are present. Same are accepted, which shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.
65. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced in open court VANDANA by VANDANA
JAIN
JAIN Date: 2023.12.22
on 21.12.2023 14:54:55 +0530
(Vandana Jain)
ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act)
Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi/21.12.2023
Note: This judgment contains forty one (41) pages and having my signature on each page.
Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.12.22 14:55:04 +0530 (Vandana Jain) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi/21.12.2023 SC no. 440480/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Page 41 of 41