Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjeev S/O Gulzari Lal on 14 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MR. UMED SINGH GREWAL
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
NORTH DISTRICT:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
SC No.24/2013
FIR No.695/2007
PS S.P Badli
u/s 498A/304 B/34 IPC
State
Vs.
1. Sanjeev s/o Gulzari Lal
r/o H. No.1504/2, Gali Guru Gobind Singh Nagar
near Sharma Colony, Gilwali road gate,
Amritsar, Punjab.
2. Gulzari Lal s/o Sh. Kala Ram
r/o H. No.1504/2, Gali Guru Gobind Singh Nagar
near Sharma Colony, Gilwali road gate,
Amritsar, Punjab.
3. Raju s/o Gulzari Lal
r/o H. No.1504/2, Gali Guru Gobind Singh Nagar
near Sharma Colony, Gilwali road gate,
Amritsar, Punjab.
4. Seema d/o Gulzari Lal
r/o H. No.1504/2, Gali Guru Gobind Singh Nagar
near Sharma Colony, Gilwali road gate,
State v. Sanjeev etc. 695/07 1 of13
Amritsar, Punjab.
Date of institution :06062011
Date of institution in this court :23012013
Date when arguments concluded:14072014
Date when Judgment pronounced:14072014
Appearances: Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP for the State.
Ms. Sunita Tiwari, Amicus Curiae for all accused.
JUDGMENT
1. All four accused have been forwarded by police to face trial u/s 498A/304 B IPC. Accused Sanjeev Kumar is husband, Raju is brotherinlaw(dewar), Seema is sisterinlaw (nanand) and Gulzari Lal is fatherinlaw of deceased Vandana.
2. Facts are that on 29082007 at 11.15 AM, on receipt of DD No.36 a lady namely Vandana, who was admitted in BJRM hospital by her father with the history of hanging had died, SI Chander Prakash and Ct. Ranjeet reached BJRM hospital. As seven years from the marriage had not elapsed SDM Narela was intimated who recorded the statement of father of deceased namely Vijay Kumar to the following effect:
" I married my daughter Vandana with accused Sanjeev according to Hindu Rites and ceremonies on 11052006. Husband State v. Sanjeev etc. 695/07 2 of13 Sanjeev, dewar Raju, sisterinlaw Seema and father inlaw Gulzari Lal started maltreating her for more dowry after sometime of the marriage. Rs.50,000/ were given to them from time to time. Thereafter the matrimonial life of my daughter ran smoothly but one day nanand Seema forcibly poured sindoor in her mouth and gave wrong information to us that Vandana had consumed poison. I kept her at my home for one month. In October, 2006 on the asking of accused, several other dowry articles were also given and Vandana was sent to her matrimonial home. She was beaten badly by herinlaws when she was pregnant. Several kicks and fists blows were given to her by accused Raju. She was brought to Delhi for treatment and she had to be aborted. She remained at my home in Delhi from February,2007 to 29082007. In the meantime we visited Amritsar several times for settlement but accused persons manhandled, abused and threw us out of their house saying that we were at liberty to do whatever we liked. We had lodged a complaint in CAW Cell, Pitampura in February/August, 2007 and notices were issued to the accused for seven times. They were also intimated on phone about CAW Cell proceedings but they never appeared and rather threatened us and Vandana on State v. Sanjeev etc. 695/07 3 of13 phone saying that they would come to Delhi to kill her, both brothers and acid shall be thrown upon her. Vandana was in tension due to threats and committed suicide in the night of 29082007 by hanging when we were upstairs."
On above facts FIR was registered.
3. Charge u/s 304 B/498A/34 IPC and alternatively u/s 302/34 IPC was framed on 300512 to which all accused claimed trial.
4. In order to establish the charge, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. All other documents and proceedings were admitted by the accused party. Stage of defence evidence could not be reached.
5. PW1 ASI Chand Singh registered case FIR Ex.PW1/1 on 03092007 at 7.00 PM. Investigation was assigned to PW2 inspt. Yashpal on 22042007. He obtained FSL report and recorded the statement of Manish Vinayak, brother of deceased on 20072010 and filed the chargesheet. PW3 Dr. Shakuntala was posted in BJRM hospital on 29082007 when Vandana was brought by her father Vijay Kumar with the history of hanging. Vandana was unconscious, pulse and blood pressure were not recordable and State v. Sanjeev etc. 695/07 4 of13 vital signs were not present. She had multiple burn marks on the toe of the left foot. Ligature mark was present around the neck. The patient was declared dead. MLC Ex.PW3/A was prepared by junior resident Dr. Prashant in her presence. PW4 Mohd. Shakil deposed that he joined the investigation on the asking of inspt. H.R. Malik on 10092009. Voice sample of accused Sanjeev was taken in FSL Rohini by the officials of FSL in his presence and in the presence of another public witness Prem. After taking voice sample, cassette was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW4/A. PW9 SI Jai Singh was posted in CAW Cell Pitampur on 19042007 when a complaint was filed by Vandana. He was IO of that complaint. He deposed that complainant and her parents used to attend CAW Cell proceedings on each and every date but the husband and his family members did not appear despite issuance of notice several times. Due to nonappearance of the accused party, the matter cold not be compounded and he recommended the registration of case in PS Adarsh Nagar. He proved the complaint filed by Vandana, her statement, CAW Cell proceedings and final report as Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW9/D respectively. In crossexamination, he admitted that before State v. Sanjeev etc. 695/07 5 of13 forwarding the final report he had not heard the version of the accused party and therefore he cannot say if the complaint was false or true.
Inspt. Hari Ram Malik deposed that investigation was assigned to him on 29072008. Vijay Kumar father of deceased told him that his son Manish was using mobile phone No. 9810232687. He further deposed that Vijay further told him that mobile phone No.9873728322 was in the name of Manish's friend Darshan Singh and it was also being used in his house. Her daughter Vandana used to talk with the caller whenever any call was received on those numbers. Vijay Kumar had told PW10 that regular threatening calls were being made from six specific telephone numbers of Punjab region on two telephone numbers and when PW10 went through the CDR he came to know that no call was made from any of the six specific mobile numbers of Punjab region from 15 days prior to 29082007 upto 29082007. He further deposed that he summoned accused Sanjeev on 10022009 in FSL Rohini where his voice sample was taken by Dr. C.P. Singh in the presence of Md. Shakil and Prem Singh. He seized the cassette of voice sample vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. State v. Sanjeev etc. 695/07 6 of13 On the same day he deposited in FSL the sealed cassette, voice sample cassette, FSL form and copy of transcription of conversation between Vandana and Sanjeev in FSL Rohini.
PW10 HC Bhagwan proved the FIR No.281/07 u/s 498A, 406/34 IPC as Ex.PW11/A registered against accused Sanjeev, Raju, Gulzari Lal, Seema. It is pertinent to mention that this is the different case pending against the accused in MM Court.
6. PW6 Vijay Kumar is the father of the deceased. He deposed that he had two sons and a daughter. Daughter Vandana was married with accused Sanjeev Kumar r/o Amritsar on 11052006. After marriage, she started residing with her husband and inlaws at her matrimonial home i.e. Sharma Colony, Amritsar. He further deposed that he did not record any conversation between Vandana and Sanjeev. Vandana committed suicide in his house on 29082007 by hanging herself from a ceiling fan with chunni when all family members were on the roof. He further deposed that dead body was taken to BJRM hospital, Jahangirpuri where SDM recorded his statement Ex.PW6/A regarding identification of the dead body. He was declared hostile and deposed that none of the accused demanded any dowry from him State v. Sanjeev etc. 695/07 7 of13 or his family members.
PW7 Ms. Kamal Rani is the mother of the deceased. She deposed that her daughter was not harassed and tortured by any of the accused for demand of dowry. Vandana committed suicide in her house on 29082007. She is also complete hostile.
PW8 Devender Kumar is the son of sister of PW6 Vijay Kumar. He also deposed that Vandana was not harassed and tortured by any of the accused for any reason.
7. PW12 Manish Kumar is the elder brother of the deceased. He deposed that his sister was not harassed and tortured by any of the accused and that there was no demand of dowry from them either from him or from his sister or parents. He came out with the reason of suicide as that Vandana was suffering from tension due to her being issueless. Due to that reason she was brought in Delhi and was getting treatment from a psychiatrist but she did not recover fully. Ultimately she took the extreme step of suicide by hanging herself in the morning of 29082007. He concluded the case by deposing that none of the accused can be blamed for the death of her sister.
It is only PW5 Sukhdev Kumar, tau of Vandana, who is
State v. Sanjeev etc. 695/07 8 of13
supporting the prosecution case whole heartedly. He deposed that accused Sanjeev, Gulzari Lal, Raju and Seema started harassing Vandana for not bringing sufficient dowry. His brother PW6 Vijay Kumar gave them Rs.50,000/ intermittently but they were still hungry for more money. He further deposed that accused Sanjeev was demanding money from Vandana to start some business. At one point of time, accused Seema administered sindoor forcibly in her mouth and gave false information at the house of PW6 that Vandana had consumed poison.
8. On 07072014 all accused and their counsel made statement that they were not disputing following proceedings:
1. Postmortem conducted by Dr.Upender Kishore on the body of Vandana.
2. Application moved by SI Chander Prakash for preservation of dead body in mortuary for 72 hours.
3. Seizure of clothes of deceased and seizure memo prepared by SI Mohd.Nabi
4. Seizure memo of clothes of deceased signed by Ct. Shamsher Singh.
5. Photocopy of FDR of Rs.60,000/ by deceased in her name and issued by PNB Subzi Mandi, Azadpur.
6. Photostate copy of abortion slip issued by Dr.Sunita Goel.
7. FSL report of voice comparison.
On 08072014 the accused and their counsel made State v. Sanjeev etc. 695/07 9 of13 statement that they were not disputing the following facts:
1. That FIR no. 381/07 u/s 498/406/34 IPC was registered against four accused persons in PS Adarsh Nagar on 25.07.2007.
2. That chargesheet was filed in that case against Sanjeev Kumar, Gulzari Lal, Seema and Raju.
3. That Sanjeev Kumar, Gulzari Lal, Seema and Raju were arrested in the present case.
4. That voice sample of accused Sanjeev were taken in the presence of IO by the FSL officials.
5. The transcription of the conversation between accused Sanjeev Kumar and deceased Vandana was genuine one.
In view of no dispute, the postmortem report was proved as Ex.PAdv.1, seizure memo of clothes of deceased as Ex.PAdv.3, abortion slip as Ex.PAdv.5, FSL report of voice comparison as Ex.PAdv.6 and transcription of conversation between Sanjeev and Vandana as Ex.PAdv7.
9. Most crucial witness is PW5 Sukhdev Kumar. It is only this witness who is talking of harassment of Vandana for more dowry in the hands of all accused when they demanded Rs. 50,000/ from her. Accused Seema administered sindoor forcibly in the mouth of Vandana and falsely intimated her parents that she had consumed poison. PW5 has himself wiped out examination State v. Sanjeev etc. 695/07 10 of13 in chief in crossexamination. He deposed that no dowry was demanded from them by any of the accused before marriage. He is not aware whether any such demand was made from his younger brother PW6 Vijay Kumar. He admitted it correct that whatever amount was spent in the marriage was spent by them voluntarily without any pressure from the accused party. Even no dowry was demanded on the day of the marriage. He is not aware of any specific date or month of demand of dowry by the accused. He is not aware of the date and month when Rs.50,000/ were demanded. It seems that he is deposing exaggerated facts because he was not consulted when negotiations of marriage between Vandana and accused Sanjeev were going on. He was not present in any meetings that took place between his brother and accused party. He further deposed that accused persons never demanded anything in his presence from Vandana or from PW6 or his family members. He is deposing the facts which were told to him by PW6 and his family members and therefore, his evidence is hearsay because neither PW6 nor PW7, PW8 and PW12 Manish supported the prosecution case. PW6,PW7 and PW12 are more competent witnesses than PW5 because they are mother, father and real State v. Sanjeev etc. 695/07 11 of13 brother of the deceased. Their version is that Vandana was not harassed by any of the accused for dowry. Reason of suicide disclosed by PW12 is that Vandana was not able to give birth to a child and hence used to remain in tension. For treatment, she was brought to Delhi 45 months prior to 29082007. She was taken to psychiatrist but she could not recover fully and ultimately hanged herself in her parental home in the night of 29082007 when all family members were on the roof due to nonavailability of electricity.
The other incriminating material against accused is the transcription Ex.PAdv.7. In whole transcription there is no hint that accused were demanding or harassing Vandana for dowry. Rather, the transcription shows that they had disliking against each other. It contains highly indecent abuses. Though FSL report is to the effect that voice contained in that CD is of accused Sanjeev but it is of no consequence because it does not contain any fact regarding harassment of Vandana for dowry.
10. In view of above, the prosecution has failed to prove its case. So, all four accused are acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Sureties discharged.
State v. Sanjeev etc. 695/07 12 of13 Endorsement, if any, be cancelled. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court On day of 14th July, 2014.
(UMED SINGH GREWAL)
ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS)
North Distt: Rohini Courts: Delhi
State v. Sanjeev etc. 695/07 13 of13