Delhi District Court
State vs Deepawan on 13 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-08, WEST
DISTRICT TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Hem Raj, DHJS
CNR No. DLWT01-003963-2019
SC No. 279/2019
FIR No. 20/2019
PS: Kirti Nagar
U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC
In the matter of:
State
Versus
1. Deepawan
S/o Sh. Devanand
R/o C-48, Jhuggi Chuna Bhatti,
Kirti Nagar, Delhi.
2. Nirmala Devi
S/o Late Sh. Devanand
R/o A-114, Jhuggi Chuna Bhatti,
Kirti Nagar, Delhi
Date of Institution of case : 20-05-2019
Date of reserving for Judgment : 30-04-2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 13-05-2025
State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 1/21
Appearance:
For the State :Dr. S.K Bishnoi, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
For accused persons : Ms. Meena Devi, Ld. Counsel.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused namely Deepawan and Nirmala Devi faced trial for the offences u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. A chargesheet was filed against them SHO PS Kirti Nagar for the commission of said offences.
The case of the prosecution:
2. The facts of the prosecution case are that deceased Roopa got married with accused Deepawan on 25.05.2015 ( as deposed by PW-2 Ms. Sangeeta, friend of deceased). Out of the said wedlock, no issue was born. Her marriage with accused Deepawan was an inter caste marriage for which her parents were not agreeable to as she was from uneserved category whereas accused was belonging to some reserved category, probably SC category. She committed suicide on 07.01.2019 by hanging herself in her rented accommodation where she was staying with the accused. Since her death had taken place within seven years of her marriage, therefore, the information was given to the concerned Executive Magistrate. Smt. Vidhya Devi, the mother of the deceased got recorded her statement (Ex.PW-5/A) wherein she alleged that the deceased was being harassed by the accused for various reasons and they also demanded dowry from State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 2/21 the deceased. On her statement, the FIR was registered and the investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, chargesheet u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC was filed against both the accused persons.
3. The Ld. Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions after compliance of the relevant provisions.
The charge against the accused persons:
4. Accused namely Deepawan and Nirmala Devi did not plead guilty for charges framed against them for the offence u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC and in alternate for the offence u/s 306/34 IPC.
The evidence by the prosecution:
5. To prove the afore-mentioned charges against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined following witnesses:-
i). PW-1 ASI Om Prakash- he prepared site plan of the spot;
ii). PW-2 Ms. Sangeeta- she was friend of deceased;iii). PW-3 HC Rajesh- photographer who took photographs of the spot;
iv). PW-4 Ms. Radha- friend of deceased; v). Sh. Rajendra Minz- the then Executive Magistrate who recorded statement of mother of deceased; vi). PW-6 HC Vikas Kumar- he joined the investigation of the case; vii). PW-7 Inspector Ajay Kumar- he joined the investigation; viii). PW-8 Sh. Santosh Singh- brother of deceased; ix). PW-9 Smt. Vidhya Devi-
mother of deceased; x). PW-10 Inspector Kuldeep Singh- he filed supplementary charge-sheet qua accused Nirmala Devi;
xi) Inspr. C.L Meena- he conducted further investigation after State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 3/21 registration of the FIR and xii) PW-12 SI Banay Singh- he conducted the initial investigation.
6. The prosecution has also relied upon the following documentary evidence:-
Site plan (Ex.PW-1/A); Statement of PW-2 Ms. Sangeeta (Ex.PW-2/A); Photographs of the spot (Ex.PW-3/A1 to Ex. PW-3/A16); certificate u/s 65 B IEA (Ex.PW-3/B); statement of Smt. Vidya Devi, mother of deceased (Ex.PW-5/A); documents recorded by IO i.e. request for postmortem (Ex.PW-5/B), dead body identification statement of Sh. Lallan Singh (Ex.PW-5/B1), dead body identification statement of Smt. Vidhya Devi (Ex.PW-5/B2), death report (Ex.PW-5/B3), dead body identification statement (Ex.PW- 5/B4) dead body identification statement (Ex.PW-5/B5) and dead body handing over memo (Ex.PW-5/B6); arrest memo of accused Deepawan (Ex.PW-6/A); seizure memo of chunni (Ex.PW-6/A1) personal search memo of accused Deepawan (Ex.PW-6/B), disclosure statement of accused (Ex.PW-6/C); seizure memo of one photo album containing marriage photographs of accused and deceased (Ex.PW-6/D) ; photo album (Ex.PW-6/E), rukka (Ex.PW-7/A); application for obtaining subsequent opinion( Ex.PW-10/A) and site plan of the spot (Ex.PW-11/A).
Statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C of accused persons:
7. On 22.12.2022, statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C of accused persons was recorded wherein, they admitted the contents and genuineness of the following documents:-
State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 4/21 i. Copy of FIR No. 20/2019 u/s 498A/304B/34IPC PS Kirti Nagar (Ex.AD-1);
ii. Certificate u/s 65 B IEA (Ex.AD-2);
iii. DD No. 16A dated 07.01.2019 (Ex.AD-3);
iv. MLC no. 27430 of deceased Rupa (Ex.AD-4);
v. PM report dated 08.01.2019 (Ex.AD-5) colly;
vi. Subsequent opinion dated 26.03.2019 (Ex.AD-6);
vii. Arrest proceedings of both the accused;
viii. Crime scene report prepared by SI Kalyan Singh (Ex.AD-7)
8. In view of the aforesaid statement, witnesses namely SI Kalyan Singh (sl. no.5); HC Vikram (sl.no.9), MHC(M) CP (sl.no.11), Dr.V.K Ranga (sl.no.14), W/Ct. Pushpa (sl.no.2) in supplementary charge-sheet) were dropped from the list of wit- nesses.
The statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C:
9. The statements of all the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. The incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused were brought to their notice and their explanation was sought. All the accused claimed to be falsely implicated in this case. They stated that the mother of deceased was not happy with the love marriage of deceased and accused and she got registered the present FIR in anger and frustration. Further, during lock down period, mother of deceased demanded Rs. 1.5-2 lac for taking back the present case.
State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 5/21 Submissions by Ld. Prosecutor:
10. Ld. Prosecutor while inviting the attention of the court towards the oral as well as documentary evidence on record argued that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges framed against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
Submissions by Ld. Counsel for accused persons:
11. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused persons argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. She further argued that there is no evidence on the record to show that the accused persons committed any cruelty or harassment in connection with the dowry demand soon before the death of the deceased. She further contended that the prosecution has failed to bring any evidence on the record to show any instigation on the part of the accused persons in the suicide of the deceased. Moreover, it is argued that the allegations against the accused persons were vague and evasive and thus, the prosecution has also proved the offence u/s 498A IPC as well.
12. I have heard the final arguments advanced by the Ld. Addl. Prosecutor for the State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
Analysis:
13. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused has to prove its defence on State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 6/21 preponderance of probabilities. What do we mean by the expression 'beyond reasonable doubt'?
14. The said expression 'beyond reasonable doubt' has been defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the various judgments. In the judgment of Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2011CRI.L.J.663, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan, elaborated the concept of Standard of Proof in a criminal trial in the following terms:
"11. A criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination or fantasy. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of an interplay between different human emotions. In arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case, in the final analysis, would have to depend upon its own facts. The court must bear in mind that "human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions." Though an offence may be gruesome and revolt the human conscience, an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and not on surmises and conjecture. The law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of a moral conviction or suspicion alone. "The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence." In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinizing the evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induce an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law. (Vide: Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159; State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh & Anr. AIR 1973 SC 2407; Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765; Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs.State of West Bengal, (2003) 12 SCC 377; and Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, (2007) 12 SCC 230).
12. In Sarwan Sigh Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637, this court observed (Para12) :
"Considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 7/21 covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence (before an accused can be convicted."
15. Furthermore, in the judgment of Sucha Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab, (2003 ) 7 SCC 643, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the term beyond reasonable doubt and observed as under:-
21. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. [See Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and others, AIR 1990 SC 209 : 1990(1) RCR(Crl.) 297 (SC)]. Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. [See State of U.P. v.
Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840 : 1992(3) RCR(Crl.) 63 (SC)]. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. [See Inder Singh and Anr. v. State of (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1978 SC 1091)]. Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation. "A judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties." (Per Viscount Simon in Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution (1944 AC (PC) 315) quoted in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998). Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth.
16. Both the accused have been been charged for the offences u/s 498A/304B/306/34 IPC.
17. Section 304 B which defines and provides the punishment for dowry demand, reads as under:-
State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 8/21 "304B. Dowry death. --(1) 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 purpose of this sub section, 'dowry' shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 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."
Section 304B (1) defines 'dowry death' of a woman. It provides that 'dowry death' is where death of a woman is caused by burning or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of 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, in connection with demand for dowry. Subclause (2) provides for punishment for those who cause dowry death.
18. In Major Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 5 SCC 201, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the following essential ingredients of 304B IPC. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder:-
"10. To sustain the conviction under Section 304B IPC, the following essential ingredients are to be established:
(i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a 'normal circumstance';
(ii) such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(iii) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry; and
(v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death."
State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 9/21
19. It has been sufficiently proved on the record that deceased died by suicide within seven years of her marriage and her death was unnatural and further that accused Deepawan is her husband and accused Nirmala Devi is the mother in law of deceased. The accused also have not denied the same.
20. However, the prosecution is still to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry soon before her death so as to prove offence u/s 304 B IPC. To prove the same, the prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of PW-2 Ms. Sangeeta, the friend of deceased, PW-4 Ms. Radha, another friend of deceased, PW-8 Sh. Santosh Singh, the brother of deceased and PW-9 Smt. Vidhya Devi, mother of deceased. There is no other witness who deposed about the cruelty or harassment as well as demand of dowry soon before the death of deceased.
21. PW-2 Ms. Sangeeta received a call from accused Deepawan and accordingly, she reached the house of deceased and found her to be hanging. She proved her statement given to the SDM Ex.PW-2/A. She deposed that deceased used to inform her about the quarrel with accused Deepawan but she did not tell the reason. As she did not depose consistently with the prosecution case, she was cross-examined by the Ld. Prosecutor. In her cross-examination she admitted that accused Deepawan was a habitual drinker. She denied the suggestion that she informed the IO that deceased used to tell her that accused persons would taunt the deceased for not bearing a child even after 3 ½ years of marriage. She also denied that deceased told her that accused persons had been committing atrocities upon the State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 10/21 deceased and also threatened her to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parental house. Thus, she did not support the prosecution case regarding the harassment of deceased and demand of Rs. 50,000/- by the accused persons.
In her cross-examination, she stated that parental family of deceased were not happy with the marriage of deceased with accused Deepawan being the inter caste marriage. She stated that mother of deceased was aware of the affair between the deceased and accused and she used to obstruct her for marriage with accused.
22. PW-4 Ms. Radha is the childhood friend of deceased. She stated that deceased used to share each and every incident with her and after about one year of marriage, she informed her that accused Deepawan used to come home after consuming liquor and beat her and further that accused Nirmala Devi would taunt her for not bearing a child. She further stated that two days prior to the death of deceased, she had met her near her matrimonial house and informed her that accused Deepawan had beaten her for not giving money to him and for that reason she was tensed.
In the cross-examination, she stated that deceased and accused Deepawan were residing at a rented place where accused Nirmala used to visit several times in a week. She further stated that accused Deepawan did not allow her to meet her mother which was told to her by the deceased.
23. PW-8 Santosh Singh is the brother of deceased. He deposed that deceased lived happily for six moths and thereafter the accused started torturing and harassing the deceased. The accused also used to consume liquor daily. He further stated that State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 11/21 he came to know that accused had demanded Rs. 40,000/-/ Rs. 50,000/- as he wanted the said money for his work. He further stated that accused Nirmala Devi also demanded said money from his sister which deceased told to his mother on phone.
He was cross-examined by the accused. He admitted that her sister's was a a intercase love marriage and his mother was not happy with her. He further stated that accused Deepawan did not directly demand Rs. 40,000 / Rs. 50,000 from his and same was demanded from his mother. He could not tell the date and time when the said money was demanded.
24. PW-9 Smt. Vidhya Devi is the mother of the deceased and the complainant. She deposed that for about 3-4 months after marriage, everything was normal, but thereafter accused Deepawan started taking liquor. Accused Nirmala Devi used to taunt deceased for her black complexion and for not bearing child. She further stated that the accused persons used to beat deceased and further that accused Deepwan used to snatch her money which she earned while working in a beauty parlor. The deceased was also not allowed to visit her parental house as well. Her mobile phone was snatched by the accused person 2-3 months before her death and thereafter the deceased used to send messages through her friend Sangeeta. She further deposed that through Sangeeta, they came to know that accused Deepawan had demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as no dowry was brought by deceased in the marriage. She further deposed that accused Nirmala had made allegation against the deceased that she had another husband. She proved her statement given to the SDM as Ex.PW-5/A. State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 12/21 In the cross-examination, she admitted that she was not happy with the marriage of deceased with accused Deepawan. She also admitted that after one month of the marriage, the deceased had visited PS Kirti Nagar where hot talks between the deceased and them took place and deceased refused to come back to her parental house. She also admitted that at that time, she told the deceased that she had severed her relations with deceased and further that none of her family members had attended the marriage of the deceased. She further admitted that she did not receive any demand of Rs. 50,000/- from Deepawan directly and she received the same through Sangeeta only. But, she could not tell the day and month when Sangeeta told about the said demand. She further admitted that during the lock down period, she used to visit the house of accused Nirmala and demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her to settle the matter. Voluntarily she stated that she told accused Nirmala that she needed the said money which she spent in visiting the court and police station as well as loss of income from her tea shop.
25. Since the prosecution is required to prove that the cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry has to take place 'soon before the death' of the woman, one needs to understand as to what the said expression means. The term "soon before death" is an elastic term and no straight jacket formula or fix criterion can be laid down. In the judgment of Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (26.04.2000-SC): MANU/ SC/ 0296/ 2000, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the term "soon before death" in the following observations:-
State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 13/21 "14. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that the statements of the deceased referred to the instances could not be termed to be cruelty or harassment by the husband soon before her death. "Soon before" is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The term "soon before" is not synonymous with the term "immediately before" and is opposite of the expression "soon after" as used and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These words would imply that the interval should not be too long before the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case.
In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances sowing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be soon before death' if any other intervening circumstance showing the non -existence of such treatment is not brought on record, before the alleged such treatment and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough."
26. Hence, the term "soon before death" is an elastic term and it does not specify any time duration before the death of the bride. What it pre-supposes is that the demand of dowry must have been a reasonable connection or nexus with the death and the demand should have travelled for a reasonable period of time.
27. A careful perusal of testimony of PW-2 would reveal that she had not supported the case of the prosecution and denied about any cruelty or harassment by accused to the deceased or demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/- by the accused persons. PW-8 State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 14/21 Santosh Singh, brother of deceased is not the witness of the demand as he deposed that the demand was made to her mother and not to him. On the other hand, PW-9 also deposed that Sangeeta had conveyed the message of demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and no demand was directly made to her. However, she was corroborated by PW-2 Sangeeta, who clearly denied about any demand of Rs. 50,000/- by accused persons. Even PW-9 could not state that the day and month when Sangeeta had told her about the demand of dowry.
28. Thus, PW-2, PW-8 and PW-9 have failed to substantiate any demand of dowry of alleged Rs. 50,000/- by the accused persons. Even PW-9 could not state the date and month when such alleged demand was conveyed to her by PW-Sangeeta. Therefore, by their testimonies the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that any demand of dowry was made soon before death of deceased. Simple harassment or cruelty without any demand of dowry could not be sufficient to prove the offence u/s 304B IPC.
29. Now, we are left with the testimony of PW-4 Smt. Radha, another friend of deceased. She deposed that two days prior to her death, the deceased informed her that accused Deepawan had given beatings to her for money and due that reason, the deceased was very tensed. It is observed that this positive averment has not been challenged in the cross-examination but still, in the considered opinion of this court , the said averment cannot be termed as demand of dowry. The demand of money by a husband from a wife and subsequent beating on the denial of the same may be morally wrong , but the same cannot be termed State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 15/21 as demand of dowry as the demand of money simplicitor is not a demand of dowry.
30. Thus, the aforesaid discussions leave no doubt in the mind of the court that though the witnesses have deposed about the taunts to the deceased and the beatings to her as well, but they have failed to prove that such cruelty or harassment were connected with the demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence u/s 304B IPC beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons.
31. The accused persons have also been charged for the of- fence u/s 498A IPC. Section 498A IPC reads as under:-
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.-- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Dara Lak- shmi Narayana Vs State of Telangana 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682 passed observations on Section 498A IPC. The paragraph 15 is reproduced hereasunder:-
"15. An offence is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC when a husband or his relative subjects a woman to cruelty, which may result in imprisonment for a term extending up to three years State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 16/21 and a fine. The Explanation under Section 498A of the IPC defines "cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC to mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) or (b). The first limb of clause
(a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that "cru-
elty" means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of clause
(a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that cru- elty means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Further, clause (b) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC states that cruelty would also include harassment of the woman where such harassment is to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
33. As far as Section 498A IPC is concerned, it is to be seen whether a married woman has been subjected to cruelty by her husband or relatives of her husband either for harassment with a view to coerce meeting a demand of dowry or willful conduct by her husband or his relative of such a nature as is likely to lead the lady to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her life, limb or health. For the purpose of Section 498A, the cruelty can be either physical or mental.
34. To decide whether the prosecution has been able to prove Section 498A IPC, the testimonies of PW-2 Ms. Sangeeta, PW-4 Ms. Radha, PW-8 Sh. Santosh Singh and PW-9 Smt. Vidhya Devi are important. As already discussed hereinbefore, the allegations of cruelty and harassment as deposed by the afore-said PWs are vague, general and omnibus. They lack the specific particulars as to time, date and month. PW-2 Ms. Sangeeta did not depose about any cruelty and harassment to the deceased by accused persons. Further, PW-4, PW-8 and PW-9 though deposed about the cruelty and harassment by accused persons, but no particular date and time of said incident of cruelty and harassment has been State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 17/21 specified by them. None of the PWs have deposed about the specific time, date and month of the instances when the deceased was treated with cruelty or harassment. Though PW-9 Smt. Vidhya Devi deposed that accused Nirmala Devi used to taunt deceased for her black complexion and for not bearing child, but she has also not specified any the date and time of the alleged taunt. Thus, all the allegations levelled by the aforesaid PWs are vague and evasive and there are not specific particulars about the same. There is no evidence on the record to suggest that the accused persons willfully conducted themselves in such a manner, which was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health and she was harassed with a view to coerce her or any family member to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or the conduct was on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet any such demand. Thus, this court has no hesitation in holding that not a scintilla of evidence has come on record to prove the charge u/s 498A IPC against both the accused. Accordingly, both the accused persons also stand acquitted for the offence u/s 498A/34 IPC as well.
35. Now remains Section 306 IPC, which provides the punishment for the abetment of a suicide of a person. Abetment has been defined u/s 107 IPC. It says that a person abates the doing of a thing who instigate any person to do that thing or engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing and intentionally aids, by any act or illegal commission in the doing of that thing. The prosecution case at State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 18/21 best is covered under the first clause of section 107 i.e. of instigation only.
36. It is not necessary that the actual words must be used to that effect or what constitute instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of that consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt.
37. It is also settled law that whether the person has abetted the commission of suicide of another or not is a question to be gath- ered from the facts and circumstances of the case and to be found out by the continuous conduct of the accused involving his men- tal element.
38. In Amlendu Pal vs State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the several ear- lier pronouncements held as under:-
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegations of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of section 306 IPC is not sustainable."
39. Now, let us see the facts of the case in view of the aforesaid propositions of law for offence u/s 306 IPC. Since the testimony of PW-2 Ms. Sangeeta, PW-4 Ms. Radha, PW-8 Sh.
State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 19/21 Santosh Singh and PW-9 Smt. Vidhya Devi have already been discussed, therefore, for the purpose of Section 306 IPC, their testimonies are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
40. The testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses although reveal that the deceased was given taunts about her black complexion and for not bearing the child even after 3 ½ years of marriage. It has also come in the testimonies that accused Deepawan used to consume liquor and beat the deceased thereafter. He would also demand money from the deceased. But, in the considered opinion of this court, the testimonies of all the aforesaid witnesses do not show that the accused persons were indulged in such behaviour or conduct towards the deceased that the same could have amounted to any instigation to the commission of suicide by the deceased. To prove instigation on the part of the accused persons, it was incumbent for the prosecution to prove that the conduct of the accused persons was of such a nature which pushed the deceased to the wall and she did not have any other choice to commit suicide. The circumstances as deposed by the aforesaid witnesses show that the deceased was beaten but at the same time they were not sufficient to bring them within the definition of instigation so has to hold the accused persons liable for the abatement of the suicide of deceased. More so, when the witnesses have failed to give the specific particulars with regard to date and time of such incidents. Hence, the evidence led by prosecution does not conclusively prove that the accused persons instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, no evidence to prove section 306 IPC has come on the record. Therefore, this State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 20/21 court has no other option, but to acquit the accused persons from the offence u/s 306/34 IPC as well.
Conclusion:
41. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove charges against the accused person and thus, failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, both the accused namely Deepawan and Nirmala Devi stand acquitted from the offences u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC and in alternative for the offence u/s 306/34 IPC as well.
42. Earlier Bail bonds of both the accused stand discharged. The original documents of their previous sureties, if any be returned to them after cancellation of endorsement and upon the identification of the sureties.
43. The bail bonds furnished u/s 437 A Cr.P.C of both the accused namely, Deepawan and Nirmala Devi are extended for a period of six months for the purpose of Section 437A Cr.P.C. After the expiry of six months, the bail bonds shall stand cancelled and surety bonds discharged. Original documents of sureties, if any be returned after cancellation of endorsement and upon the identification of the sureties. Case property, if any be destroyed after the expiry of period of appeal.
44. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signedHEM by HEM RAJ Date: 2025.05.13 Pronounced in the open RAJ 16:12:41 +0530 Court on 13-05-2025. (HEM RAJ) Addl. Sessions Judge-08 (West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 21/21