Delhi District Court
1. Smt. Shanti And Another vs . State Of on 4 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR:SPECIAL
JUDGE2 (NDPS ACT CENTRAL DISTRICT):
TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI
Case No. : 27595/16
SC No. : 108/13
FIR No. : 31/2013
PS : Roop Nagar
U/s. : 498A,304B r/w Section 34 IPC
State
Versus
1) Vikas Verma
S/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal
R/o 205, Falcon Nest I Cross,
Kagga Daspura, C.V. Raman Nagar,
Bangalore.
2) Smt. Shanti Devi
W/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal
R/o Janki Appartments,
I2/215/D2/Domal Guda,
Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad.
3) Suresh Verma
S/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal
R/o Janki Appartments,
I2/215/D2/Domal Guda,
Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad.
4) Smt. Anita Verma
W/o Sh. Suresh Verma
R/o Janki Appartments,
State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 1
I2/215/D2/Domal Guda,
Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad.
.....Accused Persons
Date of institution : 30.09.2013
Date of Judgment : 04.11.2016
JUDGMENT
The four accused named above have been facing trial for the offence U/s.498A and 304 B r/w 34 IPC. The accusation leveled against them is that during the period from 25.11.2007 to 08.02.2013, at Hyderabad and also at Delhi, all of them, in furtherance of their common intention subjected Smt. Preeti (since deceased) wife of Vikas Verma accused, to cruelty and that Smt. Preeti left this world on 08.02.2013, otherwise than under normal circumstances, within a period of seven years of her marriage, having been subjected to cruelty even soon before her death.
Vikas Verma accused is husband ; Smt. Shanti Devi accused is motherinlaw; Suresh accused is brotherinlaw; and Ms. Anita Verma is sisterinlaw of Smt. Preeti.
In brief, case of prosecution is that Ms.Preeti and Vikas Verma got married on 25.11.2007. Marriage was solemnized at Hyderabad. After the marriage Smt. Preeti started residing at her matrimonial home, where other family State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 2 members of her husband used to reside. During those days, her husband was posted in Bangalore, but he used to visit his house in Hyderabad on Saturday, Sunday or holidays.
Allegation leveled against the accused is that 4/5 months after the marriage, they put forth demand of Rs.10 lacs and jewellery items.
Her husband left for Japan in the year 2008. Subsequently, Smt. Preeti also reached Japan to join company of her husband there.
Both of them had to visit India on 13.2.2009 to participate in the marriage of Ashok Kumar, brother of Smt.Preeti .
On 15.2.2009 Smt.Preeti was taken by her husband and brother in law to Hyderabad where she was got admitted and operated upon. After discharge from the hospital, the husband and wife lived together in Hyderabad.
Thereafter, Vikas Verma returned to Japan. Smt.Preeti also joined the company of her husband in Japan. They lived together there upto February 2010. Allegation is that in the year 2010, Smt.Preeti was in family way but she suffered premature delivery as she was not timely taken to the hospital.
State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 3As against motherinlaw, the allegation is that when her son Vikas Verma used to slap Smt.Preeti or reprimand her, she would not give him proper advice. She is alleged to have taunted Smt.Preeti that because of her hair cut style she would not conceive.
On 10.05.2011, the couple accompanied by other family members namely Suresh, Anita and Shanti Devi (the three accused) visited Rajasthan. The allegation is that the accused persons took Smt.Preeti to a Tantrik at Rajal Desal (Rajasthan) and the said Tantrik misbehaved with Smt.Preeti. On 15.05.2011 Smt. Preeti came to Delhi in the company of her parents.
Allegation against the husband is that he was very rude with his wife; that he used to slap her with force; that he used vulgar words for his father in law and brother in law.
Ultimately, she returned from Delhi to Bangalore and joined the company of her husband there. On 22.10.2012, Smt. Preeti was got admitted at Laxman Hospital, Bangalore by her neighbour with history of consumption of some poisonous substance. Her husband got her admitted at Manipal Hospital. She remained admitted there, while under medical treatment upto 15.05.2011, when she was discharged at the request of her father. The State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 4 allegation is that Smt.Preeti was subjected to cruelty by her husband and that is why she took this step.
After discharge from the hospital at Bangalore, father of Smt.Preeti brought her from Bangalore to parental house, at Delhi. The allegation is that during the period Smt.Preeti remained admitted at the hospital in Bangalore, her husband demanded money from his father in law to meet with medical expenses. Another allegation is that from 16.11.2012 to 5.12.2012, she lived at the matrimonial home, Smt.Preeti was subjected to cruelty by her husband.
On 27.01.2013 she was got admitted at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi, where she remained under treatment and on 09.02.2013 she breathed her last at the said hospital. The allegation is that during this period inlaws of Smt.Preeti did not take care of her.
2. Present case came to be registered on 09.02.2013 on the basis of statement made by Sh. Gopi Ram, before Executive Magistrate, Sub Division, Civil Lines, Delhi.
Dead body of Smt.Preeti was got subjected to autopsy. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. Medical record was also collected from the concerned hospitals at Bangalore and Delhi.
State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 5Accused persons were arrested. On completion of investigation, challan was put in Court.
3. Copies of challan and accompanying documents relied on by the prosecution were supplied to free of cost.
4. Prima facie case having been made out, charge for an offences u/s 498A read with Sec.34 and 304B read with section 34 IPC was framed against all the accused. Since the accused pleaded "not guilty" and claimed trial, prosecution examined following witnesses : PW1 Sh. Gopi Ram, father of Smt.Preeti PW2 Dr. Asitesh Bajwa PW3 Dr. Arvind Kumar PW4 Sh. Arun Verma, brother of Smt.Preeti PW5 Dr. Jose Chacko PW5 Sh. Pyara Singh PW6 Dr. Sadiq Sikora PW7 Dr. Mohan Singh PW8 SI Jug Pravesh PW9 HC Rakesh Kumar PW10 Sh. Madan Lal PW11 Ms. Anuradha Singh PW12 Retd. SI Ram Phal PW13 Ct. Ramesh Kumar State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 6 PW14 Ct. Dharamveer PW15 Sh. Ravi PW16 Dr. Samba Shiva PW17 Smt. Pooja Jaiswal PW18 Sh. Punit Jaiswal PW19 Retd. SI Shanmnukha Swami PW20 Ct. Bantu Kumar PW21 Ct. Sandip PW22 SI Dharmender Kumar PW23 Insp. Kanwar Sain PW24 ASI Beer Bahadur PW25 Ct. Devi Sahai Defence plea
5. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused persons admitted relationship interse and with Smt.Preeti, but denied all the incriminating circumstances, appearing in evidence against them and claimed false implication.
It is their defence plea that Smt.Preeti herself consumed some substance out of anger meted by her father and brother and for that reason she was taken to Laxmi hospital and thereafter she was referred to Manipal Hospital, State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 7 Bangalore at the instance of her husband to provide her better treatment and further that her husband all the medical expenses were incurred by him.
The plea is that because of harassment and torture given by her father and brother, who used to ask for money from Preeti, she in turn used to ask money from her husband. After sometimes, when her husband stopped giving her money for being given to her parents, her brother Arun kumar Verma started creating unnecessary interference in my married life and created lot of pressure upon her to get the money.
It is also their defence plea that NCR No.375/12 was recorded at the instance of her husband, Vikas Verma accused. Police recorded statement of Vikas Verma, but Tehsildar never visited the hospital and as such no proceedings were conducted on the basis of NCR.
As further pleaded, father of Smt.Preeti has got registered this false case in order to extort money and the flat situated at Bangalore.
Further, it is the defence plea that during the period of treatment of Smt. Preeti, her father created nuisance at the hospital in Bangalore and forcibly took her State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 8 away to Delhi, having persuaded the concerned Doctor to give a certificate for her air travel from Bangalore to Delhi.
As further put in defence plea, after reaching Delhi, parents and brother of Smt.Preeti did not provide proper and timely medical treatment, as a result whereof, her condition deteriorated. When her condition became serious , she was got admitted at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. and multiple surgery were performed upon her at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and she could not sustain injuries obtained during the course of multiple surgeries conducted at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital due to her late admission and proper treatment was not provided qua her oesophagus dilatation in the hospital.
6. In defence, accused have not led any evidence despite opportunity.
7. Arguments heard. File perused.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has referred to the evidence led by the prosecution, mainly in the form of medical evidence, statements of PW1,PW4, PW11,PW17 and PW18 and the notes in the handwriting of Smt.Preeti and submitted that prosecution has proved on record that the accused persons treated Smt.Preeti with cruelty because their unlawful demands were not met with by her parents.
State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 9Reference has been made to the prosecution evidence to point out that the accused persons raised demand of Rs.10 lacs and jewellery after the marriage of Smt.Preeti; that in the year 2010, Smt.Preeti had to suffer premature delivery and the loss of child because the accused persons did not take her to hospital in time; that Vikas Verma husband of Smt.Preeti illtreated and misbehaved with her not only at Hyderabad and Bangalore but also while she was with him in Japan; that the accused persons took Smt.Preeti to Rajal Desal in Rajasthan where a Tantrik misbehaved with her but they did not take any action against the Tantrik and she had to be brought to Delhi by her father; that on 22.10.2012 Smt.Preeti consumed some substance meant for room cleaning as she was subjected to cruelty by her husband at Bangalore; that for the treatment of his wife, Vikas Verma demanded money from his inlaws and also misbehaved with his wife and fatherinlaw during stay at the hospital in Bangalore and after her discharge from the hospital.
In support of his submissions, Ld. Addl. PP has referred to following authorities:
1. Smt. Shanti and another vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SCC 1226;
2. Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2000) 5 SCC 207;
State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 103. Vajresh Venkatray Anvekar vs. State of Karnataka, 2013 (1) JCC 586;
4. Bhupendra vs. State of M.P., IX (2013) SLT 443;
5. Rajesh Bhatnagar vs. State of Uttrakhand, AIR 2012 Supreme Court 2866.
9. On the other hand, learned defence counsel has referred to the material available on record and submitted that prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons ever made any unlawful demand of dowry in the form of money or jewellery at any point of time or that anyone of them subjected Smt.Preeti to cruelty, what to say of any kind of cruelty soon before her death. Reference has been made to the suicide note dated 22.10.2012 to point out that in this note Smt.Preeti did not level any allegation against any of the accused and rather she expressed her feelings as to how she was loved by her husband. Further, it has been submitted that Smt.Preeti during her life time never lodged any complaint against any of the accused leveling any allegation as has been leveled by her father and brother. It has also been submitted that after Smt.Preeti consumed roomcleaner in absence of her husband, on having come to know about it, he immediately rushed State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 11 her to other hospital and got her provided best medical aid to save her life and incurred entire medical expenditure for her medical treatment at Bangalore.
Therefore, the contention is that all, the accused persons are entitled to acquittal in this case.
In support of his submissions, Ld. Defence Counsel has referred to the following authorities:
1. Gurucharan Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 1988/1996, decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 8.1.2003;
2. Raman Mahajan Vs. State, Criminal Appeal No.145/98 decided by our own Hon'ble High Court on 14.11.2011;
3. State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr., AIR 1994 SC 1418;
4. Randhir Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 5097;
5. Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, 2009 (9) SCC 618;
6. Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No.696 of 2009 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27.3.2014 State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 12
10. As per material available on record, it is admitted case of the parties that Smt. Preeti (since deceased) got married with Vikas Verma (accused) on 25.11.2007, at Hyderabad and that after the marriage Smt. Preeti started residing at her matrimonial home. During those days, her husband was posted in Bangalore, but he used to visit his house in Hyderabad on Saturday, Sunday or holidays. It is also not in dispute that Vikas Verma (accused) went to Japan in March 2008 and that on 18.04.2008, Smt. Preeti also left for Japan to join company of her husband there.
It is also not in dispute that on 13.2.2009 marriage of Ashok Kumar (brother of Smt.Preeti) was solemnized at Pune and Vikas Verma and his wife also participated in the marriage. Vikas Verma returned to Japan and the wife also joined her there.
It was in 2010 that both of them returned from Japan to India.
On 10.05.2011, the couple accompanied by other family members namely Suresh, Anita and Shanti Devi (the three accused) visited Rajasthan and on 15.05.2011 Smt. Preeti came to Delhi in the company of her parents. Admittedly, when called by her husband and sent air tickets, State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 13 she joined the company of her husband at Bangalore she was in employment.
Undisputedly, on 22.10.2012, Smt. Preeti consumed some substance, while her husband was away for his job, and she was got admitted at Laxman Hospital, Bangalore by her neighbours. Thereafter, her husband got her admitted at Manipal Hospital. Smt. Preeti was discharged from Manipal Hospital on 15.05.2011.
Admittedly, Smt. Preeti was brought by her father from her matrimonial home to her parental house in Delhi on 05.12.2012 and on 27.01.2013 she was got admitted at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi, where she remained under treatment and that on 09.02.2013 she breathed her last at the said hospital.
Present case came to be registered on 09.02.2013 on the basis of statement made by Sh. Gopi Ram, father of Smt. Preeti, before Executive Magistrate, Sub Division, Civil Lines, Delhi.
11. As noticed above, charge for an offence U/s.304B IPC r/w 34 IPC has been framed against all the four accused. Herein, Smt. Preeti left this world on 09.02.2013. In order to substantiate charge for the offence U/s.304B IPC, it was for State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 14 the prosecution to prove beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt that Smt. Preeti died or her death was caused, otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of her marriage and that "soon before her death", she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his coaccused, who are his mother, brother and sisterinlaw, in connection with any demand for dowry, so as to draw the requisite presumption that the accused persons caused dowry death.
As regards expression "soon before her death", the same is to be determined by the court, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Though normally this expression implies that the interval between cruelty or harassment and death should not be much. It is well settled that there must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty raised on dowry demand and the concerned death. In other words, if incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. In this regard, reference may be made to decision in Yashoda and other v. State of M.P., (2004) 3 SCC
98. In case titled as Gurucharan Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 1988/1996, decided State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 15 by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 8.1.2003, while dealing with suicide note left behind by the deceased, which was to the effect that what a woman was going to do was as per her own will and no one else was responsible for it, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "In the said note also there is no statement to the effect that she was committing suicide because she had been harassed or tortured by her husband or her inlaws or that she was compelled to end her life because she was being constantly taunted for having not got a car in dowry. In fact the note says that no one was responsible for what she was doing, and that what she was doing was entirely of her own will. It was sought to be argued before us by counsel for the State that the said suicide note only indicates that she was committing suicide voluntarily, and did not amount to the exoneration of the accused. That may be one way of reading the suicide note, but it is equally possible to read the suicide note to mean that she was entirely responsible for what she was doing and no one else was to blame. The suicide note does not contain any statement which can be used against the accused, as there is nothing in the suicide note which may even remotely suggest that she was endering her life because of the mal treatment meted out of her by the members of her matrimonial family."
In case titled as Raman Mahajan Vs. State, Criminal Appeal No. 145/98 decided by our own Hon'ble High Court on 14.11.2011, reference was made to decision in State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 16 State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr., AIR 1994 SC 1418 , wherein it was observed as follows : "14. We are not oblivious that in a criminal trial the degree of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil proceeding. In a criminal trial however intriguing may be facts and circumstances of the case, the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the requirement of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and conjectures. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the introduction of Section 498A, IPC and Section 113 A of Indian Evidence Act."
In Randhir Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 5097, it was held as under : "12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under section 306 of IPC."
In State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal (AIR 1994 SC 1418), it was observed that the Courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 17 of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
In case titled as Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No.696 of 2009, Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with aspect of cruelty observed as under: "To attract section 498A, the prosecution has to establish the willful conduct on the part of the accused and that conduct is of such a nature as is likely to drive the wife to commit suicide".
State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 18In Smt. Shanti and another vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SCC 1226, Hon'ble Apex Court observed in the manner as :
" Further a person charged and acquitted under Section 304B can be convicted under Section 498A without charge being there, if such a case is made out. But from the point of view of practice and procedure an to avoid technical defects it is necessary in such cases to frame charges unde both the sections and if the case established they can be convicted under both the sections but no separate sentence need be awarded under Section 498A in view of the substantive sentence being awarded for the major offence under Section 304B.".
In Kansraj's case (Supra), Hon'ble Apex Court did not find any merit in the submission that statement made by the deceased to her relatives before her death was inadmissible in evidence under section 32(1) of Evidence Act on account of intervening period i.e. between date of making of the statement and her death; that Section 32 does State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 19 not require that statement sought to be admitted in the evidence should have been made under imminent expectation of death; and that this section is an exception of the rule of hearsay and makes admissible the statement of a person who dies, whether the death is homicide or suicide, provided the statement relates to the cause of death or exhibits circumstances leading to the death.
In Vajresh Venkatray Anvekar vs. State of Karnataka 2013 (1) JCC 586, it has been observed that when a woman is subjected to ill treatment within the four walls of her matrimonial house, ill treatment is witnessed by the perpetrators of the crime . It has further been observed that assaulting a woman offends her dignity and one slap or two slaps by a husband to the wife matters.
In Bhupendra vs. State of M.P. IX (2013) SLT 443 Hon'ble Apex Court observed that Section 304B and 306 IPC are mutually exclusive and if conviction for causing suicide is based on Section 304B IPC it will necessarily attract Section 306 IPC.
State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 20In Rajesh Bhatnagar vs. State of Uttrakhand, AIR 2012 Supreme Court 2866, it has been observed that when there is evidence in the form of statement of relatives of the deceased regarding demand of dowry right from the engagement upto the death of the deceased, the mere fact that there was no mention of dowry in letters of the deceased, which were letters not simplicitory mentioning about her well being but also made reference to beatings and cruelty and illtreatment meted out to her, same were not sufficient to absolve inlaws and that all the evidence has to be read in entirety.
12. Applying the settled law to the facts and circumstances of this case, Court proceeds to find out, if prosecution has been able to prove that unlawful demand was raised by any of the accused and if so, whether on account of nonfulfillment of any such demand, anyone of them subjected Smt.Preeti to cruelty or harassment and that soon before her death or at any time prior thereto State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 21 FIRST THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE PW5 PW5 Dr. Jose Chacko is from Sakra Hospital, Bangalore. According to the doctor, Smt. Preeti Verma was brought to the said hospital on 22.10.2012 at 5.15 PM with the history of having taken some substance at about 3 AM. She was seen in the emergency department. After initial evaluation, she was transferred to ICU and put on life support measures including ventilatory support. Since she was severely acidotic, she was subjected to dialysis.
The next day, she underwent an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy which revealed gradeII B esophageal burns. On endoscopy, it was found that passing endoscope was too risky beyond the gastroesophageal junction.
She continued to be on life support measures and underwent a feeding jejunostomy on 27.10.2012 for nutritional management. She made slow improvement in her clinical condition from then onwards.
Further, according to PW5, Smt. Preeti was taken on breathing support on 29.10.2012. But on 31.10.2012 she became breathless and accordingly she was against put on ventilatory support. It was on 03.11.2012 that she was taken on ventilatory support. She continued to make improvement after 03.11.2012 and as such she was transferred to ward on State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 22 08.11.2012.
In his crossexamination, PW5 stated that it was only after the condition of the patient stabilized that she was shifted to the ward. It is also in his crossexamination that the patient was being given food through part of small intestine brought out through the abdominal wall.
PW6 PW6 Dr. Sadiq Sikora is from Sakra World Hospital, Bangalore, where Smt. Preeti was got admitted on 22.10.2012 with history of consumption of floor cleaner at about 1.30 PM. According to PW6, the patient was administered treatment and then brought to the emergency department of Manipal Hospital. According to the doctor, he attended the patient and performed the procedure of feeding jejunostomy. From ICU, the patient was transferred to ward on 08.11.2012. On 13.11.2012, she underwent endoscopy. She was finally discharged on 15.11.2012 and at that time, her abdominal wounds were healing well. She was advised to come on 21.11.2012 for followup and endoscopic examination and dilatation.
PW6Doctor witness has proved discharge summary Ex. PW6/A and other document Ex. PW6/B and also certificate Ex. PW6/C issued by him, regarding discharge of patient.
State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 23It is in the crossexamination of PW6 that periodical followup treatment of the patient was necessary. According to the doctor, he had issued the certificate Ex. PW6/C regarding discharge of the patient as her father wanted to take her to Delhi for further treatment. The doctor admitted that all the facilities required for treating patient were available at their hospital.
13. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that since Smt. Preeti was not being properly treated by her husband and rather she was harassed, her father brought her to Delhi.
14. On the other hand, Learned defence counsel has submitted that when all medical facilities were available for treatment of Smt.Preeti at the said hospital, in Bangalore, it remains unexplained as to why PW1, his son and wife brought her from there to Delhi and as to why PW1 expressed to PW6the doctorthat he wanted to take her to Delhi for further treatment. There is nothing in the statement of PW6 the doctorthat PW1 ever expressed him that anyone of them or Smt.Preeti was not being properly entertained by Vikas Verma accused or that that the accused was illtreating her or subjecting her to harassment or that that is why he wanted to bring her to Delhi.
State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 2415. As noticed above, according to PW6 periodical followup treatment of the patient was necessary. But, prosecution has failed to prove on record any medical record for the period from 21.11.2012 to 27.01.2013, either at any hospital of Bangalore or Delhi to show that for requisite follow up treatment, Smt.Preeti was taken by her father or brother to any hospital. There is no documentary evidence led by the prosecution to explain as to why Smt.Preeti was not taken to any hospital prior to 27.1.2013 for follow up check and treatment.
PW3 From the medical evidence available in the statement of PW3 Dr. Arvind Kumar, from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi, prosecution has proved discharge summary of Smt. Preeti. Same is Ex. PW3/A. This discharge summary was signed by Dr. K.Krishna Kiran, Senior Resident and Dr. Belal Bin Asaf, Consultant.
It is in the crossexamination of PW3 that no medical treatment record for the period prior to 27.01.2013 was available in the hospital. The doctor further stated having no personal knowledge about this case, except about the medical treatment given by him.
It is in crossexamination of PW3 that final cause of State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 25 death in this case was multiorgan disfunction syndrome (MODS). Further, according to the doctor, MODS was caused due to post operative complications, post operative complications were caused due to surgery, surgery was performed due to strictures of oesophagus, strictures were caused due to consumption of corrosive substance by the patient. It is also in the statement of doctor that he did not find any poisonous substance in the body.
PW2 PW2 Dr. Ashitesh Bajwa conducted autopsy on the dead body of Smt. Preeti on 10.02.2013 and on external examination of the dead body, observed as under:
1. Stitched wound 7.5 cm with 10 intact stitches present at left side of neck extended from supra sternal notch.
2. Stitched wound 23 cm in length with 17 intact stitches were present at front of abdominal wall, vertically placed extending below xiphi sternum.
3. Stitched wound with one intact stitch at both the flanks of abdominal wall 6.5 cm from umbilicus at right side and 8 cm from left umbilicus.
4. Stitched wound with one intact stitch was present at left midaxillary line, 8.8 cm from left nipple.
5. Stitched wound with one intact stitch at right mid State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 26 axillary line, 9 cm from left nipple.
6. Stitched wound with one intact stitch at right side of neck, 5 cm below right angle of mandible.
7. Stitched wound with one intact stitch at right inguinal region 8 cm below and lateral to pubic symphysis.
On internal examination, the doctor observed that the brain matter meninges found congested and cerebral vessels were engorged. In the opinion of doctor, cause of death was septicaemic shock as a result of generalized peritonitis which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
From the medical evidence available in statement of PW2 Dr. Ashitesh Bajwa and the postmortem report proved by him, it transpires that Smt. Preeti died due to septicaemic shock as a result of generalized peritonitis, which in the opinion of the doctor, was sufficient to cause death.
In his crossexamination, PW2 stated that he could not opine if death of Smt. Preeti had occurred due to infection after surgery.
At the same time, the doctor volunteered that cause of death could be due to infection, but still he could not say if infection was caused prior to surgery or after surgery.
16. In the given facts and circumstances, possibility of health of Smt.Preeti having got deteriorated for want of State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 27 proper follow up check up and treatment at Delhi by her parental family with whom she was staying, cannot be ruled out.
Question arises As to what went wrong with Smt. Preeti on 22.10.2012 As stated by PW1 Sh. Gopi Ram, father of Smt. Preeti, on 22.10.2011(2012) one of the neighbours of accused Vikas Verma telephonically informed that Preeti was unwell and admitted at Manipal Hospital at Bangalore. Thereupon, on the same day, he reached Bangalore and on reaching Manipal Hospital he found that his daughter was lying unconscious in ICU. According to PW1, 23 days thereafter, police officials met him at the hospital for his statement and he told the police that Vikas Verma used to beat his daughter bitterly.
But, significantly, none of the police officials examined from Bangalore police has stated that PW1 ever told them about beatings to Smt.Preeti at the hands of her husband.
According to PW4 Arun Verma, brother of Smt.Preeti, he did not have any direct telephone communication with Smt. Preeti during the period from August 2012 to December 2012. However, he volunteered to have received phone call from someone in the neighbourhood State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 28 of his sister on 22.10.2012. In his crossexamination, PW4 displayed ignorance as to at which time he had received information on phone on 22.10.2012. He stated to have not inquired the name and identity of the caller who had called him on landline. He displayed ignorance about any telephonic conversation by him or his parents on 22.10.2012 with Smt. Preeti from morning to 23 PM. However, he admitted that on 22.10.2012 he had called Ms. Anuradha, the neighbour of Smt. Preeti, so as to inform her that his father was about to reach Bangalore and to have requested her to take care of Preeti. Admittedly, he made this call to Smt. Anuradha in the afternoon.
PW11 Smt. Anuradha Singh, from the neighbourhood of Smt. Preeti, has stated to have received call from PW4 on 22.10.2012 at about 2.30 PM and he having inquired from her if she was at home and further that she should visit Preeti and check if she was alright.
Learned defence counsel has rightly pointed that when Smt. Preeti had no conversation with PW4 or PW1 on 22.10.2012, it remains unexplained as to what prompted PW4 to contact Ms. Anuradha Singh to ask her to go and check if Smt. Preeti was alright.
Admittedly, as on 22.10.2012, Smt.Preeti was residing in the company of her husband at Bangalore. On that date, she was initially rushed to Laxmi Hospital and from State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 29 there to Manipal Hospital, where she was ultimately medically treated.
Medical evidence establishes that Smt.Preeti had consumed some corrosive substance, which led to internal injuries her removal to hospital.
It is not case of prosecution that any external injury was observed by any of the doctors, who attended upon her at Bangalore on 22.10.2012.
Prosecution has examined PW11, PW17, PW18 and PW19 from the neighbourhood of Vikas Verma and the victim, during her stay with him at the matrimonial home, in Bangalore.
PW11 Ms. Anuradha Singh has clearly stated that on 22.10.2012 in the morning at about 8.35 or 8.45 Smt. Preeti had come to her and told that she had a quarrel with her husband and as such she would not be able to do Pooja, but one hour thereafter she called her on intercom and told that she would perform necessary Pooja by herself and that she should not bother. At abut 2 PM, she left the house to take teaching classes in the nearby vicinity and thereafter at about 2.30 PM she received call from brother of Smt. Preeti to go and check her. There is nothing in the statement of PW11 that Smt. Preeti told her as to what had led to quarrel between her and her husband on that day. It is in her statement that accused Vikas Verma had reached Laxman State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 30 Hospital, discussed with the doctor and then shifted her to Manipal Hospital, which is a bigger hospital. So, the statement of PW11 does not reveal any fact against any of the accused.
PW17 Smt. Pooja Jaiswal has deposed that Smt.Preeti sometimes used to share with her regarding some trivial quarrel which used to take place between her and her husband. In the morning of Asthami I.e. 22.10.2012 Smt.Preeti contacted her on phone but did not say anything as her (PW17's) father in law had come to her house and she had to offer prayers, she promised to call her later on. But at about 1:00 pm, she again received a phone call from Smt.Preeti and at that time, she told her (the witness) that she was going to sleep and that she should not be disturbed and further that they would meet in the evening. At about 3:00 pm, she received a call from Rajni whereby she asked her (the witness) to reach Felcom Nest Apartment as Smt.Preeti had done something. That is how, she came to know that Preeti had been removed to Laxmi Hospital. She also rushed to the hospital and found Smt.Preeti under treatment there. She also called her husband and he too reached there. She also called Vikas Verma and he also reached there. From that hospital, Smt.Preeti was referred to Manipal Hospital at the request of her husband Vikas Verma.
State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 31In her cross examination, PW17, displayed ignorance if her husband used to have financial help from Vikas Verma and that her husband paid a sum of Rs.1 lac to Vikas Verma at the time of treatment of Smt.Preeti in Bangalore. She further stated about immediate arrival of Vikas Verma at Laxmi Hospital. She reiterated in her cross examination that as told by Preeti, quarrel had taken place with her husband on trivial issues.
From the above statement, it cannot be said that PW17 deposed any fact against Vikas Verma accused.
Almost on the same line is the statement of PW18 Sh.Puneet Jaiswal, husband of Smt.Pooja Jaiswal. According to him, Vikas Verma accused used to inform regarding trivial issues between him and his wife and such trivial issues take place between every husband and wife.
According to PW19, ASI Shanmnukha Swami on 23.10.2012 on receipt of information from Airport police station regarding admission of Preeti Verma at Manipal Hospital, she reached the hospital and met the concerned doctor. The patient was not in a position to give her statement as declared by the doctor.
According to the witness, on return to the police station, she recorded entry by way of NCR No.357/12, copy whereof is Ex. PW19/A. Senior officer communicated the information to Tehsildar (Executive Magistrate), Bangalore, State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 32 vide Ex. PW19/B. At the time of her visit, the concerned docors declared that the patient was unfit to make statement, and as such her statement could not be recorded. But the point is that even if Smt.Preeti was unable to make statement, there is no justification coming as to why her father did not make any statement before the police,.
PW19 clearly stated in her crossexamination that she did not find relative of Preeti Verma at the hospital on any date. Further, according to the witness, no person on behalf of Preeti Verma every visited their police station. There is no justification in this regard.
There is nothing in the statements of PW11, PW17 and PW18 that the victim apprised anyone of them as to what had led to quarrel between her and her husband. It was stated to be on trivial matter.
Conduct of Vikas Verma accused on 22.10.2012 As regards conduct of Vikas Verma accused on 22.10.2012, after he learnt that his wife had to be rushed to hospital, record reveals that immediately after he was apprised of removal of Smt.Preeti to hospital, he rushed to the hospital and took steps to remove her to Manipal Hospital, equipped with better facilities. Not only this, he even informed the police and the same led to recording of NCR with local police. Had anything wrong on the part of State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 33 the accused been found, local police must have initiated legal action against them. But the fact remains that no legal proceedings were conducted against any of the accused.
Note (Ex. PW23/G) left by Smt.Preeti on 22.10.2012 at Bangalore
17. Learned defence counsel has referred to Ex. PW1/DA (also Ex. PW23/G). This document, as admitted by PW1 Sh. Gopi Ram, father of the victim, is in the handwriting of his daughter Smt. Preeti. Once this document has been admitted by the father of the victim to be in her handwriting, same can safely be relied on.
The suicide note bears signatures of the victim. It is dated 22.10.2012. This suicide note was addressed by the victim to her husband also called as Mithu, as admitted by PW1 in crossexamination.
In her suicide note, the victim expressed that she did not want to live any more. She also expressed that her husband had loved her much and given her enough and further that no one else could do anything more and further that she did not need anything more. She also expressed that perhaps she could not get more love from him. She also begged for being excused for any hurt on her part.
Learned defence counsel has rightly pointed that in the suicide note the victim did not express any dissatisfaction State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 34 or anger against her husband or any of his family member, what to say of leveling of any allegation of unlawful demand of dowry or harassment or cruelty.
No report lodged by Smt. Preeti with police regarding drastic step taken by her on 22.10.2012
18. Smt.Preeti remained admitted at Manipal Hospital for the period from 22.10.2012, but at no point of time, she told any of the doctors, attending upon her or any hospital staff taking care of her, that she was compelled to consume the substance on account of act or conduct of her husband or other accused or cruelty or harassment at the hands of anyone of them. Even subsequently, Smt.Preeti did not file any complaint with the police leveling any allegation either against her husband or any other relative, who were at Hyderabad. Had she any grievance to be redressed, she must have reported the matter to the police. But the fact remains that she did not lodge any report with the police during this period.
All this goes to show that prosecution has not established on record that any act or conduct on the part of any of the accused compelled the victim to consume corrosive substance means for roomcleaning, on 22.10.2012. It can safely be said that prosecution has failed to prove that any unlawful demand was raised by Vikas Verma, husband, or State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 35 any of his family membersco accused or that on non fulfillment of any such demand, they or anyone of them, subjected her to cruelty or harassment soon before her death. As a result, no presumption can be drawn against any of the accused under Section 113 B Evidence Act so as to attract provisions of Section 304 B IPC.
19. PW23 Inspt. Kanwar Saini admitted in his cross examination that at the time of his visit at PS Bayappahelli when he contacted SI B.S. Rama Devi, on his request, SI supplied to her copy of NCR, copy of intimation to police and copy of general diary in Kannad language and also statement of Vikas Verma.
Although translation of NCR has not been provided to the court, it has been submitted that lodging of NCR by Vikas Verma with the police on the same day shows his bona fide in bringing to the notice of the police the entire facts and that in view of this conduct no mala fide can be attributed as regards consumption of corrosive substance by his wife on that date at the matrimonial home, while he was away to his office.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the victim took this step of consuming corrosive substance meant for room cleaning, on account of any act or conduct of her husband, what to say of having been subjected to cruelty or harassment State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 36 by her husband, who was away to his office, or any other accused who were at Hyderabad.
Was any money transferred by PW1 or PW4 to the account of Vikas Verma to meet with medical expenses in treatment of Smt.Preeti?
20. Case of prosecution is that on 22.10.2012 , one of the neighbour of Vikas Verma made a call at landline phone of Gopi Ram, father of Preeti, and told that she was unwell and had been got admitted at Manipal Hospital in Bangalore.
According to PW1, on the same day, he reached the Hospital in Bangalore. At that time, Preeti was lying unconscious in the ICU.
Case of prosecution is that father of Preeti got transferred an amount of Rs. 1 lac from the account of his wife to the account of accused Vikas Verma to meet with for medical expenses of his daughter, and that too at the instance of Vikas Verma. But still he demanded a sum of Rs. 810 lacs. According to PW1, he refused to pay such a huge amount.
It is in the statement of PW1 that after 23 days of his arrival in Bangalore, police officials met him in the hospital itself for recording his statement.
But there is nothing to suggest that PW1 made any statement before the police leveling any allegation against State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 37 any of the accused.
Learned defence counsel has submitted that in his crossexamination PW1 firstly stated to have deposited a sum of Rs.1 lac in the joint account of his wife and daughter, but again stated that this amount was deposited by his son in the account of Vikas Verma, and in the next breath, he displayed ignorance if there was any joint account in the name of his wife and his daughter.
As rightly submitted, PW1 further stated in his crossexamination that he would bring statement of account regarding deposit of Rs.1 lac in the account of accused Vikas Verma, but never brought on record any such statement of account so as to support his testimony regarding deposit of any sum of Rs.1 lac by his son in the account of accused Vikas Verma.
In absence of any documentary evidence, Court finds that prosecution has failed to prove this allegation that an amount of Rs.1 lac was deposited by the son of PW1 in the name of accused Vikas Verma to meet with medical expenses in treatment of Smt.Preeti.
In one of the notes, under para 3 (where expert has put Mark Q49, in Ex. PW1/F), Smt. Preeti is alleged to have leveled allegations against her husband that he forced her that she should have help from her brother and sisterinlaw who were in U.S.A. State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 38 As already noticed above, Smt. Preeti is stated to have written in her note that her brother paid her Rs.1 lac, but she returned Rs.50,000/ then and there; that her husband told her that the things had been managed; that a sum of Rs.10,000/ was given by her brother to her by way of gift and out of the remaining amount, Rs.14,000/ was to be deducted towards their tickets and that Rs.26,000/ was yet to be returned, as her husband knew.
Learned defence counsel has rightly pointed out that prosecution has not examined Ashok Kumar, brother of Smt. Preeti to prove this allegation of payment of Rs.1 lac. It has come in evidence that Ashok Kumar visited Delhi during the period from December 2012 to February 2013, but even then he never appeared before police to level any allegation of unlawful demand by Vikas Verma. Surprisingly, PW4 ArunVerma when crossexamined on this point, displayed ignorance.
When PW4 Arun Verma was under cross examination, his attention was drawn to photocopies of bills issued by Municipal Hospital. The witness stated that these were the running bills issued by Manipal hospitals and medical store. These were exhibited as Ex. PW4/D. These bills consist of 15 pages. A perusal of these bills would reveal that payment under these bills were made by accused Vikas Verma. As submitted by learned counsel for accused, the State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 39 total sum paid by accused Vikas Verma on medical treatment of his wife comes to Rs.5,34,482/. This expenditure was incurred for the treatment of Smt. Preeti during the period from 22.10.2012 to 15.11.2012, at Manipal Hospital.
In view of no evidence to the contrary i.e. payment of these medical bills not by Vikas Verma accused, the conduct of Vikas Verma in having spent this much amount on medical treatment of his wife also goes to show that he must not have raised any unlawful demand of dowry from Smt.Preeti or her family members.
Improvements made by PW4 Sh.Arun Verma while making statement in court.
21. While referring to the version narrated by PW4 Arun Verma, brother of deceased Smt. Preeti, Ld. Defence Counsel has pointed out that on various aspects, this witness has made improvements in the version given to the police, while making statement in court, so as to fill up the lacunae left by his father PW1.
Deposit of Rs.90,000/ :
It is in the statement of PW4 that he did not state before the police that his father had deposited before marriage of Ms. Preeti, a sum of Rs.90,000/ i.e. Rs.45,000/ each time or that he had deposited a sum of Rs.45,000/ in the account of mother in law of Smt.Preeti, at Oriental Bank State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 40 of Commerce, Dilkhush Industrial Branch, GTK Road. So, in this regard, PW4 has improved upon his statement by narrating the version stated to have been given before the police.
Demand of Gold Chain :
As regards demand of gold chain by accused Suresh, PW4 displayed ignorance if he had stated so before the police. He however, admitted to have not stated before the police that his sister discussed about the demand of articles with her husband or that her husband told her that the demands were legal and should be fulfilled. Therefore, in this regard, PW4 has improved upon his earlier statement.
Beatings by Vikas Verma :
PW4 Arun Kumar admitted to have not stated before the police that Vikas Verma accused was a person of short temper/nature and he used to beat his wife Smt.Preeti on one occasion or the other, even on the trivial issues.
The "other aspects" on which PW4 Arun Verma has made improvements in his earlier statement can be easily gathered from his statement made in court on 26.04.2014, which reads as under : "It is correct that I did not tell the police that Vikas made responsible Preeti for this State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 41 abortion and instead of supporting her mentally and emotionally, Vikas used to blame her..........
It is also correct that I did not tell the police that Vikas pressurized and compelled Preeti to take some money from Ashok as he was residing in USA.
It is correct that I did not give the detail instances of alleged cruelty committed on Preeti by Vikas and his family. Vol. I had only mentioned that Vikas used to commit cruelty on Preeti. I did not mention the incident of carpenter, breaking of glass or computer etc to the police.
I do not remember if I had told to the police about Vikas having given beatings to Preeti in presence of mother of Vikas. I had told to police that Vikas used to compel the Preeti to live as per his wishes otherwise he would kill her. Confronted with the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C Ex.PW4/DX, wherein it is not so recorded.
It is wrong to suggest that I have not stated anything about alleged cruelty or mis treatment given to Preeti in my statement State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 42 Ex.PW4/DX or that I have given exaggerated version of the incidents in my examination in chief by putting other things which have not been narrated by me in my statement Ex.PW4/DX.
I did not tell to police that it was a part of the conspiracy of the accused persons to bring an end as far as the communication between us and Preeti is concerned. After 2-3 days , Vikas stated that if their demand of dowry i.e. an amount of Rs. 10 lac , four gold bangles , one gold set and a gold chain is fulfilled , then the life would become smooth and he would get his partition in the Ancestral immovable property.
I do not remember if I had told to police that Preeti again opposed for the aforesaid demand of dowry. ..................
I do not recollect if I had told to police that Vikas threatened Preeti not to disclose regarding demand of dowry and other harassment to the neighbour in the vicinity otherwise he would kill her and people in the locality would presume that she has committed suicide as she could not give State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 43 birth to any child.
I do not remember if I had told to police that at that time , Preeti was admitted to ICU Hospital and her condition was quite critical and attending doctors were not stating anything about Preeti......................
I do not remember if I had told to police that once Vikas brought some papers of divorce and NOC and forced us to get the signatures of Preeti on those documents.................................................
I do not remember if I had told to police that in the Month of January, 2013 , my sister preeti used to tell about the incident/happenings which have taken place during the past , to my father , mother and myself........................
I do not remember if I had told to police
that after the marriage of Preeti , jeth
suresh, Jethani Anita and mother in law
kept the entire jewellery of Preeti with them and the same are lying with them only as on date today. Jewellery of Preeti was not given to her".State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 44
Whether Vikas Verma asked for any No objection certificate in respondent of house while Smt.Preeti was lying admitted in the hospital?
22. It is in the statement of PW1 Sh. Gopi Ram that the house situated in Bangalore was in names of his daughter and accused Vikas. He clearly stated that this house was purchased after obtaining loan from the bank. Admittedly, Smt. Preeti was not employed. It is also not case of prosecution that any amount was contributed by the complainant party in purchase of this house. Learned defence counsel has pointed out that when this house was purchased by Vikas Verma accused in his name and in the name of his wife out of love and affection, the version narrated by PW1 that on 25.11.2011 Vikas Verma asked him to give no objection certificate regarding the house or to pay him a sum of Rs.10 lacs, is not believable. This contention has merit. Even otherwise, no complaint was filed by PW1 or any of his family members with police at Bangalore that Vikas Verma had demanded Rs.10 lacs from him while they were at Bangalore and Preeti was lying admitted at the hospital or that he had also asked in the alternative for issuance of no objection certificate in respect of the house. There is nothing on record to suggest that Vikas Verma felt the need to sell away the house for any reason. In absence thereof, there was no question of asking for any Noobjectioncertificate by Vikas State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 45 Verma from Smt.Preeti.
Case of prosecution is that after Smt. Preeti was discharged from Manipal Hospital on 15.12.2012, she remained at her matrimonial house upto 05.12.2012 and thereafter she was brought to Delhi by her father, but during the period from 15.11.2012 to 05.12.2012 she was subjected to harassment by Vikas Verma.
Ex. PW23/DX is copy of letter addressed by Inspt. Kanwar Saini (PW23) to the Director, ICreate Software, Bangalore and Ex. PW23/DX1 is reply thereto from the said company.
Learned defence counsel has pointed out that record regarding attendance of the husband in the said company was supplied by the said company to the IO, but the same has been withheld. Ex. PW23/DX2 i.e. letter dated 22.03.2013 from the Director of BFSI, Bangalore addressed to Inspt. Kanwar Saini. Vide this letter, copy of attendance register as regards attendance of Vikas Verma in the company from November 2012 to January 2013 was provided to the Inspector, but the same has not been placed on record.
PW23 Inspt. Kanwar Saini has clearly stated in his crossexamination to have not verified allegation regarding harassment to Smt. Preeti by Vikas Verma, during the period he was in Hyderabad, Pune and Japan.
State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 46Nonreporting of matter to the police while PW1, his wife and son were in Bangalore
23. Learned defence counsel has pointed that if the complainant party had any grievance against any of the accused, they must have reported the matter to the police, during their stay at Bangalore, but none of them reported any incident to the police. In this regard, reference has been made to the statement of PW19 ASI Shanmukha Swami, who was serving as ASI during the relevant period, at PS Byappanahalli, Bangalore.
When we advert to the statement of PW1 Gopi Ram, it transpires from his crossexamination that from 22.10.2012 to 15.11.2012 he alone was at Bangalore and on 15.11.2012 he called his son and wife there and both of them remained with him and stayed at the house of accused Vikas Verma. Although according to PW1, Vikas Verma did not use to stay at the house to take care of Preeti, subsequently the witness volunteered that Vikas Verma used to stay at the house for 23 hours and that even while he used to remain at the house he did not take care of his wife.
In case Vikas Verma was not paying any attention to his wife, PW1, his son and wife would not have stayed at the matrimonial home of Smt.Preeti. But there is no explanation from PW1 or PW4 in this regard.
It is not case of prosecution that Smt. Preeti was State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 47 not being taken care of during her admission at the hospital. PW1 admitted in his further crossexamination that while his daughter was in the hospital at Bangalore, nurse had taught his son Arun the procedure of giving food to Preeti through pipe.
PW1 admitted in his crossexamination that while he, his son and wife were in Bangalore, they had no difficulty in commuting. They also did not face any difficulty in meeting any person at Bangalore.
This goes to show that PW1 and other members of his family could easily visit police to lodge report against the accused, but no report was lodged.
PW1 volunteered in his crossexamination that he and his son had visited a police station near hospital, but those police officials asked them to go to the head office which was at a distance of 45 hours journey. However, PW1 could not name the police station situated near the hospital, visited by him and his son. Learned defence counsel has rightly submitted that PW1, his wife or son could call police dialing No.100, but admittedly none of them even dialled this number to call police for their help.
As regards Smt. Preeti, it is in the statement of PW1 that after discharge from the hospital, she was able to speak a little bit, even while she was at the hospital and also when she was shifted from ICU to the general ward on 08.11.2012.
State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 48When it was suggested to PW1 by learned defence counsel that he did not allow the police to record statement of his daughter, the witness volunteered that it is accused Vikas who did not allow the police to meet his daughter. He went on to state to have over heard accused Vikas telling police that he had a quarrel with his wife on the issue of children, whereupon police noted down something on a paper and went away. Learned defence counsel has rightly pointed out that firstly, this version was never given by PW1 to the Executive Magistrate and secondly, that for the first time in his crossexamination, he introduced the fact of quarrel between husband and wife on the issue of children, and there is no explanation as to why this fact was never told to police at Bangalore or to the Executive Magistrate.
As to whether the victim was subjected to any cruelty or harassment prior to 22.10.2012:
Allegation of unlawful demand levelled against all accused.
Preeti D/o Sh. Gopi Ram was married with accused Vikas Verma on 25.11.2007. Marriage was solemnized in Hyderabad. Vikas Verma was Software Engineer in Hyderabad. After the marriage from November 2007 to April 2008, the wife lived with her mother in law, Smt. Shanti ,her jeth Suresh Verma and Jethani Smt. Anita Verma at Himayat State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 49 Nagar, Hyderabad. Her husband was having his posting at Bangalore and he used to visit Hyderabad on Saturday/ Sunday and during holidays.
Case of prosecution is that 45 months after the marriage, accused persons namely Vikas Verma , his mother Smt. Shanti Devi, his brother Suresh and Ms. Anita w/o Suresh are alleged to have demanded Rs. 10 lacs, one gold necklace, four gold bangles and one gold chain. When the said demand was not met with, the accused persons started beating and harassing Preeti.
It is significant to note that during her life time, Smt.Preeti never made any complaint to police that any unlawful demand was ever made by her husband or his family members. She did not so complain either to the police in Bangalore or in Delhi.
It is case of the prosecution itself that during the period from November 2007 to April 2008, Preeti resided at the matrimonial home in Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, and though Vikas Verma accused was having his posting in Bangalore, he used to visit Hyderabad during Saturday, Sunday and other holidays.
Learned defence counsel has submitted that while framing charge, it was alleged that the accused persons subjected Preeti to cruelty for unlawful demand of dowry at Hyderabad and Ashok Vihar, Delhi, during the period from State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 50 25.11.07 to 08.02.13 , but prosecution has not brought on record any material to suggest cruelty to Preeti at Ashok Vihar, Delhi, for any unlawful demand of dowry or at Hyderabad after 29.07.10, the date, she admittedly, joined her husband at Banglore, while all other three accused Suresh, his wife Anita and Smt. Shanti Devi were living far away in Hyderabad.
In his crossexamination, PW1 Gopi Ram could not tell as to when Vikas and Preeti started residing separately from other family members, but in the next sentence admitted that both of them were residing in Bangalore.
As regards Suresh and Anita, PW1 admitted in his crossexamination that they were residing in Hyderabad.
He volunteered that Smt. Shanti Devi was residing with his daughter in Banglore. Although PW1 denied that after 2010 Smt. Shanti Devi did not reside in Bangalore in the company of Vikas and Preeti, subsequently, he admitted that his daughter did not tell him as to when Smt. Shanti Devi resided with her and her husband in Bangalore.
Complaint Ex.PW1/A
24. Available on record is complaint Ex.PW1/A, purported to have been submitted to police on behalf of Smt.Preeti. It bears signatures of PW1father of Smt.Preeti. In other words, it does not bear signatures of Smt.Preeti. But, State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 51 significantly, PW1 admitted in his crossexamination that although he had shown this complaint to Smt.Preeti, she did not sign the same. Had Smt. Preeti intended to file any such complaint, she would not have hesitated to sign the same. It was not dictated by Smt.Preeti. According to PW1, he got it typed at Tis Hazari Courts. It is not his case that he had dictated the allegations levelled in it. According to PW1, he left the complaint at Tis Hazari Courts and then left for his office.
Record does not reveal if this complaint was ever submitted to CAW Cell.
Record also does not reveal as to who presented this complaint to the police of P.S Roop Nagar. Investigating Officer has admitted that this complaint was not received by him from CAW cell.
Smt.Preeti did not make any statement before the police either at Banglore or at Delhi. She also did not file any complaint with the police at Banglore or Delhi.
As noticed above, present case came to be registered on the statement Ex. PW1/C made by father of Smt. Preeti before Executive Magistrate, on 09.02.2011. Prosecution has placed on record typed complaint Ex. PW1/A. It does not bear the date of its preparation. It was signed by Sh. Gopi Ram and addressed to the ACP CAW Cell, Delhi. But as per stamp available on the right side upper corner of its first State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 52 page, it was received at PS Roop Nagar, vide DD No.42B, dated 01.02.2013, and assigned to SI Praveen Kumar.
It remains unexplained as to why the complaint addressed to CAW Cell was submitted at PS Roop Nagar.
Subsequent endorsement dated 02.02.2013 made by SI Praveen Kumar reveals that the SubInspector pointed out that matter pertained to CAW Cell and that the same be sent to the concerned Cell at Subzi Mandi. Accordingly, it was forwarded by the SHO to CAW Cell and it was received there on 14.02.2013. However, vide endorsement dated 11.02.2013 ACP, CAW Cell returned the complaint to PS Roop Nagar with report that the case had already been registered at that police station, vide FIR No.32/13. Even otherwise, this complaint was submitted under the signatures of Sh.Gopi Ram, father and not under the signatures of the daughterSmt.Preeti.
Fact remains that Smt. Preeti did not submit any complaint under her signatures to the police for action against any of the accused persons.
All this goes to suggest that prosecution has failed to prove execution of complaint Ex.PW1/A at the instance of Smt.Preeti. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the allegations levelled in it.
Dowry List Ex.PW1/E State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 53
25. Case of prosecution is that a list of the articles which were given to Smt.Preeti, at the time of her marriage was prepared. This list, according to PW1 father of the victim is the list of dowry articles given by him at the time of marriage of his daughter. In his crossexamination PW1 stated that this list was prepared by his son, after the death of his daughter, while sitting at police station Roop Nagar. It is not case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage of Preeti with Vikas Verma any item was given by PW1 to the accused on demand from their side.
Expenditure on Marriage
26. Admittedly, marriage was solemnized in Hyderabad. Accused have come up with the plea that due to solemnized of marriage in Hyderabad, they spent from their pocket.
In his cross examination PW1 stated to have transferred money to the account of Shanti Verma (accused) to meet marriage expenses, but he could not recollect the name of the bank where Shanti Verma accused had such account. He is stated to have deposited money with G.T. Road branch of the bank in Delhi, but he could not tell as to when he deposited the said amount. He has not produced on record any statement of account. He could not tell even the amount deposited in the account of Shanti Verma. In absence State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 54 of any documentary or cogent and convincing evidence, Court finds that prosecution has failed to prove that for solemnization of marriage of Ms.Preeti in Hyderabad, her family members had to spend any amount as per any demand, what to say of unlawful demand, from the side of the accused.
Allegations levelled by PW1Sh.Gopi Ramfather of Smt.Preeti in his statement Ex.PW1/C made before Executive Magistrate, Delhi
27. The first allegation leveled by Sh. Gopi Ram, father of Smt. Preeti in his statement Ex. PW1/C made before the Executive Magistrate, is that his daughter studied B.Ed. (Hindi), but her husband used to give her beatings on the ground that she could not speak in English.
However, while making statement in court as PW1, Gopi Ram did not level this allegation against Vikas Verma accused.
What he stated in Ex.PW1/C is that that in the year 2008, his soninlaw used to beat his daughter Preeti in public place and used to say that she should put on shawl instead of Dupatta. But this allegation does not find mention in Ex.PW1/C and has to be discarded being improvement in the earlier version.
Was Smt.Preeti not taken care of by her inlaws while she State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 55 was in family way?
28. It is case of prosecution that in the year 2010, once when Preeti was carrying pregnancy of seven months, she had labour pain. As alleged, she asked her husband to take her to the hospital. In turn, he talked to his mother and brother, but they told there was no need to worry , as it was a case of normal pain and that they would go to hospital, the next day. In the next morning, condition of Preeti deteriorated. It resulted into premature delivery . The son born could survive only for 34 days.
In his crossexamination, PW1 Sh. Gopi Ram stated that on 03/04.06.2010 his daughter faced some medical problem, but in the next breath, he displayed ignorance if his daughter had faced any medical problem in June 2010. He further displayed ignorance if unborn child of his daughter was suffering from jaundice, during pregnancy . He could not tell if foetus was having cord surrounding his neck, but he clearly admitted that treatment of premature baby was done from the same hospital where his daughter was having treatment. Although PW1 volunteered that had accused persons taken his daughter in the night itself, child could have been saved, keeping in view the fact that the medical treatment was made available to her and to the premature baby at the same hospital, so as to provide her proper medical aid, it cannot be said that there was intentional delay in removal of Smt. Preeti State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 56 to hospital in the next morning. Furthermore, no medical record has been placed on record to suggest that any of the doctor opined that the premature baby could not survive because the mother was brought to the hospital late or that there was any delay in her medical treatment.
Incident of beatings by Vikas Verma
29. In Ex. PW1/C, Gopi Ram stated that when he came to know about beatings given by Vikas Verma (accused) to his daughter about 2 years prior to the registration of this case, he talked to the elder brother of Vikas Verma and expressed that he intended to bring his daughter to Delhi, whereupon the elder brother replied that they were coming to Rajasthan and he could meet them there. So, he reached Rajasthan and brought his daughter to Delhi.
Firstly, specific date of any such incident has been given by PW1. Secondly, there is nothing in his statement to suggest as to why Vikas Verma would have given beatings to his wife.
PW4 Arun Verma admitted in his crossexamination that accused Vikas Verma did not extend threats to the life of his sister , in his presence. He also admitted to have not specifically stated regarding the public place where Vikas Verma is alleged to have given beatings to Preeti. Year 2011Incident that allegedly took place at Rajal State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 57 Desal (Rajasthan)
30. While appearing in court, Gopi Ram stated that it was in January 2011 that he went to Rajasthan and brought his daughter to Delhi, after his daughter had called him on phone and complained that her husband, his brother and her sisterinlaw had brought her to Rajal Desal, Rajasthan and taken her to a Tantrik, during the night and the Tantrik, while under influence of liquor touched and subjected her to beatings.
When the above statement made in court is compared with the statement Ex. PW1/C made before the Executive Magistrate, it transpires that in Ex. PW1/C, the father (PW1) nowhere stated that his daughter had called her in the morning of January 2011 and narrated as to how a Tantrik had misbehaved with her at Rajal Desal, Rajasthan, when she was taken to him by her husband, brotherinlaw and his wife.
It is in crossexamination of PW4 Arun Verma that neither he nor any of his family members were present at Rajal Desal (Rajasthan), when his sister came there. This statement is in contradiction with the statement Ex. PW1/C of PW1 Sh. Gopi Ram wherein he clearly stated that he had gone to Rajasthan and to have brought her to Delhi.
PW4 Arun Verma admitted in his crossexamination not to have made any complaint against accused Vikas Verma State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 58 or his family members, Tantrik and his associates, either at Rajal Desal (Rajasthan) or in Delhi. He volunteered that his sister did not make any complaint in order to save her matrimonial life.
Learned defence counsel has rightly pointed out that during investigation, police could not verify the truthfulness of this allegation as neither any Tantrik was found at any such place nor any other evidence could be collected in proof thereof.
According to PW23 Inspt. Kanwar Saini, during investigation, he had sent HC Chander Saini to Rajal Desal in Rajasthan as it had transpired that Smt. Preeti was taken to some Tantrik at the said place, for her spiritual treatment. Further, according to PW23 when the HC returned from Rajal Desal, he told that he could not find any Tantrik at the said place and further that nothing could be ascertained regarding spiritual treatment given to Preeti there. Did Vikas Verma ever send divorce papers to Smt.Preeti at Delhi
31. In Ex. PW1/C, Sh. Gopi Ram stated that two months after he had brought his daughter from Rajasthan to Delhi, Vikas Verma (accused) sent to him by post divorce papers and his daughter replied the same by post.
In this regard while appearing as PW1, Sh. Gopi Ram stated in court that 34 months after he had brought his State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 59 daughter from Rajasthan to Delhi, they received divorce papers by mail and these pertained to a divorce petition filed by Vikas Verma (accused) at Hyderabad. His daughter replied the divorce petition.
On the other hand, learned defence counsel has rightly pointed out that no such divorce petition or papers from Vikas Verma or any reply thereto from Smt .Preeti has been got duly proved on record by the prosecution. Only a seizure memo has been proved in this regard. In absence of due proof Court finds that prosecution has failed to prove this allegation levelled against the accused. Smt.Preeti returned to Bangalore from Delhi
32. Case of prosecution is that Puneet Jaiswal, a friend of accused Vikas Verma informed Preeti that her husband had met with an accident, whereupon she returned to Bangalore.
In Ex. PW1/C, Sh. Gopi Ram narrated as to how his daughter returned from Delhi to the matrimonial home. According to him, on the day of Karwa Chauth, Vikas Verma (accused) contacted Preeti on phone, asked her to forget the past incident and to return home and assured that he would keep her well. He had also sent ticket by air. Thereupon, his daughter Preeti returned to Bangalore. He specifically stated that from the airport, Preeti was taken along by her husband.
According to PW1, about 23 months after reply by Preeti to the divorce petition, one day Punit Deswal, friend of State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 60 Vikas Verma (accused) informed her that Vikas Verma had met with an accident. Thereupon, she expressed her desire to return to Bangalore where her husband was working during those days. He specifically stated that on reaching her matrimonial home in Bangalore, his daughter informed her husband by making a call that she had reached the place of his residence in Bangalore, whereupon her husband replied that he would be reaching within two hours, but he did not come during the whole night and as such they had to stay at the house of a person in neighbourhood of Vikas Verma for a period of five days as whereabouts of Vikas Verma could not be ascertained.
This version narrated by PW1 is not in consonance with his statement made before the Executive Magistrate as in Ex. PW1/C he did not state to have accompanied his daughter to Bangalore or to have contacted Vikas Verma (accused) or that he did not contact them for five days or that ultimately he had to bring his daughter back to Delhi.
Even otherwise, it has come in evidence that Vikas Verma himself contacted his wife and asked her to return to join his company.
As per prosecution version, Smt. Preeti returned to the company of her husband, in Bangalore, in October 2011. PW4 Sh.Arun, brother of Smt. Preeti stated in his cross examination that it was not in their knowledge as to when his State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 61 sister proceeded for Bangalore and that they came to know regarding the same later on. PW4 displayed ignorance if his sister informed them before proceeding to Bangalore.
On the other hand, PW1 Sh. Gopi Ram stated in his crossexamination that it was on the basis of information received by his daughter from Sh. Punit Jaiswal, friend of accused Vikas Verma, that Vikas Verma had met with an accident, that she expressed her desire to leave for Bangalore and accordingly he accompanied his daughter to Bangalore. This version narrated by PW1 is not in consonance with the version narrated by PW4, as noticed above.
Conduct of Vikas Verma when Smt.Preeti and her father reached Bangalore
33. According to PW1, when he and his daughter reached Bangalore, accused Vikas Verma was contacted, but despite promise he did not return to his house during night and accordingly, he and his daughter had to stay at a house in the neighbourhood of Vikas Verma for a period of five days.
Learned defence counsel has rightly pointed out that prosecution has neither examined any Punit Jaiswal, friend of Vikas Verma, to prove that any information was given to Smt. Preeti regarding any accident of Vikas Verma which led her to return to Bangalore. They have also not examined any State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 62 person from the neighbourhood of Vikas Verma to prove regarding stay of PW1 and his daughter at the house of any such neighbour for five days. Rather, this version furnished by PW1 is in contradiction with his own version given to Executive Magistrate, as available in Ex. PW1/C, wherein he stated that it was only when accused Vikas Verma asked his daughter to return to Bangalore and also sent air tickets that his daughter left for Bangalore and her husband took her along from the airport.
Having regard to the conduct of Vikas Verma in contacting his wife, persuading her to return to join his company and in sending travel ticket goes contrary to the allegation leveled by PW1 that Vikas Verma did not attend him and his daughter when they visited Banglore to enquire about his health. Had Vikas Verma not bothered about his father in law or his wife on their arrival in Bangalore, they would have contacted Puneet Jaiswal, friend of Vikas Verma and also examined him in Court to prove this version. There is nothing on record to suggest that they contacted Puneet Jaiswal to have his help or to tell him about conduct of Vikas Verma on their arrival at Bangalore.
It is significant to note that PW4 Arun Kumar Verma has stated in court as to what once led to abortion. Whatever, he has stated can never be discussed by a sister with a brother. Therefore, his testimony in this regard cannot State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 63 be relied on.
PW4 further admitted to have not stated before the police that Vikas Verma accused held his wife responsible for abortion. As such he has made improvement in his previous statement.
Notes Ex.PW1/F, Ex,PW23/B & C by Smt.Preeti:
34. During investigation, it was only when notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. was issued by the Investigating Officer to Gopi Ram for production of documents etc. that he produced marriage card, photographs, list of dowry articles and various documents, including note books Ex.PW1/F, Ex,PW23/B & C stated to be in the handwriting of Preeti.
According to PW23 Inspt. Kanwar Saini on 08.03.2013 Gopi Ram (PW1) produced before him notebook of "Neelgagan" Mark Ex. PW23/B; that he also produced one small notebook "Classmate" make Ex. PW23/C, another note running into 3 pages Ex. PW23/D and 9 pages note Ex. PW1/F. Prosecution has relied on notes Ex. PW1/F purported to have been written by Smt. Preeti. It is significant to note that there is no cogent and convincing evidence to suggest the time, when these notes were written by Smt.Preeti.
It is in the statement of PW1 Sh. Gopi Ram that State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 64 these notes were written by his daughter when she was brought from Rajasthan to Delhi and further that she kept the same in her almirah, but his wife, one day, found the same lying there after her death, while she was cleaning the almirah.
Further, according to PW1, as far as his memory helped, these notes were written in the month of May 2011. Admittedly, these notes were addressed to 34 persons. PW1 displayed ignorance, in his crossexamination if these notes were written by his daughter as regards matrimonial litigation i.e. reply to the notice sent by her husband or for the purpose of filing of complaint.
According to the witness, he had seen these notes about 10 days after the death of his daughter. He denied that these notes were written by her on instructions of some advocate.
Learned defence counsel has pointed out that Ex. PW23/D and PW1/F are stated to have been written by Preeti while addressing the same to one Anuj, but prosecution has not brought on record any material to suggest as to who the said Anuj is, and the said person has not been examined, which creates doubt in the prosecution version.
A perusal of note Ex. PW1/F which contain Mark Q48 to Q52 (put by the expert), would reveal that the same were meant for one Anuj Bhaiya. But there is nothing on State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 65 record to suggest as to who was this person known as Anuj Bhaiya or as to whom this note was addressed by Smt. Preeti.
PW1 Sh. Gopi Ram displayed ignorance in his cross examination recorded on 24.03.2014 as to who was this person named as Anuj, whom his daughter addressed these notes Ex. PW1/F. He also displayed ignorance if these notes were written by her in reply to any matrimonial litigation i.e. reply to the notice sent by the husband or for filing of the complaint.
As noticed above, according to PW1, he noticed these notes lying in an almirah, at his house 10 days after the death of Smt. Preeti. Nonexplanation on the part of the prosecution as to the identity of the person named by Smt. Preeti as Anuj Bhaiya at the top of Ex. PW1/F goes against the prosecution.
Learned defence counsel has referred to the last sentence( available near Mark Q20 put by the expert in Ex. PW23/C) and pointed out that from this incomplete sentence it can safely be gathered that prosecution has withheld remaining pages and that adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution that had those pages been produced on record, same would have gone against the prosecution.
As per note given at the rear index page, the notebook consisted of 44 pages, but Ex. PW23/C does not consist of 44 pages. This goes to show that the note is not State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 66 complete. Adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution that had the compete note been produced, same would have gone against the prosecution.
Learned defence counsel has pointed out towards portion, where Mark Q27 was put by the expert, and submitted that from these signatures it appears as if these notes were written on dictation by someone. The sentences available at the top of page11Ex.PW23/B reads as under: "P6 (What's the meaning)
1) Line 5 (My client at no point of time.) As already submitted, it is my client who, has been suffering at the hands of your client. ( cut family members)".
It may be mentioned here that in these notes available in Ex.PW23/B at many places, reference has been made to the words 'client' and 'Cut'. From the narration available in Ex.PW23/B, it can safely be said that these notes were recorded by Smt.Preeti, while going through some material provided to her, for her comments. In view of this fact, it can not be said that Smt.Preeti recorded these facts in routine, or maintained the note books regularly in the ordinary course of things.
Similarly, When Smt. Preeti herself mentioned at the top of above note, as to what was the meaning of these sentences, it can safely be said that she was provided some material by State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 67 some Advocate and from that material she took these notes. Had she, of her own written these notes, without any assistance of any Advocate, the above sentences would not have crept in the notes, as rightly submitted by learned defence counsel.
In the course of arguments, reference has been made by learned defence counsel to the note (where mark Q 47 has been put by the expert), to submit that the allegation of demand of Rs.1 lac by accused Vikas Verma, does not stand established, in view of what stands recorded in this note by Smt. Preeti.
As per this note, Vikas asked Smt. Preeti as to why she did not ask for some money from her brother and Bhabhi, whereupon, she replied that her brother could pay only Rs.1 lac, because of money spent on the surgical operation of younger brother, whereupon he gave her Rs.1 lac, but she took only Rs.50,000/. From this amount of Rs.50,000/, a sum of Rs.10,000/ was towards gift, as she is alleged to have clearly told her husband and Rs.14,00015,000/ was to be deducted towards tickets.
From the aforesaid note, it cannot be said that accused Vikas raised any unlawful demand of Rs.1 lac, firstly because Smt. Preeti nowhere recorded as to why he had asked her to demand money from her brother and Bhabhi. Secondly, the note does not explain as to whether the State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 68 amount, after deducting Rs.10,000/ towards it and Rs.15,000/ towards tickets, was or was not ever received by Vikas Verma from her.
It is true that Smt. Preeti also referred to in this note that she was pained when her husband used to slap her and while in anger, remind her about her status; that she had made his life a hell; that she should move away from him; and that she had given her the problem of diabetes. But, these allegations are general allegations, without specifying any date, time or place or the occasion when any such incident happened. Furthermore, there is no corroboration in this regard. Without specification and corroboration, it is difficult to rely on the allegations contained in this note.
The note (Mark Q7 as put by the expert and available in Ex. PW23/C) has been referred to by learned defence counsel to point out that Smt. Preeti herself admitted that her husband loved her too much and that though disputes do arise between husband and wife, love and affection is also there.
Reference has also been made to the note (where expert has put Mark Q15 in Ex. PW23/C) wherein Smt. Preeti admitted that she was a little bit emotional and that even her husband would not have liked slapping her. Then she expressed as if it was not a good time for them and that each one of them could realize the importance of the spouse State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 69 in the absence of the other.
When Smt. Preeti so expressed in these notes available in Ex.PW23/C, it can safely be said that while she was referring to general wear and tear in one's life, she also admitted that Vikas Verma had bestowed on her love and affection too.
Reference has been made by learned defence counsel to the note (where Q23 finds mention by the expert in Ex. PW23/B) where Smt. Preeti expressed thanks to her husband for having sent Rs.50,000/ in case of emergency as regards Arun. Reference has also been made to para 4 of the same page where Smt. Preeti expressed that her husband had asked her to keep with her mother one 50 gramsgoldbiscuit. The contention is that by having kept this much quantity of gold, accused Vikas Verma reposed confidence in his wife and motherinlaw and that no question of any unlawful demand by him did arise.
Reference has also been made to the note( where expert has put Mark Q50 available in Ex. PW1/F), to point out that Smt. Preeti expressed her plan to start a new side business with her husband if he could help her by giving her some money which she was not asking for her brother. It has rightly been submitted that from this note, it can be said that earlier accused Vikas Verma used to help her brother voluntarily, which in turn leads to the conclusion that the State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 70 husband could not have raised any unlawful demand.
35. In view of the above discussion, court finds that prosecution has not been able to substantiate any charge against any of the accused. Consequently, all the four accused persons are acquitted in this case.
Case property be disposed of on expiry of period for appeal/revision, if none is preferred or subject to decision thereof. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on 4th day of November, 2016 (Narinder Kumar) Special Judge NDPS - 02 (Central)Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi State v. Vikas Verma etc. SC NO: 108/13 Page No. 71