Delhi District Court
Sc No. 57819/16, State vs . Monu Etc. Page No. 1 Of Total Pages 38 on 18 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUKHVINDER KAUR, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
1. Serial Number 57819/16
2. Name of the Police Station and Begum Pur
the Crime No. of the offence Crime No. 211/11
3. Name 1. Monu
S/o Sh. Suresh Chand
occupation: Labour
R/o: D1/128, Sector20, Rohini,
Delhi.
Age : 28 years
Date of occurrence: 28/29.08.2011
Date of complaint: 05.11.2011
Date of apprehension: 30.08.2011
Date of release on bail: in JC
2. Pawan Kumar
S/o Sh. Suresh Chand
Occupation: Labour
R/o D1/128, Sector20, Rohini,
Delhi.
Age: 21 years
Date of occurrence: 28/29.08.2011
Date of complaint: 05.11.2011
Date of apprehension: 30.08.2011
Date of release on bail: in JC
3. Smt. Prem
W/o Sh. Suresh Chand
Occupation:Government Service
R/o D1/128, Sector20, Rohini,
Delhi.
Age: 50 years
Date of occurrence: 28/29.08.2011
Date of complaint: 05.11.2011
Date of apprehension: 30.08.2011
Date of release on bail: in JC
Commitment: 23.12.11
SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 1 Of total pages 38
Commencement of trial: on
08.02.12
Close of Trial: on 28.11.17
Sentence or order: Conviction
4. Service of copy of judgment or 24.04.2018
finding on accused
5. Explanation of delay No Delay
FIR No. : 211/11
Police Station : Begumpur
Under Sections : 498A/304B/302/120B/34 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court: 23.12.2011
Date on which judgment was reserved: 17.04.2018
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 18.04.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Succinctly the case of the prosecution is that on 29.08.11 on receipt of DD No. 6B SI Sandeep alongwith Ct. Parmanand reached SGM hospital mortuary, where they collected the MLC of Kamlesh, who was declared brought dead by the doctor. On inquiry, they came to know that Kamlesh was got married about two and half year before. SI Sandeep gave intimation to Sh. Ajay Kumar, SDM Saraswati Vihar, who came and recorded statement of Sh. Laxmi Narayan, father of deceased. Sh. Laxmi Narayan in his statement levelled the allegations of demand of dowry against the husband, motherinlaw, brotherinlaw and sisterinlaw of his deceased daughter and harassment met by his daughter and beatings given to her by aforesaid persons. He also stated that his deceased daughter also used to tell on mobile phone that accused were demanding a plot and money and also threatened to kill SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 2 Of total pages 38 her in case their demand was not fulfilled. After recording his statement the postmortem on the body of deceased was got conducted and the case was registered u/s 498A/304 B IPC.
2. Further investigation was transferred to Inspector Lalit Kumar who recorded statement of witnesses and prepared the site plan. He called the crime team and got inspected the site. He arrested the accused and recorded their disclosure statement. At the instance of accused Monu he seized the Chunni used in commission of crime. He also got prepared the scaled site plan and collected the result on the postmortem report of the deceased. He collected the subsequent opinion regarding the seized chunni. He sent the viscera of deceased to FSL for examination.
3. After completing the investigation, he prepared the charge sheet u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC and filed the same in the Court of Ld. M.M on 05.11.11. After supplying copies u/s 207 Cr.P.C the case was committed to the Sessions Court u/s 209 Cr.P.C and assigned to Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 23.12.11.
4. After hearing the counsel for parties charge u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC and alternatively u/s 302/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons vide order dated 08.02.2012, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. It is pertinent to mention that vide order dated 08.10.12 SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 3 Of total pages 38 sisterinlaw of deceased namely S was declared a juvenile on the basis of age enquiry and further proceedings qua her were referred to Juvenile Justice Board.
6. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined 14 witnesses, detail of which is as under: PW No. Name of PW Relevancy Documents exhibited PW1 HC Pramod Kumar MHC(M) Ex. PW1/A to Ex.PW1/D(OSR) PW2 Sh. Laxmi Narain Father of deceased Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/C, Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 PW3 SI Manohar Lal Draftsman Ex.PW3/A PW4 Ct. Kamal Singh Photographer of Ex.PW4/A1 to Ex.PW4/A7 and Crime Team Ex.PW4/B1 to Ex.PW4/B7 PW5 Ct. Mahinder DD Writer Ex.PW5/A(OSR) PW6 Dr. Shalini Girdhar Witness of Ex.PW6/A & Ex.PW6/B and Ex.P7 Postmortem Report PW7 Sh. Ajay Kumar SDM Ex.PW7/A to Ex. PW7/E PW8 SI Prem Singh Incharge Crime Team Ex.PW8/A PW9 Ct. Sunil Witness of Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/N and investigation Ex.PW9/Article1 PW10 Lady Ct. Manju Witness of Nil investigation PW11 Smt. Rama Devi Mother of deceased Nil PW12 Sh. Prem Chand Brother of deceased Ex. PW12/X1 PW13 SI Sandeep Witness of Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/DA investigation PW14 Inspector Lalit Investigating Officer Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW14/C Kumar PW15 Dr. Manoj Dhingra Witness of Nil postmortem
7. After examination of prosecution witnesses two witnesses I.e CW1 and CW2 were examined as Court witnesses.
SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 4 Of total pages 38 STAR WITNESSES
8. PW2, father of deceased, PW11, mother of deceased and PW12, brother of deceased are the material witnesses. PW2 testified that his daughter Kamlesh was got married with Monu on 15.04.08 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage his daughter was residing in her matrimonial house with her husband, motherinlaw Smt. Prem, sisterinlaw/JCL and brotherinlaw Pawan. He had given all the house hold articles and gold and silver jewellery to his daughter at the time of marriage and had spent Rs. 5 lacs in the marriage. Before marriage Monu was working as a carpenter in a sofa manufacturing company, but after the marriage he left his job. All the accused persons used to beat his daughter and also demanded dowry from him through his daughter. House of his daughter was only about 1 kilometer from his house and his daughter had told him about demand of dowry by accused persons. He used to give cash to his daughter whenever she told him about the demand of the accused persons and sent her back to her matrimonial home after making her understand to settle at her matrimonial house. After spending the cash amount given by him the accused used to again start demanding more money from his daughter after one or two months and also used to quarrel with her and beat her. About two months before the demise of his daughter, her in laws had demanded a plot and to fulfill the said demand they also gave beatings to his daughter and left her to their house. On this he had called fufa sasur and other relatives for conciliation of the matter and for sending his daughter back to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, he sent his daughter SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 5 Of total pages 38 back to her matrimonial home after making her understand. Even after that the attitude of inlaws of his daughter remained the same and he oftenly received calls from his daughter complaining about the behaviour of all the accused persons and continuous beatings and threats given to her to kill her if their demand of plot was not met. He had given cash amount of Rs. 10,000/ Rs. 8,000/ etc to the accused persons on number of occasions
9. On 28.08.11 at about 11 p.m he received a phone call from his daughter Kamlesh who told him that she was alright and thereafter at about 2.30 a.m on the same night a phone call was received on his mobile phone and on the mobile phone of his son from his soninlaw Monu who informed that his daughter had become unconscious and in case they wanted to save her, they could take her from the matrimonial home. Thereafter all the family members immediately went to the matrimonial home of his daughter. On reaching there they saw their daughter lying on the ground in unconscious condition at the first floor of her matrimonial house.
10. He also noticed a number of wounds on different parts of her body and ligature mark on her neck. From the wounds he assessed that those were the signs of beatings. They immediately removed his daughter to SGM hospital, where the concerned doctor had declared her brought dead. He proved his statement recorded by SDM as Ex. PW2/A and testified that he had identified the dead body of his daughter and his statement was also recorded in that respect, which is Ex. PW2/B. He SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 6 Of total pages 38 also proved the seizure memo of marriage card and marriage photographs of his daughter as Ex. PW2/C, marriage card as Ex. P1 and marriage photographs as Ex. P2 to P6.
11. PW11 deposed on the lines of testimony of PW2 and testified that after 2 to 3 months of marriage of her daughter she was harassed by all the accused persons for non fulfillment of demand of dowry. They all used to beat her daughter for that reason and tell her daughter to bring money for starting new business for Monu who had left his job as carpenter. After three months of her marriage Kamlesh, her deceased daughter was beaten by all the accused persons and she was left at her parents house by accused Monu with directions to bring money from them for starting new business for Monu. After consoling their daughter they had left her back to her matrimonial home on intervention of society and other relatives. However, after about 15 days she was again turned out from her matrimonial home with directions to bring plot and money. She stayed with them for 15 days and thereafter they agreed to give plot to Monu under pressure. After about 15 days of Raksha Bhandhan Monu took Kamlesh back to the matrimonial home on their assurance to give the plot.
12. She further deposed about the receipt of the phone call in the mid night from the accused Monu regarding the condition of her daughter. She also testified that she observed injuries on the left hand and deep wound on the neck of Kamlesh. She proved her statement recorded by SDM as Ex. PW2/D. SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 7 Of total pages 38
13. PW12 also deposed on the lines of testimony of PW2 and PW11 regarding the beatings given to his sister by the accused persons for non fulfillment of their demand of money and plot and the threat given by accused persons to kill her if she would not fulfill their demands. He also testified that a few days prior to Raksha Bhandhan his sister visited their house and informed them that she would be killed if the demand of cash and plot of the accused persons is not fulfilled. He further added that in the hospital when his sister was declared as brought dead by the doctor and police officials were informed by hospital, all the accused persons had fled away from their house.
14. He further testified that on 30.08.11 on his identification all the accused were apprehended. Accused Prem, Monu and Pawan were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW9/G, Ex. PW9/ A and Ex. PW9/E respectively and their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW9/J, Ex. PW9/B and Ex. PW9/F respectively. He further testified that Monu took out a red colour chunni having several spots stating that it was the same chunni with which deceased was strangulated and the same was seized in a sealed parcel vide memo Ex. PW9/D. He identified the chunni produced by MHC(M) as Ex. PW9/article 1.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
15. PW6 Dr. Shalini Girdhar testified that on 29.08.11 she alongwith Dr. Deepak and Dr. Manoj Dhingra conducted postmortem examination on the body of Kamlesh, which was brought with alleged SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 8 Of total pages 38 history of brought dead in causality on 29.08.11 at about 3.10 a.m. On examination a ligature mark was found present on the anterior aspect of the neck 1.5 to 3 c.m in width, right side more prominent then left side, 5 ½ c.m from chin, 5 c.m from sternum, 6.5 c.m from right mastoid process, 3 c.m from left mastoid process, the mark was dark parchmentized on left side and faint on left side, merging with hair lines on both sides, on cut section of marks showed extravasation of blood underneath the neck, on both the sides in superficial muscles, lymph nodes were congested and thyroid hyoid complex was intact. Besides ligature mark swelling was present on left side of forehead, size ranging from 2X1 c.m and contusion of size 6 X 6 c.m on the left upper arm, 18 c.m from shoulder joint and 8 c.m from elbow joint, which was blue in colour.
16. On internal examination scalp showed subscalp haematoma present on the left side of scalp 2X1 c.m minute sub dural haematoma on the left side of brain 2X1 c.m. She further testified that cause of death was opined as asphyxia due to compression of neck caused by ligature which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The time since death was 12 hours. All the injuries were antemortem, however viscera was preserved to locate any intoxication. She proved the postmortem report as Ex. PW6/A signed by her at point A, Dr. Dhingra at point B and Dr. Deepak at point C.
17. She further testified that viscera, clothes and blood in gauze were sealed and handed over to IO alongwith sample seal and on SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 9 Of total pages 38 20.09.11, an application was forwarded to Forensic Department, SGM hospital regarding subsequent opinion on ligature material. She further testified that after examination of chunni she gave opinion that the injury No. 1, mentioned in postmortem report could be caused by material produced or similar material. She proved the subsequent opinion in her handwriting as Ex. PW6/B, signed by her at point A, Dr. Dhingra at point B and Dr. Deepak at point C. She also identified the chunni produced in the Court.
18. PW15 deposed on the lines of testimony of PW6 and identified his signatures on Ex. PW6/A at point B. He further added that as per the postmortem conducted on the body of deceased, death of deceased was homicidal in nature as there was extravasation of blood on both side of neck. He clarified that as per the medical jurisprudence the aforesaid phenomena occurs in case of strangulation of a person and since extravasation of blood was present on both sides of neck that could be on account of strangulation and not for any other reason.
19. In view of testimony of PW15, on application filed by Ld Additional P.P, Dr. Sriniwas Professor Forensic Medicines Maulana Azad Medical was summoned by Ld. Predecessor of this Court as a Court witness for his expert opinion. CW1 Dr. Sriniwas testified that he was MBBS, MD(Forensic Medicines) and had 18 years of experience. During the course of his service with MAMC Institution he had conducted more than 6,000/ postmortem examination. He further testified that he had gone through postmortem examination report Ex. PW6/A and SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 10 Of total pages 38 testimony of PW6 Dr. Shalini Girdhar and PW15 Dr. Manoj Dhingra. After going through the contents of postmortem report, he testified that from his vast professional experience he was of the view that cause of death of deceased Kamlesh was hanging which was suicidal in nature. He testified that he was not in agreement with the statement made by PW15 who deposed that manner of death of Kamlesh was homicidal in nature as there was extra vasation of blood on both sides of neck.
20. He clarified that extravasation of blood on the neck could also occur in case of hanging due to stretching effect. Since PW15 was only MBBS and not M.D his deposition to the effect that death was deceased Kamlesh was homicidal in nature is not correct as extravasation of blood in muscles layer of neck could also occur in case of hanging due to stretching effect.
FORMAL WITNESSES
21. PW1 HC Parmod Kumar is the then MHC(M) who proved the relevant entry in register No. 19 regarding deposit of a sealed pullanda and sample seal sealed with the seal of SGMH mortuary deposited by SI Sandeep Kumar on 29.08.11 as Ex. PW1/A, the relevant entry regarding deposit of sealed pullanda sealed with seal of LK and personal search articles of accused Pawan, Prem and accused JCL deposited in the Malkhana by Inspector Lalit Kumar on 30.08.11 as Ex. PW1/B. He further testified that on 25.04.12 pullanda deposited on 29.08.11 and sample seal were sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Wazir vide RC No. 40/21/12, who also gave the acknowledgement from the FSL, official in respect of which he made an entry in front of entry Ex.
SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 11 Of total pages 38 PW1/A.
22. On 20.09.2011, the pullanda deposited on 30.08.2011 was sent to SGM hospital mortuary through Inspector Lalit in respect of which he made entry at point B in front of entry Ex.PW1/B. He also produced the road certificate register and proved the copy of RC No. 40/21/12 as Ex.PW1/C and copy of acknowledgement given to HC Babu Lal by FSL officials as Ex.PW1/D.
23. PW3 SI Manohar Lal proved the scaled site plan prepared by him on 23.09.2011 on the basis of rough notes and measurements as Ex. PW3/A.
24. PW4 Ct. Kamal Singh is the photographer of mobile crime team who proved the negatives of photographs of the spot as Ex.PW4/A1 to Ex.PW4/A7 and photographs as Ex.PW4/B1 to Ex.PW4/B7.
25. PW5 is the then DD writer who recorded DD No. 6B dated 29.08.2011. He produced the original DD register and proved the same as Ex.PW5/A and testified that he had handed over the copy of DD No. 6B to Ct. Banwari Lal for handing over to SI Sandeep.
26. PW8 is the then Incharge crime team who testified that on receipt of message from control room he reached at the spot i.e. G 1/128, Sector 20, Rohini on 29.08.2011. He inspected the spot i.e. toilet on the first floor of the said property and got the spot photographed from SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 12 Of total pages 38 different angles. He proved the Crime Team report as Ex.PW8/A.
27. PW9 Ct. Sunil is the witness of arrest of accused persons on 30.08.2011 on the basis of secret information. He proved the arrest memo of accused Monu as Ex.PW9/A, his personal search memo as Ex.PW9/B and his disclosure statement as Ex.PW9/C. He testified that in pursuance of his disclosure statement accused Monu brought a red colour chunni having silver colour marks from the room on the first floor and disclosed that he had strangulated his wife with the said chunni. The said chunni was kept in a cloth parcel and seized vide memo Ex.PW9/D after sealing the same with the seal of LK. He proved the arrest memo of Pawan as Ex.PW9/E, his personal search memo as Ex.PW9/F and his disclosure statement as Ex.PW6/L and testified that lady Ct. Manju was called by the IO who arrested Smt. Prem and JCL vide arrest memos Ex.PW9/G and Ex.PW9/H respectively and conducted their personal search vide memo Ex.PW9/J and Ex.PW9/K respectively. He also proved the disclosure statement of accused Prem and JCL as Ex.PW9/M and Ex.PW9/N respectively. He also correctly identified the case property i.e. red colour chunni taken out from the plastic container sealed with the seal of JJB as Ex.PW9/articles 1A.
28. PW10 deposed on the lines of testimony of PW9 regarding arrest of accused Prem and JCL and identified her signature on Ex.PW9/G, Ex.PW9/J, Ex.PW9/M and Ex.PW9/N at point B. WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION
29. PW7 Sh. Ajay Kumar the then SDM Saraswati Vihar testified that on 29.08.11 he received information from PS Begampur that a lady SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 13 Of total pages 38 namely Kamlesh had been brought dead in casualty ward of SGM hospital, Mangolpuri. He went there and inquired from the relatives of deceased who met him outside the mortuary of the hospital. He also met SI Sandeep and inspected the dead body of Kamlesh. Since the marriage of Kamlesh had taken place in the year 2008 and alleged report regarding the death of Kamlesh by hanging was within a period of seven years, he conducted inquest proceedings and filled up form No. 25.35(1)(B) which is Ex. PW7/A. The dead body was got identified from Sh. Prem Chand brother and Sh. Laxmi Narayan father of the deceased and their statement were recorded to that aspect which are Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW2/C respectively signed by him at pointC. He requested the Incharge SGM hospital for conducting postmortem on the dead body and moved an application in that regard which is Ex.PW7/C. On his instruction IO handed over the dead body to the relatives of deceased after postmortem. On the same day he recorded statement of Sh. Laxmi Narayan and Smt. Rama Devi, mother of the deceased which are Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW7/D respectively signed by him at pointsC.
30. On the basis of statement of parents of the deceased he made endorsement Ex.PW7/E on the statement of Sh. Laxmi Narayan Ex.PW2/A and directed the SHO, PS Begam Pur to register the case. He also testified that he attested Ex.PW5/A at pointD on the same day.
31. PW13 SI Sandeep, the first IO deposed on the lines of prosecution case and testified that on the night of 28/29.08.2011 at about 3.25 am, on receipt of DD Ex.PW5/A, he alongwith Ct. Parmanand SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 14 Of total pages 38 reached SGM Hospital and obtained the MLC of deceased Kamlesh, who was declared brought dead. On enquiry, he came to know that the deceased was got married about 3- 3½ years back. He informed all the facts to the SHO and SDM Saraswati Vihar. The dead body was preserved in the Mortuary of SGM Hospital and he called the Crime Team officials for inspection of the spot. Crime Team officials took the photographs and prepared the detailed report Ex.PW8/A after inspection. He again went to the hospital where the SDM had reached. The parents of the deceased also came in the hospital. SDM prepared the inquest proceedings and postmortem of the dead body was conducted by the doctor. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.
32. The doctor had handed over to him one viscera box, clothes and blood gauze in a sealed condition with the seal of Mortuary. SDM called the parents of the deceased in his office for the purpose of recording their statements. He had also gone to the office of SDM at Kanjhawala where the statement of Sh. Laxmi Narayan and Rama Devi was recorded by the SDM. SDM made the endorsement on the statement of Sh. Laxmi Narayan and instructed the SHO to register the case. He took the said endorsement and came to the PS and handed over the same to the SHO, who directed the Duty Officer to register the case. Further investigation of the case was marked to Inspector Lalit. He had handed over the pullandas received by him from Mortuary, to the IO, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A, signed by him at pointX. Thereafter, he alongwith Inspector Lalit had gone to the house SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 15 Of total pages 38 of parents of the deceased, where the IO recorded the statements of parents and brother of the deceased. He also went to the house of in laws of the deceased, which was found locked at that time.
33. PW14 Inspector Lalit testified that on 29.08.2011 on the instruction of the SHO, he received the copy of FIR and rukka Ex.PW2/A for conducting further investigation. He deposed on the lines of testimony of PW13 regarding seizure of articles vide memo Ex.PW13/A, his visit to the house of parents of the deceased and recording of the statement of parents and brother of the deceased U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He also deposed about his visit to the house of inlaws of the deceased on the lines of testimony of PW13.
34. He further deposed about the arrest of accused persons on 30.08.2011 on the lines of testimony of PW9 and PW10 and recovery of one chunni at the instance of accused Monu. He deposed about the preparation of memos Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/N. He further added that he inspected the spot at the instance of witness Prem Chand and prepared the site plan of the spot Ex.PW14/A, signed by him at pointY.
35. He further testified that all the four accused persons were taken to SGM Hospital and after their medical examination, they were sent to Lockup. He deposited the case property in the Malkhana and recorded the statement of police officials. On 05.09.2011, he went to SGM Hospital and collected the postmortem report of deceased Kamlesh. He also seized the marriage card Ex.P1 and photographs Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 of SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 16 Of total pages 38 the marriage of the deceased, vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C and recorded the statement of Sh. Laxmi Narayan in that regard. He also collected the photographs from the Crime Team office, which are Ex.PW4/B1 to B7 and recorded the statement of SI Prem Shankar and Ct. Kamal of the Crime Team. On 20.09.2011, he submitted request to the doctor, Forensic Department, SGM Hospital to obtain the subsequent opinion to the effect that the injuries on the neck of the deceased were possible with the recovered chunni, vide his request letter Ex.PW14/B. On 23.09.2011, he alongwith SI Manohar Lal, visited the spot where SI Manohar Lal had inspected the spot at his instance and prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW3/A. After completing the investigation, he prepared the chargesheet. Subsequently, the deposits were sent to FSL through HC Babu Lal and FSL Report Ex.PW14/C was received at PS.
36. In view of the testimony of PW2 that on the next morning his grandson Golu had told him that his daughter had been beaten up by his Kaka, Bua, Chacha, Dadi and stated that his Dadi has given beatings with bucket when his daughter tried to go out from the house and they all pulled her inside the room and then gave beatings, Master Golu, the child witness/son of deceased was also summoned as a court witness and examined as CW2. Though CW2 has supported the prosecution case and claimed himself as the eyewitness, however, his testimony does not inspire confidence, since he appears to be a tutored witness. As per his testimony on the day of incident he was playing inside the house when his father came and gave beatings to his mother.
SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 17 Of total pages 38
37. He further testified that his father put chunni over the neck of his mother and tied the said chunni over his neck and thereafter an old lady, one man and two girls came and they also did the same thing. As per the prosecution case the incident had occurred in the intervening night of 28/29.08.2011 and it can not be expected that at the night time the child was playing in the house. Further, as per the prosecution case the accused persons are the husband, brother in law, sister in law and mother in law of the deceased and thus the presence of two girls at the spot at the time of incident is doubtful. Further, as per the testimony of PW2, he was told by his grandson that his daughter i.e. deceased was given beatings by accused Monu, JCL, Pawan and Smt. Prem and Smt. Prem had given beatings to his deceased daughter with a bucket and when she tried to go out from the house, they pulled her inside the room and gave the beatings. Thus, the story narrated by child witness is totally different from the testimony of PW2.
38. After closing prosecution evidence statement of accused persons u/s 313 CrP.C was recorded. All the accused persons in their statement either denied the evidence on record or expressed their ignorance about the evidence collected against them. All of them stated that they were innocent and falsely implicated in this case. They alleged that the status of the parents of the deceased was much higher to their status and the deceased regularly used to complain her parents as to why they had married her in a poor family. She was feeling embarrased for being married in a poor family from the date of marriage. She SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 18 Of total pages 38 regularly used to say that she would finish her life, due to the said reason she committed suicide by hanging herself in the toilet of first floor of house. They had nothing to do with her death. They had opened the door of the first floor and removed her to the hospital and her parents were informed by them. They further stated that they never made demand of dowry from the parents of deceased nor harassed her in any way.
39. They also examined one Sh. Bansi Lal, Uncle of the accused Monu in their defence as DW1. DW1 testified that he was on visiting terms with the family of the accused and used to visit there in the gap of ten days. He further testified that Kamlesh used to tell that she had been married in a very poor family. She never complained against the family of the accused. She never told him that her in laws and her husband used to demand dowry from her or her parents.
40. I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld Additional P.P for the State and Ld defence counsel and gone through the written arguments filed by ld defence counsel as well as the material available on the record.
41. Ld Additional P.P has argued that the prosecution has been successfully able to prove its case since the material witnesses have established that the accused persons used to demand money and a plot from the deceased and the deceased was treated with cruelty by the accused person in order to fulfill their illegal demands. It is also SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 19 Of total pages 38 established that soon before the death the deceased was treated with cruelty. He further argued that there is no dispute that the deceased had died an unnatural death and the death had occurred within seven years of her marriage.
42. On the other hand, ld defence counsel has filed written arguments in which he emphasized that there is no evidence of cruelty soon before the death of deceased as the alleged demand of dowry was made two months prior to the date of death. Further, PW2 has admitted that on the night of 28.08.2011 when he spoke to his daughter on telephone, she was all right, meaning thereby there was no complaint of any harassment or beating. He further argued that the claim of PW2 that they had seen various injuries on the body of deceased could not be substantiated with the medical evidence.
43. He further argued that the complainant i.e. PW2 has made material improvements in his testimony regarding the information given to him by his grandson regarding the beatings given by the accused. He further argued that complainant has also made improvements in respect of the articles given at the time of marriage, regarding his source of income and the amount of money given by him to accused persons from time to time. He further argued that PW2 himself admitted that there was no demand of dowry prior to marriage of the deceased and that the money was paid to the accused persons from time to time for miscellaneous expenses to run the house and not to fulfill demand of dowry. He further argued that though as the testimony of PW2, they had SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 20 Of total pages 38 meeting two months prior to the death of her daughter with the accused persons and the Mediator Bansi Lal to make the accused understand, however, they did not make any complaint to the police when their daughter told them that accused persons would kill her. Further, PW2 also admitted that his daughter used to make telephonic call to them usually in the night time before going to bed. The testimony of the complainant indicates that the alleged demand of plot is feasible and needs to be rejected since it is not the case of the complainant that he was having surplus plots and accused persons were hellbent to deliver them a plot. Further, the demand of the plot is not specifically attributed to any particular accused and no date, month or year of making the cash payments has been specified by the complainant.
44. Testimony of PW2 shows that the deceased was at ease in her matrimonial home and had liberty to call her parents. Further, from the photographs and medical opinion of doctors it has been established that the deceased had committed suicide by herself and the photographs shows that the door of the bathroom was broken to get the deceased outside the bathroom. He further emphasized that admittedly the deceased and her husband used to live on the first floor of the matrimonial home which suggests that other accused had no concern with the incident.
45. Ld defence counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Badruddin Rukonttin & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1981 Crl. LJ 1720 (SC), Randhir Singh Vs. State 1980 Crl.
SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 21 Of total pages 38 Journal 1397(Delhi High Court), Namdeo Daulata & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1977 Crl Journal 228(SC), Narender Singh Arora Vs. State 2010(O) JCC 2373(Delhi High Court), State Vs. Lalmani & Ors. 2011(O) JCC 2515(Delhi High Court), Appa Saheb & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007(1) JCC 147(SC), Bishwajeet Haldar and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, 2007 Crl. Journal 2300(SC) in support of his arguments.
46. At the outset, it would be relevant to reproduce the relevant provision of law for the sake of convenience. Which is as under: " 302. Punishment for Murder: Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine".
In order to appreciate the evidence available on record in the light of offence charged against the accused, it would also be appropriate to refer to the provision contained in Section 300 IPC which reads as under: Section 300 IPC Murder: Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly: If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or Thirdly: If it is done with the intention of SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 22 Of total pages 38 causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or Fourthly: If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
The essential ingredients of the offence under sec. 302 are as follows:
1. Death of a human being was caused;
2. Such death was caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused;
3. Such act was done
(a) with the intention of causing death, or
(b) that the accused knew it to be likely to cause death, or
(c) that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Section 304B (i) IPC: 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 SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 23 Of total pages 38 caused her death.
Section 498A IPC Husband or relative of husband or 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 heath(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 of valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
47. So far as the charge under Section 302 IPC is concerned, the case of prosecution is that deceased was murdered by the accused persons by strangulation. In order to appreciate if this is a case of suicide or homicide, since there is no eyewitness, the testimony of medical witnesses and postmortem report becomes important. At the outset from the postmortem report Ex. PW6/A, it is revealed that the ligature mark was present on the anterior aspect of the neck 1.5 to 3 c.m in width on right side more prominent then left side, 5 ½ c.m from chin, 5 c.m. from sternum, 6.5 cms. from right mastoid process, 3 c.m from SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 24 Of total pages 38 left mastoid process, the mark was dark parchmentized on right side and faint on left side merging with hair lines on the both side, on cut section of marks showed extravasation of blood underneath the neck on both sides in superficial muscles, lymph nodes were congested and thyroid hyoid complex was intact. The postmortem report does not mention if the ligature mark was oblique, which could suggest hanging or circular, which could suggest strangulation.
48. The concerned doctors for the reasons best known to them did not specify the said fact which is important in every case of death resulting from asphyxia due to ligature injuries. As per testimony of PW6 and PW15, after carrying the postmortem examination they gave their opinion that the cause of death was asphyxia due to compression of neck caused by ligature which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. They also gave the opinion that all the injuries were antemortem in nature. Though PW6 did not gave any opinion if the death was caused by hanging or strangulation, in her crossexamination she admitted that asphyxia could be caused by hanging. She did not comment as to whether in the present case the injuries were of suicide or homicide.
49. On the other hand PW15 testified that as per the postmortem conducted over the dead body of deceased the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature as there was extravasation of blood present on both sides of neck. He testified that extravasation of blood on the both sides of neck could be on account of strangulation and not for any other SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 25 Of total pages 38 reason. However, he admitted in his crossexamination that it was not expressly mentioned as to whether there was oblique mark or circular mark found present over the neck of deceased Kamlesh. He further volunteered that from the size of ligature mark present on the neck of deceased, he could say that this was the case of circular mark consequent upon strangulation. He admitted that no fracture of thyroid cartilage was found during postmortem.
50. In view of the testimony of PW6, who did not rule out the possibility of hanging and testimony of PW15, who opined that this was a case of strangulation, Dr. Shri Niwas, Professor Forensic Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical College was summoned on the application of Ld Additional P.P by Ld Predecessor of this Court as a court witness for assistance who was examined as CW1. CW1 after going through postmortem examination report and testimony of PW6 and PW15 testified that from his vast professional experience, he was of the view that the death of deceased Kamlesh was hanging which was suicidal in nature. He testified that he was not in agreement with the statement made by PW15 that the manner of death of Kamlesh was homicidal in nature as there was extravasation of blood on both sides of neck. He clarified that extravasation of blood in muscle layer of the neck could also occur in case of hanging due to stretching effect. He further stated that Dr. Manoj Dhingra was only MBBS by qualification and not MD and his deposition to the effect that death of of Kamlesh was homicidal in nature was not correct.
SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 26 Of total pages 38
51. Besides the testimony of CW1, from the photographs taken by the Crime Team Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A7 it is revealed that the door of the bathroom appears to have been broken open. Though Incharge Crime Team was expected to throughly inspect the spot and ascertain if it was possible for the deceased to hand herself from the small ventilator and also give the observation if the grill of ventilator was strong enough to bear the dead weight of the deceased without any damage to it, there is not even a whisper in this regard. Report Ex. PW 8/A has been casually given treating it a case of suicide. The report does not even mention if there was any sign of hanging from ventilator. Since the deceased after the incident was not found hanged by anybody but was found lying on the floor, it was duty of IO to seek specific opinion from crime team and also give his own observations after inspection of site. IO has also not bothered to take interest to fairly investigate and conducted investigation in a mechanical manner.
52. In view of the medical evidence on record and the lapses made by investigating agency, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that the death of deceased Kamlesh was homicidal in nature. Hence, accused are entitled to benefit of doubt so far as the Section 302 of IPC is concerned.
304B & 498A
53. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 provides as under:
"113B: Presumption as to dowry death When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 27 Of total pages 38 soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation - For the purpose of this Section, 'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B, of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
54. In order to constitute offence U/s 304B IPC, three conditions are to be fulfilled:
(1) The death of woman occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(2) Such death is caused within 7 years of her marriage; and (3) It is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or other relatives of her husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry.
55. Further, in view of provisions U/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act, when the question arises whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and if it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person has caused the dowry death.
56. Thus, before raising a presumption of u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act, it has to be proved by the prosecution that all the above mentioned three ingredients of Section 304B IPC are complete. Hence, SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 28 Of total pages 38 the initial burden lies on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of Section 304B IPC. The burden shifts on the accused only after prosecution successfully proves the said ingredients.
57. Further, Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under: "2. Definition of 'dowry': In this Act, "dowry"
means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or
(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before (or any time after the marriage) in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include) dower or mehar in the case or persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."
58. So far as the first two conditions to constitute the offence u/s 304B IPC are concerned there is no dispute that the deceased had died an unnatural death which has also been proved by PW6 and PW 15 and the postmortem report Ex. PW6/A. There is also no dispute that the death of deceased was caused within seven years of her marriage. Now the only burden which remains on the prosecution is to prove the third condition I.e soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment and the cruelty was in connection with any demand of dowry.
SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 29 Of total pages 38
59. As already discussed the parents and brother of deceased have supported the prosecution case. They categorically deposed that they used to give cash to their daughter whenever she asked them and used to sent her back to her matrimonial home after making her understand to settle at her matrimonial home. After spending the said cash amount, they would again start demanding more money after one or two months and used to quarrel with and beat her. They specifically stated that two months before expiry of deceased, her in laws demanded a plot from them and in lieu of said demand, they also gave beatings to the deceased and left her to her parental house. Complainant categorically deposed that he had called the maternal father in law and other relatives for conciliation of the matter and sending his daughter back to her matrimonial house. She was sent back after making her understand but even after that the attitude of in laws of the deceased remained the same and he received calls from his daughter oftenly who told him the behaviour of all the accused persons and continued beating given to her and threats given to kill her in case their demand of plot was not met.
60. PW2 in his crossexamination stated that he did not mention the date of demand of plot made by the in laws of his daughter as demand was continuous/daily demand. He also testified that there was a common kitchen in the house and further testified that he did not lodge any police complaint for the demand of plot made by the in laws of her daughter two months prior to the incident as he did not want to indulge in the police complaints considering the future of matrimonial life SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 30 Of total pages 38 of his daughter. There is no crossexamination at all of PW1 in respect to the meeting of the maternal father in law and relatives for conciliation of the matter when there was a demand of plot two months prior to the death of deceased and deceased was left at her matrimonial house. The unrebutted testimony of PW2 on the said point proves that there was a demand of plot by the accused persons for which a meeting of relatives was also called. There is also practically no crossexamination of PW2 on the point that even after that the attitude of in laws of the deceased remained the same and deceased oftenly made complaint about the behaviour of all accused persons that they continued beating her and that they will kill her in case their demand was not fulfilled.
61. So far as the contention of ld. Defence counsel that there is no evidence of any cruelty soon before the death since the demand of plot was made two months prior to her death and the deceased had informed her parents on the same night that she was well meaning thereby that there was no cruelty is concerned, I do not agree with the contention of learned defence counsel. The expression "soon before" is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no strait jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period "soon before" the occurrence. No definite period can be indicated and the expression "soon before" is not defined. The determination of the period which can come within term soon before is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. However, to indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally implies that the interval should not be SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 31 Of total pages 38 much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question.
62. In Keshav Chander Panda Vs. State 1995 Cr.LJ 174(Ori), it was held that if the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
63. In Satvir Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab, 2001 Cr.LJ 4625(SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is for the Court to decide on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept "soon before" her death.
64. At the outset the Court can not lose sight of the fact that as per testimony of PW2, even after the deceased was sent back to matrimonial home after the reconciliation proceedings, the behavour of the accused persons did not change as they continued making the demand and also threatened to kill the deceased in case their demand was not fulfilled. The telephonic conversation by the deceased with her father on the same night informing that she was well all the more points out that the she was treated with cruelty immediately before her death since from the postmortem report Ex. PW6/A and the testimony of PW6 it is revealed that besides the ligature mark swelling was present on the left side of the forehead of the deceased ranging from 2x1 cms and a contusion of size in 6x6 cms was present on the left upper arm, 18 cms SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 32 Of total pages 38 from shoulder joint and 8 cms from the elbow joint. Thus the contention of learned defence counsel that the claim of complainant that he had seen various wounds on the body of his daughter could not substantiated with any medical evidence is also not tenable.
65. The learned defence counsel in support of his contention with regard to the improvements made by complainant in his testimony has relied on the judgments in Badruddin's case(supra) and Randhir Singh's case(supra). Both the judgments relied by the defence counsel are on the point that reliance could not be placed on the testimony of witness who makes improvements in the material particulars. So far as the testimony of the complainant and other relatives of the deceased is concerned, though learned defence counsel has confronted them with their previous statements, however, the confrontation made in the testimony is not on material particulars which go to the roots of prosecution case. Rather the portions confronted by learned defence counsel are only explanatory. Even otherwise it can not expected from the parents of a girl who had an unnatural death to be in the complete senses to give each and every detail in their statement recorded only after few hours of the death of their daughter. Hence, the judgments cited by learned defence counsel are of no help to accused persons.
66. Ld defence counsel has urged that admittedly there was no demand of dowry prior to the marriage. He further argued that PW2 in his cross examination has admitted that money was given by him to the accused persons to run the house hold and miscellaneous expenses, SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 33 Of total pages 38 which does not come within the definition of dowry. He also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appasaheb's case (supra). Though I agree that the money demanded by accused persons for running the household expenses is not covered within the definition of dowry, however, the demand of plot is covered within the definition of dowry.
67. Section 2 reveals that dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to marriage to the other party to marriage, either before or at the time or after the marriage in connection with the marriage of said parties. Thus the demand of plot of land even after the marriage is covered within definition of dowry. Hence, the contention of learned defence counsel that there was no demand prior to the marriage is not tenable.
68. The contention of ld defence counsel with regard to the omission on the part of parents of deceased to lodge the complaint to the police is also of no help to the accused persons since PW2 in his testimony deposed that he did not make any complaint to police considering the future matrimonial life of his daughter. Even otherwise in matrimonial cases initially there is always an effort to reconcile the dispute rather than seeking the intervention of police.
69. The contention of ld defence counsel that the deceased was living at ease in the matrimonial home since she had the liberty to make SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 34 Of total pages 38 telephone call to her parents and the son of deceased frequently used to visit her maternal grand parents home does not appeal to reason since it is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased was not permitted to talk to her parents or she and her son were not permitted to visit her parents as the case of prosecution is that the accused used to demand money from time to time and they finally demanded a plot of land two months before the death of deceased.
70. Further the contention of ld defence counsel that the other accused had no concern since the deceased and her husband were residing at the first floor in the matrimonial home is also not sustainable since PW2 has deposed that there was a common kitchen in the matrimonial house of his daughter and out of the two rooms on the first floor one of the room was occupied by his daughter and there is no rebuttal to the said deposition. PW2 has categorically deposed that all the accused used to demand money from his daughter and used to quarrel and beat her. He also categorically deposed that about two months before the expiry of his daughter the inlaws of her daughter demanded a plot.
71. He further categorically deposed that even after the meeting for reconciliation when his daughter was sent back to matrimonial home, the attitude of her inlaws remained the same and he received calls from his daughter oftenly complaining that behaviour of all the accused persons remained unchanged as they continued beating her and also threatened to kill her. In view of testimony of PW2 it is clear that the SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 35 Of total pages 38 demand was continuous. Thus, I do not agree with the contention of ld defence counsel that the allegations are vague since there is no mention of date, month and year of the alleged demand.
72. The judgment relied by ld defence counsel in Namdeo Daulata's case (supra) is on the points of contradictions and is not applicable since ld defence counsel has failed to point out any material contradictions in the testimony of witnesses. Even otherwise as per the settled law minor the contradictions are attributed to the human error. I reply on judgment delivered in case titled as Jagdish Vs. State of M.P, (1981) SCC(Crl.) 676, wherein the Court held that "when the discrepancies were comparatively of a minor character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions"
73. The judgments relied by in Narender Singh Arora's case(supra) is on the point that the mentality of the parents of deceased wife in a criminal case is that whenever a woman died in an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage at her inlaws house, whatever be the cause of death, the inlaws must be hanged. It was held that there is no presumption that every suicide committed by a married woman in her inlaws house has to be because she was suffering harassment at the hands of her husband or her inlaws. The facts in the cited case are different since in the cited case there were letters of the deceased to reflect that she was in deep love with her husband and her husband was also in deep love with her, whereas in the present case, on the contrary there is sufficient evidence regarding demand of dowry and cruelty and SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 36 Of total pages 38 even external injuries besides the ligature mark were also found on her body.
74. The judgment relied by ld defence counsel is Biswajit Halder's case (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of present case since in the cited case no finding with regard to harassment in connection with demand of dowry was recorded by the lower court and accordingly the conviction was set aside.
75. In view of above discussion I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully discharged the initial burden of proving that third condition of Section 304B IPC. Since the prosecution has successfully discharged the burden of proving the ingredients of Section 304B IPC, the presumption can be drawn under Section 113 B Indian Evidence Act, 1972 that accused persons had caused dowry death of the deceased. Thus the burden of proving that it was not a case of dowry death, is shifted to the accused persons. Apart from the bald assertions by the accused persons in their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C that the status of parents of deceased was much higher due to which the deceased used to complain her parents for getting her married in a poor family due to which she committed suicide, there is no substance to prove the same.
76. The testimony of DW1, uncle of accused to the effect that deceased used to tell that she had been married in a very poor family is of no help to the accused persons since in his cross examination he admitted that as and when he visited the house of accused persons he remained there for 10 to 15 or 30 minutes. He further admitted that he met the father of deceased 8 to 9 times after her marriage however he SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 37 Of total pages 38 never stated to the father of deceased that Kamlesh used to complain that she was married in a poor family. He further admitted that he had very cordial relation with the family of the accused persons thus he also appears to be an interested witness, who had deposed to help the accused persons. Even otherwise, it is not the case of accused persons that deceased was forcibly married in the family of the accused persons. Thus his testimony does not inspire confidence.
77. After having concluded that prosecution has been able to prove that this was a case of dowry death, I have no hesitation in holding that the charge u/s 498A IPC is also stands proved against the accused persons. Accordingly, all the accused persons are given benefit of doubt u/s 302 IPC and acquitted for the said alternate charge but are convicted for the offence punishable u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.
Announced in the open Court
On 18th April, 2018 (Sukhvinder Kaur)
Addl. Sessions Judge: 04 (North)
Rohini Courts: Delhi:
It is certified that this order contains thirty eight pages and each page is signed by me.
(Sukhvinder Kaur) Addl. Sessions Judge: 04 (North) Rohini Courts: Delhi SC No. 57819/16, State Vs. Monu etc. page No. 38 Of total pages 38