Delhi District Court
State vs Rohit Panday on 10 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. TWINKLE WADHWA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SESSIONS CASE No. 52/2020
FIR No. 299/2019
PS. Sonia Vihar
U/s. 498A/304/34 IPC
Instituted on 14.02.2020
Argued on 20.12.2024
Decided on 10.01.2025
Final Order Acquitted
State Vs. 1. Rohit Pandey
S/o Sh. Harish Chand Pandey
R/o C-5/60/2, Gali No. 12, 4 ½ Pusta Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
2. Kusum Devi
W/o Sh. Harish Chand
R/o Vill. Vijay Giri, PS Ram Pur, U.P.
Digitally signed
by TWINKLE
WADHWA
TWINKLE Date:
WADHWA 2025.01.13
16:52:03
+0530
FIR No. 299/2019 State Vs. Rohit Pandey and Anr page 1 of 16
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case:-
1. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the information was received vide DD No. 6A from JPC Hospital on 01.12.2019 that deceased aged 23 years had hanged herself and admitted to hospital where she was declared dead. The time of the DD was 07.51 am. IO SI Ramesh Chand went to hospital and collected MLC of deceased Babita where it was mentioned that she was brought dead. In the hospital bhanja of deceased Babita namely Sh. Rishabh was present. It came to the knowledge of IO that marriage of deceased and her husband took place 5 years back. Parents of deceased were informed in the meantime, IO called Crime Team and got the spot photographed. IO went to the scene of crime, did the necessary investigation and prepared pullandas of seized articles alongwith seizure memo. On 02.12.2019, parents of deceased came to the police station, thereafter, their statements were recorded by the concerned SDM. Thereafter, FIR was registered under Section 304B/498A/34 of IPC. After the statements of parents of deceased, IO recorded the statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C of witnesses. Charge sheet was filed after completion of investigation.
2. Prosecution Evidence.
Prosecution has examined 7 witnesses in this case.
3. PW-1 Mangla Mishra is mother of the deceased Babita. She has stated that her daughter was married with accused on 29.05.2014. She furtherDigitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.01.13 16:52:09 +0530 FIR No. 299/2019 State Vs. Rohit Pandey and Anr page 2 of 16 stated that one male child was born from this wedlock. Further, her daughter / deceased was three month's pregnant when she died. Deceased Babita had studied till BA / Graduation.
4. PW1 further deposed that once she had given 10,000/- rupees to accused on his demand. She also stated that her daughter was using a mobile phone which was given by her brother but that mobile was taken away by the accused and handed over to one of his sisters but PW-1 could not state to which sister it was given as accused has five sisters. She further stated that accused person used to demand dowry from her daughter. She further stated that a buffalo was also demanded as dowry. Further, accused Rohit had stated that unless you repair ring, she will not be sent to her parental house. She further deposed that deceased Babita's husband, mother in law and sister in law used to torture her daughter and they also used to give her beatings. She further stated that the reason of torture was that the ring given by the parents of deceased to the accused had broken. Except this, there was no other reason for torturing her. In her cross examination, she deposed that her marriage was fixed one year prior to the date of marriage. She further admitted that till date of marriage, no dowry was demanded from them. No list of dowry articles was prepared. Two days after marriage of her daughter, she had told them about torture related to dowry. Further, the incident of demand relating to dowry due to broken ring happened 3-4 years after marriage. Further prior to this incident, Babita visited her parental home twice only. She further deposed that she had spoken with her daughter four days prior to her death when she did not inform her about any dowry demand.
Digitally signed by TWINKLETWINKLE WADHWA Date:
WADHWA 2025.01.13 16:52:12 +0530 FIR No. 299/2019 State Vs. Rohit Pandey and Anr page 3 of 16
5. PW-2 Harish Chand Mishra is father of deceased who stated that her daughter was kept well for 6-7 months after marriage but thereafter, demands for dowry started. He further stated that cash and buffalo was demanded from his daughter as dowry. All this was informed to them by his daughter. He further stated that his children used to arrange money to be given to his daughter as dowry and he himself could not state about the details of the same. On receiving the information about the death of his daughter, he alongwith his wife, two sons and two nephews came to Delhi on 02.12.2019. Executive Magistrate recorded their statements. He further deposed that earlier his daughter was residing at her matrimonial house in village and she was brought to Delhi 2-3 months prior to the date of incident. He had also given photocopy of invoices of jewellery items given to her daughter at the time of marriage i.e. Ex.PW2/G. He had also given mattress, quilt, utensils, chair and cash to his daughter. On being suggested by Ld. APP, he admitted his statement recorded by Executive Magistrate.
6. PW-3 Sh. R.L. Meena, Senior Officer in Industrial Department, Patparganj, Delhi has stated that he got information from ASI Ramesh Chand that one lady namely Babita had hanged herself. He further stated that on 02.12.2019, ASI Ramesh Chand alongwith Sh. Harish Chand Mishra (father of the deceased) and Smt. Mangla Mishra (mother of the deceased) came at DC Office, Nand Nagri. He further stated that he inquired from mother and father of the deceased, thereafter, the statement of Smt. Mangla Mishra, mother of the deceased was also recorded. He further stated that he asked the father of the deceased to record his statement but he stated that whatever his wife has stated in her statement is true and correct and he did not want to give Digitally signed TWINKLE by TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date: 2025.01.13 16:52:15 +0530 FIR No. 299/2019 State Vs. Rohit Pandey and Anr page 4 of 16 his statement separately. Sh. Harish Chand Mishra (father of the deceased) has stated that his wife statement be read as his statement. He further stated that on the same day, he reached at mortuary of GTB Hospital where the IO was present and under his supervision, request for post mortem was filled up by the IO. After post mortem, the dead body was given to the relatives of the deceased. In his cross, he stated that on 01.12.2019, he received the information from ASI Ramesh Chand on phone. ASI Ramesh Chand had talked to PW-1 for about 5 minutes. He further stated that he had told to bring the parents of the deceased to DC Office whenever they arrived. He further stated that ASI Ramesh Chand alongwith parents of deceased arrived at DC Office at about 12:00 noon. Firstly, I inquired from mother and at that time, ASI Ramesh alongwith one constable and parents of deceased were present in his office.
7. PW-4 Retd. SI Ramesh Chand has deposed that on that day, on receiving information vide DD no. 6A from JPC hospital, he along with Ct. Vicky reached at JPC hospital. The information was regarding hanging of deceased Babita and her admission at JPC hospital. He collected the MLC No. 18612/19 of deceased Babita at the hospital. She was declared brought dead. At the hospital, bhanja of Babita namely Rishabh was present. He made inquiries from him. Thereafter, dead body was shifted to GTB Mortuary and he got preserved the dead body there for 72 hours. He further stated that he called the crime team at the spot. The spot was photographed by the crime team. He recorded the statements of accused Rohit Pandey, Rishabh, Manya, Digitally signed by Tannu, Indu and neighbour namely Rahul. The victim had hanged herself with TWINKLE WADHWA TWINKLE WADHWA Date:
the help of saari of red colour at the second floor of the afore-said premises.
2025.01.13 16:52:19 +0530 FIR No. 299/2019 State Vs. Rohit Pandey and Anr page 5 of 16 He further stated that there was tin shed on the second floor and red colour saari was tied with a pipe under the tin shed. The said saari was untied and taken into police possession after converting it into pullanda and sealing it with the seal of JPS in the presence of Rishabh. The seizure memo of the same was prepared. He further stated that earlier doctor at JPC Hospital had handed over the jewellery ornaments of the deceased. Retd. SI Ramesh Chand had kept them in a plastic dibbi, converted it into pulanda, sealed with the seal of JPS and the said pulanda was taken into police possession. He further stated that on 02.12.2019, the parents and brother of the deceased came at the PS. He took them to the office of SDM at Nand Nagri, Delhi. Statement of Mangla Mishra (mother of the deceased) was recorded by Sh. R.L. Meena, SDM. The father of the deceased had also signed the statement made by Mangla Mishra and affirmed the statement of his wife as his statement also. He further stated that he prepared the relevant documents regarding the postmortem of the deceased under the supervision of Sh. R.L. Meena. The body was identified by Sh. Harish Chand Mishra (father of the deceased) and Ashwani Mishra.
8. PW5 Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mishra is the brother of the deceased. He stated that the marriage of his sister / deceased was performed at his village. He further stated that the entire dowry articles after the marriage were handed over to accused Rohit Pandey. He further stated that the dowry articles included cooler, fridge, T.V etc. Rs.51,000/- in cash was given to accused Rohit Pandey to purchase a motorcycle. Gold and silver jewellery were also given at the time of marriage. After the marriage, the entire dowry articles Digitally signed were transported to the house of accused at Sonia Vihar. He further stated that TWINKLE by TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.01.13 16:52:22 +0530 FIR No. 299/2019 State Vs. Rohit Pandey and Anr page 6 of 16 his sister / deceased Babita also started living at Sonia Vihar, Delhi. After about six months of the marriage, the accused along with his family members started harassing the deceased for bringing cash. He further stated that the accused used to beat deceased in this regard. He further stated that his family members had given Rs.10,000/- in cash and mobile phone to the accused pursuant to the demands made by accused and his family members. He further stated that his sister / deceased informed them regarding the harassment, torture and beatings given to her by the accused persons pursuant to demand of dowry. He further stated that his brother-in-law Vijay Pratap Tiwari had handed over Rs.40,000/- to the accused as he had requested him to pay Rs.40,000/- to the accused. He further stated that on 01.12.2019, he was informed by the family members that his sister / deceased had consumed some medicines and died, thereafter he went to Sonia Vihar at matrimonial house of his sister / deceased and came to know that his sister had hanged herself. Accused and his family members did not inform the family members of the deceased regarding the incident. In his cross examination he stated that his sister deceased studied after marriage and the expenses were borne by accused Rohit Pandey. He further stated that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and the phone were given on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan to his sister / deceased Babita.
9. PW 6 Retd. SI Sh. K.P. Rana, S/o. Sh. Ajab Singh has deposed that he inspected the scene of crime. He prepared site plan at the instance of Mangla Mishra, mother of deceased Babita. He recorded the statements of witnesses. At the instance of Mangla Mishra, accused Rohit Pandey was Digitally signed apprehended and arrested. He collected the PM report. He further stated that TWINKLE by TWINKLE WADHWA Date:
WADHWA 2025.01.13
16:52:26
+0530
FIR No. 299/2019 State Vs. Rohit Pandey and Anr page 7 of 16
he looked for other accused persons but they were not traceable.
10. PW 7 Retd. Insp. Dorothia has deposed that statements u/s 161 Cr. P.C. of Sunil Kumar, Vijay Pandit and Sh. Harish Chand were recorded by him. Thereafter, he filed chargesheet in the court. He collected from the complainant the copy of jewellery bills. SOC report alongwith photographs of the spot were also collected. As per the doctor conducting autopsy the deceased was pregnant with 3 month old fetus. This aspect was missed in the PM report earlier and was reported by the doctor conducting autopsy in response to query raised in this regard. He collected viscera report of the deceased and took final opinion from the doctor. He prepared the supplementary charge-sheet and filed the same. In his cross examination, he stated that no other family members of the deceased except Rishabh were present in the hospital.
11. After examination of all the witness, statement of accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded to which accused did not wish to lead any defence evidence.
12. DW-1 Sh. Rohit Pandey stated that he was married to deceased Babita as per Hindu Rites and customs. He further stated that deceased was 12th passed when after that she got married to him. He further stated that he had asked her to continue study and she replied in affirmative. Deceased Babita perused her graduation in Arts & BTC. He further stated that after two years of marriage, they were blessed with male child Arpit. His wife / deceased was residing after marriage with his mother at his native village. He Digitally signed further stated that he had brought her back to his house at Delhi andTWINKLE she hadbyWADHWA TWINKLE Date:
WADHWA 2025.01.13 16:52:29 +0530 FIR No. 299/2019 State Vs. Rohit Pandey and Anr page 8 of 16 stayed there with him for about 3-4 months. He further stated that no incident had ever happened with her and he never asked for any money or dowry from his in laws. He further stated that he was working as a Driver on a tempo. On the date of incident, he went to Haridwar on a trip and thus at about 04.00 a.m., he had stepped out of his house and his wife / deceased had helped him before leaving. He further stated that he came to know about the incident at about 06.00 a.m., thereafter, he returned back to his house and came to know that Babita was at JPC hospital. In his cross examination, he deposed that he could not produce any document regarding the education of his wife / deceased which he had paid the fees of the same.
Findings.
13. Section 304-B of IPC deals with dowry death. To prove an offence under this Section, it must be proved that death is caused under abnormal circumstances, death is caused within 7 years of marriage and women must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives in relation to a demand of dowry 'soon before her death'. The phrase 'soon before her death' is a crucial requirement to establish a dowry death. The phrase 'soon before her death' suggests that there must be a close nexus between cruelty or harassment related to dowry and the woman's death. The section does not define the exact time frame but it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. It does not necessarily mean "immediate" before the death but the interval should not be long enough to disconnect the acts of cruelty from the cause of death.
Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA
14. To convict an accused under this section, there should be WADHWA Date:
2025.01.13 16:52:33 +0530 FIR No. 299/2019 State Vs. Rohit Pandey and Anr page 9 of 16 evidence before the Court that deceased woman was subjected to cruelty related to dowry by her husband or other relatives soon before her death. It is necessary to establish the mental and physical state of the woman before her death. Also the nature, frequency and intensity of harassment become very relevant in establishing the ingredients of this offence.
15. Coming to the facts of the present case, there are three material witnesses which prosecution has examined in support of their case. The first witness is PW-1 Smt. Mangla Mishra who is the mother of the deceased. She has stated that her daughter informed her that she was tortured by her husband, mother in law and nanad. She further stated that accused persons were asking deceased Babita to get a gold ring repaired through her parents, the ring which was given by family member of the deceased to the accused Rohit. She further stated that except this her daughter had not given any other reason for torture and beatings given by the accused persons to her. However, this witness does not state when this ring was broken, was it an incident soon before her death that she was given beatings for getting one gold ring repaired through her parents. Nothing is mentioned and explained in her testimony regarding the same.
16. PW-1 further deposed that once they had given 10,000 rupees through electronic mode to the accused persons. She further stated that this money was arranged after selling her ornaments. However, no proof is filed of transfer of money through electronic mode.
17. PW1 further stated that they had given one mobile phone to the Digitally signed by TWINKLE deceased Babita which was taken away by accused Rohit and given to his TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.01.13 16:52:36 +0530 FIR No. 299/2019 State Vs. Rohit Pandey and Anr page 10 of 16 own sister, however, this act is not a dowry related harassment or demand. She further stated that a buffalo was demanded as dowry, however, she did not clarify in her statement as PW-1 when this buffalo was demanded, it was at the time of marriage or after the marriage or at any other time. Further it is nowhere mentioned that it was demanded soon before her death so as to link this incident with the act of committing suicide by her.
18. In her cross examination, she states that marriage was fixed one year prior to solemnization and none of them demanded any dowry from her. Hence, till the time of marriage was solemnized, no demand of dowry was made by accused persons from PW-1. This witness further agrees that a list of articles, which was given in marriage, was prepared but she nowhere stated that these articles were given as dowry demand and not as customary gifts.
19. She further deposed in her cross examination that after two years of marriage, her daughter told her about dowry related demand. But she does not state what was the exact demand for dowry. Further, there is no complaint filed by PW-1 or any other witness or family member of the deceased Babita regarding the same till date. She further stated in her cross examination that last time she talked with her daughter four days prior before her death, at that time she did not state about any dowry related torture or demand by the accused persons to her. Hence, going by the testimony of PW 1, neither any demand for dowry was proved nor could it be proved that it was demanded soon before her death, hence, ingredients of offence under Section 304 B and 498 A of IPC are not proved.
Digitally signed by TWINKLETWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.01.13 16:52:40 +0530 FIR No. 299/2019 State Vs. Rohit Pandey and Anr page 11 of 16
20. Coming to the testimony of PW 2, PW 2 stated that 6-7 months after his daughter's marriage, accused persons started harassing her for dowry demand, cash and buffalo were also demanded. The same was informed to them by their daughter on phone. Hence, no dowry was demanded by any of the accused persons from PW-2. PW 2 stated about the demand as was stated to him by his daughter. Again PW 2 did not state when this demand was made, on what occasion it was made.
21. PW 2 further stated that on the demand of accused persons, sometimes his children arranged money and gave to accused persons. But he did not know about money given by his children to the accused persons.
Hence, according to PW 2, the demand of money / dowry was fulfilled by his children and he himself never gave any money nor fulfilled any dowry demand himself.
22. He further deposed that once he paid 10,000/- rupees to accused through electronic mode after selling jewelary of his wife. But no such proof of electronic transfer has been filed on record. He had also stated that one mobile phone which they had given to their daughter was taken away by accused Rohit and given to his sister, however, this is not an act of dowry demand. He further deposed that earlier his daughter was residing at Jaunpur, UP in matrimonial home. 2-3 months prior to this incident, accused Rohit had brought her daughter to Delhi. There is no specific averment by this witness if any demand of dowry was made during her stay in Jaunpur UP or if any demand was made during her stay at Delhi.
Digitally signed by TWINKLETWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.01.13 16:52:43 +0530 FIR No. 299/2019 State Vs. Rohit Pandey and Anr page 12 of 16
23. The witness had filed photocopy of one invoice by Rakesh Jewellers which is Ex.PW2/F to show that his wife had sold her jewelery to arrange 10,000/- rupees. But no proof is filed that this 10,000/- was transferred to accused through electronic mode.
24. This witness has also filed and proved invoices of jewelry articles given to her daughter at time of marriage. But it is not stated that they were given on dowry demand and not as customary gifts to his daughter.
25. This witness further deposed that accused Rohit had given one broken gold ring to him whereby saying " jab tak dusri anguthi nahi doge Babita ko nahi bhejungu". However, his testimony to this extent is in contradiction to the testimony of his wife who stated that accused Rohit asked them for repairing of the ring and not for getting second ring made.
26. PW 2 during his cross examination specifically stated that accused persons had not demanded any dowry before marriage and 50,000/- rupees was given in marriage out of their own free will. PW 2 stated in his cross examination that three months prior to her death, his daughter was tortured in Navratra days but he did not state so in his examination in chief. During his cross examination a specific question was put to him whether the amount was paid by his sons voluntarily to which he replied that it was paid due to demand of accused persons. But he did not say that he himself paid any amount.
27. Hence, according to the testimony of PW 2, no dowry was demanded from him directly nor he paid any money as dowry. According to him, some money was paid by his children on demand. Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.01.13 16:52:46 +0530 FIR No. 299/2019 State Vs. Rohit Pandey and Anr page 13 of 16
28. PW-5 Ashwani Kumar Mishra is brother of the deceased, he deposed that in marriage of his sister, all the dowry articles were given which were supposed to be given in the marriage. He did not depose anywhere that these articles were given on demand and were not given as customary gifts.
29. He deposed that after six months of the marriage, the accused alongwith his family members started harassing his sister / deceased for bringing cash and was also beaten for the same. He further stated that his family members had given 10,000/- rupees, however, he did not state he himself gave 10,000/- or mobile phone. He further stated that in the year 2019, his brother in law Vijay Pratap Singh had given 40,000/- rupees to the accused as he had requested him to pay the same. The accused was in need of money and he demanded from him. He further stated that accused had returned some amount. Hence, this Rs. 40,000/- was given to accused as he was in need with the assurance that it will be returned and part amount was returned as well. This cannot be called dowry demand.
30. Further he specifically admitted in his cross examination that whatever articles were given in the marriage were given voluntarily. He further admitted in his cross examination that 10,000/- rupees and mobile phone were given on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan and not given due to any demand of accused. He further admitted that his sister studied after marriage and expenses were borne by accused Rohit.
31. Hence, no dowry demand was made from PW-5 directly nor he paid anything towards the fulfillment of the demand. He has deposed on the Digitally signed by TWINKLE basis of the statement to him by his deceased sister Babita. TWINKLE WADHWA Date:
WADHWA 2025.01.13 16:52:50 +0530 FIR No. 299/2019 State Vs. Rohit Pandey and Anr page 14 of 16
32. A perusal of the statement of family members of deceased Babita would show that no demand of dowry was made from them. They had only deposed that demand was made from deceased Babita and Babita had told about the same. They had mentioned about demand for getting the gold ring repaired but there is discrepancies in the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 on this aspect. PW-1 stated that demand was to repair the ring while PW-2 stated demand was for second ring. Further, they both also stated that demand for dowry was made. But from the statement of witnesses, it is not clear when the demand for ring or buffalo was made, they stated that nothing was demanded from them before marriage. Nothing was demanded from them after marriage. Whatever they have deposed is on the basis of statement made to them by their daughter. They could not state the time or occasion for demand of ring or buffalo, was it made soon before her death so as to link it with the cause of her death. There is no prior complaint made by deceased Babita or any of the family members. Rather family members have deposed that whatever they gave in marriage was given of out their own free will.
33. To bring conviction to the accused, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on prosecution to prove their case. According to section 101 of Evidence Act, whoever desires Court to give judgment or finding in his favour, the burden of proof lies on that person. The prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This is based on the principles of presumption of innocence of accused. The prosecution must prove that accused committed the act with necessary criminal intent. Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.01.13 16:52:53 +0530 FIR No. 299/2019 State Vs. Rohit Pandey and Anr page 15 of 16
34. In the present case, prosecution has failed to discharge the said burden on them. Prosection failed to prove that the death of deceased was caused due to demand for dowry and conseqent harassment to the deceased for the same. Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
35. In the circumstances, accused persons are hereby acquitted for the charged offences.
Conclusion:-
36. In the circumstances, in view of above discussion, the accused persons are hereby acquitted for the charged offences i.e. Section 498-A/304- B/34 of IPC.
Digitally
Announced in Open Court signed by
TWINKLE
as on 10.01.2025 TWINKLE WADHWA
WADHWA Date:
( Twinkle Wadhwa )
2025.01.13
16:52:59
Addl. Sessions Judge-02/North
+0530 East
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 299/2019 State Vs. Rohit Pandey and Anr page 16 of 16