Delhi District Court
Through Public Prosecutor Delhi vs Dilbagh Singh on 30 May, 2015
SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09
P.S Janak Puri
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY JINDAL, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE WEST - 04, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Unique Case ID No. : 02401R0017732011
SC NO. 74/1/14
FIR NO. 324/09
P.S. : Janak Puri
U/S : 498A/304B/34 IPC
IN THE MATTER OF
State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through Public Prosecutor Delhi
versus
1 Dilbagh Singh
S/o Sh. Sugad Ram,
R/o Staff Quarters no. 4,
State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 1/71
SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09
P.S Janak Puri
Ramjas College, Delhi University,
North Campus, Delhi.
2 Daya Devi
W/o Sh. Sugad Ram,
R/o Village Kelana, P.S Gannor,
District Sonipat, Haryana.
............. Accused persons.
Date when committed to the : 17.03.2011
court of Sessions
Date of conclusion of : 25.05.2015
final arguments
Date of Order. : 30.05.2015
Final Order : Acquitted
State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 2/71
SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09
P.S Janak Puri
J U D G M E N T
1 Brief facts, as per case of the prosecution, are that deceased Meenu was married to accused Dilbag Singh on 18.04.2009 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. It is alleged that accused Dilbag Singh and his mother i.e accused Daya Devi used to make dowry demands from deceased Meenu and also used to cause cruelty and harassment to her. It is further alleged that due to persistent dowry demands and the beatings given by accused Dilbag, the deceased Meenu started living with her parents. Further that about one week before the alleged incident, accused Dilbag Singh visited the house of complainant and used filthy and abusive language. Thereafter Meenu became silent and stopped interacting with the family members and ultimately she committed suicide in her parental house by hanging with ceiling fan on 30.12.2009. A complaint was made by mother of the deceased and present FIR was registered. Accused was arrested and after completion of investigation, chargesheet u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC was filed.
2 After consideration, charge for the offences U/s State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 3/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri 498A/304B/406/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 During the proceedings, accused Daya Devi was permanently exempted from appearance vide order dt. 15.03.2013 and 20.12.2013.
4 At the time of trial, prosecution has examined following witnesses; PW1 Mr. Vivek PW2 Sh. A.K. Badal PW3 ASI Babu Lal PW4 Mr. Om Narayan PW5 Mr. K. Ramesh PW6 Mr. H.S. Dubey PW7 Mr. Arun Bharti PW8 Dr. R.K. Saini PW9 SI Sandeep Kumar PW10 Retd. SI Jai Singh PW11 Smt. Gyatri Devi PW12 Mr. Naveen Narang PW13 HC Jaswant Singh PW14 Sh. Devak Ram PW15 HC Dinesh Kumar PW16 Retd. SI D.K. Singh PW17 SI Ugesh Kumar PW18 Inspr. Prabhu Dayal PW19 Dr. Rishi PW20 Dr. Narayan Dabas State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 4/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri 5 After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of
accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C on 09.01.2015. Both the accused persons denied the case of prosecution in general and they opted to lead defense evidence and examined six witnesses including accused Dilbagh in their defense.
6 I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State assisted by ld. counsel for complainant and ld. counsel for the accused persons. I have also carefully perused the record including the written submission filed on behalf of parties.
7 It is argued on behalf of State that case against the accused persons has been duly proved on record beyond any reasonable doubts. Further that discrepancies/contradictions if any in the case of prosecution are minor and natural. It is argued that it is duly proved on record that soon after her marriage with accused Dilbagh deceased Meenu was subjected to dowry demands, cruelty and harassment. Further that it is proved that on 19.06.2009 and 13.09.2009 the accused Dilbag abused and State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 5/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri beaten the deceased for not bringing sufficient dowry. Further that on 28.06.2009, the deceased had written a suicide note and under the fear to her life and limbs, she left her matrimonial home and came to her parents home on 28.11.2009. Further that it is proved that on 24.12.2009, accused Dilbagh came at the house of complainant and abused the deceased in front of her family members and from that day the deceased started remaining silent and ultimately she committed suicide on 30.12.2009. It is further argued that the death of deceased had occurred in unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage and the burden was on the accused persons to show that she was not subjected to cruelty and harassment and that the accused persons have failed to discharge the onus. It is submitted that the case has been duly proved against the accused persons for all the alleged offences. Written submissions have been filed on behalf of the complainant and reliance is placed upon on following judgments of different superior courts.
➢ Rajesh Bhatnagar vs. State of Uttrakhand, AIR 2012 S.C 2866. ➢ Sharad vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2012 SC 1818. ➢ Pathan Hussain vs. State of A.P, AIR 2012 SC 3205. State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 6/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09
P.S Janak Puri ➢ Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors.
➢ Bansi Lal vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2011 SC 691. ➢ Bachni Devi & Anr. vs. State of Haryana, 1 (2011) DLT (Crl) 525 (SC). ➢ Uday Chakraborty & Ors vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 3506. ➢ Rajbir @ Raju & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, IV (2010) DLT (Crl.) 627 (SC). ➢ Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2010 SC 2839. ➢ Ram Badan Sharma vs. State of Bihar, 2006 (4) RCR (Crl.) 104. ➢ Balwant Singh vs. Partap Singh & Ors. JT 2000 (9) SC 592. ➢ Yashwant Kumar vs. State, 2011 II AD (Crl) DHC 233. ➢ Balbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 746 P & H High Court. ➢ Suresh Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P, 2008 CrLJ 2547, All. High Court. ➢ Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 2006 (1) RCR Criminal 158. State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 7/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri 8 On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the accused
persons that the case of prosecution is full of discrepancies and contradictions and same is based on false evidence. The credibility of witnesses has also been challenged. It is submitted that the statements of the witnesses are full of contradictions, discrepancies and improvements and have affected the core of the prosecution case. Further that all the allegations have been levelled only after the unfortunate incident. Further that it is admitted case that the deceased committed suicide at her parents house and it is also there in evidence that she had gone there on 28.11.2009 to attend her brother's ring ceremony and the marriage scheduled to be held on 30.11.2009 and 02.12.2009. Further that since, she committed suicide at her parental house on 30.12.2009, the provisions of section 113B of the Evidence Act r/w section 304 B IPC are not attracted. Further that the marriage between the accused Dilbagh and deceased was arranged pursuant to newspaper advertisement dt. 14.12.2008 and the same was a dowry less marriage and even after marriage, there was no demand of dowry at any point of time. Further that the documents relied upon by the prosecution have not been proved as per State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 8/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri law in a conclusive manner and there are also other defects in the investigation carried out by the IO. Further that the ingredients of none of the offences are made out on record. Further that the deceased was living with her parents at her parental home for about more than one month prior to her death and she has committed suicide due to behaviour and misconduct of her family members. It is argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and therefore the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of accused persons and Ld. Counsel for accused persons has relied upon following judgments of superior courts in support of his contentions.
➢ Umed Singh & ors. vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2014 (3) JCC 1752. ➢ Phool Kesri vs. State & Anr., MANU/DE/1881/2012. ➢ Lachman @ Raju & Anr. vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2014 (4) JCC2926.
➢ State vs. Anoop Singh & Ors, 2011 (2) JCC 750. ➢ Suman Mittal & Anr. vs. State & Ors, MANU/DE/3305/2013. ➢ Smt. Misri Devi & Ors. vs. State, MANU/DE/0099/2011. State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 9/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri ➢ State vs. Pradeep, MANU/DE/4075/2010. ➢ Babita vs. State, MANU/DE/0361/2009. ➢ Rakesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 2009 Crl. L.J. 1895, (Supreme Court). ➢ Smt. Sarla Parbhakar Waghmere vs. State of Maharashtra, 1990 Crl. L.J. 407 Bombay High Court. 9 Before proceeding further, it will not be out of place to have a
reference to the statements of the witnesses examined by prosecution and documentary evidence brought on record.
PW1 Mr. Vivek is brother of deceased. During his examination in court he deposed that he is an Advocate by profession and used to work at Indian Trade Mark Company, located at Lawyers Chamber no.346, Delhi High Court. His sister Ms. Meenu was married to the accused Dilbagh Singh on 18.04.2009 at Delhi. After marriage she joined her matrimonial home at village Kalana,district Sonipat, Haryana. The accused was working as Section Officer at that time and his sister was Lecturer in Kamla Nehru College near Khel Gaon. She joined her husband State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 10/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri who was living in Delhi in village Shahpur Jatt, near Kamal Nehru College in South Delhi. After some time when his sister came to her parental home, she told him and his parents that the accused used to abuse her and beat her. They tried to conciliate the matter between the two i.e his sister and accused Dilbagh Singh. The accused promised not to repeat such kind of action and he took his sister to the above said place of residence. Thereafter again there was quarrel and his sister came to her parental home in the month of May 2009 and she remained there for one month. In that duration also the accused came to their place and he abused his sister there also. He further deposed that without disclosing to his sister the accused shifted all the household articles at Quarter no. 4, Staff Quarters Ramjas College, Delhi University. In the month of June 2009 his sister again join the accused at Quarter no. 4, Staff Quarters Ramjas College, Delhi University. On 19.06.2009 again the accused picked quarrel with his sister and he had beaten her. His sister also made a call to them and stated that she was beaten by accused and her clothes were torn and she was turned out of his house. Thereafter he along with his mother Smt. Gayatri Devi went to the Quarter no. 4, Staff Quarters Ramjas State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 11/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri College, Delhi University. The accused repented his action and he promised not to repeat this kind of behaviour in the future and he also written down a letter Ex. PW1/A to this effect on 19.06.2009 and signed the same. Thereafter they came back to their house. He further deposed that after some days his sister again made a call to them and she again complained that accused was beating her and demanding a flat from his father in Janak Puri and he also demanded the car which was given in marriage to transfer in his name. He asked his sister to maintain peace and he also assured her that he will come and talk to the accused Dilbagh Singh. He further deposed that on 13.09.2009 the accused had again beaten his sister. His sister made a call at 100 number and also told about the incident to them. When they reached at the house of his sister, the police had already arrived. His sister again called at 100 number, besides PCR local police also reached the spot and the accused was taken to PS Maurice Nagar. He along with his sister and mother went to PS Maurice Nagar. His sister made a statement before the police at PS Maurice Nagar. The accused again compromised the matter at the PS on the intervention of the brother of accused. On that day he brought his sister to his house State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 12/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri and she remained at their house for some days and thereafter she accompanied the accused to her matrimonial house i.e at Quarter no. 4, Staff Quarters Ramjas College, Delhi University. He further deposed that on 28.11.2009 his sister again came back to their house as the accused kept on torturing her mentally and physically and demanding flat at Janak Puri. His sister remained at their house till 24.12.2009. The accused came to their house and abused his sister on 24.12.2009 and also demanded flat in Janak Puri. The accused used to threaten his sister that he will get him and his father killed. He also tried to conciliate the matter but the accused did not pay any heed and left their house. Thereafter his sister used to remain perturbed and she used to remain silent most of the time and finally on 30.12.2009 between 8:30 PM to 10:00 PM his sister committed suicide by hanging herself. At that time his father was in his room as he was bed ridden, his mother had gone to temple and he (PW1) was at Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. He further deposed that he came back on the next day in the morning. On the day one Saree was seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW1/B by which his sister had hanged herself. He produced six photographs of marriage and written statement of Dilbagh Singh to police State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 13/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri which was seized by IO vide memo Ex. PW1/C. He also proved photographs as Ex. PW1/D1 to Ex. PW1/D6. He handed over hand written note to the police written by his sister and same was seizied vide memo Ex. PW1/E and original copy of same is Ex. PW1/E1. He further deposed that his sister had also disclosed that she was also tortured by Smt. Daya Devi (mother in law) for dowry. On 24.06.2010 he handed over list of dowry articles Mark B to the police and two photographs of the accused Ex.P1 & P2 which were seized vide memo Ex. PW1/F. He further deposed that on 09.01.2010 he made a complaint at 100 number regarding visiting of elder brother of the accused to the house of his maternal uncle and called over the telephone of his cousin and extended threat to withdraw the complaint and he refused to settle the matter and he threatened him with dire consequences. He further deposed that on 24.06.2011 a call was made on his mobile from the side of accused wherein they again extended threat to him. He made complaint of the same at 100 number. He further deposed that his sister committed suicide due to the physical and mental torture and demand of dowry made by the accused persons. He further deposed that he received dead body of his State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 14/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri sister vide memo Ex. PW1/G. He was duly crossexamined on behalf of accused persons.
PW2 Mr. A.K. Badal deposed that on 31.12.2009, he went to DDU hospital where dead body of Ms. Meenu was handed over to her brother Mr. Vivek Kumar in his presence after identification by the IO vide Ex.Pw2/A. PW3 ASI Babu Lal deposed that on 15.01.2010 on the direction of IO, he went to DDU hospital and collected PM report of deceased Meenu and handed over the same to IO.
PW4 Mr. Om Narayan deposed that Meenu, since deceased, was his niece(bhanji). She was married with accused Dilbagh about 6 7 months prior to her death. His niece Meenu was beaten by accused and he also used to demand dowry from her and specific demand for flat in Janak Puri was also made. His niece used to tell these facts to him. He further deposed that Meenu was a Govt. Lecturer and used to teach in some college in south Delhi. Meenu was residing at her parental house for about 1520 days prior to her death. On 30.12.2009, at about 9.00pm his sister namely Gaytri Devi, mother of deceased, came to his State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 15/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri house and she told him that Meenu had locked herself inside her room and she is not opening the door of the room. Thereafter he along with his sister mentioned above reached there and found the door of the room locked from the inside. He pushed the door but the same could not be opened. When the door was shaken repeatedly the inside 'chitkani' released, door was opened and they found Meenu hanging with ceiling fan inside the said room with the help of saree. They removed her from the sealing fan and immediately took her to a nearby nursing home where doctor advised them to remove her to DDU hospital. Thereafter she was taken to DDU hospital where she was declared dead. His statement Ex.PW4/A was recorded by Tehsildar and his statement was also recorded by the police in this case. He was duly crossexamined on behalf of accused persons.
PW5 Mr. K. Ramesh is former PA to Principal Kamla Nehru College and he proved leave application form dt. 08.08.2009 of deceased Meenu as Ex PW 5/A, covering letter bearing signatures of Principal as EX PW 5/B, leave application form dt. 04.08.2009 as Ex PW 5/C & application form dt. 08.08.2009 as Ex PW 5/D. State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 16/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri PW6 Mr. H.S. Dubey also deposed on the same line, with regard to leave application form of deceased Meenu, as deposed by PW5.
PW7 Mr. Arun Bharti deposed that on 30.12.2009 at about 9:00pm, on the asking of his father he accompanied him to the house of his Bua, from where he removed his cousin sister Ms. Meenu who was lying on the bed, to a near by nursing home situated in Sagar Pur from where he removed her to the DDU hospital in the car of Meenu, where doctors declared her dead. IO recorded his statement in this regard.
PW8 Sh. R.K. Saini deposed that on 31.12.2009, he was posted as Tehsildar, Patel Nagar, Delhi. On that day he received information from PS Janak Puri regarding the death of a lady namely Meenu. He further deposed that he went to the H. No. C5B/18C, Janak Puri, Delhi where he inspected the place of occurrence and he came to know that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the mortuary of DDU hospital. He recorded statement Ex PW 8/A of Smt. Gyatri Devi, mother of deceased. He also recorded statement Ex PW 4/A of Sh. Om Narayan, maternal uncle and statement Ex PW 8/B of Sh. Durga Prashad, father of the deceased. Thereafter, he gave direction to IO to take action as State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 17/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri per law and went to DDU hospital Mortuary where he conducted inquest proceeding vide Ex PW 10/C. Thereafter, the dead body of deceased was handed over to her family members through IO.
PW9 SI Sandeep Kumar deposed that on 30.12.2009, he was posted at PS Janak Puri as PSI. On that day after receiving DD no. 43 A to SI Ugesh Kumar, he accompanied him to DDU hospital where the dead body of deceased Smt. Meenu wife of Dilbagh had already been shifted to mortuary of DDU hospital. Thereafter they came back to spot i.e. house no. C5 B/18 C, Janak Puri. They inspected the place of occurrence at the spot. Thereafter crime team reached at the spot and inspected the place of occurrence. At the spot they came to know that deceased had died within seven years of her marriage and thereafter SI Ugesh informed SDM Patel Nagar in this regard on telephone. They found one red colour saree Ex.PX lying on the bed at the spot and the same was sealed by the IO in a pullanda with the seal of K S and was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex PW 1/B. PW10 Retd. SI Jai Singh is in charge mobile crime team and he deposed about the proceedings carried out by him at the spot on State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 18/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri 31.12.2009. He also proved his detailed report as Ex. PW 10/A. PW11 Smt. Gayatri Devi is mother of deceased and during her examination in court she deposed that deceased Meenu was her daughter and she was married with accused Dilbagh Singh about 4 years ago as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage her daughter started residing with accused Dilbagh Singh and after two four days she came to her house to meet them and started crying and told her that accused Dilbagh used to say her that she should hand over him three years income from salary and one flat should be given to him in Janak Puri. Further that Meenu told her that he will not spare her unless and until a flat is provided to him in Janak Puri. He (accused Dilbagh) also asked Meenu to get the car registered in his name. She further deposed that after some days when Dilbagh came to their house to take Meenu with him, she asked him as to why he was behaving in such a manner with her daughter and on this accused Dilbagh promised to not to repeat the above act in future and took Meenu with him. Further she deposed that they started residing separately in Delhi and accused again gave beatings to her daughter and who called her telephonically and thereafter her son went to State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 19/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri her house. Mother of Dilbagh was also there in his house and when she was inquired about what was going on, she replied that things will continue in the same manner until flat is given to her son Dilbagh. She further deposed that her daughter also informed that all the jewellery given to her in her marriage by them was taken by mother of Dilbagh. She had also gone to the house of her daughter Meeenu in Delhi, with her son Vivek and at that time her daughter wanted to come back with them but Dilbagh promised to behave properly and felt sorry to Meenu and she did not come with them. She further deposed that after some days Meenu came to their house and told them that Dilbagh used to abuse her, demand flat and pressurize her to register the car in his name. Thereafter Dilbagh came to take Meenu and told that he had changed the house and had taken a house in his college. Meenu asked him as to why she was not consulted before changing the house. Dilbagh replied that there was no need to consult her and also stated that she should ask her father to get a flat. They expressed their inability to purchase a flat for him due to their financial position. Dilbagh misbehaved with Meenu, father of Meenu and brother of Meenu in their house. He also tried to manhandle her husband State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 20/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri (father of Meenu) who was not well at that time. He again started feeling sorry and promised to not to repeat such act in future and thereafter Meenu and Dilbagh went to their house in Delhi. PW11 further deposed that after two three days, Dilbagh beat Meenu very badly and also tore her clothes and turned her out of his house and on this Meenu made a call to her and told the above facts, then her son and she went to the house of accused Dilbagh, where mother of Dilbagh met them and on inquiry she told them that the things will happen in the same manner until the flat is provide to Dilbagh. On inquiries, Dilbagh again felt sorry and gave one undertaking in writing and they came back. She further deposed that after some days her daughter was again beaten by accused Dilbagh, she and her son Vivek went to the house of accused and Police was also called. Meenu went inside the house and made a call to police. Second team of police reached there and took Dilbagh with them and they also went alongwith police. Dilbagh made a call to his brother and told that he was got arrested by Meenu and thereafter his brother asked Dilbagh to handover the phone to brother of Meenu and his brother requested her son to settle the dispute then and there and also stated that the matter shall be State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 21/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri discussed amicably. After that her daughter withdrew her complaint and they came back to their house alongwith Meenu. She further deposed that after some days Dilbagh came to their house and took Meenu with him and promised that no harm shall be caused to her but Meenu was again abused and beaten by Dilbagh. Thereafter Meenu came to their house and she stayed with them for about one month. Thereafter, Dilbagh came to their house to take Meenu six days before her death and immediately on entry to their house he stated 'Meenu tu mari nahi hai'. He also stated that 'tu mujhe shakal mat dikhana, mere ghar mat ana, tu yahi mar jana' and he came back to Delhi. Thereafter Meenu started remaining quite (gumshum) and she did not use to talk to them. She further deposed that on the day of incident she (PW11) had gone to temple at about 6.00pm and when she came back after about one hour, she inquired about Meenu and she was told that she was inside the room. She knocked at the door which was locked from inside. Her husband asked her to call her brother Sh. Om Narayan who is residing in their neighbourhood. She went to house of her brother and called him and he came with her to her house. Her brother shook the door forcefully and the 'kundi' got released and the State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 22/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri door was opened and her daughter Meenu was found hanging on ceiling fan with saree. Her brother removed her from fan and untied the saree and thereafter they took Meenu to a near by nursing home and doctor on duty there advice them to take her to DDU hospital. Thereafter they took her to DDU hospital where doctor after examining her declared her dead. She further deposed that her statement Ex. PW8/A was recorded by the SDM on next day. Police also recorded her statement in this case. She was duly crossexamined on behalf of accused persons.
PW12 Mr. Naveen Narang is a private photographer and he deposed that on 31.12.2009 on the request of IO/SI Ugesh Kumar, he went to the spot i.e C5B/18, Janakpuri and took four photographs of the spot with his digital camera. Further that after developing the photographs, he handed over the same to IO. He further deposed that original record i.e hard disk of the computer is not available with him.
PW13 HC. Jaswant Singh has produced DD No. 17A and 19A both dt. 13.09.2009 of P.S Maurice Nagar and proved the same as Ex.PW13/A & Ex.Pw13/B respectively.
PW14 Sh. Devak Ram, Retd. Assistant Director State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 23/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri (Documents), FSL, Rohini, Delhi deposed about examination of documents received in the laboratory vide memo No. 2922/SHO/Janak Puri dt. 17.06.2010. He proved his detailed report as Ex.PW14/A. PW15 HC Dinesh Kumar is duty officer of P.S Maurice Nagar who recorded DD No. 17A and DD No. 19A both dt. 13.09.2009 and proved both the DDs as Ex.PW15/A & Ex.Pw15/B respectively.
PW16 Retd. SI D.K. Singh deposed that on 13.09.2009, he was posted at P.S Maurice Nagar as SI and DD No. 17 A and DD No. 19 A were marked to him for investigation. Further he mentioned the details of action taken by him in above said DDs in DD No. 39B (Ex.PW16/A). He further deposed that both Meenu and Dilbagh Singh has compromised the matter and thereafter both the DDs were filed by him.
PW17 SI Ugesh Kumar is initial IO of this case and he deposed about further steps taken by him after receiving DD No. 43A.
PW18 Inspr. Prabhu Dayal deposed that on 31.12.2009, after registration of present FIR, investigation was entrusted to him as per the directions of senior officers. He further deposed in detail about the different steps taken by him during investigation on 31.12.2009, State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 24/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri 02.01.2010, 13.06.2010 & 20.11.2010.
PW19 DR. Rishi deposed on behalf of Dr. Ashish Arora regarding MLC No. 25341 dt 31.12.2009 dt. 30.12.2009 and proved the said MLC as Ex.PW19/A and identified the signatures of Dr. Ashish Arora at point A. PW20 Dr. Narayan Dabas deposed on behalf of Dr. Santosh Kumar regarding postmortem report no. 1480/09 dt. 31.12.2009. He proved postmortem report as Ex.PW20/A and identified the signatures of Dr. Santosh Kumar at point A. 10 To rebut the case of prosecution, the accused persons have also examined six witnesses including the accused Dilbag.
DW 1 Sh. Bharat Panwar is owner of H. No. 8A, DDA flats, ground floor, Shah Pur Jatt, New Delhi. He deposed that he let out the abovesaid house to accused Dilbagh on 0708 April 2009, it was let out prior to his marriage. He further deposed that he had attended the reception party of Dilbagh on 20.04.2009 at Ram Jas College. The accused Dilbagh and his wife resided in the said house for about two State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 25/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri months after their marriage and during this period he met them on four five occasions and the relations between Dilbagh and his wife were cordial and he did not see or notice any type of dispute or quarrel between them. The family members of wife of Dilbagh also used to visit the above mentioned tenanted house and her brother visited the said house even before their marriage on one occasion. He further deposed that he know that wife of Dilbagh was working as a lecture in Kamla Nehru College which is at a walking distance from above mentioned house and this fact was told to him by Dilbagh at the time of letting out. He was duly cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State.
DW 2, Sh. Raj Pal deposed that he is working as Lab Assistant, Physics Department in Ram Jas College and he know accused Dilbagh since the time he was posted as Section officer in their college, in the year 200809. On 30.12.2009, he received a telephonic call from accused Dilbagh at about 10:0010:30pm that his wife had committed suicide in her parental house. On 31.12.2009, he reached in the college in the morning and informed the other staff members about the incident and State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 26/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri thereafter they went to DDU hospital alongwith the other staff members. While they were present in the DDU hospital, there were a lot of people including the family members of the deceased. The mother of deceased wife of accused was saying to her son while crying that had he taken her (deceased Meenu) with him (PW1 Mr. Vivek) the incident would not have occurred. Dilbagh and his family members were also present there in the hospital at that time, he was also crying. He was duly cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State.
DW 3, Sh. Bal Kishan, deposed that he is working as Library attendant in Ram Jas College and he know accused Dilbagh since the time he was posted as Section officer in our college, in the year 2008. On 31.12.2009, when he reached in the college in the morning there was a news regarding commission of suicide by wife of Dilbagh. Thereafter, they, about 1012 staff members, went to DDU hospital where family members of Dilbagh and family members of deceased were present. In the hospital he heard one lady who was probably the mother of deceased, saying " Vivek agar tu Meenu ko apne sath le jata to yeh ghatna nahi State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 27/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri hoti". He further deposed that they remained there till the postmortem was conducted, thereafter, they went to the nearby cremation ground where the dead body of deceased wife of Dilbagh was cremated and they left the spot after the cremation. He was duly crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for State.
Accused Dilbagh examined himself as DW 4 and deposed that he was married with deceased Meenu on 18.04.2009, through one matrimonial advertisement dt. 14.12.2008 published in Nav Bharart Times. Certified copy of the relevant page of the news paper and one enlarged print of the advertisement is already available on record as mark B(two pages). As per advertisement it was specified that the marriage will be 'no dowry marriage'. On 20.04.2009 he hosted a reception party in Ramjas College and this reception party was attended by his family members, his staff members, his friends and family members of his wife i.e. her brother Vivek, her Sister, husband of her sister, her cousin namely Arun Kumar (son of her Mama), her Mama namely Sh. Om Naryan & Mr. A.K. Badal, adv. (who is friend of Vivek). He further deposed that on the night of 20.04.2009, Vivek and Arun went to his house at Shah Pur Jat State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 28/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri alongwith his wife at about 2:002:30am. He had already taken a house on rent in Shah Pur Jat some days prior to his marriage as it was at a walking distance from Kamla Nehru College where his wife was posted as Lecturer. After few days of marriage he took Meenu to Manali for tourism. His mother has never stayed with him in Delhi and she is residing permanently with his elder brother at Village Kailana and thereafter at Sonipat when she was seriously ill. He further deposed that his mother is suffering from Cancer and under going treatment from Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi. In June 2009 he was alloted a type III accommodation in Ramjas college and he alongwith his wife started residing there. He was having cordial relations with his wife and there has been no dispute or quarrel between them at any point of time. He further deposed that he never made a demand for a flat at Janak Puri to Meenu or her family nor he harassed her either mentally or physically at any point of time. He never asked for transferring the car of Meenu in his name nor he ever used the said car. The said car is with the family members of Meenu from the date of marriage till date. Meenu used to remain ill usually after the marriage and he got her treated from near by Hospital on several State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 29/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri occasions. She also used to get treatment on some occasions from Mehta Nursing Home and Kartik Nursing Home in Janak Puri. He further deposed that he has obtained the record pertaining to medical leaves taken by Meenu from her college i.e. Kamla Nehru College under RTI and proved the copies of the leave applications and medical certificate etc. as Ex DW 4/A (colly, seven pages). He further deposed that on 04.11.2009 the health of Meenu deteriorated suddenly when she was at his house and he took her to his panel hospital i.e. Sant Parmanand hospital at Civil lines where she was examined by Lady doctor, Dr. Arbinder Dang and it was informed that Meenu was having pregnancy of eight weeks and she was advised to take extra care and to avoid heavy movement. He further deposed that in the month of November 2009, Meenu had gone to Janak Puri for shopping and marriage arrangement for marriage of her brother Mr. Vivek. Invitation card Ex.PW1/D2 of said marriage was received by him as well as his family and he attended the said marriage alongwith his friend namely Pawan. He did not visit the parental house of Meenu on 24.12.2009 and on that day he was attending his duty in college and proved attested copy of his attendance register as Ex DW 4/B. He further State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 30/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri deposed that on 24.12.2009 at about 4:004:30pm when he was present in his college he was suffering from loose motions and vomiting. He proved original prescription slip of doctor dt. 24.12.2009 and 29.01.2010 as Ex DW 4/C & 4/D. He further deposed that on 30.12.2009 at about 8:309:00pm he received a telephonic call from Sh. Om Narayan who is maternal uncle of Meenu, that condition of Meenu was very bad and they were taking her to near by hospital. Thereafter, he and his family members left for Janak Puri and when they were on the way they were asked to reach DDU hospital and then they reached at DDU hospital. He further deposed that on 31.12.2009, he, his family members and his staff members including Sh. Raj Pal, Sh. Bal Kishan, Sh. P. R. Thakur, Sh. Suresh and others reached at DDU hospital in the morning. They all remained present there during postmortem and cremation which was done at about 4:004:30pm. In the meantime he came to know that while the postmortem was being conducted at DDU hospital, the mother of his wife was heard saying while crying that "Vivek agar tu apni behan ko apne sath le jata to wo aisa kadam na uthati". He further deposed that he also came to know that brother of his wife namely Mr. Vivek was State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 31/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri planning to go for tourism alongwith his wife and Meenu had asked him to take her with them and wife of Vivek had refused by saying " agar tu aisi ghumne wali thi, to apne pati ke sath ghumti". He further deposed that on 09.01.2010 Vivek had made a complaint to police that he and his family members were threating him and his family members but said complaint was found to be false by police after inquiry. Again on 26.04.2011, Mr. Vivek again made a complaint to police that he had received a telephonic call from someone in Faiz Bazzar Sonipat and he was threated, the said complaint was also found to be false by police after inquiry. He proved the information received by him from the office of Addl. DCP under RTI as Ex DW 4/E. He further deposed that the reason why Meenu committed suicide was immediate refusal of his brother to take her for tourism alongwith his wife. He further deposed that he was having cordial relations with his wife and there was no dispute of any kind between them. She was very well when she went to her parental home from his house. He was duly crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for State.
DW 5, Dr. Arbinder Dang deposed that she is working with State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 32/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri Sant Parmanand Hospital since September 2004. On 04.11.2009 one patient namely Meenu was examined by her in the said hospital, she was having pregnancy of about eight weeks and treatment was prescribed vide prescription slip Ex DW 5/A which is in her hand writing and bears her signature at point A. She further deposed that she also issued certificate dt. 23.01.2010 Ex.DW5/B regarding the above described examination and treatment prescribed by her. She further deposed that it was the only visit of the patient to their hospital and no record is available in the hospital. She was duly crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for State.
DW 6, Dr. Tanvir Aeijaz, Senior Assistant Professor, Ramjas College, Delhi University, Delhi deposed that he is working in Ramjas College on the above post. He was hostel warden from July 2009 to June 2011. His residence was in the college hostel and accused Dilbagh was residing with his wife in staff quarter in front of the warden's residence. The relations between accused and his wife were cordial. The family members of the accused and those of his wife used to visit at the said residence. Sometimes he used to call accused Dilbagh for assistance during hostel inspection in the night. No dispute or quarrel of any kind State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 33/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri ever took place in his presence or knowledge between accused and his wife. He further deposed that on 05.11.2009, his daughter was admitted in Sant Parmanand Hospital and while she was in ICU, Dilbagh and his wife had come there to see his daughter on 08/09.11.2009. He further deposed that he was shocked when he heard the news about suicide committed by wife of Dilbagh. He was duly crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for State. Appreciation of Evidence 11 In the present matter there are allegations of cruelty, harassment, dowry death and criminal breach of trust against the accused persons. It is alleged that deceased Meenu was subjected to dowry demands and cruelty by the accused Dilbag and Smt. Daya Devi who are husband and mother inlaw respectively of the deceased and that as a result of such cruelty/demands, the deceased committed suicide. It is also alleged that the Istridhan articles of the deceased have been misappropriated by the accused persons. Charges u/s 498A/304B/406/34 IPC have been framed. State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 34/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09
P.S Janak Puri 12 Before proceeding further, it will not be out of place to have a reference to the terminology of the relevant provisions invoked against the accused persons.
Section 498A IPC. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty "Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means
(a) any wildful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the women where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand".
State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 35/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09
P.S Janak Puri Section 304B IPC. Dowry Death (1) "Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, on in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life".
Section 406 IPC, Punishment for criminal breach of trust "Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both".
14 On the basis of facts of the case and the above mentioned provisions of law the prosecution has the obligation to prove following ingredients/facts to bring home the guilt against the accused persons. State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 36/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09
P.S Janak Puri A) That death of deceased Meenu was caused or it occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances.
B) That the death was within seven years of her marriage. C) That soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons.
D) That such cruelty and harassment was in connection with any demand of dowry.
E) That the accused persons dishonestly misappropriated the Istridhan articles of the deceased.
15 Now, the above mentioned ingredients/facts shall be discussed in light of the evidence adduced by the parties. Ingredients A & B. A) That death of deceased Meenu was caused or it occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances.
B) That the death was within seven years of her marriage.
It is well proved with the help of medical witnesses and other witnesses that the deceased Meenu committed suicide which cannot be said as a normal death and clearly the death of deceased Meenu has occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances. As per postmortem report of the deceased the cause of action has been explained as 'asphyxia from antemortem ligature hanging and the manner of death is opined as suicidal', which shows that the deceased Meenu has committed suicide by hanging. Further it is also not disputed that the death has occurred within State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 37/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri seven years of the marriage of the deceased and infact the same has happened in the same year. So, ingredients A & B stand duly proved on record and the same are infact not disputed at all. Ingredients C & D. C) That soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons. D) That such cruelty and harassment was in connection with any demand of dowry.
16 The law demands that before convicting a person for the offences mentioned above, it should be established that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment related to dowry demands and such cruelty and harassment was there soon before her death. The prosecution has relied upon several facts and circumstances to show that deceased Meenu was subjected to dowry demands, cruelty and harassment before her death which resulted into commission of suicide by her on 30.12.2009. The various circumstances referred by the prosecution/prosecution witnesses are being discussed one by one in detail:
a) Marriage of the deceased
16.a It is not a disputed fact that the marriage of deceased Meenu was solemnized with accused Dilbagh on 18.04.2009 on the basis of State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 38/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri newspaper advertisement. PW1 Vivek (brother) and PW11 Smt. Gayatri Devi (mother), who are family members of the deceased have admitted this fact during crossexamination. During crossexamination of PW1 Mr. Vivek Kumar, who is brother of the deceased, he has been shown the copy of newspaper and newspaper advertisement i.e Mark B. Though the copies of newspaper and advertisement have not been proved as per law but the same have also not been denied and in one sense same are admitted by the PW1. As an over all effect, it can be said that the documents Mark B are the genuine copies of the newspaper advertisement on the basis of which marriage of accused Dilbagh and deceased Meenu was finalized. As per contents of the newspaper advertisement, the marriage was supposed to be a dowry less marriage. Otherwise also, there is no claim on part of PW1, PW4 and PW11, who are brother, Mama and mother respectively of the deceased that there was any dowry demand at the time of marriage or if any dowry was given in the marriage. On the basis material available on record, it can safely be concluded that the marriage of the deceased was a dowry less marriage and there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage and if any goods/articles were State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 39/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri given by the parents of the deceased, the same could be out of love and affection and not due to demand by accused persons or their family members.
b) The alleged incident of harassment etc. occurred after few days of marriage.
16.b It is case of the prosecution that the accused persons started harassing the deceased Meenu from the very inception after her marriage and it is alleged that after only few days of her marriage the deceased was subjected to cruelty.
It is deposed by PW1 that after some time (of marriage) when his sister came to their house she told him and her parents that accused Dilbag used to abuse and beat her. They tried to conciliate the matter. The accused promised not to repeat such act and he took the sister of PW1 to her place of residence.
In this regard, PW11 stated that after 24 days she (Meenu) came to her parental house and started crying and told that Dilbagh used to say her that she should hand over him three years income from salary State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 40/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri and that one flat should be given to him in Janak Puri. Further that he will not spare her unless and until a flat is provided to him in Janak Puri and that he also asked her to get the car registered in his name.
PW4 Sh. Om Narayan is maternal uncle of deceased and he has also leveled certain allegations but he has not deposed about any particular incident and the facts deposed by him are very general in nature.
If statements of PW1 & PW11 who are the only witnesses who have deposed in this regard, are analyzed, it reveals that there are several and material improvements in the same if compared with the earlier statements of these witnesses recorded by the SDM/police i.e Ex.PW1/DX1, PW1/DX2, PW1/DX3 and Ex.PW8/A to which the witnesses have been duly confronted during crossexamination. There are contradictions also in between the testimonies of PW1 & PW11 on this aspect. The PW1 does not talk about demand of flat and car by the accused while PW11 has referred to such demands while deposing about the above incident.
Further, there is no specific mention about this incident in the statements recorded by the SDM on the basis of which the present case State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 41/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri was registered. Further, there is no independent witness or document to corroborate the above allegations levelled by PW1 & PW11 who are family members of the deceased and have every reason to depose in a particular manner against the accused persons.
So, it is clear that the allegations regarding the alleged incident after few days of marriage are not established on record by reliable evidence.
c) The alleged incident of May 2009 16.c It is also the case of the prosecution that the deceased Meenu
was subjected to cruelty and dowry demand by accused Dilbag when she visited her parental home in the month of May 2009.
In this regard, PW1 has stated that thereafter again there was quarrel and his sister came to their house in month of May 2009 and remained there for one month and in that duration also the accused came to their house and abused her sister. Further that without disclosing to her sister, the accused shifted all the household articles at Quarter no. 4, Staff quarters, Ramjas College, Delhi University. State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 42/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09
P.S Janak Puri In this regard, a reference is there in the statement of PW11, though there is no date, month and time, that after some days, Meenu came to their house and told them that Dilbag used to abuse her, demand flat and pressurize her to register the car in his name. Further that Dilbag came to take Meenu and told that he had changed the house and had taken a house in his college. Meenu asked as to why she was not consulted before changing the house and Dilbag replied that there was no need for consulting her and also stated that she should ask her father to give a flat. Further that they expressed their inability to purchase a flat for him due to their financial position. Further that Dilbag misbehaved with PW11, father of deceased Meenu and brother of Meenu in their house and also tried to manhandle the father of the deceased. PW11 further stated that accused Dilbagh started feeling sorry and promised to not to repeat the act in future and thereafter Meenu and Dilbagh went to their house in Delhi.
If statements of PW1 & PW11, who are the only witnesses who have deposed in this regard, are analyzed, it reveals that there are several and material improvements in the same if compared with the earlier statements of these witnesses recorded by the SDM/police i.e State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 43/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri Ex.PW1/DX1, PW1/DX2, PW1/DX3 and Ex.PW8/A to which the witnesses have been duly confronted during crossexamination. Further there is no specific mention in the statements recorded by the SDM about the incident. There are contradictions also in between the testimonies of PW1 & PW11 on this aspect. The PW1 does not talk about demand of flat and car by the accused while PW11 has referred to such demands while deposing about the above incident. Also, there is no independent witness or document to corroborate the above allegations levelled by PW1 & PW11 who are family members of the deceased and have every reason to depose against the accused persons.
In such circumstances, it can be concluded that the evidence about the incident dt. May 2009 is not clear, specific or conclusive.
d) The alleged incident dt. 19.06.2009 16.d It is one of the main allegations that on 19.06.2009, the
deceased Meenu was subjected to cruelty and dowry demand by the accused persons.
In this regard, it is stated by PW1 that in the month of June State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 44/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri 2009 his sister again joined the accused at quarter no. 4, Staff Quarters, Ramjas College, Delhi University. That on 19.06.2009, the accused picked quarrel with his sister and he had beaten her. Further that his sister made a call to them and stated that she was beaten by accused and her cloths were torn and she was turned out of his house. Further that thereafter PW1 alongwith his mother Smt. Gayatri Devi i.e PW11 went to the Quarter No. 4 mentioned above and the accused repented his action and promised not to repeat this kind of behaviour in future and he also wrote down a letter to this effect which is Ex.PW1/A. In this regard, if statement of PW11 is perused, it is found mentioned without any specific reference to date and time that after 23 days accused Dilbag beat Meenu very badly and also torn her cloths and turned her out of his house. Further that Meenu made a call to PW11 and told the above facts, thereafter PW11 and PW1 went to the house of accused Dilbag where mother of Dilbag met them and on inquiry she told that the things will happen in the same manner until the flat is provided to Dilbag. Further that on inquiries, accused Dilbag felt sorry and gave one undertaking in writing and they came back.
State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 45/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09
P.S Janak Puri If statements of PW1 & PW11 are analyzed, it reveals that there are again several and material improvements in the same if compared with the earlier statements of these witnesses recorded by the SDM/police i.e Ex.PW1/DX1, PW1/DX2, PW1/DX3 and Ex.PW8/A to which the witnesses have been duly confronted during cross examination. Further there is no specific mention in the statements recorded by the SDM in this regard. There are also contradictions in between the testimonies of PW1 & PW11 on this aspect. The PW1 does not talk about any dowry demand on that day while PW11 has referred to such demands while deposing about the above incident. Further the PW11 has talked about presence of the mother of accused Dilbag i.e accused Daya Devi at the house of accused Dilbag on that day and certain things spoken by her but PW1 has not uttered a single word either about the presence of accused Daya Devi or any such demands made by her.
The prosecution has relied upon document Ex.PW1/A, which is stated to be the apology letter written by accused Dilbag on 19.06.2009 but this document is of no consequences as neither the same has been admitted nor the same has been proved as per law. The report of the State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 46/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri handwriting expert i.e PW14 Sh. Devak Ram is not conclusive in this respect. PW14 has reported/stated that the questioned writing signatures Mark Q6 is freely written while the specimen writing/signatures Mark S1 to S15 are formal in execution and as such it has not been possible to fix the authorship of Q6 in comparison with S1 to S15 in the absence of admitted writing/signatures of the person concerned. Further, there is no corroborative evidence in form of independent witness regarding the writing/execution of the document Ex.PW1/A. Further there is no police complaint of any kind of the above mentioned incident and there is also no call detail record which could corroborate that PW1 and PW11 actually visited the house of accused on that day. Further there is no independent witness to corroborate the above allegations levelled by PW1 & PW11 who are family members of the deceased and can be termed as interested witnesses.
On the basis of above discussion, it can be said that there is no clear and conclusive evidence to prove the allegations dt. 19.06.2009.
e) The alleged incident dt. 13.09.2009. State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 47/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri 16.e It is alleged that on 13.09.2009, the accused Dilbag again
beat his wife deceased Meenu and a call was made to police at 100 number and the matter was ultimately compromised.
In this regard, PW1 Mr. Vivek Kumar has deposed that on 13.09.2009, the accused (Dilbagh) again beat his sister. His sister made a call at 100 number and also told about the same to them. When they reached at the house of his sister, the police had already arrived. His sister again called at 100 number and PCR officials and local police reached at the spot and accused was taken to P.S Maurice Nagar. PW1 alongwith his sister and mother went to P.S Maurice Nagar where the deceased Meenu made a statement before the police and the accused again compromised the matter at the P.S on the intervention of the brother of the accused. Further that on that day the PW1 had brought his sister to his house where she remained for some days and thereafter she accompanied the accused to her matrimonial house.
In this regard, PW11 Smt. Gayatri Devi stated without any reference to date, month or time that after some days her daughter was again beaten by accused Dilbag and then she alongwith her son PW1 State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 48/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri went to house of accused. Police was called. Meenu went inside the house and made a call to police and then second team of police reached there and took Dilbag with them. PW1 & PW11 also went alongwith police. Further that accused Dilbag made a call to his brother and told that he was got arrested by Meenu. His brother asked Dilbag to handover the phone to brother of Meenu i.e PW1 and requested to settle the dispute then and there and also stated that the matter shall be discussed amicably. Thereafter, deceased Meenu withdrew her complaint and the PW1 alongwith PW11 came back to their house alongwith Meenu.
If statements of PW1 & PW11, are analyzed, it reveals that there are several and material improvements in the same if compared with the earlier statements of these witnesses recorded by the SDM/police i.e Ex.PW1/DX1, PW1/DX2, PW1/DX3 and Ex.PW8/A to which the witnesses have been duly confronted during crossexamination. Further there is no specific mention in the statements recorded by the SDM about this incident. Further there are contradictions in between the testimonies of PW1 & PW11 on this aspect.
PW13 HC Jaswant Singh, PW15 HC Dinesh Kumar and State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 49/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri PW16 SI D.K. Singh are witnesses from P.S Maurice Nagar, where the alleged dispute dt. 13.09.2009 was reported. The witnesses have proved DD No. 17A, 19A & DD 39B all dt. 13.09.2009 which are Ex.PW15/A, PW15/B and Ex.PW16/A respectively. If the contents of above mentioned police entries are perused, there is no reference to any dowry related issue. The PW16 has also admitted during his crossexamination that the dispute between Meenu and Dilbag was just a husband and wife dispute on petty issues. He further explained that it was an ego issue and that it was not related to dowry demand. It is also clear from the statement of PW16 that no medical examination was done on that day and nobody was injured and the matter was amicably settled as both the parties agreed to live with each other.
So, in the given circumstances, the incident dt. 13.09.2009 cannot be taken as an incident of cruelty or harassment relating to dowry demands.
f) The incident dt. 28.11.2009. 16.f It is case of the prosecution that due to ill treatment by State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 50/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri
accused, the deceased Meenu had come to her parental house on 28.11.2009 and remained there till her death on 30.12.2009. On the other hand, the case of the defense in this regard is that she had gone there for attending the marriage of her brother i.e PW1, which was to be solemnized on 02.12.2009.
It is not disputed on record that the marriage of PW1 Mr. Vivek Kumar, who is brother of deceased was solemnized on 02.12.2009 and the engagement ceremony was held on 30.11.2009. In view of the proximity between the date of coming of deceased Meenu to her parental home and the date of marriage functions, the explanation given on behalf of the accused can not be termed as baseless. The explanation given by the accused seems to be quite natural and genuine.
g) The incident dt. 24.12.2009. 16.g It is case of prosecution that when the deceased Meenu was
staying at her parental home since 28.11.2009, the accused Dilbagh had come there on 24.12.2009 i.e about one week prior to her death and abused her in presence of her family members due to which deceased Meenu started remaining silent/disturbed/perturbed and ultimately State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 51/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri committed suicide on 30.12.2009.
In this regard, it is deposed by PW1 that on 24.12.2009, the accused Dilbag came to their house and abused her sister and also demanded a flat in Janakpuri. Further that the accused Dilbag used to threaten his sister (deceased Meenu) that he will get him (PW1) and his father killed. Further that PW1 tried to conciliate the matter but the accused did not pay any heed and thereafter left their house. Further it is deposed by PW1 that his sister used to remain perturbed and silent most of the times and finally on 30.12.2009, she committed suicide.
PW11 Smt. Gayatri Devi deposed in this regard that Dilbag came to their house to take Meenu six days before her death and immediately on entering their house, he stated " Meenu tu mari nahi hai". He also stated that "tu mujhe sakal mat dikhana, mere ghar mat anna, tu yahi maar jana" and thereafter he came back. Further that thereafter Meenu started remaining quite (gumsum) and she did not used to talk to them.
If statements of PW1 & PW11 who are the only witnesses who have deposed in this regard, are analyzed, it reveals that there are State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 52/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri several and material improvements in the same if compared with the earlier statements of these witnesses recorded by the SDM/police i.e Ex.PW1/DX1, PW1/DX2, PW1/DX3 and Ex.PW8/A to which the witnesses have been duly confronted during crossexamination. Further there are contradictions in between the testimonies of PW1 & PW11 on this aspect. The PW1 talks about demand of flat by the accused Dilbag on 24.12.2009 while PW11 has not referred to any such demands while deposing about the above incident. Further PW11 has described the alleged words used by the accused Dilbag on 24.12.2009 but on the other hand, the PW1 has not specified any such words. It is also strange that on the one hand, the PW11 says that Dilbag had come to their house for taking Meenu and on the other hand as per PW11 the accused used the language as mentioned above. If he had come there to take Meenu, why would he use such a language.
Further there is no specific mention of these facts in the statements recorded by the SDM and there is also no independent witness or document to corroborate the above allegations levelled by PW1 & PW11 who are family members of the deceased and have every reason to State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 53/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri depose against the accused persons being interested witnesses.
Neither PW1 nor PW11 have mentioned the time when accused Dilbag allegedly visited their house on 24.12.2009. To controvert/disprove the contention of the complainant, the accused has examined himself as DW4 and deposed that on 24.12.2009 he was attending his duty in college. He tendered the copy of attendance register Ex.DW4/B. He further explained that on 24.12.2009 at about 04.0004.30 pm when he was present in his college, he was suffering from loose motion and vomiting and he also tendered medical documents Ex.DW4/C & DW4/D. Though, one general suggestion has been given to accused regarding the medical documents and attendance sheet being fabricated and manipulated ones but there is no positive material to disprove these documents. In absence of any specific timing of alleged visit of accused Dilbag at the house of complainant on 24.12.2009, given by PW1 & PW11, the explanation given by the accused cannot be discarded straight way.
In view of above discussion, the allegations regarding alleged visit of accused Dilbag at the parental home of the deceased on State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 54/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri 24.12.2009 have been found to be baseless and the same have remained unproved.
h) The suicide note dt. 28.06.2009 (Ex.PW1/E1)
16.h As per case of prosecution, the PW1 Vivek Kumar handed over one written note dt. 28.06.2009 of deceased Meenu to the IO on 02.01.2010 vide Ex.PW1/E. The said written note is Ex.PW1/E1 and it is submitted on behalf of prosecution that the said document is the suicide note of the deceased and the allegations against the accused are established by the contents of the said document.
The document Ex.PW1/E1 is a handwritten note running into five pages and the same is purported to be written by deceased Meenu on 28.06.2009. In the said note several allegations regarding cruelty and dowry demand have been mentioned against the accused persons, particularly against accused Dilbag. The veracity of this document is quite necessary to be tested for the purpose of analyzing the allegations against the accused persons.
The PW1 in his statement deposed without reference to the State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 55/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri date of handing over of the document that the same was seized by police vide memo Ex.PW1/E. During his crossexamination he explained that the Ex.PW1/E1 was found in the book of political science pertaining to his sister lying on her study table. As per own case of PW1, he was at Chittorgarh, Rajasthan at the time of incident and he came back on the next day in the morning i.e on 31.12.2009. The seizure memo of above mentioned written note is dt. 02.01.2010.
As per statement of PW1 the suicide note Ex.PW1/E1 was found in the house of the complainant itself where the deceased had committed suicide and it was found from the book lying on the study table. It is alleged on behalf of accused that the document Ex.PW1/E1 is a forged and fabricated document which has been manipulated by PW1 who is brother of deceased and an advocate by profession. A reference is made to the statement of PW9 SI Sandeep Kumar and PW17 SI Ugesh Kumar, who have deposed that at the time of their visit at the spot on 30.12.2009, they had searched/inspected the spot minutely for quite some time but no suicide note was found there. In such circumstances, the recovery of the suicide note Ex.PW1/E1 in itself is under doubts. State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 56/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09
P.S Janak Puri The document Ex.PW1/E1 was also got examined/compared by the handwriting expert PW14 Sh. Devak Ram who tendered his report Ex.PW14/A. As per his report certain similarities were found in the questioned English writing on Mark Q1 to Q5 on Ex.PW1/E1 and the admitted English writing of deceased Meenu but it was not possible to given any opinion on Hindi Writing on Mark Q1 to Q5 of the Ex.PW1/E1 in the absence of Hindi writing of person concerned. In this regard, PW1 stated that the IO has never demanded the specimen Hindi handwriting of the deceased on the other hand, the IO has deposed that he several times asked about the specimen handwriting of Meenu in Hindi but neither PW1 nor any other person supplied the same. Further, PW14 Sh. Devak Ram in his crossexamination stated that he had given the similarities in question as well as standard English writing but being limited material only indicative opinion could be given in this case. In such circumstances, it can be said that the report of the handwriting expert is not conclusive either qua English writing or qua Hindi Writing in Ex.PW1/E1.
Further the suicide note Ex.PW1/E1 is dt. 28.06.2009 while State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 57/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri the death has occurred on 30.12.2009 i.e after more than six months from the date of writing of the note. Several developments had taken place during the period of six months as the accused and the deceased lived together and even attended the engagement ceremony of PW1 also. It is also there on record that the deceased Meenu was detected with pregnancy of several weeks when examined by doctor on 04.11.2009. DW5 Dr. Arbinder Dang, Senior Consultant, Gyne, Sant Parmanand Hospital deposed that on 04.11.2009, the patient namely Meenu was examined and she was having pregnancy of about eight weeks and treatment was prescribed vide Ex.DW5/A. She has also endorsed the certificate dt. 23.01.2010 in this regard i.e Ex.DW5/B. These documents have been brought on record by the accused and endorsed by the concerned doctor and it can be assumed that it was the deceased Meenu who was examined by DW5 on 04.11.2009 and pregnancy was detected. The factum of the pregnancy of deceased has in one sense mitigated the impact/effect of the suicide note dt. 28.06.2009 which has otherwise not been proved as per law as discussed above. There is total lack of live link and proximity between the note Ex.PW1/E1 and the commission of suicide by the State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 58/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri deceased.
So, in view of above discussion, much reliance cannot be placed upon the document Ex.PW1/E1.
Conclusions qua facts/ingredients no. C & D 17 In view of discussions under above circumstances, it is clear that the material brought on record by the prosecution including the statements of the different witnesses has not been able to establish that deceased Meenu was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry by the accused persons.
There were no allegations regarding dowry demands in any of the statements of the relatives of deceased recorded by the SDM and it seems that the facts have been twisted subsequently to give a different dimension to the case. The case put forward by the prosecution by way of chargesheet has remained unproved as per legal requirement during trial. The witnesses other than PW1, PW4 & PW11 are incidental witnesses who are not directly related to the allegations. PW4 has deposed in very State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 59/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri general terms and his statement lacks specification. The contradictory, improvised and uncorroborated testimonies of PW1 & PW11 are not sufficient to prove the allegations against the accused persons. There is total lack of definite and specific evidence qua demand of dowry or cruelty/harassment related to such demand.
The evidence brought on record shows at the most that there was some conflict between husband and wife but the same does not fall within the ambit of cruelty and harassment. If the instances of conflict are interpreted liberally and it is assumed for a moment that it tantamounts to cruelty and harassment, the same is not at all related to demand of dowry. Further such cruelty and harassment was not soon before death of deceased as required by law. There is no definite evidence to show dowry demands on part of the accused persons or cruelty and harassment related to such demands soon before the death of deceased Meenu. 18 The phrase 'soon before her death' as used in section 304B IPC and section 113B The Evidence Act has not been defined anywhere as such but the different superior courts have interpreted the phrase from time to time. In State vs. Anoop Singh vs. Ors. 2011 III AD (Delhi) State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 60/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri 308, it has been observed that: "The expression (soon before her death) is a relative term which requires to be considered under facts and circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time limit . In some cases it can be a few days, few weeks and in some cases a couple of months. Yet there must be proximity between death and the cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry".
The Hon'ble Supre Court in Pathan Hussain Basha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2012 SC 3205, while dealing with the concept and meaning of phrase 'soon before her death, has observed that;
"We are of the view that the concept of reasonable time is the best criteria to be applied for appreciation and examination of such cases. This court in Tarsem Singh vs. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 155 held that the legislative object in providing such a State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 61/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri radius of time by employing the words 'soon before her death' is to emphasize the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, has been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a reasonable, if not direct, nexus between her death and dowry related cruelty or harassment inflicted on her".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2010 (1) SCC 750 has observed that; " In State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal & Anr., (1994) 1 SCC 73, this court has cautioned that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had infact induced her to end the life by committing suicide.......".
If the evidence available on record is analyzed in light of above guidelines/observations of the superior courts, it is clear that the State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 62/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri prosecution has not been able to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment related to dowry soon before her death. In the case in hand, the prosecution has actually failed to prove even cruelty and harassment against the deceased much less the dowry related cruelty or harassment and that too soon before the death of deceased Meenu. 19 It is argued on behalf of prosecution that the accused persons are liable to be convicted by virtue of the presumption laid down under section 113 B of The Evidence Act. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of accused persons that in the given facts and circumstances, the said presumption is not there in force/operation against the accused persons.
As per section 113 B of the Evidence Act, there is one presumption against the accused persons in cases related to dowry death. Section 113B is being reproduced herein below for ready reference, which runs as follows; State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 63/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri Section 113B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
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 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 caused the dowry death".
The presumption u/s 113B of the Evidence Act comes into operation when it is proved that the deceased woman was subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with any demand of dowry. In the present matter, as discussed above, it has not been established that deceased Meenu was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry. So, there does not arise any question of coming into operation the presumptions u/s 113B of Evidence Act.
Further, it is an admitted fact that deceased Meenu was at her parental house for more than one month prior to her death and during this period of about one month the accused persons were not in picture and the State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 64/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri things were actually not in their direct control. There can be numerous reasons which could have forced the deceased to take such an extreme step. It was the duty of the investigating agency to unearth the truth but the IO has not properly investigated the matter and it seems that he has relied heavily on the version of complainant and presumptions attached with the offence u/s 304B IPC r/w section 113 B Evidence Act. It is not investigated as to what actually happened between 28.11.2009 and 30.12.2009. The presumption u/s 113B Evidence Act is a rebutable presumption. Though, the basic requirement for invoking the presumption u/s 113B Evidence Act have not been fulfilled as discussed earlier, the said presumption has been otherwise rebutted to a great extent by the fact itself that the deceased Meenu was at her parental home for more than one month. The other lacunas/deficiencies in the case of prosecution have done the rest for the accused persons. 20 It is explained on behalf of accused that deceased Meenu might have committed suicide as she wanted to go with her brother and Bhabhi for tourism but she was not taken with them. In this regard, the accused has examined DW2 Sh. Rajpal and DW3 Sh. Balkishan who deposed that they attended the postmortem and cremation of deceased State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 65/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri Meenu and they overheard the mother of the deceased saying to her son Vivek (PW1) " Vivek agar tu Meenu ko apne sath le jata to yeh ghatna nahi hoti". Since, there is no detailed investigation about the things happened at the parental house of the deceased from 28.11.2009 to 30.12.2009, the above explanation given by the accused cannot be simply rejected. 21 There is ample evidence on record to show that the relations between accused Dilbag and deceased Meenu were generally cordial. Admittedly, the accused had taken a house on rent which was at a walking distance from the workplace of deceased i.e Kamla Nehru College. The accused Dilbag had admittedly gone to Manali in Himachal Pradesh with deceased Meenu after their marriage for tourism/honeymoon. The land lord (DW1) and neighbourer (DW6) have deposed categorically that the relations between accused Dilbag and his wife Meenu were cordial. Further she has stayed with accused Dilbag for a considerable period of time from the date of her marriage till her death. Further she was pregnant at one point of time as discussed above in light of the testimony of DW5. State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 66/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09
P.S Janak Puri 22 Further there was no complaint at any point of time that deceased Meenu was subjected to dowry demands till her death. The conduct of accused persons on the date of death of Meenu is also not unusual. The accused was informed about the health of deceased Meenu by her maternal uncle PW4 just after the incident and there is evidence that accused Dilbag, his family members and friends reached at the hospital on 30.12.2009 itself and they also remained present at hospital during postmortem of deceased Meenu and also during her cremation. 23 The possibility of manipulation of things after recording of statements by the SDM cannot be ruled out because PW1 Vivek Kumar who is brother of deceased was not probably present at the spot when statements of mother, father and maternal uncle of the deceased were recorded by the SDM. PW1 claims to be present there but his claim seems to be doubtful as his statement would have been definitely recorded by the SDM if he was present at the spot. Further, if he was present at the spot, it is not explained as to why he did not offer himself for recording of his statement by SDM, particularly when he claims to be witness to all the State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 67/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09 P.S Janak Puri alleged incidents of cruelty/harassment etc. Admittedly, the PW1 was at Chittorgarh with his wife at the time of incident and he reached Delhi only on next day i.e 31.12.2009. It is reflected from the record that PW1 might have reached only after recording of statements by the SDM and the things were, thereafter twisted to give a different colour. The bonafide of the PW1 has been challenged by the defense as it is claimed that he is indulged in making of false complaints as his complaints dt. 09.01.2010 and 26.04.2011 regarding threats were found to be false. In this regard, the accused persons have relied upon the reply received from the office of Addl. DCP under RTI i.e Ex.DW4/E. 24 The complainant has also tried to discredit the accused Dilbag by referring to the contents of different application/bail applications filed by him in different courts where some contradictory facts and inconsistent pleas are mentioned. However, the documents relied upon by the complainant do not lead anywhere and much importance can not be given to the same as an accused in a criminal trial has every right to take alternate as well as inconsistent pleas.
State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 68/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09
P.S Janak Puri 25 There were no allegations of dowry demand in the statements recorded by the SDM. There are no independent witnesses qua alleged incidents of cruelty/harassment/dowry demands. No police complaints were made by the family members of the deceased before her death. Statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW1 & PW11 are suffering from improvements, contradictions and discrepancies. The statements are conflicting and inconsistent as well. There is no just explanation for the improvements in the statements of the witnesses. There is no live link or proximity between the death of the deceased and the allegations against the accused. The defense witnesses have rebutted the evidence of the prosecution to a great extent.
In view of above discussion, it can be said that the ingredients C & D have not been proved during trial. It has not been established that soon before her death the deceased Meenu was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry by the accused persons. State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 69/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09
P.S Janak Puri Ingredient E E) That the accused persons dishonestly misappropriated the Istridhan articles of the deceased.
26 Although, there was no reference to section 406 IPC in the chargesheet and order on charge dt. 11.09.2013 passed by Ld. Predecessor but at the time of framing of charges on 06.11.2013, a separate charge u/s 406 IPC has also been framed against the accused persons.
It is alleged that the accused persons misappropriated the Istridhan articles of deceased Meenu and committed Criminal Breach of Trust punishable u/s 406 IPC. At the time of trial no valid and reliable evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to show the entrustment of any valuable items of the deceased to the accused persons. One list of articles Mark B has been produced but the same is not duly corroborated by any other oral or documentary evidence. In absence of any reliable material of the property entrusted to the accused persons, it can be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused persons misappropriated the Istridhan articles of the deceased. The charges u/s 406 IPC have thus remained unproved.
State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 70/71 SC No. 74/1/14 FIR No. 324/09
P.S Janak Puri Conclusion 27 In view of discussions under ingredients/facts from A to E as mentioned above, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients of all the alleged offences and the presumptions operating against the accused persons have been duly rebutted by the defense. It has not been established on record that the deceased Meenu was subjected to cruelty, harassment or dowry demands or that she committed suicide due to such cruelty, harassment or dowry demands. It is also not established against the accused persons that they misappropriated the Istridhan articles of the deceased or committed criminal breach of trust.
28 With these observations, both the accused persons namely Dilbag Singh and Daya Devi are acquitted of the charges u/s 498A/304B/406/34 IPC. Bail bonds canceled. Sureties are discharged. Case property, if any be released to its rightful owner.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (SANJAY JINDAL)
th
TODAY i.e.ON 30 MAY, 2015 ASJ:04:WEST:THC:DELHI
30.05.2015
State vs. Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Page No. 71/71