Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu on 18 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SANGWAN :
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT - 01) :
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
STATE Vs Sonu & Ors
Case No. : 496/2018
FIR No. : 118/2018
U/S : 498A/304B/306/34 IPC
PS : Sarita Vihar
Particulars of the case
a) Date of Offence : Between 15.02.2018 to
10.05.2018
b) Offence complained of or proved : 498A/304B/306/34 IPC
c) Name of the complainant : Ms. Poonam
d) Name of the accused No. 1 : Sonu
His parentage, Sh. Suresh,
R/o H. No. 449/21 behind
Church Jasola Village, New
Delhi
Present Address :- 81, Suresh
Ka Makaan, Mansa Mohalla,
Near Dispensary Jasola
Village.
Permanent Address :- Village
Sekhupura, PS Jarif Nagar,
Tehsil - Sahaswan, District
Badaun, UP
SC No. 496/2018
FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 1 of 23
Name of the accused No. 2 : Suresh
His parentage, Sh. Kali Charan,
R/o H. No. 449/21 behind
Church Jasola Village, New
Delhi
Present Address :- 81, Suresh
Ka Makaan, Mansa Mohalla,
Near Dispensary Jasola
Village.
Permanent Address :- Village
Sekhupura, PS Jarif Nagar,
Tehsil - Sahaswan, District
Badaun, UP
Name of the accused No. 3 : Mithlesh
Her husband's name Sh. Suresh,
R/o H. No. 449/21 behind
Church Jasola Village, New
Delhi
Present Address :- 81, Suresh
Ka Makaan, Mansa Mohalla,
Near Dispensary Jasola
Village.
Permanent Address :- Village
Sekhupura, PS Jarif Nagar,
Tehsil - Sahaswan, District
Badaun, UP
Plea of the accused : All accused persons pleaded
not guilty
Final order : All accused acquitted
SC No. 496/2018
FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 2 of 23
Date of Institution : 01.09.2018
Date of Judgment reserved for orders : 31.10.2023
Date of Judgment : 18.11.2023
Ld. Additional PP for the State : Sh. Ashok Debbarma
Ld. Counsels for the accused : Sh. Vishnu Dutt Sharma and
Mohd. Fasih Shahzad
JUDGMENT
1. CHARGE-SHEET 1.1 As per charge-sheet, on 10.05.2018, DD No. 30A regarding one lady committing suicide by hanging was marked to SI Sita Ram. Thereupon he along with Ct. Hansraj reached the spot i.e. H. No. 449/21, near Church, Jasola Village, Delhi. Accused Sonu along with his father was also found present there and he informed that his wife namely Kavita aged about 19 years had committed suicide by hanging herself from ceiling fan and the latch of the room was locked from inside. Sonu told that he and his father had brought down his wife from the fan. Kavita was found lying on the bed and ligature marks of chunni were found on her neck. Sonu informed that his marriage was solemnized with Kavita on 15.02.2018.
1.2 SI Sita Ram conveyed the said facts to SHO and Inspector Ram Niwas reached at the spot. SHO informed SDM, Sarita Vihar regarding the situation. Crime team was called at the spot. They inspected the spot and SC No. 496/2018 FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 3 of 23 photographs were clicked therein. On the instruction of SDM, Kavita was sent to AIIMS Hospital wherein vide MLC No. 4323/18, deceased Kavita was declared brought dead.
1.3 On 11.05.2018, mother of deceased namely Poonam along with her son reached police station. As per the directions of the SHO, SI Sita Ram took them to the office of SDM at Sarita Vihar. Therein the SDM Mr. Mohinder recorded statements of said witnesses and he recommended further action to the SHO PS Sarita Vihar. SI Sita Ram brought said statements to the police station Sarita Vihar and shared the complete facts with SHO. 1.4 As per statement of Poonam recorded by SDM, her daughter Kavita got married to Sonu S/o Sh. Suresh on 15.02.2018. On 10.05.2018, at about 07:30 PM, her son Rajesh residing in Delhi called her and stated that he got phone call from in-laws of Kavita who told him that Kavita was unwell and he was going to her in-laws' house. On the same day, at about 8 PM, Poonam's son- in-law Sonu called her and told her that he had killed her daughter Kavita and she can do whatever she can.
She further stated that her son-in-law had demanded car just 2 days before marriage on which she pleaded that he shall marry her daughter Kavita and after one month from the marriage they will provide car to him. Thereafter, her son-in-law started torturing her daughter and on 10.05.2018 he killed Kavita. In the marriage, she gave 5 gold articles, 6 silver articles, 11 pairs of clothes, 51 brass utensils, chair, table, fan, fridge, etc., as dowry and one gold ring, one gold SC No. 496/2018 FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 4 of 23 chain, Rs. 51,000/- in lagan and Rs. 11,000/- in Bidai were given to Sonu. The said marriage was solemnized in their village. They used to call her daughter as Kavita in their house but her name in the documents was Vinita. Vinita and Kavita was name of same girl. She stated that Sonu (husband), Mithlesh (mother-in-law), Suresh (father-in-law) and Dharampal (brother of Suresh who got the marriage solemnized on his responsibility) are responsible for her death and action shall be taken against them.
1.5 On the said statement, SI Sita Ram made endorsement and registered the case FIR No. 118/18 u/s 498A/340B/34 IPC and further investigation was marked to Inspector Ram Niwas.
1.6 During investigation, Inspector Ram Niwas recorded the statement of Rajesh (brother of deceased Kavita) S/o Rajpal. In his statement, he stated that his sister Kavita got married on 15.02.2018 with accused Sonu in their village. On 10.04.2018, Sandeep took his sister to Jasola Village. On 10.05.2018, at about 7 PM, he received a telephonic call from accused Suresh (father of the accused Sonu) on his mobile No. 8745844429 and Suresh informed him that medical condition of his sister Kavita is not well and she was serious. He asked Suresh to let his sister talk to him on phone but Suresh told him that her condition is serious and he is accompanying her to the hospital and Rajesh has to come over there. Thereupon Suresh called the mother of Rajesh (Poonam) and told her that they had killed her daughter and they may do anything they want. Said fact was told to Rajesh from phone number SC No. 496/2018 FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 5 of 23 8938936839 (by his mother Poonam). On which, Rajesh again called Suresh and asked him what were the real facts. He told Rajesh that his sister committed suicide by hanging herself. He asked Suresh not to do anything until he reaches Suresh's house. He reached at the house of his sister after one hour but he did not find his sister Kavita @ Vinita therein. He asked Smt. Mithlesh (mother-in- law of her sister) on which she told that police had taken his sister at Chowki. On next day, his family came to Delhi. Thereafter, SDM recorded the statement of Rajesh's mother. He further stated to the police that he believed that his sister committed suicide as Sonu, Suresh, Mithlesh and Sonu's uncle Dharampal used to demand car from her.
1.7 Thereafter, Inspector Ram Niwas recorded the statement of Sh. Bhure Lal (2nd brother of the deceased Kavita @ Vinita). Bhure Lal corroborated the version of his mother Poonam and his brother Rajesh. Bhure Lal further stated that postmortem on the dead body of his sister was conducted and after postmortem, the body was handed-over to them.
1.8 During the investigation, Inspector Ram Niwas prepared the site plan. He seized the exhibits (broken bangles, latch, chunni) from the spot and deposited in the malkhana.
Autopsy of the deceased was conducted and the dead body was handed-over to the family members.
1.9 Accused Sonu was interrogated and arrested in the present case. During the investigation, it was found that accused Sonu was married to SC No. 496/2018 FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 6 of 23 deceased Kavita on 15.02.2018. The accused Sonu produced his wedding card and the photo. Same were taken into police possession. Age memo of accused Sonu was also prepared. Thereafter, accused was produced before the Court and was sent to JC.
1.10 Postmortem report of the deceased was obtained on which doctor mentioned cause of death as "Asphyxia due to antemortem hanging". Negatives of the photographs were obtained from the crime team and photographs were developed from the same. During the investigation, Inspector Ram Niwas got prepared the scaled site plan by the draftsman, obtained the PCR form and collected the CDR of the mobile phones. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the witnesses u/s 161 CrPC.
1.11 As both of the brothers of the deceased as well as her mother had expressed suspicion on Suresh (father-in-law) and Mithlesh (mother-in-law of deceased) and on one Dharampal (brother of Suresh) so Inspector Ram Niwas inquired said three persons also.
However, Suresh and Mithlesh denied the allegations against them. Since they fully cooperated in the investigation of the present case and there was no evidence necessitating their arrest, they were not arrested in the present case.
On 08.08.2018, charge-sheet was filed before the Court but the Court directed to conduct further investigation on some points in present case. 1.12 In further investigation, Inspector Ram Niwas made inquires from accused Dharampal. However, he also denied the allegations made against him.
SC No. 496/2018FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 7 of 23 From the interrogation of accused Dharampal, no sufficient evidence was found for his arrest and accordingly, he was not arrested. 1.13 Accused Sonu, Suresh and Mithlesh were kept in Column No. 11 whereas accused Dharampal was kept in Column No. 12 and the charge-sheet was filed u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC before the Court.
2. CHARGE 2.1 On the basis of charge-sheet, charge u/s 498A/304B/306 IPC read with 34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, prosecution was directed to lead evidence in support of the charge-sheet.
3. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 3.1 In support of its case, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses as follows:-
S. No. Name of the witness Nature of the evidence PW1 Ct. Hansraj Police official who visited the spot of crime at first along with SI Sita Ram before registration of the FIR PW2 Dr. Zahid Ali Doctor who identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Antra Debbarma and Dr. Jeengar on the MLC and postmortem report of the deceased SC No. 496/2018 FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 8 of 23 PW3 Inspector Mukesh Draftsman who prepared scaled Kumar Jain site plan PW4 Poonam Complainant/ Mother of the deceased PW5 Bhure Lal Brother of the deceased PW6 Rajesh Brother of the deceased PW7 SI Bijender Singh Duty officer PW8 Sh. Mohinder Singh, The then Tehsildar/ Executive Sub Registrar VIIA Magistrate of Sarita Vihar PW9 ASI Ravi Kumar In-charge Crime Team who inspected the crime scene PW10 Quresa Banu Witness who proved the tenancy of the accused persons at the spot of incident and the fact of suicide PW11 Hafiz Meraj Witness who proved the tenancy of the accused persons at the spot of incident PW12 HC Mahesh Photographer of the Crime Team who clicked the photographs of the crime scene PW13 Inspector Ram Niwas Main IO of the case PW14 ASI Subhash Police official who was on beat duty on 10.05.2018 and reached the spot after the incident PW15 SI Sita Ram IO before registration of FIR 3.2 The prosecution has exhibited following documents/objects in SC No. 496/2018 FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 9 of 23 support of its case:-
S. No. of Exhibits Nature of Exhibits No.
1. Ex.PW2/A Request letter for conducting postmortem of the deceased
2. Ex.PW2/B Postmortem report
3. Ex.PW3/A Scaled site plan
4. Ex.PW4/A Statement of PW4 recorded by Tehsildar/ Executive Magistrate
5. Ex.PW4/B Identification statement of PW4 regarding the dead body of deceased
6. Ex.PW4/B1 Handing over memo of the dead body
7. Ex.PW4/C List of dowry articles
8. Ex.PW4/D Seizure memo of the dowry list
9. Ex.PW5/A Identification statement of PW5 regarding the dead body of deceased
10. Ex.PW7/A FIR
11. Ex.PW7/A1 DD No. 30A
12. Ex.PW7/B Endorsement on the rukka
13. Ex.PW7/C Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding genuineness of FIR
14. Ex.PW8/A Endorsement of PW8 on the statement of PW4 recorded by PW8
15. Ex.PW9/A Crime scene inspection report
16. Ex.PW12/A1 Photographs of the crime scene to Ex.PW12/A17 SC No. 496/2018 FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 10 of 23
17. Ex.PW12/B1 Negatives of the aforesaid photographs to Ex.PW12/B19
18. Ex.PW13/A Site plan
19. Ex.PW13/B Seizure memo of broken bangles and broken kundi lifted from the spot
20. Ex.PW13/C Seizure memo of wedding card, the photograph and Adhar Card of accused Sonu and of his wife
21. Ex.PW13/D Wedding card
22. Ex.PW13/E Photograph
23. Ex.PW13/F Arrest memo of accused Sonu
24. Ex.PW13/G Personal search memo of accused Sonu
25. Ex.PW13/H Disclosure statement of accused Sonu
26. Ex.PW13/I Age memo of accused Sonu
27. Ex.A1 MLC No. 4323/18 of the deceased Kavita (admitted by w/o Sonu dated 10.05.2018 accused u/s 294 CrPC)
28. Ex.A2 CAF of M. No. 9911645523 (admitted by accused u/s 294 CrPC)
29. Ex.A3 CDR of M. No. 9911645523 for the period (admitted by from 01.05.2018 to 11.05.2018 accused u/s 294 CrPC)
30. Ex.A4 CAF of M. No. 8938936839 (admitted by SC No. 496/2018 FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 11 of 23 accused u/s 294 CrPC)
31. Ex.A5 CDR of M. No. 8938936839 for the period (admitted by from 01.05.2018 to 11.05.2018 accused u/s 294 CrPC)
32. Ex.A6 CDR of M. No. 8754844429 for the period (admitted by from 01.05.2018 to 11.05.2018 accused u/s 294 CrPC)
33. Ex.A7 Form I of the PCR call record with (admitted by CPCRDDNo.10May181130808 accused u/s 294 CrPC)
34. Ex.P1 Case property i.e. broken pieces of collectively bangles
35. Ex.P2 Case property i.e. one piece of latch / kundi
36. Ex.P3 Case property i.e. one black colour chunni 3.3 Though 15 witnesses have been examined by prosecution but the main witnesses of the case are:-
I) PW - 4 Smt. Poonam / Mother of the deceased.
II) PW - 5 Bhure Lal / brother of the deceased.
III) PW - 6 Rajesh / brother of the deceased.
IV) PW - 13 Inspector Ram Nivas/ IO of the case.
SC No. 496/2018
FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 12 of 23
3.4 PW - 4 Smt. Poonam deposed she got her daughter Kavita married
with Sonu 4 years ago i.e. on 15.02.2018 at their village. After marriage, her daughter was residing in Delhi along with her husband Sonu and her in-laws. In the marriage, she had given five gold items, six silver items, 11 pair clothes, 51 utensils, furniture, ceiling fan, fridge, etc. She called her daughter Kavita in house, however, in documents her name was Vinita.
PW4's son was residing in New Delhi. She did not remember the date, month and time when one day, Rajesh had called her and told her that Kavita had committed suicide after hanging at her in-laws' house. Accused Sonu and his family members had not demanded any dowry articles from PW4 at any point of time. She was informed by accused Sonu (husband of her daughter) that her daughter had committed suicide. PW4's son-in-law had not demanded vehicle in dowry. She came to Delhi after knowing about the death of her daughter. Her son Bhure Lal was also accompanying her when she came to Delhi and when Executive Magistrate/ Tehsildar had inquired from her. Some inquiry was made by the police official. She was asked to put thumb impression on some documents. The contents of the said documents were read over to her, however, she was unable to understand the said facts being illiterate lady. PW4 admitted that the statement Ex.PW4/A bears her thumb impression at Point A. The postmortem of dead body of her daughter Kavita was conducted and thereafter, it was handed-over to them for the last rituals. Postmortem request form already Ex.PW2/A bears her thumb impression at Point B. The SC No. 496/2018 FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 13 of 23 identification statement of the dead body is Ex.PW4/B. The handing over of dead body of the deceased is Ex.PW4/B1. The dowry articles were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C. The list of dowry articles is Ex.PW4/D. As the witness turned hostile to the case of prosecution, she was duly cross examined by Ld. Additional PP for State.
Statement Ex.PW4/A was read over to witness but she denied giving such statement to Tehsildar/ Executive Magistrate.
Her cross-examination is nil on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity.
3.5 PW - 5 Bhure Lal deposed that he was illiterate. He was residing at Village Majhulra, Tehsil Sehsaman, PS Jarif Nagar, District Badayun, UP with his parents. He was doing the work of labour in the village. They were 7 brothers and five sisters, out of which four brothers and five sisters were married. Kavita @ Vinita was his younger sister and 4 th in number amongst sisters. PW5's sister Kavita got married on 15.02.2018 with accused Sonu in their village. No invitation card for marriage was prepared. No photograph of the marriage was taken. After marriage, his sister was residing with her husband Sonu at Sarita Vihar, Delhi with her in-laws. His younger brother Rajesh received a telephonic call from Rajesh who told his mother that his sister Kavita @ Vinita had committed suicide at her in-laws' house.
After hearing this, PW5 along with his mother and uncle Shishu Pal reached Delhi from their village on 11.05.2018. Some inquiry was made from SC No. 496/2018 FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 14 of 23 his mother by Tehsildar/ Executive Magistrate and her statement was recorded on which his mother Poonam had put her thumb impression and he had signed as witness on the said statement Ex.PW4/A at point B. The postmortem of his sister was got conducted vide the postmortem request form Ex.PW2/A. After postmortem, the dead body was handed-over to him vide identification statement Ex.PW5/A. The handing over memo of dead body Ex.PW4/B. He stated that he did not remember, if his statement was recorded by the police.
As the witness turned hostile to the case of prosecution, he was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Additional PP for the state.
Statement Ex.PW4/A was shown to him on which he stated that the contents of the said statement were not read over to him and he had only signed upon it as a witness.
PW5's statement Mark X recorded u/s 161 CrPC was read over to the witness but he denied having made such statement to police.
His cross-examination is nil on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity.
3.6 PW - 6 Rajesh deposed that he is illiterate. In the year 2018, he was residing at Noida Sector - 58, UP. He was doing the work of labour in the village. He has 7 brothers and five sisters, out of which four brothers and five sisters are married. Kavita @ Vinita was his younger sister and fourth in number SC No. 496/2018 FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 15 of 23 amongst the sisters. His sister Kavita got married on 15.02.2018 with accused Sonu in their village. After marriage, his sister was residing with her husband Sonu at Sarita Vihar, Delhi with her in-laws. His younger brother Rajesh was residing in area of Jasola Village, Sarita Vihar, Delhi.
On 10.05.2018, at about 7 PM, he had received a telephonic call from accused Suresh father of the accused Sonu on his mobile no. 8745844429 on which Suresh has informed that medical condition of PW6's sister was not well and she was serious. PW6 asked Suresh to let his sister talk to him on phone on which Suresh replied that her condition is serious and that he is accompanying her to hospital. Suresh had also informed on telephone to PW6's mother about the condition of his sister. Suresh had informed him about the suicide by his sister from his mobile no. 8938936839. He again called Suresh on the said mobile number to reconfirm about the said fact on which Suresh told him that his sister had committed suicide by hanging. PW6 asked Suresh not to do anything until he reaches their house. He reached at the house of his sister after one hour but he did not find his sister Kavita @ Vinita there. He asked Smt. Mithlesh mother-in-law of his sister and she replied that police had taken his sister at Chowki. On the next day, his parents came to Delhi.
As the witness turned hostile to the case of prosecution, he was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Additional PP for the state.
He denied the suggestion that on 10.05.2018, accused Sonu had called on phone of his mother and told that he had killed her daughter i.e. his SC No. 496/2018 FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 16 of 23 sister and that accused Sonu, Smt. Mithlesh, Suresh and Dharampal (tau who had arranged the marriage) were demanding car in the marriage of his sister or after her marriage. He denied the suggestion that due to his reason, his sister had committed suicide and that he was intentionally not deposing the true facts which were recorded by Tehsildar/ Executive Magistrate in the statement of his mother or the true facts which were recorded in his statement before the police. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely and trying to save the accused persons as he has been won over by them.
His cross-examination is nil on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity.
3.7 PW - 13 Inspector Ram Nivas has deposed as per charge-sheet.
His cross-examination is nil despite opportunity on behalf of the accused persons.
4. EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CrPC 4.1 After conclusion of prosecution evidence, all the accused were examined u/s 313 CrPC. However, they denied the allegations against them regarding dowry demand or harassment of the deceased.
5. DEFENCE EVIDENCE 5.1 No defence evidence was led by any of the accused.
SC No. 496/2018FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 17 of 23
6. ARGUMENTS 6.1 Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that the main witness of the case has not supported the case of prosecution and there is no other evidence regarding the culpability of the accused persons. On the other hand, Ld. Additional PP has submitted that the statement given by the complainant to the Executive Magistrate has been duly proved and the witnesses have turned hostile deliberately.
7. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 7.1 I have considered the arguments of the parties and have perused the record.
7.2 The relevant provisions applicable in present case are reproduced herewith:-
Section 498A IPC provides - "Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such SC No. 496/2018 FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 18 of 23 harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
Section 304B IPC provides - "Dowry death -- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life".
Section 306 IPC provides - "Abetment of suicide.
-- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine".
Section 34 IPC provides - "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
SC No. 496/2018FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 19 of 23 7.3 Since the main witnesses of the case turned hostile, therefore, after considering the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties, following points for determination arise :-
1. Whether there is sufficient evidence de hors the testimony of main witnesses to prove the allegations against any of the accused persons?
8. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND APPLICATION OF LAW 8.1 PW4 Poonam has not supported the case of prosecution and has not deposed as per the facts recorded by the Executive Magistrate in her statement. Regarding said statement PW4 has deposed that the Executive Magistrate had inquired from her and she was asked to put thumb impression on some documents. She even deposed that the contents of the documents were read over to her. However, she was unable to understand the fact being illiterate lady. During her cross-examination by Ld. Additional PP, she has denied the allegations against the accused persons regarding the dowry demand and the alleged harassment of her daughter by accused persons in this regard. From the above-said facts and circumstances, at maximum it may be presumed that such statement against accused persons was given by the mother of the deceased to the Executive Magistrate. However, making of a statement to a Magistrate itself does not prove the contents of such statement.
SC No. 496/2018FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 20 of 23 8.2 Now, let us proceed further to analyze as to whether the contents of such statement are proved otherwise or not. However, the scrutiny of the statement made to the Executive Magistrate shows that same is improbable. As per said statement, PW4 Poonam received call at 8 PM from Sonu who told her that he had killed her daughter Kavita and she may do whatever she can. However, the prosecution has proved the call detail record of the phone (8938936839) of PW4 Poonam as Ex.A5. Perusal of same shows that on 10.05.2018 no call from any number was received on said number from 5:36 PM till 9:08 PM and rather, one message was received at 5:36 PM and various calls were made from said number at 8:34 PM, 8:37 PM, 8:57 PM, 9:07 PM and 9:08 PM. Moreover, it is not the case of prosecution that the deceased was killed and it is a case of suicide only. Therefore, it appears that no such call was made to PW4 and no such claim was made by accused Sonu in such call.
Further, it is mentioned in the statement to the Executive Magistrate that on 10.05.2018 around 7:30 PM, her son Rajesh received phone from the in- laws of her daughter that she is unwell. As per PW6 Rajesh at about 7 PM, he received such telephonic call from accused Suresh on his M. No. 8745844429. The prosecution has proved the CDR of aforesaid phone vide Ex.A6. However, in the said record only one SMS is reflected for 10 th of May 2018 and that too at 12:44 PM. Further, in her statement to the Magistrate, PW4 stated that not only accused Sonu, Suresh, Mithlesh but even one Dharampal is responsible for the death of her daughter. However, as per charge-sheet, the IO did not find any SC No. 496/2018 FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 21 of 23 evidence against said Dharampal except the allegations made by the family members of deceased. It is to be noted that even regarding the accused standing the trial, the IO failed to cite any independent witness to corroborate that any dowry/ car demand was made two days prior to the marriage. Since the alleged demand was raised just two days prior to the marriage, it was highly unlikely that the matter would not have been discussed with family friends/ relatives. Further, no details of date, time or place has been mentioned when the deceased was harassed by accused persons in reference to such dowry demand. No detail of date, time or place has been mentioned when such harassment came to the notice of family of deceased. It is nowhere mentioned whether they themselves observed such harassment or they were told about it by deceased or by any third person. Thus, there is nothing against the accused persons except the allegations made to the Executive Magistrate. All these facts together show that the allegations made to the Executive Magistrate were probably made under the heat of the moment by a disgruntled mother on the death of her daughter. 8.3 Even otherwise, nothing has come in the cross-examination of PW4, PW5 and PW6 by Ld. Additional PP to conclude that they have deposed falsely in the Court or that allegations against the accused made to the Magistrate were true. The statements u/s 161 CrPC of PW5 and PW6 were put to them but no such statement can be considered in evidence except for contradiction of the witness and that too after the same has been duly proved (Section 162 CrPC). However, prosecution has failed to prove such statement SC No. 496/2018 FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 22 of 23 through the IO or otherwise. Hence, the Court cannot even consider the cross- examination of PW5 and PW6 on the basis of such 161 CrPC statements. 8.4 Accordingly, no incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused persons for the alleged offences much less to convict them.
9. CONCLUSION 9.1 In view of above said discussion, all the accused persons are acquitted from all the charges framed against them.
(Announced in the Open Court Digitally signed
on 18 th November 2023) SACHIN by SACHIN
SANGWAN
SANGWAN Date: 2023.11.18
15:49:19 +0530
(SACHIN SANGWAN)
Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-01,
South-East District, Saket Courts,
New Delhi/18.11.2023
SC No. 496/2018
FIR No. 118/2018 State v. Sonu & Ors. Page No. 23 of 23