Delhi District Court
State vs Vijay @ Vijender on 22 December, 2025
SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIYA MAHENDRA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-09
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
SC No. 172/2022
CNR No. DLWT-01-002858-2022
FIR No. 816/2015
Police Station Ranhola
Under Section 498-A/306/34 IPC
State
Versus
1. Vijay @ Vijender
S/o. Late Sh. Ram Lal
R/o. H.No. C-60, Commandar Chowk,
Shikhadeep Public School,
Vikas Nagar, Delhi.
2. Rambati
W/o. Late Sh. Ram Lal
R/o. C-60, Commander Chowk,
Shikhadeep Public School,
Vikas Nagar, Delhi. ... Accused Persons
PRIYA Date of institution 26.03.2022
MAHENDRA
Digitally signed
by PRIYA
Conclusion of arguments 25.09.2025
MAHENDRA
Date: 2025.12.26
17:52:13 +0530 Judgment Pronounced on 22.12.2025
Judgment Page No. 1 of 24
SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons Vijay @ Vijender and Rambati are facing trial in present case on the allegations that they in furtherance of common intention subjected Ms. Ruby to mental and physical cruelty for and in connection with demand of dowry; and on 29.09.2015 at 12.00 a.m.. they in furtherance of their common intention abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased Ruby within one and half month of her marriage with accused Vijay @ Vijender by subjecting her to cruelty as defined in Section 498-A IPC which caused her death on 04.10.2015. Brief facts
2. In brief the facts of the case are that on 29.09.2015 vide DD No. 04-A, a PCR call was received at Police Station Ranhola from Mata Chandan Devi Hospital, Janak Puri that Ruby W/o Vijender has attempted suicide at home. The said call was marked to SI Sandeep who along with Ct. Ajay left for the Hospital. At the Hospital, SI Sandeep and Ct. Ajay found Ruby W/o Vijender admitted vide MLC No. 6614/15. The doctor declared her unfit for statement. SI Sandeep informed the SHO and S.D.M, Patel Nagar about the incident. The spot i.e. C-60 Commander Chowk, Vikas Nagar was inspected and photographed by the Crime Team. Ruby remained unfit for statement till 04.10.2015. On 04.10.2015, on receipt of information about the death of Pt. Ruby during treatment vide DD No. 28-A, SI Sandeep got the dead body of deceased Ruby preserved Judgment Page No. 2 of 24 SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
at D.D.U Hospital. On 05.10.2015, the concerned Executive Magistrate got the postmortem of the deceased conducted and the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the relatives.
3. On the instructions of the concerned Executive Magistrate, the statement of mother of deceased namely Sunita Rita was recorded wherein she stated that she is a housewife. Her daughter was born in 1998. In 2013, a boy namely Vijender took her daughter Ruby with him after luring her and she complained at PS Ranhola. The FIR No.101/2013 was registered and the case is still going on in the Court. About two years ago, the family of Vijender took away her daughter. In the last two years, whenever she tried to meet her, they always told her daughter is not with them and she had gone to Alwar. She could not meet her daughter. On 28.09.2015, her daughter Goldy was returning home from tuition and Ruby spoke to Goldy for a few minutes, but the family members of Vijender dragged Ruby inside and closed the gate. On 29.09.2015, she received a call from her brother Pappu stating that Ruby was ill and admitted to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. She visited her daughter at Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, Janakpuri and she was undergoing treatment. Since she was unconscious, she could not talk to her. On arrival at the hospital, she learned that her daughter had hanged herself. She is sure that her husband and other family members attempted to kill her by hanging and had her admitted to Mata Judgment Page No. 3 of 24 SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
Chanan Devi Hospital to save their own lives. The concerned SDM made endorsement on the statement of the Complainant and gave direction to SHO to take lawful action.
4. On the basis of statement of mother of deceased, FIR u/s. 498A/304-B/34 IPC was got registered by SI Sandeep and further investigation was handed over to Addl. SHO/Inspector Surya Parkash. Ruby had married to Vijender on 13.08.2015 in Arya Samaj Mandir and copy of Marriage Certificate was produced by mother of deceased.
5. Inspector Surya Prakash inspected the spot and prepared a Site Plan without scale and took the ligature material i.e. Chunni into police possession. Postmortem Report was obtained. Statements of the family members of the deceased were recorded. Accused Vijay @ Vijender was interrogated and his Disclosure Statement was recorded.
6. Thereafter, further investigation of the case was carried out by Inspector Suman Kumari. The Marriage Certificate of deceased Ruby and Vijay @ Vijender was verified. IO obtained the marriage documents from the Priest who performed the marriage. She also obtained PCR Form along with Certificate u/s. 65-B Indian Evidence Act. The Scaled Site Plan was prepared by the Draughtsman at the instance of SI Sandeep Judgment Page No. 4 of 24 SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
Kumar. On 21.12.2015, the mother-in-law Rambati was interrogated and her Disclosure Statement was recorded. Enquiry was made from maternal uncle of deceased Ruby and her sister-in-law Smt. Rajwati. It was found that Rajwati was in Rajasthan with her children when Ruby committed suicide.
7. As per Charge Sheet, further investigation was handed over to SI Braham Prakash and IO/Inspector Nitin Kumar on 23.03.2019. Statements of mother, father and sister of deceased were recorded. The manner of death reveals in the Postmortem Report of deceased as suicide. However, from statements of witnesses and interrogation of accused persons, no evidence was found regarding the harassment of deceased Ruby for dowry. It was revealed in the investigation that accused Vijay @ Vijender was arrested on 02.05.2013 in FIR No. 101/2013 u/s 363 IPC PS Ranhola, Delhi registered by mother of deceased Ruby and he was charge sheeted under section 363/376 IPC & under POCSO Act. The deceased during the said case, married accused Vijay @ Vijender of her own free will and without the consent of her family members. So, Section 304-B IPC was removed from this case. During further investigation, accused Vijender @ Vijay, his cousin Ramesh and his wife Kajal were also interrogated. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences u/s. 498-A/306/34 IPC was filed against the accused Vijay @ Judgment Page No. 5 of 24 SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
Vijender and Rajwati without arrest.
Charge
8. On 05.07.2022, charge for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/306/34 IPC was framed against accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
9. Prosecution examined five witnesses i.e. PW-1 Smt. Sunita @ Reeta (Complainant/mother of deceased), PW-2 Goldy Kumari (Sister of deceased), PW-3 Inspector Sandeep Kumar, PW-4 Inspector Suman Kumari and PW-5 Inspector Nitin Kumar.
10. PW-1 Smt. Sunita @ Reeta is the complainant and mother of the deceased. She deposed that the deceased Ruby was her daughter. About 7- 8 years ago, her daughter Ruby was kidnapped by accused Vijay from her school REDAR at Ranhola Village. She came to know about the said fact through the phone call of school. At that time, her daughter Ruby was studying in 8th class. In the same school, her second daughter namely Ruchi was also studying in Class 7 th. Ruchi also told her that Ruby was kidnapped by accused Vijay. On the same day, they went to police station Ranhola. During the period of incident, they were residing at Vikas Nagar. On the same day, her daughter Ruby was recovered by police from the house of accused Vijay.
Judgment Page No. 6 of 24SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
11. PW-1 further deposed that on the next day of said incident, her daughter Ruby was again kidnapped by accused Vijay when she was going to her school with Ruchi. The said fact was told to her by Ruchi when she returned to home. Thereafter, they immediately went out of the house in the search of Ruby and she was rescued on the way from accused Vijay. Thereafter, accused Vijay and Ruby were taken to PS Ranhola. From PS, Ruby and accused Vijay were taken to SGM Hospital. From hospital, Ruby was taken to Nari Niketan, where she remained for about three months. Family members of accused Vijay used to quarrel with them and therefore, instead of taking her daughter to home, they preferred Nari Niketan for her daughter. After about three months, she took the custody of her daughter from Nari Niketan. After about three days of releasing her daughter Ruby from Nari Niketan, the mother, sister and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the accused Vijay came at their house. At that time, the door of the house was opened by her daughter and when she opened the door, she was forcibly taken away by them. At that time, she was not present in the house and her younger daughter Ruchi was present there. The aforesaid facts were told her by her daughter Ruchi by making phone calls. Thereafter, she along with her husband went to the house of accused Vijay, however, her daughter Ruby was not found there. When she made inquiry about her daughter, the accused and his family members stated that her daughter was not in their custody.
Judgment Page No. 7 of 24SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
12. PW-1 also deposed that after about 15 days of the incident, her daughter Ruby made phone call to her husband and she stated that she was in the house of accused Vijay. She also made request to her husband to take her back. On receipt of said phone call, she along with her husband and brother went to the house of accused Vijay. They made inquiry about their daughter and in reply to the same, accused Vijay and his family members stated that she was not there. The accused and his family members never allowed them to enter their house for the search of her daughter. After about three months, she received phone call of her brother Pappu Lal to the effect that her daughter Ruby had been admitted in Mata Channa Devi Hospital, Janakpuri. On receipt of the said information, they went to the above said hospital and found her daughter Ruby on ventilator in ICU. After about three-four days, her daughter Ruby expired. Neither accused nor his family members intimated them about the admission of her daughter Ruby in the Hospital. They also never disclosed the circumstances, under which her daughter Ruby had to be admitted in the hospital. She was never allowed to meet her daughter in the house of accused Vijay as on each occasion, accused Vijay and his family members used to tell her that she was not present there.
13. PW-1 further deposed that her youngest daughter Goldy used to take tuition in the gali of accused Vijay and once, she went to the house Judgment Page No. 8 of 24 SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
of accused Vijay to meet Ruby. At that time, Ruby was found standing at the door of the house of accused Vijay. However, Goldy was not allowed to meet Ruby and Ruby was dragged inside the house by accused Vijay and his family members. FIR was got registered against accused Vijay when her daughter was kidnapped by him. On each occasion of kidnapping of her daughter, she made complaint with police. When her daughter Ruby was kidnapped from her house forcibly, she took away Mangalsutra, Pajeb, Jhumki and cash of Rs. 80,000/-. After the death of her daughter Ruby, she asked from accused Rambati to return her articles and cash. In reply to the same, she stated that she would return the same. Despite the said promise, she did not return her belongings. Her daughter Ruby was not married. PW-1 proved complaint Ex.PW1/A lodged by her. She admitted that she received the phone call of her brother Pappu Lal on 29.09.2015 and on 28.09.2015, Goldy went to the house of accused Vijay to meet Ruby. Her daughter Goldy could not talk with Ruby when Goldy went to the house of accused Vijay @ Vijender. When she reached Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, she came to know that her daughter Ruby strangulated herself.
14. During the testimony of PW-1, Ld. Addl. PP cross-examined her as she was resiling from her earlier statement made to the police. PW-1 admitted that accused Vijay @ Vijender used to tell her " Teri Ladki Judgment Page No. 9 of 24 SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
Kisi Aur Aadmi Ke Sath Sadi Karke Reh Rahi Aur Tere Par Kalank Laga Diya Tha". Goldy told her that as and when she used to go to her tuitions, Ruby used to try to talk to her, but accused Vijay @ Vijender used to force her to leave by threatening her and used to forcibly take Ruby inside the house. She denied the suggestion that on 28.09.2015, his daughter Goldy talked with Ruby for about two minutes and thereafter Ruby was dragged inside the house by the family members of accused Vijay @ Vijender. She volunteered that she could not talk with Ruby on that day.
15. PW-2 Ms. Goldy Kumari is the sister of the deceased. She deposed that they were five siblings i.e. two brothers and three sisters. Ruby was eldest amongst them. Her sister Ruby performed marriage with accused Vijay @ Vijender without their consent. After marriage her sister Ruby never came to their house to meet them, however she was inclined to meet her sister in order to know her well being. At that time she was taking Accounts tuition and she used to pass from the house of accused Vijay who was residing at Shikhadeep Wali Gali. The room of her sister Ruby was in the front side of said house. Whenever she used to pass through the said gali, her sister Ruby used to come on the main gate of house. On few occasions, they had a brief conversation but upon seeing her husband and her mother in law i.e. accused Rambati and accused Vijay, accused Vijay used to take her sister Ruby inside the house. They Judgment Page No. 10 of 24 SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
also asked her not to talk with her sister or to pass through the said gali.
16. PW-2 further deposed that on 28.09.2015, while she was passing through the said gali with her friend on a cycle, she saw her sister Ruby standing inside the gali and she said hello to her. On the same day, when she returned back to her house, she stated to her mother that she has seen Ruby inside the gali. Her mother stated to her that she would contact the police on the next day and they would go to the house of Vijay in order to rescue Ruby but on the same night her maternal uncle informed them that he had received a phone call of accused Vijay who informed him that Ruby had expired.
17. During the testimony of PW-2, Ld. Addl. PP cross-examined the witness as the witness was resiling from her previous statement. She admitted that on few occasions while she was passing through the said gali, she used to talk with her sister Ruby and upon seeing this, her mother-in-law and accused Vijay used to ask her to leave the said place and used to say her that she should not talk with Ruby. On few occasions in her presence they used to take Ruby inside by using abusive language against her sister. On 28.09.2015, when she met her sister Ruby in the gali, her sister stated to her that since accused Vijay is involved in multiple criminal cases and used to consume liquor and had not been earning Judgment Page No. 11 of 24 SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
anything, accused Vijay used to quarrel with her and she also stated to her that her husband Vijay and mother in law used to abuse her "Usko Khari Khoti Sunatey Thei". PW-2 also admitted that Ruby has stated to her that she was inclined to meet them but accused Vijay and her mother in law were not allowing her to have a meeting with her. On 28.09.2015, when accused Vijay saw them together, he forcibly took Ruby inside the house.
18. PW-2 also admitted that she stated to IO that whenever accused Vijay and Rambati used to see her and Ruby talking to each other, they used to take Ruby inside the house and they used abusive language against them. She also stated to IO that she noticed that her sister Ruby was losing weight 'Kamjor Ho Gayee Thee' and was perturbed. She also stated to IO that she has a strong suspicion that her sister Ruby had committed suicide due to the harassment committed upon her by accused Vijay and his mother.
19. PW-3 Inspector Sandeep Kumar is the initial IO who went to the spot on receipt of PCR call. He unfolded the sequence of investigation carried out by him and proved DD No. 4-A as Ex.PW3/A, his applications for recording the statement of deceased in the Hospital as Ex.PW3/A-1 and Ex.PW3/A-2, DD No. 28-A qua death of the deceased during treatment as Ex.PW3/B, Rukka as Ex.PW3/C, Site Plan as Ex.PW3/D, Judgment Page No. 12 of 24 SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
Seizure Memo of Chunni as Ex.PW3/E. He also identified the Chunni as Ex.P-3/A seized from the spot.
20. PW-4 Inspector Suman Kumari is subsequent IO of this case. She proved Marriage Certificate as Ex.PX-10 of accused Vijay and the deceased, PCR Form as Ex.PX-3 and Scaled Site Plan as Ex.PX-4.
21. PW-5 Inspector Nitin Kumar is the last IO of this case. He after recording the statements of witnesses, collecting documents and completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet.
22. Vide joint statement of accused persons, accused persons admitted FIR Ex. PX-1, Certificate u/s. 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PX-2, DD No. 4A & 28A Ex. PW3/A & B, PCR Form dated 04.10.2015 as Ex.PX-3, Scaled Site Plan as Ex. PX-4, Crime Scene Report as Ex. PX-5, Photographs of Crime Scene Ex. PX-6 (Collectively), Post Mortem Report of deceased Ruby Ex. PX-7, MLC of Ruby dated 29.09.2015 Ex. PX-8, Death Summary of Ruby Ex. PX-9 and Marriage Certificate of Ruby and accused Vijay@ Vijender Ex. PX-10.
23. Statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein they stated that they are innocent and falsely implicated Judgment Page No. 13 of 24 SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
in this case. They have not committed any offence. Accused Vijender stated that deceased Ruby married him without the consent of her family members as they did not want her to marry him as he was handicapped and belong to a lower caste. Then after marriage, she started residing with him and his mother. She took her own life by suicide by hanging from a chunni as her maternal uncle and mother used to abuse her after coming to his house.
Accused Rambati submitted that parents of deceased Ruby used to come to meet Ruby in their house freely. Her mother used to quarrel with her as she was not happy with marriage of Ruby with her son as they belong to lower caste.
24. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused persons and have gone through the record.
25. It is argued by Ld. Add. PP that the testimony of Prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1/mother of deceased and PW-2 sister of deceased is sufficient to return the findings of guilt against both the accused persons u/s. 498-A/306/34 IPC.
26. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused has strongly argued that both PW-1 and PW-2 are not reliable and trustworthy witnesses. The Judgment Page No. 14 of 24 SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
testimony of PW-1 is full of contradictions and improvements. PW-2 has also not supported the case of the Prosecution in her testimony. Only after the Prosecution was allowed to ask the leading question after declaring PW-2 as hostile witness, the PW-2 supported the case of the Prosecution. Even the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 are not consistent with each other. The other witnesses are formal witnesses. Further, it is stated the Prosecution has not been able to prove the charge u/s. Section 498-A/306/34 IPC. So, both the accused persons are entitled to acquittal in the present matter under Section 306 IPC as well as under Section 498- A. Appreciation Of Evidence
27. The accused persons Vijay @ Vijender (husband of deceased) and Rambati (mother-in-law of deceased) are facing charge for offence punishable under Section 498-A/306/34 IPC.
Section 498A IPC 27.1 Section 498A IPC reads as under:
498-A. 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 purposes 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 Judgment Page No. 15 of 24 SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
Section 306 IPC 27.2 Section 306 IPC reads as under:
306 IPC. 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."
Thus, the basic ingredients to constitute an offence u/s. 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof.
27.3 Abetment is defined u/s. 107 IPC. Section 107 IPC reads as under :-
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who--
First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.--A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material Judgment Page No. 16 of 24 SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.-- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
28. While analyzing the provisions of Section 306 IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan (2021) 19 SCC 144 has observed as under:
15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word 'instigate' is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v.
State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 has defined the word 'instigate' as under:
"Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act."
28.1 The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190, it was observed as under:
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person Judgment Page No. 17 of 24 SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
28.2 The ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been extensively laid out in M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police - 2019 (3) SCC 315 which are as under:
"The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C."
29. The entire Prosecution case hinges on the testimony of PW-1 mother of the deceased and PW-2, sister of the deceased. The deceased married with accused Vijay @ Vijender on 13.08.2015 and she committed suicide by hanging from fan in the room of her house. The Postmortem Report, Ex.PX-7 confirmed that the reason for the death of deceased was suicide.
30. The record reflects that the testimony of PW-1 is full of contradictions, inconsistencies, variations, improvement and Judgment Page No. 18 of 24 SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
embellishments. As per the testimony of PW-1, the accused Vijay @ Vijender kidnapped her daughter/deceased for which she got registered a case against accused Vijay @ Vijender. After the deceased was recovered and brought to her house, she was stealthily taken to their house by accused Vijay, her mother-in-law Ram Bati and sister-in-law of deceased. After 15 days of incident, her husband received a call from the deceased that she is in the house of accused and requested him to take her back. She along with her husband and brother went to the house of accused. They were misled to believe that deceased is not present at the house of deceased. They were never allowed to enter their house. Further, she came to know about the hospitalization of her deceased daughter after about three months through phone call of her brother Pappu Lal.
31. PW-1 was confronted with her complaint Ex.PW1/A and her supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She admitted that it is not recorded in her previous statement that after 15 days of incident of accused persons taking away the deceased from the house of deceased, the father of the deceased received a call from the deceased wherein she told him that she is in the house of accused Vijay and requested him to take her back. It is also not stated therein that she along with her husband and brother went to the house of accused Vijay. In her complaint rather she has made a general statement that she tried to meet Judgment Page No. 19 of 24 SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
her daughter two-three times in two years, but the accused told them that she is not at all their house. Moreover, it is also not explained by PW-1 why she has not complained to the police when her daughter disappeared from her house in her absence and she came to know that she was taken away by the accused persons and sister-in-law of the accused. PW-2 clearly deposed that there was only distance of 10-15 minutes by cycle from their house to the house of accused Vijay. She met her sister multiple times on the way to her tuition. In these circumstances, not taking police aid by the mother of deceased/PW-1 to trace/rescue Ruby, is not natural and make her conduct highly doubtful. Furthermore, in her supplementary statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C., the complainant/PW-1 stated that her daughter used to talk to her on phone and the deceased disclosed to her that her husband and mother-in-law harass her. However, no such testimony was made by PW-1 in the Court. PW-1 has also not fully supported the Prosecution case in her examination in chief and took shifting stands during her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP. Even when she was cross-examined by the Prosecution, she categorically denied that her daughter Ruby used to make phone calls in which she informed her about the ill treatment given by accused and his family members. The said inconsistency in the testimony of PW-1 also remained unclear and unexplained by the Prosecution.
Judgment Page No. 20 of 24 SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
32. Notably, the PW-1 categorically denied that her
daughter/deceased was not married with accused Vijay and denied during his cross-examination by the State making statement in the complaint wherein she admitted that accused Vijay was the husband of the deceased. However, there is a Certificate of Marriage dated 13.08.2015 on record issued by Arya Samaj Mandir to prove Ex.P-10 that accused Vijay @ Vijender was married to the deceased. The tone and tenor of the testimony of PW-1 leads to clear inference that PW-1 was not happy with the marriage of deceased with accused Vijay @ Vijender and it was solemnized without the approval of the parents of the deceased. There is no evidence on record that the deceased ever conversed with her parents or had in any manner communicated with her parents after she left her house to join the company of the accused Vijay @ Vijender or after her marriage or before her unfortunate death on 04.10.2015. So, the Prosecution has failed to prove on record that the deceased ever complained to PW-1 regarding any ill treatment or harassment of deceased in relation to demand for dowry by the accused persons. Furthermore, the testimony of PW-1 is not consistent and riddled with improvements and embellishments. So, her testimony does not inspire confidence of the Court and remain under pale of doubt.
Judgment Page No. 21 of 24SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
33. Now coming to the testimony of PW-2, she on her own gave no incriminating evidence against the accused persons in her examination-in- chief. However, only on leading questions asked by Ld. Addl. PP she answered the leading questions in affirmative and disclosed the involvement of accused persons. In the said cross-examination, she stated that she was not allowed by the accused persons to talk to her sister while she was going for taking tuition while passing through the Gali/street where the window of house of the accused was situated. They used to tell her to leave the place and not to talk with her sister. On few occasions, they took her sister/deceased inside their house by using abusive language against her sister/deceased. On 20.09.2015, when she met Ruby in the street, she told that the accused Vijay is involved in multiple criminal cases, used to consumer liquor and not earning anything. There used to be quarrel between her and accused Vijay. She also stated that her deceased sister told her that accused Vijay and mother-in-law Ram Bati used to abuse her (Unko Khari Khoti Sunate Tthe). She also stated that on 13.09.2015, accused Vijay saw them together and he took Ruby inside the house. In her cross-examination by the defence, PW-2 also admitted that she was not talking to her sister on her mobile phone and she was not even aware her mobile number. So, as per the testimony of PW-2, the harassment meted out by the accused persons to the deceased came to the knowledge of PW-2 on 28.09.2015, when she met her sister and talked to Judgment Page No. 22 of 24 SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
her. Most surprisingly, when PW-1 was cross-examined by the State, she clearly denied the suggestion that on 28.09.2015, her daughter Goldy talked with Ruby for two minutes and thereafter, Ruby was dragged by accused Vijay @ Vijender and family members. She volunteered that her daughter Goldy/PW-2 could not talk with Ruby on that day. So, the testimony of PW-2 regarding the conversation on 28.09.2025 is completely negated by the testimony of PW-1 who clearly stated that her daughter Goldy/PW-2 could not talk at all with Ruby on that day. So, it remains doubtful that the deceased ever told PW-2 on 28.09.2015 or before the said date regarding ill treatment or harassment meted out to the deceased by accused persons. So, the Prosecution has not been able to proved beyond reasonable doubt that during the substance of marriage of deceased with accused Vijay, she was subjected to any cruelty or harassment by the accused persons for or in connection with dowry or otherwise. So, the necessary ingredients for Section 498-A or 306 IPC are not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecution.
34. As stated in above authoritative judgments, to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must not only the mens-rea but also a direct evidence to establish that there was an active act by the accused which led the deceased to commit suicide. In present case, there is no evidence on record which indicates either mens-rea or any evidence of Judgment Page No. 23 of 24 SC No. 172/2022 State Vs. Vijay @ Vijender & Anr.
any active role of accused for driving deceased to commit suicide.
35. Accordingly, accused persons are acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable u/s. 498-A/306/34 IPC. In terms of Section 437(A) CrPC they are directed to furnish personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each which shall be enforceable for period of six months.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on 22nd day of December, 2025.
(Priya Mahendra) Addl. Sessions Judge-09/West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Judgment Page No. 24 of 24