Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj Kumar Singh on 2 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH KHURANA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04, WEST DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CNR No.DLWT01-001511-2018
SC No. 117/2018
FIR No. 797/2017
PS : Ranhola
U/s : 498A/304B/306/34 IPC & 174-A/34 IPC
State
Vs.
1. Manoj Kumar Singh
S/o Sh. Laxman Singh
R/o- House No. 166-167, Gali No. 3,
Gupta Enclave, Vikas Nagar,
New Delhi
2. Smt. Kanti Devi
W/o Sh. Laxman Singh
R/o- House No. 166-167, Gali No. 3,
Gupta Enclave, Vikas Nagar,
New Delhi
3. Babita
D/o Sh. Laxman Singh
FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 1 of 72
R/o- House No. 166-167, Gali No. 3,
Gupta Enclave, Vikas Nagar
New Delhi
4. Jyoti
D/o Sh. Laxman Singh
R/o- House No. 166-167, Gali No. 3,
Gupta Enclave, Vikas Nagar
New Delhi
5. Tej Pratap @ Raja
S/o Sh. Maharaja Singh
R/o Village Sarna, Post Office-Bhaluni Dham,
PS Dinara, District Rohtas, Bihar
(Declared as PO vide order dated 23.07.2018 of Ld
MM/West).
Date of Institution of case : 17.02.2018
Date of decision : 02.08.2023
Final order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.11.2017 at about 5.45 AM DD no. 9A regarding hanging of wife of caller at Gali No.3, Gupta Enclave, Vikas Nagar was marked to SI Praveen.
FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 2 of 72 Accordingly, SI Praveen alongwith Ct. Ashok went to the place of occurrence i.e. house no. 166/167, gali no.3, near holy convent school, Gupta enclave, Vikas Nagar, Delhi. Upon reaching at the said house, one lady was found dead in the hall built on the ground floor. Name of said lady was revealed to be Amrita W/o Manoj Kumar. It was also revealed that the marriage of Amrita was a love marriage which took place on 16.07.2016 with Manoj Kumar. It was also revealed to SI Praveen that said Amrita had committed suicide by hanging herself with the help of chunni from ceiling fan and the body of Amrita was brought down by Manoj Kumar and other family members. One yellow white colour chunni was lying over the bed and one black colour plastic chair was lying near the bed and the kundi of the door of the room was in broken condition. SI Praveen called crime team at the spot. Crime team incharge inspected the place of occurrence and crime team photographer took the photographs of the place of occurrence. SI Praveen had also informed the concerned SDM/Dwarka as the said occurrence took place within seven years of marriage. SI Praveen seized the chunni after sealing the same with the seal of PK and also seized the said chair. Thereafter, the body of Amrita was sent to the mortuary of DDU hospital through Ct. Ashok with directions to preserve the body. SI Praveen also intimated the father of deceased Amrita through phone. DD No. 9A was kept pending and further inquiry was marked to Inspector Sahi Ram. Inspector Sahi Ram got recorded the statement of parents of deceased from concerned SDM and also got conducted postmortem on the body of Amrita.
FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 3 of 72
2. On 14.11.2017 DD No. 9A was marked to Inspector Sahi Ram for inquiry purposes as per the instructions of SHO and he got recorded the statement of Sh. Ram Suresh Singh i.e. the father of deceased and Raj Kamal and Arvind i.e. the brothers of deceased by Executive Magistrate, Dwarka (Najafgarh) where the concerned Executive Magistrate Sh. Puneet Kulshreshta recorded their statements. After recording their statements, Sh. Puneet Kulshreshtha handed over the said statements to Inspector Sahi Ram with endorsement for taking appropriate action as per law which were handed over to SI Praveen at the direction of the concerned SHO and SI Praveen perused the said statements and made endorsement and handed over the rukka to Duty officer. Accordingly, Duty officer registered FIR No. 797/2017. After the registration of FIR, the investigation of the present case was marked to Inspector Sahi Ram and SI Praveen had handed over the documents/memos prepared by him.
3. On 15.11.2017, IO Inspector Sahi Ram visited the place of occurrence and prepared the rough site plan. During the course of investigation, he went to the mortuary of DDU hospital and met the relatives of said deceased and recorded their statements. IO had also moved an application for conducting autopsy on the body of Amrita. Accordingly, the concerned autopsy surgeon conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased and after postmortem, the body of deceased was handed over to the relatives of deceased. During investigation, on 15.11.2017 IO had effected the arrest of accused Manoj Kr. Singh, conducted his personal search and also recorded his disclosure statement. He had also seized the marriage FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 4 of 72 certificate produced by accused Manoj Kr. Singh and also served notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C to the father of deceased and collected the relevant documents and photographs produced by him. During investigation, IO had obtained subsequent opinion in respect of the ligature material i.e. chunni and efforts were made to arrest remaining accused persons i.e. Kanti Devi, Jyoti, Babita and Tej Pratap but they were absconding. Therefore, he filed charge-sheet against accused Manoj Kr. Singh. During further investigation, IO had obtained NBWs against accused Kanti Devi, Jyoti, Babita and Tej Pratap and thereafter, process u/s 82 Cr.P.C against them and all the said accused persons were got declared proclaimed offenders and he filed supplementary charge-sheet. Thereafter, accused persons namely Babita, Kanti Devi and Jyoti surrendered themselves before the court. IO moved an application for interrogation of accused Kanti Devi, Babita and Jyoti and effected their arrest and thereafter, he had filed supplementary charge-sheet against them.
4. The charge-sheet was filed before concerned Ld. M.M. on 12.02.2018. The Ld. M.M. took cognizance of the offence and after making compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C Ld. M.M. ordered the matter to be put up before concerned Ld. District & Sessions Judge, West, Delhi for 17.02.2018 and on 17.02.2018 the present case was assigned to the Sessions Court for trial.
5. On 28.03.2018, order on charge was passed by this court and charge for offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/306/34 IPC was framed against accused Manoj Kumar Singh. On 11.09.2019, separate charge for offence FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 5 of 72 punishable under Section 498A/304B/306/174-A/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons namely Babita, Kanti Devi and Jyoti. The charges were read over and explained to all the accused persons in vernacular and they were asked as to whether they wanted to plead guilty or claim trial. After understanding the charge, all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Thereafter, the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses in total i.e. PW1 HC Deepak Kumar, PW2 Sh. Rahul Tyagi, PW3 ASI Satbir, PW4 Sh. Ram Suresh Singh, PW5 Sh. Ravi Shekhar, PW6 Smt. Roop Tara, PW7 Sh. Arvind Kumar, PW8 Sh. Puneet Kushreshtha, PW9 Sh. Raj Kamal Kumar, PW10 Sh. Vivek Soni, PW11 Sh. Radhe Shyam, PW12 ASI Om Prakash, PW13 Dr. V.K Ranga, PW14 HC Ashok Kumar, PW15 HC Umed Singh, PW16 HC Jagmohan, PW17 SI Praveen and PW18 Inspector Sahi Ram.
7. Vide order dated 09.05.2023, prosecution evidence was closed. On 13.07.2023, statements of accused persons namely Manoj Kumar Singh, Kanti Devi, Babita and Jyoti were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In their respective statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C, all the accused persons have submitted that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated and have no connection with the commission of offences of the present case. Accused Manoj Kumar Singh stated that he had performed love marriage with Amrita (deceased) after eloping with her. Since marriage, Amrita was under depression as her family members had not accepted the said marriage and had severed all relations with Amrita, she tried to contact/pacify her parents but her parents were not willing to talk to her and FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 6 of 72 had not accepted the said marriage and due to this reason, Amrita committed suicide. It is further stated that after her death, her parents got registered false FIR and have deposed falsely before this court and that there was no question of any dowry demand or cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry. All the accused persons opted not to lead any evidence in their defence.
8. The brief of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined during trial are as under:-
9. PW1 HC Deepak Kumar deposed that on 14.11.2017 at about 7 pm he had received one tehrir from SI Praveen for registration of FIR and he got registered FIR No. 797/2017 Ex.PW-1/A through the computer operator. He also issued certificate under section 65 B Evidence Act Ex.PW-1/B and also made endorsement Ex.PW-1/C. PW1 also got exhibited DD No.38 as Ex.PW-1/D containing the Kaymi Bandi of registration of FIR vide DD No. 38.
10. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given.
11. PW-2 Sh. Rahul Tyagi deposed that he had been running a Trust with the name "Arya Samaj Mandir Trust (Registered)"
from premises no. 12 First Floor, Rajender Market, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and through the said trust, he got the marriages solemnized as per the Arya Samaj traditions and customs at the given address. He further deposed that on 16.07.2016, one Manoj Kumar and Amrita Kumari had come for getting their marriage solemnized and had produced their witnesses and documents regarding their age proof as well as affidavits etc. He further deposed that he called the priest Radhey Shyam for FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 7 of 72 performing marriage ceremony of both the said persons and proved documents Ex. PW-2/A (Colly).
12. This witness was also not cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given.
13. PW3 ASI Satbir deposed that on 13.11.2017, he was posted as Incharge of mobile crime team, Outer District, Delhi. On that day, on receipt of call from District Control Room, he alongwith photographers Ct. Umed and Finger Print Proficient Ct. Sanjay had gone in the mobile crime team van to H. No. 166/167, Gali No. 3, Gupta Enclave, Vikas Nagar, Delhi. SI Praveen of PS Ranhola and the family members of the deceased were found present at the said house. The dead body of deceased Amrita was lying on the ground. He further deposed that they had come to know that Amrita had committed suicide by hanging from the ceiling fan of her room. On the neck of the deceased, there were marks and on her mouth there was blood and the deceased was of 5' 2" of height. On measuring the height of ceiling fan from the bed lying in the room (place of incident) it was found 7'5" and the height of bed from the floor was 2' 2". There was a chunni stated to be used in hanging and it was also stated that knot had been opened of it. On measuring, length of the said chunni was found 7''. He further deposed that there was no suicide note found at the spot. The photographer had taken the photographs of the dead body as well as of the room from different angles. After completion of the inspection, he prepared the scene of crime report Ex.PW3/A and gave it to SI Praveen.
14. During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 8 of 72 PW3 admitted that inside latches (kundi) of the door of the room of deceased Amrita was also found in broken condition. He also admitted that in his report (Ex.PW-3/A), in column no. 13, he had mentioned that during inspection, he had come to know that deceased Amrita had bolted the room from inside and had committed suicide in the said room by hanging from the ceiling fan with white-yellow colour chunni.
15. PW-4 Sh. Ram Suresh Singh deposed that he had three sons and two daughters namely, Roop Tara Devi and Amrita Kumari (deceased). He further deposed that his elder daughter namely, Roop Tara Devi was married to Saroj Kumar and she used to reside at her matrimonial house situated at Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi and accused Manoj Kumar Singh is the real brother of Saroj Kumar. He further deposed that about 1 ½ year prior to the incident, accused Manoj Kumar Singh had taken his daughter Amrita Kumari from his house situated at village Kochas without their consent and knowledge and after that, they made search for Amrita Kumari from their relatives. He further deposed that his elder daughter Roop Tara telephonically informed him that Amrita had been brought to her matrimonial house by her Devar Manoj Kumar Singh. His daughter Roop Tara also told him that Amrita and Manoj have performed the marriage ceremony and they would be invited in the marriage reception at Delhi. He further deposed that they were not invited in the reception ceremony, however, his daughter Amrita had started residing at her matrimonial house in Delhi. He further deposed that after three months, his elder daughter Roop Tara came to their village. On 13.11.2017 at about 3.30 a.m, he had received telephone call to the effect that FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 9 of 72 the caller was calling from Vikas Nagar and his daughter had been murdered (mein Vikas Nagar se bol raha hoon aur apki beti ko maar diya gaya hai).
16. He further deposed that his son namely, Raj Kamal was residing at Delhi as he was getting education at Delhi. He made telephone call to Raj Kamal and asked him about the area jurisdiction of the police station in which the matrimonial house of Amrita was situated as well as about the telephone number of the said police station. Raj Kamal gave him telephone number of police station Ranhola and he made telephone call to PS Ranhola from his village and told the address of matrimonial house of Amrita to the police. He also told the police to make enquiry about the well being of his daughter Amrita and also about the facts which he had come to know from the telephonic call of unknown person about Amrita.
17. He further deposed that they started from their village for Delhi and reached at PS Ranhola. He was told by the police that as the marriage of Amrita was under seven years, his statement would be recorded by the SDM. He gave his statement to the SDM Ex.PW-4/A and thereafter, they went to a hospital with the police officials where he was shown the dead body of his daughter Amrita. After he had identified the dead body, the postmortem examination was conducted and his statement Ex.PW4/B regarding identification of dead body was recorded. He further deposed that they received the dead body after postmortem examination vide receipt Ex.PW-4/C and the dead body was cremated at Delhi and thereafter they went back to their village.
FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 10 of 72
18. PW4 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state as he was allegedly resiling from his previous statement. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW4 admitted that after making telephonic call to the police, he had made telephone call to the father-in-law of his daughter Amrita. He voluntarily stated that he had asked from him as to where he was present at that moment and whether he had learnt any news about his family on which he stated that he did not want to get indulged into the matter (mein is lafde mai padna nahi chahta hoon). He also stated that the dead body of deceased Amrita was cremated on 15.11.2017 and on 16.11.2017 they had left Delhi for their village. He admitted that the marriage between Saroj Kumar and his elder daughter Roop Tara was solemnized on 02.11.2012. He also admitted that after marriage her daughter Roop Tara used to be abused and beaten at her matrimonial house and due to abuses and beatings, his daughter Roop Tara had come back to her house at village. He voluntarily stated that besides abuses and beatings, she was expecting at that time and her delivery was also due, therefore, she had come to her house. He also admitted that he was not able to communicate with Amrita and when he had a talk with father of the boy namely Laxman Singh, he stated that he will not say anything about his family members even if they give beatings or kill Amrita.
19. During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, PW4 stated that his daughter Roop Tara was staying at her matrimonial house as she was adjusting herself in the said house. He admitted that he had not made any complaint against husband of Roop Tara namely Saroj and his family FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 11 of 72 members in any police station, SDM office, CAW Cell or to the Court at Kochas, District Rohtash, or in Delhi. He also admitted that prior to the death of Amrita, Roop Tara had not lodged any complaint against her husband and in-laws. PW4 also stated that he had not visited matrimonial house of Amrita from the day she had gone with Manoj till her death. He also admitted that he had not talked with Amrita by phone or in person from the day she went with Manoj till her death. He also admitted that he got angry when he came to know that Manoj and Amrita had eloped despite being educated persons and that he had felt bad at that time due to loss of his reputation in the society. He also admitted that he had not stated anything about dowry demand and harassment pertaining to Roop Tara and Amrita in his statement Ex.PW- 4/A.
20. He also stated that he had not personally met the mother- in-law, both sisters-in-law and Raja (Nandoi) of his daughters Roop Tara and Amrita after elopement of Amrita with Manoj. He further stated that during the lifetime of Amrita, Roop Tara had not told him about any harassment of Amrita by her in- laws and husband Manoj. He also stated that Roop Tara had come to his house on her own alone from Delhi and that she had travelled alone from Delhi to his village 2-3 times. He did not know in what manner Roop Tara used to be harassed at her matrimonial house. She had not told the Executive Magistrate when and in what manner, Roop Tara and Amrita were harassed by their mother-in-law, two sisters-in-law, Raja (nandoi) and Manoj. He stated that his daughter Roop Tara had told him about snatching of mobile phone of Amrita when she FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 12 of 72 had come to her house from Delhi but he could not tell the date and month. He also stated that Roop Tara had told him about harassment 2-3 times when she came to her house from Delhi. He admitted that he had not named husband of Roop Tara and her father-in-law namely Laxman Singh in the complaint Ex.PW-4/A. He also stated that he had not visited the matrimonial house of Amrita after her death and had also not met with any of the neighbors of accused. He admitted that he had lodged complaint in the present case on the basis of suspicion against the accused. He could not say if Amrita was sleeping with her daughter or if accused Manoj had also come late in night and slept in the same room. He could not say if there was a verbal altercation between accused Manoj and Amrita in that night and Amrita went to sleep in another room. He also could not say if Amrita committed suicide in another room due to the afore-said reasons.
21. He denied the suggestion that he gave a false statement to the Executive Magistrate in anger due to the reason that he was upset with the elopement of his daughter Amrita with accused Manoj and marriage without his consent and knowledge.
22. PW5 Sh. Ravi Shekhar Singh deposed that deceased Amrita Kumari was his cousin sister (daughter of Mama) and in year 2017, on the occasion of Rakshabandhan, Amrita had come to his house for tying Rakhi. He further deposed that after she had tied Rakhi to him, he asked her about her well being upon which she started weeping and told that quarrels are taking place at her matrimonial house. He further deposed that Amrita told him that whenever she used to ask from her mother-in-law as to what was to be cooked, her mother-in-law FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 13 of 72 would say that she would not give her ration / vegetable for cooking and she should bring it from her parental house. He further deposed that deceased Amrita had also told him that whenever she used to tell this fact to her husband, he used to give her beatings and he was not concerned with the said matters. Amrita also asked him not to share the afore-said facts with any person. While she was telling the afore-said facts to him, telephone call of accused Manoj was received by Amrita on her mobile phone consequent upon which Amrita told him that Manoj was calling her and he had also gone with Amrita downstairs to see her off.
23. PW5 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state as he was allegedly resiling from his statement made before the police. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW5 stated that he knew accused Manoj Kumar as he is husband of Amrita and is not related to him otherwise. He denied that Amrita Kumari had told him that her husband Manoj Kumar was not doing any work those days and he further denied that on the day of Rakhi, Amrita Kumari had told him that whenever she needed money and used to ask Manoj to do the work, Manoj used to give her beatings. He could not tell if his statement was recorded by IO Inspector Sahi Ram on 09.12.2017. He denied that he had stated those facts to the IO during his statement. This witness was read over his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC Mark PW5/A but PW5 denied to have made such statement to the IO. PW5 denied to have stated to the IO in his statement that Amrita had further told him that Manoj used to beat her on minor issues and used to ask her to bring money from her father for starting his own FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 14 of 72 work but since Amrita and Manoj had a love marriage, she was not in a position to bring anything from her parents. He also denied to have stated to the IO in his statement that Amrita told him that on refusal to bring money, Manoj used to give her beatings. He also denied to have stated to the IO in his statement that Amrita had told him that her mother-in-law used to harass her and when she used to demand vegetables her mother-in-law used to say that she should bring it from her parental house as she had married his son without any dowry. He also denied to have stated to the IO in his statement that Amrita had told him that on the issue of complaint to police, they used to threaten her to leave her. He also denied to have stated to the IO in his statement that on the instigation of her elder sister-in-law Babita and her husband Raja, Manoj and his mother as well as her sister-in-law Jyoti used to harass her. He also denied to have stated to the IO in his statement that Amrita told him that Raja used to say that if Amrita is harassed to an extent, he will get good amount of money in dowry from the parents of Amrita. He denied to have stated to the IO in his statement that Amrita had told him that whenever Babita and her husband used to visit house of Amrita, they used to give her taunts for not bringing the dowry and used to dealt her beaten by Manoj by pin-pointing the mistakes in her work. PW5 denied that he had given his true and correct statement to IO Inspector Sahi Ram or that all the facts which were told to him by Amrita were told by him to the IO in his statement Mark-PW5/A. He denied that he had not narrated the complete facts which were told to him by Amrita on the said day in his statement made before the Court as he had been won over by FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 15 of 72 the accused.
24. During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, PW5 stated that he had gone to the residence of accused Manoj prior to his marriage with Amrita several times and met Rooptara and her in-laws. He admitted that after marriage of Amrita with Manoj, he went twice to their house, but could not meet them. He also stated that Amrita had not stated him the specific date and month of incident related to the quarrel about vegetables as stated by him. He also stated that on 14.11.2017, he took his maternal uncle and Arvind Kumar to police station. He also stated that his maternal uncle and brother Arvind had left Delhi on 15.11.2017.
25. PW6 Smt. Roop Tara deposed that she was married to Saroj Singh in the year 2012 and accused Manoj Kumar Singh is her brother-in-law (dewar). After two month of her marriage, her mother-in-law started abusing her and the behaviour of her brother-in-law i.e. accused Manoj was also bad towards her. She further deposed that her sister-in-law namely Babita and Jyoti were also behaving badly with her and they used to say that she was not doing the household work and used to remain ill. They did not provide medicine to her whenever she had fallen ill and due to this reason, she used to go back to her parental house. She further deposed that deceased Amrita was her younger sister and accused Manoj Kumar had allured Amrita and had taken her to Delhi. She further deposed that accused Manoj Kumar and Amrita came to her matrimonial house after getting married. After coming to know about marriage of Amrita and accused Manoj Kumar, she made telephone call to her father and told him about this FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 16 of 72 fact. On this, all the family members of her husband and her husband started scolding her. They stated that they would have told the fact of marriage of Manoj and Amrita later on and why she was in hurry to inform her parents about the marriage. She further deposed that for 2-3 months, the married life of Amrita was going on smoothly but thereafter accused persons started harassing her. She stated that whenever she used to demand any cloth or other article, they used to say "what she had brought from her parental house?" and they used to say that whatever articles her elder sister had brought from her parental house should have been brought by her also. (jo saman teri badi behan apne ghar se layi hai tu bhi apne ghar se laa). Her husband used to give her beatings on this issue.
26. She further deposed that she resided at her matrimonial house alongwith her sister for about four months and thereafter, her child got ill and when she demanded money towards medical expenses of her child, her husband and his family members refused to give the same to her. She stated that she left her matrimonial house with her children to her parental house so that her ailing child could get medical treatment at Kochas and from the said day, she had been residing at her parental house. She further deposed that after one month of her leaving her matrimonial house, she had received telephone call of Amrita from her mobile phone. When she asked from her about her well being, she told that her condition was the same as it was earlier and told that behaviour of her husband and in-laws was bad towards her and thereafter the phone was disconnected. She further deposed that on the day of Diwali, she had last conversation with FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 17 of 72 Amrita on telephone. On 13.11.2017, at about 4 a.m, one neighbour of her matrimonial house, had made telephone call to the mobile phone of her father and told him that the younger daughter of her father had expired.
27. PW6 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state as she was allegedly resiling from her previous statement. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW6 stated that she was not given beatings by her in-laws after her marriage. She voluntarily stated that they only used to abuse her. She also stated that dowry was not demanded by her in- laws from her. She further stated that she was residing separately from her husband for about two years and she did not know if her husband was residing at her matrimonial house in Delhi as during that period, her husband had not made any telephone call to her. She admitted that she wanted to live with her husband. She also admitted that many times she used to go to her parental house and her father used to take her back to matrimonial house after pacifying her and during this period, a love affair started between her devar Manoj Kumar and her sister Amrita. She further admitted that after she informed her father about marriage of Amrita and accused Manoj, talks were initiated between her father and the family members of Manoj during which it was settled that at the time of Bahu Bhoj (reception) they would be inviting her family members and the time passed in this manner.
28. She also admitted that the family members of her husband and her husband started telling her that she should bring the same articles for her younger sister which her father had given in her marriage and they had not given beatings to her on this FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 18 of 72 issue, but they used to hurl abuses to her on this issue. She also admitted that when she could not bring the cash and articles from her parental house, accused persons started abusing her on which she went to her village. She stated that only the husband of Amrita had given her beatings on this issue and not other in-laws. She admitted that at that time when she had left her matrimonial house for village, her younger sister was pregnant. She also admitted that when her younger sister told her about the pregnancy and beatings at her matrimonial house, her mobile phone was snatched from her on the same day. She did not know as to who had snatched the mobile phone from Amrita on that day.
29. During cross examination on behalf of accused persons, PW6 stated that whenever she used to fall ill, her brother or father did not take her to village from Delhi. She voluntarily stated that she used to go alone. She also stated that before marriage of Manoj and Amrita, Manoj visited their village 2-3 times and used to stay for about one or two days during that visit. She also stated that she had not made any complaint against her husband and in-laws during her stay at matrimonial house. She had not filed any complaint regarding any harassment to her deceased sister Amrita, to any authority, police, SDM or concerned court in Delhi or in the concerned court and PS of District Rohtash. She further stated that when she told her father about marriage between Manoj and Amrita, nobody from her parental house came to her matrimonial house. She further stated that after marriage of Amrita, she used to have conversation with her brother namely Raj Kamal. She admitted that due to the marriage of Amrita with accused FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 19 of 72 Manoj, her family members were unhappy and annoyed with them.
30. She stated that she had not come to Delhi after the death of Amrita. She voluntarily stated that she had not gone to her matrimonial house, however she was called by the police at PS Ranhola after 4-5 days when her father returned to their village from Delhi. She did not remember the date, month, time and day when accused Manoj had beaten Amrita. She also stated that accused Manoj used to beat Amrita whenever she raised demand for clothes etc. and also used to say that she should bring articles from her parental home.
31. PW6 admitted that Amrita had never gone to her parental house after her marriage. She denied the suggestion that Amrita was never called to her parental house after her marriage. She stated that Amrita gave birth to a baby girl, but she did not know the date and month as she was at her parental home when the baby was born. She admitted that the baby girl of Amrita was being looked after by the parents of accused Manoj. She also admitted that after birth of daughter of Amrita, her parents had not visited matrimonial house of Amrita. She also stated that accused Manoj used to ply his own commercial vehicle and used to give his earnings to his mother.
32. During cross-examination on behalf of accused Jyoti, Babita and Kanti Devi, PW6 stated that she did not remember whether her deceased sister got married with accused Manoj in the month of July 2016. On the date of incident i.e. 12- 13.11.2017, she was at her parental place at Bihar. She further stated that she was residing at her parental house for about two FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 20 of 72 months prior to the date of incident. She admitted that during the subsistence of the marriage between accused Manoj and her deceased sister, neither she nor any of her family members filed any complaint against the accused persons to any authority regarding any harassment allegedly caused to her sister. She also admitted that since 2012 till the date of incident, neither she nor any of her family members filed any complaint to any authority for the alleged harassment, torture meted out to her.
33. PW6 did not remember the year in which accused Babita got married, however the same was before the marriage of deceased with accused Manoj. She admitted that after her marriage, Babita used to stay separately with her husband at Bakkarwala and resided at the said place till the date of incident. She further admitted that accused Babita never interfere in the marital life of Manoj and Amrita (since deceased). She further admitted that accused Jyoti was working as a beautician at Vikas Puri and she used to leave for her job at about 9 am and used to return at about 8 pm. She further admitted that accused Jyoti never interfered in the marital life of Manoj and Amrita (since deceased). She also admitted that Amrita was having love affair with accused Manoj prior to their marriage. She further admitted that when her sister came alongwith accused Manoj at her matrimonial home, none of the aforesaid accused persons demanded any dowry from her. She further admitted that since the marriage between the accused Manoj and deceased, all expenses of deceased were incurred by her in-laws. She further admitted that on or around Dusshera in the year 2017, Manoj and FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 21 of 72 Amrita had gone to Banaras for a trip. PW6 was not aware whether five days before of the trip to Banaras, Manoj and Amrita had also visited their native place Sarna, Bihar. She further admitted that she used to visit her parental house as she had health problem in Delhi. She further admitted that she met her husband on the occasion of Dusshera 2019 at Sarna. She further admitted that accused Kanti Devi never demanded any dowry or harassed the deceased in her presence. She further admitted that deceased Amrita had never told her on mobile phone or otherwise that accused Kanti Devi demanded dowry or harassed her for the same. She did not remember the date or time when accused Manoj gave beatings to Amrita (since deceased). She further admitted that she had not made any complaint in that regard to any authority before registration of the present case.
34. She also admitted that in her presence accused Babita, Jyoti and Kanti Devi had not treated her sister with cruelty and had not demanded any dowry articles from her. She further admitted that during her lifetime her sister Nain Tara never informed her that accused persons namely Babita, Jyoti and Kanti Devi have been treating her with cruelty or demanding any dowry from her.
35. PW7 Mr. Arvind Kumar deposed that he is the eldest son of his parents and had two sisters namely Amrita (deceased) and Rooptara. His sister Rooptara was residing at her matrimonial house situated in Delhi after her marriage and Rooptara used to tell her father that she was being tortured by her husband and in-laws and they did not provide her money for buying medicine. He further deposed that in the year 2017, FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 22 of 72 accused Manoj Kumar took Amrita to Delhi and they got married. As Amrita had married Manoj on her own, he stopped talking to her. He further deposed that in the month of November 2017, he came to know that Amrita had died and he did not know the reason of her death. He stated that he had come to Delhi on coming to know about the death of Amrita and his statement was recorded by Executive Magistrate which is Ex.PW- 7/A.
36. During cross examination on behalf of accused persons, PW7 stated that before death of Amrita, he had come to know that her husband used to demand money from her and this fact was not told to him by Amrita. He stated that he had not stated to the Executive Magistrate in his statement that he was not on talking terms with Amrita. He voluntarily stated that he was not on talking terms with her. He also stated that he came to Delhi on 14.11.2017 alongwith his father and left Delhi with him on 15/16.11.2017. He could not tell the date or month when Rooptara told her father that she was tortured by her husband and in-laws.
37. PW8 Sh. Puneet Kulshreshtha, Executive Magistrate deposed that on 13.11.2017 while he was posted as Executive Magistrate, Dwarka, New Delhi, he had received telephonic information from the police officials of PS Ranhola, regarding death of one Amrita Kumari within seven years of her marriage in unnatural circumstances. He further deposed that the parents of deceased had not arrived at the place of occurrence i.e. matrimonial house of deceased on that day. He further deposed that on 14.11.2017 father of deceased namely Sh. Ram Suresh Singh alongwith his two sons namely Arvind FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 23 of 72 Kumar Singh and Raj Kamal Kumar had come to his office and he recorded their statements Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW7/A and Ex PW8/A.
38. During cross examination on behalf of accused persons, PW8 admitted that in the statement Ex. PW4/A of Sh. Ram Suresh Singh, there is no mention about any demand of dowry. He further admitted that Sh. Ram Suresh Singh has not told him that any dowry was demanded either from him or his daughter by the accused Manoj Kumar or his family members. PW8 voluntarily stated that he had recorded whatever Sh. Ram Suresh Singh had told him at that time and nothing was added or leftover. PW8 also stated that since the manner and reason of torturing /harassment to the deceased is not mentioned in the statement Ex. PW4/A, Sh. Ram Suresh Singh might not have told him about this thing. PW8 also admitted that Sh. Raj Kamal Kumar had not stated to him that either accused Manoj or his family members ever demanded any dowry from Sh. Raj Kamal, his father, his sister or anybody. PW8 also stated that Sh. Raj Kamal Kumar had not told him about the manner, reason and time period for harassment to deceased Amrita Kumari. He voluntarily stated that Sh Raj Kamal Kumar had only stated to him that his sisters used to be harassed by accused Manoj and his family members. PW8 also admitted that Arvind Kumar Singh had not told him any specific time of harassment and specific demand. He voluntarily stated that Arvind Kumar Singh had stated to him that "in the meanwhile, the girl child of Amrita was born and Amrita was used to be tortured for money."
39. PW9 Sh. Raj Kamal Kumar deposed that deceased Amrita FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 24 of 72 Kumari was his younger sister. Prior to the incident about one and half years ago, his sister Amrita Kumari was taken by accused Manoj Kumar to his house situated at Delhi. At that time, his sister Amrita Kumari used to reside with her parents at Kochas and when she was missing from the house, they made search for her for 2-3 days. Thereafter, they came to know that she was taken to Delhi by accused Manoj who is brother of his Jija namely Saroj Kumar. He further deposed that his sister namely Roop Tara wife of Sh. Saroj Kumar had told them about the fact that Amrita Kumari had been taken to her matrimonial house by her Devar i.e. accused Manoj Kumar as they had got married. He stated that when he asked from accused Manoj Kumar Singh to hand over documentary proof of their marriage, he stated that the certificate of marriage would be provided to them but he did not give the same. PW9 further deposed that on 13.11.2017 at about 3.30 am, his father made telephone call to him and told him that he had received a telephonic call and caller had informed him about the death of Amrita. He searched Google and got the phone number of police station Ranhola and told the said number to his father. He further deposed that his father made telephone call to PS Ranhola and made inquiry from there about the telephonic informations. Thereafter, they started from Kochas to Delhi and on 14.11.2017 reached at Delhi. He further deposed that they went to office of SDM, Dwarka and he gave his statement to the Executive Magistrate which is Ex. PW8/A. He further deposed that he did not know as to why Amrita had committed suicide, however, he had a suspicion that in causing death of Amrita, her in-laws might be involved. He further FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 25 of 72 deposed that on 09.12.2017 he had handed over three photographs Ex. PW9/B (Colly) of Amrita Kumari and Manoj Kumar to IO which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/A. He had also handed over to the IO, reply of his father to the notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C which is Ex. PW4/D. He identified the accused Manoj in the Court.
40. PW9 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state as he was allegedly resiling from his statement made before the Executive Magistrate. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW9 admitted that mother of accused Manoj and accused Manoj used to give beatings to his both sisters and their sister in laws also used to harass them. He voluntarily stated that his sister Roop Tara had told this fact to him. PW9 also admitted that in laws of Amrita used to make accusations on her and used to talk with them rudely (Humse badtameezee se baat karte they) and due to this reason they had not visited the matrimonial house of his sisters.
41. During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, PW9 stated that he came to know about birth of a baby girl of Amrita through her Whatsapp message to him. He admitted that they were not happy with the marriage of Amrita with accused Manoj and due to this reason they had not visited the matrimonial house of Amrita after her marriage and on the birth of her girl child. PW9 also stated that Amrita had not told him about the harassment and dowry demand by the accused or his family members at any point of time.
42. PW10 Sh. Vivek Soni deposed that accused Manoj Kumar Singh is his friend and on 16.07.2016 Manoj Kumar Singh got married to Amrita in Arya Samaj Mandir situated near Tis FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 26 of 72 Hazari Court. PW10 had attended the marriage ceremony on the request of accused Manoj Kumar Singh and had also signed the certificate of marriage of Manoj Kumar Singh with Amrita,which is Ex.PW- 2/A.
43. During cross examination on behalf of accused persons, PW10 admitted that accused Manoj Kumar was residing adjacent to his house in Delhi. He stated that before marriage, accused Manoj Kumar used to have conversations with Amrita and he had also talked to her on telephone at that time. He further stated that after marriage of Amrita and accused Manoj Kumar, they used to visit his house on family functions. He also stated that Amrita had not made any complaint to him against her husband or her in-laws. He also stated that he had not seen any family member of Amrita visiting house of accused Manoj Kumar after their marriage. He admitted that a girl was born out of marriage between accused Manoj Kumar and Amrita. He also stated that he did not find any change in the behaviour of Amrita even after birth of the girl child. He further stated that Amrita had not made any complaint to him that even after birth of the girl child, none of her family member had come to meet her. He also stated that Amrita used to become sad when she was not able to have telephonic conversation with her brother. He further stated that accused Manoj Kumar used to earn about Rs.2,000/- per day by driving his own taxi. He further stated that besides parents of accused Manoj Kumar, his sister and wife with the child were residing together. He voluntarily stated that father of accused Manoj Kumar used to remain on duty for most of the time being an Ex. Army man. He further stated that there were all basic FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 27 of 72 amenities in the house of accused Manoj like Car, AC, Fridge etc. He also stated that he had never heard any noise coming from the house of Armita and accused Manoj from which he might infer that they were quarreling with each other.
44. PW11 Sh. Radhey Shyam deposed that he used to work as a Priest at Arya Samaj Mandir Trust, 12 FF, Rajinder Market, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and used to solemnize marriages at Arya Samaj Mandir Trust. He further deposed that on one occasion, police had shown photocopy of one marriage certificate of Manoj Kumar and Amrita Kumari dated 16.07.2016, reference no. 524/016 Ex.PW-2/A and he told them that he solemnized the said marriage.
45. During cross examination on behalf of accused persons, PW11 stated that accused Manoj Kumar and Amrita Kumari were happy when they came for marriage. He also stated that he never met accused Manoj Kumar and Amrita Kumari after their marriage and till date nobody has come to him to make any complaint regarding this marriage after the day of marriage.
46. PW12 ASI Om Prakash deposed that on 24.11.2017, he was posted as Assistant Draftsman at Mapping Section, West District, Delhi. On that day, he accompanied Inspector Sahi Ram to the spot i.e. ground floor, H. No. 166-167, Gali No. 3 Gupta Enclave, Vikas Nagar, Delhi where he took rough notes and measurements at the instance of Inspector Sahi Ram. He further deposed that on 28.11.2017, he prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW-12/A on the basis of rough notes and handed over the scaled site plan to Inspector Sahi Ram.
47. During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 28 of 72 this witness could not say as to who met him at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he never went to the spot or that he prepared the site plan out of his own imagination as told by Inspector Sahi Ram.
48. PW13 Dr. V.K Ranga deposed that on 15.11.2017, he was posted with DDU hospital as Specialist and on that day, he had conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Amrita Kumari aged about 21 years. He further deposed that after conducting postmortem, he had prepared PM report no. 1925/2017 Ex.PW13/A and opined the cause of death to be asphyxia secondary to constrictions of neck structures as a result of hanging. He had also opined that the ligature mark was fresh and ante-mortem in nature. However, he had preserved blood and viscera on the request of IO to rule out any unknown poison. He further deposed that on 06.02.2018, one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of 'PK' was examined by him which upon opening found containing one yellow and white chunni. He measured the said chunni and thereafter gave subsequent opinion to the effect that the chunni examined by him is sufficient for hanging with the ceiling fan and Smt. Amrita Kumari could be hanged by the said chunni. He exhibited the subsequent opinion dated 06.02.2018 prepared by him as Ex.PW13/B. PW13 further deposed after seeing the FSL report no. 2018/C-0019 dated 28.02.2018 that no metallic poison ethyl and methyl alcohol or any other poison could be detected from the viscera of deceased. Accordingly, he opined that the cause of death in the present case to be asphyxia as a result of ante-motem hanging.
49. During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, he FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 29 of 72 admitted that the manner of death of Ms. Amrita Kumari is suicidal in nature.
50. PW14 HC Ashok Kumar deposed that on 13.11.2017, he was posted at PS Ranhola as constable and was on night emergency duty from 8 PM to 8 AM with SI Praveen Kumar. On that day, DD No. 9A was marked to SI Praveen Kumar and accordingly, he accompanied him to house no. 166-167, Gali No.3, Gupta Enclave, Vikas Nagar where they found the body of one lady whose name was revealed as Amrita Kumar wife of Manoj Kumar lying on the ground floor of the said house. He further deposed that it was revealed to them that marriage of Amrita was performed with Manoj Kumar on 16.07.2016 and that she had committed suicide by hanging herself with the help of chunni in a room and the body of Amrita was taken off from the said fan by Manoj Kumar and his family members and was kept in hall of ground floor of the said house. They also found one yellow white colour chunni lying on the bed and one black colour plastic chair lying near the said bed and the kundi of the door of the room of said house was in broken condition. He further deposed that SI Praveen Kumar called crime team and got the place of occurrence inspected through crime team Incharge and the photographer took the photographs of the place of occurrence. SI Praveen had also contacted the concerned SDM Dwarka through telephone. He further deposed that SI Praveen seized the said chunni after sealing the same with the seal of 'PK' vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A. He further deposed that thereafter, on the instruction of SI Praveen, he took the body of Amrita to the mortuary of DDU hospital, Hari Nagar and got the said body FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 30 of 72 preserved and remained in the said mortuary.
51. During cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, PW14 denied the suggestion that he had not accompanied SI Praveen Kumar to the place of occurrence or that crime team had not visited in his presence to the place of occurrence or that no photographs were taken by crime team photographer in his presence.
52. PW15 HC Umed Singh deposed that on 13.11.2017 he was posted as photographer with crime team, Outer District. On that day, on receipt of a message from control room, he alongwith ASI Satbir i.e. Crime team Incharge and Ct. Sanjay i.e. finger print proficient went to the place of occurrence i.e. house no. 166-167, Gupta Enclave, Vikas Nagar, Delhi where they met SI Praveen Kumar and other police officials. He further deposed that on the instructions of Crime Team Incharge and SI Praveen Kumar, he took the photographs of dead body of Amrita Kumari as well as of the place of occurrence. After developing, he handed over the said photographs to IO Inspector Sahi Ram. He also exhibited the said 17 photographs as collectively Ex.PW15/A. He had also issued certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW15/B.
53. During cross examination on behalf of all the accused persons, PW15 stated that he took the photograph on 13.11.2017 from different angles but could not demonstrate the said angles.
54. PW16 HC Jagmohan deposed that on 15.11.2017 he was posted at PS Ranhola as Constable. On that day, he had accompanied Inspector Sahiram to DDU hospital, Hari Nagar where they met Ram Suresh, Raj Kamal and Arvind i.e. FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 31 of 72 relatives of deceased Amrita Kumari. He further deposed that in the said hospital, IO had recorded their statements and got conducted postmortem on the body of Amrita. After postmortem, the concerned doctor had handed over the sealed pullanda containing viscera and two sample seals to IO which IO had seized through seizure memo. He further deposed that after postmortem, the body of Amrita was handed over to her father Sh. Ram Suresh. Thereafter, during investigation, on the same day, accused Manoj Kumar Singh was arrested from his residence.
55. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given.
56. PW17 SI Praveen deposed that on 12.11.2017, he was posted at PS Ranhola and was on night emergency duty from 8 PM to 8 AM alongwith Ct. Ashok. On that day i.e. on 13.11.2017 at about 5.45 AM DD no. 9A was marked to him. Accordingly, he alongwith Ct. Ashok went to the place of occurrence i.e. house no. 166/167, gali no.3, near holy convent school, Gupta enclave, Vikas Nagar, Delhi. Upon reaching at the said house, he found one lady was lying dead in the hall built on the ground floor. He further deposed that the name of said lady was revealed to be Amrita W/o Manoj Kumar. It was also revealed to him that the marriage of Amrita took place on 16.07.2016 with Manoj Kumar. He further deposed that it was also revealed to him that said Amrita had committed suicide by hanging herself with the help of chunni from ceiling fan and the body of Amrita was brought down by Manoj Kumar and other family members. He further deposed that he also found one yellow white colour chunni lying over the bed and one FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 32 of 72 black colour plastic chair lying near the bed and the kundi of the door of the room was in broken condition. He had called crime team at the spot. Crime team incharge inspected the place of occurrence and crime team photographer took the photographs of the place of occurrence. He further deposed that he had also informed the concerned SDM and had seized the chunni after sealing the same with the seal of PK vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A. He had also seized the said chair vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/A. Thereafter, the body of Amrita was sent to the mortuary of DDU hospital through Ct. Ashok with directions to preserve the body. He further deposed that he had also intimated the father of deceased Amrita through phone. DD No. 9A was kept pending and further inquiry was marked to Inspector Sahi Ram. Inspector Sahi Ram got recorded the statement of parents of deceased from concerned SDM and also got conducted postmortem on the body of Amrita and thereafter, the file was again marked to him.
57. He further deposed that on 14.11.2017 he prepared rukka Ex.PW17/B and got the FIR registered through DO. After registration of FIR, the investigation of the present case was marked to Inspector Sahi Ram.
58. During cross examination on behalf of accused persons, he admitted that he had not recorded the statement of any public person available at the said residence when he first visited there.
59. PW18 Inspector Sahi Ram deposed that on 14.11.2017 he was posted at PS Ranhola as ATO. On that day, DD No. 9A was marked to him for inquiry purposes as per the instructions FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 33 of 72 of SHO. On that day, Sh. Ram Suresh Singh i.e. the father of deceased and Raj Kamal and Arvind i.e. the brothers of deceased came to police station and met him. Accordingly, he took them to the office of Executive Magistrate, Dwarka (Najafgarh) where the concerned Executive Magistrate Sh. Puneet Kulshreshta recorded their statements. He further deposed that after recording their statements, Sh. Puneet Kulshreshtha handed over the said statements to him with endorsement for taking appropriate action as per law. PW18 further deposed that he had produced the said statements to SI Praveen at the direction of the concerned SHO. SI Praveen perused the said statements and made endorsement and handed over the rukka to Duty officer. Accordingly, Duty officer registered FIR No. 797/2017. He further deposed that after the registration of FIR, the investigation of the present case was marked to him and SI Praveen had handed over the documents/memos prepared by him. He further deposed that on 15.11.2017, he visited the place of occurrence and prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW18/A. During the course of investigation, he went to the mortuary of DDU hospital and met the relatives of said deceased and recorded the statements of said relatives. He further deposed that he had also moved an application Ex.PW18/B for conducting autopsy on the body of Amrita. Accordingly, the concerned autopsy surgeon conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased and after postmortem, the body of deceased was handed over to the relatives of deceased vide receipt Ex.PW4/C. The concerned autopsy surgeon had also handed over the exhibits alongwith sample seal which PW18 had seized vide seizure memo FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 34 of 72 Ex.PW18/C.
60. PW18 further deposed that on 15.11.2017 he effected the arrest of accused Manoj Kr. Singh vide memo Ex.PWPW18/D and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW18/E and also recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW18/F. He had also seized the marriage certificate produced by accused Manoj Kr. Singh vide memo Ex.PW18/G. He further deposed that he had also served notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C to the father of deceased and collected the relevant documents and photographs produced by him. During investigation, he had obtained subsequent opinion in respect of the ligature material i.e. chunni and efforts were made to arrest remaining accused persons i.e. Kanti Devi, Jyoti, Babita and Tej Pratap but they were absconding and therefore, he filed charge-sheet against accused Manoj Kr. Singh. During further investigation, he had obtained NBWs against accused Kanti Devi, Jyoti, Babita and Tej Pratap and thereafter, process u/s 82 Cr.P.C against them and all the said persons were since absconding, they were got declared proclaimed offenders and he had filed supplementary charge- sheet. He further deposed that thereafter accused persons namely Babita, Kanti Devi and Jyoti surrendered themselves before the court. He had moved an application for interrogation of accused Kanti Devi, Babita and Jyoti and effected arrest of accused Kanti Devi vide memo Ex.PW18/H, effected the arrest of accused Jyoti vide arrest memo Ex.PW18/I, effected the arrest of accused Babita vide arrest memo Ex.PW18/J and thereafter, he had filed supplementary charge-sheet against them.
61. During cross examination, PW18 stated that it was FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 35 of 72 revealed to him that marriage between accused Manoj Kumar Singh and Amrita (deceased) was a love marriage and the parents of Amrita had not attended the said marriage as Amrita had performed the said marriage after eloping with accused Manoj Kumar Singh without informing her parents. He also stated that the parents of Amrita had not provided any bills of proof of purchase of any articles given to Amrita despite service of notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C upon them. He further stated that it was revealed to him during investigation that the parents of Amrita had not spent anything at the time of marriage of Amrita with accused Manoj Kr. Singh. He also stated that no complaint was lodged by Amrita or any of her family members after the marriage till her death, at PS Ranhola. He also stated that during investigation, he made efforts to examine the neighbours of the matrimonial house of Amrita but the said neighbours did not give any statements. He denied the suggestion that during investigation, it was revealed to him that Amrita was never treated with cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry. He further denied the suggestion that no demand of dowry was ever made by any of the accused persons from Amrita or from any of her family members. He further denied the suggestion that Amrita committed suicide as she was under depression as after performing love marriage, her parents were not taking care of her or boycotted her.
62. On 09.05.2023 prosecution evidence was closed. On 13.07.2023, statement of accused persons namely Manoj Kumar Singh, Babita, Kanti Devi and Jyoti were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, all the accused have submitted that they are innocent and have been falsely FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 36 of 72 implicated and they have no connection with commission of offence of the present case. Accused Manoj Kumar Singh stated that in fact he had performed love marriage with Amrita after eloping with her. All the accused persons submitted that since marriage, Amrita was under depression as her family members had not accepted the said marriage and had severed all relations with Amrita. Amrita tried to contact/pacify her parents but her parents were not willing to talk to her and had not accepted said marriage. Due to this reason, Amrita committed suicide. They also stated that after her death, her parents got registered false FIR and have deposed falsely before this court. There was no question of any dowry demand or cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry. All the accused persons opted not to lead any evidence in their defence.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
63. I have heard the arguments advanced before me by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel. My findings are as under:
Identity of the accused:
64. In so far the identity of the accused Manoj Kumar Singh, Babita, Kanti Devi and Jyoti is concerned the same is not disputed. The accused Manoj Kumar Singh is the husband of the deceased Amrita. Accused Babita and Jyoti are sister-in-
laws and accused Kanti Devi is mother-in-law of deceased Amrita. Hence, I hereby hold that the identity of the accused persons stands established.
Unnatural death with seven years of marriage:
65. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the marriage between the accused Manoj Kumar Singh and the deceased FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 37 of 72 Amrita was a love marriage which was solemnized on 16.07.2016 and her unnatural death took place on the intervening night of 12/13.11.2017 i.e. within seven years of marriage.
Medical Evidence:
66. The case of the prosecution is that the postmortem on the body of deceased Amrita was conducted by Dr. V.K. Ranga (PW13) vide PM No. 1925/17 and he prepared PM report Ex.PW13/A. He deposed that in his opinion, the cause of death was due to asphyxia secondary to constriction of neck structures as result of ante-mortem hanging. The above medical evidence on record establishes that the cause of death of the deceased Amrita was asphyxia as a result of ante-
mortem hanging secondary to constriction of neck structure as a result of hanging and the manner of death was suicidal. Further it stands established that the death of the deceased Amrita was suicidal in nature.
67. The testimony of PW13 Dr. V.K Ranga reveals that he had also examined the ligature material used by deceased Amrita and after its examination, PW13 had given subsequent opinion Ex.PW13/B. Therefore, I hold that the medical evidence establishes that the ligature material i.e. Chunni was capable of bearing the weight of the deceased and the said report Ex.PW13/B is compatible to the case putforth by the prosecution regarding death of the deceased by hanging.
68. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has been able to establish that the death of Amrita was otherwise than under normal circumstances.
FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 38 of 72 Allegations against the accused under Section 498A & 304B IPC (dowry death proximity test):
69. Before coming to the discussion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution on merits, it is necessary to discuss the law in this regard. In order to succeed in charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the section. It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498A otherwise of Indian Penal Code, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health. The use of the expression "willful" in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonably expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative, as the case may be. Everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act and such a presumption must necessarily be drawn even if there is no intention to cause any injury or harm to the woman. Whether the conduct in question is likely to drive the woman FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 39 of 72 to cause injury to her life, limb or health, will depend upon a number of factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of awareness of the aggrieved woman, her temperament, state of her health, physical as well as mental and how she is likely to perceive such a behavior. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, it will also constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
70. The expression "Cruelty" takes in its ambit mental cruelty as well as physical torture of the woman. If the conduct of the accused with a woman is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life and safety, such a conduct would attract criminal liability, envisaged in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
71. If the woman has been harassed on account of her failure or the failure of her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, that also constitutes cruelty, within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC. The expression "harassment" has not been defined in Section 498A of IPC, but its dictionary meaning is to subject someone to continuous vexatious attacks, questions, demands or other unpleasantness, etc. However, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under Section 498A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, by positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 40 of 72 actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand.
72. Further, in order to establish a charge under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, which deals with what is described as "dowry death", the prosecution must necessarily prove the following ingredients:
i. The death of a woman must have been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstance;
ii. Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
iii. Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband;
iv. Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry;
v. Such cruelty or harassment is when to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
73. The term "Dowry" has not been defined in Section 304B of IPC, but, since this expression has been defined in Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it is required to be given the same meaning for the purpose of under Section 304B IPC as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under:
"....Definition of 'dowry'. In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or (b) by the parent of FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 41 of 72 either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before 3 or any time after the marriage 4in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case or persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies...."
74. Dowry would include that property or valuable security which is actually given or which is agreed to be given, in relation to the marriage of a person in question. The property or valuable security may be given or may be agreed to be given before marriage or at the time of marriage or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the marriage. However, there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given and the marriage. If at any time before or at the time of or even during marriage, the parents of a woman or any other person related or connected to her agree to give some cash, valuable security or property to her husband or in- laws after marriage, that also would be covered within the definition of dowry as the agreement or promise in such a case would be attributable to the marriage or proposed marriage and if there is demand for any cash property, valuable security etc. which is promised, but not given, it would constitute demand for dowry. If the husband of the girl or any other person related or connected to him, demands something from the girl or her parents or any other person related to or connected with her, saying that the articles being demanded by them were expected to be given or ought to have been given in marriage, that would also, to my mind, constitute demand of dowry because even though such an article may not have been agreed or FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 42 of 72 promised to be given by the girl or her family members, it might have been in the contemplation of the boy and/or his family members, on account of the expectation that such an article would be given at the time of marriage. Therefore, such demand would be considered to be a demand in connection with the marriage though made after the marriage has been solemnized. Even demand of articles such as T.V., fridge, jewellery, clothes, furniture, etc. which usually are given or expected in marriages in our country, would, considering the objective sought to be achieved by incorporating Section 304B in Indian Penal Code and enacting Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 fall within the purview of Section 304B of Indian Penal Code.
75. In the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1998 SC 958, the Apex Court has specifically held demand of T.V., Fridge, etc. though not agreed to be given or promised or even demanded prior to or at the time of marriage, to be a demand for dowry for the purpose of Section 304B of IPC. If cash or some property, etc. is demanded by the boy or his family members, after marriage, saying that they were expecting such cash, property, etc. to be given in marriage, and the girl, or her parents or any other person related or connected to her promise to fulfill such a demand, that also may fall within the purview of dowry, as the promise though made after marriage, would nevertheless be referrable to the marriage, having been made with a view to preserve the marriage. In case, if the demand is made after marriage and it is in respect of a property or valuable security, which was not demanded, was not expected to be given and also was not in FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 43 of 72 contemplation at any time up to solemnization of marriage, demand of such cash, property or valuable security, etc. cannot be said to be in connection with the marriage and, therefore, would not constitute demand of dowry.
76. In the case of Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45 while dealing with this issue, the Hon"ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:
"....... Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is "at any time"
after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties". This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304B should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage......"
77. In the case of Appasaheb and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2007 SC 763, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 44 of 72 "...... In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning........ A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure....."
FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 45 of 72
78. The Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act are both remedial and penal statutes. As such Courts are expected to construe the provisions in a way that the purpose is fulfilled through and within the limits of language employed in the statute. If a case is established then the Courts are to be stringent in dealing with the culprits. The Courts while taking a stringent view and despite the obligation of the Legislature enactment a success have also to keep in mind that the charge should be made out. The main ingredients to be proved for establishing a case under Section 304B IPC are (i) unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and (ii) she being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with any demand of dowry.
79. The words "it is shown" occurring in Section 304B IPC are of significance for the reason that the initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Section 304B IPC do exist on the prosecution. This being shown or established, the question of presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would arise. In other words, to draw a presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act the necessary ingredient that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry has to be proved. Only when these facts are proved then by virtue of the deeming provision of section 304B IPC, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death. Though cruelty at any time after the marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and harassment envisaged by Section 304B is to be FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 46 of 72 soon before the death of a woman.
80. The Courts are required to scrutinize the evidence carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is a demand and then the atmosphere becomes calm and quiet and then again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of her husband within a short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as the torture and harassment is confined to the four walls of the house. The Courts are, however, required to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in laws are strained for any reason whatever it might be.
81. Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological problem or mental agony or such circumstances that the person committing suicide may think that life he or she is living is more miserable than the pangs and agony of death. The power of tolerance would vary from person to person. Some persons try to make the life easy by tolerance while others even on petty points bring an end to their life. (Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported as Gurditta Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1992 Crl. L.J. 309).
82. The importance of Proximity Test is both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 47 of 72 before her death" used in the substantive section 304B IPC and Section 113B Evidence Act is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" used in Section 113B of the Evidence Act, Illustration (a) of the Act is relevant. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before"
would normally imply that the interval should not be too much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
83. It is well settled by several judgments that mere suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt. In the case reported as State of Punjab Vs. Bhajan Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 258, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:
"......... The circumstances of this case undoubtedly create suspicion against the accused. Suspicion, by itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of the accused....."
84. In another case reported as Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, it was FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 48 of 72 observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:
".......Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of this innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have benefit of that doubt........ It needs all the same to be re- emphasized that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. The courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because the acquittal might have an impact upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 49 of 72 whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused...."
85. In another case reported as AIR 1973 SC 2622, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :
"...... Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before the court can convict and the mental distinction between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure consideration....."
86. Further more, in another case reported as Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under
:
''......Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this Court in the case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs State of FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 50 of 72 Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) stated thus:
87. It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted....."
88. It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused.
89. Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, I may observe that in order to prove the allegations against the accused persons i.e. Manoj Kumar Singh, Kanti Devi, Babita and Jyoti, the prosecution has placed their reliance upon the oral testimonies of PW4 Sh. Ram Suresh Singh, PW5 Sh. Ravi Shekhar Singh, PW6 Smt. Roop Tara, PW7 Sh. Arvind Kumar and PW9 Sh. Raj Kamal Kumar.
90. First of all, the testimony of PW4 Sh. Ram Suresh Singh who is father of deceased needs to be discussed. The following facts emerged from the testimony of PW4 which are as follows:-
a. That he had three sons and two daughters namely, Roop Tara Devi and Amrita Kumari (deceased). His elder daughter namely, Roop Tara Devi was married to Saroj FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 51 of 72 Kumar and she used to reside at her matrimonial house situated at Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. b. Accused Manoj Kumar Singh is the real brother of Saroj Kumar. That about 1 ½ year prior to the incident, accused Manoj Kumar Singh had taken his (PW4) daughter Amrita Kumari from his house situated at village Kochas without their consent and knowledge. c. After that, they made search for Amrita Kumari from their relatives. His elder daughter Roop Tara telephonically informed him that Amrita had been brought to her matrimonial house by her Devar Manoj Kumar Singh. His daughter Roop Tara also told him that Amrita and Manoj have performed the marriage ceremony and they would be invited in the marriage reception at Delhi. d. They were not invited in the reception ceremony. However, his daughter Amrita had started residing at her matrimonial house in Delhi. After three months, his elder daughter Roop Tara came to their village. e. On 13.11.2017 at about 3.30 a.m, he received telephone call to the effect that the caller was calling from Vikas Nagar and his daughter had been murdered (mein Vikas Nagar se bol raha hoon aur apki beti ko maar diya gaya hai).
f. He made telephone call to his son Raj Kamal and asked him about the area jurisdiction of the police station in which the matrimonial house of Amrita was situated as well as about the telephone number of the said police station.
g. Raj Kamal gave him telephone number of police FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 52 of 72 station Ranhola and he made telephone call to PS Ranhola from his village and told the address of matrimonial house of Amrita to the police. He also told the police to make enquiry about the well being of his daughter Amrita and also about the facts which he had come to know from the telephonic call of unknown person about Amrita. h. They started from their village for Delhi and reached at PS Ranhola. He was told by the police that as the marriage of Amrita was under seven years, his statement would be recorded by the SDM.
i. He gave his statement to the SDM. Thereafter, they went to a hospital with the police officials where he was shown the dead body of his daughter Amrita. j. After he had identified the dead body of Amrita, the postmortem examination was conducted and his statement regarding identification of dead body was recorded. k. They received the dead body after postmortem examination and the dead body was cremated at Delhi and thereafter they went back to their village.
91. From the cross examination of PW4 Sh. Ram Suresh Singh conducted on behalf of state, the following facts have emerged:-
a. PW4 admitted that after making telephonic call to the police, he had made telephone call to the father-in-law of his daughter Amrita. He voluntarily stated that he had asked from him as to where he was present at that moment and whether he had learnt any news about his family on which he stated that he did not want to get indulged into the matter (mein is lafde mai padna nahi chahta hoon).
FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 53 of 72 b. He also stated that the dead body of deceased Amrita was cremated on 15.11.2017 and on 16.11.2017 they had left Delhi for their village.
c. He admitted that the marriage between Saroj Kumar and his elder daughter Roop Tara was solemnized on 02.11.2012. He also admitted that after marriage her daughter Roop Tara used to be abused and beaten at her matrimonial house and due to abuses and beatings, his daughter Roop Tara had come back to her house at village.
He voluntarily stated that besides abuses and beatings, she was expecting at that time and her delivery was also due, therefore, she had come to her house.
d. He also admitted that he was not able to communicate with Amrita and when he had a talk with father of the boy namely Laxman Singh, he stated that he will not say anything about his family members even if they give beatings or kill Amrita.
92. During cross examination on behalf of accused persons, this witness has admitted that he had not made complaint against husband of Roop Tara and his family members in any PS, SDM office, CAW cell or to the court at District Rohtash or in Delhi. He also admitted that prior to the death of Amrita, even Roop Tara had not lodged any complaint against her husband and in-laws. He specifically admitted that he had not visited matrimonial house of Amrita from the day, she had gone with Manoj Kumar Singh till her death. He also specifically admitted that he had not talked with Amrita by phone or in person from the day she went with Manoj till her death. He also admitted that he got angry when he came to FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 54 of 72 know that Manoj and Amrita have eloped despite being educated persons. He also admitted that he was feeling bad at that time due to loss of his reputation in the society. This witness has also admitted that he had not stated anything about dowry demand and harassment pertaining to Roop Tara and Amrita in his statement Ex.PW4/A. He specifically deposed that he had not personally met the brother-in-law, both sister- in-law and Nandoi i.e. Raja of his daughters Roop Tara and Amrita after elopement of Amrita with Manoj. He specifically deposed that during the lifetime of Amrita, Roop Tara had never told him about the harassment of Amrita by her in-laws and Manoj. He also deposed that he lodged complaint in the present case on the basis of suspicion against the accused persons. He also deposed that he did not know if Amrita was happy at the time of celebration of marriage anniversary of Babita or whether she attended the said marriage anniversary celebration alongwith her husband and daughter.
93. From the aforesaid testimony of PW4, it is very clear that the marriage between Amrita (deceased) and accused Manoj was a run away marriage and prior to or at the time of marriage, there was no demand of dowry by any of the accused persons either from Amrita or from any of her family members. This witness has specifically admitted that he had not talked to his daughter Amrita from the date of her marriage till her death and he had never personally met the mother-in- law, both sister-in-law and Nandoi of his daughter Amrita after marriage of Amrita with Manoj till her death. He also specifically admitted that during the lifetime of Amrita, even Roop Tara had not told him about any harassment of Amrita by FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 55 of 72 her in-laws and Manoj.
94. The overall impact of testimony of PW4 Sh. Ram Suresh Singh who is the father of deceased Amrita is that his testimony is not helpful to the case of prosecution in any manner and admitted that it was a run away marriage and also admitted that he even had not met or talked with his daughter Amrita right from the day of her marriage till her death. He also specifically deposed that even her another daughter Roop Tara had never told him about any harassment being committed upon his daughter Amrita by her in-laws and husband Manoj. He also admitted that even he did not know as to whether her another daughter Roop Tara was also used to be harassed at her matrimonial house. Thus, the testimony of PW4 Sh. Ram Suresh Singh does not connect any of the accused persons with the commission of offences in question.
95. Secondly, the testimony of PW5 Sh. Ravi Shekhar Singh who is brother of deceased needs to be discussed. The following facts emerged from the testimony of PW5 which are as follows:-
a. That deceased Amrita Kumari was his cousin sister and in year 2017, on the occasion of Rakshabandhan, Amrita had come to his house for tying Rakhi. b. That after she had tied Rakhi to him, he asked her about her well being upon which she started weeping and told that quarrels are taking place at her matrimonial house.
c. Amrita told him that whenever she used to ask from her mother-in-law as to what was to be cooked, her mother-in-law would say that she would not give her FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 56 of 72 ration / vegetable for cooking and she should bring it from her parental house.
d. That deceased Amrita had also told him that whenever she used to tell this fact to her husband, he used to give her beatings and he was not concerned with the said matters. Amrita also asked him not to share the afore- said facts with any person.
e. While she was telling the afore-said facts to him, telephone call of accused Manoj was received by Amrita on her mobile phone consequent upon which Amrita told him that Manoj was calling her and he had also gone with Amrita downstairs to see her off.
96. PW5 was cross examined by Ld Addl. PP for the State as he was allegedly resiling from his previous statement recorded during investigation. From the cross examination conducted on behalf of State, the following facts have emerged:-
a. He denied that Amrita told him that her husband Manoj Kumar was not doing any work during those days or that Amrita told him that whenever she needed money and asked Manoj to do the work, Manoj used to give her beatings.
b. He had not stated to IO that Amrita ever told him that Manoj used to beat her on minor issues or used to ask her to bring money from her father for starting of some work or that upon refusal to bring the money, Manoj used to give beatings to her. He also denied to have made the statement u/s 161 Cr.PC Ex.PW5/A to the IO. c. He had never stated to IO that Amrita ever told him that her mother-in-law used to harass her or used to say FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 57 of 72 that she should bring any money as she had married with her son without any dowry.
d. He also deposed that he had not stated to IO that Amrita told him that the accused persons used to threatened her to leave the house or that on the instigation of her elder sister-in-law Babita, her husband and other accused persons used to harass her.
97. The overall impact of testimony of PW5 Sh. Ravi Shekhar Singh who is the cousin brother of deceased Amrita is that he has not supported the case of prosecution and despite cross examination, he failed to support the statement mark PW5/A made before the police and despite detailed cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, this witness denied to have made statement Mark PW5/A before the police. Thus, the testimony of PW5 Sh. Ravi Shekhar does not connect any of the accused persons with the commission of offences in question.
98. Thirdly, the testimony of PW6 Smt. Roop Tara who is sister of deceased needs to be discussed. The following facts emerged from the testimony of PW6 which are as follows:-
a. That she was married to Saroj Singh in the year 2012 and accused Manoj Kumar Singh is her brother-in- law (dewar).
b. After two month of her marriage, her mother-in-law started abusing her and the behaviour of her brother-in- law i.e. accused Manoj was also bad towards her. c. That her sister-in-law namely Babita and Jyoti were also behaving badly with her and they used to say that she was not doing the household work and used to remain ill. They did not provide medicine to her whenever she had FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 58 of 72 fallen ill and due to this reason, she used to go back to her parental house.
d. That deceased Amrita was her younger sister and accused Manoj Kumar had allured Amrita and had taken her to Delhi. Accused Manoj Kumar and Amrita came to her matrimonial house after getting married. e. After coming to know about marriage of Amrita and accused Manoj Kumar, she made telephone call to her father and told him about this fact. On this, all the family members of her husband and her husband started scolding her. They stated that they would have told the fact of marriage of Manoj and Amrita later on and why she was in hurry to inform her parents about the marriage. f. That for 2-3 months, the married life of Amrita was going on smoothly but thereafter accused persons started harassing her. Whenever she used to demand any cloth or other article, they used to say "what she had brought from her parental house?".
g. That whatever articles her elder sister had brought from her parental house should have been brought by her also. (jo saman teri badi behan apne ghar se layi hai tu bhi apne ghar se laa). Her husband used to give her beatings on this issue.
h. That she resided at her matrimonial house alongwith her sister for about four months and thereafter, her child got ill and when she demanded money towards medical expenses of her child, her husband and his family members refused to give the same to her. She left her matrimonial house with her child to her parental house so FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 59 of 72 that her ailing child could get medical treatment at Kochas. From the said day, she had been residing at her parental house.
i. After one month of her leaving her matrimonial house, she had received telephone call of Amrita from her mobile phone. When she asked from her about her well being, she told that her condition was the same as it was earlier and told that behaviour of her husband and in-laws was bad towards her and thereafter the phone was disconnected.
j. That on the day of Diwali, she had last conversation with Amrita on telephone. On 13.11.2017, at about 4 a.m, one neighbour of her matrimonial house, had made telephone call to the mobile phone of her father and told him that the younger daughter of her father had expired.
99. Even PW6 was cross examined by Ld Addl. PP for the State as she was allegedly resiling from her earlier statement u/s 161 Cr.PC recorded by the IO. From the cross examination conducted on behalf of State, the following facts have emerged:-
a. That she was not given beatings by her in-laws after her marriage. She voluntarily stated that they only used to abuse her.
b. That dowry was not demanded by her in-laws from her.
c. That she was residing separately from her husband for about two years and she did not know if her husband was residing at her matrimonial house in Delhi as during that period, her husband had not made any telephone call FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 60 of 72 to her.
d. She admitted that many times she used to go to her parental house and her father used to take her back to matrimonial house after pacifying her and during this period, a love affair started between her devar Manoj Kumar and her sister Amrita.
e. That after she informed her father about marriage of Amrita and accused Manoj, talks were initiated between her father and the family members of Manoj during which it was settled that at the time of Bahu Bhoj (reception) they would be inviting her family members and the time passed in this manner.
f. She also admitted that the family members of her husband and her husband started telling her that she should bring the same articles for her younger sister which her father had given in her marriage.
g. They had not given beatings to her on this issue, but they used to hurl abuses to her on this issue. h. She also admitted that when she could not bring the cash and articles from her parental house, accused persons started abusing her on which she went to her village. i. She admitted that at that time when she had left her matrimonial house for village, her younger sister was pregnant.
j. She also admitted that when her younger sister told her about the pregnancy and beatings at her matrimonial house, her mobile phone was snatched from her on the same day. She did not know who had snatched the mobile phone from Amrita on that day.
FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 61 of 72
100. During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, PW6 admitted that she had not made any complaint regarding any harassment to her deceased sister Amrita to any authority, police, SDM or concerned court in Delhi or concerned Court at District Rohtash. She also admitted that when she told about marriage of Amrita and Manoj, nobody from her parental house came to their matrimonial house. She also admitted that due to the marriage of Amrita with accused Manoj, her family members were unhappy and annoyed with them.
101. During cross-examination, this witness has also deposed that after marriage, Amrita had never gone to her parental house and even after the birth of daughter of Amrita, her parents had not visited matrimonial house of Amrita.
102. The overall impact of testimony of PW6 Smt. Roop Tara who is the sister of deceased Amrita and was married with the brother of accused Manoj is that her testimony does not prove the case of the prosecution and rather she admitted that no dowry was demanded by her in-laws from her. She also denied that after marriage, her in-laws started abusing and giving beatings to her or that they used to harass her and her father for dowry. She was confronted with her statement Mark PW6/A regarding harassment caused to her but she denied to have made any such statement to the police. She specifically denied that all the family members of her matrimonial house had given beatings to her and her younger sister. Though this witness has deposed that accused Manoj used to demand money from her sister but the witness has not specified as to when the said money was demanded and for what purpose the said money was demanded so as to bring the allegations within FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 62 of 72 the ambit of demand of dowry. The testimony of this witness is not helpful to the case of prosecution in any manner. This witness in her testimony has somehow admitted that the relations between her sister and their parents were not cordial after marriage. During cross-examination on behalf of defence, this witness has specifically deposed that in her presence, accused Babita, Jyoti and Kanti Devi had not treated her sister with cruelty and had not demanded any dowry article from her and she also specifically deposed that during her lifetime, her sister had never informed her that accused persons namely Babita, Jyoti and Kanti Devi have been treating her with cruelty or demanding any dowry from her and she also admitted that the marriage between accused Manoj and her sister was a love marriage and all expenses of her sister were incurred by her in-laws. Thus, taking into consideration the entire testimony of PW6 Smt. Roop Tara, it is clear that it does not connect any of the accused persons with the commission of offences in question.
103. Fourthly, the testimony of PW7 Mr. Arvind Kumar who is brother of deceased needs to be discussed. The following facts emerged from the testimony of PW7 which are as follows:-
a. That he is the eldest son of his parents and had two sisters namely Amrita (deceased) and Rooptara. His sister Rooptara was residing at her matrimonial house situated in Delhi after her marriage and Rooptara used to tell her father that she was being tortured by her husband and in- laws and they did not provide her money for buying medicine.
b. That in the year 2017, accused Manoj Kumar Singh FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 63 of 72 took Amrita to Delhi and they got married. As Amrita had married Manoj on her own, he stopped talking to her. c. That in the month of November 2017, he came to know that Amrita had died. He had come to Delhi on coming to know about the death of Amrita and his statement was recorded by Executive Magistrate which is Ex.PW- 7/A.
104. During cross-examination, PW7 stated that he was not on talking terms with his sister Amrita.
105. Hence, no incriminating evidence has come on record against any of the accused persons from the testimony of Sh. Arvind Kumar and thus, his testimony is not helpful to the case of prosecution in any manner.
106. Fifthly, the testimony of PW9 Sh. Raj Kamal Kumar who is brother of deceased needs to be discussed. The following facts emerged from the testimony of PW9 which are as follows:-
a. That deceased Amrita Kumari was his younger sister. Prior to the incident about one and half years ago, his sister Amrita Kumari was taken by accused Manoj Kumar to his house situated at Delhi. At that time, his sister Amrita Kumari used to reside with her parents at Kochas and when she was missing from the house, they made search for her for 2-3 days.
b. Thereafter, they came to know that she was taken to Delhi by accused Manoj who is brother of his Jija namely Saroj Kumar.
c. That his sister namely Roop Tara wife of Sh. Saroj Kumar had told them about the fact that Amrita Kumari FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 64 of 72 had been taken to her matrimonial house by her Devar i.e. accused Manoj Kumar and they have got married. d. When he asked accused Manoj Kumar Singh to hand over documentary proof of their marriage, he stated that the certificate of marriage would be provided to them but he did not give the same.
e. That on 13.11.2017 at about 3.30 am, his father made telephone call to him and told him that he had received a telephonic call and caller had informed him about the death of Amrita. He searched Google and got the phone number of police station Ranhola and told the said number to his father.
f. That his father made telephone call to PS Ranhola and made inquiry from there about the telephonic informations. Thereafter, they started from Kochas to Delhi and on 14.11.2017 reached at Delhi. g. That they went to office of SDM, Dwarka and he gave his statement to the Executive Magistrate which is Ex. PW8/A and on 09.12.2017 he had handed over three photographs Ex. PW9/B (Colly) of Amrita Kumari and Manoj Kumar to IO.
107. PW9 was also cross examined by Ld Addl. PP for the State. From the cross examination conducted on behalf of State, it is revealed that it was his sister Roop Tara who told him that mother of accused Manoj and accused Manoj used to give beatings to both his sisters and their sister-in-laws also used to harass them. So, the evidence of PW9 is a hearsay evidence as the witness has come to know about the alleged facts through his sister Roop Tara. The overall impact of the FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 65 of 72 testimony of PW9 is that in examination in chief, he has not deposed anything incriminating against the accused persons.
108. A conjoint reading of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry. Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman are required to be established to bring home the application of section 498A IPC. The evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the guilt under Sections 498A/304B is highly scanty. The investigation is not upto the mark and no attempt was made to find out the true reasons for the unfortunate death within two years of her marriage at the matrimonial home. The statements given by the prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions, discrepancies and improvements which affect the core of the prosecution case particularly when all these allegations have been leveled only after the unfortunate incident of death. The record further reveals that the aforesaid material prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution and admitted that it was a run away marriage and none of the prosecution witnesses has deposed that Amrita was treated with cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry soon before her death. It is certain that the prosecution was unable to bring on record cogent and reliable testimony to establish that the accused persons were solely responsible or were instrumental in her death.
109. Further, I am of the view that the afore-said witnesses have FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 66 of 72 not deposed about any specific demand of dowry by any of the accused persons and the allegations which were levelled by them before SDM/police were an afterthought and an over reaction to the death of Amrita. No complaint of demand of dowry was made prior to the death of Amrita which was admitted by the aforesaid witnesses. Further, there is no evidence showing any persistent dowry demand or conduct of the accused persons subjecting Amrita (deceased) to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with dowry. The defence have been able to rebut the presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act as the overall impact of the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses reveals that the parents and other family members of Amrita were not happy with the said run away marriage of Amrita with accused Manoj and they have specifically deposed in their respective testimonies that they were not even on talking terms with Amrita since the day of her marriage till her death.
110. Further, I may observe that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as discussed herein above confirms that the deceased Amrita had committed suicide by hanging herself at her matrimonial house. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment by the accused persons. The prosecution has failed to establish any proximity or live link between the death of deceased or any misconduct by the accused persons. The record further reveals that the aforesaid witnesses had not made any specific allegations of demand of dowry during their respective testimonies and whatever allegations are made by the family of the deceased in their respective testimonies regarding the FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 67 of 72 beatings given to Amrita by accused Manoj and demand of money are totally vague and non specific in relation to time and place. It is an admitted fact that no complaint was ever made to any authority relating to demand of dowry.
111. Now, it is to be seen whether the testimony of remaining witnesses examined during trial is sufficient to connect accused persons with the commission of offences charged against them. In this regard, it is observed that PW1 HC Deepak Kumar is a formal witness who had recorded the FIR. PW2 Sh. Rahul Tyagi got the marriage performed between Manoj and Amrita. PW3 ASI Satbir is a formal witness being crime team incharge and had inspected the place of occurrence and prepared crime team report Ex.PW3/A. PW8 Sh. Puneet Kulshreshtha i.e. Executive Magistrate who had recorded statement Ex.PW4/A of Suresh Singh, statement Ex.PW7/A of Arvind Kumar Singh and statement Ex.PW8/A of Raj Kamal Kumar. PW10 Sh. Vivek Soni attended the said marriage and witnessed the certificate of marriage Ex.PW2/A. PW11 Sh. Radhey Shyam is a Priest who solemnized the said marriage and issued marriage certificate Ex.PW2/A. PW12 ASI Om Prakash who prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW12/A. PW13 Dr. V.K Ranga who conducted postmortem on the body of Amrita vide postmortem report Ex.PW13/A and opined the cause of death to be asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. PW14 HC Ashok Kumar has joined the investigation and in his presence SI Praveen seized the chunni vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A. PW15 HC Umed Singh is the crime team photographer who took photographs Ex.PW15/A (colly). PW16 HC Jagmohan had accompanied IO Inspector Sahiram FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 68 of 72 to DDU hospital at the time of conducting postmortem on the body of deceased. PW17 SI Praveen who visited the spot on receipt of DD No. 9A and informed the concerned SDM and seized the chunni as well as the chair. PW18 IO Inspector Sahi Ram who had deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him and prepared rough site plan Ex.PW18/A, got conducted postmortem on the body of deceased and effected the arrest of accused Manoj Kumar and also seized the marriage certificate and sent the exhibits to FSL Rohini and also obtained subsequent opinion regarding ligature material i.e. chunni. He also deposed that he got declared accused persons namely Kanti Devi, Babita, Jyoti and Tej Pratap proclaimed offender and thereafter, the said accused persons surrendered themselves before the court. He effected their arrest and thereafter filed supplementary charge-sheet against them.
112. Therefore, I am of a considered view that the prosecution has not been able to establish the role of the accused persons namely Manoj Kumar Singh, Babita, Jyoti and Kanti Devi in the commission of the alleged offence under Section 498A/304B/34 Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt nor there is anything on record to show that the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide on account of abetment by the accused relating to demand of dowry, for which the accused Manoj Kumar Singh, Babita, Jyoti and Kanti Devi are entitled to be acquitted of the charges under Section 498A/304B/34 Indian Penal Code.
113. So far as the charge for offence punishable u/s 306/34 IPC is concerned, I may observe that there is no evidence on record FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 69 of 72 to establish the allegations of beating, harassment, cruelty or dowry demand immediately preceding or proximate to the incident in question. There is no documentary evidence or complaint, of any nature, whatsoever, by the deceased or any of her relatives against any of the accused persons, alleging any maltreatment or demand of dowry or beating by them. The intention on the part of the accused to have provoked, incited, urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide, are not proved from the record. It is not borne out from the record by any cogent evidence that there was any heated exchange of conversation or that accused had any intention to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide.
114. Reference is made to the judgments titled Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh, AIR 2001 SC 3837 and M. Mohan Vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626, where it has been held:-
"What is important is not what "deceased had felt" but what the accused had intended by their act. A fatal impulse or ill fated thought of the deceased, however unfortunate and touchy it may be, cannot establish the intention of the accused so as to make them liable under the provisions of Section 306 IPC.
115. In the circumstances of the present case, taking into consideration the testimony of aforesaid public witnesses, it cannot be conclusively held that the accused persons had in any manner intentionally aided or abetted the commission of the suicide of the deceased. The mensrea on the part of accused persons appears to be missing. Therefore, no offence under Section 306/34 IPC is made out against any of the FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 70 of 72 accused persons and accused persons are entitled to be acquitted for the offence u/s 306/34 IPC.
116. Now, so far as charge in respect of offence punishable u/s 174A IPC against accused persons Babita, Kanti Devi and Jyoti is concerned, in this regard it is observed that PW18 Inspector Sahi Ram has deposed that he initially obtained NBWs against accused Babita, Kanti Devi and Jyoti and thereafter, process u/s 82 Cr.P.C against them and since all the said persons were absconding, they were declared proclaimed offenders. The testimony of PW18 Inspector Sahi Ram further reveals that thereafter, the aforesaid accused persons surrendered themselves before the court.
117. The aforesaid testimony of PW18 Inspector Sahi Ram reveals that accused persons Babita, Kanti Devi and Jyoti themselves surrendered before the court and pursuant to their surrender, they were arrested in the present case. The record reveals that accused Babita was residing separately i.e. at house no. 521, Pocket-D, Lok Nayak Puram, Bakkarwala, Delhi and though, the remaining accused persons namely Kanti Devi and Jyoti were residing on the same address as that of accused Manoj, the fact remains that they themselves have surrendered before the court shows that they had no intention to abscond. Further, the testimony of PW18/IO Inspector Sahi Ram is not sufficient to convict the accused persons for the commission of offence punishable u/s 174A IPC and as already been observed, the witnesses of the prosecution have not supported the case of prosecution and in these circumstances, the aforesaid accused persons namely Babita, Kanti Devi and Jyoti are also entitled to be acquitted for FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 71 of 72 charge in respect of offence punishable u/s 174A IPC.
118. Accordingly, accused persons namely Manoj Kumar Singh, Babita, Jyoti and Kanti Devi stand acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 498A/304B/306/34 IPC and accused persons namely Babita, Jyoti and Kanti Devi are also acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 174A IPC.
119. File be consigned to Record Room with directions to revive the same as and when accused Tej Pratap @ Raja is apprehended in this case.
Digitally signed by
MANISH MANISH
(Passed & announced KHURANA
KHURANA Date: 2023.08.02
in open Court today) 16:27:48 +0530
(MANISH KHURANA)
Addl. Sessions Judge-04
West District, Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi/02.08.2023
FIR No. 797/2017 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors. PS Ranhola Page no. 72 of 72