Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajender Etc. on 30 September, 2016
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMARII,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE03, (WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Unique Id. No. 02401R0107442016
SC No. 16/3/16
FIR No. 735/15
U/S 498A/304B/34 IPC
PS Khyala
State vs. Rajender etc.
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. No. of the case : 16/3/16
2. Date of Committal to Sessions : 04.03.2016
3. Name of the complainant : Gulabi
4. Date of commission of offence : 14.11.2015
5. Name and Parentage of accused : (1) Rajinder S/o Sh. Amar
Singh, R/o N49, Gali No.,
Vishnu Garden, Delhi.
(2) Amar Singh S/o Sh. Lt. Sh.
Ranjeet Singh, R/o N49, Gali
No. 3, Vishnu Garden, Delhi.
(3) Vidya Devi, S/o Sh. Amar
Singh R/o N49, Gali No.3,
Vishnu Garden, Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 498A/304B/34 IPC
7. Offence charged : 498A/304B/34 IPC
8. Plea of guilt : Pleaded Not Guilty
9. Final order : Acquitted
10.Date on which order reserved : 30.09.2016
11. Date on which order announced : 30.09.2016
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION :
1. Case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that on 14.11.2015, DD No. 20A dated 14.11.2015, PS Khyala was FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 1/27 -2- received by SI Ajay Kumar regarding a suicide by a girl and after receiving this information, SI Ajay Kumar reached at N49, Vishnu Garden, Delhi where he found deceased Kaushal whose body was lying outside the house on pavement. ASI Ajay Kumar informed to Executive Magistrate Sh. Surender Kumar and crime team was called at the spot and exhibits were taken into possession. On 15.11.2015, Executive Magistrate Sh. Surender Kumar reached at DDU Hospital Mortuary and recorded the statement of father of deceased Sh. Gulabi who stated that marriage of his daughter Kaushal was solemnized with Rajender in April, 2015 and after the marriage, she used to visit and tell him that her husband Rajender, nanad Vidya and father in law Amar Singh used to torture her for demand of motorcycle. He stated that due to his poverty, he was unable to fulfill the demands of in laws of his daughter and on 14.11.2015, his younger daughter Kanti told him that Kaushal has expired and her dead body is lying on the pavement and he stated that his daughter has died due to the demand of dowry raised by her in laws and prayer is made for necessary action.
2. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet under section 498A/304B/34 IPC was filed. After compliance of 207 Cr.P.C., case was committed to sessions. During the course of trial, accused persons were charged for commission of offence punishable under section 304B/498A/34 IPC on 22.03.2016, to FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 2/27 -3- which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case, prosecution cited 18 witnesses and out of 18 witnesses, 13 witnesses were examined.
4. PW 1 Gulabi is the father of the deceased and complainant.
5. PW 2 Smt. Meera is niece of deceased.
6. PW 3 Smt. Shanti is the grand mother of deceased.
7. PW 4 Sh. Shankar is the brother of the deceased.
8. PW 5 Sh. Heera is the uncle of deceased.
9. PW 6 Sh. Surender Kumar is the Executive Magistrate.
10. PW 7 Gulabi is the relative of deceased.
11. PW 8 Smt. Soni is also the relative of deceased.
12. PW 9 Sh. Dudhiya is the uncle of the deceased.
13. PW 10 Dr. R.K. Chobey examined the accused Rajender and prepared his MLC.
14. PW 11 Pandit Jagannath Prasad Sharma prepared the lagan Patrika of accused and deceased.
15. PW 12 W/HC Radhika was the duty officer at PS Mundka on 14.11.2015.
16. PW 13 Insp. Mahesh Kumar is the draftsman who prepared scaled site plan.
Findings:
17. PW 1 Gulabi appeared in the witness box and deposed that marriage between his daughter and Rajender was solemnized on 02.05.2015 and accused Rajender was residing with his father Sh.
FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 3/27 -4- Amar Singh and his widow sister Vidya. He deposed that after the marriage, they kept his daughter in a proper manner and they never harassed her on account of dowry. He stated that on 14.11.2015, he received information that his daughter has expired and police officials took his thumb impression on some blank papers. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP but nothing fruitful came out for the prosecution and the relevant portion of statement of PW 1 is as under:
"On 02.05.2015, I had solemnized the marriage of my daughter Kaushal with Rajender, accused present today in the court, R/o Vishnu Garden, Khyala, Delhi. Accused Rajender was residing in the said house with his father Sh. Amar Singh and his widow sister Vidhya. They kept my daughter in a proper manner and they never harassed on account of dowry. On 14.11.2015, I received information by some biradari person that my daughter had expired. I reached at her in laws house and found dead body of my daughter which was lying on the pavement outside the house of accused Rajender. Police officials took my thumb impressions on some blank papers by saying that they would take the body for postmortem and thumb impressions were required for those formalities."
Ld. APP cross examined this witness as he resiled from his earlier statement made to the police. The relevant portion of cross examination is as under:
"It is correct that I have two sons and three daughters and my wife Bimla had already expired. It is incorrect to suggest that whenever my daughter Kaushal visited my house after her marriage, she told me that her husband Rajender, father in law Amar Singh and Nanad Vidya used to give beatings FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 4/27 -5- to her and harassed her for not bringing motorcycle in the marriage. It is incorrect to suggest that all the above mentioned accused persons used to beat my daughter Kaushal as I could not fulfill their demand of motorcycle. It is correct that on 13.11.2015, on the occasion of Bhai Duj, my daughter had come along with her husband and had tied thread on the hand of my son Sankar and thereafter, both had left. It is incorrect to suggest that my daughter Kanti told me on 14.11.2015 that my daughter Kaushal had died and her in laws had kept her body at the pavement outside their house. It is incorrect to suggest that all the above mentioned accused persons used to harass my daughter Kaushal and used to demand dowry and motorcycle from her and due to which death of my daughter was caused. It is incorrect to suggest that accused Amar Singh present today in the court used to demand gold ring as dowry from her and accused Vidya used to demand good clothes as dowry and when we did not fulfill their demand of dowry, they harassed my daughter Kaushal and gave beating to her. It is incorrect to suggest that due to above mentioned demand of dowry, my daughter remained in tension (Tanav) and she had committed suicide on 14.11.2015. Ex. PW1/A is shown to the witness and witness on seeing it, identify his thumb impression at point A (Volt. Police official had taken my thumb impression on blank papers by saying that they are taking it for getting conducted the postmortem on her dead body). Ex. PW1/A is read over to the witness and on hearing it, witness stated that I never gave such statement to police official. I did not state to police official that whenever my daughter visited my house after her marriage, she told me that her husband Rajender, father in law Amar Singh and Nanad Vidya used to give beating to her and harassed her as she did not bring motorcycle in the marriage. (Confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/A from point B to B where it is so recored). I had not stated to the police that the accused persons used to beat my daughter Kaushal as I could not fulfill their demand of motorcycle.
FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 5/27 -6- (Confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/A from point C to C where it is so recored). I had not stated to the police that my daughter Kanti told me on 14.11.2015 that my daughter Kaushal had died and her in laws had kept her body at the pavement outside their house. (Confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/A from point D to D where it is so recored). I had not stated to the police that all the above mentioned accused persons used to harass my daughter Kaushal and used to demand dowry and motorcycle from her and due to which death of my daughter was caused. (Confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/A from point E to E where it is so recored). Document Mark X is shown and read over to the witness and on hearing it witness stated that I did not give such statement to the police official. I had not stated to the police that accused Rajender used to demand motorcycle as dowry and Amar Singh present today in the court used to demand gold ring as dowry from her and accused Vidya used to demand good clothes as dowry and when we did not fulfill their demand of dowry they used to harass my daughter Kaushal and gave beating to her. (Confronted with his statement Mark X from point A to A where it is so recored). I had not stated to the police that due to above mentioned demand of dowry my daughter remained in Tension (Tanav) and she had committed suicide on 14.11.2015. (Confronted with his statement Mark X from point B to B where it is so recored). It is correct that I had identified the dead body of Kaushal and my statement was recorded by the police officials in this regard and the same is Ex.PW1/B, which bears my signature at point A. It is correct that after the postmortem, the dead body of my daughter was handed over to us vide handing over memo Ex. PW1/C, which bears my signature at point A. It is incorrect to suggest that I have compromised with the accused persons. It is further wrong to suggest that due to compromise, I have stated that police officials had taken my thumb impression on some blank papers on account of getting the postmortem done. It is wrong to suggest that police officials FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 6/27 -7- never obtained my signature on blank papers. It is further wrong to suggest that I had put my thumb impression on Ex. PW1/A when, whatever was told by me to the police official were reduced into writing by them and read over to me. All the accused persons i.e. Rajender, Amar Singh and Vidya Devi are present today in the court, and witness has correctly identified them. It is wrong to suggest that Executive Magistrate had recorded my statement. (Volt. My signatures were obtained on blank papers)."
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel and relevant portion of cross examination is as under:
"It is correct that my daughter was happy in her matrimonial home along with her husband and in laws and she never complained about any harassment or demand of any dowry. When my daughter had come to visit us on Bhai Duj, I had asked her as to how she received injury on her eyebrow to which she replied that she sustained it by falling and she was very happy in her matrimonial home. It is also correct that the husband of my daughter Rajender felt depressive after seeing the dead body of my daughter and started beating himself as a result of which he had received certain injuries. It is correct that my daughter never complained about anything against her in laws and husband as she was very happy. It is correct that police never recorded my statement and had obtained my signatures on blank papers."
18. PW 2 Smt. Meera aunt of the deceased appeared in the witness box and she deposed that marriage between the deceased and accused was solemnized on 02.05.2015 and before her death, she met her and after talking happily, she returned back. She deposed that accused Rajender was residing in the house with his father Amar Singh and sister Vidya and she used to praise them.
FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 7/27 -8- Relevant portion of statement of PW 2 by Ld. APP is as under:
"Deceased Kaushal daughter of Gulabi was my niece and I am her Bua. I am the real sister of Gulabi. On 02.05.2015, marriage of Kaushal was solemnized with Rajender R/o Vishnu Garden, Khyala, Delhi. I was out of station and when I returned back to my house at above house, I came to know that Kaushal had expired. Before her death she met me and after talking happily she returned back. Accused Rajender was residing in the house with his father Amar Singh and widow sister Vidya. She used to praise them. All the accused persons i.e. Rajender, Amar Singh and Vidya present in the court today are correctly identified."
This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP and the relevant portion is as under:
"It is incorrect to suggest that after the marriage all the above mentioned accused persons used to give beatings to my niece as she did not bring motorcycle as dowry in the marriage. It is incorrect to suggest that her father in law Amar Singh used to keep an evil eye on Kaushal. It is incorrect to suggest that Vidya Devi (sister in law of Kaushal) used to give beating to her for bringing less dowry and for not bringing good clothes for her as dowry. It is incorrect to suggest that Vidya Devi used to demand good clothes from Kaushal. It is incorrect to suggest that due to dowry demand of all the accused person Kaushal was in tension. It is correct that we had spent money in the marriage of Kaushal exceeding our limited sources. It is incorrect to suggest that we several times told the accused persons not to give beatings to Kaushal but they did not give any attention to our request and continued beating Kaushal. It is incorrect to suggest that on the occasion of Bhai Duj, Kaushal came to my house and told me that her husband, her sister in law Vidya Devi and her father in law Amar Singh used to demand motorcycle from her as dowry and harassed her for motorcycle as dowry. It FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 8/27 -9- is incorrect to suggest that I several times told the husband, sister in law Vidya Devi not to beat Kaushal but they continued beating her. It is incorrect to suggest that on 14.11.2015, due to harassment and torture of the above mentioned accused persons, my niece Kaushal had committed suicide. Police official never inquired from me about the facts of the case and never recorded my statement. I did not state to the police officials that after the marriage, all the above mentioned accused persons used to give beatings to my niece as she did not bring motorcycle as dowry in the marriage. I did not state to the police officials that her father in law Amar Singh used to keep an evil eye on Kaushal. I did not state to the police officials that Vidya Devi (sister in law of Kaushal) used to give beating to her for bringing less dowry and for not bringing good clothes for her as dowry. I did not state to the police official that Vidya Devi used to demand good clothes from Kaushal. I did not state to the police official that due to dowry demand of all the accused person Kaushal remained in tension. I did not state to the police official that we several times told the accused persons not to gave beatings to Kaushal but they did not give any attention to our request and continued beating Kaushal. I did not state to the police officials that on the occasion of Bhai Duj, Kaushal came to my house and told me that her husband, her sister in law Vidya Devi and her father in law Amar Singh used to demand motorcycle from her as dowry and harassed her for motorcycle as dowry. I did not state to the police official that I several times told the husband, sister in law Vidya Devi not to beat Kaushal but they continued beating her. I did not state to the police official that on 14.11.2015, due to harassment and torture of the above mentioned accused persons, my niece Kaushal had committed suicide. (Confronted with her statement Mark Y from A to A and A1 to A1 where it is so recorded). It is incorrect that I have compromised with the accused persons. It is further wrong to suggest that due to compromise I am not telling the true facts and also saying that police FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 9/27 -10- official never recorded my statement. It is incorrect to suggest that on account of harassment by accused persons in lieu of dowry demand my niece Kaushal had committed suicide. (Volt. After about 7 months of marriage Kaushal was not conceiving and she was worried and depressed on this account and may be for this reason, she committed suicide). It is incorrect to suggest that today due to compromise with the accused persons and to save the accused persons, I have stated that "after about 7 months of marriage Kaushal was not conceiving and she was worried and depressed on this account and may be for this reason, she committed suicide"
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel and the relevant portion is as under:
"It is correct that Kaushal was with friendly terms with me and she used to treat me like my mother and she used to confide her about her matrimonial home and how she was treated in her matrimonial home. It is correct that Kaushal was never harassed on account of dowry and she was never given any beatings by her in laws and husband. It is correct that Kaushal was sensitive in nature and she used to get perplexed in small matters. It is correct that police never made any inquiry from me and never came to my house."
19. PW 3 Smt. Shanti grand mother of the deceased deposed similar to that of PW 1 and PW 2. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. APP but nothing fruitful came out for the prosecution and the relevant portion of statement of PW 3 is as under:
"Deceased Kaushal was my grand daughter. She was the daughter of my son Gulabi. On 02.05.2015, marriage of Kaushal was solemnized with Rajender R/o Vishnu Garden, Khyala, Delhi. Accused Rajender was residing in the house with his father Amar Singh and widow sister Vidya. After the FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 10/27 -11- marriage my grand daughter Kaushal used to come to our house happily. After about one year of her marriage, Kaushal expired and I do not know the reasons of her death. All the accused persons i.e. Rajender (husband), Amar Singh (father in law) and Vidya (sister in law) of Kaushal are present in the court today and witness correctly identified them."
This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP and the relevant portion is as under:
"It is incorrect to suggest that after the marriage accused Rajender, husband of Kaushal used to demand motorcycle as dowry from her and accused Amar Singh, father in law of Kaushal used to demand gold ring as dowry from her and accused Vidya Devi, sister in law, of Kaushal used to demand good clothes as dowry from Kaushal and used to give beatings for not fulfilling the demands. It is incorrect to suggest that we several times told Rajender, Amar Singh and Vidya Devi not to do so but they did not adhere to our request and continued demanding the said things and give beatings to her. It is incorrect to suggest that accused Amar Singh used to keep evil eye on Kaushal. It is incorrect to suggest that accused Vidya Devi also used to taunt Kaushal due to less dowry in the marriage. It is incorrect to suggest that due to dowry demands of the accused persons and their beatings and tauntings Kaushal was in tension. It is correct that we had spent the money in the marriage exceeding our limits. It is incorrect to suggest that on 13.11.2015, on the occasion of Bhai Duj, Kaushal came to our house and told me that her husband Rajender, father in law Amar Singh, sister in law Vidya Devi started harassing her for demand of dowry. It is incorrect to suggest that I made her and her husband Rajender understand not to do so. It is incorrect to suggest that on 14.11.2015, due to harassment of the accused persons relating to their demands of dowry my grand daughter Kaushal had committed suicide. Police officials never recorded my statement. I did not FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 11/27 -12- state to police officials that after the marriage accused Rajender, husband of Kaushal used to demand motorcycle as dowry from her and accused Amar Singh, father in law of Kaushal used to demand gold ring as dowry from her and accused Vidya Devi, sister in law, of Kaushal used to demand good clothes as dowry from Kaushal and used to give beatings and harassed to her as she did not fulfill their demands. I did not state to police officials that we several times asked Rajender, Amar Singh and Vidya Devi not to do so but they did not adhere to our request and continued demanding the said things and gave beatings to her. I did not state to police officials that accused Amar Singh used to keep evil eye on Kaushal. I did not state to police officials that accused Vidya Devi also used to taunt Kaushal due to less dowry in the marriage. I did not state to police officials that due to dowry demands of the accused persons and their beatings and tauntings, Kaushal was in tension. I did not state to police officials that on 13.11.2015, on the occasion of Bhai Duj, Kaushal came to our house and told me that her husband Rajender, father in law Amar Singh, sister in law Vidya Devi started harassing more for demands of dowry. I did not state to police officials that I made her and her husband Rajender understand not to do so. I did not state to police officials that on 14.11.2015, due to harassment of the accused persons relating to their demands of dowry, my grand daughter Kaushal had committed suicide. (Confronted with her statement Mark Z from A to A and A1 to A1 where it is so recorded). It is incorrect that I have compromised with the accused persons. It is further wrong to suggest that due to compromise I am not telling the true facts and also saying that police official never recorded my statement. It is incorrect to suggest that on account of harassment by accused persons in lieu of dowry demand my niece Kaushal had committed suicide."
FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 12/27 -13- This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel and the relevant portion is as under:
"It is correct that Kaushal was happy in her matrimonial home. It is correct that Kaushal was never harassed on account of dowry or otherwise by her husband, father in law or sister in law. It is correct that Kaushal was sensitive in nature and she used to get perplexed in small matters. It is correct that Kaushal used to feel depressive as she had not conceived after about 67 months of her marriage. I used to comfort her but she used to remain under depression on this account. It is correct that police never made any inquiry from me and never came to my house."
10. PW 4 Shankar is the brother of the deceased deposed similar to that of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. APP but nothing fruitful came out for the prosecution and the relevant portion of statement of PW 3 is as under:
"Deceased Kaushal was my elder sister. On 02.05.2015, marriage of Kaushal was solemnized with Rajender R/o Vishnu Garden, Khyala, Delhi. Accused Rajender was residing in the house with his father Amar Singh and widow sister Vidya. After the marriage my sister Kaushal used to come to our house happily. After about one year of her marriage, Kaushal had expired and I do not know the reasons of her death. All the accused persons i.e. Rajender (husband), Amar Singh (father in law) and Vidya (sister in law) of Kaushal are present in the court today and witness correctly identified them. They never harassed my sister and never demanded any dowry from her."
This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP and the relevant portion is as under:
"It is correct that in the marriage of my sister Kaushal, my father and family FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 13/27 -14- members had spent money in the marriage exceeding our financial limits. It is incorrect to suggest that accused Rajender, husband of Kaushal, accused Amar Singh, father in law of Kaushal and accused Vidya Devi, sister in law of Kaushal were not happy with the money spent by us in the marriage and used to harass Kaushal to bring motorcycle and also gave beatings to her in lieu of the demand of motorcycle in dowry. It is correct that on the occasion of Bhai Duj my sister came to our house. It is incorrect to suggest that when she came to our house on the occasion of Bhai Duj, she told us about the harassment given to her by the accused persons and beatings given to her by accused persons for their demand of motorcycle as dowry. It is incorrect to suggest that our family members tried to make the accused persons but accused persons understand did not stop and continued harassing my sister Kaushal for dowry and also gave beatings to her on the trivial matters. It is incorrect to suggest that my sister Kaushal was bearing the torture and harassment of accused persons to save her married life and remained in tension due to the harassment given by the accused persons in lieu of their demand for dowry. It is incorrect to suggest that on 14.11.2015, due to torture, harassment given by accused persons, for their dowry demand, my sister Kaushal had committed suicide. It is incorrect to suggest that accused persons threw the body of my sister on the pavement outside their house. It is incorrect to suggest that due to torture, harassment given by accused persons in lieu of their dowry demand, my sister Kaushal had committed suicide. Police officials never recorded my statement. I did not state to police officials that the accused Rajender, husband of Kaushal, accused Amar Singh, father in law of Kaushal and accused Vidya Devi, sister in law of Kaushal were not happy with the money spent by us in the marriage and used to harass Kaushal to bring motorcycle and also gave beatings to her in lieu of the demand of motorcycle in dowry. I did not state to police officials that when she came to our house on the occasion of Bhai Duj, she told us FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 14/27 -15- about the harassment given to her by the accused persons and beatings given to her by accused persons in lieu of their demand of motorcycle as dowry. I did not state to police officials that our family members tried to make the accused persons understand but accused persons did not stop and continued harassing my sister Kaushal for dowry and also gave beatings to her on the trivial matters. I did not state to police officials that my sister Kaushal was bearing the torture and harassment of accused persons to save her married life and remained in tension due to the harassment given by the accused persons in lieu of their demand for dowry. I did not state to police officials that on 14.11.2015, due to torture, harassment given by accused persons in lieu of their dowry demand, my sister Kaushal had committed suicide. I did not state to police officials that accused persons threw the body of my sister on the pavement outside their house. I did not state to police officials that due to torture, harassment given by accused persons in lieu of their dowry demands, to my sister Kaushal had committed suicide. (Confronted with her statement Mark Z1 from A to A where it is so recorded). It is incorrect that I have compromised with the accused persons. It is further wrong to suggest that due to compromise I am not telling the true facts and also saying that police official never recorded my statement. It is incorrect to suggest that on account of harassment by accused persons in lieu of dowry demand my elder sister Kaushal had committed suicide.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel and the relevant portion is as under:
"My sister Kaushal was happy in her matrimonial home. Kaushal was never harassed on account of dowry or otherwise by her husband, father in law or sister in law. Kaushal was sensitive in nature and she used to get perplexed in small matters. It is correct that Kaushal used to feel depressive and she was sensitive as she had not conceived after about 67 months of her FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 15/27 -16- marriage. I used to comfort her but she used to remain under depression on this account. It is correct that police never recorded my statement, although, I along with my family members had stated to the police as well as the Magistrate that Kaushal was living happily in her matrimonial home and she was never harassed on account of dowry."
11. PW 5 Sh. Heera is the uncle of deceased appeared in the witness box and he deposed that marriage between the deceased and accused was solemnized on 02.05.2015. He deposed that accused Rajender was residing in the house with his father Amar Singh and sister Vidya. He deposed that accused never harassed his niece and never demanded any dowry from her. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP but nothing fruitful came out for the prosecution and the relevant portion of statement of PW 5 is as under:
"Deceased Kaushal was my niece. She was the daughter of Sh. Gulabi, my cousin. On 02.05.2015, marriage of Kaushal was solemnized with Rajender R/o Vishnu Garden, Khyala, Delhi. Accused Rajender was residing in the house with his father Amar Singh and widow sister Vidya. After the marriage my sister Kaushal used to come to our house happily. After about one year of her marriage, Kaushal had expired and I do not know the reasons of her death. All the accused persons i.e. Rajender (husband), Amar Singh (father in law) and Vidya (sister in law) of Kaushal are present in the court today and witness correctly identified them. They never harassed my niece and never demanded any dowry from her."
Ld. APP cross examined this witness as he resiled from his earlier statement made to the police. The relevant portion of FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 16/27 -17- cross examination is as under:
"It is incorrect to suggest that after the marriage, on the occasion of Bhai Duj, my niece met me at her parents house at Tanki Wali Jhuggi, and told me that her husband Rajender, father in law Amar Singh and sister in law Vidya Devi, used to harass her and gave beatings to her in lieu of their demand of dowry and used to pressurize her to bring motorcycle. It is incorrect to suggest that my cousin Gulabi and other family members made accused Rajender, Amar Singh and Vidya Devi to understand but they continued harassing Kaushla in lieu of their demand for dowry. It is incorrect to suggest that Kaushal used to bear their torture and harassment to maintain her matrimonial house and relation and therefore, did not complaint the matter to the police official. It is incorrect to suggest that on 14.11.2015 Kaushal had committed suicide due to the harassment of the accused persons in lieu of their demand for dowry. It is correct that I had identified the dead body of Kaushal at the mortuary of DDU Hospital, and my statement was recorded in this regard which is Ex. PW5/A, which bears my signature at point A. I did not state to police officials that after the marriage, on the occasion of Bhai Duj, my niece met me at her parents house at Tanki Wali Jhuggi, and told me that her husband Rajender, father in law Amar Singh and sister in law Vidya Devi, used to harass her and gave beatings to her in lieu of their demand of dowry and used to pressurize her to bring motorcycle. I did not state to police officials that my cousin Gulabi and other family members made accused Rajender, Amar Singh and Vidya Devi understand but they continued harassing Kaushla in lieu of their demand for dowry. I did not state to police officials that Kaushal used to bear their torture and harassment to maintain her matrimonial house and relation and therefore, did not complaint the matter to the police official. I did not state to police officials that on 14.11.2015 Kaushal had committed FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 17/27 -18- suicide due to the harassment of the accused persons in lieu of their demand for dowry. Police officials never recorded my statement. (Confronted with her statement Mark Z2 from A to A where it is so recorded). It is incorrect that I have compromised with the accused persons. It is further wrong to suggest that due to compromise I am not telling the true facts and also saying that police official never recorded my statement. It is incorrect to suggest that on account of harassment by accused persons in lieu of dowry demand my niece Kaushal had committed suicide."
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel and relevant portion of cross examination is as under:
"It is correct that Kaushal was happy in her matrimonial home. It is correct that Kaushal was never harassed on account of dowry or otherwise by her husband, father in law or sister in law. I along with my family members including Gulabi, Shanti, Meera and others had stated to the police that Kaushal was never harassed by any of the accused persons on account of dowry or otherwise. We had also stated to the police as well as the Magistrate that Kaushal was happy in her matrimonial home."
12.PW 6 Sh. Surender Kumar is the Executive Magistrate deposed that on 15.11.2015, he received the phone call from the IO that one lady has committed suicide at Vishnu Garden and IO had taken the body to DDU Hospital. He stated that he reached at DDU Hospital and met the IO and parents of the deceased. He stated that he recorded the statement of father of the deceased Kaushal, namely, Sh. Gulabi. His statement is already exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel and FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 18/27 -19- relevant portion of cross examination is as under:
"I did not receive any information on 14.11.2015. The statement Ex. PW1/A is not in my handwriting, however, the IO had written in my presence. It is incorrect to suggest that IO had brought written statement before me and I had only signed it at his instance. It is incorrect to suggest that Gulabi did not make any statement before me. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
13. PW 7 Gulabi is the relative of deceased appeared in the witness box and he deposed that marriage between the deceased and accused was solemnized on 02.05.2015. He further deposed that he did not attend the marriage ceremony and on the occasion of Bhai Duj, Kaushal visited their house and went away happily and she did not narrated anything to them. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP but nothing fruitful came out for the prosecution and the relevant portion of statement of PW 7 is as under:
"I am into the selling of old clothes. Deceased Kaushal was daughter of my brother in law Gulabi. He got her daughter married last year on 02.05.2015. She was married to Rajinder, who is present in the court today, correctly identified. However, I did not attend the marriage ceremony. On the occasion of Bhai Duj, Kaushal visited our house and went away happily. She did not narrate anything to us. I do not know the reason of her suicide. She died on 14.11.2015. I do not want to say anything else. Police did not record my statement. Accused Rajinder Singh, Amar Singh and Vidya Devi are present in the court today, correctly identified."
This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP and the relevant FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 19/27 -20- portion of cross examination is as under:
"I am husband of Soni. It is wrong to suggest that on the occasion of Bhai Duj Kaushal visited our house and confided in Soni that her husband Rajinder, her father in law Amar Singh and her sister in law Vidya Devi used to subject her to harassment in connection with dowry demand and she was also subject to physical beatings in order to pressurize her to meet the demand of one motorcycle. It is wrong to suggest that the said in laws of deceased Kaushal tried to persuade not to indulge in such kind of misdemeanors against deceased Kaushal but they did not relent. It is wrong to suggest that deceased Kaushal continued to suffer in silence at the hands of said in laws and she did not make any complaint to the police, however, one fine day she scummed to all the tortures being meted out to her and committed suicide. (Confronted with statement Mark X from portion A to A where it is so recorded ). It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately not deposing the said facts as I have been won over by the accused persons."
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel and relevant portion of cross examination is as under:
"It is correct that Kaushal was happy in her matrimonial home and she was never tortured or harassed on account of dowry by her husband or in laws."
14. PW 8 Smt. Soni is also the relative of deceased similar to that of PW 7. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. APP but nothing fruitful came out for the prosecution and the relevant portion of statement of PW 8 is as under:
"I am a housewife and helps my husband into the selling of old clothes. Deceased Kaushal was daughter of my husband's brother in law, Gulabi. He got her daughter married last year on 02.05.2015. She was married to Rajinder, who is present in the court today, correctly identified. However, I FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 20/27 -21- did not attend the marriage ceremony of deceased Kaushal as I and my husband could not go due to some personal reasons. She used to visit us quite often even after the marriage. On the occasion of Bhai Duj, Kaushal visited our house and went away happily. She was happy as regards her marriage and she did not narrate anything untoward. I do not know the reason of her suicide. It is correct that she committed suicide on 14.11.2015. I do not want to say anything else. Police did not record my statement. Accused Rajinder Singh, Amar Singh and Vidya Devi, who are husband, father in law and sister in law of deceased Kaushal, are present in the court today, correctly identified. After the death of deceased Kaushal, I and my husband received the dead body from DDU Hospital Mortuary vide handing over memo already Ex. PW1/C, bearing my thumb impression at point B. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP and the relevant portion of cross examination is as under:
"I am wife of Gulabi. It is wrong to suggest that on the occasion of Bhai Duj, Kaushal visited our house and confided in me that her husband Rajinder, her father in law, Amar Singh and her sister in law, Vidya Devi used to subject her to harassment in connection with dowry demand and she was also subject to physical beatings in order to pressurize her to meet the demand of one motorcycle. It is wrong to suggest that the said in laws of deceased Kaushal tried to persuade not to indulge in such kind of misdemeanors against deceased Kaushal but they did not relent. It is further wrong to suggest that her father in law used to keep bad eye on her. It is wrong to suggest that deceased Kaushal continued to suffer in silence at the hands of said in laws and she did not make any complaint to the police. However, one fine day she succumbed to all the tortures being meted out to her and committed suicide. (Confronted with statement Mark Y from portion A to A where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that I am FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 21/27 -22- deliberately not deposing the said facts as I have been won over by the accused persons.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel and relevant portion of cross examination is as under:
"It is correct that Kaushal was happy in her matrimonial home and she was never tortured or harassed on account of dowry by her husband or in laws. It is also correct that Kaushal never complained to me and my husband about any harassment caused her by her husband and in laws."
15. PW 9 Sh. Dudhiya is the uncle of the deceased appeared in the witness box and deposed that on 02.05.2016, his niece Kaushal was married to accused Rajinder and some dowry articles were given by the parents of the deceased as per their wish and nothing was demanded by the accused persons. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. APP but nothing fruitful came out for the prosecution and the relevant portion of statement of PW 8 is as under:
"On 02.05.2015, my niece Kaushal was married to accused Rajinder, who is present in the court today, according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. Nothing was given by the parents of Kaushal, to the family members on the occasion of marriage. Again said, some dowry articles were given by the parents of the deceased as per their wish and nothing was demanded by the accused persons. After the marriage, the deceased was living happily with the husband and her in laws and there was no demand of dowry from the side of husband or in laws. I do not know the reason of committing suicide by Kaushal."
This witness was cross examined by ld. APP and the relevant FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 22/27 -23- portion of cross examination is as under:
"I do not know whether the dowry articles and the kanyadan of around Rs.25,000/ were handed over to the family members of accused Rajinder by the parents and other family members of the deceased at the time of her marriage. I do not know if accused Rajinder, Vidya Devi and Amar Singh, who are present in the court today used to harass the deceased Kaushal for bringing insufficient dowry. It is wrong to suggest that deceased Kaushal had committed suicide due to the demand and harassment by the in laws and her husband.
I am illiterate.
(At this stage portion A to A1 of statement under Section 161 CrPC Mark X 3, is read over to the witness in vernacular and witness denied the same having made the statement before the police). It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely as I have been won over by the accused persons."
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel and relevant portion of cross examination is as under:
"It is correct that the deceased was happy in her matrimonial home. It is also correct that the accused persons never harassed the deceased on account of dowry."
16.PW 10 Dr. R.K. Chobey, Medical Officer Guru Govind Singh Government Hospital deposed that on 15.11.2015 at about 03.10 pm, one patient namely Rajender was brought to the casualty for medical examination. He deposed that he medically examined the patient and prepared the MLC in this regard vide Ex.PW 10/A. This witness was not cross examined by ld. Defence counsel.
17. PW 11 Pandit Jagannath Prasad Sharma deposed that he FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 23/27 -24- prepared the lagan Patrika of marriage of Kaushal and Rajender Ex. PW 11/A and as per lagan patrika, the marriage was fixed for 02.05.2016.
This witness was also not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
18.PW 12 W/HC Radhika duty officer at PS Khyala deposed that on 14.11.2015, she was posted at PS Khyala as duty office from 8AM till 4 PM and at about, 2.50 PM, she received a call to the effect that one girl committed suicide at N49, Vishnu Garden, Delhi. She deposed that she made entry in Rojnamcha vide DD no. 20A vide Ex. PW12/A. She deposed that the copy of said DD was handed over to Ct. Tej Singh, to dispatch the same to ASI Khushi Ram. She deposed that on 15.11.2015, at about 12.05 PM, Ct. Nar Singh came at PS with a rukka which was sent by SI Ajay Kumar and on the basis of rukka, she got registered the present case through computer operator vide computer generated copy of FIR Ex. PW12/B.
19.PW 13 Insp. Mahesh Kumar draftsman deposed that on 25.01.2016, at the request of Insp. Om Prakash ATO PS Khyala, he reached at PS Khyala and from there, he alongwith Insp. Om Prakash and SI Ajay Kumar visited the place of incident i.e. H.No. 49, 2nd Floor, Gali No. 3, Vishnu Garden, Delhi. There at the instance of SI Ajay Kumar, he took rough notes and measurements of the spot. He deposed that on 03.02.2016, on the FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 24/27 -25- basis of above mentioned rough notes and measurements, he prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW 13/A. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
20.PW 1 to PW 5 and PW 7 to PW 9 have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile and were cross examined by Ld. APP but nothing fruitful came out for the prosecution.
21. In these circumstances when PW 1 to PW 5 and PW 7 to PW 9, all the witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case and have not assigned any criminal role to all the accused persons, the prosecution evidence is closed, declining the request of Ld. Addl. Public prosecutor for leading further evidence as it shall be futile to record the testimonies of other witnesses who are official in nature. The court time should not be wasted in recording of formal or official witnesses when the complainant and other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.
22.Statements of all the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. are dispensed with as there is nothing incriminating against them when the complainant and other witnesses are hostile and nothing material has come forth in their cross examination by the prosecution.
23.I have heard arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and precedents on the point.
FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 25/27 -26-
24.In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of complainant and material witnesses, I am of the considered view that their deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. Reference can be made to the judgment titled as Suraj Mal vs. The State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1979, SC, 1408 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness;"
25.Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @Dhiraj and others vs. State of Chattisgarh, 2004 (1) CCC 487.
26.Consequently no inference can be drawn that the accused persons have harassed the deceased Kaushal and committed dowry death and there is no material on record to suggest that deceased was harassed by the accused persons and they have committed dowry death of Smt. Kaushal. No case is made out against the accused Rajender, Amar Singh and Vidya Devi as there is no incriminating evidence against them.
27. The material and evidence on record do not bridge the gap between "May be true and must be true", so essential for the court to cross, while finding the guilty of accused persons, particularly in cases where the complainant and other material FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 26/27 -27- witnesses claimed that the accused persons are innocent and have not committed any offence. Even otherwise no useful purpose would be served by adopting any hyper technical approach in the issue.
28.Consequently, no inference can be drawn that all accused persons are guilty of charge for the offence punishable under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC. There is no material on record that in between 02.05.2015 to 14.11.2015, Smt. Kaushal was harassed by accused persons and on 14.11.2015, due to the harassment, Smt. Kaushal died.
29.Therefore, in view of the above discussion the court is satisfied that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons namely Rajender, Amar Singh and Vidya Devi for the offence under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC.
30.The accused Rajender, Amar Singh and Vidya Devi are hereby acquitted of the charge for the offence under section 498A/304B/34 IPC. The sureties stands discharged.
31. After the completion of formalities and expiry of the period of limitation for appeal, the file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 30.09.2016 (Rakesh KumarIII) Additional Sessions Judge03, West District, Delhi.
FIR No. 735/16 State vs. Rajender etc. 27/27