Delhi District Court
State vs . Tughlakabad Village, Delhi. on 24 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE(FTC)-02, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 1274/2016)
FIR No. 389/2014
Police Station Govind Puri
Charge sheet filed 498-A/304-B/34 IPC
Under Section
Charge framed Under 498-A/304-B/34 IPC
Section
Pawan Kumar s/o Sh. Bhojraj r/o H.
No. 651/15, Prajapati Mohalla,
Tughlakabad Village, Delhi.
Krishna w/o Sh. Bhojraj r/o H. No.
651/15, Prajapati Mohalla,
State Vs. Tughlakabad Village, Delhi.
Bhojraj s/o Late Sh. Naththiram
r/o H. No. 651/15, Prajapati
Mohalla, Tughlakabad Village,
Delhi. (Proceedings abated vide
order dated 03.02.2022)
Date of institution 02.07.2014
Arguments concluded on 22.05.2023
Judgment Pronounced on 24.05.2023
Decision Acquitted
SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 1 of 36
State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion is that on 10.04.2014, upon receipt of DD No. 83B regarding MLC No. C/64315 of deceased Meenakshi, SI Parvesh Kasana alongwith Ct. Govinda reached at Safdarjung Hospital. SI Parvesh Kasana collected the MLC and it revealed that deceased Meenakshi was admitted in Safdarjung hospital by accused Pawan (husband) and accused Krishna (mother-in-law) with compliant of vomiting, vertigo and pain abdomen. Accused Krishna informed the doctor that Meenakshi took some unknown poison. Despite all possible efforts, she could not be revived and declared dead at 02.20 AM. As deceased got married around 03½ years ago, hence, information was shared with SDM concerned. On the directions of SDM, SI Pravesh Kasana took the parents of deceased to Jijabai Polytechnic School near Khel Gaon where Sh. Ajeet Singh, Tehsildar, Kalkaji recorded the statement of parents of deceased. Roop Chand father of deceased alleged that accused Pawan was unemployed at the time of marriage and after sometime accused persons started harassing the deceased. Two negotiations (panchayats) were held but of no avail. Deceased was blessed with a baby boy and accused Pawan and his father Bhoj Raj (since deceased) started demanding a car. On the intervening night of 09.04.2014/10.04.2014, complainant received a call from accused Pawan that deceased was unwell and she was being taken to Safdarjung hospital. Around 02.15 AM, he was informed by accused Bhoj Raj that Meenakshi had expired as she had consumed poison. He suspected that deceased was killed by accused persons by administering her poison. Crime team was called and inspected the spot and during inspection one pouch on which "Celphas" was written, recovered under the mattress of the bed of the deceased. SI Parvesh Kasana prepared rukka on the statement of Roop Chand and FIR u/s 498-A/304-B IPC was registered. Further investigation was marked to IO/SHO Sunil Kumar. During investigation, SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 2 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. IO visited the spot i.e., H. No. 651/15, Prajapati Mohallah, TKD Village, New Delhi and from where husband of deceased was apprehended, interrogated and during interrogation he allegedly admitted about the cruelty inflicted upon the deceased in connection with dowry demand. On 11.04.2014, postmortem of deceased was conducted and after postmortem, dead body was handed over to father of deceased. During postmortem, viscera as well as gastric lavage of deceased were preserved by the doctor and same were seized by the IO. During investigation, exhibits i.e., pouch of Celphas, Gastric lavage and viscera were sent to FSL. After dismissal of anticipatory bail application, on 12.05.2014, accused Krishna and Bhojraj surrendered themselves in police station and joined investigation. They were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded. IO seized the marriage invitation card of deceased. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for offences u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC was filed in the court.
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 11.08.2014 charge u/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC against accused persons namely Pawan Kumar, Bhojraj and Krishna was found to be made out. The formal charge was framed on the said date to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Proceedings against accused Bhojraj stands abated vide order dated 03.02.2022.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Prosecution in support of its case have examined 15 witnesses in all.
SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 3 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. FORMAL WITNESSES
4. PW3 Krishan, is brother of deceased. He identified the dead body of his sister Meenakshi in mortuary and his statement which is Ex. PW3/A, was recorded in this regard.
5. PW5 is Dr. Sanchit Singhla, JR, RML Hospital. He deposed that on 10.01.2014 he was working as JR at Safdarjung Hospital and around 12:20 AM, patient Meenakshi was brought for medical examination by her husband Pawan. He examined the patient, who was not responding vide MLC which is Ex. PW5/A and at about 02:20 AM, she was declared brought dead. He also prepared the death certificate of Meenakshi which is Ex. PW5/B.
6. PW6 is Ajit Kumar Chaudhary, Executive Magistrate, Kalkaji. He recorded the statements of PW1 Roop Chand and PW2 Maya Devi and made endorsement on statement of PW Roop Chand. He also exhibited inquest Form 25.35 as Ex. PW6/A. He recorded dead body identification statements of Krishan (brother of deceased) and Roop Chand (father of deceased). He moved an application which is Ex. PW6/B to Autopsy Surgeon for conducting postmortem.
7. PW7 is Inspector Krishan Kumar. He being crime team in- charge, inspected the spot and recovered Celphas pouch from the spot. He prepared crime scene visit report which is Ex. PW7/A.
8. PW9 is Ct. Anita. On 12.05.2014, accused Krishna was arrested in her presence by the IO. She conducted personal search of accused Krishna vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW9/A. She exhibited disclosure SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 4 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. statement of accused Krishna as Ex. PW9/B. She took accused Krishna to AIIMS Hospital for her medical examination. She correctly identified accused Krishna during her deposition.
9. PW10 is Inspector Mahesh Kumar. On 20.05.2014 on the request of IO/Inspector Sunil Kumar, he visited the spot i.e., H. No. 651/15, Kumahar Mohalla, Village Tughlakabad, Delhi and took measurements at the instance of SI Parvesh Kumar. On 02.06.2014, he prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex. PW10/A and handed over the same to IO.
10. PW11 is Ct. Chaman Singh. On 25.04.2014, he took the articles of the case and other documents to FSL vide RC No. 100/21/15. He deposited the same in FSL vide receipt No. 2014/CHE/3016 and deposited one receipt in malkhana.
MATERIAL/EYE WITNESSES
11. PW1 is Roop Chand, is father of deceased Meenakshi.
His first statement was recorded by SDM on 10.04.2014 which is the basis of the registration of FIR in this case. He stated that deceased got married with accused Pawan around 3 years ago and he had given dan dahej (gift and dowry) articles at the time of marriage as per his status. After the marriage, his daughter was being harassed by her in-laws. Two meetings (panchayats) were done and for some time things used to be fine but thereafter, his daughter was again harassed. Around 2 years ago, his daughter was blessed with a boy and accused Pawan and accused Bhoj Raj raised a demand for car but he refused for the same. On this, accused persons started harassing his daughter. Around 12.30 AM, he received a call from accused Pawan that SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 5 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. Meenu was unwell and they were taking her to Safdarjung hospital. Around 02.15 AM, accused Bhoj Raj called him to inform that his daughter was no more and they were also asked to come to the hospital. When he went to the hospital he was informed by accused Bhoj Raj that Meenakshi had consumed poison. He suspected that his daughter was killed by the accused persons by giving her poison.
11.1 His second statement u/s 161 CrPC was recorded by the IO on 20.05.2014, wherein he stated that he handed over the marriage card to the IO. He also produced two persons namely Hans Raj and his brother Horam Singh as witnesses as they had attended those two meetings (panchayats).
11.2 His third statement u/s 161 CrPC was recorded by the IO on 23.05.2014, wherein in continuation with his previous statement he stated that his daughter was being harassed by her in-laws and two meetings (panchayats) were also held. After two years, his daughter was blessed with a baby boy and all accused persons started putting pressure upon the deceased to bring a car.
11.3 He added to his previous allegation that accused also demanded car from parents of deceased but they refused to give the same as their economical condition was not so sound and on this accused persons remained silent but all accused persons regularly kept pressurising the deceased for their demand of car and this fact was stated by the deceased to them on telephone. She also used to inform them about their dowry demand as and when she used to visit her parents home. They did not complain the matter to the police as they were under an apprehension that matrimonial life of their daughter would be ruined on such small issue. Deceased was made to understand that SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 6 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. everything would be fine as she had been blessed with a boy. Deceased came to her parents house due to comments passed by accused persons related to their demand of car. As usual her parents made her to understand that things would be fine and she was sent to her matrimonial home on 06.04.2014. At the time of leaving her home she had stated that accused persons will not agree without a car. On the intervening night of 09.04.2014, they were informed about her death. It was stated by him that due to sudden death and shock he could not divulge these facts to the IO (all these facts were not mentioned by PW1 in his statement given to the SDM as well as in his second statement u/s 161 CrPC recorded on 20.05.2014).
11.4 In his examination-in-chief he deposed that the marriage took place on 30.11.2010 and Nanak Chand was the mediator in the marriage. He stated the istri dhan was given in the marriage as per his capacity. Accused Pawan was self employed and used to do some job work of clothes at home. After few days of marriage, at the time of visit of deceased Meenakshi, she told about harassment for dowry demand i.e., car. He further deposed that before birth of child of deceased, two panchayats were arranged at the house of accused persons in which apart from him, accused persons, Hansraj, Horam and other persons participated. In the panchayat, accused persons assured that they will not harass the deceased in future. He further deposed that after two years, Meenakshi was blessed with a son and thereafter, again deceased told that accused persons were demanding car. He made deceased understand that he could not afford car. He further deposed that in the intervening night of 9- 10.04.2014 at about 12:30 AM (night), accused Pawan made a telephonic call to him and told that Meenakshi was not well and she was being taken to Safdarjung Hospital. After about 1½ hours, accused Bhojraj informed him SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 7 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. telephonically that Meenakshi had expired in the hospital. He further deposed that they reached at hospital where Bhojraj informed that his daughter had consumed poison. His statement which is Ex. PW1/A was recorded by SDM. He further deposed that on 06.04.2014, deceased went to her matrimonial home after residing for 8-10 days as accused Pawan took her with him and at that time she told her mother that accused persons would not agree and one car should be given to them. He identified the dead body of his daughter in mortuary vide body identification statement which is Ex. PW1/B. He also handed over marriage card of his daughter to police which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW1/C. He exhibited arrest memo of accused Krishna as Ex. PW1/D and arrest memo of accused Bhojraj as Ex. PW1/E and marriage card as Ex. PA. He correctly identified the accused persons during his deposition.
11.5 In his cross-examination he admitted that there was no problem or dispute between the families at the time of marriage. He further admitted that he did not file any complaint to police or any authority before the death regarding alleged harassment and demand of dowry. He further admitted that no treatment was provided to the deceased when she had come to his house as there was no necessity for any such treatment. He admitted that accused persons did not demand car at the time of marriage. He stated that Panchayat had taken place at the house of accused persons but he could not tell the date and month of the said panchayat and stated that year could be 2012. He admitted that PW Hansraj is his cousin and PW Horam is his real brother. He admitted that deceased never made any complaint against her husband to him and she only used to criticize her in-laws. He could not tell whether or not accused Pawan used to sit at the cosmetic shop of his father before the SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 8 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. incident. He admitted that the incident occurred during Navratras and he was not aware whether accused Krishna and Bhojraj had gone to Kalkaji temple at the time of incident. He could not tell cause of death of his daughter. He expressed his ignorance qua the fact that accused Pawan was sitting at cosmetic shop situated outside the residence and he heard cries of the child or he asked the deceased about the reason due to which child was crying and a verbal altercation took place between deceased and accused Pawan or in anger, deceased consumed some poisonous substance. He stated that deceased was taken to Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research with complaint of vomiting and vertigo. He stated that after getting treatment at Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, deceased was brought back to her matrimonial house but she was again taken to Safdarjung hospital. He admitted that deceased Meenakshi never told him about any beating given to her by any of the accused.
12. PW2 is Smt. Maya, is mother of deceased. Her first statement was recorded by the SDM on 10.04.2014 and she deposed on the lines of her husband Roop Chand and levelled similar allegations against the accused persons which have already noted down in the first statement of PW1. She exhibited her statement which was recorded by Tehsildar cum Executive Magistrate as Ex. PW2/A. 12.1 Her second statement was recorded by the IO on 23.05.2014, during investigation which was recorded u/s 161 CrPC, wherein in continuation of her previous statement she stated that her daughter was being harassed by her in-laws and they also used to beat her. She stated that as a woman she did not tell about the harassment to her husband Roop Chand as SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 9 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. matrimonial life of deceased was at stake but somehow Roop Chand came to know about this. Two meetings (panchayats) were also held. After two years, her daughter was blessed with a baby boy and all accused persons started putting pressure upon the deceased to bring a car.
12.2 All accused persons regularly kept pressurising the deceased for their demand of car and this fact was stated by the deceased to them on telephone. She also used to inform them about their dowry demand as and when she used to visit her parents home. She made the deceased to understand that everything would be fine as she had been blessed with a boy and as his son would grow up, things would settle down. She stated that her husband had a talk with accused Krishna and Bhojraj and they used to keep mum but Meenakshi used to tell them that accused persons had put her under pressure to bring a car. Deceased came to her parents house due to comments passed by accused persons related to their demand of car. As usual her parents made her to understand that things would be fine and she was sent to her matrimonial home on 06.04.2014. At the time of living her home she had stated that accused persons shall take car from them. On the intervening night of 09.04.2014, they were informed about her death. It was stated by her that due to sudden death and shock she could not divulge these facts to the IO. (all these facts were not mentioned by PW2 in her statement given to the SDM. She has more or less deposed on the lines of Roop Chand's statement u/s 161 CrPC recorded on 23.05.2014).
12.3 In her examination-in-chief she has deposed that since the day of marriage her daughter was not kept happy by accused persons and they used to demand a four wheeler/ car. She stated that two panchayats were held within 1- SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 10 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. 1.5 years of marriage at the house of Bhojraj. She did not participate in those panchayats and her husband, her jeth Horam had participated from their side in panchayats. She deposed that accused persons had apologized and the matter was sort out. She stated for 2-3 months everything went well and thereafter, Pawan started beating the deceased at the instance of co-accused persons. Accused used to ask deceased to bring a car and she used to inform them telephonically and also when she used to visit their house. She deposed that after birth of child accused Bhojraj and Krishna pressurised accused Pawan to ask for a car. She stated that she had informed the deceased that they could not afford to give car. She stated on 06.04.2014 Meenakshi had gone to her matrimonial house after staying with them for 10-12 days and stated that her in-laws would not be happy without a car. She deposed that she suspects that all three persons had forced Meenakshi to consume poison.
12.4 In her cross-examination she admitted that there was no problem or dispute between them and accused persons. She could not tell the dates of panchayats. She admitted that she did not state to the executive Magistrate that since the day of marriage her daughter was not kept happy by the accused persons as they were demanding a car. She admitted that cosmetic shop was situated at the residence of accused persons. She could not tell if accused Pawan used to sit at the said shop. She expressed her ignorance qua the fact that accused Pawan was sitting at cosmetic shop situated outside the residence and he heard cries of the child or he asked the deceased about the reason due to which child was crying and a verbal altercation took place between deceased and accused Pawan or in anger, deceased consumed some poisonous substance. She stated that she was not aware about the circumstances and due to which deceased consumed the poison as she was not present there. She stated that SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 11 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. deceased used to tell them about the meetings of accused persons in the hall and they used to plan to kill Meenakshi. She stated that no complaint was made to the police regarding alleged apprehension of danger to her life with an aim to save her matrimonial life. She stated that deceased always used to tell them about the meetings of accused persons as and when she visited their house. She correctly identified the accused persons during her deposition.
13. PW4 is Horam Singh. He is uncle of deceased, who deposed that on 30.11.2010, deceased was married with Pawan Kumar. He further deposed before 4 days of marriage, a meeting was organized at the house of middleman on his instructions as accused Bhojraj wanted a four wheeler, however, they refused to fulfill their demand as they only wanted to give a two wheeler in the marriage. He further deposed that thereafter, accused persons felt sorry and told that they will not demand anything in future.
13.1 He further deposed that after marriage, Sukhbir and Roopchand went to the house of accused persons to make them understand as they were harassing Meenakshi for petty matters. He further deposed that on 23.03.2011, he alongwith family members and persons of village went to the house of accused persons at Tughlakabad village to make them understand and deceased told them that if they gave a four wheeler to them, then the matter would be over. He further deposed that they were ready to take back Meenakshi but accused persons gave assurance that in future they will not repeat this mistake and will not harass Meenakshi for dowry in future. He further deposed that after panchayat, for about 1-1½ months, deceased lived happily in the house of in-law, however, they again demanded dowry articles from her.
SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 12 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. 13.2 He further deposed that after sometime Meenakshi was brought by her brother Krishan and she remained there for about 15 days. He further deposed that son of Gajraj (brother of Bhojraj) came to village to take her in marriage of nephew of Bhoj Raj and they gave assurance that they will take care of Meenakshi. Thereafter, he also came to know that Meenakshi was living there like a maid servant and they used to harass her. He further deposed that in November 2011, Meenakshi delivered a male child and they attended a ceremony at village Tuglakhabad and thought that accused persons will not harass Meenakshi anymore and would live peacefully.
13.3 He further deposed that on 09.04.2014, in night his brother telephonically informed him that Meenakshi was not well and was hospitalized at Safdarjung Hospital and after about half an hour, he received telephonic call from his brother that Meenakshi had died.
The testimony of this witness has gone unrebutted and he has not been cross-examined on behalf of accused persons.
14. PW8 is Sh. Hans Raj. He is also uncle of deceased. He deposed that after three months of marriage of Pawan Kumar and deceased, he came to know that some quarrel took place between Meenakshi and her husband. Thereafter, father and uncle of Meenakshi went to her matrimonial house to settle the matter but same could not be settled. He further deposed that he alongwith some respectable persons of the society reached at the matrimonial house of Meenakshi where a panchayat was held. In that panchayat, in-laws of deceased assured that they will not harass Meenakshi on the pretext of dowry. After 15-20 days of panchayat, he again came to know that Meenakshi was harassed by her in-laws for dowry demand and they were demanding car and SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 13 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. cash from Meenakshi. He further deposed that thereafter, Rahul (brother of Meenakshi) went to matrimonial house of Meenakshi and brought her back at her parental house. After 15 days, nephew of accused Bhoj Raj came to parental house of Meenakshi and took her back to matrimonial house saying that there was a marriage function at her matrimonial house. He further deposed that after some time, deceased was blessed with a male child and he gave customary articles at her matrimonial house.
14.1 He further deposed that on 09.04.2014 at about 12:00 midnight, father of Meenakshi received a telephone call from the matrimonial house of Meenakshi stating that she was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital. Accordingly, he alongwith some family members of deceased went to hospital where they came to know that Meenakshi had died due to poison. He alleged that accused persons had killed Meenakshi for want of dowry.
14.2 In his cross-examination he admitted that he had stated to the police that accused Krishna used to pass taunts on the pretext of cooking. He could not tell whether he had stated to the police that in-laws of deceased use to demand car or cash. He could not tell date and month of Panchayat but it was held 3-4 months after the marriage. He admitted that deceased was brought from her parental house for attending the marriage of nephew of Bhojraj.
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION
15. PW12 is Ct. Vikram. He deposed about the arrest of accused Krishna and Bhojraj. He exhibited personal search memo of accused Bhojraj as Ex. PW12/A and his disclosure statement as Ex. PW12/B. He alongwith SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 14 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. Ct. Amit, Lady Ct. Anita and SI Hukumvir took accused Krishna and Bhojraj to AIIMS Hospital for their medical examination.
16. PW13 is HC Govinda. He deposed that on 10.04.2014 on receipt of DD No. 83B, he alongwith SI Parvesh reached at Safdarjung Hospital where SI Parvesh Kasana obtained MLC of Meenakshi and inquired from family members of deceased. He further deposed that in emergency, Ct. Surender handed over gastric lavage of deceased Meenakshi and SI Parvesh Kasana seized the same vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW13/A. SI Parvesh Kasana also inspected the place of occurrence and seized pouch of Celphas vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW13/B. He correctly identified pouch of Celphas which is Ex. P1 during his deposition.
17. PW14 is Inspector Sunil Kumar. He deposed that DD No. 83B was received at police station Govind Puri regarding death of one Meenakshi aged 24 years and the said DD was entrusted to SI Parvesh Kasana for verification and further action. He further deposed that at Safdarjung Hospital, SI Parvesh Kasana received MLC of deceased Meenakshi and telephonically informed him regarding ingredients mentioned in the MLC and history given by accused Pawan Kumar.
He further deposed that as per history given to the doctor, on 09.04.2014 in the afternoon some altercation and fighting took place between accused and deceased. It was mentioned in the MLC that accused Pawan Kumar took the deceased to Majithia Hospital on 09.04.2014 and after medication, she was discharged. When she again complained about vomiting and dizziness, she was further taken to Safdarjung Hospital by accused Pawan and mother-in-law Krishna. He further deposed that accused Krishna gave SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 15 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. alleged history before the treating doctor that deceased took some unknown poison and later on she was declared dead at about 02:20 AM. He further deposed that he telephonically informed concerned SDM and as per instructions of concerned SDM, witnesses were taken to Jijabai Polytechnic where Executive Magistrate i.e., Tehsildar Ajit Chaudhary recorded their statements.
He further deposed that on 10.04.2014, after registration of FIR, he took over the further investigation being matter of dowry death. During investigation, he raided 651/15, Tuglakabad Village where accused Pawan was found present. Accused Pawan was brought to PS and he recorded his disclosure statement wherein he admitted cruelty inflicted upon the deceased prior to her death in connection with demand of dowry. He arrested accused Pawan Kumar vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW14/A, conducted his personal search vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW14/B. He further deposed that on 11.04.2014, postmortem of deceased got conducted through SI Parvesh Kasana in presence of Executive Magistrate Sh. Ajit Chaudhary. He further deposed that since name of accused Krishna and father in law Bhojraj also surfaced, he tried to apprehend them, however, they absconded and NBWs were got issued against them.
He further deposed that after dismissal of anticipatory bail application, accused Krishna and Bhojraj surrendered in police station on 12.05.2014. On 20.05.2014, he seized the invitation card of marriage of accused and Meenakshi produced by complainant Roop Chand. He further deposed that during the investigation, he came to know that in past a panchayat took place regarding matrimonial issue between accused Pawan and deceased Meenakshi. On 20.05.2014, he recorded statements of Hansraj and Horam Singh, who were witnesses of said panchayat. He collected the scaled SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 16 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. site plan from draughtsman and filed the charge sheet. On 24.02.2016, he filed the viscera report in court after receiving the same from FSL.
18. PW15 Inspector Parvesh Kasana. He is first IO in this case and deposed on the lines of PW13 HC Govinda and PW14 Inspector Sunil Kumar. He made endorsement on statement of complainant which is Ex. PW15/A and got the FIR registered. He seized the exhibits which were handed over by the doctor vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW15/B. He exhibited the disclosure statement of accused Pawan Kumar as Ex. PW15/C. He correctly identified the pouch of Celphas during his deposition.
19. Statements of accused persons Pawan Kumar and Krishna under section 294 CrPC were recorded on 17.05.2022 vide which both the accused persons admitted the genuineness of the documents i.e., FIR alongwith certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. A1 (colly), DD No. 83B dated 10.04.2014 which is Ex. A2, FSL report dated 12.03.2015 alongwith forwarding letter dated 19.03.2015 which is Ex. A3 (colly) and postmortem report dated 11.04.2014 which is Ex. A4.
Additional statements under section 294 CrPC of accused persons Krishna and Pawan Kumar were recorded on 17.08.2022 vide which they admitted RC No. 100/21/14 dated 25.04.2014 which is Ex. AD1, photocopy of relevant entries in register No. 19 consisting 3 PP which is Ex. AD2 (colly), four photographs of crime scene alongwith negatives which is Ex. AD3 (colly), OPD Card No. 964315 of Safdarjung Hospital which is Ex. AD4, acknowledgment receipt of case acceptance from FSL dated 25.04.2014 which is Ex. AD5 and HAH Centenary Hospital treatment papers of Meenakshi consisting of two PP which is Ex. AD6 (colly).
SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 17 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
20. After closure of PE, the statement of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 02.02.2023, wherein they stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused Pawan stated that at the time of alleged incident, he was not present in his home and was sitting in a cosmetic shop with his cousin situated near his residence. He himself took his wife (deceased) for treatment first to Majidia Hospital and then to Safardung Hospital. His parents were not present at home at that time and they were at Kalkaji temple. They never caused any cruelty to his wife and he loved her. He never made any demand of dowry. He has 10-11 years old son and he is till residing with him.
Accused Krishna also stated that she alongwith her husband were at Kalkaji temple and she had never caused any cruelty to her daughter-in-law and she loved her. She never made any dowry demand and she is taking care of 10-11 years old grandson (son of deceased and accused Pawan).
Accused persons opted to lead any defence evidence in their defence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
21. In defence evidence, accused persons, examined one Rajeev Kumar as DW1, who deposed that accused Pawan is his cousin brother. On 09.04.2014 at around 02:00 PM, accused Pawan was sitting with him in his cosmetic shop. He further deposed that someone came from house of accused Pawan, who informed accused Pawan that his wife was not well and he immediately left for his home and took his wife to hospital. He further deposed that he never heard about any quarrel which took place between accused and his wife.
In his cross examination done on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for the SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 18 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. State, he stated that accused Pawan was sitting on his cosmetic shop. The distance between his house and Pawan's house is about 100 meters. He stated that he did not accompany accused Pawan when he took the deceased to hospital. He stated that after 02:00 Pm till 12 midnight Pawan did not come to his shop but he called him from Safdarjung hospital.
22. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
23. I have heard Dr. Prayag Dutt Pandey, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Jitender Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
24. It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP that the allegations levelled against the accused are of serious nature and the material witnesses, who happen to be parents of the deceased, have deposed that deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons. It is deposed by them that on 06.04.2014 when she left for her matrimonial home, she had stated that accused persons would not agree without getting a car. This fact reflects that deceased was subjected to cruelty 'soon before her death' as she consumed poison in the afternoon of 09.04.2014. PW Hansraj and Horam have deposed about the previous conduct of accused persons as they attended the meetings (panchayats). The deceased expired within seven years of marriage and prosecution has successfully proved its case against accused Krishna and Pawan that they caused dowry death of deceased Meenakshi by subjecting her cruelty in relation to their dowry demand of a car. Considering the evidence available on record, a presumption under section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act is raised against the accused persons and they have failed to rebut the same. The deposition of these SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 19 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. witnesses is enough to bring home the charge against the accused persons and prosecution has proved its case to the hilt.
25. Per contra, Mr. Jitender Tyagi, Ld. counsel for accused persons has argued that it is a false case registered against accused persons. Statements of PW1 Roop Chand and PW2 Maya Devi before SDM, IO and in court, speak volumes as to how they have improved their versions with the sole motive to get the accused persons convicted in this case. Deceased consumed poison when she was alone and accused persons never demanded any dowry from her or her family. Accused Pawan and deceased had an altercation in the afternoon of 09.04.2014 as her son was crying and accused Pawan asked her as to why the child was crying. This is the trigger cause of her suicide but that is nowhere related to alleged demand of dowry. Accused persons instantly took her to hospital where she did not disclose whether she had consumed poison or not. After getting treatment she was discharged from the hospital and again her condition got worsened and accused persons immediately took her to Safdarjung Hospital. Accused persons also informed her family without any delay. Therefore, accused persons acted in a prompt manner to save the life of the deceased. It is argued that if accused persons were at fault, then their conduct would have been otherwise but in all fairness they did what was expected from them as husband and mother-in-law of deceased. It is argued by Mr. Tyagi that prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of section 304-B/498-A IPC as there is no evidence on record that deceased was ever subjected to any kind of cruelty by the accused persons.
26. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record.
SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 20 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. FINDINGS
27. The accused Pawan Kumar and Krishna have been charged for the commission of offences punishable under section 498-A/304-B/34 IPC.
28. The relevant sections are reproduced as under:
SECTION 498 A IPC Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code [498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.] SECTION 304-B IPC Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 21 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.] SECTION 34 IPC "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone".
113B. Presumption as to dowry death.--When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B, of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860).]
29. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
30. In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 22 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. MATERIAL WITNESSES
31. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Meenakshi was taunted and harassed by the accused persons on account of their demand of dowry for the car. She was taunted and comments were passed to such an extent that she committed suicide by consuming poison in the afternoon of 09.04.2014. Four material witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused persons.
ROOP CHAND (FATHER OF DECEASED) 31.1 PW1 Roop Chand is the complainant and father of the deceased. His statement was recorded by the SDM on 10.04.2014 which is the basis of registration of FIR in this case. In this statement, he has alleged that deceased was harassed by her in-laws and two panchayats were also held. The reason for which deceased was harassed or panchayats were held, was not disclosed by him. He further stated that after birth of baby boy, accused Pawan and his father raised the demand for car and when he refused for the same, they started harassing the deceased. He did not disclose any particular date or month when said alleged demand was made by the accused persons. He suspected that his daughter was killed by the accused persons by administering her poison. In his first statement, the allegations are general in nature and vague for want of any particular date, time, occasion, month and year.
31.2 His second statement was recorded by the IO under section 161 CrPC when he produced the marriage invitation card before the IO. In that statement he did not add anything new in the category of allegations but he introduced two persons i.e., PW4 Horam Singh and PW8 Hansraj on the pretext that both these persons had attended the panchayats. Therefore, in his SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 23 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. second statement, he is silent about anything to be added in continuation of his statement given to the SDM. Surprisingly, his statement was again recorded by the IO on 23.05.2014. This is the third statement wherein he made certain improvements in his statement. He added name of accused Krishna by stating that she also demanded car alongwith accused Pawan and his father when baby was delivered by the deceased. No such allegation was levelled against the accused Krishna in his previous statements. He added that they had conversation with the accused persons on the pretext of car several times and accused persons used to remain silent. This fact also surfaced for the first time that PW1 and PW2 had a talk with accused persons on the pretext of dowry demand. He further stated that accused persons forced the deceased to bring the car and she had informed her parents on telephone. This fact that she intimated her parents on telephone, is also stated for the first time. He introduced the episode of 06.04.2014 when deceased was taken to her matrimonial house as she was invited to attend a marriage of cousin of accused Pawan. It is stated by PW1 that while leaving, Meenakshi had stated that her in-laws would not agree without getting a car. This allegation is also levelled for the first time by him.
31.3 When he stepped into the witness box, he introduced new allegation that after few days of marriage, deceased visited his house and told that she was being harassed for demand of car. This is an improvisation made by him as it is nowhere stated by him during investigation that he was told by deceased after few days of marriage that she was being harassed for demand of dowry. In his examination in chief, he deposed on the lines of his statement under section 161 CrPC recorded on 23.05.2014. In his cross examination he has admitted certain material facts. He admitted that accused persons did not SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 24 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. demand any car at the time of marriage and there was no problem between the families at that time. He further admitted that no treatment was provided to the deceased at any point of time as there was no necessity for doing so. He admitted that he did not file any complaint with the police or any authority regarding alleged demand of dowry by the accused persons prior to her death. He could not tell the date and month when panchayats took place. He admitted that deceased never made any complaint against her husband to him and she only used to criticized by her in-laws. By stating so, this witness has given clean chit to accused Pawan as his knowledge qua the allegations is totally dependent upon the information shared by the deceased with him. He has not clarified as to on what pretext or issue, she used to criticize by her in-laws. He also admitted that deceased never told him that she was ever beaten by any of the accused.
31.4 It is admitted case of complainant Roop Chand that deceased never complained against accused Pawan then all the allegations levelled against him by PW1 in his statements recorded during investigation and examination in chief, are badly affected as both aspects cannot go together. If deceased was harassed for the alleged demand of car then how come she never complained about accused Pawan to her father. It is also not the case of any of the witness that she was ever beaten by the accused persons and in fact, glaring admission has been done by PW1 in this regard. PW1 Roop Chand has tried to improvise his statement by introducing the incident of 06.04.2014 with the purpose that she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. Had it been the reality this glaring statement of deceased ought to have been mentioned by PW1 and PW2 before the SDM. How come parents of a girl could forget to mention the most important allegation which was allegedly put by the SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 25 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. deceased against the accused persons. There was no time gap between the so called statement of the deceased on 06.04.2014 and her death which occurred on 09.04.2014. Even if it is presumed that parents were perturbed due to her death then why they kept mum for next 40 days and did not mention these allegations to the IO. It is not the case that PW1 Roop Chand had no occasion to meet the IO. It is a matter of record that he met the IO on 20.05.2014 when he handed over the marriage invitation card to him. At that time, his statement was recorded and he could have disclosed the episode of 06.04.2014 to the IO but he has not done so for the reasons best known to him.
31.5 After handing over the card to IO on 20.05.2014, something transpired and IO recorded third statement of the complainant on 23.05.2014 wherein this alleged incident of 06.04.2014 was introduced by the witness and his wife. Therefore, veracity of this witness qua the incident of 06.04.2014 is highly doubtful as there is an ordinate delay in bringing this fact to the knowledge of police. In fact, this allegation smacks of after thought and manipulation on the part of parents of deceased. Even for the sake of argument, if it is presumed that deceased has stated so on 06.04.2014 even then it is no evidence against the accused persons that she was subjected to cruelty or they raised any demand for dowry on 06.04.2014. None of the witness has stated that on 06.04.2014 any kind of demand was raised or any kind of cruelty was done with the deceased.
PW2 MAYA DEVI (MOTHER OF DECEASED) 32.1 Mother of deceased has followed the footsteps of PW Roop Chand while giving her statement. As noted above she deposed on his lines before SDM on 10.04.2014 and her second statement under section 161 CrPC was SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 26 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. recorded by the IO on 23.05.2014 wherein she repeated the allegations of PW1 Roop Chand against accused persons. She has also not explained as to why she did not mention the incident of 06.04.2014 before the SDM or why the police was not informed from 10.04.2014 till 23.05.2014 about this fact.
32.2 In her examination in chief she has alleged that accused Pawan used to beat the deceased but on the other hand PW1 has denied this fact. PW1 has stated that deceased was never beaten by any of the accused during her lifetime. The second improvement made by her in examination in chief is that accused Pawan was pressurized by co-accused persons to demand a car from the deceased. This allegation is new to this case and it is also not stated by her husband and it is an indication that it is an afterthought on behalf of PW2 to state so.
32.3 In her cross examination she has admitted the facts on the lines of her husband that there was no problem at the time of marriage and no complaint was filed with the police prior to her death. She admitted that there was a cosmetic shop situated outside the house of accused persons which is in corroboration of the defence of the accused that he was sitting in his cosmetic shop and heard cries of the baby coming from inside of the house. She has moved ahead of her husband in improvising her allegation against the accused when she stated as under:
"Meenakshi used to tell us about the meeting of accused persons in the hall and they used to plan to kill Meenakshi. Myself, my husband or my sons or deceased herself had never made any complaint to the police or to any other authority regarding her apprehension of danger to her life or about the meeting between the accused persons. Vol. In order to save her matrimonial SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 27 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. life."
32.4 If this was the truth that accused persons allegedly planned to kill the deceased then how come her parents allowed her to leave for matrimonial home to attend a marriage function on 06.04.2014. It is highly unnatural and improbable that a person who is apprehending her death, would happily go to her matrimonial house to attend a marriage function. There is no explanation available with Maya Devi as to why this "plan to kill" was not disclosed by her to the SDM or to the IO. She could have stated so in her examination in chief. This version of PW Maya Devi creates a serious doubt on the credibility of this witness and it cannot be ruled out that she has deposed just to frame the accused persons in the case of dowry death.
PW8 HANSRAJ AND PW4 HORAM SINGH 33.1 PW8 Hansraj and PW4 Horam Singh are the uncles of the deceased and they have been examined by the IO under section 161 CrPC on 20.05.2014. Both these witnesses allegedly attended panchayats took place between the families. Both of them have stated that there were some misunderstanding between deceased and accused Pawan which they came to know after 3 months of the marriage. The point of misunderstanding was cooking and washing utensils. There is not even a single whisper that panchayats were held as deceased was tortured for demand of dowry. Both of them disclosed the date of panchayat as 23.03.2011 which father of deceased failed to disclose. Both these witnesses have not stated anything against accused persons qua their alleged demand of dowry in their statements under section 161CrPC.
SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 28 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. 33.2 When PW4 appeared before the court he concocted a new fact that four days prior to the marriage, a meeting was organized by the middleman as accused Bhojraj was demanding a car and family of the deceased was inclined to give a two wheeler. The falsity of this allegation can be seen as no such fact has been disclosed by the parents of the deceased. He further deposed that he had sent Sukhbir and PW Roop Chand to the house of accused persons to make them understand not to harass the deceased on petty matters. It means that he is referring to the first panchayat held between the families. PW1 has stated that PW4 had attended both panchayats but PW4 is stating otherwise. The person namely Sukhbir, who has been named by PW4 has not been examined in the trial. Moreover, the panchayat was over "petty matters" and not related to any alleged demand of dowry. He deposed about the second panchayat which held on 23.03.2011 wherein deceased told them that if they gave a four wheeler then the matter was over. This is again a new fact introduced by this witness. This panchayat was also attended byPW1 and if deceased had stated so then it should have fallen from the mouth of PW1 during his examination in chief. PW4 further went on to say that Meenakshi was living like a maid servant. It is surprising to observe that PW4 is aware about those things which are not even in the knowledge of her parents. Although, this witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons but on a comparative reading of his statement under section 161 CrPC and his examination in chief, this court is of the considered view that this witness has been introduced just to put forth bald allegations which are not even alleged by the parents of the deceased.
33.3 The credibility of PW8 Hansraj is as good as the credibility of PW4. He kept silent about the issue of cooking and washing utensils which was referred by him in his statement under section 161CrPC and which was SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 29 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. allegedly the topic of first panchayat. In fact, he added that accused persons were demanding car and cash from the deceased and she was killed for want of dowry. At the cost of repetition, this witness is stating those facts which are not even stated by the parents of the deceased. In his cross examination he admitted that he had mentioned about cooking of food and washing of utensils in his statement under section 161 CrPC. Therefore, the testimony of PW8 Hansraj also smacks of biasness and afterthought against the accused persons.
33.4 While discussing the nature of contradictions in a criminal trial, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Gangadhar Behera and others Vs. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381 has talked about the major and minor discrepancies in a criminal trial. It was held that:
"Normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so".
Applying the ratio of Gangadhar Behera's case (discussed supra) to the present case, it is clear that depositions of PW1 Roop Chand PW2 Maya Devi, PW4 Horam Singh and PW8 Hansraj are suffering from various major contradictions. It is a matter of record that these witnesses have improved their statements in such a way that credibility of their depositions is under serious scanner. No explanation is available with these witnesses as to why all allegations, if they were true, were not stated by them to the SDM or to the IO during investigation at the first instance. How come a father and mother could forget to mention the last so called allegation of the deceased dated SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 30 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. 06.04.2014 when they were examined by the SDM on 10.04.2014, is beyond contemplation of this court. The manner in which statements of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW8 were recorded by the IO in a haste after 20.05.2014 reveals that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of these witnesses to introduce the fact that she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death which is a necessary ingredient to bring home the charge under section 304-B IPC.
33.5 In State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajender Singh (2009) 11 SCC 106 it was held that where omissions amount to a contradictions creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and the other witness also makes material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it is not safe to rely upon such evidence. Similar is the level of depositions in the present case. The material witnesses have not only improved their statements but they have also not corroborated each other on material aspects. The contradictions occurred in their testimonies are squarely covered in the category of 'major contradictions' and goes to the roots of this case. Hence, court has no hesitation to conclude that these witnesses are not reliable and their credibility is hit by clear afterthought and willful deliberation to frame the accused persons.
PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 113B OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 34.1 It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State Dr. Prayag Dutt Pandey that accused persons were under an obligation to prove their innocence by virtue of 113B of Indian Evidence Act. It is a presumption against them that they have triggered the suicide of the deceased within seven years of her marriage by subjecting her to cruelty and death of the deceased is squarely covered under the definition of "dowry death". They have failed to disclose the SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 31 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. reason of the commission of suicide by the deceased.
34.2 In Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana Criminal appeal No. 1735-1736 of 2010 decided on 28.05.2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the essential ingredients sought to be proved by the prosecution to bring home the charge under section 304-B/498-A IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme court relied upon its own judgment in case titled as Major Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2015) 5 SCC 201 wherein it was held as under:
"10. To sustain the conviction under Section 304−B IPC, the following essential ingredients are to be established:
(i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a 'normal circumstance';
(ii) such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(iii) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry; and
(v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death."
In Satbir Singh's case (discussed supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court stated as under:
"14. Considering the significance of such a legislation, a strict interpretation would defeat the very object for which it was enacted. Therefore, it is safe to deduce that when the legislature used the words, "soon before" they did not mean "immediately before".
Rather, they left its determination in the hands of the courts. The factum of cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. Even the spectrum of cruelty is quite varied, as it can range from physical, verbal or even emotional. This list is certainly not exhaustive. No straitjacket formulae can therefore be laid down by this Court to define what exacts the phrase "soon before" entails. The aforesaid position was emphasized by this Court, in the case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207, wherein the three−Judge Bench held that:
"15. ... "Soon before" is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time−limit. ... In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 32 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. .... Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough."
(emphasis supplied) A similar view was taken by this Court in Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477.
15. Therefore, Courts should use their discretion to determine if the period between the cruelty or harassment and the death of the victim would come within the term "soon before". What is pivotal to the above determination, is the establishment of a "proximate and live link" between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim.
16. When the prosecution shows that 'soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry', a presumption of causation arises against the accused under Section 113−B of the Evidence Act."
34.3 The sine qua non for the applicability of section 113 B for raising a presumption against the accused, it must be shown that the victim was subjected to any kind of cruelty or harassment by the accused for or in connection with any demand for dowry. For presumption under section 113B, it must be proved that the victim was subjected to cruelty "soon before" her death. It has been made clear by Hon'ble Supreme Court in many cases that the court has to decide upon the basis of circumstances and evidence as to whether or not deceased was subjected to cruelty "soon before" her death of any kind. If prosecution is able to prove this fact only then presumption under 113B of Indian Evidence Act would come into picture and thereafter only, it would be duty of the accused to rebut the presumption raised against them.
34.4 In the present case, prosecution has tried to prove the cruelty, physical as well as mental with the deceased "soon before" her death on the SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 33 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. basis of alleged statement of deceased on 06.04.2014 that she stated, while leaving her home, that in-laws would not agree without getting the car. As discussed above the authenticity of the allegation of 06.04.2014 is highly doubtful and cannot be believed by the court. Moreover, there is no iota of evidence, which is credible in nature, against the accused persons that they uttered even a single word or did any overt act on 06.04.2014 so that their conduct or words can fall into the domain of cruelty. Father of the deceased has admitted that none of the accused had ever beaten the deceased during her lifetime. She never complained about her husband. He did not disclose on what topic/matter deceased used to criticize by her in-laws. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of section 304-B IPC that deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death and resultantly, the presumption under section 113B of Indian Evidence Act never came into picture and accused persons had no obligation to rebut the same.
34.5 In Narender Singh Arora Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors criminal revision petition No. 555/2003 decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 01.09.2010 it was held that whenever a woman dies an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage at in-law's house, whatever be the cause of death, the parents of the woman want that the in-laws must be prosecuted and hanged. It was held that suicide is a known phenomenon which is complex in nature which is being committed for various reasons. Some people are not able to bear the normal stresses which are common in life and some commit suicide because of frustration of not achieving the desired goals. One, who commit suicide is not alive to disclose as to what was going on in her mind at the time of committing suicide. It was held that there is no presumption that SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 34 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. every suicide committed by a married woman in her in-law's house or at parent's house because she was suffering harassment at the hands of her in- laws.
34.6 Applying the ratio of Narender Singh Arora's case (discussed supra) to the present case, accused Pawan has disclosed the reason as he heard cries of his son when he was sitting at his cosmetic shop. He went inside the house and asked about the reason which ensued to an altercation between the accused Pawan and deceased. Thereafter, he went back to his shop and when he came to know that deceased was unwell, he alongwith his mother promptly took the deceased to the hospital. If deceased was beaten or treated with cruelty on 09.04.2014 and due to which she had consumed poison, then she could have easily stated so to the doctor at Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research. She was admitted at 02:15 PM and was discharged at 02:45 PM. Neither she complained against the accused persons nor she disclosed that she had consumed poison causing nausea, vomiting and vertigo. After coming back home she could have informed her parents telephonically if she was subjected to cruelty on 09.04.2014. She again complained of nausea, vomiting and vertigo in the evening and she was taken to Safdarjung Hospital by the accused persons. Her conduct reflects that she had no complaints whatsoever against the accused persons, otherwise she had ample opportunities to inform the doctor as well as her parents on 09.04.2014. Her conduct is more valuable then the doubtful testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW8.
34.7 In State Vs. Prithvi Raj 1995 SUPP 3 SCC 410 it was held that the conduct of the accused in rushing the deceased to hospital immediately was pointing out towards their innocence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 35 of 36 State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc. acquittal of the accused by giving them benefit of doubt. In the present case also it was accused Pawan, who informed the parents of the deceased about her health. He acted as a responsible husband and had it been the case that he was at fault then his conduct would have been reverse. He could have ran away and concealed the circumstances which resulted into her death. The manner in which accused Pawan and Krishna acted on 09.04.2014, warrants that they are entitled to be given benefit of doubt in this case.
CONCLUSION
35. Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, there are material contradictions and improvisations in the testimony of material witnesses i.e., PW1 Roop Chand, PW2 Maya Devi, PW4 Horam Singh and PW8 Hansraj, which are fatal to the case of the prosecution. Prosecution has failed to prove that deceased was subjected to any kind of mental, physical or emotional cruelty which was related to dowry demand allegedly raised by the accused persons. Although, the court has full sympathy with the deceased and her family as she ended her life at such a young age leaving behind a child of around 2 years but the court is also conscious of the fact that the sympathy towards the deceased and her family cannot be used as a tool to punish the accused and his family. Hence, there is no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt under section 304-B/498-A/34 IPC and accordingly, accused Pawan and Krishna stands acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
36. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2023.05.24
16:57:07 +0530
Dictated and announced in the open (Dhirendra Rana)
Court on 24.05.2023 Addl. Session Judge-FTC-02
(running in 36 pages) (South East), Saket Courts/Delhi
SC No. 1274/16, FIR No. 389/14, PS Govind Puri Page No. 36 of 36
State Vs. Pawan Kumar etc.