Delhi District Court
State vs Dharmender Giri on 23 May, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF MS SHAIL JAIN: SPECIAL JUDGE:
NDPS: 02: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI :
DELHI
SC NO. 93/13
STATE
versus
Dharmender Giri
s/o Sh Kedar Giri
R/o H No. 204/D3, RPSF, Dayabasti
Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.
FIR No. : 193/13
Offence U/S : 304 B/498A/306 IPC
Police Station : Sarai Rohilla
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 26/08/2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:23.05.2015
JUDGMENT
1. As per case of prosecution, between the period of 13.05.2006 till 07.05.2013 at house no. 204/D3, RPSF, Dayabasti, Sarai Rohilla, accused Dharmender Giri being husband of deceased Vibha subjected the deceased to cruelty for unlawful demand of dowry. On 07.05.2013 Vibha died otherwise under normal circumstances within 7 years S.C.No. 93/13 2 of her marriage and soon before her death, accused subjected Vibha to cruelty in connection with unlawful demand of dowry. Alternatively on or before 07.05.2013 at 10.38 a.m at matrimonial home accused committed the murder of Vibha by hanging her.
2. Accused was charged for the offense punishable u/s 498A, 304 B IPC and alternatively under section 302 IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all to bring home the guilt of the accused. The substance of the prosecution evidence is as follows:
4. PW1 HC Vijay Singh has deposed on 08/05/2013 on the basis of rukka given by SI Sunil Kumar, he got registered the present FIR Ex.PW1/A.
5. PW2 Suresh Bharti is father of the deceased. He has deposed that on 13.05.2006 his daughter Vibha was married with Dharmender. After the marriage, his daughter was living happily at matrimonial house. His daughter was suffering from TB Since 2010. On 7.05.2013, S.C.No. 93/13 3 his daughter hanged herself at her matrimonial house. In the year 2010 they were informed by Dharmender that he had provided TB treatment to Vibha but there is no improvement and asked them to take Vibha from his house. His wife brought vibha from her matrimonial house and had taken her to Gujrat for her medical treatment. In the year 2011 Dharmender had taken Vibha from their residence and since then she was residing at her matrimonial house. His daughter gave a birth to a child in the year 201011. Witness has further deposed that his daughter Vibha was disturbed and perturb due to her illness & of her daughter. He had identified the dead body of his daughter vide Ex.PW2/A.
6. PW3 Sh Vinay Kumar Singh has deposed that in the year 2013, he was working at a diamond Jewellery in the Karol Bagh. On 7.05.2013 at about 9 AM, he went to the roof and found that the red colour nylon rope was cut and was missing from there. He noticed that Rajesh, brother of Dharmender also came of his roof. He stated before Rajesh S.C.No. 93/13 4 that the rope was tied with drain hole pipe. He peeped through the space meant for shaft where the drain pipe was fixed. He stated that his bhabhi Vibha was hanging in that space. He called Dharmender and his brother Guddu also came there and they all the four person have taken out the body of Vibha from that space.
7. PW4 Dr Akash Jhanjee has conducted the post mortem on the body of Vibha. He has proved the post mortem report as Ex.PW4/A.
8. PW5 Sh Vinod Kumar, Assistant Commissioner, Trade and Taxes Department has deposed that on 8.5.2013, he was posted as SDM, Kotwali, Daryaganj. On that day, he received information from P.S. Sarai Rohilla to the effect that one lady had hanged herself. He went to Mortuary, Subzi Mandi where father of deceased met him alongwith his son. He recorded statement of father and brother of deceased, same are Ex. PW2/DA and now Ex. PW5/A . After recording the statements, he made his endorsement on the statement of father of deceased that these statements S.C.No. 93/13 5 had been recorded before him and marked the same to the SHO P.S. Sarai Rohilla for taking further necessary action. He had also given an application at Mortuary Subzi Mandi to conduct the postmortem on dead body of deceased, same is Ex. PW5/B. The brief facts which were written by IO and he made endorsement on the same is Ex. PW5/C. He also prepared the proceeding proforma u/s 174 Cr.P.C, which is Ex. PW5/D.
9. PW6 Sh Rajendra Kumar has deposed that in the month of JuneJuly 2013, mother of Dharmender came to him at about 89 a.m. and stated that something had happened to her daughter in law and she was not speaking anything. He alongwith mother of Dharmender went inside the flat of Dharmender and saw that Vibha, wife of accused Dharmender was lying on the bed in first room. Then mother of Dharmender stated that Vibha had committed suicide. He made a call at 100 number from his mobile no. 9250109665.
10. PW7 Ct Inderjit has deposed that on 7.5.2013, he S.C.No. 93/13 6 alongwith SI Satish Kumar and Ct. Sukhbir, Finger Print Proficient went at D3, House no. 204, RPSF, Daya Basti, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi and he had taken 7 photographs of the place of incident from different angles. 7 negatives and 12 photographs are collectively Ex. PX1.
11. PW8 Sh Ravi Bharti has deposed that he knew Vibha (deceased) as the daughter of Suresh Bharti to whom he knew for the last 23 years. He used to call Suresh Bharti as his father and Vibha as his sister as his father had already expired. Vibha was married to Dharmender Giri. He had called Vibha once, when she gave birth to a female child at that time she told that she was not happy being suffering from illness of T.B. Witness has further stated that police took his signatures on blank papers . Later on he came to know that Vibha had died , however, he cannot say as to how did she die.
12. PW9 Ct Parvender has deposed that on 08.05.2013, a call was received regarding suicide committed by girl . On receiving the same, he went to the spot where SI Sunil S.C.No. 93/13 7 along with staff were also present. IO recorded statement of the father and brother of the deceased and prepared site plan in his presence. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex. PW 9/A ). Personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW9/B. Disclosure statement of the accused was recorded, which is Ex. PW9/C.
13. PW10 SI Sunil Jain has deposed that on 07.05.2013 on receipt of copy of DD No. 22A ( Ex.PW10/A), he along with staff reached at the matrimonial home of deceased situated at 3rd floor. He found that dead body of a lady namely, Vibha was lying inside the aforesaid quarter on the bed. Dharmender Giri, husband of Vibha, father of Dharmender Giri, and other members of their family were also present there. He inquired from these persons and they stated that Vibha had hanged herself at the roof. Dharmender, Mithun and Vinay had taken out the dead body from the roof at the third floor. He called the Crime Team official, who inspected the scene of crime and took the photograph. Incharge Mobile Crime Team prepared his report and gave S.C.No. 93/13 8 the same to him. He sent the dead body to Mortuary Subzi Mandi to preserve the same. On 08.05.2013 Suresh Bharati, Ravi Bharati and mother of deceased Vibha reached at Delhi. He gave information regarding the arrival of family members of deceased Vibha to SDM Kotwali, Delhi. He had taken Suresh Bharati and Ravi Bharati to Mortuary Subzi Mandi for the purpose of identification of dead body where they identified the dead body of deceased Vibha. SDM Kotwali Sh. Vinod Kumar also reached at the mortuary Subzi Mandi who recorded statement of Suresh Bharati and Ravi Bharati, father and brother of the deceased Vibha. The statements of Suresh Bharati and Ravi Bharati are Ex.PW2/DA and Ex.PW5/A. SDM made his endorsement on the statement of Suresh Bharati. Witness made his endorsement on the same vide Ex.PW10/B. After the registration of the case, further investigation was also assigned to him. He along with Suresh Bharati visited the aforesaid residence of accused Dharmender Giri. At the pointing out of Suresh Bharati, he arrested accused S.C.No. 93/13 9 Dharmender Giri. He prepared the arrest memo and personal search memo vide Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B. The site plan was also prepared by him, which is Ex.PW10/C. He interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement, which is Ex.PW9/C. On 09.05.2013 postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Vibha was conducted. Inquest papers were prepared. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to Suresh Bharati. After conducting the postmortem concerned doctor gave him one sealed viscera box and one sample seal which he had taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/D. Later on the case property was sent to FSL and result was received. The result is Ex.PX. The SOC report which was prepared by SI Satish Kumar is Ex.PW10/E.
14. PW11 Ct Yogender Singh has deposed that on 07.05.2013 SI Sunil received copy of DD no. 22A. He along with SI Sunil reached at the spot i.e. house no. 204/D3 RPSF Daya Basti Sarai Rohila at 3rd floor. On the direction of S.C.No. 93/13 10 IO he had taken the dead body to mortuary Sabzi Mandi and got it preserved there.
15. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.
16. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 CrPC wherein the entire incriminating evidence has been put forth and explained to the accused to which he pleaded innocence and false implication. He further stated that he does not want to lead any evidence in defence.
17. I have heard arguments from Shri R. N. Singh, Ld counsel for accused as well as from Ld Additional P.P for the State.
18. Prosecution case is that accused Dharmender being husband of Vibha subjected Vibha to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry since her marriage till the date of her death, dated 07.05.2013 at her matrimonial house situated at 204/D3, RPSF, Dayabasti, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. On 07.05.2013 at matrimonial home Vibha died in unnatural circumstances within 7 years of her marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty and S.C.No. 93/13 11 harassment by accused in connection with demand of dowry, as the averments in the rukka was that deceased was being harassed by accused. Hence case against accused u/s 304 B r/w Section 498 A IPC was filed.
19. In order to prove the case u/s 304 B r/w Section 498A IPC, prosecution had to prove the demands of dowry made by accused, harassment/cruelty committed against deceased by accused due to non fulfillment of these demands and that the deceased expired within 7 years of her marriage under unnatural circumstances.
20. Material witnesses ie Suresh Bharti PW1, PW3 Vinay Kumar Singh, PW8 Ravi Bharti, relatives & neighbour of deceased have not supported the case of prosecution. These witnesses have stated that deceased Vibha was not ill treated by accused and neither there was any demand of dowry from them. They have stated that deceased Vibha was suffering from TB. Family members of deceased have not supported the case of the prosecution and have resiled from their earlier statements given before SDM. Both the S.C.No. 93/13 12 material witnesses ie PW1 Suresh Bharti, father of deceased and PW8 Ravi Bharti who earlier stated himself to be brother of deceased, had not supported their earlier statements given to SDM, PW5. Both these witnesses were declared hostile by Ld Additional P.P. There is no other public witness or family member of the deceased examined. Hence there is no evidence on record to prove any demand of dowry or any ill treatment meted out to the deceased, due to non fulfillment of these demands. Though, admittedly death of deceased had occurred within 7 years of her marriage and was also under unnatural circumstances, but in the absence of any evidence for demands of dowry or harassment due to that, it can not be conclusively said that death of deceased falls within the purview of section 304 B IPC.
21. Further, there is no evidence led by the prosecution to prove any incriminating evidence connecting accused to the murder of deceased for proving alternate charge of murder u/s 302 IPC. Since none of the witnesses have S.C.No. 93/13 13 supported the case of the prosecution. There is strong doubt raised against the prosecution case, benefit of which is required to be given to the accused.
22. In view of my above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused to the effect that accused has harassed the deceased for demand of dowry, or deceased died under unnatural circumstances within 7 years of her marriage due to said harassment or dowry demands. Further, there is no evidence led by the prosecution for proving the alternate charge of murder. Therefore, accused is acquitted of the charges u/s 498A/304 B/302 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23rd May, 2015 (SHAIL JAIN ) SPECIAL JUDGE: NDPS02 CENTRAL DELHI S.C.No. 93/13