Delhi District Court
State vs . 1)Sonu Chaudhry on 6 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GUPTA, ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGE02 (EAST) SPL. JUDGE (NDPS) KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI
SC No.1620/16
FIR No. 387/07
PS Shakarpur
u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC
State Vs. 1)Sonu Chaudhry
S/o Sh. Leelu Ram
2)Leelu Ram
S/o Late Sh. Lala Ram
3) Smt. Dharamwati
W/o Sh. Leelu Ram
4)Sunny Pawar
S/o Sh. Leelu Ram
All R/o A404, Gali No.1, Ganesh NagarII
Shakarpur, Delhi
5)Brahm Singh
S/o Sh. Lala Ram
6) Sudesh
W/o Sh. Brahm Singh
Both R/o WB 185G, Ganesh NagarII,
Shakarpur, Delhi
Date of Institution 07.09.2007
Arguments heard 14.05.2018
Date of order 06.06.2018
JUDGMENT
PROSECUTION CASE
1. Brief facts as per prosecution case are as under: State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 1
(a) That on 17.05.07, on receipt on DD No.13A SI Nalin Verma alongwith Ct. Sanjeev, Ct. Parveen and Ct. Dharmender reached at H.No.A 404,Ganesh NagarII, Shakarpur Delhi where he found Smt Renu W/o Sonu Chaudhary in dead condition. The SDM concerned was informed who came at the spot and recorded the statement of the father of the deceased in question answer form. The father of the deceased stated that: i. He got married his daughter Renu with Sonu Chaudhary on 29.04.2004. He was informed by the police officials about the demise of his daughter and then he came to the house of accused with his family and found his daughter dead. He had got married his daughter according to his status and had given all the necessary articles in the marriage and even after marriage he many times fulfilled their small requirements. At the time of marriage they did not demand anything but after few months of marriage they started raising demand. The husband of his duaghter Sonu, brother in law (Devar) Sunny, mother in law Dharamwati and father in law Leelu Ram used to demand a Maruti Esteem Car. The accused persons had thrown away Rs.51,000/ given by him in the marriage but had accepted the same after they were made to understand by some relatives. Since then accused persons were having something wrong in their mind.
ii. That his son in law Sonu was jobless for last one year. One year ago, he was running a grocery shop which is closed now. His family members used to say that he is going to get a job but he did not get State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 2 any job till date. Sonu used to go by the directions of his family members and he used to beat and harass his daughter. In laws of Renu did not allow her to visit her parental home.
iii. That sometime ago a male child was born to his daughter who passed away within 3 ½ months of his birth as he was having a hole in his heart. He stated that he is having a doubt that in laws of his daughter connived and gave her poison and acid.
iv. That the Mr. Brahm, the elder brother of accused Leelu Ram and wife of Mr. Brahm resides nearby to the house of the accused and they also used to harass his daughter.
(b) That on the basis of the aforesaid statement a case u/s 498A/304B IPC was registered and further investigation was assigned to SI Nalin Verma. The crime team was called and spot was photographed. All exhibits were taken in possession and dead body of the deceased was sent to Subzi Mandi Mortuary. IO recorded the statement of the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C and accused Sonu, Leelu and Dharamwati were arrested. On 18.5.07, after post mortem, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to her relatives. With the order of ACP, On 19.5.07, further investigation was handed over to Insp. Jeevat Ram who arrested the accused Sunny. On 24.05.2007, the accused Brahm and Smt. Sudesh were granted anticipatory bail by the sessions court and after completion of investigation the charge sheet u/s 498A/304 B/34 IPC was filed against all the accused persons.
State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 32. After compliance of the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the sessions court.
3. Vide order dt.04.02.2008, a charge U/s 498A/304B/34 was framed. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. FACT IN ISSUE: Points which emerged for determination in this case are:
Whether accused persons subjected the deceased Renu to physical and mental cruelty and harassment before her death, for dowry and the same led the deceased to commit suicide on 17.05.07 which amounts to dowry death.
5. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE: In order to establish accusations against the accused, the prosecution has examined 21 witnesses. For the purpose of discussion, they are classified into the following categories: MATERIAL WITNESSES: (5.1) PW1 Rattan Singh, the father of the deceased. The present case was registered on the above discussed statement of PW1 which he brought on record as PW1/A. In addition to the facts stated by him in his previous statement, the PW1 deposed about certain more facts. He stated that once or twice, his brother Bhagwat Singh had visited the house of the accused persons and at that time the accused persons had raised a demand of Rs.15000/ for getting a job to accused Sonu and after about 89 months of marriage, he had given this amount to the accused Leelu. His daughter had visited his house on 23 occasions and State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 4 at that time she told about her sufferings to her mother and sister. She told PW1 that accused Sonu used to beat her and her mother in law had beaten her with a broom. He used to send clothes and other items to the accused person but they used to throw the same back by saying that it was not upto the mark. They used to taunt his daughter that what dowry was given by him to her. He further stated that after about one year of the marriage, a son was born to his daughter and accused Leelu and Dharamwati had demanded chhuchak (customary gift) and he had given clothes and five gold chains to the accused persons. He stated that child of his daughter died after about 3 ½ months of his birth as proper medical treatment was not provided by the accused to him. The accused had left the hospital after admitted the child there and he had borne the medical expenses of his treatment. He stated that on 10.05.07, the accused persons had beaten Renu and expelled her from their house and then she came to his house. On the same day evening, Leelu, Rajender and Shilak came to their house and matter was amicably resolved and then he sent his daughter with the said persons. After two days Leelu called him and told that his wife Dharamwati was not backing off her demand of Maruti Esteem car and still insisting on the same to which he said that he was unable to meet their demand as he has two more daughters to marry. On 17.05.07, the police called him and told about the demise of his daughter upon which they reached the house of the accused and found dead body of their daughter on the floor of the second floor of the house. He observed that frost was coming out of her mouth and there were blisters over her neck. He stated that his daughter was forced to State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 5 consume poison. He further stated that though he received the phone call from police at 10 am but he came to know that his daughter had died during night hours. A tenant who used to reside on the top floor of the house of the accused had informed him that accused persons were beating Renu for last 34 days and on the night of incident he had felt some disturbance in the room of Renu. He stated that after incident accused Sonu had let the said tenant go. He stated that did not remember the name of the said tenant. The above is the zist of the testimony of PW1 which was recorded on 23.01.2009 and his further examination was deferred which was recorded next day. On 24.01.2009, he deposed that he wanted to say one more thing that after 10 11/12.05.2007, accused Leelu had phoned him and called him at his house without disclosing the purpose. He visited there and told by his daughter that for last 3/4 days a panchayat meeting consisting of Bhram Singh, Shanu, Sunny, Smt. Sudesh and Dharamwati was taking place but she does not know the reason for the meeting. On the asking of the accused Leelu, he visited to the house of Brahm Singh where Brahm Singh was present. There, they had tea and on his request Brahm Singh told that child in the womb of his daughter was of somebody else and they wanted to terminate the pregnancy. PW4 told them that they were harassing him as they became more and more greedy.
(5.2) PW8 Mr. Om Parkash is the friend of Ratan Lal, the father of the deceased. He deposed that in the marriage fridge, cooler, double bed, kitchen items, motorcycle, clothes, television and other household articles were given. Renu lived peacefully for some time and thereafter State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 6 quarrel began as mother in law of Renu used to demand a car in dowry. After about 11 ½ year of her marriage he alongwith Rattan Lal and 12 other persons had visited the in laws of Renu when they had come to know that she was being harassed for dowry. Rattan Lal was willing to bring back his daughter but Brahm Singh, the elder brother of Lillu came there and pacified the matter. It was assured that Renu will not be harassed. After about 810 days again a quarrel took place and demand of car was made. Again they visited and matter was again pacified by Brahm Singh. They visited the house of Renu about 8 or 10 times to get the matter was pacified and every time they were assured that no such things would be repeated but the situation remained the same. Sunny the brother in law of Renu used to abuse her a lot and always took side of his brother. Renu used to communicate about her sufferings to him over telephone. On two occasions Renu had personally told him about her sufferings at the hands of her husband, mother in law and brother in law and she had also told him that the father in law used to follow the directions of his wife and was helping them in passive manner. About 1 and 1 ½ months prior to the demise of Renu, a quarrel had taken place between Renu and her mother in law and on that occasion she was brought to her parental home and she went to her matrimonial house after about 10/15 days. He stated that Renu died due to harassment and torture of her in laws.
(5.3) PW9 Rekha is the elder sister of deceased. She deposed that dowry articles were given to Renu as per their capacity. At the time of marriage Rs.51000/ were given to accused Lilu Ram who had thrown State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 7 the same and had demanded 51000/ more and a Esteem Car at the time of marriage. Mediator and some elderly people pacified Lilu Ram and then marriage was performed. After 23 months Renu came to her parental home and told her that her in laws were not happy with the dowry and they were saying that they will marry Sonu with somebody else. Renu used to tell her that her mother in law used to beat her with broom for dowry. Her mother in law used to tell her that her father had promised to give Rs.51000/ but same were not given even after three months. They did not tell these things to their parents expecting that things would become normal. After two months Renu again came and told her that Sonu is unemployed and he used to consume liquor and beat her for bringing more dowry. She had also visited the in laws of Renu on the occasion of birth of a child of Renu and when chhuchhak was given. Her in laws had kept the five gold chains and thrown the clothes saying that they were of inferior quality. On that occasion all the accused persons had demanded a Maruti Esteem Car. The sufferings of Renu continued and aggravated. She tried to talk to her but was not allowed to talk as mobile phone used to remain in the hands of her in laws. On 10.05.2007, she again met Renu at her parental home and at that time she observed some bluish marks over her body. Renu informed her that she was beaten by Sonu for Rs.50000/ and Esteem Car. On the same day a panchayat was held at village Khora as Renu was beaten a lot by her in laws. The panchayat was attended by her father, Om Parkash, phupha, Brahm Singh and other persons and it was decided there that they will not harass and beat Renu henceforth and after State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 8 panchayat Renu went back to her matrimonial home. On 17.05.07, at around 8 or 8.30 pm, she tried to contact Sonu over telephone and Sonu only said hello but did not inform her anything. At about 10 am they got information about the demise of her sister.
(5.4) PW10 Sh. P.K. Jayant is the SDM concerned. He placed on record the statement of complainant Sh. Rattan Singh recorded by him as ExPW1/A. (5.5) PW12 Ratto Devi, is the mother of the deceased. She deposed that in the marriage she gave several household articles and Rs.51000/. Accused Sonu had thrown Rs.51000/ but he accepted the same due to the intervention of the relatives. After 23 months of marriage, accused Sonu and his relatives started demanded one Maruti Esteem car and Rs. One Lac cash as dowry. The accused persons used to make the said demand through her daughter and to her also over telephone. The accused persons raised the said demand from her over telephone and stated that if demand is not met they would kill her daughter. The accused also raised the said demand from her husband and extended threat. Mother in law of her daughter used to beat her with a broom when she was pregnant. The accused persons beat her daughter constantly for three years from the date of her marriage. All this was told to her by her daughter whenever she visited her parental home. A male child was born to her daughter who after 3 and 3 ½ months of his birth was killed by her mother in law by giving him a poisonous injection. About 810 days prior to the incident her daughter had come to their house and told them that her husband and her in laws were beating her and harassing her and State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 9 demanding Esteem Car and they had told that they would kill her daughter if demand is not met. The accused persons had taken back their daughter assuring them that they would not harass her and keep her properly. In the morning of 17.5.07 they tried to talk to their daughter over telephone but accused Sonu disconnected the call and they could not talk to their daughter and after about one and half hour they were informed by the police about the demise of their daughter. On reaching there she found some burning marks on the mouth and chest of the body of her daughter. She stated that Renu has been killed by the accused persons.
(5.6) PW14 Sh. Tikam Singh is the uncle of the deceased. He deposed that Ratan Singh had given several household articles in the marriage and at the time of Bidai (farewell of daughter after marriage) Ratan Singh had given Rs.51000/ to the accused which they had thrown but accepted when he and other pacified them. After marriage, the accused persons started quarrelling and beating the deceased for demanding Esteem Car and this was told to him by the deceased when she visited her parents house. They tried to make the accused understand about this and accused told that they would keep her properly and nothing would happen in future.
(5.7) PW15 Somnath is the person who had attended the marriage of Renu. He was examind and cross examined also by Ld. Addl. P.P. as he did not depose regarding important facts. During his chief examination, he stated that after marriage, the accused persons used to demand car and money. About 810 days prior to incident they visited the house of State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 10 the accused as Renu had come to her parents house and told every thing about the dispute. At that time Tau (uncle) of accused Sonu assured them that no such thing would happen in future. During cross he deposed more or less in terms of his statement recorded by the police during investigation. He deposed that all the accused persons used to torture and beat deceased for dowry articles and money.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE: (5.8) PW2 Dr. S. Lal conducted the autopsy. He placed on record the autopsy report as ExPW2/A. He opined that the cause of death was due to ingestion of phenols. He stated that he did not observe any apparent external injury on the body of deceased.. MEMBERS OF CRIME TEAM: (5.9) PW3 Ct. Manoj Kumar is the member of crime team. He had taken the photograph of the crime scene. He placed on record the photographs as Ex.PW3/A1 to A9 and negatives as Ex.PW3/B1 to B9.
(5.10) PW4 SI Dheeraj Singh prepared the crime scene report which he brought on record vide Ex PW4/A. FORMAL WITNESS: (5.11) PW5 HC Akhlesh Kumar is the duty officer who recorded the FIR and he brought on record the carbon copy of the same as Ex PW5/A and his endorsement on rukka as Ex PW5/B. (5.12) PW6 Ct. Dharmender got shifted the dead body to the Subzi Mandi Mortuary and after postmortem he collected a parcel and viscera box which he handed over to SI Nalin Verma vide Ex.PW6/A. State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 11 (5.13) PW7 ASI Yashpal had accompanied the SDM to mortuary for postmortem.
(5.14) PW11 HC Asgar Ali is the MHCM. On 17.05.07 as well as on 18.05.07, SI Nalin Verma deposited three sealed parcels about which he made relevant entries in register no.19 vide Ex PW11/A and 11/B. (5.15) PW 13 WHC Mandhresh had joined investigation on 17.05.07 and in her presence the accused Dharamwati, Sonu Chaudhary and Lilu Ram were arrested.
(5.16) PW 18 Ct. Vipin is police official who on 04.07.07 deposited the three sealed parcels with FSL Rohini.
(5.17) PW19 HC Rajender Prasad, on dt. 31.5.07, collected from complainant the various documents pertaining to the marriage of deceased which IO/Insp. Jeewat Ram Parmar had seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. PW19 brought on record these documents vide Ex PW19/P1.
MEMBERS OF INVESTIGATING TEAM: (5.18) PW 16 Ct. Praveen Kumar is one of the investigating team members. On 17.05.07, he visited the spot alongwith the first IO SI Nalin Verma and PW17 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar. In his presence, the IO had arrested the accused Dharamwati, Lilu Ram and Sonu.
(5.19) PW17 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar is another member of investigating team.
State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 12(5.20) PW20 Insp. Jeewat Ram Parmar is the second IO of the case. He took over investigation on 19.05.07 and arrested the accused Sunny. On 22.05.07, he recorded the statement of Om Prakash, Tikam Singh, Ratto Devi and Somnath u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 24.05.07, he formally arrested accused Braham Singh and Sudesh who were on anticipatory bail. After completion of rest of the investigations he submitted the chargesheet.
(5.21) PW21 SI Nalin Verma is first IO of the case. He deposed more or less on the same lines as discussed in the para no.1.
6. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED: On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C separately. Accused persons pleaded innocence. The accused Sonu, his mother Dharmawati, his father Lilu Ram and his brother Sunny took the similar defence, thus, the defence taken by the accused Sonu is reproduced as under: "I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. I had borne all the medical expenses of my child and I had provided all the medical facilities to my child but he expired unfortunately despite the best efforts of the doctors and he was having hole in his heart and due to this reason, he had expired. I had also provided medical treatment to my wife (deceased) from various doctors and also bear all her expenses and she was unable to conceive the pregnancy. Prior to the alleged incident, she had tried to commit suicide on two occasions but she could not succeed because of our efforts and all these things were informed to her parents also. Moreover, because of death of the child, she became mentally disturbed and she State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 13 remained under depression and due to this reason, she committed suicide".
7. Accused Smt. Sudesh and Sh. Brahm Singh are the aunt and uncle (Tai n Tau) of accused Sonu and they both have taken the following defence: " I and my family have not attended the marriage of coaccused Sonu and also we have no visiting terms with the family of co accused Sonu since 28 years and I and my husband have been falsely implicated in the present case being relative of co accused Sonu".
8. In their defence the accused Sonu, Dharamwati, Lilu Ram and Sunny examined four witness i.e. DW1 Dr. Meena Sharma, DW2 Deepak Sharma, DW2 Dr. Ashu Aggarwal and DW3 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Roy. Inadvertently, two witnesses have been given same serial number, thus, for the sake of reference Dr. Ashu Agarwal is being referred hereinafter as DW2A.
9. DW1, Dr. Meena Sharma deposed that she had examined the patient Renu on 04.5.07 and as per the history given by patient her LMP was 5th Jan and spotting was found on 5 Feb. She advised her for ultrasound. She brought on record her medical prescription as DW1/A.
10. DW2 Deepak Sharma is the neighbour of the accused persons and he deposed that he has been living in front of the house of the accused Leelu Ram since 1987 and knows their family. He had State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 14 attended the marriage of accused Sonu wherein no demand of any kind was made by the accused persons. The son of Sonu passed away after 23 days of his admission in Makkar Hospital. The son of Sonu Chaudhary expired due to a hole in the heart. All the medical expenses were borne by the family of Leelu Ram. After death of her son, deceased Renu became mentally disturbed and went in depression. He never observed any quarrel in the house of accused Leelu Ram in connection with dowry demand etc.
11. DW2A Dr. Ashu Agarwal is a Gynaecologist. She deposed that on 29.11.04, the patient Renu had come to her clinic as she had stomach pain. She examined her and followed up for treatment. She examined her on 29.11.04, 9.01.05, 4.02.05, 1.10.05, 25.1.06, 18.04.06 and 1.05.06 and brought on record all the prescription slips collectively as DW2/A(OSR). She further deposed that on 25.1.06, the patient Renu had disclosed that her first and second pregnancy resulted in spontaneous abortion. After that Renu was treated for infertility and thereafter she conceived in Dec 2005.
12. DW 3 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Roy is the Medical Superintendent of Makkar Multispecialty Hosptial, Pridarshni Vihar, Delhi. He deposed that Master Kishan aged about five months was admitted in their hospital and expired on 13.12.06. He brought the certificate issued by him regarding this as DW3/A.
13. SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED: State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 15 I have heard Ld. Addl. P.P as well as Ld. defence counsel and Ld. Amicus Curiae and gone through the record of the case.
14. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons by the testimony of PW1 Rattan Singh, the complainant and his other relatives. The other witnesses who are the family members and relatives of the complainant have fully supported the prosecution case on the point that accused persons were demanding money and Maruti Esteem car in dowry and on that account they used to beat and harass the deceased due to which the deceased committed suicide. Thus, he submitted that the accused may be convicted for the offences they are charged with.
15. On the other hand Ld. defence counsel submitted that the complainant and other public witnesses have not made any allegations regarding dowry demand prior to incident. The ingredient of 304B IPC have not been established as neither any demand nor any harassment on that account has been proved. The material witnesses i.e. father, mother and brother of deceased have made material improvements in their testimony and they are not reliable witnesses. The allegagtioins of dowry demand are general allegations. It is also submitted that deceased was suffering from depression due to demise of her small child and also as she was having medical problems. Thus, he submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients for 498A IPC as well as 304B IPC, hence, prayed that accused may be acquitted.
State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 1616. LEGAL POSITION: At the outset, to appreciate submissions and before making discussions on the testimony of material witnesses, the legal position in regard to the provisions of section 498 A & 304B IPC is required to be noted: The ingredients of Section 498A IPC are as follows: "Section: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 willful 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."
17. Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman are required to be established in order to bring home the application of Section 498A IPC. Cruelty has been defined in the Explanation for the purpose of Section State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 17 498A. As per settled law the provisions of Sections 304B and 498A, IPC are not mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. Cruelty is a common essential to both the Sections and that has to be proved. The Explanation to Section 498A gives the meaning of 'cruelty'. In Section 304B there is no such explanation about the meaning of 'cruelty'. But having regard to common background to these offences, meaning of 'cruelty' or 'harassment' is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to Section 498A under which 'cruelty' by itself amounts to an offence.
18. Essential ingredients of Section 304B IPC are as follows: Sec:304 B:
(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.
(v)Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
19. The harassment has to be in connection with demand of dowry. In Appasaheb and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (1) Crimes 110 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: "A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 18 was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. Since an essential ingredient of Section 304B, I.P.C. viz. demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained."
20. As per the definition of "dowry death" in Section 304B IPC and the wording of Section 113B of the Evidence Act, one of the essential ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions is that the concerned woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment "soon before her death" and that too "for or in connection with the demand for dowry". The legal position is well settled that on a joint reading of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B IPC it would reveal that there must be cogent material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment, and that too in connection with any demand for dowry. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the "death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances". The expression "soon before" is very relevant where presumption u/s 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B IPC are pressed into service. In the case reported as 2014 (9) SCC 645 titled as Manohar Lal Vs State of Haryana Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that prosecution is obliged to prove that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment; and only thereafter, the presumption under section 113B of Evidence Act would operate.
State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 1921. Evidence in this regard has to be led in by the prosecution and established beyond doubt. In a case reported as Sunil Bajaj vs. State of M.P. 2001 CrLJ (SC) 4700, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the allegations of dowry death have to be carefully scrutinized keeping in view of the gravity of punishment.
22. In regard to the the term "Soon before" in the case of Hira Lal & Others v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, (2003)8 SCC 80. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations: "The expression 'soon before' is very relevant where Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304 B Indian Penal Code are pressed into service. Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution. 'Soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive Section 304 B Indian Penal Code and Section 113B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression 'soon before' is not defined. A reference to expression 'soon before' used in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods 'soon after the theft, is either the thief has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. The determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before' is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression 'soon before' State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 20 would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and livelink between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence."
23. In the case of Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. 2013(3) SCC 684 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the allegations of cruelty have to be specific. The relevant para of this judgment reads as under: "In any case, to hold an accused guilty of both the offences under Sections 304B and 498A, Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and in particular PW1 and PW4, we find that they have made general allegations of harassment by the appellant towards the deceased and have not brought in evidence any specific acts of cruelty or harassment by the appellant on the deceased."
24. Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the same view in the case of 2014 (9) SCC 645 titled as Manohar Lal Vs State of Haryana Hon'ble Supreme Court.
25. In the recent case reported as Monju Roy & ors. Vs State of West Bengal 2015(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 472 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that for proving the offence under section 304B the harassment has to be proved alongwith demand. It is also held that prosecution is to also establish that all family members caused harassment.
State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 2126. In the light of above settled proposition of law, facts of the case in hand will be analyzed to ascertain as to whether prosecution has led sufficient evidence to bring home the guilt of accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC or not.
27. DISCUSSIONS ON THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE: Now let us see whether all the essential ingredients have been established by the prosecution on record or not.
28. It is undisputed in the present case that the deceased got married to the accused Sonu Chaudhary on 29.04.04 and the deceased committed suicide on 17.05.07. Thus, the incident occurred within seven years of the marriage.
29. It also stands proved that the death of the deceased did not occur under normal circumstances. PW2 Dr.S Lal, conducted the post mortem of deceased Renu and gave his report Ex.PW2/A. He opined that the cause of death is shock due to ingestion of phenols. He also stated that there were no visible external ante mortem injury marks on the body of the deceased. During cross examination he stated that there were no struggle marks or blister on the body of deceased. Under the circumstances, it stands proved that the deceased committed suicide. Moreover, as per charge sheet also the case of the prosecution is that Renu had committed suicide by consuming the phenols. Therefore, it is established on record that the deceased died "otherwise than under normal circumstances".
State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 2230. It is now to be seen whether deceased Renu was subjected to cruelty or harassment by accused persons soon before her demise and whether the same was in connection with demand of dowry.
31. To prove the aforesaid charges prosecution mainly cited and examined six relatives of the deceased i.e. PW1 Ratan Singh, father, PW8 Om Parkash, Uncle PW9 Rekha, Sister, PW12Ratto Devi, mother, PW14 Tikam Singh, unlce and PW15 Som Nath, the neighbour. The statement of these witnesses is to be carefully analyzed to ascertain the veracity of the allegations raised by them as admittedly prior to the incident no complaint was ever made in regard to these allegations and only after the incident these allegations have been made by the complainant. It is also to be seen as to whether from the allegations made in the complaint, the essentials of sec 304B IPC have come on record or not.
32. PW1 Rattan Singh is the father of the deceased on whose statement (Ex PW1/A) the FIR was registered. Complainant deposed in his cross examination that his statement was read over to him by his daughter Rekha and thereafter he had signed the same. Thus, it is clear that his statement was recorded as per his dictation and he signed the same after knowing the contents of the same. Complainant mentioned his several grievances against the accused persons but as far as the allegations regarding dowry demand are concerned, he mainly raised one allegation that after few months of marriage accused Sonu and his family members i.e. mother, father and brother started raising demand of a Maurti Esteem Car. Besides, he also stated that State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 23 the accused also used to raise demand regarding petty needs which he always fulfilled. The allegation of complainant regarding demand of a car is a general allegation as he has neither specified the name of the accused who raised this demand nor the dates on which this demand was made. He simply stated that all the accused persons used to demand a car. Moreover, there is no allegation in the complaint that deceased was subjected to any kind of cruelty when the demand of car was not met. There is also no allegation in the complaint that soon before the incident the demand was raised and in connection with that deceased was harassed by the accused persons. The allegation which is raised is that the accused was jobless and used to beat the deceased after having liquor and he was not sending the deceased to her parental home. Thus, it is amply clear that firstly, the allegation regarding demand of car are general in nature and secondly, there is no allegation that deceased was ever subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry.
33. The complainant has been examined as PW1 and zist of his testimony and the allegations made by him in his testimony have been discussed in the preceding paras. The complainant has made various allegations in his testimony led before the court. These allegations were not part of his complaint Ex PW1/A. Firstly, complainant has not led any evidence to corroborate those allegations, thus, the allegations which have been mentioned for the first time before the court have to be treated as improvements and secondly, on some material aspects, State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 24 complainant has also made contradictory statement to the statement made by him in his first complaint.
34. The complainant made the following additional allegations in his evidence:
(a) that after marriage of his daughter, once/twice his brother Bhagwat visited the accused and at that time accused had demanded Rs.15000/ for getting a job to the accused Sonu. After 8/9 months, of the marriage, he had paid this amount to the accused.
(b) that twice or thrice his daughter had visited them and told them about her sufferings. She told them that her mother in law had beaten her with a broom.
(c) that after birth of the child the accused Leelu and Dharamwati had demanded Chhuchak and accordingly he had given cloths and five gold chains to the accused;
(d) that the son of Renu died after about 3 ½ month of his birth as accused persons had not provided proper medical treatment to Renu and her child. He had borne the medical expenses for the treatement of the son or Renu.
(e) that on 10.05.07, Renu was beaten by accused Sonu, Leelu and Dharamwati for dowry and they had turned out her and same day Renu came to them and narrated the entire incident. On the same day accused Leelu visited their house with Rajender and Shilak and matter was amicably settled and Renu was sent back with them;
State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 25(f) that about two days prior to the incident accused Leelu had called him and told that Dharamwati was not backing off her demand of car and insisting for the same upon which he expressed his inability as he had two more daughters to be married.
(g) that after 10/11/12.05.07 accused Leelu had called him and when he reached there he was told by his daughter that a panchayat was being held, however, she was not aware the reason. After that, on the request of the accused Leelu he went to the house of accused Mr. Brahm Singh where accused Mr. Brahm Singh was present with his wife. They sat together and had tea. The accused Brahm Singh told the complainant that they wanted to terminate the pregnancy of Renu as she was carrying the baby of someone else. The said thing, the accused were doing to pressurise him to meet their demand.
(h) that on 17.05.07 when they had reached the spot they found that floor was cleaned and there were blister marks over the body of his daughter and he could assess from these circumstances that she was forcefully given the poison.
(i) that one tenant used to reside on the top floor of the house of the accused. The said tenant told the complainant that accused persons were beating Renu for last three days prior to the incident. The said tenant also told him that on the night of incident, he had felt disturbance in the room of Renu.
35. It is admitted position of fact that complainant signed his statement after verifying its contents. From the point of recording of his statement State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 26 till the date of his evidence, complainant never raised any grievance that complete facts were not incorporated in his statement. Thus, the statement of complainant contains what was informed my him to the SDM concerned. Thus, in his evidence the complainant was supposed to corroborate his earlier version but when his earlier statement made to the SDM is compared with the statement made before the court, it reveals that the statement made before the court is full of material improvements as well as material contradictions. The complainant has made certain allegations in his testimony before the court which were not the part of his first statement. Further, some of the allegations made by him in his testimony are apparently unfounded and false. The complainant stated that the son of his daughter passed away for want of proper medical treatment while in his first statement, he stated that the child was having a hole in his heart. He stated that he had paid all the medical expenses of the child; however, his statement is not trustworthy as neither had he remembered the name of the hospital nor did he produce any payment receipt of the medical expenses. Complainant deposed that on the date of incident he had seen some blisters over the body of her daughter. He also stated that the tenant of accused persons had told him that accused persons were beating Renu for last three days and even on the night of incident he felt some disturbance. Thus, complainant stated that prior to the incident Renu was beaten by the accused, however, these allegations are also found to be baseless in view of the autopsy report. As per her autopsy report Ex PW2/A she did not have any apparent external injuries. The State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 27 medical evidence belies the claim of the complainant. Further, according the version of the complainant, the said tenant was an eye witness to the alleged incident of beating and harassment, however, complainant never informed this fact to the police. Thus, this version of the complainant also found to be unfounded and baseless.
36. Complainant has also made contradictory statement on many aspects. Complainant stated before SDM that accused never sent his daughter to meet them while in his evidence, he stated that his daughter came to meet them twice or thrice and that time she informed them about the harassment which was caused by the accused to her. In his complaint, he stated that accused Sonu used to harass and beat his daughter at the instigation of his family members; however, he did not say anything in this regard in his statement before the court.
37. Besides, the complainant has raised various allegations which were never been part of his first statement. The complainant stated that he had fulfilled the demand of Rs.15,000/ raised by the accused for the job of the accused Sonu. He also stated that on demand of accused he had given five gold chains in the Chhuchak. Apart from these allegations, he specifically mentioned about the two incidents. According to him on 10.05.07, accused Sonu, Leelu and Dharamwati had beaten Renu and drove her out of the house and thus, she had come to them and same day accused Leelu had come with some persons and on assurance, she was sent back with them. He also stated that after 10 or 11/12.05.07, he was called by the accused Leelu and then a meeting had taken place at the house of accused Brahm State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 28 Singh where they pressurised the complainant for dowry by telling him that they want to abort the child of Renu as it was of somebody else. He further added that about two days prior to the incident accused Leelu had called him and told that accused Dharamwati was not ready to tack back her demand of car upon which he expressed his inability. It is clear from the record that the said allegations were made by the complainant for the first time, thus, the same are to be considered as material improvements as allegedly, most of the said incidents happened just a few days prior to the incident and it cannot be assumed that complainant would not remember these material facts at the time of making his statement. Furthermore, some of these allegations have either not been corroborated by other witnesses or they have given a different version regarding the same allegation which has been discussed in the further part of this order.
38. Besides complainant, the prosecution has examined five more public witnesses i.e. PW8 Om Prakash, PW9 Rekha, PW12 Smt. Ratto Devi, PW14 Sh. Tikam Singh and PW9 Sh. Som Nath. The testimony of these witnesses have already been discussed. The allegations made by the complainant have either been not corroborated by these witness or they have made contradictory statements regarding the same incident/fact. PW1, complainant stated that after a few months of marriage, the accused persons had demanded Rs.15000/ for getting the accused Sonu a job and he had paid this amount after about 89 months of the marriage of Renu. None of the other family members or relatives have corroborated this version of the State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 29 complainant. As per complainant, the said demand was raised by the accused in the presence of his brother Mr. Bhagwat, however, Mr. Bhagwat has not been examined by the prosecution to support these allegations.
39. Neither the complainant nor the other family member or the relative of the deceased had raised any specific allegation regarding the demand of money by the accused in their first statements, however, during evidence, the complainant and PW9 and PW12 have improved their earlier versions and stated that accused persons were demanding a specific sum of money. The statement of these witnesses is not trustworthy in regard to this very allegation as all of them have mentioned a different amount as well as the different purpose. PW1 stated that at the time of marriage the accused persons had not demanded anything, however, after few months of marriage, accused persons had demanded Rs.15,000/ for getting the accused Sonu a job and he had paid this amount also while PW9, the sister of the deceased told that accused persons had demanded Rs.51000/ and Esteem Car at the time of marriage. PW9 stated that his sister had told her that accused Sonu used to beat her for the said demand. In this regard, PW12 Rattoo Devi stated that after about 23 months of marriage, accused persons started harassing her daughter for One Lac Rupees and Esteem car. PW8 and PW14 Tikam Singh, stated that car was demanded while PW15 Som Nath stated that car and money was demanded. Thus, it is clear from the record that the complainant and other witnesses have made contradictory statement State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 30 in regard to demand of money. They have contradicted each other regarding the timings of demand, quantum of money demanded and the purpose of demand. This clearly shows the deliberate improvement on the part of the complainant and other witnesses.
40. About the incident of 10th May also, there is no consonance in the witnesses. In this regard the PW1 stated that on 10 th May, 07, his daughter was beaten by accused Dharamwati, Lilu and Sonu and expelled from her matrimonial home upon which she had come to him and told everything. He stated that same day accused Lilu came to their house with Rajender and Shilak and matter was sort out amicably and he then sent back his daughter alongwith them. In regard to this very allegation, the mother and sister of the deceased have given a contradictory statement. PW9 is the sister of Renu, and in regard to the same incident, she stated that a panchayat had taken place in Village Khora which was attended by her father, Om Parkash and Pupha Braham Singh. Accordingly to PW9, PW8 had also attended the said panchayat while PW8 Om Parkash did not say that he attended any panchayat on 10.05.07 and he even did not say anything about this incident rather stated that about 1 ½ months prior to the demise of Renu a quarrel had taken place between Renu and her mother in law and then she was brought to her parental home and she went back after 10/15 days. PW1 also did not say that the said matter was taken up in panchayat and sorted out there. PW12 Ratto Devi also did not say that the said matter was taken up in the panchayat. PW15 Som Nath also made a different statement about the same. He State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 31 stated that about 810 days prior to the incident Renu had come to her parental home whereupon he alongwith Rattan Singh, Tikam Singh and few other persons had gone to the house of the accused persons and asked them why they were harassing Renu upon which Tau of accused Sonu had assured them that no such thing would happen with Renu. Thus, it clear from the testimony of these witnesses that complainant discussed about the said incident for the first time in his testimony and secondly other witnesses have made contradictory statements qua this incident, and this makes their version unreliable.
41. PW1 also deposed that accused persons had demaded chhhuchak and he had given five gold chains in the said function. The said allegation is also an improvement on the part of the complainant as he never said about the same in his first statement to the police. The other witnesses also did not say anything in this regard prior to deposing before the court. Moreover, the other witness i.e. PW9 did not support the allegation of demand of chhhuchak and only said that five gold chains were given however, they did not say that said articles were given on the demand of accused. PW12, the mother of the deceased did not say anything about the said demand. Thus, the testimony of complainant in this regard is also not reliable.
42. Furthermore, there are other glaring material contradictions when the testimony of all the material witnesses are compared. PW1 complainant and PW12, the mother of the deceased have made contradictory statement in regard to the demise of the son of the deceased. PW1 stated that the child died as accused had not State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 32 provided him the necessary medical need and he had borne all the medical expenses while PW12 said that child died as accused Dharamwati had given her poisonous injection. Perusal of the record shows that PW1 apparently made a contradictory statement in this regard as in his complainant he had stated that child died as he was having a hole in his heart. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that the child was killed by the accused persons. Thus, it is clear that these allegations are also apparently baseless.
43. In the instant case no complaint was made during three years of marriage and thus, allegations are to be carefully scrutinized keeping in view that the severe punishment has been prescribed for the offence. It is clear from the aforesaid discussions that all the material witness have made material improvements in their statements and even regarding the improved version these witnesses have contradicted each other in material terms. Thus, the allegations raised by them in their testimony are not trustworthy. It has been held by Hon'ble High Court in the case reported as 2014(209) DLT 106 , titled as Khushal Chand Vs State that the testimony of a witness becomes unreliable if he makes material improvements. In the case of Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. 2013(3) SCC 684, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the allegations of cruelty and harassment have to be specific to establish the offences, however, it is clear from the testimony of the material witnesses that in their first statements all of them made general and vague allegations. They did not specify as to who raised the demand and when the demand was raised and they State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 33 mentioned about some specific incidents regarding demand and harassment only before the court which are not trustworthy due to the reasons discussed above.
44. Besides, the PW1 the father of the deceased and PW12, the mother of the deceased also stated in their testimony that prior to the incident their daughter was beaten up and harassed. PW1 stated that on the date of incident, he had observed some blisters on the body of his daughter. He stated that his daughter was courageous and cannot inhale poison of her own, thus, he claimed that she was beaten up and given the poison by the accused persons. He also added that there was a tenant who informed him that accused persons were beating deceased for last three days and on the day of incident also he felt some disturbance in her room. PW12 stated that she had seen some burning marks on her body. Thus, it can be culled out from the testimony of both the witness claimed that accused deceased was beaten up and forcefully given poison. Though, the said allegations are also not reliable as were stated for the first time before the court, even otherwise, the said allegations do not find any support from the medical evidence. The autopsy of the deceased was conducted by PW2 who clearly mentioned in his report that there were no external injury marks available on the body of deceased. Thus, there is no evidence available on record to show that deceased was beaten up or harassed by the accused persons soon before the death as stated by PW1 and PW12 in their testimony.
State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 3445. The accused persons have taken a defence that deceased was not able to conceive and they got her proper medical treatment. They stated that deceased went in depression after demise of her son and prior to the incident she had tried to commit suicide on two more occasions but she was saved by the accused. In order to establish their defence they examined DW2 Dr. Ashu Agarwal who deposed she had examined Renu on several occasions. She deposed that Renu had told her that her first two pregnancy got aborted spontaneously and she was treated for infertility and then she had conceived in December, 2005. Thus, it is clear that deceased had conceived after a long treatment and after that her son had passed away. During cross examination it was also contended by the accused that the doctor had advised for abortion as it was dangerous to her life. Thus, under these circumstances, the defence seems to be quite probable that deceased could be running under depression due the said complexities and sad demise of her son and more so because her latest pregnancy was also being asked to be terminated due to her medical problems.
46. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussions it is held that prosecution has not been able to prove the allegations of dowry demand and harassment on that account beyond reasonable doubt and the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove these allegations are not trustworthy and reliable.
State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 3547. CONCLUSION: Keeping in view of these facts and circumstances, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove the allegation of dowry demand and harassment beyond reasonable doubt thus, all accused persons are directed to be acquitted of the charges u/sec.498A/304B/34 IPC. File be consigned to record room.
AJAY Digitally signed by
AJAY GUPTA
Location: Delhi
GUPTA Date: 2018.06.06
16:50:41 +0530
ASJ02/ Special Judge(NDPS)
KKD/East/Delhi
Announced in open
court on 06.06.2018
State vs etc Sonu Chaudhary FIR No.387/2007 36