Delhi District Court
State vs Yashpal @Pankaj on 2 July, 2024
FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK WASON: ASJ-04: SW DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI Registration No. 252/2019 CNR No. DLSW01-004549-2019 State Vs. (i) Yashpal @ Pankaj S/o Lt. Sh. Krishan Kumar (ii) Pushpa W/o Late Sh. Krishan Kumar Both R/o V.P.O Malikpur, New Delhi. FIR No. : 215/18 Police Station : J.P. Kalan Under Sections : 304B/498A/34 IPC Date of committal to Sessions Court : 04.04.2019 Date on which judgment was reserved: 04.06.2024 Date on which Judgment pronounced : 02.07.2024 Final order : Acquitted JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. The accused persons are facing trial for the charge under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC in relation with the death of Ms. Anu, who was the wife of accused no.1 namely Yashpal @ State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 1 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 Pankaj & daughter-in-law of accused no.2 namely Pushpa.
2. The present FIR was registered on the statement of Sh. Vinod Kumar i.e father of the deceased dated 30.12.2018.
The allegations made in the statement are as under:
3. Sh. Vinod Kumar stated to the police that he has two children one daughter and one boy and he got married his daughter namely Anu, aged about 24 years to one Yashpal @ Pankaj on 23.11.2017 according to Hindu rites and rituals with the consent of both the families. It is further stated in the complaint that he has spent Rs.25,00,000/- and gave 20 tola gold to the in-laws of his daughter and also gave one ALTO car, however, after some time, the in-laws of his daughter started torturing her and his husband, mother-in-law and her sister-in-
law namely Pinki used to quarrel with her daughter and pressurize her to bring big car and used to demand for cash and also threatened her to kill due to which her daughter got scared / afraid. After seeing all this, on 25.01.2018, he gave Rs. 1,00,000/- to the husband and mother-in-law of his daughter and after that also, they again started torturing his daughter and again in April 2018, he gave Rs.70,000/- to his son-in-law. Despite that, the quarrel used to take place regarding cash and car. 4-5 months back, again cash was demanded, however, he did not State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 2 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 give money to his daughter upon which the in-laws raised quarrel and threatened her to kill. Around 20 days before, the husband and mother-in-law and sister-in-law of his daughter manhandled her and ousted her from the house and when he came to know, he took his daughter back to his home. After 2-3 days, the grandfather of his son-in-law, chaachi Manju and brother-in-law of his daughter namely Lalit came to his house to take his daughter Anu back to her home and with the intervention of Sarpanch (gaon ke pradhan)/Village Head and elderly people, sent his daughter back to her in-laws and after that also, the quarrels continued. Before, 2-3 days, the quarrel increased and his daughter told him on the phone that her husband namely Yashpal @ Pankaj, mother-in-law and sister-in-law Pinki torturing her for cash and demanding Rs.2,00,000/-. It is further stated in the complaint that on 29.12.2018 at about 06:30 p.m, the sister-in-law of his daughter called him and told him that his daughter Anu has hanger herself and when they reached at Jaffarpur Hospital at about 07:00 p.m, they found their daughter dead and stated that the mother-in-law Pushpa, sister-in-law Pinki and her husband Yashpal @ Pankaj are responsible for the death of his daughter Anu.
4. The Executive Magistrate i.e. Sh. Dinesh Rana also recorded the statement of parents and brother of the deceased.
State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 3 of 36FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024
5. After hearing arguments, charge was framed against both the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC, to which they pleaded "Not Guilty"
and claimed trial and accordingly the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
6. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses to substantiate the accusations leveled against the accused persons.
7. PW-1 is Sh. Vinod. He is the complainant / father of the deceased in the present matter and his testimony would be discussed at later stage.
8. PW-2 is Sh. Dinesh Kumar. He is the brother of the deceased and his testimony would also be discussed at a later stage.
9. PW-3 is Ms. Poonam. She is the mother of the deceased and her testimony would also be discussed at a relevant stage.
10. PW-4 is Sh. Dinesh Rana, Assistant Director, DDA, Munirka office, PC-103, New Delhi. He has deposed that on State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 4 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 29.12.2018, he was posted as Tehsildar, Executive Magistrate, Najafgarh and on that day, at about 08:30-09:00 pm, an information was received from PS Jafarpur Kalan that one lady had committed suicide whose marriage was performed about 1- 1/2 years prior to her death. He has further deposed that he asked the police to produce the family members of the deceased and on the next day i.e on 30.12.2018 and on the next day, police had brought the parents and brother of the deceased to his office and he recorded their statements as Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW3/A. He has further deposed that he recorded the true and correct version of the witnesses. He has further deposed that he forwarded their statements to the SHO PS Jafarpur Kalan to initiate legal actions against the accused persons. The forwarding letter is Ex.PW4/A. He has further deposed that he had given a separate letter to the IO addressing to the doctor for getting the postmortem of the deceased. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
11. PW-5 is Retired SI Om Prakash. He has deposed that on 29.12.2018, he was on emergency duty and on receiving DD No. 13 A, he reached RTRM hospital along with HC Manoj and found deceased Annu admitted in the hospital vide MLC no. 86/11 as Ex. A5, who was declared dead by the doctor. He has further deposed that the body of deceased was sent to mortuary and thereafter, he went to VPO Malikpur, Delhi at the house of State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 5 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 accused Yashpal @ Pankaj. He has further deposed that he gave wireless message to all the crime team on the spot and Crime team took photographs on the spot and inspected the spot. He has further deposed that he seized the Chunni of deceased found on the spot vide seizure memo Ex. PW-5/1 and upon inquiry, he came to know that the marriage of Annu had not completed even one year. He has further deposed that he informed SDM Najafgarh to come on the spot and record the statement of witnesses. He has further deposed that he also informed the parents of the deceased Annu about the incident and called them on the spot. He has further deposed that the SDM informed him that he will record the statement of witnesses on the next day, as the parents and brother of deceased Annu will not able to reach at the spot by evening. He has further deposed that IO / Inspector Arvind arrested accused Yashpal vide memo Ex. PW-5/4 and got conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW-5/5. He has further deposed that Inspector Arvind recorded the disclosure statement of accused Yashpal @ Pankaj as Ex. PW-5/6. He has further deposed that he took the mother, father and brother of deceased Annu to the SDM office and got their statement recorded by the SDM. He has further deposed that he got conducted the PM examination of deceased Annu and handed over the dead body to the father and the brother of deceased Annu after due identification by Sh. Vinod vide identification State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 6 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 statement Ex. PW-1/A and identification statement of Sh. Dinesh Kumar@Sonu as Ex. PW-1/B. He has further deposed that the doctor handed over one Viscera Peti to him which was seized vide seizure memo as Ex. PW-5/2. He has further deposed that he prepared the tehrir as Ex. PW-5/3 on the statement of Sh. Vinod Kumar which was recorded by Tehsildar Sh. Dinesh Rana on the Ex. PW-1/B and sent the same for registration of FIR through HC Manoj and after registration of the FIR, further investigation was marked to Inspector Arvind by the order of senior police officers. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.
12. PW-6 is Retired SI Ram Bhaj. He has deposed that on 16.02.2019, he was posted at PS J.P. Kalan as SI and on that day, he received the present case file for further investigation. He has further deposed that he sent the exhibits i.e Visra vide RC no. 23/21/19 dated 21.02.2019, through Ct. Sumit Kumar at FSL, Rohini. He has further deposed that he recorded the statement of SI Rakesh from Crime Branch on 22.02.2019 and thereafter, he handed over the case file to Inspector Krishan Kumar for filing the charge sheet. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
13. PW-7 is Retired Inspector Krishan Kumar. He has deposed that on 27.02.2020, he was looking after the work of State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 7 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 SHO PS JP Kalan as temporary and on that day, he perused the file and found that IO has completed the investigation and prepared the charge sheet and after checking, filed the same in the Court. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
14. PW-8 is Inspector Arvind, No. DI/261, DIU South-East District, Delhi. He has deposed that on 30.12.2018, he was posted at PS J.P. Kalan and further investigation of the present case was marked to him and accordingly, he reached at the spot, where he met ASI Om Prakash. He has further deposed that at his instance, he prepared site plan Ex. PW-8/A and arrested accused Yashpal @ Pankaj at PS vide memo Ex. PW-5/4 and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW-5/5 and interrogated him and recorded his disclosure statement as Ex. PW-5/6. He has further deposed that on 02.02.2019, accused Pushpa was arrested at PS vide memo Ex. PW-8/B and lady Constable Munita conducted her personal search vide memo Ex. PW-8/C and also recorded her disclosure statement as Ex. PW-8/D. He has further deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses who joined the investigation with him and later on, he was transferred and file was handed over to the MHC(R). This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
15. PW-9 W / HC Munita Devi who has deposed that on 02.02.2019, she was posted at PS JP Kalan as W/Ct and she joined the investigation alongwith Inspector Arvind Kumar. She has further State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 8 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 deposed that about the arrest of accused Pushpa and personal search conducted of accused Pushpa. She has further deposed that on the directions of IO, she got conducted the medical examination of accused at RTRM hospital and after medical examination, accused Pushpa was produced before the court and sent to JC. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.
16. It is a matter of record that on 07.01.2023, statement of both accused persons under Section 294 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein accused persons have admitted certain documents from Ex. A-1 to Ex. A-12 i.e FIR, Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, DD No. 13A dated 29.12.2018, Postmortem report, MLC of deceased Annu, Unnatural death report dated 30.12.2018, photocopy of RC No. 23/21/19, photocopy of acknowledgment from FSL, Crime Team Report, Photographs of the spot taken by Ct. Anil Kumar along with certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act and statements of Jitender & Sunil recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C respectively. Vide order dated 20.05.2024, PE was closed and statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein, they have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and did not wish to lead defence evidence and thereafter, final arguments were heard.
State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 9 of 36FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024
17. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Brijesh Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. counsel for the accused persons and have perused the entire record.
18. In order to prove the offences U/s. 304B/498A/34 IPC against accused persons, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that both accused persons in furtherance of their common intention soon before the death of deceased, subjected deceased to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry.
19. Court will first discuss the law regarding the dowry death in brief. Section 304B, IPC, deals with 'dowry death', which reads as follows:-
"304B. 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.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 10 of 36
FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024
20. The legislature has also introduced Section 113B of the Evidence Act alongside insertion of Section 304-B IPC.
"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 had 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 purpose of this Section "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
21. Sec.2 of Dowry Act, 1961 defines the term 'dowry' as under :
"Sec.2 Definition of 'Dowry': In this Act "dowry"
means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly -
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before (or any time after the marriage) (in connection with the marriage of the said parties), but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."
22. The basic ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC, are as follows:-
"(1) That the death of the woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or in some circumstances which were not normal;
(2) such death occurs within 7 years from the date of her marriage;State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 11 of 36
FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 (3) There was demand of dowry from the victim or family of victim.
(4) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(5) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (6) it is established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death."
23. In "Satvir Singh v. State of Haryana" Cri. Appeal No.17351736 of 2010 decided on 28.05.2021 it is held that Sec.304B IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental as was done earlier. The reason for such non categorization is due to the fact that death occurring "otherwise than under normal circumstances" can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. However, the Section 304B IPC endeavors to also address those situations wherein murders or suicide are masqueraded as accidents.
24. In the case of unnatural death of a married woman, the husband could be prosecuted under Sections 302, 304-B and 306 of the Penal Code. The distinction as regards commission of an offence under one or the other provisions as mentioned herein State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 12 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 before came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in "Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab", (2001) 8 SCC 633 wherein it was held:
"21. Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is `at any time' after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are `in connection with the marriage of the said parties'. This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of 'dowry'. Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304-B should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage.
22. It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304-B is to be invoked. But it should have happened `soon before her death'. The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words 'soon before her death' is to emphasise the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have bee the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry-related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval which elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 13 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 cruelty and her death is wide the court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept 'soon before her death'.
25. In 'Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT)', Delhi [(2003) 8 SCC 80], Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that :
"The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive S. 304-B IPC and S.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 S.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' 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 live link 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."State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 14 of 36
FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024
26. Adverting to the case in hand, as regards the first ingredient that the death of woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or in some circumstances which were not normal, PM report Ex.A-4 shows the death was due to asphyxia following ante-mortem hanging and there were no other marks on the body. So, photographs Ex.A-10 along-with PM report, it is proved that deceased committed suicide by hanging herself with chunni. As such, it is proved that Annu has died "otherwise than under normal circumstances".
27. It is also undisputed case of the parties that marriage between the parties occurred on 23.11.2017 and death occurred on 29.12.2018 i.e. around 1 year of the marriage, therefore, second ingredient for the offence under Section 304B IPC is proved.
28. The Court will now consider whether third ingredient is also satisfied by looking at the evidence on record. Among the witnesses cited in the charge sheet, three were sought to be examined in support of the allegations of harassment of the deceased for dowry. These witnesses were:
(i) PW-1 : Sh. Vinod (father of the deceased) (ii) PW-2 : Sh. Dinesh Kumar (brother of the deceased) (iii) PW-3 : Ms. Poonam (mother of the deceased) State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 15 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024
29. Sh. Vinod i.e father of Anu (since deceased) had purportedly additionally alleged in his statement under section 161 Cr.PC that he got married his daughter namely Anu, aged about 24 years to one Yashpal @ Pankaj on 23.11.2017 according to Hindu rites and rituals with the consent of both the families. It is further stated in the complaint that he has spent Rs.25,00,000/- and gave 20 tola gold to the in-laws of his daughter and also gave one ALTO car, however, after some time, the in-laws of his daughter started torturing her and his husband, mother-in-law and her sister-in-law namely Pinki used to quarrel with her daughter and pressurized her to bring big car and used to demand for cash and also threatened her to kill due to which her daughter got scared / afraid. After seeing all this, on 25.01.2018, he gave Rs. 1,00,000/- to the husband and mother-in-law of his daughter and after that also, they again started torturing his daughter and again in April 2018, he gave Rs.70,000/- to his son-in-law. Despite that, the quarrel used to take place regarding cash and car. 4-5 months back, again cash was demanded, however, he did not give money to his daughter upon which the in-laws raised quarrel and threatened her to kill. Around 20 days before, the husband and mother-in-law and sister-in-law of his daughter manhandled her and ousted her from the house and when he came to know, he took his daughter back to his home. After 2-3 days, the grandfather of his son-in-law, chaachi Manju and State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 16 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 brother-in-law of his daughter namely Lalit came to his house to take his daughter Anu back to her home and with the intervention of Sarpanch (gaon ke pradhan) and elderly people, sent his daughter back to her in-laws and after that also, the quarrels continued. Before, 2-3 days, the quarrel intensified and his daughter told him on the phone that her husband namely Yashpal @ Pankaj, mother-in-law and sister-in-law Pinki torturing her for cash and demanding Rs.2,00,000/-. It is further stated in the complaint that on 29.12.2018 at about 06:30 p.m, the sister-in- law of his daughter called him and told him that his daughter Anu has hanger herself and when they reached at Jaffarpur Hospital at about 07:00 p.m, they found their daughter dead and stated that the mother-in-law Pushpa, sister-in-law Pinki and her husband Yashpal @ Pankaj are responsible for the death of his daughter Anu.
30. Sh. Dinesh Kumar, who is the brother of the deceased Annu and Smt. Poonam, the mother of the deceased had also been cited in the list of witnesses and have supported the version of PW-1 Sh. Vinod i.e father of the deceased in his statement under section 161 Cr.PC.
31. Now, in these circumstances, the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 are very relevant on whose statement prosecution State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 17 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 was relying. PW-1 Sh. Vinod i.e father of the deceased has deposed that he had two children, one son and one daughter and his daughter Annu got married with accused Yashpal on 23.11.2017 which was performed at Village Milakhpur, JP Kalan, New Delhi and had incurred expenses around Rs.25 lakhs and his daughter started residing with accused family at Milakhpur Village. He has further deposed that accused Pushpa was the mother-in-law of his daughter Annu. He has further deposed that on 29.12.2018, the sister of accused Yashpal namely Pinki had informed about the death of his daughter upon which, they came to Delhi and went to RTRM Hospital where postmortem of his daughter was conducted and identified the dead body of his daughter. He has further deposed that IO recorded his statement regarding the identification of dead body, same is Ex.PW1/A and after completion of postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them. He has further deposed that he did not know how his daughter had expired. He has further deposed that he is not having any suspicion on any of the accused regarding the death of his daughter Annu. He has further deposed that he had not given any statement to the SDM. He has further deposed that he did not remember whether he had signed any of the documents as he is illiterate. This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Addl. PP for the State gave various suggestions to the witness, most of which were denied by State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 18 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 the witness.
32. The next witness forwarded by the prosecution in support of the allegations of harassment for dowry was the son of the complainant/brother of the deceased i.e. PW-2 Sh. Dinesh Kumar. He has deposed that he had one sister namely Annu (since deceased) and on 23.11.2017, his sister Annu, aged about 22 years got married with accused Yashpal at Village Milakhpur, J.P. Kalan, New Delhi and after marriage, his sister joined her matrimonial house and started residing at the house of the accused. He has further deposed that the other family members i.e. mother of accused namely Pushpa and the sister of accused namely Pinki were also residing at the said house. He has further deposed that they had incurred Rs. 25 lakhs in the marriage and gave furniture, 20 tullas gold and one Alto car. He has further deposed that his sister was happy for some time and thereafter the accused asked her for change of car but they had not given and due to this reason, there was a little misunderstanding between them and the family of the accused. He has further deposed that in the month of February 2018, accused Yashpal had beaten his sister Annu and his sister had informed him on telephone and his parents went to the house of accused and brought her sister to their house and after 2-3 days, the grandfather of the accused namely Ram Phal, aunt Manju and State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 19 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 Lalit came to their house and after assurance, they sent his sister to the house of the accused. He has further deposed that for some time, his sister remained happy and thereafter, his sister had not told anything to him. He has further deposed that on 29.12.2018, they came to know that his sister had committed suicide and they came to Delhi and went to RTRM Hospital where he identified the dead body of his sister. He has further deposed that IO recorded his statement as Ex.PW2/A and after completion of postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as the witness was resiling from his previous statement and Ld. Addl. PP for the State gave various suggestions to the witness, most of which were denied by the witness.
33. PW-3 is Smt. Poonam who is the mother of deceased Annu and has deposed that he had two children i.e one son and one daughter and her daughter Annu got married with accused Yashpal on 23.11.2017 and the marriage was performed at Village Milakhpur, JP Kalan, New Delhi and during marriage, they had given some gold and other items and one car and her daughter started residing with the family of the accused at Milakhpur Village. She has further deposed that accused Pushpa was the mother-in-law of her daughter Annu. She has further deposed that the sister of accused Yashpal namely Pinki had State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 20 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 informed about the death of her daughter on 29.12.2018. She has further deposed that after that, they came to Delhi and went to RTRM Hospital where postmortem of her daughter was conducted and after completion of postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them. She has further deposed that she did not know how her daughter had expired. She has further deposed that she was not having any suspicion on any of the accused regarding the death of her daughter Annu. She has further deposed that she had not given any statement to the SDM. She has further deposed that she did not remember whether she had signed any of the documents as she is illiterate. This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Addl. PP for the State gave various suggestions to the witness, most of which were denied by the witness.
34. PW-1 has explicitly deposed in his examination-in- chief that he did not know how his daughter had expired. He has further deposed that he is not having any suspicion on any of the accused regarding the death of his daughter Annu. He has further deposed that he had not given any statement to the SDM. He has further deposed that he did not remember whether he had signed any of the documents as he is illiterate. He has specifically denied the suggestion that soon after the marriage, the in-laws of his daughter Annu had started harassing his daughter for the State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 21 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 purpose of dowry. He has also denied the suggestion that both the accused persons i.e. Yashpal and Pushpa used to quarrel with his daughter for the purpose of bringing big vehicle and also for bringing the cash and also they used to threat his daughter to kill or that his daughter used to get scared due to said threats extended by the accused. He also denied the suggestion that after seeing the same on 25.01.2018, he had given Rs.1 lakh to both the accused. He also denied the suggestion that in the month of April 2018, he had given Rs.17,000/- to his son-in-law i.e accused Yashpal and despite the same, accused used to quarrel with my daughter Annu for the purpose of bringing cash and vehicle. He has also denied the suggestion that 20 days prior to the incident, both the accused persons along with the sister-in- law of his daughter namely Pinki had beaten his daughter and also they had thrown out his daughter from their house and after knowing the same they had brought our daughter to our house. He also denied the suggestion that 2-3 days prior to the incident, quarrels were increased and his daughter informed them through telephone that accused Yashapal and accused Pushpa along with Pinki were harassing her for the purpose of cash of Rs. 2 lakhs and they were demanding the said amount from her. He has specifically denied the suggestion that accused persons and Pinki were responsible for the death of his daughter. He has explicitly denied the suggestion that he intentionally not deposed the true State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 22 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 facts of the case as he has won over by the accused persons.
35. PW-2 is Sh. Dinesh has explicitly deposed in his examination-in-chief that accused has asked his sister for change of car but they had not given and due to this reason, there was a little misunderstanding between them and the accused family. He has further deposed that in the month of February 2018, accused Yashpal had beaten his sister Annu and his sister had informed him on telephone and his parent went to the house of the accused and brought his sister to their house and after 2-3 days, she again went to the house of accused after the assurance of some family members of the accused. He has further deposed that for some time, his sister remained happy and thereafter, his sister had not told anything to him. In his cross-examination, by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he admitted as correct that after some days of the marriage, the in-laws of his sister started harassing his sister for the purpose of dowry. He admitted as correct that both the accused persons along with Pinki had regular quarrels with his sister and pressurized his sister for bringing the big vehicle and also used to demand cash otherwise they threatened her to kill. He has further deposed that he did not know whether his sister used to fear for the threats given by the accused and after seeing the same, his father had given Rs.1 lakh to the accused persons on 25.01.2018. He has further deposed that he had stated to the State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 23 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 Tehsildar in his statement Ex.PW2/B on the basis of the statement given by his father to the Tehsildar. He has further deposed that he did not know whether his father had given Rs.70,000/- to accused Yashpal in the month of April 2018, however, he had stated the said fact to the Tehsildar on the basis of statement given by his father. He has further deposed that it is correct that despite same, accused persons used to demand cash and vehicle. Due to this reason, there used to quarrels between my sister and the accused persons. He has further deposed that he did not know whether the accused used to demand amount from his sister and when his father had not given the demanded amount, the accused persons along with Pinki had given beatings to his sister 20 days prior to the incident and sent out his sister from the said house. He admitted as correct that they had brought his sister to their house after this incident. He denied the suggestion that 2-3 days prior to the incident, accused had quarreled with his sister and his sister had called them and informed that accused persons along with Pinki were demanding Rs. 2 lakhs. He admitted as correct that they had stated to the SDM that when they came to J.P. Kalan Hospital, they had given their statement to the SDM that the accused persons were responsible for the death of his sister. He denied the suggestion that he was not deposing the sequence in a proper way as compromise arrived between accused persons and their family or State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 24 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 due to this reason, he was intentionally not deposing the harassment made by the accused soon before death of my sister.
36. The last material witness for the prosecution was PW-3 Smt. Poonam. Again, in similar vein to the other hostile witnesses who preceded her in deposition, PW-3 did not buckle under cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. She denied all suggestions regarding ill-treatment of the deceased by the accused persons. She denied any payment in the nature of dowry upon the demand of the accused persons.
37. These witnesses were equally benign to the accused persons. Much like PW-1 i.e father of the deceased, PW-2 & PW- 3 too denied their previous statements. None of the witnesses have deposed in their examination / cross-examination that deceased Annu was ill-treated for dowry related demands by the accused persons. In fact, to further certify the innocence of the accused persons, PW-1 & PW-3 made a definitive statement denying any culpability of the accused persons by deposing that they do not know how their daughter had expired. They have explicitly deposed that they were not having any suspicion on any of the accused regarding the death of their daughter Annu.
38. Apart from the above non-incriminatory assertions, the above said witnesses had not alleged any demand for dowry State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 25 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 or harassment of the deceased at the hands of any of the accused persons in relation to such a demand.
39. This clean-chit from the above said witnesses did propel the Ld. Addl. PP for the State to cross examine them. Yet, these witnesses remained steadfast in denying the suggestions of the prosecutor regarding their purported previous statement to the Tehsildar / Executive Magistrate and their purported earlier allegations in the said statements regarding demands for money and a vehicle by the accused persons. All these witnesses denied that the accused persons used to quarrel with deceased Annu for the purpose of bringing big vehicle and also for bringing the cash or they used to threat Annu to kill or that Annu used to get scared due to said threats extended by the accused persons. PW- 2 has only deposed in a general way that in laws of her sister have started harassing her sister for the purpose of dowry. However, he has deposed that he does not know whether his sister used to fear for the threats given by the accused. He has further deposed that he does not know whether his father had given Rs. 70,000/- to accused Yashpal. He has further deposed that he does not know that whether accused used to demand any amount from his sister. He has denied the suggestion that there was some quarrel 2-3 days prior to the incident.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel wherein he has specifically deposed that he does not State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 26 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 know that accused persons have ever harassed her sister for the purpose of dowry i.e. cash and big car. He has further deposed in his cross examination that it is correct that there was no misunderstanding between her sister and accused persons for purpose of change of car. This witness was again re-cross examined by Ld. Adll. PP for the State, wherein he has specifically deposed that they gave statement to Tehsildar under pressure and denied all the suggestions.
40. It is evident from the record that none of the witnesses have incriminated any of the accused persons with respect to the charge of having either demanded dowry or having subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment for such a demand.
41. The deposition of all the three public witnesses was unfortunately a complete wash out for the prosecution. None of them made even a whiff of a mention of harassment for dowry suffered by the deceased. Quite distinct from the hopes of the prosecution, based on the previous statements / purported statements of these witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC, these witnesses completely absolved all accused persons of any cruelty or harassment in connection with a demand for dowry from the deceased.
State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 27 of 36FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024
42. The combined effect of the deposition of the parents of the deceased is that the most crucial ingredient of Sections 498A and 304B IPC i.e harassment for demand for dowry remains not proved. The witnesses were not in any hesitation or ambiguity in their deposition and stated quite affirmatively and even PW-1 and PW-3 specifically deposed that that they are not having suspicion on any of the accused regarding death of deceased Anu.
43. The Court would observe that the circumstance of prime witnesses turning hostile may not render them completely unworthy of believe in all particulars qua their testimony and the court may, in appropriate circumstances emerging from the deposition, still cull out extracts found reliable. Indeed, incrimination can be based even on extracts from the deposition of hostile witnesses. Yet, to the determent of the prosecution, the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 do not permit or reveal even a strand of such incrimination. No part of their deposition is capable of a finding commensurate with the guilt of the accused persons.
44. In sum, none of the witnesses cited by the prosecution in support of the charge rendered any measure of incriminating evidence against the accused persons.
State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 28 of 36FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024
45. Undoubtedly, the original statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 had been recorded before the Executive Magistrate. The Executive Magistrate was examined as PW-4. Yet, in the face of the purported makers of these statements i.e PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 themselves not having corroborated the same, the deposition of the Executive Magistrate cannot have precedence in proving the same. Even PW-2 has deposed that he made statement to the executive magistrate on the basis of his father's statement and at that time they were under pressure to give statement to Tehsildar on the advise of somebody, and they gave wrong statement before Tehsildar.
46. It is the deposition in court which is material and not the previous statements prior to trial.
47. What the court is left with as evidence capable of any manner of definitive finding is only the deposition of the doctor (PW-4) who recorded the cause of death as "Asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging". Since the date of marriage of the deceased with accused Yashpal was 23.11.2017 and the date of her demise was 29.12.2018, it is only one ingredient of section 304B IPC i.e. death of a woman under circumstances other than normal within seven years of marriage which is established from the present trial. The other crucial ingredient inter alia her being State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 29 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with a demand for dowry remains not proved.
48. The presumption as to dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 regarding the court presuming the causation of dowry death by an accused also does not operate to the determent of the accused persons in the present trial as the presumption itself is predicated on proof of such a woman having been subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. Since the deposition of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 offers not an iota of evidence of harassment for dowry, the presumption is immaterial in the appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution.
49. The remaining witnesses pertained to investigation and their deposition is only an account of the various stages of investigation from the recording of the FIR till the filing of the charge sheet and has no bearing on the charge framed against the accused persons.
50. In "Dharam Pal vs. State", 1997 (70) DLT 244, the Delhi High Court held that to attract Section 304-B, it must be shown that soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected to cruelty in connection with or demand for dowry. No averment made by witnesses that soon before the death of the deceased, State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 30 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 she was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry. Only one instance was noted by the statement of the brother of the deceased which was not soon before the death of the deceased. Even in cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, he specifically deposed that he does not know whether her sister was harassed by accused persons for the purpose of dowry. Even to attract Section 498-A the deceased should be subjected to cruelty in connection with or demand for dowry before her death and merely a stray allegation would not attract the offence. Such allegation should be specific and not vague.
51. Moreover, to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, within the four corners of section 304B IPC, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that "Soon before her death" deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or in-laws. The expression "soon before death" has not been defined and the legislation has not specified any time which would be the period prior to death that would attract the provisions of section 304B IPC. In "Sunil Bansal v. State of Delhi", 2007(7) AD Delhi 780, it was observed as under :
"Though there is no thumb rule as to what is meant by the expression "soon before" death of a woman u/s. 304B IPC despite substantial flexibility, the charge cannot be maintained, if the acts are remote in point of time. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Kaliya Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828 and Yashoda v. State of M.P., 2004 III AD 305:2004(3) SCC98 that there should not be too much of the time lag between cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry and the death in State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 31 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 question. It was also held that there must exist a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demands and death of the woman. The court held that if the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale, not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman, it would be of no consequence."
52. In the present case also only one instance of cruelty i.e accused Yashpal had beaten his sister Annu was quoted but it was alleged that it occurred in the month of February 2018 before the death of the deceased, so, there was no proximate and live link between the effect of alleged cruelty and the death of Annu.
53. The weighing of evidence till now shows that :
(i) No evidence for demand of dowry or subjecting deceased to cruelty for or in connection with the dowry.
(ii) No neighbour was examined to say that there was any cruelty in relation to the dowry demand.
(iii) No complaint was ever made to the police or any authority regarding demand of dowry meted out to the deceased during her lifetime.
54. It is true that a young woman has lost her life in the house of the accused persons, but, then it was for the prosecution to prove that Annu committed suicide on account of cruelty or harassment meted out to her by accused persons in connection with the demand of dowry in which prosecution has miserably State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 32 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 failed.
55. But prosecution has failed to prove any demand of dowry or 'soon before the death', deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons in connection with the demand for dowry. Therefore, no presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act can be fastened upon the accused persons. In view of the above appreciation of evidence, accused persons could not be held guilty for the offence of dowry death.
56. Accused persons were also charged for the offence under Section 498A/34 IPC. The relevant provision is reproduced herein below :
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 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.
57. In "Hans Raj Sharma Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi", Crl.A.No.339-41/2005 decided on 2 March, 2010, Hon'ble High State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 33 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 Court of Delhi has held at para 10, which is reproduced herein below:-
"10. In order to succeed in charge under Section 498-A IPC, the prosecution was required to prove that the appellants had subjected deceased Lovely to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the Section. It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. The cruelty, as defined in the explanation to 498-A of IPC, is altogether different from the cruelty, which can be subject matter of proceedings, under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498-A of IPC, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health. The use of the expression "willful" in the explanation to Section 498-A of IPC indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonable expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative, as the case may be. Everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act and such a presumption must necessarily be drawn even if there is no intention to cause any injury or harm to the woman. Whether the conduct in question is likely to drive the woman to cause injury to her life, limb or health, will depend upon a number of factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of awareness of the aggrieved woman, her temperament, state of her health, physical as well as mental and how she is likely to perceive such a behavior. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, it will also constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section 498- A of IPC. Of course, the expression "cruelty" would take in its ambit mental cruelty as well as physical torture of the woman. If the conduct of the accused with a woman is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life and safety, such a conduct would attract criminal liability, envisaged in Section 498-A of IPC."State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 34 of 36
FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024
58. Section 498A IPC has two explanations (a) and (b). Explanation (a) of Sec.498A IPC says that if the conduct of the accused is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause danger to her mental health then it will amount to cruelty. As discussed above, prosecution has failed to prove any cruelty committed by the accused persons on the deceased.
59. The explanation (b) talks about the harassment related to unlawful demand of any property or valuable security but as discussed above, prosecution failed to prove any demand of property or valuable security made by the accused persons.
60. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused is to be established by the prosecution beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt. Even if there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused but considered as a whole there is invariably a long distance to travel and whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted.
61. There is nothing on record to establish the culpability of the accused persons in the commission of the offences charged against them. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge on the standard of proof beyond reasonable State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 35 of 36 FIR No. 215/2018 P.S. J.P. Kalan U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC DOD: 02.07.2024 doubt.
62. Accordingly, accused persons namely Yashpal @ Pankaj and Pushpa are acquitted of the charge under section 304- B/498-A/34 IPC. Accused persons are directed to furnish bail bond/surety bond u/s 437 A Cr. PC in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each. Bail bonds furnished and accepted.
63. File be consigned to Record Room after completing Digitally signed necessary formalities.
DEEPAK by DEEPAK
WASON
WASON Date: 2024.07.02
18:04:09 +0530
Announced in open Court today
i.e 02.07.2024 (Deepak Wason)
ASJ-04: SW District:
Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
State V/s Yashpal @ Pankaj & Anr. Page 36 of 36