Delhi District Court
State vs Devender Aggarwal on 30 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SANGWAN :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT - 01) :
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
State Vs Devender Aggarwal
SC No. : 2356/2016
FIR No. : 52/2012
U/S : 498A/306 IPC
PS : Jaitpur
Particulars of the case
a) Date of Offence : Between 03.01.2010 and
23.02.2012
b) Offence complained of : 498A/306 IPC
c) Name of the complainant : Smt. Munni Devi
d) Name of the accused : Devender Aggarwal
His parentage, S/o Taker Lal
R/o H. No. F-15, Harsh
Vihar, Meethapur
Extension, New Delhi
Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not
guilty
Final order : Accused Acquitted
Date of Institution : 06.06.2012
Date of Judgment reserved for orders : 30.04.2025
Date of Judgment : 30.05.2025
Ld. Additional PP for the State : Sh. Nischal Singh
Ld. Counsel for the accused : Sh. Anup Kumar Gupta
SC No. 2356/2016
FIR No. 52/2012
State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 1 of 26
JUDGMENT
1. CHARGE-SHEET 1.01 As per charge-sheet, on 23.02.2012, on receiving DD No. 14A PS Jaitpur, Inspector Surender Singh along with staff reached at spot i.e. F-15, Harsh Vihar, Nala Road, Jaitpur, Delhi. At the spot, ASI Beer Sain and Ct. Madan Singh were found present. In the said house, on the first floor, on the bed lying in first room of the left side, a dead body of lady aged about 24-25 year was found. There were marks of abrasion below the chin in the neck area of the body. A piece of yellow and white colour saree was found under the neck of the body. There was a cream colour chair found on the bed on the side of the dead body. One yellow and white colour printed saree was found hanging from the ceiling fan above the body and there was a knot in the said saree. There were no family members (husband or in-laws) available at the spot.
1.02 On inquiry, the name of the deceased was found as Jyoti w/o Devender, d/o Dwarka Parsad, R/o Village - Vasantpur, Chauhan wali gali, Faridabad, Haryana. It was found that her marriage was solemnized two years ago with Devender. They both were living on rent in that house from the last one month. The information was conveyed to crime team and SDM and they visited the spot. Crime team took photographs of the spot. SDM initiated inquest proceedings u/s 176 CrPC. Form 25.35/B was filled. Mother and father of the deceased i.e. Smt. Munni Devi and Dwarka Parsad came at the spot and gave their statements to SDM, Kalkaji.
SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 2 of 26 1.03 In her statement, Smt. Munni Devi stated that she was living at Village Vasantpur, Chauhan wali gali, Faridabad, Haryana. Her daughter got married to Devender 1 ½ year ago. It was a love-cum-arrange marriage. After marriage, they both were leading a good married life. However, Devender used to quarrel after consuming liquor. No dowry demand was made by Devender or his family members. Munni Devi stated that she has apprehension that her son-in-law hanged her daughter after murdering her. She stated that her daughter cannot commit suicide. She demanded action against her son-in-law.
1.04 After recording the statement of parents of deceased, the SDM directed the Inspector to take necessary action on the basis of their allegations.
1.05 In presence of SDM and parents of deceased, one lady constable conducted cursory search of the dead body and the ornaments of the deceased were taken off from the body and handed-over to the parents of the deceased. Documents were prepared in this regard.
The dead body was sent to AIIMS Mortuary. After analyzing the situation and on the basis of the statements, Inspector Surender Singh prepared the rukka and the case was registered u/s 498A/306 IPC by sending Ct. Madan Singh to police station. Crime team inspected the spot and took photographs of the spot from different angles. In-charge of the crime team prepared his report and handed-over the same to IO. IO prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesses.
SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 3 of 26 1.06 On 24.02.2012, on the basis of secret information the accused
Devender Aggrawal s/o Thakur Lal r/o Village Hodal, Mohalla Aggarwal Colony, Railway Road, PS Hodal, District Palwal, Haryana was arrested from main road, highway, near Vulvana village Hodal. Two mobile phones were handed-over by accused, one was of grey black colour with orange yellow stripe having CDMA service imprinted on it and having SIM No. 9350099901. The accused disclosed that the said phone was of his wife Jyoti. Accused disclosed that after taking off his wife, he took her phone with him. Accused also handed-over his black color mobile phone of make FLY and his DL No. 22379/02 dated 25.05.2011. Police seized both the mobile phones and the DL.
1.07 Disclosure statement of accused Devender was recorded. Inter alia, he disclosed that he can get recovered the knife with which he had cut off the saree with which Jyoti was hanging from the ceiling fan. 1.08 Thereafter, accused Devender got recovered the alleged knife from his rented room. Same was seized. Accused Devender was produced before the Court and was sent to JC.
1.09 Then, IO sent Ct. Arvind Kumar to PS along with viscera which was obtained from the doctor in sealed condition with the seal of Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology AIIMS and one sample seal. Postmortem report No. 211/12 of Jyoti was obtained. The pieces of saree were converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of SSY and deposited in the malkhana.
Opinion in postmortem report regarding the death was "ante-
SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 4 of 26 mortem hanging". However, as per opinion the viscera were preserved to rule out any intoxication.
On 26.03.2012, viscera, sample seal, one sealed envelope which was marked to Director FSL, Rohini by Mortuary, AIIMS Hospital were sent to FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 27/21/12.
Scaled site plan was got prepared. Statements of all the witnesses were recorded.
1.10 After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed u/s 498A/306 IPC against the accused Devender. Later on, FSL report was filed through supplementary charge-sheet. As per FSL report no intoxication or poisoning etc. was detected in the viscera of the deceased.
2. CHARGE 2.1 On the basis of charge-sheet, charge u/s 498A/306 IPC was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, prosecution was directed to lead evidence in support of the charge-sheet.
3. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 3.01 In support of its case, prosecution has examined 25 witnesses as follows:-
Serial Name of the witness Nature of the evidence SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012 State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 5 of 26 No. PW1 HC Isha Khan Duty Officer who recorded DD No. 14A, 15A and the FIR PW1 Mr. Nar Singh Landlord of the accused (wrongly numbere
d) PW2 Ct. Puneet Singh Crime team photographer PW3 Smt. Munni Devi Mother of the deceased;
Complainant PW4 Sh. Dwarka Parsad Father of the deceased; Co-
complainant
PW5 Ms. Yashmin Neighbor of the deceased;
Circumstantial witness
PW6 Sh. Manoj Kumar Friend of accused;
Nagar Circumstantial witness
PW7 HC Madan Lal Police official who reached the
spot after the incident and got
the FIR registered on the rukka
PW8 Sh. Dhirender Rajwar Neighbor of the deceased;
circumstantial witness
PW9 Sh. Pawan Kumar Driver of the landlord of
accused who assisted police in
the arrest of the accused
PW10 Smt. Manju Neighbor of accused;
circumstantial witness
PW11 Retd. SI Beer Sain Police official who reached the
spot after the incident and
participated in initial
proceedings
PW12 W/Ct. Anuradha Police official who took the
SC No. 2356/2016
FIR No. 52/2012
State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 6 of 26
search of the deceased and took
the dead body to AIIMS
Mortuary with another
Constable
PW13 Insp. Krishan Kumar In-charge of Mobile Crime
Team who inspected the spot
PW14 Insp. Mahesh Kumar Draftsman who prepared scaled
site plan of spot
PW15 SI Matloob Ali Police official who participated
in the investigation with IO
PW16 Ms. Anju Dixit, Medical Witness who proved the MLC
Record Technician, of deceased
AIIMS Hospital, Delhi
PW17 Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Witness who proved the
Medical Record Officer postmortem report of deceased PW18 Sh. Rohit Brother of deceased who identified her dead body PW19 Insp. Jitender Malik Police official who participated in the arrest proceedings of accused PW20 Sh. Amit Rawat FSL expert who examined the viscera of deceased PW21 HC Arvind Police official who reached the spot and got shifted the dead body and participated in PM proceedings PW22 HC Vikas Kumar Police official who deposited the case exhibits at FSL for examination PW23 SI Sanjeev Police official who filed the supplementary charge-sheet SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012 State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 7 of 26 regarding FSL report PW24 Retd. ACP Surender Main IO of the case Singh 3.02 Though 25 witnesses have been examined by prosecution but the main witnesses of the case are:-
I) PW - 3 Smt. Munni Devi / mother of the deceased, II) PW - 4 Dwarka Prasad / Father of the deceased, III) PW - 5 Yashmin/ immediate Neighbor of the deceased, IV) PW - 6 Manoj Kumar Nagar / Friend of accused / circumstantial witness, V) PW - 8 Dhirendra Rajwar/ Neighbor of the deceased/ circumstantial witness, VI) PW - 10 Manju / Neighbor of accused, VII) PW - 24 Retd. ACP Surender Singh / Main IO of the case.
3.03 PW - 3 Smt. Munni Devi deposed that her daughter Jyoti had got married with accused Devender Aggarwal of her own will and with their consent about one and half year prior to her death. She had expired about more than two years ago. Her daughter never made any complaint to her regarding any ill treatment meted out to her. Accused or his parents had never made any demand of dowry from them. Whenever any petty quarrel used to take place between her daughter and Devender, her daughter used to telephonically inform her and she used to visit her and counsel both of SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012 State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 8 of 26 them. A relative of the landlord of her daughter at Jaitpur had come to her house and informed them about the suicide of her daughter in the morning hours. She does not remember the month, date or the year. SDM had recorded her statement in this regard vide Ex.PW3/A. Police official present at the place of occurrence had obtained her thumb impression on three blank papers. She had told the police that her daughter could not commit suicide and suspected that her son-in-law Devender Aggarwal had killed her. Police had handed over to them jewellery articles belonging to her daughter vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. She had identified the dead body of her daughter. The dead body was given to them after postmortem.
During her testimony, witness identified the accused. PW - 3 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. 3.04 PW - 4 Dwarka Prasad deposed that his daughter Jyoti had a love affair with accused Devender Aggarwal in the year 2009. He does not remember the date and month of the marriage. His daughter had married with accused Devender Aggarwal with their consent. His daughter never made any complaint to him regarding any ill treatment meted out to her. Accused or his parents had never made any demand of dowry from them. The matrimonial house of Jyoti was hardly at a distance of two-three kms from their house; therefore, he used to visit her matrimonial house within week or ten days and she also used to visit their house frequently. During their visit at her matrimonial house, neighbour used to inform him about the quarrel between Jyoti & Devender and used to ask them to counsel them. On asking, Jyoti used to inform him that Devender raises quarrel SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012 State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 9 of 26 after drinking liquor. He used to ask Devender and he used to apologize and after counseling their relation used to become normal. One day prior to her death, Jyoti had made a telephonic call to him and she informed him that Bhagwat (brother-in-law of Devender) had come from Hodal and wanted to see him. At about 03:00/03:30 pm, PW4 alongwith his wife visited Matrimonial House of Jyoti and after reaching there he saw that Devender, Bhagwat and one more person (who had come alongwith Bhagwat) were drinking liquor and were under the influence of liquor. The parents of Devender were not present. Jyoti had prepared chicken. Jyoti requested him to have lunch with them. After drinking water, they left her house. They had not talked nor (had) any quarrel with Devender or any other person. Jyoti had not made any complaint to them against Devender or any person. Thereafter, they went to the house of his brother at Raghubir Nagar, where they stayed overnight and on the next day, from there they went straight away to their place of work. At about 10:00 am they received a telephonic call of the police from PS Jaitpur and police inquired about Devender and sought their help. He thought that Devender was involved in a quarrel and therefore, he switched off his mobile phone. After sometime his son Stayaprakash @ Rohit also received a telephonic call from the Police and informed him that his sister had committed suicide and he was asked to reached there at the earliest. Thereafter, his son Satyapraksh informed him about the incident. They reached at the matrimonial house of his daughter Jyoti, where police as well as many public persons had gathered. SDM also reached at the place of occurrence and while taking away the dead body SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012 State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 10 of 26 they were allowed to see their daughter. He noticed the mark of injuries on the neck of his daughter and blood was coming out of her mouth and nose. SDM had only inquired from him about the demand of dowry and he had told the SDM that there was no demand of dowry. He had also told SDM that Devender used to raise quarrel after consuming liquor. SDM had obtained his signature on three four papers. SDM had recorded the aforesaid facts told by him and thereafter had obtained his signatures. His said statement is Ex.PW4/A. He had told the true facts to the SDM and had not concealed any facts.
In regard to the reason of suicide of his daughter, PW4 deposed that she had not committed suicide. He deposed that she was hanged after being killed. He was asked as to on what basis he was saying so. PW4 stated that he said so because, he had noticed the mark of injuries on her neck and the blood coming out from her mouth and nose, when the police had called for bag to pack the body of his daughter at the place of occurrence.
He further deposed that he had identified the dead body of his daughter vide his statement Ex.PW4/B. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them by the police vide memo Ex.PW4/C. He had handed over the marriage certificate vide Ex.PW4/D of his daughter Jyoti with the accused Devender to the police. The police had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/E. He has seen the photographs (Ex.PW4/F) depicting his daughter alongwith her husband Devender Aggarwal. He also identified the photograph of the dead body of his daughter (Ex.PW4/F-1 SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012 State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 11 of 26 and Ex.PW4/F-2).
During his testimony, witness identified the accused. He further deposed that the police had called him and his wife at the Police Station, three - four days after the incident, where he alongwith his wife had received the belongings of his daughter Jyoti given by the police vide memo Ex.PW3/B. Police had not recorded his statement. He had not come to know about any quarrel between Devender and Jyoti, one day prior to her death.
As the witness turned hostile to the case of prosecution, Ld. Additional PP for State cross-examined him u/s 154 of Indian Evidence Act.
During his cross-examination, he admitted that he had stated in his 161 CrPC statement that there were some differences (jinme kuch narasgi thi) when he visited her house on 22nd February, 2012. He also admitted that he had stated in his statement to police on 23rd February, 2012 that he had come to know that a quarrel had taken place between Jyoti and Devender on 22nd February, 2012. He further deposed that the neighbors told him about the said quarrel but he cannot tell their names, since he did not know them on 22nd February, 2012. However, he denied that he had stated to police that due to beatings given by Devender, Jyoti used to remain disturbed as he was not earning anything and being disturbed, she chose to commit suicide. He was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr. P. C. (Ex. PW4/D-1) where it is so recorded. He denied that he had stated to police that Devender during quarrel used to tell SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012 State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 12 of 26 Jyoti that he was fed up with her and as to why she does not die, due to which Jyoti committed suicide. He was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr. P. C. (Ex. PW4/D-1) where it is so recorded.
He denied that accused Devender Aggarwal used to harass Jyoti due to which she had committed suicide.
PW - 4 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. 3.05 PW - 5 Yashmin deposed that she is residing at the First Floor of F-15, Harsh Vihar, Jaitpur as a tenant alongwith her husband Sh. Mushir Khan since about three and a half year. Her husband is a driver and is also doing the business of property dealing. Six-seven rooms are built on the first floor. On the same floor, in the different portion Jyoti (since deceased) and her husband Devender Aggarwal were residing as tenant. On 23 rd February, 2012, between 07:00 am to 08:00 am, she heard the noise of knocking the door and after coming out of the room, she saw that Devender was knocking the door and was shouting to open the door, but nobody was opening the door. A staircase was brought and was installed into the balcony by Devender with the help of one another person and then he opened the gate and saw that Jyoti had committed suicide and he accordingly informed them about this fact. PW5 had not gone inside the room, where Jyoti was found hanged and she does not know who brought her downstairs. She had never heard nor seen any quarrel between Jyoti and Devender. The relation between them were cordial. Jyoti never made any complaint to her. Police had recorded her statement.
PW5 was cross-examined by Ld. Additional PP as she resiled SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012 State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 13 of 26 from her previous statement.
However, she denied that she had stated to the police that often quarrel used to take place between Jyoti and Devender. She deposed that there might be minor verbal altercation between them, which used to normalize after sometime. That sort of verbal altercation usually takes place in every house. She had never heard nor seen any quarrel between them. She denied that she had stated to the police that often quarrel used to take place between Jyoti and Devender.
PW5 was cross-examined nil by the Defence.
3.06 PW - 6 Sh. Manoj Kumar Nagar deposed that on 22 nd February, 2012 at about 07:30 PM, he was called by Jyoti, wife of his friend Devender through telephone. When he reached at their house situated in the same locality, Devender was also present there. They were quarreling with each other. PW6 pacified the matter and counseled them not to quarrel with each other. Thereafter, he proceeded for his job.
On the next date i.e. 23rd February 2012, at about 8/8:30 AM, when PW6 came back from his duty, Devender was present in front of his house and he informed him that his wife is not opening the door, which was closed from inside. Devender had brought one wooden ladder and the door of the room was opened from ventilator ( roshandan). When they entered into the room, they noticed that his wife Jyoti was hanging from ceiling fan with the help of saree. Devender had cut the saree and Jyoti was laid down on the bed in the said room.
PW6 identified the accused as well as the case property i.e. SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012 State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 14 of 26 saree, which was of red and white colour, during his testimony.
PW6 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel. 3.07 PW - 8 Dhirendra Rajwar deposed that he has been residing at L-320, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur, Delhi for about 12 years. He was working as a Guard. On 23.02.2011, at about 7.00 a.m., he awoke and saw that accused Devender Aggarwal was knocking the door of his flat and raising voice by saying Jyoti.. Jyoti... When the door could not be opened, he brought one ladder and went inside the house with the help of said ladder. Devender Aggarwal saw that Jyoti was hanging from the roof of the house. Devender Aggarwal opened the main door from inside the room and PW8 also saw Jyoti hanging with ceiling fan, while standing at the door outside the room. Then PW8 informed his landlord Nar Singh Sahab. Devendar Aggarwal cut the saree by which Jyoti was hanging and made her lie down on the bed. Thereafter he ran away from the spot.
PW8 identified accused Devendar Aggarwal, during his testimony.
PW 8 was briefly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. 3.08 PW - 10 Smt. Manju deposed that she does not remember the exact date, month and year of the incident. On the date of the incident at about 08:30 AM, PW10 was sleeping at her house with her child. In the meantime, her neighbor Devender was knocking at the door of her house. She opened the door of her house and came out and she heard that the said Devender was asking his wife to open the door. She did not see what happened thereafter. Subsequently, she came to know that Devender went SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012 State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 15 of 26 to his room from backside through balcony and opened the gate of his house and he was saying that his wife Jyoti had hanged herself. She did not go to the room of Jyoti. Distance between her room and room of Devendra was about 20 feet.
PW10 was briefly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
3.09 PW - 24 Retd. ACP Surender Singh was the IO of the case and he deposed as per the contents of the charge-sheet.
During his testimony, he identified case property as Ex.MO1 i.e. the two pieces of saree.
PW - 24 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
4. EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CrPC 4.1 After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/s 313 CrPC. He denied all the allegations. 4.2 Accused Devender admitted that he got married to Jyoti about 1 ½ years back before her death. However, he had not killed her. He stated that he had love affair with her since 2002, however, there was no ill treatment nor any dowry demand. He stated that there was no quarrel between him and his wife and that there was only tu tu mai mai between them when she used to ask money for her mother, etc. He admitted that Bhagwat had come along with his driver and SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012 State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 16 of 26 that they had consumed liquor. Even food was cooked.
He denied that there was any physical quarrel between him and his wife and he stated that there were only verbal arguments between them sometimes as to why she was giving money to her parents and brother. Even on 22nd when Bhagwat had come, Dwarka Prasad had come to take money.
He stated that there was no narazagi between accused and Jyoti on 22nd and he did not have any quarrel with Jyoti on that day.
He admitted the testimony of PW8. However, he stated that he was alone whereas there were number of brothers of Jyoti therefore he was afraid that they may not harm him and he left from the spot.
He also admitted the testimony of PW5 Yashmin and PW9 Pawan Kumar. He stated that he opened the door and all the neighbors have seen the circumstances.
He admitted that he was found in Hodal, Haryana on the main highway road near bus stand, Bulwana village. He also admitted that the two mobile phones and one driving licence were found in his possession and were seized by the police.
He denied about giving any disclosure statement to the police regarding knife or admitting his guilt. He denied the recovery of knife at his instance. He said that the saree was of yellow colour and it may be having white colour also.
5. DEFENCE EVIDENCE SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012 State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 17 of 26 5.1 Accused did not lead any defence evidence.
6. ARGUMENTS 6.1 Arguments were heard on behalf of the accused as well as Ld. Additional PP for the State.
6.2 Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that there is no allegation of dowry demand against the accused in the FIR itself. Though the mother of deceased made allegations regarding her daughter being killed and then hanged but the case of prosecution itself is not for offence u/s 302 IPC. Moreover, there is no evidence regarding the same. As far as the alleged harassment of deceased by accused is concerned none of the neighbours have deposed regarding the same. Even the father of the deceased has not affirmed about any harassment of deceased by the accused. The altercations if any, between the deceased and the accused, were the normal altercations between a couple. Accordingly, neither of the offences could be proved against the accused.
6.3 On the other hand, Ld. Additional PP for the State has argued that the father of the deceased has deposed that Jyoti used to inform him that the accused raised quarrel with her after drinking liquor. Even in his cross-examination, he admitted that there were differences between them when he visited her house on 22.02.2012 i.e. just before the commission of suicide. Even the friend of accused i.e. PW6 Manoj has deposed that the accused and deceased were quarreling in the evening of 22.02.2012 and the SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012 State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 18 of 26 next day, Jyoti was found hanging at the house of accused. Further the conduct of the accused i.e. running away from the spot shows his guilty conduct. Accordingly, accused may be convicted for the alleged offences.
7. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 7.1 I have considered the arguments of the parties and have perused the record.
7.2 The relevant provisions applicable in present case are reproduced herewith:-
Section 498A IPC provides - "Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
Section 306 IPC provides - "Abetment of SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012 State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 19 of 26 suicide.-- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine".
7.3 After considering the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties, following points for determination arise: -
1. Whether there is any evidence regarding dowry demand or any cruelty to the deceased by the accused?
2. Whether there is any evidence regarding the abetment by accused qua the suicide of deceased?
3. Whether such evidence is sufficient to prove the alleged offences?
8. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND APPLICATION OF LAW 8.1 No dowry demand/ No foul play: As per the FIR itself, no demand was ever raised by the accused or his family. Even during their testimonies, PW3 Munni Devi and even PW4 Dwarka Prasad never deposed about any dowry demand. As far as cruelty to their daughter is concerned, PW3 Munni Devi deposed that her daughter never made any complaint to her regarding any ill treatment meted out to her. Even PW4 Dwarka Prasad has deposed likewise. Though PW3 suspected that her daughter was killed by accused, however, the case of prosecution is not SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012 State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 20 of 26 likewise. Rather, the prosecution witnesses i.e. the neighbours/ friends of the accused have deposed that the suicide of deceased was discovered by the accused in their presence. There is no forensic evidence qua the postmortem report that deceased was killed by another person. Rather her PM report Ex.PW17/A specifically mentions the cause of death as ante mortem hanging. Even the viscera report Ex.PW20/P1 did not indicate any poisoning/intoxication.
8.2 No Evidence of physical beatings or regular quarrels: The father of the deceased i.e. PW4 Dwarka Prasad has deposed that the neighbours used to inform him about the quarrel between Jyoti and Devender. However, it is not the case that there was any physical assault by the accused or that the quarrels were initiated by accused only. Moreover, none of the neighbours have deposed about such quarrels. PW5 Yashmin has denied seeing or hearing any quarrel between Jyoti and Devender and rather deposed that their relations were cordial. Though during her cross- examination by the prosecution, she deposed that there might be minor verbal altercations between them, however, she also deposed that such altercations used to normalize after some time and such verbal altercation take place in every house. PW6 Manoj Kumar has deposed about one quarrel only. Same is discussed in succeeding paras. PW8 Dhirender has deposed in his cross examination that he was residing on the ground floor of the same building where the accused and deceased were residing. However, he has deposed that he had never seen any quarrel between them.
SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 21 of 26 Even PW10 Ms. Manju who was residing just 20 feet away from the couple has not deposed about any quarrels between them.
8.3 No definite evidence of drunken quarrels: Further, PW4 Dwarka Prasad has deposed that Jyoti used to inform him that Devender used to raise quarrel after drinking liquor. However, no such fact has been mentioned by PW3 Munni Devi in her entire examination in chief. Rather, in her cross-examination, she admitted that no quarrel had taken place between her daughter Jyoti and Devender. Moreover, in his cross- examination by the defence, PW4 Dwarka Prasad himself denied that he told the police that Jyoti used to inform him that Devender used to raise quarrel after drinking liquor. Hence, his statement is inconsistent regarding said allegation also.
8.4 No definite evidence regarding cruelty/instigation around the time of suicide: In regard to the events of one day prior to the death of Jyoti, PW4 Dwarka Prasad has deposed that he visited her around 3:00/3:30 pm but Jyoti had not made any complaint to them against Devender or other person. During his cross-examination by the prosecution, he admitted that he had given statement to police about some differences between deceased and accused when he visited their house on 22.02.2012. However, he did not disclose any further details of the same during his testimony. He also deposed that he had not seen any quarrel between Jyoti and Devender with his own eyes. Hence, the testimony of SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012 State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 22 of 26 PW4 does not provide sufficient evidence to prove either cruelty or instigation. Though PW6 Manoj Kumar has deposed about quarrel between Jyoti and Devender on 22.02.2012, however, he has not deposed that it was a one-sided quarrel or the accused was the aggressor. During his cross- examination, he also deposed that he had not seen any physical quarrel between accused and his wife and they were only fighting each other in loud voice. Most importantly, he has not elaborated upon the subject matter of the quarrel or the words uttered during said quarrel so as to give any basis to the Court to conclude that same may have resulted in instigation of deceased to commit suicide or that words uttered by accused caused or could have caused mental cruelty to deceased.
8.5 Circumstantial evidence not sufficient: As far as the conduct of accused is concerned, a person may panic on discovering the suicide of his wife, more so, when there used to be verbal altercations between them and the family of his wife lived nearby but he had no family members living with him. However, same does not translate into such a grave circumstance that the culpability of the accused can be presumed from the same. Likewise, the cutting off the hanging material to bring down the body of deceased cannot be a basis to presume anything against the accused.
8.6 Core ingredients of offences missing: It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Manju Ram Kalita Vs State of Assam criminal appeal no. 299/03, date of decision 29.05.2009 that " ' cruelty' for SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012 State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 23 of 26 the purpose of section 498A Cr.P.C. is to be established in the context of section 498A IPC as it may be different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by considering the conduct of a man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently at least in close proximity of time in lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be terms as cruelty to attract the provisions of section 498A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as 'cruelty'."
Further, Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has held in Cyriac and Anr. Vs The Sub-Inspector of Police and Anr. Crl. MC no. 6318/02 date of decision 13.07.2005 that 'the act or conduct of the accused, however insulting and abusive those may be, will not by themselves suffice to constitute abetment of commission of suicide, unless those are reasonably of capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such acts consequence of suicide. Even if the words uttered by the accused or his conduct in public are sufficient to demean or humiliate the deceased and even to drive him to suicide, such acts will not amount to instigation or abetment of commission of suicide, unless it is established that the accused intended by acts, consequence of a suicide. It is not enough if the acts of the accused cause persuasion in the mind of the deceased to commit suicide.
An indirect influence or an oblique impact which the acts or SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012 State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 24 of 26 utterances of the accused caused or created in the mind of the deceased and which drove him to suicide will not be sufficient to constitute offence of abetment of suicide. A fatal impulse or an ill-fated thought of the deceased, however, unfortunate and touchy it may be, cannot unfortunately, touch the issue. Those cannot fray the fabric of the provisions contained in section 306 IPC. In short, it is not what the deceased 'felt' but the accused 'intended' by his act which is more important in this context. Of course, the deceased's frail psychology which forced him to the suicide also may become relevant, but it is only after establishing the requisite intention of accused.
Similar observations were made by Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in Mr. Shivaji Shitole and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. Criminal Writ Petition no.1113/11, date of decision 26.04.2012. It was held that 'even if a person would commit suicide because of the torments of an accused, the accused cannot be said to have abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased, unless the accused would intend, while causing torments to the victim/deceased, that he should commit suicide. Even if the rigor of this preposition is diluted, still, the least that would be required is, that it should be shown that the accused could reasonably foresee that because of his conduct, the victims was almost certain or at least quite likely to commit suicide'.
However, in the present case the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any evidence which can satisfy the aforesaid requirements for the offences under section 498A and 306 IPC.
SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 25 of 26 9. CONCLUSION 9.1 In view of above said discussion, none of the points for
determination can be decided in favour of the prosecution. Hence, accused Devender Aggarwal is acquitted from all the offences charged against him.
(Announced in the Open Court by SACHIN Digitally signed SACHIN on 30th May, 2025) SANGWAN SANGWAN Date: 2025.05.30 12:48:12 +0530 (SACHIN SANGWAN) Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-01, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi/30.05.2025 SC No. 2356/2016 FIR No. 52/2012 State vs Devender Aggarwal Page no. 26 of 26