Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Jagdish on 21 November, 2007

                           -:1:-                      SC NO.210/06
                                                   State Vs. Jagdish




  IN THE COURT OF A.K. MENDIRATTA: ADDL.SESSIONS
                   JUDGE: DELHI


S.C. NO.210/06

State             VS.       Jagdish
                            S/o Late Sh. Mangtu Ram
                            R/o R-75 Camp No.5,
                            Jawala Puri,Paschim Vihar
                            New Delhi

                            FIR NO.693/05/06
                            PS Paschim Vihar
                            Under Section 306/498-A IPC.

                  Arguments heard on - 21.11.07
                  Judgment pronounced on -21.11.07


JUDGMENT

As per prosecution version on 14.8.05 DD No.4 was recorded on telephonic information regarding the death of Kamlesh(wife of the accused).The information was given by the accused himself. Same was marked to ASI Dharampal who reached the spot along with Constable Mahavir. Accused alongwith other family members showed the room wherein the Contd.........

State Vs. Jagdish deceased Kamlesh had committed suicide by hanging her from ceiling fan with a chunni.

2. FIR was registered on the statement of Kishan Lal, father of deceased. He stated that Kamlesh was married with the accused on 14.08.96 and alleged that she was being harassed and tortured for not bringing sufficient dowry. He also alleged that the accused did not permit his daughter to visit her parental home and also used to beat her. A son is also stated to have been born out of the said wedlock. On the aforesaid statement case U/s 306/498A IPC was registered. The site was inspected and photographed and body was forwarded for postmortem. Statement of witnesses was recorded and challan was presented after investigation.

3. Charge against accused was framed U/s 306/498A IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed trial.

Contd.........

State Vs. Jagdish

4. Prosecution in support of its case examined 15 witnesses. PW-1 Kishal Lal (father of deceased), PW-2 Ram Pyari (mother of deceased), PW-3 Gopi (brother of deceased) and PW-11 Surinder Kumar (Brother of deceased) are material witnesses.

PW-4 ASI Dharampal deposed that on receiving DD no.4 he had reached at the spot with Constable Mahavir and had recorded the statement of Kishan Lal, father of deceased (Ex.PW1/A) on which the FIR was registered. Further the investigation was handed over to SI Vijay.

PW-5 Dr. Manoj conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased and opined the cause of death as asphyxia as a result of constricting force over the neck.

PW-6 Hemant proved the photographs taken at the spot as Ex.PW6/A to PW6/D. Contd.........

State Vs. Jagdish PW-7 Constable Sanjay Kumar proved on record DD No.4 regarding telephonic information of death of deceased. PW- 13 Constable Satyawan further clarified that he was working as DD writer at the aforesaid time and DD was recorded by Constable Sanjay Kumar under his supervision.

PW-14 Constable Mahavir deposed that he had accompanied PW-4 ASI Dharampal and statement of father of deceased was recorded by PW-4. He further stated that he had taken the rukka for registration of the FIR and subsequently returned at the spot. The crime team was called and site was photographed through private photographer. Dead body was sent to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital for postmortem and chunni Ex.P-1 was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-14/A. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW14/D and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW14/C. Contd.........

State Vs. Jagdish PW-15 Vijay Singh deposed on prosecution lines regarding the conduct of investigation. He further stated that the site plan Ex.PW15/B was prepared by him.

PW-8 Rukmani, PW-10 Sanjay, PW-12, Rohtash are the witnesses from the neighborhood.

PW-8 Rukmani deposed that on the day of incident she had reached at the spot on hearing the noise of accused that his wife had hanged herself. Many persons of Mohalla had collected at the spot. She also stated that the deceased was separated from the ceiling fan and the dead body was laid on the earth. PW-10 Sanjay also deposed on similar lines. This witness was cross examined by the prosecution. He denied having given any statement to the police or there used to be quarrel between the accused and his wife. PW-12 Rohtash also deposed that he reached at the spot on hearing the noise raised by the accused.

Contd.........

State Vs. Jagdish This witness was also cross examined by the prosecution and denied having made any statement to the police that quarrel used to take place between the accused and his wife.

5. PW-1 Kishan Lal, PW-2 Ram Pyari, PW-3 Gopi, PW-11 Surinder are the material witnesses relevant for decision. PW-1 Kishan Lal deposed that the deceased used to live alright in her matrimonial home for 2/3 years. On 15.8.05 his neighbours informed that his daughter had died. His signatures were obtained on blank papers. He denied the allegations regarding harassment of his daughter. This witness was cross examined by the prosecution and denied the allegations made in the statement Ex.PW1/A. Similarly PW-3 Gopi deposed that deceased lived a normal life in her matrimonial home and never complained about any harassment or beating. This witness was also cross Contd.........

State Vs. Jagdish examined by prosecution and confronted with statement Ex.PW3/A. PW-11 Surinder, brother of deceased also resiled from his statement recorded by the police and did not support the prosecution version on the point of harassment or demands made by the accused.

6. The only other witness who has supported the prosecution version is PW-2 Ram Pyari, mother of deceased. She deposed that the accused used to beat her daughter. Mother of accused and his sister Champa also used to beat her daughter and the accused used to demand Rs. 5000/-, 10,000/- and 20,000/- from her daughter. She further stated that she used to give the same and she had sold her house for giving the amount to the accused. She also stated that her daughter disclosed about the demand of money by the accused on telephone as well as personally and demand was also made by the accused in her Contd.........

State Vs. Jagdish presence. It was also stated that whenever any member of the family used to go to meet deceased, accused did not allow them to meet the deceased and rather used to quarrel with them and made the demands.

7. I have heard Ld.APP for State, Ld.Counsel for the accused and perused the record.

8. The evidence led on record reveals that the case hinges on the testimony of PW-2 Ram Pyari, mother of deceased as father and brother of deceased did not support the prosecution version and were cross examined on behalf of prosecution.

The testimony of PW-2 Ram Pyari has been challanged by the accused on the ground that PW-2 had failed to disclose the date, month and year when accused demanded money from the deceased. Same was her reply about payment of amount to her daughter. She further failed to disclose number of house which Contd.........

State Vs. Jagdish was sold for giving the amount to the accused. Rather, during cross examination it was revealed that the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- was received for vacating the house and she was a tenant in that house and not the owner. She stated during her cross examination that the amount had been paid to accused on 5/6 occasions after a gap of 5 or 7 days but admitted that her husband and son were not present. She admitted that accused was earlier married and had a daughter namely Krishna from the said marriage and was living separately with her grand-mother in back portion of the house. She also admitted that accused did not demand any dowry at the time of marriage. She was further confronted with statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it was not recorded that she had paid amount to accused after selling the house or her daughter used to tell her personally about the demand and beatings by the accused. Similarly she was confronted with her statement regarding the allegations made against mother-in-law and sister-in-law regarding demand of dowry and beatings given to the deceased wherein no such Contd.........

State Vs. Jagdish allegation was made. The above material part of cross examination clearly reveals that the witness PW-2 has made material improvements in her statement by alleging harassment by mother-in-law and sister-in-law. She also improved her statement by adding allegations regarding the amount paid after selling of house and that her daughter used to tell her personally about the demands and beating. Further the date, time and year when demands were made or amount was given have not been specified and only vague statement has been made in this regard. The testimony on the face of record does not find any corroboration from the other material witnesses. i.e. father and brother of the deceased.

9. In facts and circumstances there remains a shadow of doubt regarding demands by the accused in the absence of any corroboration by the father and brother of deceased. Further there is no evidence to show in case accused abeted the deceased to commit suicide. The fact remains that Contd.........

State Vs. Jagdish the accused was earlier married and had a daughter from the earlier marriage and it cannot be ruled out that deceased may not be very comfortable with aforesaid fact. I am of the considered opinion that the testimony of PW-2 can not be relied upon for convicting the accused. Considering the facts and circumstances of case I am of the considered opinion that the charge against accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

For the foregoing reasons, accused Jagdish is acquitted. Bail bond of accused is canceled and surety discharged. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open court          (ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA)
on 21.11.07                         ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:
                                         ROHINI:DELHI




                                                            Contd.........
                               - : 12 : -                 SC NO.210/06
                                                      State Vs. Jagdish




                                           FIR No. 693/05
                                           PS PASCHIM VIHAR
                                           U/s 306/498A IPC



21.11.07

Pr.        Sh.G.S.Guraya, APP for State.

Accused on bail with counsel Sh. Pramod Mahajan. Arguments heard.

Vide my separate judgment announced in the open court accused Jagdish is acquitted for offence U/s 306/498A IPC. Bail bond of accused canceled. Surety is discharged. File be consigned to record room.

(ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:

ROHINI:DELHI Contd.........