Delhi District Court
State vs . Gambhire Pandit Etc. on 6 September, 2013
SC No.43/13
FIR No.249/12
PS: Dwarka North
State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : DWARKA COURTS:
NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
SC No. : 43/13
FIR No. : 249/12
Police Station : Dwarka North
Under Section : 498A/306/34 IPC and 304B
IPC
Received on assignment : 25.04.2013
Reserved for orders on : 06.09.2013
Judgment announced on : 06.09.2013
State Vs. Gambhire Pandit
S/o Sh. Bapu Rao Gambhire
R/o Village Jawla, Taluka Kalamb
PS Shiradone, Distt. Osmanabad
Maharashtra
Bapu Rao Gambhire
S/o Sh. Krishna Gambhire
R/o Village Jawla, Taluka Kalamb
PS Shiradone, Distt. Osmanabad
Maharashtra
J U D G E M E N T
1. Prosecution and trial of the above mentioned SC No.43/13 Page 1 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. accused have emerged on registration and investigation of the FIR No.249/12 dated 22.10.2012 under section 498A/306/34 IPC and 304B IPC having been committed by Ld. Trial Court.
2. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 30.07.2012 on receiving of information vide DD No. 7A regarding handging of a person in Flat No. 1507, CRPF Quarters, Sector16B, Dwarka, IO Raj Malik reached the spot where Inspector Nirmal Kumar Jha, ATO PS Dwarka North was already there. The flat was having two rooms and in the first room, a woman namely Pratibha, W/o Gambhir Pandit was found hanging by the ceiling fan with nylon rope and, thereafter, Inspector Nirmal Kumar Jha called mobile crime team of southwest district to the spot and got the scene of crime inspected and photographed where some of the household kitchen articles and some broken pieces of bangles were lying there on the floor and, thereafter, Inspector Nirmal Kumar Jha informed the concerned SDM for inquiry under section 176 Cr.PC in this regard.
3. It is further stated that deceased Pratibha was got married with accused Gambhir Pandit in April 2007. It is further stated that family members of the deceased including father and brother were informed regarding the incident through SC No.43/13 Page 2 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. telephone and, therefore, dead body sent to mortuary of DDU hospital, Hari Nagar for preservation of the same. It is further stated that husband of the deceased was present there but he was not in a condition to answer anything and he was helped by his CRPF personal friends and neighbours. It is further stated that on 31.07.2012, real brother of the deceased Mr. Pratap Lomte, S/o Sarje Rao Lomte reached Delhi alongwith one of his cousin Jaggan Nath Dhoke and brother of the deceased informed IO Raj Malik that his parents were not in a condition to visit Delhi due to their old age and bad health and he appeared before the SDM, Najafgarh and got his statement recorded and, thereafter, SDM authorised the IO to get the postmortem examination done at DDU hospital and directed him to report back with the postmortem report and, thereafter, postmortem of the deceased was conducted and the dead body was handed over to the brother of the deceased and during postmortem viscera of the deceased was preserved by the doctor for further chemical analysis and same was seized and deposited with FSL Rohini, New Delhi.
4. It is further stated that local inquiry was conducted but none of the neighbourers of accused Gambhire Pandit was ready to speak on the matter and during the course of inquiry, SC No.43/13 Page 3 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. accused Gambhire Pandit was questioned and he informed the IO Raj Malik that there were some monetary issue due to which the couple used to have fights. It is further stated that after some time, IO Raj Malik received one zero FIR under section 498A/306/34 IPC PS Yermala, Distt. Osmanabad, Maharashtra through registered post in which the complainant father of the deceased Mr. Sarje Rao Lomte alleged that accused Gambhire Pandit and his father Bapu Rao Gambhire were demanding dowry in the form of money from him and abetted his daughter to commit suicide. It is further stated that PM report the deceased was collected from DDU hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi and after that, IO Raj Malik appeared before the SDM, Najafgarh alongwith the postmortem report of the deceased and that zero FIR on which SDM ordered the IO to register an FIR under relevant sections and, thereafter, case was registered.
5. It is further stated that on 05.11.2012, SI Raj Malik alongwith const. Ved Prakash reached the work place of accused Gambhire Pandit i.e vigilance branch of CRPF, Head quarter, CGO complex, New Delhi where he met with Mr. M. Minz, DIG Admin and inquired about accused Gambhire Pandit and, thereafter, Mr. M. Minz called accused Gambhire Pandit to his office where he was interrogated in relations to the allegations SC No.43/13 Page 4 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. leveled against him by his fatherinlaw and during investigation, accused Gambhir Pandit disclosed that his wife was under depression as he and his father was demanding money from her parents and deceased used to object accused Gambhire Pandit for giving money from his salary to his parents residing at the village in Maharashtra.
6. It is further stated that accused Gambhire Pandit further disclosed that on the fateful evening, he had a minor fight with his wife over the issue of withdrawing money from his GPF account and after that he and his daughter went to sleep in one room while his wife remained sitting in the other room and in the night when his daughter demanded water, he found that his wife committed suicide by hanging herself to the ceiling fan. It is further stated that accused was then produced before the court and sent to 14 days judicial custody and during the course of investigation, SI Raj Malik alongwith Const. Om Prakash visited the village of deceased i.e Malkapur, TalukaKalamb, Distt. Osmanabad, Maharashtra and met family members of the deceased where statement of parents and brother of the deceased were recorded and a couple of pictures of the marriage were taken from brother of the deceased and father of the deceased stated in his statement that he is a resident of SC No.43/13 Page 5 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. Malkapur, TalukaKalamb, Distt. Osmanabad and is a farmer by profession and is having one boy namely Pratap and two daughters namely Pratibha and Malti and all his children are married. He further stated that his daughter Pratibha got married with accused Gambhire Pandit on 29.04.2007, who is working in CRPF in Delhi and is having a two years old daughter namely Prapti. He further stated that on the marriage of his daughter Pratibha, he had given rupees one lac and eleven thousand and eleven tola gold. He further stated that his deceased daughter was also living with his soninlaw in Delhi. He further stated that about three years prior to the incident, his deceased daughter alongwith his husband and fatherinlaw Bapu Rao Gambhire had come to his house at Malkapur, TalukaKalamb, Distt. Osmanabad and after having tea, father inlaw of the deceased told him that he wanted to purchase some agricultural land and demanded rupees two lacs for purchasing the same and after saying this, husband and father inlaw of the deceased went away after leaving his deceased daughter at his house and after two days, he alongwith his deceased daughter went to the matrimonial house of his daughter and he gave rupees one lac to accused Gambhire Pandit and Bapu Rao Gambhire but they were not satisfied with that amount and started quarreling with him and instructed SC No.43/13 Page 6 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. him to arrange the remaining amount and, thereafter, his deceased daughter and soninlaw namely Gambhire Pandit went to Delhi.
7. He further stated that his daughter continuously told him on phone that her husband Gambhire Pandit was pressurizing her for the remaining amount and when fatherin law of his daughter used to call accused Gambhire Pandit, he used to beat his daughter and her fatherinlaw also abused her. He further stated that on 16.12.2011 on the occasion of marriage of his brother's daughter, accused Gambhire Pandit has come to his village alongwith his deceased daughter and, thereafter, fatherinlaw of his deceased daughter came with his daughter at Malkapur and told that they wanted to purchase a bungalow whose price was Rs. 20,00,000/ and demanded Rs. 10 lacs from him and when father of the deceased showed his inability to give Rs. 10 lacs then fatherinlaw of the deceased said that you could arrange money by selling out truck and if you failed to arrange money, your daughter would face the dire consequences. He further deposed that he told the fatherin law of the deceased that whatever he could arrange, he would give him and on 14.01.2012, his deceased daughter had telephoned him and told that her husband and fatherinlaw SC No.43/13 Page 7 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. had demanded Rs. 10 lacs, otherwise, they would not be responsible if something wrong had happened with his daughter. He further stated that on 14.05.2012, accused Gambhire Pandit has come to his house and demanded Rs. 10 lacs before his wife and son by saying that if he did not pay the money, what answer he would give to his father and you would take care of your daughter, he had no need of her. He further stated that he made request to accused Gambhir Pandit that he could not make arrangement of Rs. 10 lacs but he would do something and on the next day, accused Gambhir Pandit and his daughter went to their village Jawala and at that time, his daughter said, if he could not arrange the money, she would not survive and, thereafter, his deceased daughter called him sometimes and told that when her fatherinlaw called her husband, her husband gave beatings and abused her.
8. He further stated that on 28.07.2012, his deceased daughter told him on phone that she had posted the rakhis and requested for arrangement of Rs. 10 lacs, otherwise, it would be her last rakhi and he cool down his daughter by saying that he would make arrangement of rupees and give it to her fatherin law. He further stated that on 30.07.2012, accused Gambhire Pandit telephoned him and told about the suicide of his SC No.43/13 Page 8 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. daughter and, thereafter, he telephoned accused Bapu Rao Gambhire, fatherinlaw of the deceased and inquired about the incident but he remained silent and on the next day morning, he sent his son Pratap and his friend Jagnath to Delhi by air and they brought the dead body of his daughter to Puna by air after getting conducting the postmortem and, thereafter, he conducted the last ceremonies of his daughter but no one was available from the matrimonial home of the deceased.
9. After that, SI Raj Malik and Const. Ved Prakash reached the house of the accused Gambhire Pandit and conducted interrogation of fatherinlaw of the deceased, who informed SI Raj Malik that his family hails from a very poor background and has worked hard to improve his family conditions and his son Gambhire Pandit got service in CRPF and hence get married in a good family. He further stated that he used to demand money from inlaws of his son Gambhire Pandit to purchase land but he never tortured his daughterin law and he had purchased two acres of land in 2006 and again two acres of land in 2009 for which Gambhire Pandit had given Rs. 50,000/ in 2009 and after 2009, he could not purchase any land but has asked his son to take monetary help from his in laws and make arrangement for purchasing other agricultural SC No.43/13 Page 9 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. land. He further stated that other than minor house hold problems, none of his family member was aware of the tense situation between Gambhire Pandit and his wife in Delhi and when he heard of the incident, he had some hot exchange of words with fatherinlaw of Gambhire Pandit. He further stated that none of his family members attended the funeral of Pratibha keeping in mind the tensed situation between the family members of these two village. He further stated that on the next day of Prathibha's funeral, her brother Pratap Lomte visited his house and assaulted him and tried to set him fire but the other family members and neighborers prevented the same and called police and for that incident, a case of attempt to murder was registered against brother of the deceased for which Bapu Rao Gambhire provided him copy of that FIR and to take revenge of this case, father of the deceased filed this case against him. It is stated that on the basis of circumstances and the old age of Bapu Rao Gambhire was not arrested and the GPF account details of accused Gambhire Pandit were taken from his office as per which he has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 50,000/ in 2009 only. Request to FSL has been made to provide the viscera result of the deceased and photographs of the scene of crime were received from the mobile crime team of south west, Distt. Dwarka. FIR was lodged and chargesheet was filed.
SC No.43/13 Page 10 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc.
10. After supplying copies to the accused as per law, case was committed to the court of sessions.
11. After due deliberation, charge under Section 498A/306/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons and 304B IPC was framed against the accused Gambhire Pandit to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
12. To substantiate this case, prosecution had examined 5 witnesses, who had not supported the case of the prosecution and resiled from their earlier statements made to the police on the basis of which FIR was lodged.
13. PW1 is Const. Suresh Yadav, who has deposed that on 30.07.2012, he alongwith Crime Team Incharge ASI Pardeep went to the spot i.e CRPF Quarter No. 1507, Sector16B, 4th floor, Dwarka where on the direction of the crime team incharge, he had taken 17 photographs of the spot vide Ex. PW1/A1 to PW1/A17 and their negatives are Ex. PW1/B1 to Ex. PW1/B17.
14. PW2 is Sh. Sarje Rao Lomte, father of the deceased, who has deposed that he was farmer by profession and around SC No.43/13 Page 11 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. six years ago, he got married his daughter Pratibha to accused Gambhire Pandit, who was working in CRPF and after the marriage, accused Gambhire Pandit started living in Delhi and behaviour of the accused and his relatives was good towards his daughter. Now, this witness has turned hostile and during cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he denied the suggestion that he told police that after one and half years of the marriage, accused Gambhire Pandit stared abusing and quarreling with his daughter and she used to tell him and his wife on telephone in this regard and they used to pacify her and in 2010, accused Bapu Rao Gambhire alongwith his daughter came to his house and and he demanded Rupees 2 Lakhs to purchase a agriculture field and he went away after living his daughter at his house and anyhow he arranged Rupees one Lakh and he along with his daughter went to the matrimonial house of his daughter and he gave said amount to accused Gambhir Pandit and Bapu Rao but they were not satisfied with that amount and they started quarreling with him and instructed him to arrange the remaining amount. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that from Delhi his daughter used to tell him on telephone that accused Gambhir Pandit was pressurizing and beating her for the remaining amount and as and when fatherinlaw of his daughter used to call accused SC No.43/13 Page 12 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. Gambhir Pandit, he used to beat his daughter. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that on occasion of Holi in 2010, accused Gambhir Pandit had beaten his daughter but he nowhere complaint in this regard and in April, 2011, accused Gambhir Pandit called his son Pratap along with gold chain of 10 gms at the occasion of birth of a female child to his daughter and his son did not bring the gold chain on which accused Gambhir Pandit quarreled with his daughter and caused beatings to his daughter in the presence of his son. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that on 16/12/11, on the occasion of marriage of his niece, accused Gambhir Pandit and Bapu Rao came to his house and they demanded Rupees 10 laksh from him from purchasing a house of Rupees 20 Lakhs and at that time he was not having the said amount on which accused Bapu Rao asked him to arrange the money after selling his truck and he threatened that his daughter would have to face dire consequences and after sometime, his daughter again telephoned him and told that accused Gambhir Pandit was demanding Rs. 10 Lakhs and he was threatening that if money would not be arranged, consequences would be dire. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that in May, 2012, accused repeated his demands of Rs. 10 lakhs and he asked him to keep his daughter SC No.43/13 Page 13 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. with him if he could not arrange the money and when his daughter was going with accused, she had told him while weeping to arrange the money otherwise, she would be killed. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that on 28/7/12, his daughter telephoned him and inquire about the money and he assured her that he would arrange the money within a week. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that after receiving information about suicide of his daughter, he telephoned accused Bapu Rao and inquired about the mishappening on which he replied that since he had not arranged the money, so that incident had happened. He further submitted that his son Partap and his friend Jagannath went to Delhi and on 1/08/12, they reached Pune alongwith the body of my daughter and no family member of the family of the accused attended the cremation of his daughter. He further submitted that he never informed anybody about the matrimonial matters of his family. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that his daughter had committed suicide due to misbehaviour of accused Gambhir Pandit and Bapu Rao and due to their demand of dowry.
15. He further denied the suggestion that accused persons used to demand money from him and they used to SC No.43/13 Page 14 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. harass and cause cruelty to his daughter for want of money. He further denied the suggestion that accused persons had demanded Rs 1 Lakh and Rs. 10 Lakh. He further denied the suggestion that his daughter had committed suicide due to illegal demand of money and due to harassment and cruelty. He further denied the suggestion that accused Gambhir Pandit and accused Bapu Rao had harassed his daughter for arranging money for purchase a bunglow or that accused Gambhir Pandit used to beat his daughter after consuming liquor or that he used to say that if he could not arrange money, he did not want to keep his daughter with him. Hence this witness does not come on the line of the prosecution after having declared hostile.
16. PW3 is Sh. Pratap Lomte, brother of the deceased, who has deposed that on 29/4/07, marriage of his sister Pratibha was solemnized with accused Gambhir Pandit and he was not aware as to how she was living with her husband. He further deposed that accused Gambhir Pandit and Bapu Rao had never demanded any money from him and his father and on 30/7/12, he came to know that his sister had committed suicide and on the next day, he came to Delhi along with his friend and police recorded his statement and took signatures on some papers, nature of which he did not know. He further deposed that he SC No.43/13 Page 15 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. received body of his sister on 31/7/12 after postmortem and he did not complaint to police about any cruelty or harassment by the accused persons against his sister and his statement was not recorded by executive magistrate. Now this witness has declared hostile and during cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the Sate, he denied the suggestion that he told before executive magistrate that after 6 months of marriage of his sister, accused persons started harassing his sister and his sister used to tell this fact to his parents. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that after one and half years of marriage of his sister, accused Gambhir Pandit and his father started harassing his sister and in year 2010, when his sister came to their house, accused Bapu Rao demanded Rs. 2 lakh from his father and left his sister at their house and after 2 days, his father along with his sister went to the house of accused persons and give Rs. 1 lakh to accused persons on which they quarrelled with his father and insisted upon them to pay the remaining amount and his sister also used to tell this fact to his parents. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that in the year of 2010 on the occasion of Holi, accused Gambhir Pandit caused beatings to his sister after consuming the liquor at the time of birth of daughter to his sister accused persons demanded a gold chain of 10 gms. and when he failed SC No.43/13 Page 16 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. to bring the same, accused persons quarreled and beat his sister in his presence.
17. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that on 16/12/11at the time of marriage of his cousin, both accused persons came to their house and demanded Rs. 10 lakhs and threatened that if money would not be arranged, his sister would have to face the consequences and his father had assured the accused persons to arrange the money. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that in January 2012, his sister informed them on telephone that accused persons were demanding Rs. 10 lakhs and threatening with dire consequence and his sister further told that if money would not be paid, she would be killed and on 28/7/12, his sister inquired from my father about arrangement of money on which his father sought more time. He further denied the suggestion that he told police that after the death of his sister, his father talked to accused persons on which they told that it was the result of non payment of money demanded by them and no family member of accused persons had attended the cremation of his sister. He further stated that he never gave any written statement to police at any point of time. He further denied the suggestion that accused persons used to harass his sister for SC No.43/13 Page 17 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. want of Rs. 2 lakhs and 10 lakhs or that accused persons used to beat his sister for want of dowry or that he had given his statements Ex PW3/A and Ex PW3/B Voluntarily or that his sister had committed suicide due to demand of dowry and harassment and cruelty caused by the accused persons. Hence, this witness has not even uttered a single word against the accused persons after having declared hostile.
18. PW4 is Smt. Shalan, mother of the deceased, who has deposed that she was a housewife and around 6 years ago, she got married her daughter Pratibha to accused Gambhir Pandit, who was working in CRPF. She further deposed that after the marriage, accused Gambhir Pandit started living in Delhi and the behaviour of accused and his relatives was good towards her daughter and on 30/7/12, they received a call that their daughter had hanged herself. She further deposed that she did not know as to why she committed suicide, however, she was not subjected to any cruelty by the accused and his family members. She further deposed that she never told police that accused and his relatives used to demand money from her daughter and she was beaten by the accused persons. She further deposed that no money was demanded by any of the accused from her at any point of time. She further deposed that SC No.43/13 Page 18 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. police did not record her statement. Now this witness has turned hostile and during cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she denied the suggestion that she told police that after one and half years of the marriage, accused Gambhir Pandit started abusing and quarreling with her daughter and she used to tell her and her husband on telephone in this regard and they used to pacify her and in 2010, accused Bapu Rao along with her daughter came to her house and he demanded Rupees 2 Lakh to purchase a agriculture field from her husband and he went away after leaving her daughter at her house and anyhow her husband arranged Rupees one Lakh and he along with her daughter went to the matrimonial house of her daughter and he gave said amount to accused Gambhir Pandit and Bapu Rao but they were not satisfied with that amount and they started quarreling with her husband and instructed him to arrange the remaining amount.
19. She further denied the suggestion that she told police that her daughter used to tell her on telephone that accused Gambhir Pandit used to beat her for remaining amount. She further denied the suggestion that she told police that on occasion of Holi in 2010, accused Gambhir Pandit had beaten her daughter and he used to say that if she would bring SC No.43/13 Page 19 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. money, things were going in her favour otherwise, he did not require her daughter and he used to say such things on and off to her daughter but they nowhere complaint in this regard and in April, 2011, accused Gambhir Pandit called her son Pratap along with gold chain of 10 gms at the occasion of birth of a female child to her daughter and her son did not bring the gold chain on which accused Gambhir Pandit quarreled with her daughter and caused beatings to her daughter in the presence of her son and accused used to demand dowry from her daughter and from us and he used to beat her daughter either on other pretext. She further denied the suggestion that she told police that on 16/12/11, on the occasion of marriage of her niece, accused Gambhir Pandit and Bapu Rao came to their house and they demanded Rupees 10 lakh from her husband for purchasing a house of Rupees 20 Lakhs and at that time her husband was not having the said amount on which accused Bapu Rao asked him to arrange the money after selling his truck and he threatened that her daughter would have to face dire consequences and after sometime, her daughter again telephoned them and told that accused Gambhir Pandit was demanding Rs. 10 Lakhs and he was threatening that if money would not be arranged, consequences would be dire. She further denied the suggestion that she told police that after SC No.43/13 Page 20 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. sometime, accused repeated his demands of Rs. 10 lakh and he asked her husband to keep her daughter with him and if they could not arrange the money, her daughter should die and when her daughter was going with accused, she had told her while weeping to arrange the money otherwise, she would be killed.
20. She further denied the suggestion that she told police that on 28/7/12, her daughter telephoned her and inquired from them about the arrangement of money and her husband assured her that they would arrange the money within a week. She further denied the suggestion that she told police that after receiving information about suicide of her daughter, her husband telephoned accused Bapu Rao and inquired about the mis happening on which he replied that since they had not arranged the money, so that incident had happened. She further stated that her son Partap and his friend Jagannath went to Delhi and on 1/08/12, they reached Pune alongwith the body of her daughter and no family member of the family of the accused attended the cremation of her daughter. She further stated that they never informed anybody about the matrimonial matters of her family. She further denied the suggestion that she told police that her daughter had committed suicide due to misbehaviour of accused Gambhir Pandit and Bapu Rao and due to their SC No.43/13 Page 21 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. demand of dowry. She further denied the suggestion that she told police that accused Gambhir Pandit and Bapu Rao used to demand money from them and on their failure to pay the amount they used to beat her daughter and harass her and accused Gambhir Pandit used to taunt and beat her daughter after consuming liquor.
21. She further denied the suggestion that accused persons used to demand money from them and they used to harass and cause cruelty to her daughter for want of money. She further denied the suggestion that accused persons had demanded Rs 1 Lakh and Rs. 10 Lakh. She further denied the suggestion that her daughter had committed suicide due to illegal demand of money and due to harassment and cruelty. She further denied the suggestion that accused Gambhir Pandit and accused Bapu Rao had harassed her daughter for arranging money of Rs 10 Lakhs for purchase a bunglow or that accused Gambhir Pandit used to beat her daughter after consuming liquor or that he used to say that if they could not arrange money, he did not want to keep her daughter with him. This witness has also not uttered even a single word against the accused persons and hence declared hostile.
SC No.43/13 Page 22 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc.
22. PW5 is Const. Om Prakash, who has deposed that on 21.12.2012, he alongwith SI Raj Maok went to Usmanabad, Maharashtra where IO recorded the statement of PW2, PW3 and PW4 and, thereafter, police party went to the village Jawla, PS Sheradon where accused Babu Rao was interrogated and he produced one copy of FIR lodged by PW5 prior to this case and produced ID proof and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A and, thereafter, police party went to rest house where the supplementary statement of brother of the deceased was recorded by the IO and brother of the deceased produced two photographs of marriage of the deceased and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B and photographs were mark A1 and A2.
23. Ld. Addl. PP for the State and defence counsel had been heard. Record of the case had also been gone through.
24. Keeping in view the above said evidence of the prosecution, it is clearly revealed that the material witnesses i.e PW2 Sh. Sarje Rao Lomte (father of the deceased), PW3 Sh. Pratap Lomte (brother of the deceased) and PW4 Smt. Shalan (mother of the deceased) had not uttered even a single incriminating evidence against the accused persons. Since there SC No.43/13 Page 23 of 24 SC No.43/13 FIR No.249/12 PS: Dwarka North State Vs. Gambhire Pandit etc. is no iota of incriminating evidence against the accused, therefore in this view of the matter, prosecution is held to have absolutely failed to prove its case against the accused persons. Needless to say that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, examination of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.PC has also been dispensed with, consequently, accused persons are hereby acquitted of the charges namely 498A/306/34 IPC and accused Gambhire Pandit is also hereby acquitted of the charge under section 304B IPC for which they had been facing trial before this court.
25. Accused persons are directed to furnish fresh bail bond in sum of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety of the like amount in terms of Section 437 Cr.PC undertaking to appear before Appellate Court as mandated therein.
26. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Vijay Kumar Dahiya) On the 6th Day of September 2013 ASJ/ Dwarka Courts New Delhi SC No.43/13 Page 24 of 24