Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Sachin Chaudhary on 27 July, 2013

IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE­II 
         (NORTH­WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

Sessions Case No. 153/11
Unique Case ID: 02404R0096322012

State                          Vs.             Sachin Chaudhary
                                               S/o Late Sh. Narain Singh
                                               R/o House No. 1/219/2, 
                                               Chaudhary Hari Chand Building,
                                               Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt, 
                                               Delhi.
                                               (Convicted)

FIR No.:                                       110/10
Police Station:                                Bharat Nagar
Under Section:                                 498A/306/304B  IPC

Date of committal to Sessions Court  : 18.10.2011
Date on which orders were reserved  : 16.7.2013
Date on which judgment pronounced : 16.7.2013

JUDGMENT:

(1) As per the allegations on or before 26.4.2010 at House No. B­8/2, R.P. Bagh, near Shakti Nagar, Delhi the accused Sachin Chaudhary being the husband of Smt. Jyoti subjected her to cruelty so as to coerce her and her family to meet his unlawful demands for dowry. It has also been alleged that as a result of the cruelty inflicted by the accused, Smt. Jyoti committed suicide by hanging herself on the ceiling fan on 26.4.2010 i.e. within seven years of her marriage.

St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 1 BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 26.04.2010 DD No.49­B was received at Police Station Bharat Nagar regarding a girl having shut the door of the room and not opening the same at house No. B­8/2 Rana Pratap Bagh. Pursuant to the same HC Ajeet Singh and Ct. Mehfoos reached the spot where they came to know that one girl Jyoti had locked the door of the room and was not opening the same and officials of the PCR also reached there after which they all along with the family members of the girl called out to her loudly but she still did not open the door. Thereafter the local police, PCR officials and the family members pushed the door forcibly as a result of which the kundi broke from inside after which they entered the room and found that the girl Jyoti was hanging from the fan with the help of a chaddar with which she had hung herself. Information was sent to the Police Station of the situation and after some time SI Satish Kumar came to the spot from the Police Station and Crime Team also reached the spot simultaneously. SI Satish Kumar immediately informed the SDM Model Town who also reached the spot and directed the preservation of dead body in the Mortuary.

(3) On 27.4.2010 the SDM recorded the statement of the mother of deceased Jyoti namely Smt. Padam Devi wherein she stated to the SDM that her daughter Jyoti was married to Sachin Chaudhary on 15.4.2008. She further stated that her daughter remained happy for about one and a half months but thereafter the accused started harassing Jyoti under the influence St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 2 of liquor and used to threw her out of the house during night hours. She had alleged that Sachin was having an affair with a girl namely Priyanka and after six months of the marriage the accused Sachin and Jyoti shifted to a flat at Dwarka where the friend of Sachin also used to reside. According to Smt. Padam Devi, on 3.6.2009 at 2:00 AM (midnight) the son of Tau of accused namely Pintoo had left Jyoti at their house stating that the accused Sachin did not want to keep the deceased with him and thereafter the accused had filed a case for separation. She further stated to the SDM that her daughter Jyoti was harassed by the accused Sachin Chaudhary on account of demand of dowry. On the basis of the statement of Smt. Padam Devi the present FIR was registered.

(4) Thereafter the postmortem of the deceased was conducted and the necessary photographs were collected from the brother of the deceased. The brother of the deceased namely Prakash also handed over a diary written by the deceased to the Investigating Officer which was seized. The accused Sachin Chaudhary was formally arrested in this case since he had granted Anticipatory Bail by the Court. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed in the Court.

CHARGE:

(5) Charges under Section 498A/304B and 306 Indian Penal Code were settled against Sachin Chaudhary to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 3

EVIDENCE:

(6) In order to discharge the onus upon it, the prosecution has examined as many as Twenty witnesses as under:

Public witnesses:

(7) PW8 Sh. Parkash Kumar is the brother of the deceased Jyoti who has deposed that he is working in the hotel and is residing with her mother Smt. Padam Rani and younger brother Rohit. According to him, his deceased sister Jyoti was married to the accused Sachin on 15.04.2008 with Hindu rites and ceremonies and they spent about Rs.8­9 lakhs in the marriage. He has further deposed that prior to the marriage of Jyoti they approached the Pandit who advised that the name of Jyoti may be changed to the name of Gauri in the marriage ceremony and hence as per advise of the pandit her name was changed as Gauri for the purpose of marriage which name was mentioned in the marriage card and lagan patrika. He has also deposed that after the marriage for some time his sister was happy in her in­ laws house but after one month of the marriage the accused Sachin started harassing his sister and used to come in the house in late night in the influence of liquor and gave beatings to his sister and also asked her to prepare food in the night hours at 2:00­3:00AM. According to the witness, the said facts were disclosed by his sister on telephone and he asked his sister that she is newly married and they would specify the matter with the in­laws and Sachin after which he along with his family members tried to St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 4 make understand Sachin. The witness has also deposed that thereafter for some days accused was normal and thereafter he again started abusing his sister and also gave beatings on which they again asked his sister that all things will be normal with the spend of time, but Sachin did not stop misbehaving with his sister. According to him, some times accused Sachin after giving beatings to his sister in the night hours had thrown her out of the house in the night hours. He has testified that his sister Jyoti also told that accused Sachin was having relations with a girl namely Priyanka. He has also deposed that on one occasion his younger brother Rohit was in the flat of Sachin and at that time one Priyanka came there and told his sister Jyoti that she had already married Sachin in a temple prior to the marriage of his sister with him. Thereafter Sachin along with Priyanka left the flat and went away outside, which fact was told by his brother Rohit to him. The witness has further deposed that Sachin also told Jyoti that he did not like her and he loved Priyanka and wanted to live with Priyanka and also told that "tu meri jindagi se chali ja tu mar kyo nahi jati hai". He has testified that due to the conduct of the accused Sachin his sister became disturbed and remained in tension. According to him, Sachin also harassed his sister by telling her "shadi mein jo saman diya hai wo bariya kisam ka nahi hai aur bahaut kam dehaj diya hai" and threatened her with Divorce but his sister wanted to spend her matrimonial life with accused Sachin. The witness has further deposed that whenever his sister Jyoti @ Gauri came to their house, the accused used to leave her but did not come to take back her wheres they St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 5 used to send her to her matrimonial house.

(8) The witness has further testified that on 03.06.2009 at about 2AM (midnight), cousin of Sachin (son of Taya) namely Chintu came to their house along with his sister Jyoti @ Gauri and left her at their house and told them that accused Sachin did not want to keep or live with his sister.

According to him, after some days accused Sachin filed a case for judicial separation in Dwarka court and his sister attended three­four dates of that case and met the accused Sachin on the dates of hearing. He has further deposed that whenever the accused met his sister he used to harass her by uttering the words "tu phir mere samne aa gaye, tu abhi tak jinda hai, tu besharm hai ki itna sab hone ke bad bhi jinda hai, agar tere andar jarasi bhi sharam baki hai, to tu mujhe age bhvishya mein shakal nai dikhana". According to the witness, his sister told them about the above incident but they tried to pacify the matter. He has further deposed that after few days accused Sachin met his sister in Kamla Nagar and on seeing her he again uttered the same words"tu phir mere samne aa gaye, tu abhi tak jinda hai, tu besharm hai ki itna sab hone ke bad bhi jinda hai, agar tere andar jarasi bhi sharam baki hai, to tu mujhe age bhvishya mein shakal nai dikhana". The witness has testified that she returned to the house and told them about the incident and started weeping on which they again tried to pacify and cool her.

(9) The witness has also deposed that on 26.04.2010 his sister committed suicide by hanging herself with the ceiling fan due to the words St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 6 uttered by the accused Sachin and being fed up with his misbehaviour and facing harassment due to the Separation Case. He has proved that police reached at the spot and also broke the door and did the investigations after which SDM also reached there. He has further deposed that the statement of his mother was recorded by the SDM in his presence which is Ex.PW8/A. The witness has further proved having handed over photo of the marriage and the marriage invitation card to the police which were seized vide Ex.PW8/B. According to him, the police also seized one table and chair lying in the room of Jyoti @ Gauri vide memo Ex.PW8/C; one diary belonging to his sister Jyoti @ Gauri was seized by the police from the room of his sister and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW8/D which diary is Ex.PW8/1 and is in the handwriting of his sister. The witness has proved the photographs of marriage of his sister Jyoti @ Gauri with accused Sachin which are Ex.PW8/2 to Ex.PW8/8 and the marriage card of his sister Jyoti @ Gauri which is Ex.PW8/9. According to the witness, he had also identified the dead body of his sister in the mortuary vide statement Ex.PW8/E and after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to them vide memo Ex.PW8/F. He has alleged that the accused Sachin used to demand dowry from his sister on various occasions and she told them about the demands of the accused. They could not fulfill the demand of the accused but assured the accused Sachin that after receiving the money from the services benefits of his father, they would fulfill the demands. The St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 7 witness has testified that accused used to demand about Rs.4­5 lacs and also demanded money as he had sold his bus at the time of marriage. According to the witness, he came to know later on that accused Sachin is a bad element and involved in many cases in Delhi Cantt area and used to keep a revolver with him which fact about the revolver was told by his sister. (10) He has correctly identified the accused Sachin in the Court and has also identified the case property i.e. table and chair which are collectively Ex.P1; one bed sheet by which the deceased was found lying hanging which bed sheet is Ex.P2.

(11) During his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has explained that one Jagbir was the mediator of the marriage between his sister and the accused and has voluntarily added that he is related to their real chachi namely Susheela. According to him, at the time of fixing of the marriage, he was residing at Dubai and he returned from Dubai one week prior to the marriage and returned back to Dubai after two­ three weeks of marriage. He has further deposed that he went Dubai for a job on 24.05.2006 and stayed there till the death of his father i.e. in January, 2007. The witness has also deposed that at the time of the death of his father, his mother used to reside at her parental house i.e. at Maharajpur, Gaziabad, UP and was residing separately from his father for about six­ seven years prior to his death and has voluntarily explained that his grandmother and his mother did not get along well which was the reason for her staying separately. According to him, his mother had participated in the St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 8 wedding of his sister and has voluntarily explained that she was brought by his aunt Susheela and his mausaji namely Virender. He has explained that there are no photographs of his mother on account of the customary practice in their family and widows do not get themselves photographed and consider themselves as inauspicious. He has admitted that his grandfather was not alive at the time of marriage of his sister but his dadi was alive. He has also admitted that Ex.PW8/DX1 and Ex.PW8/DX2 shows the photograph of his dadi at encircled points mark A on both photographs and has voluntarily explained that his dadi participated and gave her blessings in the marriage ceremonies by virtue of her being the senior most member of the family. He has denied the suggestion that his mother did not participate in the marriage and it is for this reason that she is not seen in any photograph. The witness has admitted that his mother did not participate in the last rites of his father. According to him, when he was in Dubai, his brother and sister were taken care by their joint family consisting of two uncles, their wives, dadi etc. He has denied the suggestion that after the marriage of his sister he had gone to Bombay and has voluntarily explained that he stayed at Delhi but for about two­three months and he had visited Quwait for job purposes. He has denied the suggestion that on account of his frequent visits of abroad, he was not taking care of his family. The witness has also admitted that his mother is mentally not stable and has voluntarily explained that she is under depression and is still receiving treatment for the same. The witness has also deposed that his mother was admitted in IBHAS only once which was St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 9 for about 15 days and has explained that this was after May, 2008 but he does not recollect the exact period and states that she was admitted in the hospital by his younger sister which was after her marriage. According to him, at that time his sister had come to visit their mother and there were cordial relations between her and Sachin and has voluntarily explained that after she was admitted in IBHAS, he was the one who was taking care of his mother for everything. He has denied the suggestion that he did not pay any attention to his mother and it was only his sister and the accused who were taking care of him. He has also denied the suggestion that his mother was residing alone in a house at Maharajpur and has voluntarily explained that she was staying with her mother and father.

(12) The witness has further admitted that after the death of his father, who was as ASI in Delhi Police, it was his sister Jyoti who had applied for his pensionary benefits and has voluntarily explained that his mother is a self respecting women and did not want to take benefits of his pension as she said that during his left time also she did not avail of the benefits of his salary. He has also admitted that the document Ex.PW8/DX3 and Ex.PW8/DX4 bear the signatures of his sister at point A respectively on both the documents. The witness has denied the suggestion that his sister was in dispute with him because he was not supporting the family and it is for this reason that she had applied herself for the pensionary benefits of his father, which fact she had also mentioned in the above applications and has voluntarily explained that he never interfered with what his sister was doing St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 10 because she was under pressure from Sachin who was demanding Rs 5 lacs and it is for this reason that when his sister applied for the pensionary benefits of his father, they did not object. According to the witness, he had informed to the Investigating Officer regarding the demand of Rs.5 lacs by Sachin. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW8/DX5 this fact of dowry being less and the articles being substandard is mentioned but not about the demand of dowry including of Rs.5 lacs and has voluntarily explained that even after the death of his sister there was an FDR for a sum of Rupees around 55 ­60 thousand given by his mother which they had handed over to the family of the accused telling them that it was their demand and his sister could not full fill the same. The witness has also deposed that he did not inform the police about this fact of handing over FDR of Rs. 55­60 thousand to the family of Sachin Chaudhary, after the death of his sister and has voluntarily explained that it was a subsequent event. He is not aware if the above said FDR is encashed or not and has voluntarily explained that he had handed over the same to the family of the accused. The witness has denied the suggestion that no such FDR for Rs 55­60 thousand was given to the family of the accused as claimed by him and he has only brought up this aspect as an after thought. He does not recollect if he had told the police that the total expenses incurred in the marriage of his sister was 8­9 lacs. He has further deposed that list of dowry articles were neither prepared nor signed by both the parties nor they any photograph or videography of the articles which were given in dowry to his St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 11 sister at the time of her marriage and has voluntarily explained that they have a video reflecting the cash which was given to the family of the accused. (On the direction of the court the witness has produced the CD of the video which CD is Ex.PA). He has denied the suggestion that no cash was demanded by the accused nor given by their family or that the marriage was simple. Accoding to him, after the marriage of his sister with Sachin, she stayed with him at his parental house at Delhi Cantt. i.e. for about 4­5 months in so far as he recollected since he is not sure about the time period. He has testified that thereafter they went to Dwarka where they stayed alongwith the family of his friend namely Sh. Anil, his wife namely Rakesh and two daughters. The witness has further deposed that after the marriage, he must have gone to his sister's matrimonial home for about four­five times and has explained he did not go to the house at Dwarka though his younger brother had gone there. He has also deposed that he had never gone to the house of Rakesh after the death of his sister along with the Investigating Officer. The witness has also testified that he and his family members never met Priyanka before the death of his sister Jyoti and admits that after the death of his sister, neither he nor the Investigating Officer tried to find out about Priyanka and has voluntarily explained for himself that since his sister had expired, therefore he did not feel it necessary to inquire about the said fact. He has admitted that the Investigating Officer did not make any inquires from Anil and Rakesh in his presence regarding this case. The witness has further testified that the Investigating Officer did not make any St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 12 inquiries from Chintoo the cousin of Sachin in his presence. He has denied the suggestion that his sister Jyoti came to their house with her own will and was not left by Chintoo, cousin of Sachin on dated 03.06.2009 at about 2 AM (midnight). He has also deposed that first of all he had given his statement before the SDM on 27.04.2008 and police has also recorded his statement separately. The witness has has further deposed that his two statements were recorded one by SDM and one by police and his mother also gave two statements. He has also deposed that he never went to Dwarka courts with his sister and has voluntarily explained that since she wanted to patch up with Sachin and stay with him any how and hence she felt that if they went there, an issue would be made because of which she never permitted them to go with her to Dwarka courts. He does not recollect whether he had informed the SDM/ police about the same or not. According to him, on the day of incident, the police made inquiries from them and perhaps his mother, younger brother Rohit Chaudhary, Susheela and his own statements might have been recorded on that day. According to the witness, once he had met with his sister's advocate at Tis Hazari courts in the last months of 2009 but he does not recollect either his name or chamber number. He has further deposed that he or his sister Jyoti or any one of their family had never made any complaint before CAW Cell or before any police station and has voluntarily explained that since his sister was ready to live with accused Sachin, therefore they do not make any issue. He does not recollect if he had told the SDM/ police in his statement about the above St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 13 mentioned fact. He is not aware if his sister Jyoti had filled any case U/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act against accused Sachin. He has denied the suggestion that his relations with his sister were not normal and he used to torture her or that his sister committed suicide because of the torture which he inflicted on her. The witness has also deposed that the mobile number which was earlier used by his sister is 9899326899 and has voluntarily explained that the said mobile phone was given to his sister by his father which is now used by his younger brother. He has admitted that he had also attempted to commit suicide by hanging on one occasion but he does not recollect the date or the month. The witness has further admitted that he had written a note and has voluntarily explained that at that time he was in deep sorrow and hence he does not recollect what he had written on that note. He has denied the suggestion that he attempted to commit suicide because his mother and brother had taken all the benefits of his father. He has also denied that the accused Sachin never tortured/ harassed his sister Jyoti. The witness has denied the suggestion that Sachin was not having any relations with Priyanka or that Sachin never told to his sister to go out of his life. He has further denied the suggestion that deceased Jyoti was disturbed due to her parental disputes and due to this reason she committed suicide. He has also denied that he never took care of his mother, sister and younger brother at any point of time. According to the witness, he is not sure if the CD of the marriage ceremony was given to the Investigating Officer. He has denied the suggestion that no such CD was given to the Investigating Officer St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 14 because there was no handing over of cash to the family of the accused at any point of time or that the CD if any is manipulated. He has also denied the suggestion that Sachin never met with his sister Jyoti at Kamla Nagar prior to her death or that he had leveled false allegations against the accused Sachin being highly aggrieved on the death of his sister. (13) PW10 Smt. Padam Devi is the mother of the deceased who has deposed that the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with accused Sachin Chaudhary in the year 2008 in the month of May or June but she does not remember the exact date. According to the witness, her daughter remained happy in her matrimonial house for a period about one or one and a half month after which the accused Sachin started beating her daughter under the influence of liquor. Accused used to come back to the house in the later night hours and insisted his daughter to prepare food at that time he was under the influence of heavy liquor. She has also deposed that the accused was having illicit relations with another lady namely Priyanka and whenever accused gave beatings to her daughter, he used to utter words "tu apne baap ke ghar se kya layi hai. Nagad paisa kitna layi hai". She has further deposed that when the accused Sachin started residing at Dwarka with Anil and his daughter, one day a girl namely Priyanka came there and asked his daughter "yeh to mera pati hai, tu iski kya lagti hai, meri is­se shaadi hui hai" after which accused gave beatings to her daughter and he left the house along with that girl Priyanka. She has testified that her younger son namely Rohit went Dwarka and the said occurrence had taken St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 15 place in his presence after which he told her about the same. The witness has further testified that she came to know about the harassment after six months of her marriage. She has also deposed that after marriage accused started living at Delhi Cantt., then started living Dwarka and then again at Delhi Cantt. and from Dwarka accused alongwith her daughter again started living at Delhi Cantt. She has testified that one day the accused gave beatings to her daughter and the son of his Tau had left his daughter to his house in the night hours at about 2.00AM and asked them to keep his daughter with them. According to her, the accused had filed a case of divorce and her daughter used to attend the dates where the accused threatened her by saying "too mar kyon nahin jati hai, teri soorat mujhe achchi nahin lagti hai, too apne baap ke ghar se kya layee hai, mai tujhe talak de doonga" and that "too pankhey se latak kar mar kyon nahin jaati hai, too mukaddame ki tareekhon par aati khyon hai." She has testified that whenever her daughter attended the courts dates accused used to pass such remarks to her due to which her daughter remained under depression (Udaas rehne lagi) and after attending the court case dates she used to tell her all the incidents.

(14) The witness has further deposed that one day her daughter went to Kamla Nagar Market for some work where the accused met her and again passed remarks "too bar bar mujhe shakal kyon dikhati hai, too mar kyon nahi jaati." She has also deposed that her daughter Jyoti when returned from the market, started weeping and told about the entire incident to them. St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 16 According to the witness, after two­three days of such incident date, month and year she does not remember her daughter committed suicide. She has deposed that on that day her daughter Jyoti (since deceased) was well in the morning and went to the house of her Aunty and returned then she went inside her room and her younger son returned from the school at 2.00PM. She has further deposed that she knocked at the door of the room of Jyoti but there was no answer on which her son looked inside the room from a small hole and found Jyoti in a hanging condition. The witness has also deposed that they tried to open the door but they could not succeed after which they called the police and when the police reached there, they opened the door by breaking the same. According to her, she noticed that her daughter was hanging with the ceiling fan and had died. The witness has further deposed that her daughter committed suicide by hanging herself with ceiling fan because accused Sachin used to utter these words on many occasions that "too pankhey se latak kar mar kyon nahin jaati". She has testified that after the police had come to the spot when her son Rohit made a call to the police, they had come to the spot and removed the body from the ceiling fan after breaking the latch of the door but nothing was asked/inquired from her nor her statement was recorded.

(15) Leading questions were put to the witness by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, with regard to her statement recorded by SDM wherein she has admitted that the date of death of her daughter was 26.04.2010 and that on 27.10.2010 SDM recorded her statement which is Ex.PW8/A. St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 17 (16) In her cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that she had participated in the marriage of her daughter Jyoti but she is unable to tell if her presence is reflected in the photographs / CD of the marriage and has voluntarily explained that being a widow she was not supposed to keep her hands on a newly married girl and that is why her photographs are not available for any of the occasions. She has denied the suggestion that she did not participate in the marriage of her daughter Jyoti due to which reason her photographs are not available. The witness has admitted that the marriage was arranged through her deceased mother in law and dewar namely Dharambir and one Panditani namely Jai Wati was the mediator of the said marriage. According to the witness, her husband had expired about 6 years ago i.e. on 21st of January and at the time of death of her husband, she was present at her parental house at Maharaj Pur where she was residing with her father, Bhabhi, niece and nephews. She has further deposed that she could not attended the last ceremonies of his deceased husband because her mother in law did not permit her for the same. According to her, she was residing at Maharajpur with her parents since ten years prior to the marriage of her daughter and before the marriage of her daughter Jyoti she had brought her back to her matrimonial house. The witness has also deposed that she was residing at her parental house because she was being tortured by her mother in law and her husband. According to her, she had come back to her matrimonial house in the month of November but she does not recollect the year and states that it was before St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 18 the marriage of her daughter. The witness has admitted that Prakash was working abroad and has voluntarily explained that at the time of marriage of her daughter he was in India and had come when his father had expired. She has further deposed that about Rupees Seven Lacs had been spent in the marriage of her daughter and has explained that Rupees One Lakh was given by her son Prakash, Rupees Two lakhs had been given by her sister in law / Bua of deceased Jyoti namely Rajwati and remaining amount was spent by Chacha­chachi. She has also admitted that the marriage was performed by arranging the money from the near relatives only because her daughter did not have a father.

(17) She has also deposed that after her daughter came to their house neither she, nor his son, nor her daughter ever made a complaint in any police station or to any authority regarding the harassment suffered by her. According to her, at the time her daughter was attending the dates in the divorce case which was pending in the family courts Dwarka, she used to go alone. She has admitted that she could not tell anything about the case or what happened in the courts because she never attended the case with her. According to the witness, she never had gone with her daughter to attend to any of the lawyers engaged by her in that case and has voluntarily explained that till the time of her death there were only three to four dates in the court. She has further testified that nobody from her family went to the house of accused Sachin Chaudhary for any Panchayat regarding harassment caused to her daughter and has voluntarily explained that her younger son had gone St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 19 and made a complaint to the mother in law of her daughter i.e. mother of Sachin and requested them to keep her daughter properly. She has admitted that after the death of her husband Jyoti used to take care of her younger son Rohit and has voluntarily explained that she (deceased Jyoti) was very fond of Rohit and treated him like a son. The witness has also admitted that during the period of ten years when she stayed at her matrimonial home on account of harassment of her husband and in laws it was Jyoti who took care of Rohit. She has denied the suggestion that Prakash had gone back to Dubai after the marriage of her daughter Jyoti and has voluntarily stated that he had stayed back and was in India till date after the death of his father. According to him, when her daughter was residing at Dwarka with Sachin, another friend of Sachin was also residing in the same flat but she does not know whether his family was also residing there or not. She has further deposed that at that time when her daughter was staying at Dwarka they did not come to know that his son in law Sachin was having relations with another girl namely Priyanka and has voluntarily explained that they came to know about this fact only later when the son of Tau of accused Sachin left her daughter at their house. The witness has further deposed that after they came to know regarding the affairs of Sachin with Priyanka, she and her family did not go to Sachin or his family and has voluntarily explained that what would have come out of it (Hum kya kar sakte the, hum lachar ho gaye the). She has also deposed that they did not make any effort to find out as who that girl Priyanka was and has voluntarily explained that from where St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 20 they could find her and how (Hum kahan se dhoondte aur kaise). She has testified that after the death of her daughter she did not make any inquiries regarding Priyanka and has voluntarily deposed that when her daughter is no more what would she have done with Priyanka. She is not aware if the Investigating Officer had made any efforts to make inquiries about Priyanka. She has admitted that the Investigating Officer did not make any inquiry from him with respect to Priyanka but has denied the suggestion that the story of Priyanka has been created and concocted by her and her family only to implicate Sachin and has voluntarily explained that her daughter had told her about Priyanka. The witness has also admitted that after the death of her husband Jyoti had written to the department of her husband claiming all the pensionery benefits for herself and job on compassionate ground for Rohit but she is not aware if Jyoti also written in the letter that she (witness) was residing at Maharajpur with her parents and elder brother Prakash was irresponsible and not taking care of them. She has denied the suggestion that her daughter Jyoti and her son Prakash had also quarreled on this issue connected with the pensionery benefits of her husband or that her daughter Jyoti and son Prakash often quarreled with each other on small issues. The witness has also denied the suggestion that her daughter Jyoti was worried about welfare of Rohit after her marriage and has voluntarily deposed that she had come back to her matrimonial house and was taking care of Rohit. She has further denied the suggestion that her younger son Rohit often frequented the matrimonial house of Jyoti after her marriage and has St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 21 voluntarily explained that he just went there on a couple of occasions to met her. She has denied the suggestion that after her daughter Jyoti was left at their house by son of the Tau of Sachin, she was being given money by accused Sachin and has voluntarily explained that she was never paid any money. According to her, she did not give any statement to the police and has only made a statement in the court on 27.04.2110. She has also admitted that she did not make any statement to the police or SDM and that the cremation of her daughter was performed at Delhi Cantt. and has voluntarily explained that the dead body of her daughter was taken by the family of the accused by putting source and approach and that is why her dead body was taken to the house of the accused and they thereafter took the articles of cremation and it was a joint cremation. She has also admitted that the Teharavi of her daughter was performed at the house accused and they performed all rituals required from them.

(18) PW16 Rohit Chaudhary a student of class XI is the younger brother of deceased Jyoti deceased who has deposed that his elder sister Jyoti was married to accused Sachin Chaudhary. According to the witness on 26.04.2010 he had gone to his school at about 7:00­7.30 AM and at about 2:00­2.30 PM when he returned back to his house, he found his mother and his grandmother outside of the house saying that Jyoti was not opening the room from inside. The witness has further deposed that he also called his sister Jyoti but she did not respond on which he climbed on a chair and saw inside of the room from the ventilation window and found his sister Jyoti St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 22 hanging from the fan. He has testified that he informed his mother, grandmother about this fact and also informed his uncle Sh. Satbir Singh who made a call to the police and police reached at the spot and police official pushed the door forcefully and thereafter the door was opened. According to the witness, his sister Jyoti was found hanging with fan with a bed sheet and she was brought down after which the police officials conducted the proceedings and also took photographs. He has further deposed that all his relatives also came there and SDM also reached at the spot and also inspected the site and thereafter the dead body his sister was taken to the hospital for postmortem.

(19) According to the witness Rohit, the marriage of his sister Jyoti took place on 26.04.2008 and after marriage there was no problem for about one to one and a half months after which his sister disclosed to him that the accused Sachin Chaudhary used to harass her since he was having illicit relations with one girl namely Priyanka. He has further deposed that thereafter his sister shifted to Dwarka where she resided with accused Sachin Chaudhary and his friend Anil and his family also resided with them. The witness has also deposed that he had gone to the said house on one occasion and when he was present there one girl came and disclosed her name as Priyanka and told his sister that she was already married to Sachin Chaudhary and how she (his sister) was residing with him (Priyanka ne meri behan se kaha ki meri shaadi Sachin Chaudhary se ho chuki hai, too yahan kaise reh rahi hai). He has also deposed that thereafter accused St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 23 Sachin Chaudhary took Priyanka outside the house and his sister Jyoti also told him that it was due to this reason the accused Sachin gave beatings to her, abused her and also used to throw her outside from the house. The witness has further deposed that prior to shifting to Dwarka his sister also tried to commit suicide at Delhi Cantt. house of the accused since accused Sachin Chaudhary came under the influence of liquor and abused her due to which reason she tried to commit suicide and it was the mother of the accused Sachin who saved her. According to him, the accused Sachin also filed a divorce case against his sister Jyoti prior to her death due to which reason the deceased Jyoti was under tension. He has further deposed that two­three days before her death his sister Jyoti went to Dwarka Court to attend to court proceedings when accused Sachin Chaudhary used filthy language to his sister Jyoti and when she returned back to the house she told about this fact on which they tried to make Jyoti understand and advised her to leave Sachin but she was not agreeable to do so. The witness has further deposed that one or two days before the day of incident his sister Jyoti had gone to Kamla Nagar Market and when she returned back, she informed them that accused Sachin met her at Kamla Nagar Market and told her that "too mar kyon nahi jaati, tere ghar walon ko maine shakal dikhane layak nahin chora, too manhoos hai, mar kyon nahi jaati. Too mar jayegi to main khushi se reh loonga". He has also deposed that after this incident his sister came under depression and was more depressed on 15.04.2010 as it was her second marriage anniversary.

St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 24 (20) On a specific Court Question the witness has deposed that his sister was married on 15.04.2008 and 26.04.2010 was the date of death of his sister Jyoti.

(21) According to the witness Rahul, his sister Jyoti used to write diary in her own handwriting and he could identify her handwriting because her diary used to lie in the house and even he had written on the same. The witness has identified the diary Ex.PW8/1 as the one in which his sister used to write which also bear certain portion written by him and at page bearing the date 29.03.2004 of the diary at point bracketed X to X­1. According to the witness, all the remaining portions in the diary have been written by his sister Jyoti. He has testified that his sister was residing with them since one year before her death. He has further deposed that Chintoo son of uncle (Chacha) of accused Sachin Chaudhary left his sister at their house at night time and thereafter she was residing with them. He has correctly identified the accused Sachin Chaudhary in the Court. (22) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that Jagbir friend of the accused Sachin was the mediator in the marriage but he is not aware whether any relative of Jagbir was also married in their family. According to him, when he reached home on 26.04.2010 at 2:30 PM only his mother and Dadi were at home and his chacha­chachi were not at home. He has denied the suggestion that the marriage between Jyoti and Sachin Chaudhary was performed in a very simple way. He has admitted that no car was given in the marriage. He has also deposed that his St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 25 mother was also present in the marriage but since his mother belongs to a conservative and orthodox thinking and being a widow she did not get herself photographed in any of the ceremonies. The witness has further admitted that the various ceremonies of marriage and Sagai were photographed and videographed. He has further admitted that his mother was residing at her parental house at Maharajpur, Ghaziabad since when he was about five years old and she remained there for about 6­7 years. According to him, his mother was residing at her parental house because she was not on good terms with his father and his grandmother. He has admitted that his mother was treated at Shahdara Mental Hospital but he is not aware about the period for which she was medically treated and has voluntarily explained that she was medically treated for about two­three months only. The witness has also admitted that that mental condition of his mother is not good and she used to take medicines and the same medicine may be used by her for her lifetime. He has testified that he had not stated to the police about the incident which took place at the house of accused at Delhi Cantt where his sister attempted to commit suicide and her mother in law saved her. He has denied the suggestion that Jyoti did not try to commit suicide at Delhi Cantt. At the house of the accused. He has further deposed that he had stated to the police that his sister had gone to Kamla Nagar Market one or two days before her death and that his sister Jyoti had told them the words uttered by the accused i.e. "too mar kyon nahi jaati, tere ghar walon ko maine shakal dikhane layak nahin chora, too manhoos hai, mar kyon nahi St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 26 jaati. Too mar jayegi to main khushi se reh loonga". However, when confronted with her statement Ex.PW16/DX­1 the aforesaid facts were not found so recorded and it has been mentioned that his sister had gone to Kamla Nagar Market three­four days before her death and his sister told after coming from the Kamla Nagar Market that Sachin told her "Badi besharam hai, ab tak jinda hai tatha aur bhi kafi bura bhala kaha tha". (23) The witness Rohit has admitted that his mother was residing at her parental house at Maharajpur when his father expired and did not participate in the last rites of his father. He has also admitted that his sister Jyoti used to take care of him after the death of his father. He has also deposed that his brother Prakash had gone to Mumbai before the death of his father and at the time of death of his father, he was in Dubai and working in a hotel. He has admitted that after the death of his father, he was residing in their house with his sister and his mother was residing at Maharajpur and his brother Prakash was in Dubai. The witness has admitted that their house is a joint property in which his two uncles Satbir and Dharambir with their families also residing. According to him, his brother Prakash came to Delhi from Dubai one or two weeks before the marriage of his sister Jyoti and after one or two weeks his brother Prakash again went to Dubai after performing the marriage of his sister Jyoti with accused Sachin Chaudhary. The witness has further deposed that he was alone in his house after the marriage of his sister Jyoti from his family and has voluntarily explained that his uncles used to take care of him and his meals and his brother St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 27 Prakash returned back to their house from Dubai after one or two months from the marriage of his sister Jyoti and thereafter he was residing with his brother Prakash in his house and never went to Dubai. He has denied the suggestion that his sister was under tension due to him as he was alone in the house after her marriage or that his brother Prakash did not return to their house from Dubai after one or two months of the marriage of his sister Jyoti. He has further denied the suggestion that Prakash returned back to their house after about one year of the marriage of his sister Jyoti from Dubai or that his brother Prakash thereafter again went to Mumbai and resided there with his friend. The witness has testified that his sister was left at their house by Chintoo and thereafter a Panchayat took place at the house of the accused Sachin and five members including his brother Prakash, Mausa and uncle went there. He is not aware about the decision of that Panchayat but states that even after the Panchayat his sister Jyoti remained at their house.

(24) He has denied the suggestion that after the marriage of his sister Jyoti, accused Sachin used to pay his daily expenses and his school fees or that when his sister was left at their house the accused Sachin used to pay money to his sister. He has admitted that he has a joint bank account with his deceased sister Jyoti but has denied the suggestion that accused Sachin used to deposit the money in the above said joint bank account. According to the witness, his family members including his sister Jyoti did not make any complaint against the accused Sachin and has voluntarily explained that St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 28 they did not make any complaint because Jyoti wanted to live with accused Sachin. He has further deposed that he did not visit Dwarka Courts with his sister at any time nor does he aware whether his brother Prakash and any other relative accompanied his sister Jyoti to Dwarka Courts. According to the witness, he alongwith his family members did not visit the house where accused Sachin was residing at Dwarka after he had seen Priyanka. He has also deposed that the Investigating Officer of this case did not accompany him to the house where Sachin was residing at Dwarka after death of his sister Jyoti. He does not remember whether he had stated to the police that after about 1½ months his sister disclosed to him that the accused Sachin Chaudhary used to harass her as he was having illicit relations with one girl namely Priyanka. He has denied the suggestion that accused Sachin was not having any illicit relationship with Priyanka or that Priyanka had not come at the house at Dwarka where accused Sachin and his sister Jyoti were residing, in his presence. The witness has also denied the suggestion that his sister Jyoti never told him that she met accused Sachin at Kamla Nagar Market. He has admitted that the cremation and last rites of his sister was performed by Sachin and her in laws and they had borne the expenses and has voluntarily explained that as per the Indian tradition she would have been in peace (Mukti Milegi) only after her last rites were performed by her husband at her in laws house as she was married. He is not aware whether after the death of his father, his sister claimed the benefits of his father to her as his elder brother Prakash and his mother were not residing in the house St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 29 and not taking care of him. He has denied the suggestion that a quarrel took place between his sister and brother Prakash regarding the benefits after the death of his father or that his sister Jyoti herself came at their house to take care of him as there is nobody else for the said purpose. The witness has also denied the suggestion that Chintoo did not leave her at their house or that his sister was under tension and depression as his mother was not well and his elder brother Prakash was not taking care of him or that accused Sachin had never harassed his sister Jyoti.

Witnesses of medical record:

(25) PW9 Dr. V. K. Jha is the Autopsy Surgeon who has proved that on 27.04.2010 he conducted postmortem on the dead body of Smt. Jyoti aged 26 years which was sent by SDM Sh. Pardeep Baijal and the dead body was identified by SI Satish Kumar. According to the witness the built of the body was moderate, rigormortis was present all over the body parts and postmortem straining was present on both lower limbs, eyes were closed, conjuctivae was congested and cornea was hazy. Mouth was opened, tongue was clinched between teeth and nails were bluish. He has proved that on external examination the following injuries were found:­ (26) Ligature mark present on front and sides of neck going upwards and backwards towards posterior hair line. The length of the ligature mark was 28 cms and width was 2.5cm. Grooved ligature mark was on front and not mark was present on left submandibular region of size 2 cm x 2cm. The St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 30 skin over the ligature mark was hard and parchmentised. On dissection of neck tissue under neath, the ligature mark was pale and glistening. He has testified that ligature material i.e. bed sheet was placed around the neck. (27) According to the witness on internal examination all visceral organs were congested. He has proved that after postmortem examination he opined the cause of death as Asphyxia as a result of ligature pressure over neck structures produced by anti mortem ligature hanging and time since death was approximately 28 hours. He has also proved having prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW9/A. The witness has further deposed that Viscera was preserved and sealed for detecting to rule out the common poison and the ligature material was also sealed and handed over to the Investigating Officer.

(28) According to the witness on 29.12.2010 the Investigating Officer moved an application for obtaining subsequent opinion regarding ligature material which application is Ex.PW9/B and also produced one sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of BJRM hospital. He has also deposed that on opening the packet it contained bed sheet and after examination he opined that ligature mark mentioned in the postmortem report could have been caused by this bed sheet or similar bed sheet vide his report which is Ex.PW9/C. The witness has also deposed that after examining the ligature material it was again turned into a parcel and sealed and handed over to the Investigating Officer. He has not been cross­examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted. St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 31

FSL Expert:

(29) PW14 Sh. M.L. Meena Senior Scientific Officer, FSL Rohini, Delhi deposed that on 18.06.2010 one sealed wooden box was received at FSL Rohini and the seal was tallied with the sample seal of case FIR No. 110/10 of PS. Bharat Nagar. According to him, on opening the wooden box he found Ex.1A, 1B and 1C i.e. stomach, pieces of small intestines, pieces of liver, spleen and liver and blood sample. He has proved that after examining the above said exhibits he prepared his detail report which is Ex.PW14/A and he could not found any common poison in the above said exhibits. This witness has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity.

Police / official witnesses:

(30) PW1 SI Mahesh Chand is a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having inspected the spot of incident and prepared the Crime Team report which is Ex.PW1/A. He has not been cross examined by Defence Counsel despite opportunity and his testimony remained uncontroverted. (31) PW2 HC Krishan Pal is again a formal witness being the MHCM who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the entry in Register No.21 vide RC No.93/21/10 copy of which is Ex.PW2/A. St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 32 According tot he witness on 30.12.10 he handed over the sealed pulanda to Ct. Pradeep vide R/C No.93/21/10 dated 30.12.10 and an application for taking to BJRM Hospital as per the orders of Inspector Ashok Kumar after which Ct. Pradeep deposited back the sealed pulanda, sample seal of BJRM Hospital with opinion/report in Police Station on the same day. The witness was not cross examined by Defence Counsel despite opportunity and his testimony remained uncontroverted.

(32) PW3 HC Sanjay Kumar is also a formal witness being the MHCM who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW3/A (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved entry in Register No.19 vide number 162/10 copy of which is Ex.PW3/A; entry in Register No.19 vide number 164/10 copy of which is Ex.PW3/B and entry in Register no.21 vide RC No.41/21/10 copy of which is Ex.PW3/C. He has not been cross examined by Defence Counsel despite opportunity and his testimony remained uncontroverted.

(33) PW4 Ct. Dalbir Singh is again a formal witness being the Crime Team Photographer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW4/1 (as per the provisions of Sections 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having taken the photographs of the scene of occurrence which photographs are Ex.PW4/A­1 to Ex.PW4/A­12. (34) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he reached the spot at 4:10 PM and had taken the photographs on the asking of St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 33 SI Satish Kumar. He does not recollect if any suicide note was found present at the spot.

(35) PW5 Ct. Ram Avtar is also a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW5/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 11.9.2010 the accused Sachin Chaudhary was formally arrested by the Investigating Officer. He has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity granted.

(36) PW6 W/Constable Rajvinder Kaur is again a formal witness being the DD Writer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW6/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein and she has proved the DD No. 49B and DD No. 51B dated 26.04.2010 which are Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively. She has not been cross­examined on behalf of accused and her testimony has gone uncontroverted. (37) PW7 Ct. Pradeep Kumar is again a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW7/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 30.12.2010 he had taken a sealed pullanda along with the application of the Investigating Officer to BJRM Hospital and produced the same before the Autopsy Surgeon who gave his subsequent opinion. He has not been cross­ examined on behalf of accused.

(38) PW11 Sh. Amit Mann LDC from Record Room Family Court, Dwarka Courts has brought the summoned record, pertaining to the case of St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 34 Sachin Chaudhary Vs Jyoti which complete record of the HMA Petition No. 317/2009 is Ex.PW11/A. He has not cross­examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given.

(39) PW12 ASI Dev Raj has deposed that on 28.04.2010 he joined the investigations along with Inspector Ashok Kumar and reached at the house of the deceased where Inspector Ashok Kumar prepared the site plan at the instance of the Parkash, brother of the deceased. According to him, Prakash the brother of the deceased, handed over one dairy stated to be written by the deceased which was seized by the Investigating Officer Inspector Ashok Kumar vide memo Ex.PW8/D. He has further deposed that Parkash also handed over seven photographs of the marriage and a marriage card of the deceased with the accused which were also seized vide memo Ex.PW8/B. The witness has proved that the Investigating Officer also seized the table and the chair used by the deceased while hanging herself vide memo Ex.PW8/C. He has correctly identified the diary which is a part of the charge sheet which dairy is already Ex.PW8/1.

(40) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he reached the spot along with Insp. Ashok Kumar at about 2 PM (afternoon) and only the family members of the deceased were present in the house at that time which included her chachi Susheela and has voluntarily explained that signatures of Susheela is also present on the memos. He has further deposed that the Investigating Officer did not call any other neighbour or public person to witness the seizure. According to St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 35 the witness, the Crime Team had not come in his presence and therefore he is unable to tell if the diary was located by the crime team or not. He has testified that he did not check the dairy personally to find out if all the pages were intact and therefore he is unable to tell, if the pages in the starting/ beginning were missing or not and has voluntarily explained that they only saw the relevant pages shown to them by Parkash.

(41) PW13 ASI Shadi Lal has deposed that on 27.04.2010 he was working as Duty Officer from 12 midnight till 8 AM and HC Mukesh was working as Duty Officer from 4:00 PM to 12 midnight. According to him, on that day HC Mukesh recorded the present FIR, copy of which is Ex.PW13/A and the endorsement made by HC Mukesh the rukka is Ex.PW13/B. (42) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that he is not the duty officer and has deposed only on the basis of the official record and has voluntarily explained that HC Mukesh is unable to come to the Court on account of his ailment and is unable to depose.

(43) PW15 Sh. Pradeep Baijal has deposed that on 26.04.2010 he was posted as SDM, Model Town, Delhi and on that day at about 4:00 PM he received a call from the police of Police Station Bharat Nagar who informed him that suicide has been committed by a married lady at B­8/2, R.P. Bagh, Delhi on which he reached at the spot at about 5 PM. According to him, at that time the Crime Team had already reached the spot and were St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 36 conducting their proceedings by taking photographs. He has testified that at that time the body of the deceased namely Jyoti had already been taken up from the fan and was laid on the ground with yellow bed sheet on her neck and ligature mark on the neck was observed by him. According to him, in the room one table, chair, almirah and some bed sheet were also found lying on the ground. He has testified that after making inspection and the completion of job by the crime team he ordered for preserving the body for 72 hours in BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri. He has further deposed that on 27.04.2010 the mother of the deceased was summoned in his office and her statement was recorded by him vide Ex.PW8/A (running in five pages). According to the witness, thereafter he reached at BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri where he prepared the brief facts vide Ex.PW15/A; recorded the statement of Satbir Singh and Prakash Kumar about identification of the dead body vide Ex.PW15/B and Ex.PW8/E respectively; filled the inquest form vide Ex.PW15/C and made a request for the postmortem vide Ex.PW15/D and the postmortem was conducted on his request. He has proved that he gave directions to the police to hand over the dead body of the deceased to the relatives of the deceased. He has also proved his application for preservation of the dead body dated 26.04.10 which is Ex.PW15/E. He has testified that thereafter, he directed the SHO Police Station Bharat Nagar to register a case for investigation vide his directions at point X at page No.5 on Ex.PW8/A which bears his signatures at point C. St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 37 (44) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he remained at the spot upto 6 PM on 26.04.2010 but did not record statement of any family members of the deceased on 26.04.2010, however, they were telling about the incident and he called them in his office on the next day i.e. 27.04.2010 for recording of the statement. According to the witness, there was a lot of hue and cry at the spot so he did not record the statement at the spot and generally they used to record the statements of the family members of the deceased in such types of cases in their office. He has admitted that he did not mention about allegations in the brief facts Ex.PW15/A against anyone. He has denied the suggestion that on 26.04.2010 family members of the deceased did not make any allegations against anyone and therefore, he did not record the statement of family members on 26.04.2010. He has also deposed that they generally write statement of the witnesses one by one but if the witness is illiterate or less educated then the other family members are also involved in assisting the recording of the statement. The witness has admitted that they checked the mental condition of the witness and thereafter recorded their statement. According to the witness, he does not remember about the writing of Ex.PW8/A and has voluntarily explained that it might be in the handwriting of his staff member or the family members of Padam Devi. He has admitted that Prakash Kumar was present when he recorded statement of Padam Devi. He has testified that Padam Devi was in a fit mental state at the time of recording her statement. He has denied the suggestion that Padam Devi has St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 38 not given any statement before him or that her statement was not read over to her and has voluntarily explained that the statement Ex.PW8/A was read over to the witness and thereafter Padam Devi and Prakash Kumar put their statements. He has further admitted that Prakash Kumar himself wrote portion Y of Ex.PW8/A at page No.5 for understanding her mother the statements and also for read over the statement to her mother and has voluntarily explained that this statement was dictated by him after making enquiries from Padam Devi. According to the witness, statement Ex.PW8/A was recorded at about 11­11.30 AM. He has denied the suggestion that Padam Devi was of unsound mind and Prakash Kumar was present in his office to cover up the unsound mind of his mother Padam Devi at the time of recording of her statement.

(45) PW17 HC Mehfoos has deposed that on 26.04.2010 he alongwith HC Ajeet Singh received DD No.49­B which is Ex.PW6/A regarding a girl having shut the door of the room and not opening the same at house No. B­8/2 Rana Pratap Bagh. According to the witness, on receipt of this information he alongwith HC reached the spot where they came to know that one girl Jyoti had locked the door of the room and was not opening the same and officials of the PCR also reached there after which they all along with the family members of the girl called out to her loudly but she still did not open the door. He has testified that when they did not hear any voice from inside then he alongwith HC Ajeet and two officials from PCR and the family members pushed the door forcibly as a result of St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 39 which the kundi broke from inside after which they entered the room and found that the girl Jyoti was hanging from the fan with the help of a chaddar with which she had hung herself after tieing a knot. He has further deposed that they found that she was dead and therefore did not touch the dead body after which HC Ajeet made a call to the Police Station and informed them about the situation and requested for sending of the crime team to the spot. He has testified that after sometime SI Satish Kumar came to the spot from the Police Staiton and Crime Team also reached the spot simultaneously, inspected the spot and also took the photographs after which the dead body was brought down. According to him, while the proceedings were being conducted the SDM of Model Town also reached the spot who over to him an application for the In­charge Mortuary and also handed over the dead body for taking the same to BJRM Hospital. He has further deposed that he took the dead body and the application to the BJRM hospital and deposited the body in the Mortuary at about 7.40 PM and he was given token No. 15 from the hospital after the deposit of the body. He has proved that he remained at the spot and in his presence the dead body was not tampered. The witness has further proved that on 27.04.2010 the postmortem of the dead body was conducted and after the postmortem the doctor handed over to him the viscera box duly sealed with the seal of hospital and also handed over to him a chaddhar with which the deceased had hung and the sample seal which he handed over to SI Satish Kumar who prepared the seizure memos of the same which are Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW17/B. St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 40 (46) In his cross­examination by he Ld. Defence Counsel witness has deposed that he received the information at around 3:30 PM after which they went to the spot on the two wheeler scooter of HC Ajeet and reached there within then minutes. He is unable to tell the names of the PCR officials and the neighbours and states that the mother of the girl, her younger brother, Chachi and Chacha were present when they reached the spot. According to him, there were two doors in the room where the incident had taken place i.e. one door on the other side which is opening towards the kitchen was also locked. He has also deposed that when they reached the spot attempts were already being made to call out to the girl but there was no response and hence, within hardly one minute of their reaching they started pushing and breaking the door. According to the witness, he did not interrogate any persons from family of the deceased to find out what had happened and has voluntarily explained that HC Ajeet was making enquiries but he is unable to tell the nature of enquiries made by HC Ajeet from the family members or neighbours. The witness has testified that in his presence no suicide note was recovered from the spot nor any other recovery was made from the room where the dead body was found hanging. According to the witness, he was present in the same room where the dead body was found hanging but he did not see the Crime Team recovering any suicide note from the spot. He has further deposed that SDM did not make any enquiries in his presence and has voluntarily explained that he had left with the dead body.

St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 41 (47) PW18 SI Satish Kumar has deposed that on 26.04.2010 at about 3:40 PM he received a call vide DD No. 51 B which is Ex.PW6/B on which he went to the spot i.e. B­8/2 R.P. Bagh, Delhi where HC Ajeet and Constable Mehfoos met him alongwith family members of deceased Jyoti. According to the witness, in one room of the back side portion, he saw a dead body of a lady was hanging from the fan with the help of a chadar and he was told by HC Ajeet and Constable Mehfoos that when they reached the PCR officials were also present and the door of the room was locked and they pushed the door opened after breaking the kundi. He has testified that in the meantime, Addl. SHO Inspector Ashok Kumar alongwith Crime Team also reached at the spot and since he was informed that the deceased was married in the year 2008 and was in dispute with her husband as the husband was having relations with another lady Priyanka hence, he called the SDM, Model Town on telephone. The witness has also deposed that the SDM informed that he would reach the spot within half an hour and in the meantime, the crime team inspected the spot and took the photographs after which they brought down the dead body from the fan. He has testified that in the meantime the SDM Model Town also reached the spot and inspected the spot of the incident and made enquiries from the family members of the deceased and Crime Team handed over the same to him and thereafter left the spot. The witness has also deposed that the SDM thereafter directed the dead body to be shifted to the Mortuary BJRM Hospital for postmortem and Const. Mehfoos was sent to BJRM Hospital alongwith the dead body and the St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 42 application handed over to him by the SDM. He has also deposed that on directions of the SDM he took the family members of the deceased to the office of SDM on 27.04.2010 in the morning hours where the SDM made enquiries from the family members of the deceased and recorded their statements and after making endorsement directed the SHO to register a case and investigate the matter. He has testified that the SDM thereafter went with him to the BJRM Hospital for purposes of getting the postmortem of deceased conducted and on the directions of the SDM the postmortem was conducted on the body of the deceased after which the dead body was handed over to the brother of the deceased namely Prakash vide receipt Ex.PW8/F. The witness has also deposed that Constable Mehfoos handed over to him a viscera peti and chaddar contained in a pullanda both of which duly sealed with the seal of the hospital along with the a sample seal of the hospital which he had seized vide memos already Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW17/B. According to the witness, he returned to the Police Station and deposited the exhibits with the MHC(M) and handed over the statements recorded by the SDM on which he made his endorsement, the seizure memos prepared by him and the other documents to the SHO after which the further investigations were handed over to Inspector Ashok Kumar by the directions of the SHO.

(48) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he was not in the Police Station when he received DD No. 51 B and has voluntarily explained that he was outside and had received St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 43 information on telephone. According to the witness he reached the spot within ten minutes of receipt of the information on his private motorcycle and has voluntarily explained that Const. Ram Avtar had come to him from the Police Station with the DD and thereafter accompanied him to the spot. He has testified that when he reached to the spot the PCR officials were already present there but he is unable to tell their names. The witness has further deposed that amongst the family members of the deceased initially only the mother, younger brother, chacha and chachi were present later on the elder brother also came and some neighbours had also come. He has testified that he had made enquiries from the mother and the younger brother of the deceased but did not record any statement. He has admitted that he did not record the statement of any of the witness and has voluntarily explained that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the SDM and therefore, he did not carry out any investigations. The witness has also deposed that he made a call to the SDM after reaching the spot and has voluntarily explained that it must be around 4:00 - 4:15 PM and the SDM reached the spot at around 4:45 or 5:00 PM. He has further deposed that in his presence the SDM only made casual enquiries from the family members but did not record their statements at the spot on 26.04.2010. He has also admitted that when he entered the room with the crime team, he did not find any suicide note at the spot and in his presence the crime team did not recover any suicide note or other document/ material by which the cause of death could be ascertained. According to the witness, the body was removed St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 44 from the spot at around 7:00­7:15 PM. He has further testified that in the morning on 27.04.2010 the SDM only recorded statement of the mother and has voluntarily explained that Prakash the elder brother had only made an endorsement on the same statement of the mother to the extent that he was agreeing to what his mother had stated to the SDM. The witness has further deposed that he only came to know of the contents of the statement of the mother when he read the same after it was handed over to him by the SDM and has voluntarily explained that he was sitting in the back of the room where the statement of the mother was being recorded by the SDM. According to the witness, he had brought the mother and brother of the deceased to the SDM office and three or four other relatives were also there and in so far as he recollect one was Chacha. He has denied the suggestion that the mother and brother of the deceased had made the statement on his tutoring only to falsely implicate the accused.

(49) PW19 Insp. Ashok Kumar is the subsequent Investigating Officer of the present case and has deposed that on 26.04.2010 he was posted at Police Station Bharat Nagar and after receiving the information of the death of deceased he also visited the spot i.e. B­8/2, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi where HC Ajeet Singh, Const. Mehfoos, SI Satish and PCR officials were already present. According to the witness, SI Satish was doing the police proceedings there and SDM also reached there after which he left the spot. He has also deposed that on 27.04.2010 after registration of the FIR of this case, investigation of this case was marked to him. The witness has St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 45 further deposed that on 28.04.2010 he reached at the spot and at the instance of Prakash Kumar brother of the deceased, he prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW19/A. According to him, Prakash Kumar produced the photos of marriage and invitation card on which he seized the photos Ex.PW8/2 to Ex.PW8/8 and invitation card Ex.PW8/9 vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B. The witness has also deposed that Prakash Kumar also produced one diary of deceased Jyoti Ex.PW8/1 which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/D. He has further testified that he also seized one table and chair from the room where the incident took place vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/C and recorded the statement of witnesses after which he deposited the seized table and chair in the Malkhana. He has proved having collected the photographs and the CD from the photographer of the Crime Team and also collected postmortem report. The witness has further deposed that during his investigation viscera of the deceased was sent to FSL Rohini through Const. Godi Lal and moved an application Ex.PW9/B for subsequent opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon who gave his opinion vide Ex.PW9/C. He has also deposed that accused Sachin was formally arrested in this case vide Ex.PW19/B and was released on bail as he was already granted anticipatory bail. According to the witness, he collected the documents Ex.PW11/A in respect of petition filed by Sachin Chaudhary against Smt. Jyoti for divorce after which he recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation he submitted chargesheet against accused Sachin Chaudhary St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 46 whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court. He has also identified one wooden table and one plastic chair which are collectively Ex.P­1.

(50) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he had recorded the supplementary statement of the mother and the statement of two brothers and Chachi of the deceased on 28.04.2010. According the witness he had interrogated the neighbours where the deceased had resided in her matrimonial home and also her in­laws and other family members of the accused but none of them are witnesses before the court. He has testified that he had tried to trace out Priyanka but could not come to know of it. On a specific Court Question the witness has deposed that he had obtained the CDRs of the mobile phone/SIM used by the accused but he did not trace out the numbers which were reflected in the CDRs and did not try to find out from the CDRs whether the number of this lady Priyanka was also reflected in the same.

(51) He has denied the suggestion that there was no lady by the name Priyanka and it is for this reason that he could not trace her out and has voluntarily explained that the lady was there but he could not trace her out. He has admitted that the CDRs are not a part of the charge sheet but has denied the suggestion that because there was no incriminating material against the accused in the CDRs it is for this reason that it was not made a part of the charge sheet. He has also admitted that the charge sheet had been filed on the basis of oral allegations made by the family of the deceased but St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 47 has denied the suggestion that he did not investigate about the correctness of the said allegations made by them. According to the witness, he did not make any enquiries from the court employees regarding the alleged incident of Dwarka court. He has denied the suggestion that he has not investigated the matter completely and fairly. He has testified that he did not make any enquiries regarding the mental state of the mother of the deceased or that he has been led in the investigations by the family of the deceased and it is for this reason that he has charge sheeted the accused at their instance. (52) PW20 ASI Ajit Singh has deposed that on 26.4.2010 he was posted at Police Station Bharat Nagar and on that day he was on Emergency Duty from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM and at about 3:30 PM he received DD No. 49 B which is Ex.PW6/A to the effect that one girl had locked the door of the room from inside and was not opening the same. According to him, on receipt of this information he rushed to house no. B­8/2 Rana Pratap Bagh where the PCR officials had already reached the spot where he came to know that the girl Jyoti had locked the door from inside. He has testified that he along with the family members of the Jyoti and other staff called out to Jyoti and thereafter knocked the door but there was no response and thereafter they broke the kundi by pushing the door and saw that the girl was hanging from the fan. He has also deposed that he immediately informed the Police Station and requested for sending some senior officer and Crime Team vide DD No.51B which is Ex.PW8/A. The witness has further deposed that after some time SI Satish Kumar reached there and he handed St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 48 over the spot to him and returned to the Police Station. (53) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he had received the information regarding DD No. 49B at about 3:30 PM and reached the spot within seven­eight minutes along with Ct. Mehfooz Khan on his motorcycle. He has also deposed that he met the mother and brother of the girl and some neighbours at the spot who were trying to open the door along with the PCR staff. The witness has further deposed that when he had gone inside the room he saw one diary lying on the bedding on the floor but he did not pick up this diary. According to the witness he did not tell the Investigating Officer that the diary was lying on the bedding. He has denied the suggestion that he has incorporated this fact as an afterthought.

STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED / DEFENCE EVIDENCE:

(54) After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused Sachin Chaudhary has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

wherein all incriminating evidence was put to him which he has denied. The accused has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to him, Prakash Kumar was having dispute with his sister Jyoti due to which reason she committed suicide while she was in her parent's house. He has further stated that the younger brother of Jyoti namely Rohit used to remain alone at home since her mother was mentally upset and lived at Maharjpur, Ghaziabad and Prakash remained out of India St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 49 most of the time and there was nobody to take care of Rohit and therefore Jyoti used to remain tense due to the behaviour of Prakash and her mother. He has also stated that the marriage between him and Jyoti was a simple marriage and no dowry was demanded by him or his family as alleged. The accused has examined four witnesses in his defence.

(55) DW1 Jagbir Singh is the mediator of marriage between accused Sachin Choudhary and deceased Jyoti which was held on 15.4.2008. According to the witness, there was no demand in the marriage and he has not received any complaint from the side of Jyoti for any dowry or for any harassment by accused Sachin. He has deposed that there was a dispute between Jyoti and elder brother Prakash. He has also deposed that mother of Jyoti was mentally disturbed and even she did not attend the marriage of Jyoti. According to him, Jyoti was very much careful about her younger brother Rohit and used to visit her parental house regularly as nobody was present at her parental house to take care of her brother Rohit. (56) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that accused Sachin is his friend and he came before this Court to depose at the request of accused Sachin. He has admitted that family members of the two uncles of Rohit were also residing in the same house and has voluntarily explained that there are three portions in the house and family of Rohit and both uncles were already separated. He is not aware about the children of the younger uncle of Rohit but states that elder uncle of Rohit is having two daughters and one son. According to the witness, Jyoti St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 50 resided with accused Sachin at her matrimonial house at Delhi Cantt. area and Dwarka. He has denied the suggestion that mother of Jyoti attended the marriage of Jyoti and she did not came at the time of blessing being the widow or that being the friend of accused Sachin he is giving a false statement in his favour.

(57) DW2 Smt. Rakesh Malik has deposed that she had attended the marriage ceremony of deceased Jyoti and accused Sachin Choudhary on 15.4.2008 which marriage was performed in a very simple manner and there was no demand from the side of the accused Sachin and his family members. According to the witness, the father of Jyoti was not alive and her mother was mentally disturbed and was not residing at the parental house of deceased Jyoti and was residing at Maharajpur, Ghaziabad. She has testified that the mother of Jyoti did not attend marriage ceremony as she was not invited in the marriage by the grandparents and uncles of Joyti. The witness has further deposed that Rs.1,00,000/­ was given to accused Sachin on 14.4.2208 as Shagun ceremony and no other dowry articles were given in the marriage. She has testified that Prakash elder brother of Jyoti was residing out of India and Rohit younger brother of Jyoti was of tender age at that time and uncles were residing in the separate houses. According to DW2, the deceased Jyoti and Rohit were only residing in the house. She has also deposed that she was residing near the matrimonial house of Jyoti at Delhi Cantt. and was the friend of deceased Jyoti and she told all the facts to her but Jyoti never told her that accused Sachin demanded dowry from her St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 51 nor Jyoti told her that accused Sachin and his family members were harassing her. The witness has further deposed that Jyoti used to tell her that her mother in law filled the vacuum of her mother and she was worried because there was no one to take care of her brother Rohit at the parental house as her elder brother was out of India and mother was mentally disturbed and family members of her uncles did not take care of Rohit. She has testified that they also shifted to Dwarka alongwith Jyoti and Sachin because Jyoti was not interested in living in a joint family. According to her, Jyoti used to visit her parental house to take care of her brother Rohit. She has further deposed that Jyoti also applied for return of the Provident Fund etc. of her father but her elder brother Prakash did not want to release the money in favour of Jyoti and Rohit. The witness has testified that Sachin and Jyoti wanted that the provident fund and other benefits of her father be released in favour of Rohit to save the future of Rohit. According to her, Jyoti told him that when she was 11/12 years old then her brother Prakash ran away from the house and her mother got mentally disturbed after which her mother left her parental house due to torture of father and grandparents of deceased Jyoti and thereafter Jyoti took care of Rohit as a child. She has further deposed that no lady namely Priyanka came to their flat in Dwarka and she is not aware any person namely Priyanka related Sachin. She has testified that no one came from the side of Jyoti to meet her at Dwarka despite his request. The witness has also deposed that in the month of February or March, 2010, Jyoti came to her at his house at Dwarka and told St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 52 her that all the formalities about release of provident fund and benefits of her father were completed but her elder brother Prakash and aunt Sushila were objecting the same and quarreling with her. She has also testified that Inspector Ashok Kumar made enquiry from her and her husband on 4.12.2010 at Police Station Bharat Nagar and recorded their statements and one policeman also checked the entry register of their society. (58) In her cross­examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State the witness has deposed that she alongwith her husband and children were residing at Delhi Cantt near the house of accused Sachin since one and half year of the marriage of Jyoti and Sachin. According to her, she did not receive any summon from this Court for testimony and she had come at the instance of her husband who was told by Sachin for testimony. She has also deposed that she attended the marriage of Jyoti and Sachin from the side of accused Sachin who is an old friend of her husband and they have a family relationship. The witness has further deposed that she also attended the function on 14.4.2008 but has denied the suggestion that she only attended the marriage ceremony and did not attend any other function in relation to the marriage. She has testified that elder uncle of Jyoti is having two children and younger uncle of Jyoti is having two children and the family members of uncles of Jyoti were residing separately from the parental house of Jyoti. She has denied the suggestion that the family members of uncles of Jyoti were residing in the same building where Rohit was residing. According to her, she did not give any written statement to the police nor did St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 53 she give her written statement to any higher police officials and has voluntarily explained that Insp. Ashok recorded her statement whatever she narrated before this Court. She has denied the suggestion that Insp. Ashok did not record her statement as narrated by her. The witness has also deposed that she did not see mother of Jyoti at any time and did not observe about the mental condition of mother of Jyoti. She has denied the suggestion that mother of Jyoti attended the marriage function of the Jyoti but she did not bless her daughter being the widow. She has denied the suggestion that the family members of both uncles of Rohit used to take care of him. The witness has further deposed that she met elder brother of Jyoti, Prakash in the marriage of Jyoti. She has denied the various suggestions put to her by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State.

(59) DW3 Anil Malik is a friend of the accused Sachin who has deposed that he attended the marriage function of accused Sachin Choudhary and deceased Jyoti on 15.4.2008 where no dowry demand was raised by accused Sachin. According to the witness, he did not hear anything about harassment and cruelty to Jyoti by accused Sachin. He has further deposed that accused Sachin and his wife Jyoti resided with them in their flat at Dwarka for about six­seven months. The witness has also deposed that he does not know any person namely Priyanka and such person namely Priyanka never visited their house at Dwarka. According to him, no person from the side of Jyoti came at their house at Dwarka to meet Jyoti. He has testified that on 4.12.2010, he alongwith his wife went to Police St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 54 Station Bharat Nagar and Investigating Officer made inquiries from them for about one and half hour and recorded their statements. He has also deposed that deceased Jyoti and his wife were good friends.

(60) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State the witness has admitted that he had come to the Court to depose at the instance of accused Sachin who is his friend since childhood. According to the witness, he attended the marriage as he had been invited in the marriage ceremony by accused Sachin. He has denied the suggestion that accused Sachin used to harass his wife Jyoti and continuously harassed her or that Rohit younger brother of Jyoti, came at Dwarka and stayed there with Jyoti. The witness has further denied the suggestion that during the stay of Rohit, one Priyanka came there who claimed herself as wife of accused Sachin or that he never visited Police Station Bharat Nagar on 4.12.2010. (61) The accused Sachin Choudhary has examined himself as DW4 and has submitted the call details and locations of his mobile No. 9811114808 which are Ex.DW4/A (28 pages) of April, 2010. He has also placed on record the slips­counterfoils of deposit of money in the joint saving bank account No. 0617001500007496 of Jyoti and Rohit which are Ex.DW4/B,C &D. (62) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State the witness has admitted that the call details Ex.DW4/A does not have stamp of any service provider and does not show which service provider provided the same to him. According to the witness, the call details Ex.DW4/A have St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 55 been received by him through his friend and the same were not retrieved by him from the computer. He has further admitted that these call details are not authenticated with certificate U/s 65(B) Evidence Act. He has denied the suggestion that these call details are fabricated and false and inadmissible in evidence. The witness has also admitted that the slips­counterfoils Ex.DW4/B, C & D do not bear his signatures. He has however admitted that he did not deposit any money in the account of Rohit. FINDINGS:

(63) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl.

PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses and considered the written synopsis of arguments. My findings are as under:

Identity of the accused:

(64) In so far as the identity of the accused Sachin Chaudhary is concerned the same is not disputed. He is the husband of the deceased Jyoti and has been identified in the Court as such. In view of the above I hereby hold that the identity of the accused stands established.

Unnatural death with seven years of marriage:

(65) It is an admitted case of both the parties that the marriage between the deceased Jyoti and accused Sachin Chaudhary had been solemnized on 15.4.2008. It is also admitted that Jyoti had committed St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 56 suicide on 26.4.2010 by hanging herself at her parental house i.e. within two years and twelve days (within seven years of her marriage) which aspect stands established.

Medical Evidence:

(66) The Autopsy Surgeon Dr. V. K. Jha (PW9) has proved the postmortem report of the deceased which is Ex.PW9/A and also the opinion given by him on the ligature material. He has proved that the death of the deceased was on account of asphyxia as a result of ligature pressure over neck structures produced by anti mortem ligature hanging and time since death was approximately 28 hours which is compatible to the prosecution case. Dr. V.K. Jha has also proved on the application of the Investigating Officer he had examined the ligature material i.e. bed sheet and had opined that the ligature mark present around the neck of the deceased could have been caused by this bed sheet or similar bet sheet, which opinion is Ex.PW9/C. The entire medical evidence has gone uncontroverted and has not been disputed. In view of the above, I hereby hold that the aspect of suicidal death of the deceased Jyoti by hanging herself stands established.

Allegations against the accused under Section 498­A & 304­B IPC (dowry death­ proximity test) and Section 306 IPC:

(67) The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Jyoti was married to the accused Sachin Chaudhary on 15.4.2008 in accordance with St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 57 Hindu rites and ceremonies and about Rs.7­8 lakhs were spent in the marriage. The deceased Jyoti started residing at her matrimonial home and for about one and a half months she resided happily with the accused but soon thereafter the accused started harassing her. He used to come late in the night under the influence of liquor and gave her beatings and even threw her out in the middle of the night. It has been alleged that the accused was have having relations with one girl namely Priyanka and frequently taunted Jyoti by saying that she was unwanted in his life as he was already married to this Priyanka. Hardly within one year of the marriage i.e. on 3.6.2009 the deceased was brought back at her parental house by one Chintoo the cousin of the accused Sachin and her family was told that the accused did not want to keep her with him. Thereafter the accused filed a case against the deceased for separation in Dwarka Courts and during the hearings when the deceased used to go to the Court, the accused used to abuse and taunt her and whenever he met her at any place he used to publicly humiliate her. (68) In support of its case the prosecution has placed its reliance on the testimony of the mother and brothers of the deceased and also the record of the separation proceedings filed by the accused against the deceased. (69) Before coming to the discussion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution on merits, it is necessary to discuss the law in this regard. In order to succeed in charge under Section 498­A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the section. It is not St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 58 every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498­A of the Indian Penal Code. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498­A of Indian Penal Code, 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 498­A of Indian Penal Code 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 reasonably 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, St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 59 it will also constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section 498­A of Indian Penal Code.

(70) The expression "Cruelty" takes 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 498­A of Indian Penal Code.

(71) If the woman has been harassed on account of her failure or the failure of her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, that also constitutes cruelty, within the meaning of Section 498­A of IPC. The expression "harassment" has not been defined in Section 498­ A of IPC, but its dictionary meaning is to subject someone to continuous vexatious attacks, questions, demands or other unpleasantness, etc. However, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under section 498­A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, by positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand. (72) Further, in order to establish a charge under Section 304­B of Indian Penal Code, which deals with what is described as "dowry death", the St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 60 prosecution must necessarily prove the following ingredients:­ i. The death of a woman must have been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstance;

ii. Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;

iii. Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband;

iv. Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry;

v. Such cruelty or harassment is when to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.

(73) The term "Dowry" has not been defined in Section 304­B of IPC, but, since this expression has been defined in Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it is required to be given the same meaning for the purpose of under Section 304­B IPC as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under:

"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 parent 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 3 or any time after the marriage 4in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case or St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 61 persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."

(74) Dowry would include that property or valuable security which is actually given or which is agreed to be given, in relation to the marriage of a person in question. The property or valuable security may be given or may be agreed to be given before marriage or at the time of marriage or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the marriage. However, there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given and the marriage. If at any time before or at the time of or even during marriage, the parents of a woman or any other person related or connected to her agree to give some cash, valuable security or property to her husband or in­laws after marriage, that also would be covered within the definition of dowry as the agreement or promise in such a case would be attributable to the marriage or proposed marriage and if there is demand for any cash property, valuable security etc. which is promised, but not given, it would constitute demand for dowry. If the husband of the girl or any other person related or connected to him, demands something from the girl or her parents or any other person related to or connected with her, saying that the articles being demanded by them were expected to be given or ought to have been given in marriage, that would also, to my mind, constitute demand of dowry because even though such an article may not have been agreed or promised to be given by the girl or her family members, it might have been in the contemplation of the boy and/or his family members, on account of the St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 62 expectation that such an article would be given at the time of marriage. Therefore, such demand would be considered to be a demand in connection with the marriage though made after the marriage has been solemnized. Even demand of articles such as T.V., fridge, jewellery, clothes, furniture, etc. which usually are given or expected in marriages in our country, would, considering the objective sought to be achieved by incorporating Section 304­B in Indian Penal Code and enacting Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 fall within the purview of Section 304­B of Indian Penal Code. (75) In the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1998 SC 958, the Apex Court has specifically held demand of T.V., Fridge, etc. though not agreed to be given or promised or even demanded prior to or at the time of marriage, to be a demand for dowry for the purpose of Section 304­B of IPC. If cash or some property, etc. is demanded by the boy or his family members, after marriage, saying that they were expecting such cash, property, etc. to be given in marriage, and the girl, or her parents or any other person related or connected to her promise to fulfill such a demand, that also may fall within the purview of dowry, as the promise though made after marriage, would nevertheless be referrable to the marriage, having been made with a view to preserve the marriage. In case, if the demand is made after marriage and it is in respect of a property or valuable security, which was not demanded, was not expected to be given and also was not in contemplation at any time up to solemnization of marriage, demand of such cash, property or valuable St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 63 security, etc. cannot be said to be in connection with the marriage and, therefore, would not constitute demand of dowry.

(76) In the case of Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45 while dealing with this issue, the Hon"ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:

"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 304B should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage."

(77) In the case of Appasaheb and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2007 SC 763, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

"In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry"

any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 64 before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning........ A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.

The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure."

(78) The Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act are both remedial and penal statutes. As such Courts are expected to construe the provisions in a way that the purpose is fulfilled through and within the limits of language employed in the statute. If a case is established then the Courts are to be stringent in dealing with the culprits. The Courts while St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 65 taking a stringent view and despite the obligation of the Legislature enactment a success have also to keep in mind that the charge should be made out.

(79) The main ingredients to be proved for establishing a case under Section 304­B IPC are (i) unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and (ii) she being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with any demand of dowry.

(80) The words "it is shown" occurring in section 304­B IPC are of significance for the reason that the initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Section 304­B IPC do exist on the prosecution. This being shown or established, the question of presumption under Section 113­B of the Evidence Act would arise. In other words, to draw a presumption under section 113­B of the Evidence Act the necessary ingredient that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry has to be proved. Only when these facts are proved then by virtue of the deeming provision of section 304­B IPC, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death. Though cruelty at any time after the marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and harassment envisaged by Section 304­B is to be soon before the death of a woman.

St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 66 (81) The Courts are required to scrutinize the evidence carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is a demand and then the atmosphere becomes calm and quiet and then again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of her husband within a short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as the torture and harassment is confined to the four walls of the house. The Courts are, however, required to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in laws are strained for any reason whatever it might be.

(82) Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological problem or mental agony or such circumstances that the person committing suicide may think that life he or she is living is more miserable than the pangs and agony of death. The power of tolerance would vary from person to person . Some persons try to make the life easy by tolerance while others even on petty points bring an end to their life. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported as Gurditta Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1992 Crl. L.J. 309).

(83) The importance of proximity test is both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 67 113­B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive section 304­B IPC and Section 113­B Evidence Act is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" used in Section 113­B of the Evidence Act, Illustration (a) of the Act is relevant. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before"

would normally imply that the interval should not be too 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 the 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. (84) It is well settled by several judgments that mere suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt. In the case reported as State of Punjab Vs..

Bhajan Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 258, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:­ "......... The circumstances of this case undoubtedly create suspicion against the accused. Suspicion, by itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of the accused."

St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 68 (85) In another case reported as Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:­ ".......Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of this innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have benefit of that doubt........

It needs all the same to be re­emphasized that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. The courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because the acquittal might have an impact upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the courts have St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 69 hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused...."

(86) In another case reported as AIR 1973 SC 2622, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :­ "...... Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before the court can convict and the mental distinction between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure consideration....."

(87) Further more, in another case reported as Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under :­ ''......Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this Court in the case of "Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) stated thus:

It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold­ blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 70 There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted....."

(88) It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. (89) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case at the very Outset I may observe that in so far as the litigation pending between the accused and the deceased is concerned which was for judicial separation there is no dispute. The record of the Family Court has been produced by PW11 Amit Mann, LDC from Record Room and it establishes that the dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (i a) of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the accused on the pretext that the deceased Jyoti was not interested in cohabitation with him and used to frequently threaten him to commit suicide. He has also alleged that she used to misbehave with his family members. The response of the deceased Jyoti to the said petition was very categorical and she has made definite allegations of infliction of cruelty for dowry demands and the fact that she was turned out from the matrimonial house on this count. She has also very specifically alleged that St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 71 the accused was addicted to alcohol and had an affair with a girl namely Priyanka before the marriage and frequently told her that he wanted to get married to her. Jyoti in her response had also been very specific to the extent that the accused had been inflicting all kinds of cruelty on her and she tried her best to save her matrimonial life but the accused was hell­bent upon marrying Priyanka. She had denied that she was not interested in cohabiting with the accused and rather stated that the accused under the influence of liquor enjoyed sex in a ghastly manner and pressurized her to fulfill his sexual desire in an unnatural way. She had specifically mentioned that on 2.6.2009 at about 3:00 AM the accused came home under the influence of liquor and started torturing and pressurizing her to leave the matrimonial home and threw her out of the house in three bare clothes and finding no option she went to her parental house. Here, I may observe that it is from there that the deceased had stayed at her parental house till her death.

(90) Now coming to the testimonies of the various witnesses who were the family members of the deceased. The mother of the deceased namely Padam Devi has been examined as PW10, the relevant portion of her testimony is as under:

"........ Jyoti (since deceased) was my daughter. Her marriage was solemnized with accused Sachin Chaudhary (accused present in the Court today, correctly identified by the witness) in the year 2008, date I do not remember but it may be in the month of May or June. My daughter remained in her matrimonial house happy for a period about one or one and a half month. Thereafter the accused St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 72 Sachin started gave beatings to my daughter under the influence of liquor and he used to come back to the house in the later night hours and insisted my daughter to prepare food at that time he was under the influence of heavy liquor. He was having illicit relations with another lady namely Priyanka. Whenever accused gave beatings to my daughter, he used to utter words "tu apne baap ke ghar se kya layi hai. Nagad paisa kitna layi hai". When the accused Sachin started residing at Dwarka with Anil and my daughter, one day one girl namely Priyanka came there and asked to my daughter "yeh to mera pati hai, tu iski kya lagti hai, meri is­se shaadi hui hai" thereafter accused gave beatings to my daughter and he left the house along with that girl Priyanka. My younger son namely Rohit went Dwarka and this occurrence took place in his presence. My younger son told me about the said incident. I cam to know about the harassment after six months of her marriage. After marriage accused started living at Delhi Cantt., then started living Dwarka and then again at Delhi Cantt. From Dwarka accused alongwith my daughter again started living at Delhi Cantt. One day he gave beatings to my daughter and the son of his Tau had left my daughter to my house in the night hours at about 2.00AM. The son of tau of accused asked us to keep my daughter with us.

Thereafter the accused filed a case of divorce and 2­3 dates were going on in that case. My daughter used to attend the dates where the accused threatened her by saying "too mar kyon nahin jati hai, teri soorat mujhe achchi nahin lagti hai, too apne baap ke ghar se kya layee hai, mai tujhe talak de doonga." He used to utter words "too pankhey se latak kar mar kyon nahin jaati hai, too mukaddame ki tareekhon par aati khyon hai." Whenever St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 73 my daughter attended the courts dates accused always passes such remarks to her due to which my daughter remained under depression (Udaas rehne lagi). My daughter after attending the court case dates used to tell all the incidents to me.

One day my daughter went to Kamla Nagar Market for some work where the accused met her and again passes remarks "too bar bar mujhe shakal kyon dikhati hai, too mar kyon nahi jaati." My daughter Jyoti when returned from the market, started weaping and told entire incident to us. After 2­3 days of such incident, date, month and year I do not remember, the month was of the summer about 2­3 years back, again said due to mental stress after death of my daughter I feel some memory loss and due to this reason I do not remember the date, month and year of the incident in which my daughter committed suicide. On that day my daughter Jyoti (since deceased) was well in the morning. She went to the house of her Aunty and returned then she went inside her room. My younger son returned from the school at 2.00PM. She knocked the door of the room of Jyoti but there was no answer. Then my son looked inside the room from a small hole and found Jyoti was in hanging condition. We tried to open the door but we could not succeed. We called the police. Police reached there and opened the door by breaking the same. I noticed that my daughter was hanging with the ceiling fan and died. She committed suicide by hanging herself with ceiling fan because accused Sachin used to utter these words on many occasions that "too pankhey se latak kar mar kyon nahin jaati" . After the police had come to the spot when my son Rohit made a call to the police, they had come to the spot and removed the body from the ceiling fan after breaking the latch of the door but nothing was asked/inquired from me. My statement was not recorded.

St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 74

At this stage Ld. Addl. PP seeks permission to put leading question to the witness with regard to her statement recorded by SDM.

Heard. Permission granted.

It is correct that the date of death of my daughter was 26.04.2010. It is correct on 27.10.2010 SDM recorded my statement but I do not recollect his name. My statement is already Ex.PW8/A bearing my signatures at point B on each page......"

(91) She has been subjected to a sustained cross­examination wherein she has admitted that she is not visible in any of the photographs of the marriage ceremony and has explained that being a widow she had stayed away from getting herself photographed. She has stated that there were differences between her and her in­laws on account of which she was staying at her matrimonial home. She has explained that she was tortured by her mother in law and husband and when her husband died she could not participate in his last rites because her mother in law did not permit her to participate in the same. She has further stated that before the marriage of Jyoti it was Jyoti who had brought her to her matrimonial house which is a few months before her marriage. She has also conceded that her son Prakash had gone out of India and had come to India only when his father expired. She has explained that Rs. One lakh was given by her son Prakash, Rs.Two lakhs were given by her sister in law / Bua of the deceased Jyoti namely Rajwati and remaining amount was spent by Chacha­Chachi of the deceased Jyoti. She has admitted that the marriage was performed by St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 75 arranging the money from the near relatives only because her husband had expired. Further, in her cross­examination she has admitted that she had never gone along with her daughter to attend the dates in the court in the matrimonial matter and has stated that in fact nobody from her family had ever gone to the house of the accused Sachin Chaudhary for any Panchayat regarding harassment caused to her daughter and has explained that her younger son had gone and made a complaint to the mother in law of Jyoti and requested them to keep Jyoti properly. She has also admitted that Jyoti was fund of her younger brother Rohit and treated him like a son and during the period when she was staying with her she used to take care of Rohit. She has further admitted that when her daughter was staying at Dwarka, a friend of Sachin was residing in the same flat but she is not aware whether his family was also residing there or not. She has further explained that initially they were not aware that the accused was having an affair with a girl namely Priyanka but they came to know of the same after the cousin of Sachin left Jyoti at their house.

(92) Coming next to the testimony of elder brother of the deceased Jyoti namely Prakash Kumar who has been examined as PW8, the relevant portion of his testimony is as under:

"........ I am working in the hotel. I am residing with my mother Smt. Padam Rani and younger brother Rohit. Deceased Jyoti was my sister. My sister Jyoti was married with accused Sachin on 15.04.2008 with Hindu rites and ceremonies. We spend money in the marriage as per my position. We spend about 8­9 lacs rupees in the marriage St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 76 of my sister Jyoti. Prior to the marriage of Jyoti we approach the Pandit and he advised that the name of Jyoti may be changed in the name of Gauri in the marriage ceremony. As per advise of the pandit her name was changed as Gauri for the purpose of marriage and it was mentioned in the marriage card and lagan patrika. After the marriage for some time my sister was happy in her in­ laws house. After one month of the marriage the accused Sachin started harassing my sister, he used to come in the house in late night in the influence of liquor. He used to gave beatings to my sister and also asked her to prepare food in the night hours at 2­3AM. These were disclosed by my sister on telephone. I asked my sister that you are newly married and we will specify the matter with the in­ laws and Sachin. I along with my family members tried to make Sachin understand. After that for some days he was normal and thereafter he again started abusing my sister and also gave beatings. We again asked our sister that all things will be normal with the spend of time, but Sachin did not stopped the misbehave with my sister. Some times accused Sachin after giving beatings to my sister in the night hours and thrown out my sister from the house in the night hours. My sister Jyoti also told that accused Sachin was having relations with a girl namely Priyanka. Once my younger brother Rohit was in the flat of Sachin at that time Priyanka came there and told my sister Jyoti that she had already married with Sachin in a temple prior to the marriage of my sister and thereafter Sachin along with Priyanka left the flat and went away outside. This was told by my brother Rohit to me. Sachin also told Jyoti that he did not like her and he loved Priyanka and wanted to live with Priyanka and also told that "tu meri jindagi se chali ja tu mar kyo nahi jati hai". Due to St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 77 conduct of the accused Sachin my sister became perplexed and was in tension. Sachin also harassed my sister by telling her "shadi mein jo saman diya hai wo bariya kisam ka nahi hai aur bahaut kam dehaj diya hai" and he also threatened her for Divorce. My sister wanted to spend her matrimonial life with accused Sachin. Whenever my sister Jyoti @ Gauri used to come our house accused left her but did not come to take back her, then we used to send her to matrimonial house.

On 03.06.2009 at about 2AM (midnight), cousin of Sachin (son of Taya) namely Chintu came to our house along with my sister Jyoti @ Gauri and left her to our house. He told that accused Sachin did not want to keep and live with my sister. Thereafter after some days accused Sachin filed a case for judicial separation in Dwarka court. My sister attended 3­4 dates of that case and she met with accused Sachin on the dates of hearing. Whenever my sister met with accused he again harass by uttering the words "tu phir mere samne aa gaye, tu abhi tak jinda hai, tu besharma hai ki itna sab hone ke bad bhi jinda hai, agar tere andar jarasi bhi sharam baki hai, to tu mujhe age bhvishya mein shakal nai dikhana". My sister told the above incident to us and we tried to pacify the matter. After few days accused Sachin met with my sister in Kamla Nagar. On seeing her he again uttered the same words "tu phir mere samne aa gaye, tu abhi tak jinda hai, tu besharma hai ki itna sab hone ke bad bhi jinda hai, agar tere andar jarasi bhi sharam baki hai, to tu mujhe age bhvishya mein shakal nai dikhana". She returned to the house and told us about the incident and started weeping. We again tried to pacify to cool her.

On 26.04.2010 my sister committed suicide by hanging herself with the ceiling fan due to words uttered St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 78 by the accused Sachin and about his misbehave and facing trial in the separation case. Police reached at the spot and also break the door and did investigations. SDM also reached there. Police recorded my statement. Statement of my mother was also recorded by the SDM in my presence. I am attesting witness of the statement and I read over and explained the statement of my mother to her. The statement is EX PW 8/A bearing my signatures at point A . I handed over photo of marriage and marriage invitation card to the police. Same were seized by EX PW 8/B bearing my signatures at point A. Police also seized one table and chair lying in the room of Jyoti @ Gauri vide memo EX PW 8/C bearing my signatures at point A. One diary belonging to my sister Jyoti @ Gauri was also seized by the police from the room of my sister it was taken into possession vide memo EX PW 8/D bearing my signatures at point A. The diary which was recovered from the room of my sister is in the handwriting of my sister. I identify writing of my sister in the diary. The diary is EX PW8/1. The photographs of marriage of my sister Jyoti @ Gauri with accused Sachin are EX PW 8/2 to EX PW 8/8. The marriage card of my sister Jyoti @ Gauri is EX PW 8/9. I also identify the dead body of my sister in the mortuary. My statement was recorded vide EX PW 8/E bearing my signatures at point A. After postmortem the dead body was handed over to us vide memo EX PW 8/F bearing my signatures at point A. I may mention here that accused Sachin used to demand dowry from my sister on various occasions and she told us about the demands of the accused whereas we could not full­fill the demand of the accused however we assured the accused Sachin that after receiving the money from the services benefits of my father, we will full fill the demands. Accused used to demanded rupees St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 79 about 4­5 lacs and accused also demanded the money as he had sold his bus at the time of marriage. I came to know later on that accused Sachin is a bad aliment and involved in many cases in Delhi Cantt area and he used to keep revolver with him. The fact about the revolver was told by my sister. I identify the accused Sachin who is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness)......"

(93) He has been cross­examined at length wherein he has explained that the marriage between the accused and the deceased had been arranged through one Jagbir who is related to her Chachi Susheela. He has explained that he was residing at Dubai and had returned one week prior to the marriage and again went back after two­three weeks. He has admitted that his mother was residing at her parental house at Maharajganj, Ghaziabad where she was residing for about six­seven years prior to the death of his father since his grandmother and her mother did not get along well. He has explained that there are no photographs of his mother since as per the customary practice in their family the widows do not get themselves photographer and considered as inauspicious. In his further cross­ examination he has denied the suggestion that after the marriage of his sister he had gone to Mumbai and has stated that he stayed in Delhi but for two­ three months he had visited Kuwait for job purposes. He has however admitted that his mother is not mentally stable and remained in great depression and had received treatment from IBHAS for about 15 days. He has denied the suggestion that he did not pay any attention of his mother and St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 80 it was only Jyoti who was taking care of her. He has also admitted that after the death of his father, it was the deceased who had applied for his pensionary benefits since his mother is a self respecting women and did not want to take benefits of his pension. He has however denied that his sister was in dispute with him since he was not supporting his family due to which reason she had applied herself for the pensionary benefits of his father and has explained that he never intervened with what his sister was doing since she was under pressure from the accused Sachin Chaudhary who was demanding Rs. Five lakhs for which reason the deceased had applied for the pensionary benefits of her father to which they did not object. He has further stated that he had informed the Investigating Officer about the demand of Rs. 5 lakhs by the accused Sachin Chaudhary. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW8/DX5 the said fact and also the fact of dowry being less and the articles being sub standard were not found mentioned. Witness Prakash has further explained that there was an FDR of Rs. 50­60 thousand which they had handed over to the family of the accused stating that the deceased could not fulfill their demands by encashing the same and this fact he did not tell to the Investigating Officer. He is not aware whether this FDR was encashed by the accused or not. He has admitted that the list of dowry articles were neither prepared nor signed by both the parties but has placed on record the video recording to the cash and other articles which were given in the marriage which video CD has been placed on record with the permission of the Court. Further, in his cross­ St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 81 examination the witness has further stated that after marriage of her sister he must have gone to her matrimonial home for about for­five times but he had never gone to the house of her sister at Dwarka. According to him, it was only his younger brother Rohit who had gone to the flat at Dwarka and had seen Priyanka but they did not try to find out who this Priyanka was/ On a query the witness has stated that he is not aware if his sister Jyoti had filed any case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the accused Sachin. He has denied that his relations with his sister were not normal and he used to torture her or that his sister committed suicide because of the torture which he inflicted upon her. He has stated that the mobile number used by her sister is 9899326899 which mobile phone was given to her by his father and the said phone is now being used by his younger brother. He has admitted that he had also attempted to commit suicide by hanging. (94) Coming now to the testimony of Rohit Chaudhary (PW16) who is the younger brother of the deceased and was aged about 14 years at the time of incident and was mature enough to understand the happenings around him. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:

"........ I am studying in class XI. Jyoti deceased was my elder sister and she was married to accused Sachin Chaudhary. On 26.04.2010 I had gone to my school at about 7­7.30 a.m. At about 2/2.30 p.m. when I returned back to my house, I found my mother and my grandmother outside of the house and saying that Jyoti was not opening the room from inside. I also called my sister Jyoti but she did not respond. I climbed on a chair and saw inside of the St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 82 room from the ventilation window and I found my sister Jyoti was hanging from the fan. I informed my mother, grand mother about this fact and I also informed my uncle Sh. Satbir Singh who made a call to the police and police reached at the spot and police official pushed the door forcefully and thereafter the door was opened. My sister Jyoti was found hanging with fan with a bed sheet and she was brought down. Police officials conducted the proceedings and also took photographs. All my relatives also came there. SDM also reached at the spot and he also inspected the site and thereafter the dead body my sister was taken to the hospital for postmortem.

Marriage of my sister Jyoti took place on 26.04.2008. Initially after marriage there was no problem for about 1 - 1 ½ months. Then after about 1 ½ months my sister disclosed to me that the accused Sachin Chaudhary used to harass her as he was having illicit relations with one girl namely Priyanka. Thereafter my sister shifted to Dwarka where she resided with accused Sachin Chaudhary and his friend Anil and his family was also resided with them. I had gone to the said house on one occasion and when I was present there one girl came and disclosed her name as Priyanka and told my sister that she was already married to Sachin Chaudhary and how she (My sister) was residing with him ( Priyanka ne meri behan se kaha ki meri shaadi Sachin Chaudhary se ho chuki hai, too yahan kaise reh rahi hai) Thereafter accused Sachin Chaudhary took Priyanka outside the house. My sister Jyoti also told me that due to this reason the accused Sachin gave beatings to her and also abused her and also used to throw her outside from the house.

Prior to shifting to Dwarka my sister also tried to commit suicide at Delhi Cantt. house of the accused as St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 83 accused Sachin Chaudhary came under the influence of liquor and abused her and due to this reason she tried to commit suicide and mother of the accused Sachin saved her. Accused Sachin also filed a divorce case against my sister Jyoti prior to her death and due to that reason Jyoti was under tension. Two­three days before her death my sister Jyoti went to Dwarka court to attend court proceedings, accused Sachin Chaudhary used filthy language to my sister Jyoti and when she returned back to the house and she was asked by us about the proceedings in the court then she told about this fact that accused Sachin Chaudhary used filthy language and we tried to make Jyoti understand and adviced her to leave Sachin but she was not agreeable to do so. One or two days before the day of incident my sister Jyoti had gone to Kamla Nagar Market and when she returned back, she informed us that accused Sachin met her at Kamla Nagar Market and told her that "too mar kyon nahi jaati, tere ghar walon ko maine shakal dikhane layak nahin chora, too manhoos hai, mar kyon nahi jaati. Too mar jayegi to main khushi se reh loonga" . After this incident my sister came under depression. She was more depressed on 15.04.2010 as it was her second marriage anniversary. Court Question: When did the marriage of your sister take place?

               Ans.          My sister was married on 15.04.2008.  
               Court   Question:   Please   clarify   why   did   you   mention  
               26.04.2008 previously?

Ans. 26.04.2010 was the date of death of my sister Jyoti.

My sister Jyoti used to write diary in her own handwriting and I can identify her handwriting because her diary used to keep lying in the house and even I had written on the same.

At this stage the witness has identified the diary already Ex.PW8/1 as the one in which his sister used to St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 84 write which also bears certain portion written by him which at page bearing the date 29.03.2004 of the diary at point bracketed X to X­1. All the remaining portions in the diary have been written by my sister Jyoti.

My sister was residing with us one year before her death. Chintoo son of uncle (Chacha) of accused Sachin Chaudhary left my sister at our house at night time and thereafter she was residing with us. Accused Sachin is present in the court today and witness has correctly identified the accused present in the court today....."

(95) This witness has been subjected to a sustain cross­examination wherein he has denied that the marriage between the accused and the deceased was performed in a simple manner but has admitted that no car was given in the marriage. He has explained that his mother belong to a conservative and orthodox thinking and being a widow did not get herself photographed in any of the ceremonies. He has admitted that his mother was residing at her parental house since when he was about five years old. He has also stated that his mother was medically treated for about two­three months and explained that she used to take medicines for her treatment. He had not stated to the police about the incident which took place at the house of accused at Delhi Cantt. where his sister attempted to commit suicide and her mother in law saved her. He has been further cross­examined with regard to the relations of his mother with their family and has explained that her mother had not even participated in the last rites of his father and it was her sister Jyoti who used to take care of him after the death of his father and after the marriage of Jyoti his uncles were taking care of him. He has also St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 85 explained that his brother Prakash came to Delhi from Dubai one or two weeks before the marriage of his sister Jyoti and again went back after about one or two weeks of marriage and again returned to Delhi after one or two months of the marriage of his sister and thereafter he was residing with him in his house. When questioned about seeing Priyanka at Dwarka he has stated that he does not recollect if he had stated to the police that after about one and a half months his sister disclosed to him that accused Sachin used to harass her as he was having illicit relations with Priyanka. He has denied that no such girl namely Priyanka had come to their house at Dwarka in his presence.

(96) The accused Sachin Chaudhary in his defence has examined the Mediator Jagbir (DW1) who has stated that after the marriage of Jyoti and Sachin he had not received any complaint of dowry demand or harassment by the accused Sachin. He has stated that there was a dispute between Jyoti and her elder brother Prakash and mother of Jyoti was mentally disturbed and not even attended the marriage of Jyoti. He has further stated that Jyoti was very much careful about her younger brother Rohit and used to visit her parental house regularly as nobody was there to take care of her brother Rohit. In his cross­examination the witness has admitted that he is the friend of accused Sachin and is not a summoned witness.

(97) Smt. Rakesh Kuar (DW2) is the friend of the deceased Jyoti. She has stated that the marriage in question was performed in a simple manner since father of Jyoti was not alive and her mother was mentally St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 86 disturbed. According to her, the mother of the deceased was residing at Maharjpur, Ghaziabad and did not attend the marriage ceremony since she was not invited by the grandparent and uncles of Jyoti. She has further stated that the elder brother of Jyoti namely Prakash was residing out of India and her young brother Rohit was of tender age at that time and her uncles were residing in the separate houses. She has explained that she was residing near the matrimonial house of Jyoti at Delhi Cantt. and is a friend of Jyoti who used to tell her all the aforesaid facts. She has also stated that Jyoti was worried because there was no one to take care of her brother Rohit at her parental house as her elder brother was out of India and mother was mentally disturbed and family members of her uncles did not take care of Rohit. She has explained that they had also shifted to Dwarka along with Jyoti and Sachin because Jyoti was not interested in living in a joint family. According to her, no lady by the name of Priyanka came to their flat at Dwarka nor she is known to any lady Priyanka. Anil Malik (DW3) is the husband of Smt. Rakesh Malik (DW2) and a childhood friend of accused Sachin. He has corroborated the testimony of his wife in toto and stated that he does not know any person namely Priyanka nor such person even visited their house at Dwarka. Here, I may observe that both Smt. Rakesh Malik and Anil Malik are not summoned witnesses and have come to the Court at the instance of the accused Sachin.

(98) The accused Sachin Chaudhary has examined himself as his own witness as DW4 and has placed on record the Call Detail Records of his St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 87 mobile phone bearing No. 9811114808 which are Ex.DW4/A and the slips / counterfoils of deposit of money in the joint saving back account no. 0617001500007496 of Jyoti and Rohit which are Ex.DW4/B to Ex.DW4/D. In his cross­examination he had admitted that the Call Details Record does not have any stamp of the service provider and are not accompanied by the certificate under Section 65 of Evidence Act.

(99) It has been argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove and substantiate the allegations made against the accused of dowry demand and cruelty inflicted upon the deceased Jyoti. According to him, there has been an unexplained delay of 24 hours in registration of FIR. It is further argued that the most material witness i.e. chachi of the deceased has not been examined by the prosecution and dropped on the pretext that she is a witness of repetitive facts whereas she was the only independent witness who could have disclose the real facts i.e. Padma Devi and Prakash were not residing at the resident of the deceased and that they did not ever cared the younger brother of Jyoti namely Rohit. It is also argued that a vague allegation has been made with regard to the accused having an affair with a girl Priyanka since the said lady has not been identified nor traced and there is nothing on record to show that there was an abetment of any kind. Ld. Counsel has further argued that the main reason of the suicide by the deceased is her dispute with her brother Prakash whereas the accused had paid regular maintenance as well as day to day expenses to the deceased in her joint account. St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 88 (100) I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that the said counter foils Ex.DW4/B (dated 7.9.2009), DW4/C and Ex.DW4/D (dated 1.10.2009) do not bear his signatures nor has he called any witness from the bank to prove the said receipts. Even otherwise the said counterfoils / receipt are pertaining to the period when there was a litigation pending between the accused Sachin Chaudhary and deceased Jyoti and she was staying at her parental house. It is impossible that under the given circumstances he would of his own have deposited this amount in the joint account of deceased and the same has been done on legal advise perhaps to create a defence at a later stage (which he is now doing). Further, in so far as the Call Details Record Ex.PWDW4/A is concerned, I may observe that the same have not been proved in accordance with law. The said call details record have been obtained by the accused from some private sources and not from the service provider. There is also no any certificate under Section 65 of the Evidence Act and hence the same being inadmissible in evidence cannot be relied upon.

(101) In so far as the provisions of Sections 304­B and 306 Indian Penal Code are concerned, at the very Outset I may observe that apart from the bare statement of the mother and brothers of the deceased and there being no prior complaint in this regard, there is no independent corroboration in this regard. The said allegations of demand of dowry were made after the separation litigation filed by the accused Sachin Chaudhary. I may further observe that the marriage in question was an arranged one St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 89 which was fixed through a distinct family relation of the deceased who was a friend of the accused and in case of any demand of dowry, the family of the deceased would have first informed the Mediator Rajbir (DW1) which is not the case. It is writ large that the family of the accused Sachin Chaudhary is much more financially well off than the parental family of the deceased who themselves were facing crises on the personal level as well as financial level and hence the demand of dowry being made to them does not appear to probable and convincing. It is evident from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as discussed herein above that the deceased Jyoti had committed suicide by hanging herself at her parental house and the prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment by the accused. The prosecution has failed to establish any proximity or live link between the death of deceased or any misconduct by the accused person of a proximate nature so as which could be termed as an immediate instigation for the deceased to have committed suicide. The allegations made by the family of the deceased regarding demand of dowry are totally vague and non specific in relation to time, place and extent of demand. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide on account of demand of dowry for which the accused Sachin Chaudhary is acquitted of the charge under Section 304­B Indian Penal Code.

(102) Further, in so far as the provisions of Section 306 Indian Penal Code is concerned, I may observe that the word 'Suicide' in itself is St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 90 nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and required no explanation . 'Sui' means 'self' and 'cide' means 'killing', thus implying an act of self killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself. (103) Suicide by itself is not an offence under either English or Indian criminal Law, though at one time it was a felony in England. In England, the former law was of the nature of being a deterrent to people as it provided penalties of two types.

➢ Degradation of corpse of deceased by burying it on the highway with a stake through its chest.

➢ Forfeiture of property of deceased by the State.

(104) This penalty was later distilled down to merely not providing a full Christian burial, unless the deceased could be proved to be of unsound mind. However, currently there is no punishment for suicide after the enactment of the Suicide Act, 1961 which proclaims that the rule of law whereby it was a crime for a person to commit suicide had been abrogated. (105) In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the successful offence is beyond to the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under section 309 of IPC.

(106) 'Abetment' has been defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which provides that:

"107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 91 a thing, who ­ First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly ­ engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."

(107) Explanation 2 which has been inserted alongwith Section 107 reads as under :

"Explanation 2 - whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to be and the doing of that act."

(108) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in VII (2001)SLT 356 has in paragraph 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation" as under:

"......... 20. Instigation is to goad, urge forwards, provoke, incite of encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out the present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 92 deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been interred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation......"

(109) In State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal & Another, reported in IV (1993) CCR 392 (SC): (1994) DMC 138 (SC) : (1994) SCC 73 the Hon'ble Apex Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trail for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. (110) Further, in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in VI (2009) SlT 584 = III(2009)DLT (Crl.)1011 (SC) = IV (2009)CCR 1 (SC) = 162(2009)DLT 257 (SC) = 2009(11) SCALE 24 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 93 "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self esteem and self respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any strait­jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. (111) Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positivie act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

(112) The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It is also required an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

(113) Also in the case of Mamta Sahu (Smt.) Vs. State of Delhi reported in 124 (2005) DLT 300 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has highlighted the ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. the offence of abetment of suicide in the following words:

"...... When Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code is read carefully, it is clear that for constituting abetment, the accused should either instigate any person to do the thing or engages with one or more other person or persons in St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 94 any conspiracy for the doing of that thing of intentionally aid by any act of omission the doing of that thing. There are two explanations to this Section. A person who by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact can be said to have instigated the thing which is done on account of such concealment or misrepresentation. Explanation 2 prescribes that an abetment can be done either prior to or at the time of the commission of that act. In the present case, there is nothing to suggest that the accused had instigated or aided the deceased in commission of suicide. Nor is there any evidence to show that she had engaged with some other person or persons for doing any act. There is no evidence that any concealment or misrepresentation on her part had led the deceased to commit suicide. There is no evidence that she in any way did anything to facilitate the commission of suicide by the deceased....."

(114) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that at the time of the incident, the deceased Jyoti was at her parental house and the fact that she had met the accused two­three days prior to her death where something had transpired between them, has come on record for the first time only after her death and there is no independent corroboration to the same. The accused has placed on record the Call Details Record of his mobile phone showing that he was at different locations which record has not been proved in accordance with law and is rejected being non authentic and inadmissible per­se. Further, the accused has claimed that he had transferred the amount on three occasions in the joint account of Jyoti and Rohit. It has been observed by this Court that this was during the St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 95 pendency of the litigation filed by the accused himself. It is improbable and impossible that the accused would have done so out of concern for his estranged wife since had that been so, he would not have sent Jyoti back to her parental house and filed a case of Judicial Separation. On the face of it, this was a blatant attempt by the accused to create evidence for his defence at later stage and has been done on legal advise. The accused is an old court­bird who has been embroiled in numerous criminal cases and a regular legal advise was available to him. I, therefore, reject the claim of the accused that he had been financially supporting to the family of the deceased.

(115) I hereby hold that it is not borne out from the record by any cogent evidence that there was any heated exchange of conversation, accused had any intention to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide. (Ref.: Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh, AIR 2001 SC 3837 and M. Mohan Vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626. What is important is not what "deceased had felt" but what the accused had intended by their act. A fatal impulse or ill fated thought of the deceased, however unfortunate and touchy it may be, cannot unfortunate touch the issue and it cannot establish the intention of the accused so as to make them liable under the provisions of Section 306 IPC. It cannot under either circumstances be conclusively held that the accused had in any manner intentionally aided or abetted the commission of the suicide of the deceased. The mens­rea on the part of the accused appears to be missing and hence St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 96 benefit of doubt is liable to be given to the accused Sachin Chaudhary. (116) Coming now to the aspect of harassment and cruelty inflicted upon the deceased, as reflected from the evidence on record the deceased was an unfortunate girl having affected by the circumstances around her. Her mother Smt. Padam Devi was having differences with her in­laws due to which reason she was residing at her parental house, her father had expired in January 2007 and her elder brother had left India and hence there was no one to support her and her elder brother Rohit whom she treated as her son. After having entered into the marriage with the accused Sachin Chaudhary she did not remain happy. After almost one year of the marriage the accused Sachin Chaudhary had filed a petition for Judicial Separation. It is for the first time in the Court that Prakash the brother of the deceased had testified to the extent that the accused has a criminal background having a large number cases in Delhi Cantt. and also keeps a revolver with him, a fact which was probably never stated to the police and hence no investigations can be conducted on this aspect. He has explained that he came to know of this much later. However, during the course of arguments the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has placed on record the details of the criminal cases against the accused details of which are as under:

1. FIR No. 191/1995, U/s. 308/324/34 IPC, PS Vasant Kunj.

2. FIR No. 283/1995, U/s. 452/323/34 IPC, PS Vasant Kunj.

3. FIR No. 27/1996, U/s. 341/506/323/34 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt.

4. FIR No. 222/1996, U/s. 341/323/34 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt. St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 97

5. FIR No. 223/1998, U/s. 307/34 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt.

6. FIR No. 679/1998, U/s. 341/354/427/506/34 IPC, PS Vasant Kunj.

7. FIR No. 499/1998, U/s. 341/506/323/34 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt.

8. FIR No. 275/2006, U/s. 323/509 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt.

9. FIR No. 188/2008, U/s. 451/506 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt.

(117) According to the accused he has been acquitted in all these cases and there are no new case against him. However, these details confirm the previous criminal background of the accused. Merely because the family of the deceased did not inform this background to the police is no reason why the Investigating Officer of his own should have failed to inquire into the background of the accused. Did the Investigating Officer not find it strange that despite the fact that the accused was having his own house at Delhi Cantt. where his parents and other family was residing, that he himself had started living separately having shifted from the said house to another house which he was sharing with his friend and his wife. The question is, if the deceased who herself came from a joint family was not ready and willing to reside with the family of the accused, then why and how then she could reside with a third person i.e. family of the friend of the accused. It is this which contradicts the claims of the accused that his wife was not ready to reside in a joint family. In fact the whole arrangement appears to have been worked out to ensure a smooth exit of the deceased from her matrimonial house (parental house of the accused) after which she was dumped and abandoned at her parental house. Attempt has been made by the accused to St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 98 divert the entire blame on the parents and brother of the deceased to show that the deceased was having problems with her own brothers compelling her to commit suicide. I may observe that these problems so highlighted by the defence were existing in the family of the deceased even earlier to her marriage which were continuing problems. She was quite used to these problems which were already existing in her family. It was not something new by which she was suddenly taken unaware and was rather quite used to the said problems i.e. her mother being staying at her matrimonial home and her elder brother being away at Dubai for purposes of earning his livelihood while she and her younger brother were in a joint family along with her chacha / chachi. It is impossible that this could have been one of the leading factor for the deceased to have taken the extreme step of ending her life. There are mentions of the accused being involved with some another lady namely Priyanka, whom the deceased had specifically named in the reply filed by her in the Court in the petition filed by the accused Sachin Chaudhary for Judicial Separation. Further, as and when the deceased used to go the the Court appearances for her dates it is alleged she was normally abused and taunted by the accused. The accused is not as innocent as he is trying to makes himself out to be. He has a long standing criminal record and a readily available legal advise. The strategy was very clear. First get the deceased out from the parental house and then create situation for her where she would either herself walk out or in the alternative force her out of the house where they later shifted and lastly file a petition for Judicial St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 99 Separation so as to get rid of her permanently. Here, I may note, it is not the deceased who has initiated any litigation but rather the accused himself who appeared to be in a hurry to get rid of her. He had filed a petition for Judicial Separation hardly over a year of his marriage. Where was the necessity for him to separate from his parents if everything was alright? Again where was the necessity for the accused to have taken the deceased to the house where he was staying with his friend and his wife? Strange it is that rather than he staying at his own house, he decided to stay in the house of his friend and that too when he had his own house in Delhi Cantt. I am convinced that this has been done on legal advise only to create a situation which was most tumultuous for Jyoti and then to seek a legal separation from her in order to marry the other woman as claimed by the family of the deceased, which possibility cannot be ruled out. This I say, because the deceased in her response to the petition for Judicial separation filed by the accused had at the very first instance specifically and consistently named this Priyanka. The story about this other lady Priyanka is not a figment of imagination but a reality about which the deceased was aware and had during her life time mentioned about the same in the Court of Law where the petition for Judicial Separation was pending and this fact finds due corroboration from the oral testimony of Rohit. Merely because the Investigating Officer at his level has not taken any steps to investigate this aspect, there is no reason to discard this fact and given benefit of the same to the accused.

St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 100 (118) The accused cannot be permitted to seek refuge of the ailment of the mother of the deceased who he alleges mentally sick or of her brother having attempted to commit suicide on one occasion. Both mother and brother of the deceased have been examined in the Court and merely because they have suffered some depressive phases in their respective lives and had been receiving treatment for the same cannot be a ground to throw out the allegations made by them against the accused. The mother of the deceased has appeared before this court and has been most consistent and found to be a competent witness. Depression cannot be taken as a mental ailment so as to render a witness incompetent to depose. Why should her testimony be discredited? No doubt the family of the deceased has their own set of problems and miseries but it is writ large that for the poor girl deceased Jyoti the set of miseries fall in her share got aggravated on account of the conduct of the accused Sachin Chaudhary. In so far as the defence of the accused is concerned, all the defence witnesses are interested witnesses and have come to the Court at the instance of the accused. No doubt, the demand of dowry has not been proved yet the cruelty inflicted upon the deceased who was hardly married over over a years, is writ large from the circumstances which has come before the Court and speak for themselves. If the accused was not interested in marrying the deceased or had some other woman in his life, why at the first instance he should have accepted the alliance with the deceased. First as a matter of strategy got her out of her matrimonial home, then compelled her to stay with the family of a friend, St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 101 then pushed her back to her parental house and then hurriedly filed a petition for Judicial Separation. He in fact was in no mood to continue his life with the deceased whom he ruthlessly and shrewdly removed from his way. It is these circumstances which are creation of the accused which tantamount to mental cruelty. The accused has tried to raise a defence that the deceased had attempted to commit suicide while she was staying with his parents. If that be so I am sure some kind of police complaint would have been made or the person who had arranged the marriage would have been informed about the same which is not the case. Now after the victim is no more, he has for the first time come up with details of such incident which does not appear to be authentic. One thing which stands established is the fact that the deceased was suffering mentally and her husband Sachin Chaudhary was apparently indifferent to her miseries (factual or perceived) and was to a large extent responsible for creating the same. It is this which is covered within the term 'Cruelty' as contemplated under Section 498­A Indian Penal Code and hence in this background I hereby hold the accused Sachin Chaudhary guilty of the offence under Section 498­A Indian Penal Code. However, benefit of doubt is being given to him with regard to the offence under Section 304­B and 306 Indian penal Code.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS:

(119) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 102 the tests which are pre­requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:

1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;

2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;

4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

(120) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 103 including the first and the second investigating officers. From the evidence on record the identity of the accused Sachin Chaudhary stands established who is the husband of the deceased Jyoti. It also stands established that the marriage between the accused Sachin Chaudhary and deceased Jyoti was solemnized on 15.4.2008 which alliance was fixed by the Mediator Sh. Jagbir Singh; that the accused Sachin Chaudhary is financially well off than the family of the deceased Jyoti; that the father of the deceased Jyoti had already expired in January 2007 and her mother Smt. Padam Devi was having differences with her husband and in­laws due to which reason she was residing at her parental house at Maharajganj, Ghaziabad; that after the death of the father of the deceased and before one - two months before the marriage, Smt. Padam Devi was brought back at her matrimonial house by deceased Jyoti; that the elder brother of the deceased Jyoti namely Prakash was working at Dubai and had come India to attend the marriage of her deceased sister Jyoti; that the deceased Jyoti was residing in the joint family and used to take care of her younger brother Rohit; that after the marriage the deceased Jyoti started residing at her matrimonial house at House No. 1/219/2, Chaudhary Hari Chand Building, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt. Delhi; that on 3.6.2009 at about 2:00 AM the cousin of accused namely Chintoo left the deceased Jyoti at her parental house stating that the accused Sachin would not keep her with him; that the accused Sachin Chaudhary had filed a petition of Judicial Separation against the deceased; that whenever the deceased Jyoti went to attend the Court hearings the accused used to abuse St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 104 her and taunt her; that on 26.4.2010 Jyoti committed suicide by hanging herself on the ceiling fan of her room at her parental house and the medical evidence on record establishes that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ligature pressure over neck structure produced by ante­mortem ligature hanging.

(121) It also stands established that as a matter of strategy the accused Sachin Chaudhary first got the deceased Jyoti out of her matrimonial home; then compelled her to stay with the family of a friend; thereafter pushed her back to her parental house and then hurriedly filed a petition for Judicial Separation. He, in fact was in no mood to continue his life with the deceased whom he ruthlessly and shrewdly removed from his way. It is these circumstances which are creation of the accused which tantamount to mental cruelty. One thing which has been established is the fact that the deceased was suffering mentally and her husband Sachin Chaudhary was apparently indifferent to her miseries (factual or perceived) and was to a large extent responsible for creating the same. It is this which is covered within the term 'Cruelty' as contemplated under Section 498­A Indian Penal Code.

(122) However, the prosecution has failed to establish any proximity or live link between the death of deceased or any misconduct by the accused person of a proximate nature so as which could be termed as an immediate instigation for the deceased to have committed suicide. The allegations made by the family of the deceased regarding demand of dowry are totally St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 105 vague and non specific in relation to time, place and extent of demand. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide on account of conduct of the accused. It has also not been established that the accused had in any manner intentionally aided or abetted the commission of the suicide of the deceased. (123) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence.

(124) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link in so far as the St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 106 offence of mental harassment and cruelty is concerned. (125) This being the background, I hereby hold the accused Sachin Chaudhary guilty of the offence under Section 498­A Indian Penal Code for which he is accordingly convicted. He is, however, acquitted of the charges under Section 304­B & 306 Indian Penal Code.

(126) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 19.07.2013.

Announced in the open court                                              (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 16.7.2013                                                        ASJ­II(NW)/ ROHINI




St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar                         Page No. 107

IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE­II (NORTH­WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Sessions Case No. 153/11 Unique Case ID: 02404R0096322012 State Vs. Sachin Chaudhary S/o Late Sh. Narain Singh R/o House No. 1/219/2, Chaudhary Hari Chand Building, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt, Delhi.

                                               (Convicted)

FIR No.:                                       110/10
Police Station:                                Bharat Nagar
Under Section:                                 498A/306/304B  IPC

Date of conviction:                            16.7.2013
Arguments concluded on:                        19.7.2013
Date of Sentence:                              27.7.2013

APPEARANCE:

Present:       Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

Convict Sachin Chaudhary in Judicial Custody with Sh. Jagdeep Vats Advocate .

ORDER ON SENTENCE:

The deceased Jyoti was married to the accused Sachin Chaudhary on 15.4.2008 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies after which the deceased St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 108 stared residing at her matrimonial house i.e. House No. 1/219/2, Chaudhary Hari Chand Building, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt, Delhi. As per allegations she remained happy at her matrimonial house for about one and a half months after which the accused started harassing her for demand of dowry. It has been alleged that the accused Sachin Chaudhary subjected Jyoti to cruelty so as to coerce her and her family to meet his unlawful demands for dowry and as a result of the cruelty inflicted by the accused, Smt. Jyoti committed suicide at her parental house by hanging herself on the ceiling fan on 26.4.2010 i.e. within seven years of her marriage.

On the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses particularly the family members of the deceased i.e. mother Smt. Padam Devi, elder brother Prakash Kumar and younger brother Rohit and also on the basis of the other evidence on record this Court vide a detail judgment dated 16.7.2013 held the accused Sachin Chaudhary guilty of the offence under Section 498­A Indian Penal Code for which he has been accordingly convicted. However, he has been acquitted of the charges under Section 304­B and 306 Indian Penal Code.

Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Sachin Chaudhary is stated to be aged about 35 years having a family comprising of aged widow mother, one younger brother and two elders sisters who are married. He is 12th class pass and is a transporter by profession. Ld. Counsel for the convict has vehemently argued that the convict is the sole bread earner of his family since his younger brother is studying outside St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 109 Delhi and his one sister is in Canada and another is a divorcee having one female child studying in class 12th. He has argued that the mother of the convict remain sick and needs care of the accused. He has pointed out that the convict has been convicted for the first time and has been acquitted in all his earlier cases. It is also pointed out that the accused faced the trial regularly and never misused the liberty of bail nor there was any complaint from the prosecution regarding tampering of prosecution evidence. He has also argued that the criminal cases lodged against the convict were politically motivated since he belongs to a political family. He has prayed that a lenient view be taken against the convict.

On the other hand the Ld. Addl. PP for the State prays for a stern view against the convict Sachin Chaudhary keeping in view the allegations involved. He has pointed out that the convict is involved in nine other cases details of which are under:

1. FIR No. 191/1995, U/s. 308/324/34 IPC, PS Vasant Kunj.

2. FIR No. 283/1995, U/s. 452/323/34 IPC, PS Vasant Kunj.

3. FIR No. 27/1996, U/s. 341/506/323/34 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt.

4. FIR No. 222/1996, U/s. 341/323/34 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt.

5. FIR No. 223/1998, U/s. 307/34 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt.

6. FIR No. 679/1998, U/s. 341/354/427/506/34 IPC, PS Vasant Kunj.

7. FIR No. 499/1998, U/s. 341/506/323/34 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt.

8. FIR No. 275/2006, U/s. 323/509 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt.

9. FIR No. 188/2008, U/s. 451/506 IPC, PS Delhi Cantt. St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 110

I have considered the rival contentions. In the past the convict had been involved in a number of cases. I am informed that he has been acquitted in all the aforesaid case. He has an aged and ailing mother and a young brother and any stern view would be prejudicial to his entire family. I hereby award the following sentence to the convict Sachin Chaudhary:

For the offence under Section 498­A Indian Penal Code the convict Sachin Chaudhary is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two (2) Years and fine to the tune of Rs.20,000/­. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months.

Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by him, as per rules.

The convict has been informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against the judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34­37, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.

One copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs and one copy of order on sentence be attached with his jail warrants.

St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar Page No. 111

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open Court                                            (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 27.7.2013                                                      ASJ (NW)­II: ROHINI




St. Vs. Sachin Chaudhary, FIR No. 110/10, PS Bharat Nagar                         Page No. 112