Delhi District Court
State vs . on 16 July, 2014
FIR No. 388/2000
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 388/2000
Under Section : 498-A/304-B IPC
Police Station : Mandawali, Delhi
Sessions Case No : 42/14
Unique I.D. No. : 02402R0058302004
In the matter of :
STATE
Vs.
1. Smt. Vimlesh
W/o Sh. M.L. Gautam,
R/o H.No. E-438, Gali No. 8,
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi.
2. Sh. Dinesh Kumar Gautam
S/o Sh. M.L. Gautam,
R/o H.No. E-438, Gali No. 8,
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi.
3. Sh. Kishan Dutt Gautam
S/o Sh. Sunheri Lal Gautam,
R/o H.No. 60/274A, Jagrer Road, Agra, U.P.
4. Sh. Anil Kumar Gautam
S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Gautam,
R/o H.No. E-438, Gali No. 9,
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi.
5. Ms. Pratibha @ Pinki
W/o Sh. Kishan Dutt Gautam,
R/o H.No. 160-A, Kushaag Colony,
Kheriya Mode, Agra, U.P. ..... Accused persons
Page no. 1 of 30
(Pulastya Pramachala)
Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts / Delhi
FIR No. 388/2000
Date of Institution : 26/10/2002
Date of Committal : 19/02/2003
Date of receiving in this Court : 23/01/2014
Date of reserving judgment : 22/05/2014
Date of pronouncement : 16/07/2014
Decision : Acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. The case of prosecution is based on an unfortunate incident of suicide committed by Ms. Savita at her matrimonial House No. 438, Gali No. 8, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi on 04.11.2000. Information of this incident was received in PS: Mandawali vide DD No. 10-A and thereafter, police as well as SDM Preet Vihar and family members of deceased visited the place of incident. The father of deceased namely Sh. Kuber Dutt Sharma gave statement before SDM alleging that his daughter was married to Dinesh Gautam on 25.11.1993. Before her death, she had gone to her parents' house in Delhi and was taken back by her husband in the night of 02.11.2000. His daughter was harassed by her in-laws on account of dowry demands and demand for money to construct the house at their village as well as on account of birth of a child to her sister-in-law (nanad). The celebration of 'chuchak' ritual was to be conducted in Agra on account of birth of son of sister-in-law of deceased, for which mother-in-law and sister-in-law had made demand of Rs. 2 lacs as gift from the deceased. Accused Kishan (brother-in-law of deceased) had also asked the deceased to attend this function necessarily and had given threats of spoiling of the relationship, if she Page no. 2 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 did not attend the same. The deceased was also harassed in the past by her mother-in-law, brother-in-law (jeth) and others on account of several demands. On the basis of such allegations, present FIR was registered U/s 498-A/304-B IPC.
2. During inspection of dead body, a suicide note was also recovered from the dead body, which was sent to FSL along with admitted handwriting of the deceased. After completion of the investigation, present charge-sheet was filed for offence U/s 498-A/304-B IPC against accused Vimlesh, Anil Kumar Gautam, Kishan Dutt Gautam, Dinesh Kumar Gautam, Mohan Lal Gautam and Pratibha @ Pinki. During pendency of trial of this case, accused Mohan Lal Gautam expired and the case was abated against him.
3. Charges were framed against accused Vimlesh, Dinesh Kumar Gautam, Kishan Dutt Gautam, Anil Kumar Gautam and Pratibha @ Pinki for offence U/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC on 13.07.2004, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution examined 32 witnesses in support of its case. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of all the accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused persons also lead evidence and produced two witnesses in defence. Prosecution Evidence :-
5. PW-1 Sh. Tarun Sharma, PW-2 Sh. Kuber dutt, PW-5 Ms. Manjula, PW-6 Smt. Beena, PW-8 Smt. Mridula, PW-18 Sh. Bhuvnesh and PW-19 Smt. Manisha are family members of deceased Savita. PW-1 and PW-18 are brothers of the deceased. PW-2 is father of the Page no. 3 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 deceased. PW-5 is daughter of the deceased. PW-6 is mother of the deceased. PW-8 is wife of PW-18 i.e. sister-in-law of deceased. PW-19 is aunt of deceased. All these witnesses have given their account of demand of dowry and harassment and cruelty committed upon the deceased. I would discuss the relevant portion of their testimonies during analysis of their evidence in my findings.
6. PW-3 Dr. K. Goyal and PW-27 Sh. K.L. Sharma had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Savita, together along with Dr. D.B. Saharan. PW-3 proved postmortem report as Ex.PW3/A and the subsequent opinion given by him regarding cause of death as Ex.PW3/B. According to his report and opinion, the death was caused due to asphyxia consequent upon ligature hanging. These doctors also found bruises over middle inner aspect of both legs of the deceased, measuring 1.5 x 1 cm.
7. PW-4 Ct. Neelam had received information at Police Control Room about suicide of a woman at house no. 437, E-Block, Mandawali and she had transferred this information to Police Station : Mandawali.
8. PW-7 H.C. Rajesh had accompanied Incahrge of Crime Team to house no. 438 and had taken 18 photographs of the spot of suicide.
9. PW-9 Sh. Raj Pal Singh had simply visited the matrimonial house of deceased, after getting information of suicide. He had seen the dead body lying on the bed, one green coloured saree hanging on hook of ceiling fan, a table lying under the fan and a chair kept over the table.
10. PW-10 H.C. Sushil accompanied IO to house no. E-438 and he had witnessed the proceedings conducted by IO as well as crime team and Page no. 4 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 SDM in the matrimonial house of deceased on 04.11.2000. He had taken the dead body to mortuary at Sabzi Mandi.
11. PW-11 Sh. Mohan Kumar had met accused Dinesh on 04.11.2000 in the area of Mandawali at about 8.30 AM.
12. PW-12 Dr. Hanuman Prasad Gupta was a practising doctor having his clinic at E-160, Gali No. 3, West Vinod Nagar. On 04.11.2000, at about 11.00 AM, he was taken to matrimonial house of deceased by PW-13 Sh. B.N. Thakur and he examined the body of Savita and found her dead. At that time, he found Sh. M.L. Gautam and a small girl present in that house.
13. PW-13 Sh. B.N. Thakur was neighbour of Sh. M.L. Gautam (father-in-
law of deceased). He was called by Sh. M.L. Gautam on 04.11.2000 at about 10.45 AM and he found Savita hanging on a celing fan. He informed police through telephone and brought PW-12 for examination of deceased Savita.
14. PW-14 Smt. Kiran, PW-15 Smt. Santosh and PW-16 Smt. Janak Shree were also neighbourers of Sh. M.L.Gautam. On the shouting of Sh. M.L. Gautam, they had visited his house and saw that Savita was hanging on a ceiling fan with saree. They also raised alarm and tried to open the knot of her saree. However, Savita was brought down by cutting that saree from the middle and she had already died till that time. SDM had recorded their statements.
15. PW-17 Smt. Usha, PW-21 Ms. P. Sanadh and PW-29 Smt. Mahadevi were neighbourers of PW-2 i.e. father of the deceased. They also gave their account of demand of dowry and harassment and cruelty Page no. 5 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 committed upon deceased Savita by her in-laws.
16. PW-20 W.H.C. Paanwati had accompanied IO i.e. PW-30 and after arrest of accused Vimlesh, she had conducted her personal search.
17. PW-22 Ct. Rana Pratap Singh was present during arrest of accused Dinesh.
18. PW-23 ASI Dal Chand had recorded the FIR on 05.12.2000 at about 11.05 AM.
19. PW-24 Sh. S.M. Haider was the then SDM Preet Vihar, who had visited the matrimonial house of deceased on 04.11.2000, after receiving information about her suicide. Thereafter, he had conducted his inquest proceedings and had recorded statement of several witnesses.
20. PW-25 Sh. Raghuvir Singh was also neighbour of accused persons, who had come to know about suicide of Savita at 1.00 PM on 04.11.2000.
21. PW-26 Sh. Satyam Sinha was the resident of Muzaffarpur Bihar, who came to Delhi in June 2000 in search of a job. He had met accused Dinesh at Muzaffarpur and accused Dinesh had sent him at his house at Delhi to seek help from his family members and to stay at their house. He started residing in the house of accused persons since June 2000. He also gave account of the demand for dowry and torture being committed upon deceased Savita.
22. PW-28 Sh. Pooran was working as mason in the village of accused persons. He was engaged by accused persons in the construction of their house at their village in the District : Aligarh, U.P. On 04.11.2000, on his demand accused Dinesh had supplied him cement at his village Page no. 6 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 and later on, Dinesh asked him to stop the work on same day. Thereafter, Dinesh along with his mother departed for Delhi. In the evening, he came to know that wife of Dinesh had committed suicide.
23. PW-30 S.I. R.D. Sharma was IO of this case, who had investigated this case till the time he was transferred from the concerned Police Station.
24. PW-31 Inspector B.P. Sharma had taken up later part of investigation of this case, who had arrested accused Dinesh, Anil and Pratibha. Later on, he prepared the challan and filed the same in the Court.
25. PW-32 Sh. Kamal Dev Dogra was posted as SDM, Preet Vihar on 29.11.2000. He sent the records of inquest proceedings for necessary action to SHO of PS: Mandawali vide his directions Ex.PW32/A and Ex.PW32/B. Defence Evidence :-
26. Accused persons also produced DW-1 Sh. Badam Singh and DW-2 Sh.
Mahesh Chand Sharma as defence witnesses in this case.
27. DW-1 Sh. Badam Singh had informed police that accused Dinesh and Vimlesh were present in their village - Thanpur, District - Aligarh, U.P on 04.11.2000, as they were renovating their ancestral house. According to this witness, Dinesh and Vimlesh had returned to Delhi on 04.11.2000 after receiving information about incident in question.
28.DW-2 Sh. Mahesh Chand Sharma was next door neighbour of the accused persons. According to DW-2, all sons of Sh. M.L. Gautam were employed and were residing out of Delhi and deceased Savita used to vist house of her in-laws only during festivals. Accused Pratibha was residing at Agra during those days. Sh. M.L. Gautam did Page no. 7 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 not give his house on rent to any tenant and Savita was having cordial relations with her in-laws.
Arguments of prosecution and complainant :-
29. On behalf of prosecution and complainant, following plea were taken in the arguments :-
(a) All the family members of the deceased Savita i.e PW-1, PW-2, PW-5, PW-6, PW-8 and PW-18 proved the demand for dowry.
Other witnesses like PW-13, PW-14, PW-15, PW-16, PW-17, PW-19, PW-21, PW-25, PW-28 and PW-29 proved that the deceased was tortured by the accused persons. Therefore, presumption U/s 113 (b) of Indian Evidence Act goes against the accused persons.
(b) As per Section 498-A IPC, every unlawful demand relating to cruelty is covered under the ambit of this provision. In the present case, the demand of money and consequent cruelty for the purpose of construction of house as well as 'chuchak' make out a duly proved case for offence U/s 498-A IPC.
(c) The cruelty on account of such demand of money is duly proved by the testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-6, PW-26 and others. PW-5 also proved that her mother was tortured by her mother-in-law.
(d) PW-11 proved that accused Dinesh was present in Delhi on the day of incident.
(e) The suicide note produced by the police also indicates the cruelty and harassment caused by the accused persons to the deceased.
(f) Accused Dinesh admitted in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. that Page no. 8 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 construction of his house was going on in his village and that he had brought Savita from her parental house on 02.11.2000.
(g) The expectation of the accused persons from deceased Savita was very high because she was only daughter of her parents and therefore, the accused persons kept demanding money for different purposes and on failure of fulfillment of such demands, they tortured and harassed the deceased, which compelled her to commit suicide on 04.11.2000.
Arguments of defence :-
30. On behalf of accused persons following plea were taken in the arguments :-
(a) After marriage, deceased never lived with her in-laws as she was residing with her husband at places, as per posting of her husband.
Therefore, there was no occasion to make demand for dowry or to cause cruelty or harassment for such purposes by her in-laws.
(b) Deceased committed suicide after about 7 years of marriage and during these 7 years, neither deceased nor her parents lodged any complaint against the accused persons.
(c) The suicide note was recovered from the deceased in the presence of SDM and her father, which is Ex.PW2/C and in the suicide note as well, deceased did not make any allegation against the accused persons. The suicide note was examined by FSL and compared with admitted handwriting of the deceased and was found to be written by deceased, vide report Ex.PW13/D1.
(d) Accused Pratibha was married to accused Kishan Dutt in 1999, who Page no. 9 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 lived with her husband at Agra. Accused Pratibha and Kishan Dutt never lived with deceased. Therefore, no question of making demand for dowry arise against these accused persons.
(e) Accused Pratibha was under treatment from 06.03.2000 to 30.10.2000. She gave birth to male child. The invitation given by accused Sh. Kishan Dutt for the function of 'kua pujan' of his son at Agra and his statement on phone that if Savita failed to attend this function, then in that condition their relations would come to an end, is the only allegation against accused Kishan Dutt, which does not make out any offence against him or accused Pratibha.
(f) PW-5 Smt. Manjula deposed that none of the accused demand dowry from her mother and they had good relations with her mother.
(g) Even in the letter Ex.PW4/DA, which was handed over by PW-2 for comparison of handwriting on suicide note, no allegations were made regarding any cruelty or dowry demand. Rather, deceased requested her parents to take care of her in-laws, who was residing at West Vinod Nagar. Such letter of deceased shows that she had good relations with her in-laws.
(h) Accused Anil was also posted in air-force, who never lived with the deceased as he was posted at different places.
(i) The photographs placed on the record Ex.PW1/DA to PW1/DH show that deceased was living peacefully with her husband, who did not lodge any complaint against any accused persons during her life time. Rather, she stated in her suicide note that after her death, nothing be said to her husband.
Page no. 10 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000
(j) Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to any cruelty soon before her death, which had genesis in the demand for dowry.
31. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons relied upon the following case laws :-
(a) Gurucharan Kumar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 675;
(b) Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2010 (3) Apex Court Judgments 258 (SC);
(c) Bhim Singh & Ors. v. The State of Haryana & Ors., 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal);
(d) Nand Kishore Singh v. State of Jharkhand, I (2005) DMC 666;
(e) Saro Rana & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand, 2005 (1) RCR (Criminal);
(f) State of Rajasthan v. Teg Bahadur & Ors., 2005 SCC (Cri.) 218;
(g) Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, 2004 (3) RCR (Criminal) 508;
(h) Tarkeshwar Prasad & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2003 Crl. L.J. 3686;
(i) Vinita & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2012 (1) LRC 329 (Del);
(j) S. Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Ganna v. State of Karnataka, II (2013) DMC 574 (SC);
(k) Brij Mohan v. State, 2011 (6) LRC 227 (Del);
(l) Shindo @ Sawinder Kaur & Anr v. State of Punjab, 2011 (5) LRC 128 (SC);
(m)Ramesh Krishna v. State of Delhi, II (2013) DMC 756 (Del.);
Page no. 11 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000
(n) John Vasant Khandagal v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (4) LRC 424 (Bom);
(o) (xv) Rani v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2011 (1) LRC 271 (Del).
32. In the case of Gurucharan Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court acquitted the accused persons for offence U/s 304-B/306 IPC on the basis of evidence that the suicide note left by the deceased did not contain any statement, which could be used against the accused persons and that the letters of the deceased also did not show that deceased was being subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry.
33. In Amar Singh's case (supra), Supreme Court observed that use of the terms like 'harassed' or 'torture' by a witness without describing the exact conduct of the accused, which according to him amounted to harassment or torture, may not be believed by the Court. The Court further observed that "demand of dowry by itself is not an offence U/s 498-A IPC or Section 304-B IPC". What is punishable U/s 498-A or Section 304-B is the act of cruelty or harassment by the husband or the relative of the husband on the woman. It will be also clear from Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act that only when it is shown that soon before her death woman has been subjected by any person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death within the meaning of Section 304-B IPC.
34. In Bhim Singh's case (supra), Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted the accused persons on the ground that (i) It was husband, Page no. 12 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 who had lodged report with police, (ii) There was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage or thereafter, (iii) Demand of Rs. 1.50 lakh for construction of house does not come within definition, (iv) Father of deceased admitted in cross-examination that his sons, daughter and even himself were short tempered and one of his sons committed suicide by throwing himself before running train, (v) Deceased was urbanized and was not able to do agriculture work in village and (vi) Deceased wanted to live separately and wanted to open stitching school.
35. In Nand Kishore Singh's case (supra) also, Jharkhand High Court made similar observation that in absence of any evidence to show cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before the death, no presumption could be raised U/s 113 (B) of Indian Evidence Act.
36. In Saro Rana's case (supra), Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court observed that demand of Rs. 25,000/- by husband for construction of a house did not come within definition of dowry U/s 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
37. In Teg Bahadur's case (supra), Supreme Court held that demand of dowry is one of the essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC, which has to be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts.
38.In Om Prakash's case (supra), Punjab and Haryana High Court found that general allegations of demand of dowry and harassment were not sufficient to maintain the conviction of the accused persons, particularly in absence of any evidence to indicate any date, month or year of such Page no. 13 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 demand.
39. In Tarkeshwar Prasad's case (supra), the letter written by deceased to her parents soon before her death did not mention a word about demand of dowry or cruelty by her in-laws and this was found to be an important circumstance for disbelieving the story regarding cruelty and dowry death by Madhya Pradesh High Court.
40. In Vinita's case (supra), High Court of Delhi held that "if it is to be presumed that money was demanded by the appellants for the construction of one portion on the terrace of the house, then that demand for money on account of some financial stringencies or meeting some urgent domestic manure cannot be termed as demand of dowry, as is decided in Appasaheb & Anr. (supra)."
41. In S. Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Ganna's case (supra) also, Supreme Court acquitted the accused persons on the ground that prosecution failed to prove the basic ingredients of harassment and demand of dowry.
42. In Brij Mohan's case, Delhi High Court did not find allegations of cruelty to be established on the record. The Court also took into account that no prior or any contemporaneous documents were placed on the record to elucid demand of dowry and harassment by the accused persons.
43. In Shindo's case (supra) also, Supreme Court did not find all ingredients of Section 304-B IPC being satisfied by prosecution evidence.
44. In Ramesh's case (supra), Bombay High Court gave benefit of doubt to Page no. 14 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 the accused persons because prosecution failed to establish that victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment on account of dowry demands. The Court reiterated that there must be material to show that soon before her death, victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry.
45. In John Vasant Khandagal's case (supra) as well, Bombay High Court reiterated that all ingredients of Section 304-B IPC must be established by the prosecution.
46. In Rani's case, Delhi High Court discouraged the tendency of the Court to hold some body as culprit just because a young bride had died after marriage.
Findings :-
47. In this case, all accused persons were charged with allegation that in furtherance of their common intention, they subjected Smt. Savita to cruelty from the date of her marriage till 04.01.2000 (should be 04.11.2000) for not bringing sufficient dowry demands and thereby they committed offence U/s 498-A/34 IPC. They were also charged with allegations that they subjected Savita with cruelty on account of dowry demand, due to which she committed suicide on 04.11.2000 and died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage and thus, they committed an offence U/s 304-B/34 IPC.
48.Before analyzing the evidence on the record, it would be appropriate to refer to the legal requirements to attract the culpability for offence U/s 498-A IPC and U/s 304-B IPC. Section 498-A IPC has following ingredients :-
Page no. 15 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000
(a) The accused must be husband or relative of the husband of the victim.
(b) Accused subjected the victim to cruelty i.e. accused did something willfully in such manner, which was likely to drive the victim to commit suicide or which was likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman, or
(c) Accused harassed the victim with a view to coerce her or any person related to her, to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, or
(d) Caused harassment of the victim on account of failure to meet such demand.
49. Similarly, the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC may be summarized as under:-
(a) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances,
(b) Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage,
(c) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband,
(d) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.
(Ref.: Shanti v. State of Haryana AIR 1991 SC 1226; Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2010 AIR (SC) 3391 & 2010 (9) SCC 14.)
50. As far as the cause of death of deceased Savita is concerned, testimony of PW-3 Dr. K. Goyal and PW-27 Sh.K.L. Sharma read along Page no. 16 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 with the postmortem report given by them i.e. Ex.PW3/A and the subsequent opinion Ex.PW3/B, leave no doubt that Savita died unnatural death. It is also an admitted fact that on the date of death of deceased Savita, the period of 07 years from the date of her marriage with accused Dinesh had not completed. There were still 21 more days to celebrate 7th marriage anniversary on 25th November. Unfortunately, Savita left this world on 04th November itself.
51. Now the core issue involved in this case remains limited to the question that whether any demand for dowry was made by the accused persons or that any other unlawful demand was made by the accused persons and that whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with such demands?
52. As far as accused persons are concerned, it is also undisputed fact that all accused persons are related to each other and accused Dinesh Kumar Gautam was husband of deceased Savita.
53. I shall start my discussion dealing with the allegations for demand for dowry. The term dowry has been defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the same has been explained by Supreme Court in S. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh {AIR 1996 SC 2184} in following terms "property or valuable security so as to constitute dowry within the meaning of the Act must, therefore, be given or demanded as consideration for the marriage." Therefore, the term 'consideration' assumes importance because if any article is not given as a consideration for a marriage, then it would not be covered with definition of dowry. The term 'dowry' was dealt with by Supreme Court Page no. 17 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 in other cases as well. In Appasaheb & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (1) Crimes 110 (SC), Supreme Court has held as under :-
"9. 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 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. Since an essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC viz. Demand for dowry is not established the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained."
Page no. 18 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000
54. In respect of demand for dowry, relevant testimony of PW-1 is that accused demanded Rs. 50,000/- at the time of 'chuchak' and from time to time like Diwali and other festivals. In the cross-examination conducted by ld. Addl. P.P, PW-1 further deposed that there was demand of Rs. 1.5 lakh at the time of marriage of sister-in-law (nanad of the deceased). In this regard, PW-2 (father of deceased) deposed that on the marriage of accused Pratibha (sister-in-law), he spent Rs. 25,000/- on gift. However, accused Vimlesh (mother-in-law) slapped deceased in a vehicle and she demanded more money. He further deposed that he had paid Rs. 2 lacks in the marriage of accused Pratibha. Another instance of demand relates for the construction of house in village by the accused persons. According to PW-2, in-laws of deceased started demanding money for construction of their house. He further deposed that deceased had told him about her beating by accused Anil (jeth of deceased) and Vimlesh on the occasion of Diwali and deceased was asked to bring Rs. 2 lacs and was threatened to be killed by hanging, if she did not bring such amount. PW-2 further deposed that accused persons had demanded Rs. 2 lacks at the time of marriage of deceased and he had paid all such amount in installments.
55. According to PW-5 Ms. Manjula (daughter of deceased), there was good relation between deceased and accused persons and she did not witness any demand for dowry.
56. According to PW-6 Smt. Beena (mother of deceased), deceased had told her that she was not allowed to perform Laxmi Pooja on the Page no. 19 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 occasion of Diwali and she was beaten by accused Anil and her husband. However, she further deposed that there was no demand from accused persons for gifts or cash amount in the marriage of accused Pratibha. She was present at the time of alleged slapping of deceased by accused Vimlesh, however, she did not hear the conversation between the deceased and accused Vimlesh.
57. According to PW-8 Smt. Mridula (wife of brother of deceased), deceased and Dinesh had strained relationship when she came on 02.11.2000 and Savita used to tell about misbehavior of her in-laws. Savita (deceased) told about misbehavior on the occasion of 'bhaiya dooj' in 2000. At the same time, this witness deposed that Savita never wanted any disturbance in her married life by telling her personal problems to them.
58.According to Smt. PW-17 Usha, deceased had told her about dowry demands, beatings and cruelties, whenever she visited her parents' house. Deceased also told this witness that she used to visit her parents' house because of demands made by accused persons.
59. According to PW-18 Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar (brother of deceased), deceased had told him about demand of Rs. 50,000/- made by accused Krishan. At the same time, he further deposed that Savita did not tell him any particular dowry article, which was demanded by the accused persons. He deposed that deceased told him that her in-laws were not happy with whatever were given in the dowry. He further deposed that whenever deceased visited her matrimonial house in Delhi, her family members used to visit there and during those visits, Page no. 20 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 this witness came to know about dowry demands. He further deposed that even in the hospital, at the time of delivery of her child, deceased had talked about dowry demands.
60. According to PW-19 Smt. Manisha (aunt of deceased), accused Vimlesh used to taunt deceased for bringing insufficient dowry.
61. According to PW-26 Sh. Satyam Sinha (tenant of accused persons), accused Dinesh and Anil used to demand money from deceased for completing the construction of their house. Accused Dinesh and his family members also used to demand money from deceased for 'kua pujan' after birth of a child of sister of Dinesh. Accused Krishan also demanded money and all of them were saying that deceased had to bring money, otherwise, she would be killed.
62. From the careful scrutiny of all these testimonies, I find that even if I treat these allegations to be true on the face of it, even then none of these allegations make out a case of demand for dowry in its strict sense. All these allegations referred to demand of money, which had no connection with the marriage of deceased with accused Dinesh and which was never treated as consideration for marriage of deceased with Dinesh. Therefore, all these alleged demands cannot be treated as demand for dowry. In that situation, there cannot be any question to invoke presumption U/s 113 (B) of Evidence Act or to raise presumption of guilt U/s 304-B IPC against the accused persons. I am able to give such conclusion without going into the question of reliability of all these allegations, because the allegations in themselves do not satisfy the required ingredients of Section 304-B IPC. Any cruelty as Page no. 21 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 contemplated U/s 304-B IPC has to be in connection with demand of dowry and even if, it is established that cruelty was there, but demand of dowry is not established by the prosecution, then there cannot be any question of assuming guilt U/s 304-B IPC.
63. However, I would deal with the reliability of such allegations as well because the ambit of Section 498-A IPC is wider than the ambit of Section 304-B IPC in the sense that the demand for dowry is not the exclusive requirement in Section 498-A IPC. This provision includes any other unlawful demand and cruelty or harassment related with such unlawful demand.
64. In this case, prosecution has proved a suicide note left by the deceased as Ex.PW2/C. This suicide note was found by SDM and police immediately after her death and during inspection of her dead body, in the presence of PW-2 (father of deceased). This suicide note was disputed by PW-2 to be in handwriting of deceased. Therefore, IO sent this suicide note to FSL along with admitted handwriting of the deceased. After examination, FSL gave its report i.e. Ex.PW30/DA, according to which the suicide note was written by the deceased. Besides that PW-2/DA is a letter written by deceased to her parents. The handwriting of deceased was identified on this letter by PW-2. From the suicide note Ex.PW2/C and this letter Ex.PW2/DA, I find that there is no whisper of any kind of demand being made by the accused persons from the deceased. These are only two documentary evidence placed on the record, which do not support the case of prosecution that accused persons had been making demand of any money or articles Page no. 22 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 from the deceased. PW-2 deposed that deceased had written one or two letters. However, none of such letters have been proved on the record by the prosecution to show any such allegations made by deceased herself. The rest of the evidence of the prosecution is a kind of second hand evidence, which is known as hearsay evidence. By virtue of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, such evidence is though, admissible in the present proceeding, because this proceeding relates to the question of cause of death of the deceased. However, such evidence has to be carefully analyzed by the Court in order to find their credibility. An argument was made on behalf of complainant that in the suicide note deceased had stated that her father-in-law did not accept water from her and she did not want to live like a servant. However, such contents of suicide note do not reflect that deceased was harassed on account of any unlawful demand. It is apparent that deceased was not happy for some reasons, but these reasons are not well explained and established by this note.
65. Coming back to the testimonies of the relevant PWs (family members of deceased), I find that the allegations made by them are not consistently deposed by all PWs. First of all, the witnesses have not referred to any particular date or time in the past, when the deceased had told them about the alleged demands. There are mention of basically three demands by these PWs. One demand relates to construction of house of the accused persons at their village, another demand relates to marriage of accused Pratibha and third demand relates to the occasion of 'chuchak' (on the occasion of birth of son to Page no. 23 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 the accused Pratibha and Krishan). According to PW-1, when deceased was going to her parental home on a day before 'bhaiya dooj' in the year 2000, she told him that on the day of Diwali, her jeth (accused Anil) and mother-in-law gave her beatings and taunted her that she was not doing the house-hold work. She further told PW-1 that accused Dinesh (husband) remained a mute spectator. On the other hand, according to PW-2, deceased told him that she was beaten by accused Anil and mother-in-law and she was asked to bring Rs. 2 lac. According to PW-2, deceased told him that threats were given to her to kill her by hanging. Now the question is that whether deceased gave two account of facts to two different persons? Obvious answer is no. Now in addition to such contradiction, the statement given by PW-6 (mother) is that deceased told her that she was not allowed to perform laxmi puja on Diwali and she was beaten by accused Anil and her husband. On the other hand, other witnesses like PW-8, PW-17, PW-18, PW-19, PW-21 and PW-29, who claimed that deceased used to tell them about her harassment and torture, did not say anything about such incidence of Diwali. Such testimony of these PWs has the effect to show that the deceased used to tell different things to different persons, which in my humble opinion cannot be a true picture of facts. It has to be seen that besides family members of the deceased, the other witnesses who have deposed for the prosecution, used to reside in neighbourhood of parental house of the deceased and they must have been in contact with the family members of the deceased. The deceased could not tell different facts to her family members and in that Page no. 24 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 situation, the account of facts relating to the festival of Diwali, as given by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 cannot be believed upon.
66. It becomes painful, when I read the testimony of PW-2, who said that deceased told her about her beating by accused Anil and Vimlesh on Diwali and also about the threats to be killed by hanging, if she would not bring Rs. 2 lacs. I am unable to comprehend that how could PW-2 remain action-less despite being told about such serious allegations by her daughter. As far as status of PW-2 is concerned, he has been shown to be well settled in the business of transport. The letter Ex.PW2/DA written by the deceased to PW-2 and PW-6 (parents) shows that deceased had asked her parents to take care of her parents-in-law, which also shows that the parents of the deceased were not at least lesser in status than the accused persons. In that situation, nothing could have prevented PW-2 to take such allegations seriously and to take the accused persons to task, by moving complaint either before police or before the Court or before any other relevant authority. PW-2 has not even whispered about any such action taken after receiving the alleged information from her deceased daughter. Similar is the situation with PW-18, who claimed to be a political activist and who also claimed to hear all such sad story of her sister regarding cruelties or harassment being caused by the accused persons. Still, this political activist also opted to remain silent. This is actually an improbable scenario that a father or a brother, having sound status in the society as well as financial condition, would opt to remain silent, if he comes to know that his daughter/sister is being subjected to cruelty Page no. 25 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 and beating and that threats are being given to her to kill her. I have seen father of the deceased attending the Court on every date of hearing during my tenure. Therefore, I can appreciate his interest in this case. Such interest could have been at the relevant time prior to death of deceased as well, based on the love and affection and concern for the deceased, had the deceased narrated such incidents to her family members. Therefore, I do not find it probable scenario that such incidents were actually narrated by deceased to her family members. My this assumption is fortified with some other piece of evidence i.e. the admission of PW-1 that deceased used to reside with accused Dinesh at different places of his posting and that the family members of Dinesh did not reside with them at such places. I have already mentioned that admittedly, deceased used to write letters to her parents and even PW-1 mentioned the same, but in none of such letters any allegations have been shown against the accused persons.
67. From the testimony of these witnesses, I also find that all of them had referred to a telephonic call made by accused Krishan to ask the deceased to attend the function of 'chuchak'. Different PWs have given different colour to such invitation of accused Krishan. In the first statement given before SDM, it was stated that accused Krishan insisted that the deceased must come to attend this function, otherwise, their relationship would come to an end. However, such contentions were modified before the Court to allege that Krishan threatened for dire consequences, if deceased did not attend the function of 'chuchak'. The talk, as per PW-1, was held between deceased and accused Page no. 26 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 Krishan. However, PW-2 claimed that he had attended this call, in contradiction to his own previous statement that deceased had received such call. Such over enthusiastic attitude of these witnesses to impute allegations against accused Krishan is reflective of their mind set to take revenge because of unnatural death of deceased. It was admitted by PW-2 that there was no demand of dowry from accused persons before marriage. PW-6 (mother) also admitted that there was no demand from accused persons for gift or cash payment in the marriage of accused Pratibha. None of these PWs claimed that accused persons demanded anything from them directly, though, they tried to make vague allegations that accused persons demanded money for construction of their house at village. Therefore, I find that the allegations of demand and consequential cruelty and harassment are not based on any concrete facts and they have remained like general and vague allegations without having any corroboration.
68.In this respect, the testimony of PW-5 (daughter) assumes importance, who deposed that on the day of the unfortunate incident, she was present in the house with her grand father. Her such statement, rebuts the claim of PW-2 and case of prosecution that accused Dinesh and Vimlesh were also present in the house during the death of deceased. PW-5 deposed that her grand mother (Vimlesh) used to snub her mother (deceased). However, she further deposed that there was no dispute as such between her grand father and mother except on the way of working of her mother. She did not witness any quarrel between her parents. She referred to a rebuke to her mother by her uncle. All Page no. 27 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 these statements of PW-5 reflect that there were differences of opinion and consequential tussle between deceased and her parents-in-law, particularly mother-in-law. A tussle between a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, on other grounds than related to dowry or other unlawful demands, is not very uncommon feature of Indian house- holds. However, all such tussles cannot be given colour of an act of cruelty, so as to drive the victim to commit suicide, nor such tussle can be treated to be the cruelty or harassment related with any unlawful demand as covered U/s 498-A IPC. It has been also admitted by even PW-6 that accused Anil was also posted in Air-Force like accused Dinesh and they had different places of postings. PW-2 admitted that accused Dinesh remained posted at different places like Allahabad, Pune and Purnia before coming to Delhi. Even accused and deceased has shifted to Delhi after transfer of Dinesh to Delhi. PW-1 and PW-6 had visited deceased and Dinesh at Pune and had spent time with them. PW-2 admitted that Dinesh did not demand any dowry from his wife or son. He rather admitted that deceased was happy in the company of accused Dinesh, but her complaints started with other in- laws joined them. Now the question is that when accused Anil and Dinesh never remained posted at one station together and when parents in-law of deceased were not residing with Dinesh at his place of postings, how could there be a continuous process of cruelty or harassment, which could have any effect to drive the accused Savita to commit suicide. One or two instances of heated talk or altercation between Savita and one of other members of family of her in-laws Page no. 28 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 cannot constitute example of such cruelty, which can be covered within ambit of Section 498-A IPC. It is a normal phenomena out of human behavior that when some persons reside together, then there happen to some dispute over one or another issue. All such disputes, which are otherwise and part and parcel of a married life cannot be covered within the ambit of Section 498-A IPC, unless it is shown that such dispute took form of such kind of cruelty upon the victim, which left no other option, but to drive the victim to commit suicide. In the present case, I do not find any such evidence from the testimony of family members of deceased or other persons, which could show that the deceased was subjected to such kind of cruelty, which had only one effect i.e. to drive her to commit suicide.
69. The question of making other unlawful demands also done arise as it is not so established by the prosecution evidence. Rather from the testimony of PW-6 it is established that while residing at Pune and Purnia, deceased was running a beauty parlor and accused Dinesh used to transfer money to PW-6. PW-6 deposed that such amounts were transfered to her by Dinesh as payment for supply of raw materials to the deceased. Such situation shows that for one or another reasons money kept changing hands between accused Dinesh and parents of deceased Savita. Though, accused Dinesh took plea that such amount was transfered as payment for a new flat at Ghaziabad, but whatever be the case it can be safely inferred that in these circumstances there is least probability of pressuring for any unlawful demand by accused persons including Dinesh. Had it been like that, Page no. 29 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR No. 388/2000 then Dinesh would not have been transferring any money to PW-6? Rather he would have been pressuring for more money from PW-6 and PW-2. Therefore, it cannot be believed that accused persons had been making unlawful demand for money one or another pretext.
70. The testimony of PW-26 cannot be relied upon in view of the fact that he admittedly worked for PW-1 and it is not improbable that he deposed at the instance of family members of the deceased. His allegation that he resided in the house of the accused persons, is not substantiated and proved by the prosecution.
71. Therefore, I find that the evidence produced by prosecution, if analyze on the parameters of case laws already disclosed herein above, do not lead me to raise an assumption of guilt for offence either U/s 498-A IPC or U/s 304-B IPC. In view of the same, all the accused persons are acquitted of all the charges against them.
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 16.07.2014 Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) (This judgment contains 30 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Page no. 30 of 30 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi