Delhi District Court
State vs . on 29 September, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - NORTH EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI
State
Vs.
Raj Kumar
S/o Charan Dass
R/o A506, Baba Ganga Dass Gali
Kaithwara, Delhi.
FIR NO: 373/10
U.Secs: 498A/304B IPC
P.S. New Usmanpur
Sessions Case No. : 13/11
Date of Institution of case : 08.03.2011
Date on which reserved for Judgment : 27.09.2011
Date of Judgment : 29.09.2011
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated that prosecution case is that on 28.11.2010 an information was received in Police Station New Usmanpur vide DD No.3 A regarding the death of a lady from Sant Parmanand Hospital. The said DD was handed over to ASI Yashpal Singh for inquiry. ASI Yashpal Singh Sessions Case No.13/11 Page1/28 2 reached Sant Parmanand Hospital, Civil Line, Delhi and found that Smt.Poonam W/o Raj Kumar R/o A506, Kaithrwara, New Usmanpur was brought to the hospital by her husband. Smt. Poonam was declared brought dead by the doctors.
I.O. made inquires and it came to be known that deceased Smt. Poonam was married to Raj Kumar in year 2004. Since the death was not natural, SDM Seelampur was informed and dead body was sent to Mortuary of GTB Hospital.
On 29.11.2010 postmortem of the dead body was got conducted by Sh.A.K.Sharma SDM and the dead body was handed over to father of the deceased, Sh.Niranjan Singh.
SDM Seelampur recorded the statements of Sh.Niranjan Singh and Smt. Prakash Devi parents of the deceased. Sh.Nirjanjan Singh father of the deceased gave his statement before the SDM that his daughter Poonam was married to accused Raj Kumar in the year 2004. One daughter namely Subhi was born out of the wedlock, who is aged 5 years and was studying in Victoria School. Niranjan Singh further stated that on 28.11.2010 at about 9.00 a.m he received a call from brother of accused Raj Kumar, namely Naresh that they were taking Poonam to Parmanand Hospital as her condition was serious. On this he along with his daughter reached the hospital. There aunt (chachi) of accused Raj Sessions Case No.13/11 Page2/28 3 Kumar told them that Poonam had died.
Niranjan Singh further stated his daughter Poonam (since deceased) was married to Raj Kumar six years back. (six years prior to her death). Twothree years prior to death of Poonam, they came to know that accused Raj Kumar was having illicit relations with some other girl, due to which Poonam was under depression. On 27.11.2010 at about 5.00 p.m. he had a talk with Poonam and she was alright. He does not knew that what had happened that she suddenly died on 28.11.2010. He further stated in his statement that neither accused nor his family members every demanded any dowry nor she was ever beaten but his daughter was under
depression due to illicit relations of the accused. He further stated that he had gone to the house of accused to make him understand, but the accused did not pay any heed to it. He further stated that accused himself used to give injections and medicines to Poonam. Niranjan Singh further stated that he had suspicion that accused had given some wrong medicines to his daughter due to which Poonam had expired.
On this statement of the complainant Niranjan Singh, SDM ordered for registration of the FIR. Accused was arrested. Viscera was sent to FSL for chemical analysis.
After completion of investigation, challan was filed in the court for the offences punishable under sections 498A/304B IPC. Sessions Case No.13/11 Page3/28 4
Ld. M.M after supply of copies etc, committed the case to the court of Sessions.
Vide orders dated 21.3.2011, charge for the offences punishable under sections 498A/304B IPC and in alternative for the offences punishable under section 302 IPC was framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. PW1 Niranjan Singh is father of the deceased Poonam. He stated that his daughter Poonam was married to accused Raj Kumar in the year 2004. Poonam and Raj Kumar were also having a daughter by the name of Shubhi who is about five years. On 27.11.2010, in the evening he received a phone call from his deceased daughter Poonam and he had talked to her. He made inquiries about her well being. She told him that she was in sound health. On 28.11.2010 he had again received a telephone call from the inlaws house of his daughter Poonam. The Chachi of Poonam talked to his daughter Sarika and told that Poonam was unwell. He and Sarika were alone in the house and they both went to Parmanand Hospital. He met the relatives of the accused in the hospital. He (PW1) was informed in the hospital that Poonam had expired. He became anxious and called his relatives on telephone. His relatives came to Parmanand Hospital. He further stated that he did not know what had Sessions Case No.13/11 Page4/28 5 happened to Poonam. He further stated that accused had brought her in the hospital. His statement was recorded on 29.11.2010 by the SDM and the same is ExPW1/A. PW1 further stated that Poonam used to have regular conversation with her mother and sister. She used to have less conversation with him. He came to know from the mother of Poonam that Raj Kumar was harassing Poonam. He further stated that accused is a chemist by profession and he used to give medicines to his daughter Poonam in the house itself. Accused never got admitted his daughter in the hospital. He did not know what medicine accused was giving to his daughter Poonam and he also did not know what was the sudden cause of death of Poonam.
PW1 further stated that he also came to know that accused Raj Kumar was having relationship with some girl. He had also visited the house of the accused for effecting compromise. A Panchayat was held where Raj Kumar had categorically refused to keep his daughter Poonam. He further stated that he had reasonable apprehension that his daughter Poonam was being mentally tortured due to a second girl in the life of accused. In the Panchayat it was also decided that the accused would mend his ways and would not repeat his mistake.
PW1 further stated that his son was got married on Sessions Case No.13/11 Page5/28 6 17.11.2010. All the relatives of Raj Kumar were present and Poonam arrived later on. Poonam was unwell at the time of marriage and he had asked her how she was and she had replied that she was fine.
This witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl.P.P. wherein in he admitted that at about 9.00 a.m on 28.11.10 he was informed on telephone by Naresh younger brother of Raj Kumar that Poonam was unwell and was taken to Parmanand Hospital ; that he had come to know 23 years prior to the incident that accused was having illicit relationship with some girl and due to this reason his daughter Poonam was mentally disturbed for the last 23 years ; that he had visited the house of accused to reason with him (accused) about his illicit relationship with another girl but he did not listen to him; that accused Raj Kumar used to administer injections and give medicines to his daughter and he (PW1) was having suspicion that accused had given some wrong injection or medicines resulting in the death of his daughter.
This witness also admitted it be to be correct that he had identified the dead body of his daughter Poonam in GTB Hospital Mortuary vide memo Ex.PW1/B and after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to him vide handing over memo Ex. PW1/C. PW2 Smt. Prakash Devi is mother of the deceased Poonam. She stated that on 27.11.2010 in the evening her daughter Sarika Sessions Case No.13/11 Page6/28 7 had conversation with her other daughter Poonam. On 28.11.2010 in the morning they had received a telephone call from Devar of Poonam that she (Poonam) was unwell and was being taken to the hospital. They reached at the hospital where she came to know that Poonam had already expired. Poonam was in the best of her health and she was not suffering from any disease.
On 11.11.2010 Poonam had come to her house and her husband i.e accused Raj Kumar had also accompanied her. She was having some cold and cough for which the accused had given her some medicines on which her daughter had started vomiting. They had taken her to Jeevan Mala Hospital and the accused had got her discharged saying that Poonam would be treated in the hospital of his choice. Accused had got her admitted in some hospital. Poonam was discharged from the hospital and she was shifted to her inlaws house. She had visited the house of Poonam and requested the motherinlaw of Poonam to send Poonam with them so that they could get her treated. Poonam's mother inlaw told them that she was getting Poonam treated. She further stated that she did not know what medicines had been given to Poonam by the accused. She further stated that accused was having illicit relationship with some girl and due to this reason Poonam was being harassed. She further stated that accused had also demanded from Poonam Rs.50,000/ Sessions Case No.13/11 Page7/28 8 for his shop but they could not fulfill the demand of accused. Accused used to come late at night and he also used to give wrong medicines and injections to Poonam. Poonam was not suffering from any decease and she was hale and hearty. She (PW2) had visited several times the house of accused and even a Panchayat was called. They had told us that they would reason with the accused and nothing of this sort would happen in future. Raj Kumar had told Poonam that if she (Poonam) wanted to live she should live like this and he would not mend his ways. The accused had removed her daughter from his way. She further stated that she had given the statement to the SDM which is Ex.PW2/A. PW3 HC Layak Ali is the Duty Officer. He stated that on 29.11.2010 a rukka was handed over to him by SI Amit Kumar. On the basis of the same he recorded FIR in the case and proved the computerized copy thereof as Ex. PW 3/A. PW4 Dharmender Kumar is brother of the deceased Poonam. He stated that on 27.11.2010, his sister Poonam had a conversation on phone with his father. He was not present during the conversation. At that time his sister Poonam was mentally and physically well and she had told his father that she was well.
On 28.11.2010, Naresh who is the Devar of Poonam had made a telephone call at his house, who informed that Poonam was unwell Sessions Case No.13/11 Page8/28 9 and they were taking her to Parmanand Hospital. When his father heard the news he alongwith his younger sister Sarika went to Parmanand Hospital. On reaching the hospital it was revealed that his sister Poonam had expired. On inquiry from the doctor it was revealed that Poonam was brought dead in the hospital and she had already expired in her house. His father made telephone calls to relatives and to him. It was Sunday and his statement was not recorded on that day. Even the postmortem could not conducted and it was carried out on the next day.
He further stated that on 29.11.2010, the SDM had recorded the statement of his father and mother in the afternoon. At that time also his parents were shocked and they could not give proper statement.
His sister Poonam was got married with the accused in the year 2004. After marriage Poonam used to reside with her husband, her inlaws, Devar and Nanad and all of them used to reside in the same house. After 12 years of the marriage, Poonam had told that the accused was having illicit relationship with some girl. He along with his father and other relatives had gone to matrimonial house of his sister and had tried to reason with the accused that he should stop his illicit relationship. Father of accused had also reasoned with the accused and told them that Poonam was legally married wife of the accused and that she should not face any problem in her matrimonial house. For sometime everything was alright, Sessions Case No.13/11 Page9/28 10 but again his sister Poonam started facing harassment and frequent fights. She used to make telephone calls to them and tell that there was no improvement in the behaviour of the accused. She also told that she was physically and mentally harassed.
He further stated that the accused is having a chemist shop and the accused used to demand of Rs.50,000/ from his father for about six months prior to death of Poonam. At that time there was talks of his (PW4) marriage and it was fixed for November, 2010. Due to that they could not give money as demanded by the accused. The frequency of fights increased between his sister Poonam and the accused during that period. About two months prior to her death, his sister Poonam had called them and told that the accused was torturing her more and more and that the accused was residing with the girl with whom he was having relationship. Accused also used to come late at night. He along with his father, uncle and other relatives had gone to the house of the accused and a Panchayat of 2025 people was called. In front of the Panchayat accused told that he was not willing to live with Poonam. Father of the accused even beat him in the presence of everybody. At that time the accused also confessed that he had also remarried with the other girl. Even the Panchayat members tried to reason with the accused that Poonam was his legally married wife and that accused would have to live with Poonam and Sessions Case No.13/11 Page10/28 11 would have to leave other girl. Due to the pressure of the Panchayat, accused unwillingly agreed to reside with Poonam. For some time again things were normal. The accused had also demanded Rs.50.000/ from him in the month of October and he had refused to give money to the accused as his marriage was fixed in November. On 11.11.2010, Poonam had visited his house regarding the function of his marriage. At that time Poonam was physically fit and she had also attended the function. On 12.11.2010 she had some cold and cough and accused also visited his house. Since accused was having a chemist shop, he gave some medicines to Poonam. After sometime of taking the medicines, his sister Poonam started vomiting and he had taken his sister Poonam to Jeevan Mala hospital. In the hospital Poonam was advised to be admitted and was also given some medicines. Raj Kumar also came and got his sister discharged from the hospital and prevented her from being admitted, saying that he would get her (Poonam) treated in his house. From that day, there was no improvement in the condition of Poonam and he did not know what was given to her and where she was taken.
On 17.11.2010 on the date of his (PW4) marriage Poonam had attended the marriage along with her in laws, except the accused, for some time. Thereafter, they frequently visited the house of the accused to know the condition of Poonam and also told the accused that he should Sessions Case No.13/11 Page11/28 12 send Poonam with them and they would get her treated. The request was refused by the accused. He had also visited the house of Poonam after 23 days of his marriage and he observed improvement in the condition of Poonam.
On 28.11.2010, he had come to know that his sister Poonam had suddenly expired. He had suspicion on the accused that some medicines have been given by the accused to his sister Poonam which has resulted in her death, because the accused was unwilling to live with Poonam and also because of demand of Rs. 50,000/ was not met by them.
He further stated that he had identified the dead body of his sister Poonam vide identification memo Ex.PW4/A. The dead body after the postmortem was handed over to them vide memo Ex PW1/C. He had also given a complaint which was addressed to DCP which is Ex.PW4/B. He further stated that his sister Poonam was not having any known disease due to which she could die suddenly.
This witnesses was crossexamined by the Ld.Addl.P.P. wherein he admitted it to be correct that even 45 days prior to death of Poonam accused had demanded money from him for his shop and for treatment of Poonam which he could not fulfill; that the marriage of Poonam had taken with the accused on 09.12.2004; that daughter Shubhi was born out of the wedlock; that accused was giving medicines and Sessions Case No.13/11 Page12/28 13 injection to Poonam for no reason; that on 27.11.2010 at about 6.307.00 p.m. his sister Poonam had telephonic conversation with his father and sister and at that time she was alright.
PW5 Dr.J.P.Verma stated that he is running private clinic at G.T. Road and doing private practice. He further stated that patient Poonam had come to him for the treatment on 26.11.2010 and at that time she was having a mild fever. He had treated her and given medicine. She was advised to follow up, but she did not turn up. He further stated that as per prescription, he had not observed Poonam suffering from any serious ailment which could result in her sudden death. He proved the prescription as Ex. PW 5/A. PW6 Dr.Vipin Sood stated that patient Poonam w/o Raj Kumar was brought in the Sant Parmanand Hospital on 28.11.2010 at about 8.35 a.m. with alleged history, as given by informant Raj Kumar husband of that patient Poonam, that she was found in a collapsed unconscious state by husband around 7 a.m. The patient was reportedly unwell for the past 1015 days and was also admitted in some hospital in Yamuna Vihar for a period of four days.
Dr. Vipin Sood further stated that on examination patient was found unconscious, collapsed, no pulse, no B.P. no respiration, no heart sound, pupils fixed and not responding to light. He further stated that the Sessions Case No.13/11 Page13/28 14 body stiffening was positive. ECG gave straight line. The patient was declared brought dead. He stated that the MLC is in his handwriting. Information was also given to the police vide DD NO. 3 on 08.11.10. He proved the casualty card as Ex. PW6/B. PW7 Dr.R.C.Bhatia stated that one patient by the name of Poonam had come to the OPD of his hospital namely Mohan Nursing Home, situated at Yamuna Vihar on 17.11.2010 with history of uneasiness, fever and vomiting. He had given her the necessary treatment and prescribed the medicines. She was also advised to again attend the OPD after three days. The patient did not turn up after three days. The photo copy of the prescription slip is Mark P7/A. PW7 further stated that earlier on 13.11.2010 patient Poonam was admitted in his hospital at 1.30 a.m. As per record on file, she was suffering from recurrent vomiting and acute gastritis. She was admitted in the hospital by the Duty Doctor Sh. Amit Sharma. He attended the patient on 13.11.2010 in the afternoon. At that time the general condition of the patient was improving, vomiting had stopped. The patient was under treatment. The patient was discharged finally on 14.11.2010 at about 5.30 p.m. The discharge slip is of his hospital is Mark P7/B which was prepared by Dr. Irshad. The patient was also advised ultrasound and as per the ultrasound report the patient was normal except that there was Sessions Case No.13/11 Page14/28 15 intestinal swelling. He further stated that the report prepared by Dr. Garg is Mark P7/C. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution on certain points and was crossexamined at length by the Ld.Addl.P.P. but he denied the suggestion of the Ld.Addl.P.P. that Raj Kumar husband of Poonam had told him that he could not afford the treatment of the hospital and that he (PW7) should prescribe medicines which he will give to his wife at home; that Poonam was required to remain in the hospital for some more time but on the request of her husband she was discharged; that he had not told that Poonam was not suffering from any such disease which could result in her becoming unconscious or her sudden death ; that the death of Poonam is suspicious.
PW8 ASI Om Parkash is the Duty Officer. He stated that DD No.3A, was recorded by Munshi HC Desh Pal at about 8.55 a.m on 20.11.2010 in his presence, on information which was received from Sant Parmanand Hospital about Poonam having expired. He proved the copy of the said DD entry as Ex. PW 8/A. PW9 Insp. Arjun Singh stated that on 25.01.11 by the orders of the S.H.O., he received the present case file from MHC(R) for investigation. After perusal of the case file, on 16.02.2011 he recorded the statements of Dr.J.P.Verma and Dr.R.C.Bhatia under section 161 Cr.P.C. Sessions Case No.13/11 Page15/28 16 Thereafter he obtained the FSL result Ex.PW 9/A from FSL Rohini and the subsequent opinion in the matter regarding the cause of death from Dr.Meghali Kalkar of GTB Hospital which is Ex.PW9/B. PW10 Sh.A.K.Sharma stated that on 28.11.2010 he received information from the P.S. New Usmanpur regarding the death of Poonam who was married around six years back. She had died an unnatural death in Parmanand Hospital. Since, it was Sunday and postmortem etc. were not possible on that day, so he directed to get the dead body preserved in GTB Hospital Mortuary and to produce the relatives of Poonam before him.
He further stated that on 29.11.2010 in his office, one Niranjan Singh was produced by the I.O., stated to be the father of deceased Poonam. He than recorded his statement Ex.PW 1/A, whatever he deposed in his own handwriting. He further stated that he had also recorded the statement of mother of the deceased namely Prakash Devi.
PW10 further stated that he had taken up the Inquest Proceedings with the help of police officers. Inquest Form 25.35 Ex.PW 10/A was got filled up. He then recorded the identification statements of brother Dharmender and father Niranjan Singh of deceased Poonam which are Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW1/B. He then made written request Ex.PW10/B to the doctor of GTB Hospital for conducting the Sessions Case No.13/11 Page16/28 17 postmortem of Poonam. After conducting the proceedings, he directed the S.H.O. Police Station New Usmanpur for taking necessary action.
PW12 Insp.Ved Prakash stated that on 9.12.2010 he received the case file from MHC(R). On his instructions, ASI Yashpal received the viscera from GTB Hospital and deposited in malkhana. He further stated that Dharmender the brother of deceased came to the police station handed over one written complaint Ex.PW4/B, he put the same on the case file and recorded the statement of Dharemender.
He further stated that on 30.12.2010 he had sent the exhibits to FSL Rohini through Ct. Rahul vide R.C.No. 1561/21. He further stated that Ct. Rahul handed over the acknowledgment receipt to him. Thereafter the investigation was marked to Insp. Arujn Singh.
PW13 ASI Yashpal stated that on 28.11.10, on receipt of DD No.3/A (Ex.PW8/A), he went to Sant Parmanand Hospital at about 10 a.m. and collected the MLC Ex.PW 6/A of one Poonam, female, 32 years. She was declared brought dead by the doctor. He came to know that the deceased lady Poonam had died within seven years of her marriage, hence he gave message to SDM Seelampur. SDM told him that since 28.11.10 was Sunday, so postmortem could not be conducted on that day, so he (SDM) would take up the proceedings on 29.11.10. On his instructions he got the dead body of Poonam removed to GTB Hospital Sessions Case No.13/11 Page17/28 18 and got the same preserved there in the mortuary. As per direction of SDM, he gave message to the relatives of parental side of the deceased to come to the office of SDM.
ASI Yashpal further stated that on 29.11.10, Sh.Niranjan Singh father and Smt. Prakash Devi mother of deceased reached the office of SDM. He identified them. Thereafter, SDM recorded their statement in his (SDM) chamber. They reached mortuary of GTB Hospital. SDM conducted the inquest proceedings, recorded the statements of the relatives regarding identification of the dead body. On the request of SDM, the postmortem on the dead body was conducted. As per direction of SDM, he handed over the dead body of deceased Poonam to her relatives for last rituals vide Ex.PW1/C. As per direction of SDM, the present FIR was registered. He had collected the viscera box in sealed condition with the seal JD GTB Hospital and seized the same vide memo ExPW13/B. Subsequently, investigation was taken up by SI Amit Kumar.
PW14 SI Amit Kumar stated that on 29.11.10, SHO handed over him the statement Ex.PW1/A for necessary action. As per statement and circumstances, prima faice an offence under section 498A/304B IPC was found to be made out, hence he prepared rukka Ex PW14/A and got FIR Ex.PW3/A registered. He called Ct.Bacchu Singh who was beat constable of the area and reached House No. A506, Baba Sessions Case No.13/11 Page18/28 19 Ganga Das Gali, Delhi. Accused and his family member were found present there. In the meantime Ct. Pawan handed over him the copy of FIR and original rukka. He then interrogated the accused and his family members. After interrogation accused Raj Kumar was arrested and his personal search was conducted. He recorded his disclosure statements which are ExPW11/A to Ex.PW11/C. He gave message regarding arrest to his father. He then inspected the room along with Ct.Bacchu Singh, but found nothing suspicious there. Accused was got medically examined. He then recorded the statement of witnesses correctly. The Postmortem Report is Ex.PW14/B. Subsequently, he handed over the case file to MHC(R) as per direction of SHO.
PW11 Ct. Bacchu Singh had joined the investigation of the case on 29.11.2010 with I.O. SI Amit Kumar. He further stated that in his presence accused Raj Kumar was arrested vide memo Ex.PW11/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo. Ex. PW11/B. He further stated that I.O recorded the disclosure statement of Ex.PW11/C of the accused. He further stated that the accused was got medically examined and thereafter put in the lockup.
Statement of accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the allegations and stated that he never harassed or demanded any dowry. He further denied having any relations Sessions Case No.13/11 Page19/28 20 with any lady. He further stated that death of his wife was a natural death. He provided all medical facilities to his wife and has also borne all the expenses of the medicines and hospital charges.
I have heard Sh.Atul Kumar Srivastava Addl.P.P. for the State and Sh. Rakesh Kochar Counsel for the accused. I have also gone through the case file.
It was contended by the Ld.Addl.P.P. for the State that statements of parents of deceased and her brother prove on record that deceased was being harassed for dowry. It was further proved that accused used to give medicines to the deceased Pooam of his own due to which Poonam used to remain unwell. It was further contended by the Ld.Addl.P.P. for the State that accused deserves to be convicted.
On the other hand it was contended by Ld.Counsel for the accused that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. It was contended by Ld.Counsel for the accused that all the allegation that have come on record against the accused are vague and general. It was further the contention of the Ld.Counsel that prosecution has not been able to prove on record that the accused was having any relations with another lady. It was further the contention of the Ld.Counsel that deceased was married to the accused six and half years prior to her death but no complaint was made either by deceased or her Sessions Case No.13/11 Page20/28 21 family members regarding any harassment for dowry. It was further the contention of the Ld.Counsel that PW1 Niranjan Singh has stated that accused never demanded any dowry. It was further the contention of the Ld.Counsel as per subsequent opinion death of deceased was natural, so the accused was liable to be acquitted.
I have considered the rival contentions.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent case reported as 2009 (1) JCC 372 SC titled as Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab, held that:
"The essential ingredients of the said offence i.e under section 304B IPC are ;
(i) death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii) such death must have been occurred within seven years of marriage;
(iii) soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relative of her husband
(iv) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand of dowry : and
(v) such cruelty is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
Sessions Case No.13/11 Page21/28 22
To prove a case under section 304B IPC it is necessary for the prosecution to prove all the above referred ingredients as held by The Hon'ble Supreme Court.
So far as the first ingredient of the section 304B IPC is concerned, the prosecution has proved that the deceased Poonam died within seven years of her marriage.
But as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court 2009 (1) JCC 372 SC Supra, it is necessary to prove all the give ingredient of section 304B IPC to prove the guilt of the accused.
So far as the allegations of the prosecution that the deceased Poonam died in otherwise than under normal circumstance, the viscera of deceased Poonam was sent for chemical analysis. The subsequent opinion was received that the deceased had died a natural death. As per subsequent opinion Ex.PW9/A given by Dr.Meghali Kelkar, it was a natural death.
The other ingredient of Section 304B IPC, is that the prosecution must prove for conviction of accused under section 304B IPC is that the woman should have been subjected to cruelty soon before her death for or in connection with demand of dowry, such cruelty should be soon before her death.
It has come in the evidence of all the public witnesses that Sessions Case No.13/11 Page22/28 23 the accused along with his family members has attended the marriage of PW4 Dharmender which was held on 17.11.2011 and all the family members of accused has fully celebrated the marriage. If there was any harassment for demand of dowry, why no complaint was made then. It has no where come in the testimony of any of the public witness that Poonam had made any complaint that she was being harassed for demand of dowry.
As the deceased Poonam died a natural death and there is no evidence on record that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry, in my view the prosecution has failed to prove the under section 304B IPC.
In a case reported as 2001 CRI.L.J.4700 (Supreme Court) titled as Sunil Bajaj Vs. State of M.P, it was observed that, where the allegation are vague and inconsistent regarding demand of dowry and the same cannot be made basis for conviction of accused.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Naraini Devi Vs. State 1992 (1) C.C.Cases 524 (HC) observed that when no complaint or protest was made in any corner and no report or complaint was ever filed, it gives the impression that the entire theory of the demand of cash/dowry was an afterthought.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported as (2004) 4 Sessions Case No.13/11 Page23/28 24 SCC 109 titled Surinder Kaur and another Vs. State of Haryana has held that, where general allegations are made without proper time or date regarding the alleged harassment meted out by the accused cannot be sustained in a dowry death case.
The other allegation leveled by the prosecution is that the accused was having illicit relations with a girl named Geeta. In this regard no evidence has been brought on record to prove this fact.
It has come in the evidence of PW1 Nirjanan Singh, PW2 Smt.Prakash Devi and PW4 Dharmender that a Panchyat was called wherein accused has refused to keep Poonam. No person from that Panchayat has been called in the court to prove this fact. Merely stating that the accused was having illicit relations with any girl is not enough. No cogent evidence has come on record which could prove that accused was having illicit relations with any girl.
It was contended by parents and brother of deceased that the accused used to give medicine and injections to Poonam of his own without consulting any doctor and this was the reason for the death of Poonam. As discussed above, it has been proved that deceased Poonam died a natural death.
So far as the allegation that the accused used to give medicine and injections to Poonam of his own, PW5 Dr.J.P.Verma who Sessions Case No.13/11 Page24/28 25 had examined deceased Poonam on 25.11.2010 stated that Poonam was suffering from mild fever and he had advised her to follow up, but she did not turn up. He also stated that he did not find Poonam suffering from any serious ailment which could result in sudden death.
PW6 Dr.Vipin Sood who had declared Poonam brought dead in Sant Parmanand Hospital, during his crossexamination stated that he had not observed any poisonous substance or any injury marks on the body of deceased Poonam.
If the accused was giving medicine and injections to Poonam of his own, then the doctors would have found something in her body, but nothing was found.
Viscera of deceased was sent to FSL Rohini for chemical analysis but after examination it was reported that metallic poison, ethly, methyal alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaliods, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be deceased.
In view of the above, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused used to give medicine to the deceased as a result of which she died.
Now come to the allegation that the accused has demanded Rs.50,000/ for his shop.
Perusal of the testimony of PW1 Nirjanan Singh shows that Sessions Case No.13/11 Page25/28 26 this fact does not find mentioned in the statement before the court or before the S.D.M. He was crossexamined by he Ld.Addl.P.P wherein he denied the suggestion of the Ld.Addl.P.P that accused Raj Kumar had demanded Rs.50,000/ from him for his chemist shop and he (PW1) had stated that he would give the money later on. He also denied the suggestion of the Ld.Addl.P.P. that accused had demanded the money several times for his shop and for the treatment of Poonam but he could not fulfill the demand and he had stated so to the police in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.
It was on the statement of Niranjan Singh which he had made before before SDM that FIR in this case was registered. In that statement also it has not been been mentioned that any demand of Rs. 50,000/ was made by the accused Raj Kumar.
PW2 Smt. Prakash Devi mother of deceased and PW4 Dharmender who is brother of deceased have stated that accused had demanded Rs.50,000/ from them but they could not fulfill his demand.
PW2 Smt. Prakash Devi has also made statement before the SDM in which she had stated that she had heard the statement of her husband Nirjanan Singh and it was correct and she did not wanted to say anything more. No date or time has been mentioned by PW2 Smt. Prakash Devi in this regard as to when the said demand was made. Merely Sessions Case No.13/11 Page26/28 27 stating that accused demanded Rs.50,000/ is not enough.
PW4 Dharmender who is brother of deceased Poonam has stated that the accused had demanded Rs.50,000/ but they could no fulfill the said demanded as at the time talks of his (PW4) marriage were going on. Dharmender had made a complaint to the Commissioner of the Police to register a case under section 302 IPC against the accused. Perusal of the said complaint also shows that there is no mention of demand of Rs. 50,000/ by the accused in that complaint.
It was held in (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 721, Appa Saheb and Another Vs. State of Maharahtra, it was held that, demand made by accused from the parents of deceased to meet domestic expenses cannot be said to be demand of dowry.
Another allegation leveled is that the accused used to physically and mentally harass the deceased Poonam for demand of dowry.
Neither regarding the demand of dowry nor regarding the harassment of Poonam regarding harassment finds mentioned either in the statement made before SDM.
All these three witnesses admitted that they did not made any complaint any where regarding the demand of Rs.50,000/ or regarding the harassment of accused Poonam by the accused for dowry. Sessions Case No.13/11 Page27/28 28 Neither any date or time has been when the said demand was made or as to how deceased Poonam was being harassed by the accused. All the allegation that have been leveled are vague and general in nature.
The deceased was married with the accused for about six years and it has been admitted that the child borne out of the wedlock is being maintained by accused. If the deceased was being harassed by the accused why no complaint was made anywhere regarding the same.
Therefore from the above discussion I am of the view that prosecution has not been able to prove that deceased Poonam died an unnatural death or that she was subjected to cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry. Nor there is any evidence that accused demanded demanded any dowry either from Poonam her family members.
The accused is therefore acquitted of the charges against him. His bail bond are cancelled. Surety is discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court on 29th September 2011 (Surinder Kumar Sharma) Additional Sessions Judge (North East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Sessions Case No.13/11 Page28/28