Delhi District Court
State vs Manisha & Ors on 19 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT SHARMA: ASJ-02 :
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
State Vs Manisha & Ors
FIR No.: 476/2014
U/s : 304B/498A/34 IPC
PS : Jamia Nagar.
Date of Institution : 03.09.2014
Date of Judgment reserved on : 24.05.2022
Date of Judgment : 19.07.2022
Brief Details Of The Case
Case Number : 1536/2016
Offence complained of : U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC
Date of Offence : From 14.03.2008 to
28.06.2014
Name of the complainant : Sh. Momin Khan
S/o Sh. Suleman
R/o L-I, 9/715, Sangam Vihar,
Delhi.
State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 1 of 38
Name of the accused : (1) Manisha
W/o Sh. Asgar Ali
R/o House No.L-9, Abul Fazal
Enclave, Jamia Nagar, Delhi.
(2) Ikram
S/o Sh. Asgar Ali
R/o House No.L-9, Abul Fazal
Enclave, Jamia Nagar, Delhi.
(3) Asgar Ali
S/o Sh. Nasiruddin
R/o House No.L-9, Abul Fazal
Enclave, Jamia Nagar, Delhi.
(4) Israr
S/o Sh. Asgar Ali
R/o House No.L-9, Abul Fazal
Enclave, Jamia Nagar, Delhi.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted.
Date of Order : 19.07.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Ikram @ Ikrar, Manisha, Asgar Ali and Israr faced trial for offences, punishable u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.
2. As per chargesheet, DD no.9A was received at P.S. Jamia Nagar on 28.06.2014 at 04.55am, which was based on the information that one lady has hanged herself. Consequently, police State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 2 of 38 officials concerned reached at the spot i.e. L-9, Pili Puliyawali Gali, Abul Fazal Enclave, 1st floor, where they found dead body of a female lying on bed. On inquiry, name of said female was found to be Shakeen W/o Ikrar. Police found one rod affixed in the roof where one ceiling fan was placed and a chunni was found tied from one side and other side of the chunni was hanging downwards. Police also found ligature mark on the neck of dead body of said female. Consequently, SDM was informed, crime team visited the spot, photographs were clicked and dead body was preserved at AIIMS mortuary.
3. Later on, one Momin Khan(complainant), recorded his statement before SDM concerned, in which he stated he was the father of deceased Sakina. That Sakina had married six years back. Since the day of her marriage, in laws of Sakina had started claiming dowry and Sakina never remained happy with her in laws. That Sakina were beaten by her in laws. The in laws of Sakina used to ask dowry by themselves as well as through Sakina. Some time back, in laws of Sakina wanted to purchase a plot for which they demanded Rs.5lacs and when the demand was not met, they had beaten Sakina. Regarding the said incident, complaint was made to Women Cell, Saket where compromise took place between the parties. After the said compromise, Sakina was again harassed by her in laws. In fact, father in law of Sakina had threatened Momin Khan that in case, their dowry demands were not met, then Sakina should be taken back to her paternal house. The brother in law, (devar) of Sakina also used State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 3 of 38 to harass her. On 26.06.2014, son-in-law of complainant, had telephonically called complainant and had complained about Sakina. After that Sakina told her mother that said complaint was false and that she was not given food for last three days and was also harassed by her in laws. Sakina had also told that she apprehended that she could be killed by her in laws and had requested her mother to take her back from her matrimonial house. Thereafter, Sakina called her brother Sajid but her phone was cut by her in laws. On 27.06.2014, father in law of Sakina namely Asgar had called complainant telephonically and complainant had requested him to solve the matter by not demanding dowry as he had to marry his five other daughters. In response to the same, Asgar had threatened that either Asgar will reside in Delhi or the complainant. Later on, brother in law of complainant namely Dafedar was requested by complainant to go to the house of inlaws of Sakina but before he could have gone, Dafedar told complainant that Sakina had died. Consequently, complainant went to matrimonial house of Sakina with his family where they found Sakina lying dead on bed and her chunni was hanging from the iron rod affixed on the roof of her room. Complainant claimed that father in law (Asgar), husband (Ikrar), mother in law (Manisha) and Devar (Israr) had killed his daughter. Based on said statement, FIR in question was registered and investigation ensued.
4. During investigation, police arrested accused persons namely Manisha and Ikrar and interrogated them. Medical report of deceased State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 4 of 38 Sakina was collected from hospital in which cause of death was noted as "asphyxia due to antemortem hanging". Chunni was collected and was sent to forensic department. Site plan was prepared. Rest of the accused persons were absconding and liberty was sought to conduct further investigation for the purpose of arresting other co-accused persons namely Asgar Ali and Israr. Based on said report, chargesheet was filed against accused Manisha and Ikram.
5. Subsequently, supplementary chargesheet was filed against accused Israr and Asgar Ali as they surrendered before the court. They were arrested and interrogated by police. Report of subsequent opinion from concerned doctor was obtained which was submitted along with supplementary chargesheet.
6. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of offences and summoned accused persons. Proceedings under Section 207 Cr.P.C were concluded and then matter was committed to this court as per law.
7. Consequent, to the receiving of this matter, arguments on charge were heard and based on the contents of chargesheet, accused persons were charged with offences as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then fixed for prosecution evidence.
State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 5 of 388. Prosecution examined twenty three (23) witnesses, in total.
9. PW-1 Momin Khan deposed that he does not remember the date however, the incident is about 11 months old. He solemnized marriage of her daughter Shakeena with Ikrar who was resident of Abul Fazal Enclave. He had given dowry articles to her daughter in her marriage. After her marriage, her daughter started living at Abul Fazal Enclave with Ikrar. He deposed that there was no complaint from her daughter regarding harassment by her husband or her in- laws. He deposed that she was never beaten by her son-in-law Ikrar or his relatives. After about 6 years of her marriage, one day, the date he does not remember perhaps it was 11 months, he received a telephonic message that her daughter had died at her in-laws place. He reached at the matrimonial house of her daughter at L-9, Abul Fazal Enclave. Police was there and police asked him to give statement against his son-in-law and his family members. He was taken by police to the office of SDM in Amar Colony area where his statement was recorded. He deposed that he had not told the SDM about any harassment or demand of dowry made by in-laws and husband of her daughter, however, he was in a shocked state and he stated whatever he had been asked by the police. He further deposed that he does not remember what he had told the SDM but he did not give statement requesting SDM to take action against his son-in-law and his family members. The witness had identified his signature on the statement Ex. PW1/A at portion A on each page. He deposed that he has no grievances against his son-in-law and his family members.
State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 6 of 3810. During his cross examination by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, PW-1 admitted that complaint was lodged by his daughter in women cell Sri Niwas Puri. PW-1 voluntarily deposed that he had come to know that his daughter was at fault and the complaint was withdrawn by his daughter. He stated that he had not pursued that complaint of his daughter, he had only gone to the office of women cell on the last day when his daughter had withdrawn the case. He admitted that there were some other persons like our relatives and friends who were partied in the proceedings of compromise of his daughter with accused Ikrar and his family. He is illiterate person and he does not know how to read and write but he can sign his name in English. He had seen documents Mark A but denied having made his signature at point A. He stated that he cannot say anything about signature at point B whether the said signature is of his daughter or not. He also denied having made his signature at point A on document Mark B. He stated that he does not know if police had seized the dowry articles of the marriage of his daughter. He has not taken the dowry articles of his daughter from police-station from the house of in-laws of his daughter. He does not know about the document Mark C. He admitted that his daughter had withdrawn the complaint lodged in women cell. He also admitted that he had identified the dead body of his daughter and his statement in this regard was recorded Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C and dead body was received after postmortem vide Ex. PW1/D. He also admitted that he had handed over to the police the marriage card, one CD of the marriage function which was taken by the police. He does not know if any complaint of State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 7 of 38 women cell was also given to police and he voluntarily stated that his children may have given these articles to police but he does not remember exactly. He also admitted document Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F but does not know the contents of the document. He denied of providing any list of dowry articles to the police to be recovered after death of his daughter. The witness denied his signatures at point A on the list Ex. PW1/G.
11. He stated that he knows accused persons namely Ikrar (husband of his daughter), Asgar Ali (father in law of his daughter), Manisha (mother in law of his daughter) and Israr (brother in law of his daughter). He denied of visiting with police to the the house of accused persons for recovery of dowry articles. He stated that he had come to know that police had made recovery of jewellery articles. He identified the marriage card of his daughter Ex. PW1/H. Further, the witness denied of giving a statement to SDM requesting to take action against the in laws of his daughter. He also denied that SDM had made enquiries from him and recorded his statement. He voluntarily stated that he was not in a fit state of mind when he was taken to the office of SDM. He deposed that he does not know if the name of SDM was Hemant Kumar and he did not tell before SDM Sh. Hemant Kumar that his daughter was harassed by the accused persons and that accused persons had demanded dowry due to which his daughter has finished her life. The witness denied having made statement Ex.PW1/A before the SDM and stated that he does not know about the contents of the statement Ex.PW1/A. State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 8 of 38
12. PW-2 Sh. Dafedar deposed that Sakina who was daughter of his wife's sister in a distance relation, was married to one Ikrar resident of Abul Fazal Enclave. He deposed that the marriage took place about 6-7 years. He attended the said marriage. He deposed that he does not know what dowry articles were given in the marriage. Witness identified all the accused persons present in Court. They are all residing in his locality on Abul Fazal Enclave and he used to visit house of accused Ikrar while Sakina used to be there in the house. He stated that he never heard of any demand of dowry made by Ikrar or his family members from Sakina. He was also not informed by Sakina at any time that she was being harassed by the family members of Ikrar. He also never came to know that accused Ikrar had beaten her for bringing more dowry from her parents. He does not remember the date but about one year back that Sakina had died and he had attended her last rites held in Sangam Vihar. He stated that he does not know the cause of her death.
13. During his cross examination by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, PW2 admitted that he knew the family members of Sakina and also the family members of accused Ikrar. He was confronted with his entire statement PW2/A to which he denied that he had given such statement to the police. He stated that he had only once gone to Women Cell, where a complaint of Sakina was pending. He does not know what was the complaint made by Sakina or her family members in the Women Cell. PW2 stated that he does not know under which circumstances, he signed documents Mark C and the State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 9 of 38 documents Mark 2/A. He denied that he had signed these documents on account of compromise and undertakings given by the accused persons that they will keep Sakina properly and would not harass her and would not demand any kind of dowry from her or her parents. He stated that he might have signed document Mark 2/B at the instance of family members of Sakina.
14. PW3 Mohd. Aamin deposed that Sakina was his niece. She deposed that she was married to Ikrar about 5-6 years back and after marriage, she started living in Abul Fazal Enclave, Okhla, New Delhi. He does not know what dowry articles were given by parents of Sakina in marriage. There was no demand from the side of in- law's of any particular dowry. He was never told by Sakina about any harassment or demand of dowry made by her in-laws after marriage. Sakina died last year. He does not remember the date. He does not know the cause of her death. However, police made enquiry from him. He had attended last rites of Sakina. He knows the accused persons as they are husband and in-laws of Sakina.
15. During his cross examination by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, the witness was confronted with the statement Ex.PW3/A and confronted with the contents of the statement but witness denies having made any such statement to the police. He admitted that he identified dead body of Sakina and statement Ex.PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C were signed by him at point B. State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 10 of 38
16. PW-4 Sh. Sajid deposed that Sakina was his younger sister.
She was married to Ikrar about 6 years back. He does not remember the exact date. After her marriage, she started living at her in-laws house at Abul Fazal Enclave. Witness has correctly identified the accused persons. The accused persons never raised any demand of dowry. They never harassed his sister for demand of dowry. Sakina died on 28.06.2014 while she was in her matrimonial house at Abul Fazal Enclave. Once his father and his sister Sakina due to some misunderstanding had filed a case in Women Cell but later on the matter was compromised as he and his family members found that there was no fault of accused persons and it was his sister who due to her depressive condition was not keeping herself properly in the matrimonial house.
17. During his cross examination by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, he stated that he does not know the writing and signature of his sister Sakina. She had only studied up to 3rd or 4th standard. He deposed that he had not gone to attend the proceedings of Women Cell. The witness was confronted with the statement Ex.PW4/A and confronted with the contents of the statement but witness denies having made any such statement to the police. He stated that he does not know if Sakina made any call to her mother on 26.06.2014 when Ikrar complained of Sakina and on his mother's enquiry Sakina told her that she was not giving food for three days by the accused persons and she had suspected that she would be killed by the accused persons. He denied the fact he wanted to talk to his sister on State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 11 of 38 27.06.2014 and he was not allowed to talk to his sister as the phone was cut by the accused persons.
18. PW-5 W/SI Mukesh deposed that on 09.09.2011, one complaint from Sakeena was lodged in crime against Women Cell, South Distt, Saket which was marked to her for inquiry, on 16.09.2011. Complainant Sakeena had given her statement ExPW5/A and had attested the said statement at point C. She deposed that she had called complainant as well as accused persons, on 23.09.2011 and 30.09.2011. This witness had received list of istridhan from Sakeena and Momin and had recorded the statements of Sakeena and Momin vide Ex.PW5/B. She deposed that on 10.10.2011 both the parties had come in CAW Cell, where their versions were considered and they were given counseling. Subsequently, said persons had reconciled their matter and had sorted out their matrimonial dispute. Since, the parties had compromised the matter, so they were given date of 02.11.2011 as a follow up to the compromise and on 02.11.2011, said persons confirmed that there was no dispute between them and they started peacefully. Statement of complainant Sakeena Ex.PW5/C was recorded. Statement of accused Iqrar was also recorded. This witness had prepared the record of proceedings in CAW Cell vide Ex.PW5/E. She further deposed that on 02.11.2011, she proceeded on leave and inquiry was conducted by SI Ram Bhagat. She identified the proceedings drawn by SI Ram Bhagat on 01.12.2011, 05.12.2011, 02.01.2012 as Ex.PW5/F. This witness deposed that she was aware of handwriting and signature of SI Ram State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 12 of 38 Bhagat. Further SI Ram Bhagat had received application from Sakeena vide Ex.PW5/G and had recorded separate statements of accused Iqrar vide Ex.PW5/H an Ex.PW5/I bearing signatures of SI Ram Bhagat at point X. After considering the statement of complainant and her husband, matter was closed on 16.01.2012 at their request. The proceedings drawn by SI Ram Bhagat were duly approved by ACP and DCP. Said proceedings re Ex.PW5/J bearing signatures of SI Ram Bhagat at point A and that of Inspr. Shashi Bala at point B and ACP Asha Thakur at point C. The original complaint of complainant Sakeena received at CAW Cell is Ex.PW5/K. The attendance sheet of the proceedings were identified as Ex.PW5/L.
19. PW-6 Sh. Hemant Kumar deposed that on 28.06.2014, he was working as SDM, Defence Colony. In the morning at about 04:55 am, when he was present at his house, he received a call from PS- Jamia Nagar. Consequently, he reached at the place of incident in Abul Fazal Enclave, Part I, House No. L-9, where local police officials were present. He found that one lady Sakeena was laying dead on the bed. As per him, Sakeena had died due to hanging herself. This witness inspected the room and it was found, that there was a rod wherein there was a ceiling fan in the said rod, a chunni (dupatta) was lying tied in the rod and there was a strangulation mark on the neck of the deceased. At about 10 am, Momin Khan father of deceased and Sajid brother of deceased came in his office where statement of Momin Khan was recorded by this witness in his own handwriting, which is Ex.PW1/A and bears signatures of Momin State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 13 of 38 Khan at point A. Said statement was endorsed at 'point X' by this witness and he recommended that necessary action be done by PS- Jamia Nagar, vide endorsement at 'point Y'. He identified his signatures at 'point A'. This witness told that Momin Khan had told him that his daughter had informed him that she would be killed by her husband and in-laws. Deceased had requested her mother to take her back from her matrimonial house. This witness made application for preservation of the dead body which is Ex.PW6/A and application for conducting the postmortem examination of deceased Ex.PW6/B. Said applications bear his signatures at 'point A'. SI Anand was directed to get the postmortem done and to handover the dead body of deceased to her relatives. After postmortem, this witness had seen the postmortem report which bears his signature and seal at 'point X'.
20. PW8 HC Neeraj Kumar deposed that on 28.06.2014, he was working as Duty Officer at PS- Jamia Nagar between 8 am to 4 pm. On that day, at about 1.15 pm, one complaint was produced before him for registration of FIR by Inspector Praveen Kumar. On the basis of that complaint, he registered present FIR, copy of which Ex.PW8/A which bears his signature at 'point A'. He made his endorsement on complaint, which is Ex.PW8/8 bearing his signature at 'point A'. After registration of FIR, he handed over original complaint and copy of FIR to Inspector Praveen for investigation.
State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 14 of 3821. PW9- SI Ram Bhagat had deposed that on 01.12.2011, he was posted at CAW Cell, Saket behind PVR Cinema. One file of complainant Sakeena was marked to him for further enquiry and counselling. Said complaint was made by Sakeena regarding harassment and demand of dowry by her husband and in-laws. On 05.12.2011, Sakeena and her husband Ikrar had come to EOW Cell, Saket and both of them informed that they were residing together since 10.10.2011. Thereafter, matter was kept for follow up action and both of them were given date to come to the office i.e. 02.01.2012. Statement of Sakeena dated 05.12.2011 was recorded by him, which is Ex.PW5/G bearing attestation by him at 'point X'. On 02.01.2012, both Sakeena and Ikrar came to his office and recorded the statement of Sakeena Ex.PW5/H and of Ikrar Ex.PW5/I, bearing his attestation at 'point X'. Thereafter, he closed the matter as both husband and wife started living together. The final report he prepared is Ex.PW5/J bearing his signatures at 'point A' and the report was put up to the Inspector Incharge Smt. Shashi Kaushik who also approved the report as per her remarks at 'portion A'. Thereafter, matter was finally forwarded to DCP, South who approved the closure of enquiry as per endorsement at 'portion Y'.
22. PW10- SI Sajjan Kumar had deposed that on 28.06.2014, he along-with his crime team officials, SI Chet Ram and Ct. Ashwani hd reached at L-9, Abul Fazal Enclave, Part II, First Floor, where one lady died and her body was lying on the bed. There was ligature mark on her neck and one chunni was found tied with the ceiling fan State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 15 of 38 of the room. The spot was inspected and photographs were taken. No finger print could be developed. Later on, on 13.07.2014, he had given his report to the IO which is Ex.PW10/A, which bears his signatures at 'point A'.
23. PW11 W.HC Manju had deposed that on 28.06.2014, she was posted at PS- Jamia Nagar and she was joined in the investigation of this case by Inspector Praveen and they reached at H. No. L-9, Abul Fazal Enclave, Near Pili Pulliya, where Manisha was found. She was interrogated and arrested in the case by IO. Arrest memo Ex.PW11/A of Manisha was prepared. She took the personal search of accused Manisha and personal search memo Ex.PW11/B prepared and accused Manisha was taken to AIIMS in her custody and got medically examined.
24. PW12 HC Farukh Ahmed had deposed that on 22.07.2014, he along-with Inspector Praveen was present in the PS. Ikrar who is accused had come to Police Station. He was interrogated by IO and arrested in the case in his presence. Arrest Memo of accused Ikrar is Ex.PW12/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW12/B. Then, he along-with IO, Mubin, father of deceased had gone to the house of Ikrar at L-9, Abul Fazal Enclave, for the purpose of recovery of articles and IO had recovered jewellery and other dowry articles of deceased Sakeena which were about 51 articles and the same were sealed in a pullanda with the seal of PK and seizure memo Ex.PW1/F, was prepared. Thereafter, they State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 16 of 38 returned to police station.
25. PW13 SI Umesh Yadav had deposed that on 28.06.2014, he was posted at PS- Jamia Nagar. On the basis of information received in police station vide DD No. 9A, on the instructions of Inspector Praveen, he reached at the spot at H. No. L-9, 1 st Floor, Abul Fazal Enclave, New Delhi. He met Inspector Praveen, SI Anand Prakash, Ct. Mukesh there. Dead body of female Sakeena w/o Ikrar was lying in the house on the bed. She had died due to hanging. Ligature marks were present on her neck. A chunni was lying hanging with the hook of the ceiling fan. Parents of deceased were called at the spot. SDM Sh. Hemant Kumar also reached the spot. He had taken Momin Khan father of deceased in the office of SDM Amar Colony, where statement of Momin Khan was recorded by SDM and was given to him for handing over it to SHO. Same was given to SHO by him and case was registered in the police station and investigation was carried by Inspector Praveen.
26. PW14 Inspector Mahesh Kumar had deposed that on 14.08.2014, he had visited the place of incident i.e. H. No. L-9, Abul Fazal Enclave, Part I, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, on first floor along- with IO Inspector Praveen and there, he had taken rough notes, measurements of the place of the incident at the instance of Inspector Praveen. Thereafter, on 21.08.2014, he prepared a scaled site plan of the place of incident which is Ex.PW14/A. Rough notes were destroyed after preparation of the site plan.
State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 17 of 3827. PW15 Ct. Unis, had deposed that on 07.08.2014, while he was posted in police station Jamia Nagar, he took a sealed pullanda from Malkhana for taking to AIIMS Hospital which he deposited in the AIIMS Hospital. The said pullanda contained a chunni in it. It was not tampered with in any manner by him till it remained in his custody.
28. PW16 Ct. Ashwani had deposed on 28.06.2014 he along-with ASI Sajjan and SI Chet Ram had gone to the spot of incident i.e. L-9, First Floor, Abul Fazal Enclave, Part II, where a lady was found dead. Her body was lying on a bed and there were ligature marks on her neck. He had taken photographs of the spot and had inspected the said spot. He had given negatives of the photographs to IO. He identified the said photographs as Ex.PW16/A-1 to Ex.PW16/A-6. He identified the negatives as PW16/B-1 to Ex.PW16/B-6.
29. PW17 Inspector Praveen had deposed that on 28.06.2014, when he was posted at PS Jamia Nagar, DD NO. 9A was received at the said police station which was marked to SI Anand Prakash. After sometime, he also reached at the spot i.e. L-9, Pili Puliya Wali Gali, First Floor, Abul Fazal Enclave. He found Sakeena lying dead on a bed having ligature marks on her neck and chunni was entangled with the fan of the ceiling. Accused Manisha were present outside the said room with other women. On enquiry, this witness came to know that Sakeena had married accused Ikrar, six years back. Subsequently, SDM of the area was called and crime team also State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 18 of 38 reached at the spot. Photographs were taken and crime team examined the spot. Father of Sakeena namely Momin Khan was also called at the spot and he was produced before the SDM concerned, through SI Umesh Yadav. The dead body was removed to AIIMS hospital through SI Anand Prakash for conducting post mortem. This witness then endorsed the rukka at 'point Z' on the statement of Momin, recorded by SDM Hemant Kumar. That rukka was signed by him at 'point Z-1'. Consequently, FIR in question was registered.
30. PW17 Inspector Praveen further deposed that during investigation, he had prepared site plan Ex.PW17/A obtained Crime Team Report and made request to SDM concerned for preservation of dead body and for conducting postmortem. The postmortem was done on 28.06.2014 and consequently, dead body was given to relativeness of deceased. Consequently, accused Manisha was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW11/A and her personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW11/B. PW17 Inspector Praveen further deposed that on 30.06.2014, he had obtained marriage card Ex.PW1/H, CD of the marriage and earlier complaint dated 09.09.2011 and articles Ex.PW1/G from Momin Khan vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E. The copy of complaint he had received was Ex.PW17/X-1. Consequently, accused Ikrar surrendered in police station on 22.07.2014 and he was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW12/A. His personal search memo was prepared vide Ex.PW12/B. Consequently, accused Ikrar took the investigating team to his house and pointed out dowry articles of deceased which State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 19 of 38 were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F.
31. PW17 further deposed that he had collected negatives Ex.PW16/B-1 to Ex.PW16/B-6 pertaining to spot of incident and photographs Ex.PW16/A-1 to Ex.PW16/A-6. On 14.08.2014, he had taken Inspector Mahesh Kumar to the spot of incident where he took notes and measurements. Later on, this witness had collected the scaled site plan Ex.PW14/A from Inspector Mahesh. Consequently, he requested ACP CAW Cell, South District for providing him with complaint, enquiry report and proceedings conducted therein, on the basis of complaint filed by Sakeena in the year 2011. The said file was received from the office of ACP vide letter Ex.PW17/X-2. The file contained documents viz. PW5/J, PW5/L, PW5/F and PW5/K. This witness examined witnesses during investigation and recorded their statements u/sec. 161 Cr.PC. On 19.09.2014, accused Israr and Asgar Ali were arrested by SI Varun Kumar as they had surrendered in the court and consequently, their arrest memos Ex.PW17/B and Ex.PW17/C were prepared.
32. PW17- Inspector Praveen further deposed that he had sent pullanda of chunni of deceased to AIIMS Forensic Department for seeking opinion of the doctor and doctor gave the opinion vide Ex.PW17/D. After completing investigation, he filed first charge- sheet against accused Manisha and Ikrar. Subsequently, supplementary charge-sheet was filed against accused Israr and Asgar Ali. He identified Asgar Ali and other co-accused persons in the court.
State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 20 of 3833. PW18 Ct. Mukesh deposed that on 28.06.2014, when he was posted as P.S. Jamia Nagar, a call was received regarding hanging of a lady at about 04.55 am. Consequently, he along-with SI Anand Prakash reached at the spot i.e. H. No. L-9, Pili Pulia, Abul Fazal Enclave at First Floor, where one lady was lying dead on the floor. He observed one piece of chunni which was lying attached with the rod of ceiling fan. On the neck of the lady, some ligature marks were found and her name was found to be Sakeena. All the instructions of IO, after sometime, the dead of deceased was removed to Mortuary, AIIMS Hospital. Consequently, on 29.06.2014, postmortem of the dead body of Sakeena was conducted and her body was given to her relatives vide receipt Ex.PW1/D, which mentioned his signatures at 'point B'. He received sealed pullanda of clothes of deceased from doctor and piece of chunni along-with sample seal was given by him to IO, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C.
34. PW19, Smt. Sehnaz Begum had deposed that her daughter Sakeena had married accused Ikrar and in-laws of Sakeena were residing in Okhla, Abul Fazal Enclave. The marriage took place in Sangam Vihar at the residence of this witness. That Sakeena died in the year 2014 in the house of accused Ikrar. This witness identified Asgar Ali and other co-accused persons in the court. She deposed that at the time of marriage of her daughter, normal dowry articles were given including jewellery articles. Further, Sakeena was blessed with one female child and at that time, this witness received State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 21 of 38 telephonic call from accused Asgar Ali, who demanded money from Momin, to which Momin refused. Thereafter, this witness came to know that her daughter was subjected to beatings and harassment by accused persons. Her daughter told her that she was harassed by her father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and brother-in-law. Subsequently, this witness brought Sakeena to her house and complaint was registered in Mahila Mandal run by Ms. Kiran Bedi. All the accused persons attended the proceedings held in Mahila Mandal, Women Cell, Saket, four times and had given in writing that they would not trouble Sakeena anymore. Later on, with the intervention of Mahila Mandal, Sakeena was sent to her matrimonial house, where she remained for about three years, during which she was subjected to further harassment.
35. PW19, Smt. Sehnaz Begum further deposed that Sakeena had told her on telephone that Sakeena was given food and was hungry for three days. Sakeena further told her that her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband were harassing her by demanding dowry. This witness came to know from Dafedar, her relative that Sakeena died due to hanging with ceiling fan. Consequently, this witness reached at the house of accused persons, where she found her daughter lying on the bed. This witness saw injury marks on the dead body of her daughter on her hand and back. She saw ligature mark on her neck. She identified complaint Ex.PW5/K. State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 22 of 38
36. PW19, Smt. Sehnaz Begum further admitted facts when cross-
examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state which were, that police official of PS- Jamia Nagar made enquiry from her regarding marriage and matrimonial affairs of Sakina with her in-laws and her husband. It is further admitted by this witness that due to the harassment caused by the accused persons, her daughter was brought to our house several times to avoid the harassment to her from the accused persons. It is further stated that accused persons had demanded Rs. 5 Lacs from her and her family members to buy a plot to which her husband Momin had shown his inability to meet the demand. It is further stated that her daughter was beaten after the demand of accused persons was not met by them.
37. PW19, Smt. Sehnaz Begum further admitted facts during cross-examination that her daughter married in March 2008 and her daughter resided with her in-laws. It is further stated that after proceedings done in Women Cell, her daughter was sent to her matrimonial house from the office of Women Cell itself. It is further stated that mother-in-law and father-in-law of Sakina had harassed her and father-in-law had threatened to her husband Momin to take back her daughter if their demand of dowry is not met. It is further stated that in the night before death of Sakina in June 2014, accused Iqrar made a telephone call to her complaining against Sakina and when she talked to Sakina on telephone, she clarified that Iqrar made false allegations against her and she has also stated to her that she was not given food for three days and was being harassed. It is State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 23 of 38 further stated that her daughter told her that she was suspecting that she would be killed and she requested her to take her back from her matrimonial house. It is also stated that her son Sajid tried to talk Sakina on telephone but she was not allowed to talk with Sajid and his mobile phone was abruptly disconnected.
38. PW19, Smt. Sehnaz Begum further admitted facts when cross-
examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state that in June 2014, her husband had spoken with father-in-law of Sakina and expressed his inability to meet demand of money as they had five more daughters to get married. That, on this, father-in-law of Sakina threatened to her husband that either he would live in Delhi or they would live and to take whatever action they could. She further stated that her husband requested their relative Dafedar who was residing near the house of accused persons and he was requested to make the accused persons understand to treat Sakina properly. She further stated that one portion of chunni of Sakina was hanging with the ceiling fan and when she reached at the house of accused persons. She further stated that her daughter had informed her when she was alive that her mother-in-law used to harass her on drinking water from the fridge and for washing clothes in washing machine saying that she had not brought fridge and washing machine in the dowry. She also stated that Iqrar also used to demand food from her daughter without providing her any articles for preparation of food. PW19, Smt. Sehnaz Begum further stated facts when cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state that her daughter Sakina died due to State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 24 of 38 harassment caused to her by the accused persons in her matrimonial house. It is further stated that in proceedings held in Women Cell, compromise had taken place between accused persons and them with the intervention of the common friends. Dafedar, Ashiq Ali, Kale Khan and she had also affixed her thumb impression on the applications given in Women Cell.
39. PW20 SI Varun had deposed that on 19.09.2014, he was handed over the investigation of this case as two accused persons namely Israr and Asgar were absconding and they had surrendered in Saket Court. After taking permission from the competent court, Israr was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex.PW17/B and accused Asgar Ali vide memo Ex.PW17/C. Both the accused persons were remanded to judicial custody as per his remand application. Thereafter, case file was again transferred to Inspector Praveen for further investigation. He identified the both accused persons in the court.
40. PW21, SI Rakesh Kumar had deposed that on 16.07.2010, he was posted at PS Jamia Nagar and was on emergency duty. He further deposed that an information was received in PS vide DD No. 13A regarding "meri ladki ko uske sasural wale paresan kar rahe hain". He along-with Ct. Vikram reached at the spot i.e. Gali No. 16, L Block, Abul Fazal Enclave, where complainant Sakina met him, her husband Iqramuddin was also present along-with other persons of the house. Some persons from the family of girl Sakina were also State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 25 of 38 present. The matter was sorted out as the in-laws of Sakina assured her that she would be kept properly in future. Some compromise was also written. He recorded DD entry of his arrival back in the police station vide DD Entry No. 39A Ex.PW21/A which bears his name at point A. Copy of DD No. 13A is Ex.PW21/B and said written compromise is not in the file.
41. PW22, ASI Joginder Singh had deposed that on 16.07.2010, he was posted as HC at PS Jamia Nagar and was serving as Duty Officer. He brought the original DD register and according to DD Register, said DD No. 13A was recorded regarding "Asgar Ka Makaan Gali No.16, L Block, Abul Fazal Enclave, peeli Pulia, Meri Ladki Ko Uske Sasual Wale pareshan Kar Rahe Hain". After recording the said DD entry, same was marked to SI Rakesh Kumar which is Ex.PW22/A.
42. PW23, Dr. Adarsh Kumar, Professor Forensic Medicine, AIIMS had deposed that he had seen the postmortem report Ex.PW23/A which was prepared by Dr. Hari Prasad, the then Sr. Resident in Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi. He further identified his signatures at point A and on the postmortem report as he had seen him writing and signing during the official course of his duties. He had also seen the injuries described in death given by Dr. Hari Prasad. In view of the said injuries, he concurred the opinion regarding cause of death of deceased Sakeena, aged 25 years, female, to be asphyxia due to antemortem hanging.
State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 26 of 3843. After examining aforesaid witnesses prosecution closed his evidence and matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused persons.
44. Under Section 313 Cr.P.C, all the incriminating evidence was put to accused persons separately which they denied. They claimed that prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses and they were falsely implicated in his case. They claimed that all the documents were prepared by police officials in police station regarding which they were not aware. They did not prefer to lead defence evidence. Consequently, matter was fixed for final arguments.
45. After hearing final arguments, matter was listed for judgment.
46. Accused persons in this case were charged with Section 304B/498A IPC. Both the said provisions are not mutually exclusive. The expression "cruelty is common in both the said provisions and has to be proved."
47. The words "it is shown" occurring in Section 304B IPC are significant. It postulates that initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Section 304B IPC did exist, is on the prosecution. This being shown or established, the question of presumption u/s 113 B of Evidence Act would arise. In other words, State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 27 of 38 to draw a presumption u/s 113 B of the Evidence Act, the necessary ingredient to be established is that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. Only when these facts are proved, then by virtue of the deeming provisions of Section 304 B IPC., the court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death. Reliance in this regard is placed upon case titled as Gurdutta Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1992 Criminal Law General, 309 (Rajasthan).
48. So, it means that before presumption under Section 113 B of Evidence Act, can be raised in favour of prosecution, it is for prosecution, to prove that immediately prior to death of deceased, there were circumstances that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her in laws.
49. This brings me to the issue of how evidence has to be appreciated. Law in this regard, needs to be mentioned also.
50.Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya Vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, had observed:
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 28 of 38 infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
51. Keeping in mind aforesaid tenet, I am proceeding further and appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution.
Appreciation of testimonies of public witnesses
52. PW1 Momin Khan was the complainant, in this case. It was this witness, on whose statement, FIR in question was registered and investigation, started. In his testimony before the court, he took State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 29 of 38 complete U-turn regarding the harassment which his daughter faced at the hands of accused persons and the dowry demands, accused persons had raised. He further deposed that he had no grievances against in laws of his daughter i.e. accused persons herein. He was cross examined by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State as he did not support the prosecution story. During said cross examination, leading questions were put to him regarding the seizure of dowry articles by police and with regard to his statement, made before SDM concerned. He denied the said leading questions. He did not depose that accused persons had harassed and had claimed dowry from him and/or his daughter. He denied the contents of his statement Ex.PW1/A, which was read to him. He denied the prosecution story, which was put to him by way of suggestion. As such, he did not depose any incriminating facts against accused persons. Therefore, I discarded his testimony, being untrustworthy and being inconsequential in nature.
53. PW2 Dafedar was the relative of complainant. In his testimony, he identified accused persons being in laws of Sakina. Besides that he did not depose any incriminating fact against accused persons regarding them making dowry demands and/or harassing Sakina. He refuted the suggestion that he had made statement before police during investigation, to the effect that in laws of Sakina used to demand dowry. He denied that he had made any allegation of dowry demand, against accused persons in his statement Ex.PW2/A. He identified documents viz Mark C (i.e. compromise recorded State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 30 of 38 before CAW Cell and his statement made before police Ex.PW2/A, having his signature at point B, but he denied the circumstances in which he had signed those documents. He had no knowledge about the contents of the statement Ex.PW2/B, which was his statement in which it was noted that Sakina and her husband had compromised the matter before CAW Cell.
54. Further, PW2 admitted the fact that Sakina was suffering from depression, prior to her marriage and that said condition had worsened after her marriage. He deposed that Sakina used to become agitated on small matters and had suicidal tendencies. As per him, there were no allegations of dowry or harassment, in proceedings before CAW Cell. Thus, his testimony had no incriminating fact against accused persons. I discarded his testimony being untrustworthy in nature.
55. PW3 Mohd. Amin was the uncle (chacha) of deceased Sakina.
He also did not depose any incriminating fact against accused persons. He did not depose that accused persons had harassed or had claimed dowry from Sakina at any point of time. He was also cross examined by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State but he did not support the prosecution story.He was confronted with his previous statement Ex.PW3/A, which noted the allegations of harassment and dowry demands by accused persons but he denied the same. He also admitted that at the time of death of Sakina, her father had undergone depression and was not in a state of making statement. He denied State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 31 of 38 that he had made any statement before police regarding taking action against accused persons. Therefore, I discarded his testimony being untrustworthy and inconsequential in nature.
56. PW4 Sajid was the brother of Sakina. He also did not support the prosecution story in his testimony. As per him, accused persons never harassed Sakina for dowry. He was also cross examined by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State but he did not support the prosecution story. He denied that he had made statement Ex.PW4/A before the police. He also admitted that Sakina had suicidal tendencies and was suffering from depression, prior to her marriage. As per him, accused persons never demanded dowry from him or from his family members and Sakina was never treated with cruelty by accused persons.
57. PW19 Shehnaz Begam was the mother of deceased Sakina. In her testimony, she deposed that her daughter had married accused Ikrar. She identified all the accused persons in the court being in laws of her daughter. As per her, normal dowry articles were given in the marriage of Sakina and no dowry demand was raised by accused persons at that time. After marriage, her daughter was blessed with female child and thereafter, accused Asgar had telephonically called her husband demanding money which her husband refused. Subsequently, she came to know that her daughter was subjected to beatings and harassment by accused persons. As per her, her daughter had told her that accused persons had harassed her State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 32 of 38 daughter. She deposed that considering the condition of her daughter, she was taken by her to her paternal house. Thereafter, complaint was made in Mahila Mandal (Women Cell) Saket, where with the intervention of Mahila Mandal, matter was compromised. Thereafter, Sakina started living with her in laws and was subjected to further harassment. As per her, prior to her death Sakina had told her on telephone that she was not given food for three days and was harassed by her in laws. Subsequently, she came to know from Dafedar that Sakina had died due to hanging with ceiling fan. She identified her signature in Ex.PW5/K at point X. She did not support prosecution story in totality and therefore, with the permission of the court, she was cross examined by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State.
58. In her cross examination by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, she admitted that police officials had made inquiries from her regarding the marriage and matrimonial affairs of Sakina with her in laws and her husband. She admitted that accused persons had demanded Rs.5lacs as dowry from her for buying a plot regarding which her husband refused, that her daughter was beaten by accused persons as their demands were not met, that her daughter had married in March, 2008, that address of matrimonial home of her daughter was L-9 Abul Fazal Enclave Part-1, that proceedings took place in women cell, that in laws of Sakina had threatened her to take back Sakina as their demands are not met and that prior to death of Sakina accused Ikrar had complained her about Sakina telephonically, regarding which Sakina had refuted. As per her, Sakina had telephonically State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 33 of 38 informed her that she was not given food for three days and was being harassed by accused persons. Sakina had told her that she apprehended her death at the hands of her in laws. She admitted that her son Sajid tried to talk to Sakina on telephone but Sakina was not allowed as her phone was abruptly disconnected. She also admitted that Sakina was harassed for the reason that she had not brought fridge and washing machine in dowry. She admitted that compromise took place in Women Cell Saket with the intervention of common friends, based on which statement was recorded by Mark C.
59. PW19 was cross examined at length by accused persons. In her cross examination, she failed to give date, month and year when her daughter was harassed by accused persons. She did not depose as to which plot accused persons wanted to buy from dowry money. She admitted that she did not file any complaint by herself regarding the said dowry demands and harassment made by accused persons. She refuted the facts that her daughter was suffering from depression as a result of which she committed suicide and that case was falsely lodged against accused persons.
60. After considering the testimony of PW19, I find that she had made vague accusation of ill treatment by accused persons. She did not give details of the time, specifically or approximately when accused persons had made dowry demands and had harassed her daughter. Her husband and son, in their respective testimonies admitted the fact that Sakina was suffering from depression prior to State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 34 of 38 her marriage and that condition has worsened after her marriage. Being immediate family members of Sakina, testimonies of husband and son of PW19, as such cannot be avoided and discarded. So, on one hand father and brother of deceased in question had deposed that deceased had died due to depression but mother of deceased had claimed that she died due to harassment given by accused persons. The non-uniformity in the testimony of three family member of Sakina did not help the cause of prosecution. I failed to understand, as to why father and brother of deceased Sakina claimed that she was suffering from depression prior to her marriage but it was denied by PW19 being mother of Sakina. Coupled with the same, PW19 had deposed that accused persons had not made any dowry demand at the time of marriage. Her deposition regarding dowry demands being made by accused persons was based on hearsay evidence. In other words, it was not her case, that she was personally asked by accused persons to provide then with dowry. On one occasion, husband of Sakina had demanded dowry from Sakina and on other occasion, husband of Sakina had demanded dowry from husband of this witness. On one of occasion father in law of Sakina had demanded dowry from the father of Sakina. So this witness was never asked dowry personally by any of the accused persons. All the said demands were never made by accused persons, in person, in the presence of this witness. Those demands were either made to Sakina or to husband of this witness, telephonically. Now, that hearsay evidence by itself is not trustworthy as it was bereft of specific details. Therefore, testimony of PW 19 did not inspire my State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 35 of 38 confidence. I discarded it accordingly being untrustworthy in nature.
Appreciation of testimonies of police witnesses.
61. PW5 WSI Mukesh, PW6 Hemant Kumar (the then SDM concerned),PW7 SI Anand Prakash, PW8 HC Neeraj Kumar, PW9 SI Ram Bhagat, PW10 SI Sajjan Kumar, PW11 WHC Manju, PW12 HC Farooq Ahmed, PW14 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, PW15 Inspector Unis, PW16 Ct. Ashwani, PW18 Ct. Mukesh Kumar, PW20 SI Varun, PW21 SI Rakesh Kumar, PW22 SI Jogender Singh and Dr. Adarsh Kumar, Professor Forensic Medicine AIIMS, were formal witnesses only. In their testimonies, they did not depose that they had investigated the matter, which could have shown that accused persons had committed offences in question. Their testimonies even if believed to be true, did not help the cause of prosecution as public witnesses, being relatives of deceased in question did not support the case of prosecution. Therefore, testimonies of these witnesses are not appreciated in detail.
62. PW13 SI Umesh Yadav was the initial IO in this case. In his testimony, he deposed that when he visited the place of occurrence, he had found several public persons but he did not make any inquiry from them regarding the incident. So, he failed to perform his duty of investigation properly by not inquiring from said public persons. Further, he did not investigate the matter with regard to details of dowry demands allegedly made by accused persons. He failed to bring on record, any electronic evidence, to the effect that accused State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 36 of 38 persons had made dowry demands from victim party. The details of telephonic conversations between accused persons and family members of deceased, were not collected. So, his testimony is found by me to be unreliable in nature. I discarded it accordingly.
63. PW17 Inspector Praveen also investigated the matter. He failed to perform his duty as his evidence revealed that he was not given any documentary proof regarding the dowry articles allegedly demanded by accused persons. He did not collect details of plot which accused persons wanted to purchase from dowry,which they had demanded. He did not investigate the matter with regard to the circumstances in which family members of deceased in question did not make complaint, once they had come to know that accused persons were harassing and were claiming dowry from Sakina. No investigation was carried out by him with regard to the details of dowry demands made by accused persons. He simply recorded statements of witnesses and without applying his own mind, filed chargesheet. He did not appreciate the possibility of deceased Sakina dying by hanging herself due to depression. As such, there was no investigation with regard to the medical illness of Sakina. Therefore, testimony of this witness is discarded by me being untrustworthy in nature. Thus, prosecution witnesses failed to prove the case of prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt.
64. Accused persons were able to raise probable defence of them being falsely implicated in this case.
State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 37 of 3865. Accordingly, accused persons namely Ikram @ Ikrar S/o Asgar Ali, Manisha W/o Asgar Ali, Israr S/o Asgar Ali and Asgar Ali are acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.
Announced in open Court
on 19th July, 2022 [Prashant Sharma]
Additional Sessions Judge-02,
SE District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
State Vs. Manisha & Ors, FIR No.476/14 Page 38 of 38