Delhi District Court
State vs . Sonu Yadav And Others Page No. 1 Of 69 on 26 February, 2021
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No. 30/14
Case Registration No. 916/2018
CNR No: DLSW01-001031-2014
FIR No. 325/2014
Police Station: Najafgarh
Under Section: 304B/498-A/34 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
1. Sonu Yadav
S/o Rajinder Yadav
2. Rajinder Yadav
S/o Mehar Chand
3. Meena Yadav
W/o Rajinder Yadav
4. Sacharo Devi (Expired)
W/o Mehar Chand
All Residents of :
H. No. 1683-E, Todarmal Colony,
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 1 of 69
FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh
2
5. Santosh Yadav
W/o Kabool Chand
R/o H. No. 24, Village Nangal Khodiya,
Tehsil Behror, District Alwar,
Rajasthan.
Date of Institution : 11.07.2014
Date of Reserving judgment : 17.02.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 26.02.2021
Decision : Acquitted
For State : Sh. Pramod Kumar, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State.
For Defence: Sh. Avnish Rana, counsel for all accused.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons were committed for trial by Sh. Satish Kumar Arora, the then Ld. CMM, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, charge sheet having been filed against accused persons for commission of offences U/sec 304B/498-A/406/34 IPC.
2. Accused persons were charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC on the allegations that on or before 14.04.2014 in matrimonial home of deceased Manisha at H. No. 1683-E, Todarmal Colony, Najafgarh, New Delhi, all accused in furtherance of their common intention subjected deceased Manisha with cruelty on State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 2 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 3 account of demands of dowry during her stay with accused persons at her matrimonial home and that on 14.04.2014 at about 05:00 PM, death of deceased Manisha occurred in her matrimonial home otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it was shown that deceased Manisha was subjected to cruelty by all accused in furtherance of their common intention for want of dowry soon before her death.
3. Brief facts on the basis of which charge-sheet in the matter was filed are as follows:-
4. On 14.04.2014 at about 05:22 PM, PCR call regarding wife of caller hanging herself was recorded vide DD No. 36A and was entrusted to SI Vikash for necessary action. On inquiry at the spot, victim was found shifted to hospital. On further inquiry, it was revealed that victim Manisha was married in year 2013 and concerned SDM was informed accordingly. Scene of crime was got inspected by Crime Team and exhibits were lifted from the spot. Inquest proceedings were conducted by Sh. A. N. Gaur, the then SDM, Najafgarh.
5. On 15.04.2014, mother of deceased Manisha gave statement to SDM, Najafgarh. Mother of deceased Smt. Sushma Yadav stated that she had two children i.e. One son and one daughter namely Manisha who was married to Sonu Yadav S/o State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 3 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 4 Rajinder Yadav on 02.05.2013. She stated that marriage of her daughter was performed in Pradhan Farm House, Paprawat Road, Paprawat. She stated that marriage was performed as per established rituals and dowry beyond capacity was given. She stated that inlaws of her daughter asked for car, electronic items and jewellery before marriage. She stated that they gave jewellery, Santro Car and other articles in dowry and all in all Rs. 20 lacs were spent in the marriage. She stated that in laws of her daughter started beating her daughter after one week of marriage. She stated that her son in law Sonu tortured her daughter and said that if she went to her parental home alone, he will not bring her back. She stated that mother in law, grand mother in law, Bua mother in law, father in law of her daughter and son in law used to taunt her daughter for bringing less dowry and used to ask her daughter to bring a 200 yards plot from her parents as grand mother of her son in law also brought 200 yards plot as dowry. She stated that when she and her husband expressed their inability to give plot, they asked for amount in cash. She stated that once after two three months of mariage, she gave Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter after two months thereof, she gave Rs. 1 lac. She stated that her daughter came to her parental house on 10th April for casting her vote, then she said that her in laws are demanding Rs. 10 lacs. She stated that she expressed her State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 4 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 5 inability to give the same whereafter, her daughter was started being beaten and her food was also stopped. She stated that day before yesterday, at about 08:00 PM, her daughter told her that she is being tortured and in case, money is not arranged, her in laws will kill her. She stated that yesterday evening at about 05:45 PM, her son in law Sonu called her on her mobile and he told her that her daughter has hanged herself and that they were taking her to RTRM hospital. She stated that when she reached hospital, she found her daughter in dead condition. She stated that she is sure that her daughter died because of her in laws.
6. SDM, Najafgarh directed for registration of FIR under relevant provisions of law on statement of mother of deceased.
7. In view of direction given by SDM, Najafgarh, scene of crime was got inspected by Crime Team and exhibits were taken into police possession. Postmortem was got conducted by SDM, Najafgarh.
8. On receipt of tehrir, case U/sec 304-B/498-A/34 IPC was lodged and computerized copy of FIR and original rukka was handed over to SI Vikash for further investigation.
9. During investigation, witnesses were examined, postmortem of deceased Manisha was got conducted and dead body was handed over to releatives. It is stated that during postmortem examination, autopsy surgeon recovered suicide note State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 5 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 6 from deceased Manisha which was taken into police possession. It is stated that thereafter, after permission from court, suicide note was got opened and was again taken into police possession.
10. Contents of suicide note were as below:
"Sorry Everyone (if was able to get out of this house, then might have remained alive). Got nothing from this house except tourture. Sometimes mentally and sometimes emotionally. The person for whom I left my world, he also left me alone and said that go wherever you want to go. Where to go ? Will not go to my parents house, they did not teach so. Asked many times to Sonu Ji that let's get out of here, I feel safocated but he said that he invested his complete earning in this house, I may go but he will not go. I never want to be part of such nonsense talks which grand mother and mother of Sonu Ji are engaged in. Backbiting of one before other and so on. I am not such and I call spade a spade but they did not leave me any option. I always used to say that God has enough space, I will also get one corner. My husband will not leave this house, I cannot go anywhere leaving him, where to go. Curse of grand mother -curse of a liar is Kalyug. Always being compared with my Nanads, what to do. I do not have my own identity. Something might have been seen in me that is why I was begged but I was not given any weightage. So much misery for someone's flower like child. My mother did State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 6 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 7 not send me for this. I do not talk sometimes as it is better to keep mum rather than speaking wrong. All that was taught to me by my mother failed in this swirl. When my husband does not stand with me, I am also entityless and it is futile that I remain in his life. I am bad in everyone's eyes. God knows that whether he calls bad persons or good persons first. I am fed up taking care of grand mother and mother of Sonu Ji but no one is there to care for me, not even my husband. Is married life like this? Even anniversay has not been completed-so many ups and downs. Wanted to go in Pradeep's marriage but people who do not have time for getting me meet my maternal uncle, will they allow me to attend marriage. Forgive me my brother but carry out your marriage as planned and do not feel bad for my death, my soul will rest in peace and I will see from heaven. I earn Rs. 25,000/- but never showed any attitude for the same as I believe that relations are beyond money. My expenses have been bound in a limit. Someone (mother in law) shows attitude for my husband's earning and someone shows attitude for one's house-where even birds will not like to live what to talk of human beings. Only this much water was for me, rest I will get after getting dissolved in Gangajal. I am fed up, I do not know what these people want from me, my husband does not want anything. All the vows of marriage are false, my husband did not have any requirement of State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 7 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 8 wife and is in habit of remaining in shade of his mother and grand mother -how he will come in my shade. Going forever at such place from where no one returns -the darkest phase of one's life -all darkness and darkness -no light anywhere. I say that all the disputes of this house will end with me, I will take onto myself all bad things and the house will be free from bad influence. (Few days ago, I felt that everything is getting normal, mother in law is also getting normal, I started keeping mum but it was lull before strom).
11. Postmortem report was collected and cause of death was opinied to be due to asphyxia following antemortem hanging. It is stated that exhihits have been sent to FSL, Rohini for analysis. PCR form has been collected and placed on record. Report of Scene of crime alongwith photographs has been collected and placed on record. Accused Sonu, Meena Yadav, Rajinder Yadav and Sacharo Devi have been arrested and are in JC. Accused Santosh Yadav was also arrested but was released on bail in pursuance of Delhi High Court's order.
12. On 11.07.2014, police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) was put up before Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate with a view to put accused persons for trial.
State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 8 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 9
13. In the light of the police report and the documents filed alongwith the same, Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offences complied with the provisions of section 207 of Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
14. On 04.08.2014, charge was framed against accused persons for having committed offences punishable under section U/sec 498-A/304B/34 IPC. Charge was read over and explained to the accused to which accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
15. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses in total.
16. PW-1 Smt. Sushma Yadav is mother of deceased Manisha who deposed that her daughter Manisha got married with accused Sonu Yadav on 02.05.2013. She deposed that the marriage was solemnized at Pradhan Farm House, Paprawat with Hindu customs and rites. She deposed that all the customary items of istridhan were given in the marriage. Before marriage, accused persons demanded Santro car, electronic items and jewellery and they had given the same to accused persons. She deposed that they had spent total amount of Rs. 20 lacs on the marriage of her daughter.
State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 9 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 10
17. PW-1 deposed that after week of marriage, accused persons started harassing and giving beatings to her daughter for demand of dowry. She deposed that accused Sonu Yadav asked her daughter that if she would go alone, he would not come to take her back from her parental house. She deposed that grand mother in law Smt. Sacharo Devi, mother in law Meena, Bua saas Santosh, father in law Rajinder Yadav and her son in law Sonu Yadav used to harass and beat her daughter. She deposed that they used to taunt that grand mother in law had brought plot of 200 yards in her marriage and they used to ask deceased to bring plot of 200 yards. She deposed that as they were not in a position to fulfill this demand of accused persons, so they refused to give the same. She deposed that accused persons used to demand the said plot as they were of opinion that they had given less dowry in marriage as demanded by them. She deposed that thereafter accused persons demanded cash from them. After 2-3 months of marriage, they gave Rs. 50,000/- and two months thereafter, they gave Rs. 1 lac to accused Sonu. She deposed that on 10.04.2014, her daughter Manisha came to their house to caste vote and told her that above said accused persons were harassing and beating her for bringing Rs. 10 lacs from them. They refused to give Rs. 10 lacs as they were not in a position to give the same. She deposed that abovesaid accused persons including Bua saas used State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 10 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 11 to harass and beat her daughter for demand of money. On 13.04.2014, she had talked to her daughter on telephone at about 08:00 PM who told her that all the abovesaid accused persons were beating her and were saying that if arrangement of Rs. 10 lacs was not made, then they would kill her daughter. She made her daughter understand that she alongwith her husband would go to matrimonial house on the next day and they would try to sort out the matter. She deposed that in the evening of 14.04.2014 at about 05:45 PM, when they were in the process of going to house of her daughter, she received a call from her son in law Sonu that her daughter Manisha had hung herself and he was taking her to RTRM hospital. She alongwith her husband went to RTRM hospital where they found their daughter in dead condition. She deposed that all the abovesaid accused persons are responsible for death of her daughter. She deposed that on 15.04.2014, her statement was recorded by SDM vide Ex. PW-1/A (inadvertenly, on account of typographical slip, exhibit has not been recorded in deposition of this witness but on court record, the same has been exhibited). She deposed that during course of investigation, she gave wedding card of her daughter and photocopy of dowry list to IO which were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/B. She exhibited marriage card and copy of list vide Ex. PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D respectively. She deposed that on 15.04.2014, in State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 11 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 12 the mortuary, she identified dead body of her daughter vide Ex. PW-1/E. She correctly identified all accused persons before court.
18. PW-2 Satbir Singh is father of deceased who deposed that marriage of his daughter Manisha was solemnized with accused Sonu Yadav on 02.05.2013. He deposed that he had given all the customary items as per demand of accused persons as istridhan to accused persons including one Santro car and jewelry. He deposed that he had spent Rs. 20 lacs in marriage.
19. PW-2 deposed that after marriage, his daughter was being harassed by accused Sonu, his father Rajinder, grand mother Sacharo Devi, mother Meena and bua Santosh for want of plot. He deposed that his daughter was being harassed by accused persons for plot and when they refused to give the same, they started demanding money. He deposed that they gave Rs. 50,000/- after two three months of marriage and gave Rs. 1 lac after two three months of giving of Rs. 50,000/-. He deposed that on 10.04.2014, his daughter Manisha came to their house for casting vote and told them that accused were demanding Rs. 10 lacs. He deposed that he told his daughter that they were not in a position to pay as they had just married her. He deposed that thereafter accused persons starting beating and threatening deceased. He deposed that on 14.04.2013, his daughter committed suicide by hanging. He deposed that all the five State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 12 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 13 accused persons were responsible for death of deceased.
20. PW-2 deposed that on 19.04.2014, he gave a diary of his daughter to police which was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A. He deposed that in the mortuary, he had identified dead body of deceased vide memo Ex. PW-2/B. He correctly identified all accused persons before court.
21. PW-3 Dr. Parvinder Singh conducted postmortem of deceased. He deposed that the body was brought by SI Vikash of PS Najafgarh which was identified by parents of deceased. He deposed that on external examination, he found injury on body of deceased i.e. ligature marks. He deposed that he preserved viscera, clothing and ligature material and sealed with seal of RTRM and handed it over to IO. He deposed that in his opinion, death in this case took place due to Asphyxia following antemortem hanging. He deposed that time since death was approximately 19 to 20 hours at the time of PM examination. He deposed that viscera was preserved to rule out any associated poisoning /drug intoxication. He exhibited his detailed report in this regard vide Ex. PW-3/A. He deposed that during proceeding of postmortem, he found one suicide note from body which he handed over to IO alongwith other sealed parcel.
22. PW-4 Ct. Giriraj deposed that on 17.04.2014, he alongwith SI Vikas went to RTRM hospital where doctor handed over one State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 13 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 14 sealed parcel sealed with seal of hospital to SI Vikas alongwith sealed parcel containing clothes of deceased and one suicide note apart from photograph of postmortem and one CD. He deposed that IO seized the same separately vide seizure memo Ex. PW- 4/A and B. He deposed that suicide note was not seized in his presence. He deposed that thereafter, they returned to PS and case property was deposited in Malkhana. He deposed that thereafter, accused Sonu Yadav who was in custody was taken out from lockup and made to join investigation. He deposed that they went to many places in search of other accused but no clue was found. He deposed that thereafter they returned and accused was lodged in lockup after being medically examined. He correctly identified accused Sonu Yadav before court.
23. PW-5 Arun Yadav is brother of deceased who deposed that marriage of his sister Manisha was solemnized with accused Sonu Yadav on 02.05.2013 with Hindu Customs and Rites. He deposed that before marriage, accused persons demanded a car in marriage and accused Sonu told him that marriage ceremony should be organized at some farm house otherwise, he would feel insult amongst his friends. He deposed that they spent Rs. 20 lacs in marriage though their financial capacity was not so good. He deposed that they gave Santro car to accused Sonu Yadav in marriage. He deposed that after sometime of marriage of his State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 14 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 15 sister, she told them that her in laws used to beat her and used to say to bring more dowry and money. These demands were being made by accused Sonu, his father Rajinder, mother Smt. Meena Devi and grand mother Smt. Sacharo Devi. He deposed that grand mother in law of his sister and bua saas namely Santosh used to beat his sister and used to ask to bring a plot of 200 sq yards. Accused Sonu used to demand cash and used to beat her repeatedly. He deposed that after two months of marriage, his mother gave Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1 lac to his sister.
24. PW-5 deposed that on 10.04.2014, his sister came to their house and told that her in laws are demanding Rs. 10 lacs and threatened to kill her. He deposed that they refused to give this amount as they were not having money. He deposed that on 14.04.2014, his mother received a call and he came to know about death of his sister. He deposed that after registration of FIR, he joined investigation on the next day and made statement to IO on 15.04.2014. He deposed that on 19.04.2014, he went to PS for handing over diary of deceased having her handwriting and study notes. He deposed that he had identified her handwriting. He deposed that on 04.07.2014, he again visited PS and handed over list of articles of istridhan and wedding card of marriage of his sister to IO which IO seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-1/B. He correctly identified all accused persons State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 15 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 16 before court.
25. PW-6 A. N. Gaur is SDM who deposed that on 15.04.2014, on request of IO, he had gone to RTRM hospital where he recorded statement of complainant vide already Ex. PW-1/A. He deposed that he made endorsement Ex. PW-6/A for registration of FIR and investigation of the case. He deposed that on that day, he also got inquest proceedings in the case conducted vide inquest papers Ex. PW-6/B.
26. PW-7 Wct. Roshni deposed that on 08.05.2014, she alongwith SI Vikash and Ct. Amar Pal went to Bhatinda, Punjab for investigation of this case. She deposed that they reported in local police station. She deposed that one Constable from local police station joined in investigation and they went in search of one Sacharo Devi. She deposed that for searching her, they reached house of her brother where accused Sacharo Devi met them. She deposed that she was interrogated and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-7/A. Her personal search memo was made vide Ex. PW-7/B. She deposed that thereafter they returned to Delhi and medical examination of accused Sacharo Devi was got conducted and thereafter, they went to Police Station, where accused was lodged in lockup. She correctly identified accused Sacharo Devi before court.
State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 16 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 17
27. PW-8 Ct. Rajesh deposed that on 14.04.2014 on receipt of DD No. 36 A by SI Vikash Kumar, he alongwith him went to H. No. 1683-E, Todarmal Colony, Najafgarh where they came to know that one Manisha was hanged and was taken to RTRM hospital. He deposed that Crime Team was called at the spot, spot was inspected and photographer took photographs of the spot. He deposed that the said room was locked. He deposed that thereafter, he alongwith SI Vikash went to RTRM hospital where patient Manisha was already declared brought dead. Dead body was sent to mortuary. In hospital, husband of deceased namely Sonu Yadav met them alongwith his mother. They were interrogated and SDM was informed. He deposed that thereafter they returned to the spot with Sonu Yadav and at his instance, one piece of wood purportedly broken from door frame was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/A.
28. PW-9 Ct. Mamta deposed that on 04.06.2014, Inspector Chattar Singh formally arrested accused Santosh Yadav vide arrest memo Ex. PW-9/A (identity of accused was not disputed by defence counsel).
29. PW-10 Ct. Rajneesh Kumar deposed that on 19.04.2014, in his presence in police station, SI Vikash had opened a sealed parcel containing suicide note which was recovered during postmortem of deceased. He deposed that after getting the suicide State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 17 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 18 note photocopied, same was kept in an envelop which was sealed with seal of "VB". He deposed that IO prepared seizure memo vide Ex. PW-10/A.
30. PW-11 Yashpal Singh is Assistant Teacher working in the school where deceased was working as Teacher. He identified handwriting of deceased Manisha in Teacher Diary from page No. 2 to 19. He deposed that he has worked with deceased Manisha so he can identify her handwriting. He exhibited Teacher's Diary vide Ex. PW-11/A bearing handwriting of deceased Manisha from page No. 2 to 19. He deposed that on 08.07.2014, this Teacher Diary was taken by police from school and that page No. 2 to 19 bears stamp and signatures of Principal.
31. PW-12 Ravinder is official of Punjab National Bank who exhibited Account Statement of deceased for period from 01.11.2011 to 14.06.2014 vide Ex. PW-12/A (Colly).
32. PW-13 SI Jagdish is Duty Officer who deposed that on 15.04.2014, he was working as Duty Officer from 04:00 PM to 12:00 night. He deposed that on receipt of rukka from SI Vikash, he recorded present FIR vide Ex. PW-13/A. He exhibited endorsement on rukka vide Ex. PW-13/B.
33. PW-14 WHC Shashikala is PCR official who deposed that on that day at about 05:14 PM, she received an information regarding hanging of wife of caller. She deposed that she State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 18 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 19 recorded this information vide Channel No. 101. She exhibited copy of PCR form vide Ex. PW-14/A. She deposed that she passed information to console to be transferred to concerned PCR van.
34. PW-15 Ct. Amar Pal deposed that on 08.05.2014, he alongwith SI Vikash and WCt. Roshni went to Bhatinda, Punjab in connection with investigation of this case. He deposed that IO arrested one lady Sataro Devi. He deposed that IO prepared documents regarding her arrest and she remained in custody of Ct. Roshni. He deposed that thereafter, they returned to Delhi and accused Sataro Devi was lodged in Lockup after medical examination.
35. PW-16 Ct. Ravi Kumar deposed that on 29.05.2014, on directions of IO, he took one sealed wooden box with sample seal from MHC (M) and took the same to FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 124/21/14. He deposed that he deposited the same in FSL and obtained acknowledgment of the case acceptance which he handed over to MHC (M). He deposed that so long as the exhibit remained in his custody, nobody tempered with the same.
36. PW-17 Ct. Sudershan deposed that on 15.04.2014, he joined investigation alongwith SI Vikash. He deposed that on that day, IO arrested accused Sonu Yadav vide arrest memo Ex. PW-17/A. Personal search of accused Sonu Yadav was conducted vide Ex.
State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 19 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 20 PW-17/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex. PW-17/C. He correctly identified accused Sonu Yadav before court. He deposed that after medical examination of accused Sonu Yadav at RTRM hospital, he was locked in lockup. He deposed that on 16.04.2014, he again joined investigation in this case. He deposed that accused Sonu Yadav was on police custody remand and they went in search of other co-accused persons in different area but no clue was found and after medical examination of accused, he was again locked in lockup.
37. PW-18 Ct. Bhim Singh deposed that on 03.06.2014, on directions of IO, he took one sealed parcel alongwith sample seal from MHC (M) and went to FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 128/21 for depositing exhibits there. He deposed that he deposited the exhibits in FSL, Rohini and obtained acknowledgment of case acceptance which he handed over to MHC (M) after returning from FSL. He deposed that so long as exhibits remained in his custody, the same were intact and nobody tempered with the same.
38. PW-18 WCt. Bulli (inadvertently examined again as PW-
18 instead of PW-19) deposed that on 20.04.2014, she joined investigation of this case. She deposed that during course of investigation, she alongwith Constable and SI Vikash arrested accused Meena from her house i.e. 1683-E, Todarmal Colony, State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 20 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 21 Najafgarh. IO prepared arrest memo of accused Meena vide Ex. PW-18/A and conducted her personal search vide Ex. PW-18/B. She correctly identified accused Meena Yadav before court.
39. PW-19 Ct. Suraj Bhan is photographer who deposed that on 14.04.2014, I/C, Crime Team ASI Pradeep received the information. He deposed that thereafter, they reached at H. No. 1683-E, Todarmal Colony, Najafgarh. He deposed that he took photographs of the house vide Ex. PW-19/1 to Ex. PW-19/9 and negatives of the same are Ex. PW-19/10 (Colly).
40. PW-20 ASI Pradeep Kumar is I/C, Crime Team who deposed that on 14.04.2014, on requisition of local police, he alongwith Ct. Suraj Bhan, Photographer reached at the spot i.e. H. No. 1683-E, Todarmal Colony, Najafgarh. He deposed that he inspected the spot from 06:15 PM to 06:45 PM. He deposed that broken wooden part of door was found lying. He deposed that Ct. Suraj Bhan took photographs of scene of spot from different angles and prepared report vide Ex. PW-20/A.
41. PW-21 Ct. Sanjeet deposed that on 05.05.2014, he joined investigation of present case with IO SI Vikash and during investigation, accused Rajinder Kumar was arrested from Water booster pumping station, Naraina at around 02:00 AM. He correctly identified accused Rajinder Kumar before court. He deposed that accused Rajinder Kumar was arrested vide arrest State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 21 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 22 memo Ex. PW-21/A and his personal search was conducted vide Ex. PW-21/B.
42. PW-22 HC Karamvir Singh deposed that on 17.04.2014, he was posted as MHC (M) (CP) in PS Najafgarh. He deposed that SI Vikash gave him one sealed pulinda of viscera peti and viscera, entry of the same was made by him in register No. 19 vide Ex. PW-22/A. He deposed that another pulinda i.e. suicide note was received on 19.04.2014 and entry of the same was made by him in register No. 19 vide Ex. PW-22/B.
43. PW-23 Inspector Chattar Singh is 2nd IO who deposed that on 26.05.2014, he received case file from SI Vikash and went alongwith him to Delhi High Court for attending bail matter of Smt. Santosh. He deposed that after hearing, anticipatory bail was granted. He deposed that on 28.05.2014, he collected original PCR form which is already Ex. PW-14/A. He deposed that on 04.06.2014, he made formal arrest of accused Santosh Yadav in PS vide arrest memo already Ex. PW-9/A. He deposed that photographs of scene of crime and scene of report were collected from Crime Team office and placed on file. He deposed that he also collected admitted handwriting of deceased Manisha from her school vide seizure memo. He deposed that he also collected marriage invitation card and list of dowry articles vide memo already Ex. PW-1/B. He deposed that he deposited State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 22 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 23 exhibits with FSL, Rohini and submitted result to the court. He deposed that PWs were examined by him and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by him.
44. PW-24 SI Vikash is 1st IO who deposed that on 14.04.2014, on receiving of call vide DD No. 36A (Mark A) regarding hanging, he alongwith Ct. Rajesh reached at the spot i.e. 1683-E, Todarmal Colony, Najafgarh. He deposed that on reaching there, he came to know that deceased Manisha Yadav had already been removed by PCR van official to hospital.
45. PW-24 deposed that he received information from hospital regarding admission of deceased Manisha in RTRM hospital and the fact that she was declared brought dead vide DD No. 40A (Mark B). He deposed that thereafter, he intimated SDM, Najafgarh regarding death of Manisha Yadav. He deposed that thereafter, dead body was shifted to mortuary of the hospital and he inspected scene of occurrence and called Crime Team who also inspected the spot and prepared its report. He deposed that when he had reached at the spot, he met with grand mother of accused Smt. Sacharo Devi. He deposed that he found the door of the room in open condition where incident occurred.
46. PW-24 deposed that on interrogation, husband of deceased revealed that he had broken door from outside prior to his and PCR officials arrival. He deposed that from the spot, he seized State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 23 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 24 wooden piece of chocolate colour which was found lying on floor of the said room vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-8/A.
47. PW-24 deposed that on the next day, concerned SDM Sh. A. N. Gaur visited hospital and recorded statement of mother of deceased Smt. Sushma Yadav. He deposed that on that day, death report was prepared vide Ex. PW-24/A. Dead body was identified by parents of deceased vide their statements Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. PW-1/E. He deposed that thereafter, postmortem of deceased was conducted on 15.04.2014 vide application already Ex. PW-6/B and after postmortem, dead body of deceased was handed over to parents of deceased. He deposed that thereafter, on basis of statement Ex. PW-1/A and endorsement of concerned SDM, he prepared tehrir vide Ex. PW-24/B and accordingly present case was registered.
48. PW-24 deposed that during course of investigation, he prepared site plan vide Ex. PW-24/C and arrested accused Sonu vide memo already Ex. PW-17/A and personally searched him vide memo already Ex. PW-17/B. He deposed that thereafter accused was taken on two days Police Remand and other accused persons were searched but could not found during PC remand of accused. He correctly identified accused Sonu before court.
49. PW-24 deposed that he collected postmortem report of deceased and seized viscera of deceased in sealed condition vide State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 24 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 25 seizure memo already Ex. PW-4/A. He deposed that he also seized one chunni, clothes and suicide note in sealed condition given by doctor concerned vide seizure memo already Ex. PW- 4/B.
50. PW-24 deposed that on 19.04.2014, the suicide note which was given by concerned doctor after postmortem examination in sealed condition with seal of the hospital was opened with permission of concerned court and was again re-sealed with seal of VB vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-10/A.
51. PW-24 deposed that on 19.04.2014, brother of deceased Arun Yadav had produced one diary written by deceased Manisha in support of her admitted handwriting and signatures which was taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-2/A.
52. PW-24 deposed that on 20.04.2014, mother in law of deceased namely Meena Yadav was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex. PW-18/A and her personal search was carried out vide memo already Ex. PW-18/B. He correctly identified accused Meena Yadav before court.
53. PW-24 deposed that on 05.05.2014, father in law of deceased namely Rajinder Yadav was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex. PW-21/A and his personal search was carried out vide memo already Ex. PW-21/B. He correctly identified accused Rajinder Yadav before court.
State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 25 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 26
54. PW-24 deposed that on 08.05.2014, grand mother of accused namely Sacharo Devi was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex. PW-7/A and her personal search was carried out vide memo already Ex. PW-7/B. He deposed that disclosure statements of accused Sonu and Rajinder were recorded vide memos already Ex. PW-17/C and Ex. PW-24/D.
55. PW-24 further deposed that during course of investigation, he recorded statements of witnesses, collected MLC of deceased vide Ex. PW-24/E and also collected postmortem report alongwith photographs of postmortem proceedings.
56. PW-24 identified photographs alongwith negatives of the spot taken by crime team vide Ex. PW-19/1 to Ex. PW-19/9. He correctly identified suicide letter vide Ex. P-2, diary of deceased vide Ex. P-1 and wooden piece of the door vide Ex. P-3. Identity of accused Sucharo Devi and Santosh Yadav was not disputed by defence counsel.
57. PW-25 Alok Kumar Mehta is Senior Scientific Assistant (documents), FSL who deposed that on 24.07.2014, documents forwarded vide memo No. 1485 and 1691/SHO/NG dated 03.06.2014 and 08.07.2014 in connection with present case were received in the laboratory on 03.06.2014 and 09.07.2014 respectively. He exhibited his detailed report vide Ex. PW-25/A. State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 26 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 27
58. PW-26 Dr. Kanak Lata Verma is Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini who deposed that on 29.05.2014, she received one sealed wooden box duly sealed with two seals of RTRM hospital found containing Ex. 1A to 1D. She exhibited her report vide Ex. PW-26/A and work sheet (Toxicology) vide Ex. PW-26/B.
59. Prosecution evidence was closed on statement of Ld. Additional PP for State on 22.02.2016.
60. On 06.04.2016, accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C wherein incriminating material appearing in evidence against accused were put to accused.
61. Accused Sonu Yadav in his statement U/sec 313 Cr. P. C. admitted factum of his marriage with deceased on 02.05.2013. He stated that he is not aware if Smt. Sushma Yadav was in the process of coming to their house on 14.04.2014 at about 05:45 PM. He stated that however, he made telephonic call to Smt. Sushma Yadav that Manisha had hung herself and he was taking her to RTRM hospital. He admitted factum of his arrest in the case. He stated that public witnesses particularly relatives of deceased deposed against him due to sudden and untimely death /suicide that took place at his residence and out of grudge and spite, they deposed against him. He stated that police witnesses deposed against him just to strengthen its case though State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 27 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 28 police did not try to go to bottom of the matter. He stated that as death of his wife occurred at his residence i.e. she committed suicide at his residence, parents of deceased turned furious and therefore due to vendetta falsely implicated him and his family in this case. He stated that this is false and fabricated case by parents of deceased out of grudge and spite. He stated that deceased had never been subjected to any sort of cruelty by any of the accused persons. He stated that deceased wanted to live separately but her demand was not meted out by him and having frustrated from this, she committed suicide.
62. Accused Sacharo Devi in her statement U/sec 313 Cr. P. C. admitted factum of marriage of co-accused Sonu Yadav with deceased on 02.05.2013. She also admitted her arrest in the case. She stated that public witnesses particularly relatives of deceased deposed against her due to sudden and untimely death /suicide that took place at their residence and out of grudge and spite, they deposed against her. She stated that police witnesses deposed against her just to strengthen its case though police did not try to go to bottom of the matter. She stated that as death of her grand daughter in law occurred at their residence i.e. she committed suicide at their residence, parents of deceased turned furious and therefore due to vendetta falsely implicated her and her family in this case. She stated that this is false and fabricated case by State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 28 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 29 parents of deceased out of grudge and spite. She stated that deceased had never been subjected to any sort of cruelty by any of the accused persons. She stated that deceased wanted to live separately but her demand was not meted out by her husband and having frustrated from this, she committed suicide.
63. Accused Santosh Yadav in her statement U/sec 313 Cr. P. C. admitted factum of marriage of co-accused Sonu Yadav with deceased on 02.05.2013. She also admitted her arrest in the case. She stated that public witnesses particularly relatives of deceased deposed against her due to sudden and untimely death /suicide that took place at their residence and out of grudge and spite, they deposed against her. She stated that police witnesses deposed against her just to strengthen its case though police did not try to go to bottom of the matter. She stated that as death deceased occurred at residence of her brother i.e. she committed suicide there, parents of deceased turned furious and therefore due to vendetta falsely implicated her and her family in this case. She stated that she is residing separately at her own house at Behror, District Alwar, which is about 150 kms from Delhi. She stated that she visited rarely at her brother's house. She stated that this is false and fabricated case by parents of deceased out of grudge and spite. She stated that deceased had never been subjected to any sort of cruelty by any of the accused persons in her State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 29 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 30 knowledge. She stated that deceased wanted to live separately but her demand was not meted out by her husband and having frustrated from this, she committed suicide.
64. Accused Meena Yadav in her statement U/sec 313 Cr. P. C. admitted factum of marriage of co-accused Sonu Yadav with deceased on 02.05.2013. She stated that she is not aware if Smt. Sushma Yadav was in the process of coming to their house on 14.04.2014 at about 05:45 PM. She stated that however, her son Sonu Yadav made telephonic call to Smt. Sushma Yadav that Manisha had hung herself and he was taking her to RTRM hospital. She also admitted her arrest in the case. She stated that public witnesses particularly relatives of deceased deposed against her due to sudden and untimely death /suicide that took place at her residence and out of grudge and spite, they deposed against her. She stated that police witnesses deposed against her just to strengthen its case though police did not try to go to bottom of the matter. She stated that as death of her daughter in law occurred at her residence i.e. she committed suicide at her residence, parents of deceased turned furious and therefore due to vendetta falsely implicated her and her family in this case. She stated that this is false and fabricated case by parents of deceased out of grudge and spite. She stated that deceased had never been subjected to any sort of cruelty by any of the accused persons.
State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 30 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 31 She stated that deceased wanted to live separately but her demand was not meted out by her husband and having frustrated from this, she committed suicide.
65. Accused Rajinder Yadav in his statement U/sec 313 Cr. P. C. admitted factum of marriage of co-accused Sonu Yadav with deceased on 02.05.2013. He stated that he is not aware if Smt. Sushma Yadav was in the process of coming to their house on 14.04.2014 at about 05:45 PM. He also admitted his arrest in the case. He stated that public witnesses particularly relatives of deceased deposed against him due to sudden and untimely death /suicide that took place at his residence and out of grudge and spite, they deposed against him. He stated that police witnesses deposed against him just to strengthen its case though police did not try to go to bottom of the matter. He stated that as death of his daughter in law occurred at his residence i.e. she committed suicide at his residence, parents of deceased turned furious and therefore due to vendetta falsely implicated him and his family in this case. He stated that this is false and fabricated case by parents of deceased out of grudge and spite. He stated that deceased had never been subjected to any sort of cruelty by any of the accused persons. He stated that deceased wanted to live separately but her demand was not meted out by her husband and having frustrated from this, she committed suicide.
State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 31 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 32
66. Accused persons examined 03 witnesses in defence evidence.
67. DW-1 Raj Kumar deposed that at the time of incident, he was employed as Primary Teacher with MCD and was posted in MCD Primary School, Tilang Pur, Kotla, New Delhi. He deposed that Ms. Manisha (since deceased) was also working as Teacher in the same school alongwith him on contract basis. He deposed that they both used to go to school together and sit together in the lunch time and vacant periods. He deposed that he was having friendly terms with deceased. He deposed that they used to have long discussions about academics, job and household affairs as well. He deposed that during discussions, it did not seem that deceased was subjected to any sort of cruelty or harassment by her in laws. He deposed that Manisha also told him that her grand father in law used to compare her with grand daughter on petty issues. He deposed that on some occasions, Manisha made complaint against grand mother in law. He deposed that she apprised him against behaviour of her grand mother in law such as on rising time in the morning, making of food and putting veil. He deposed that he met Manisha two-three days prior to her death but she did not tell anything against her in laws.
68. DW-2 Shakuntla deposed that she is Teacher in MCD. She deposed that at the time of incident, she was employed as Primary Teacher with MCD, New Delhi. She deposed that she State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 32 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 33 knew deceased Manisha as her matrimonial home is adjacent to her residence. She deposed that they used to meet each other in the morning almost everyday at bus stand while going to Schools. She deposed that Manisha also used to visit her house and she also visited her matrimonial home. She deposed that she was having friendly terms with deceased. She deposed that they used to have long discussions regarding household affairs. She deposed that during conversation, Manisha had never made any complaint against the accused persons except complaint against her grand father in law, who used to compare her with grand daughter on petty issues. She deposed that Manisha never complained about demand of any kind of dowry raised by accused persons. She deposed that sometimes, Manisha made complaint against her grand mother in law. She deposed that she apprised her of behaviour of her grand mother in law such as on rising time in the morning, making of food, putting veil and her behaviour. She deposed that she met Manisha 4-5 days prior to her death but she did not tell anything against her in laws.
69. DW-3 Dharmender Yadav deposed that accused Santosh Yadav was member of Panchayat of Village Nangal Khoria from 2005 to 2010. He deposed that thereafter, husband of accused Santosh Yadav also became member of said Panchayat. He deposed that they both being public persons and had various State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 33 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 34 public assignments and used to remain in village. He deposed that accused Santosh Yadav never leaves village for more than period of one or two days.
70. Defence evidence was closed on statement of defence counsel recorded on 24.05.2016.
71. During course of trial, accused Sacharo Devi expired and present case was abated against her vide order dated 17.02.2021.
72. I have heard arguments addressed by respective counsels and perused the record including written arguments and judgments filed on behalf of complainant as well as accused persons.
73. Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, which defines the offence of dowry death and prescribes punishment for the said offence, reads as under:
304B. Dowry death.-- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry, such death in this case, shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative or family member, shall be deemed to have caused her death.
State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 34 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 35 Explanation. For the purpose of this subsection, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
74. The essential ingredients of the said offence 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 for dowry; and (v) such cruelty is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
75. Explanation appended to Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code defines dowry to have the same meaning as contained in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which reads as under:
2. Definition of `dowry'.-- In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 35 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 36 at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
76. Sections 113B of Indian Evidence Act, which is also noteworthy in connection with trial of offences punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, reads as under:
113B. Presumption as to dowry death.-- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.For the purposes of this section "dowry death"
shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
77. Presumption in terms of section 113B of Act 1 of 1872 is one of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death.
78. As per the definition of "dowry death" in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and the wording in the presumptive provision of section 113B of Act 1 of 1872, one of the essential ingredient, amongst others, is that the `woman' must have been "soon before her death" subjected to cruelty or harassment "for, State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 36 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 37 or in connection with, the demand for dowry".
79. In the present case in the light of the provisions of sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the submissions made on behalf of the parties, first point of determination is whether on 02.05.2013, the marriage was solemnized between accused Sonu Yadav and deceased Manisha?
80. To prove factum of marriage between deceased and accused Sonu Yadav, prosecution has examined PW-1 Smt. Sushma Yadav, PW-2 Sh. Satbir Singh and PW-5 Sh. Arun Yadav who are mother, father and brother of deceased respectively who all have deposed that marriage of deceased was solemnized with accused Sonu Yadav on 02.05.2013. All these witnesses have not been cross examined by accused persons with regard to factum of marriage of deceased with accused Sonu Yadav. Further, all accused in their statements U/sec 313 Cr. P. C have admitted factum of marriage of deceased with accused Sonu Yadav on 02.05.2013. Marriage card of deceased with accused Sonu Yadav has been proved on record by State vide Ex. PW-1/C which also has remained unchallenged in testimony of PW-1 by accused persons. Thus, it can be said that prosecution has proved factum of marriage of deceased with accused Sonu Yadav on 02.05.2013.
81. Second point of determination is whether deceased Manisha (wife of accused Sonu Yadav) died within seven years of her State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 37 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 38 marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances?
82. To prove this fact, state has examined PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 Dr. Pavinder Singh, PW-5 and PW-24. As per these witnesses deceased Manisha expired on 14.04.2014 (though the witnesses may not have stated in clear terms that deceased expired on 14.04.2014 but purport of their depositions shows that deceased expired on 14.04.2014). Accused in cross examination of these witnesses have not challenged this fact that deceased did not expire on 14.04.2014. MLC of deceased has been exhibited on record vide Ex. PW-24/E (though maker of Ex. PW-24/E has not been examined by State but as such, Ex. PW-24/E has not been challenged by accused persons in cross-examination of PW-24). As per Ex. PW-24/E which is made on 14.04.2014, deceased was declared brought dead. Postmortem report of deceased has been proved on record by State vide Ex. PW-3/A. Postmortem of deceased was got conducted on 15.04.2014 at 12:30 PM as per Ex. PW-3/A. PW-3 in his examination in chief has deposed that time since death was approximately 19 to 20 hours at the time of PM examination. PW-3 has not been cross examined by defence in this regard. All this conclusively proves the fact that deceased indeed expired on 14.04.2014. Factum of marriage of deceased with accused Sonu Yadav having been proved to have taken place on 02.05.2013 as discussed above and factum of death of State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 38 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 39 deceased taking place on 14.04.2014 stands proved in view of my discussion in this para which further proves that death of deceased occurred within seven years of her marriage. To prove that deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances, State has examined PW-3 and proved postmortem report of deceased on record vide Ex. PW-3/A. As per Ex. PW-3/A, death of deceased took place due to asphyxia following antemortem hanging. Postmortem report of deceased Ex. PW-3/A has not been challenged by defence in cross examination of PW-3 meaning thereby that Ex. PW-3/A stands proved which further proves that death of deceased took place otherwise than under normal circumstances.
83. Third point for determination is whether deceased soon before her death was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry.
84. Prosecution in this regard has examined PW-1, PW-2 and PW-
5. PW-1 in this regard in her examination in chief deposed that on 10.04.2014, her daughter Manisha came to their house to caste vote and told her that abovesaid accused persons (for reference in her deposition, PW-1 has taken name of all accused persons facing trial before court) were harassing and beating her for bringing Rs. 10 lacs from them. She deposed that they refused to State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 39 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 40 give Rs. 10 lacs as they were not in a position to give the same. She deposed that on 13.04.2014, she had talked with her daughter on telephone at about 08:00 PM who told her that all the abovesaid accused persons were beating her and saying that if arrangement of Rs. 10 lacs was not made by them, they would kill deceased. She deposed that she made to understand her daughter that she alongwith father of deceased would go to matrimonial house of deceased on the next day and they would try to sort out the matter. PW-2 in this regard in his deposition deposed that on 10.04.2014, deceased came to their house for casting vote and told them that accused persons were demanding Rs. 10 lacs. He deposed that he told his daughter that they were not in a position to pay as they had just married her. He deposed that thereafter, accused persons started beating and threatening his daughter Manisha. PW-5 in this regard deposed that on 10.04.2014, his sister came to their house and told that her in laws were demanding Rs. 10 lacs and threatened to kill her. He deposed that they refused to give this amount as they were not having any money.
85. PW-2 and PW-5 in their respective examinations in chief have not deposed regarding PW-1 calling deceased on 13.04.2014 at about 08:00 PM. IO on his part has also failed to bring on record as to whether deceased or mother of deceased State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 40 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 41 (PW-1) were using mobile phones at relevant point of time. IO has further failed to bring on record in case deceased and PW-1 were using mobile or had access to mobile of someone in their respective places of residence, call detail record of such respective mobiles. By not bringing CDRs on record, IO deprived this court an opportunity to examine best possible scientific evidence and thus to arrive at possible true conclusion.
86. As per statement of PW-1 given to SDM Ex. PW-1/A, on 10.04.2014, when they negated demand of Rs. 10 lacs of in laws of deceased, from that day, deceased was bet, her food was stopped and deceased told one day prior to her death that she is being tortured to the extreme.
87. Perusal of postmortem report of deceased Ex. PW-3/A shows that in column of external injuries, only ligature marks have been reported over body of deceased. PW-3 i.e. the doctor who conducted postmortem of deceased in his cross-examination stated that injuries described in his examination report are due to hanging only. In case, deceased was being bet since four days prior to her death, she should have some sort of physical injury at least in order to make out prima facie that she was being beaten continuously for not meting out demand of accused persons for bringing Rs. 10 lacs.
State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 41 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 42
88. PW-1 in Ex. PW-1/A did not state that accused Sonu Yadav also accompanied deceased to their house on 10.04.2014. PW-1 in her examination in chief does not mention that accused Sonu Yadav also accompanied deceased to their house on 10.04.2014 when alleged demand of Rs. 10 lacs by accused was conveyed by deceased to her family members and particularly to her parents. PW-1 in her cross-examination conducted on 08.08.2014 stated that demand of Rs. 10 lacs was told to her daughter in presence of her husband and son on 10.04.2014. She further stated that on that day, she was accompanied with her husband. PW-2 also in his examination in chief does not talk of accused Sonu Yadav accompanying deceased to their house on 10.04.2014. Similarly, PW-5 is also silent regarding accused Sonu Yadav visiting their house on 10.04.2014 alongwith deceased but in his cross- examination, he has stated that on 14.04.2014, when his sister came to their house, she told in presence of his brother in law Sonu to his parents that her in laws were demanding Rs. 10 lacs. Non stating of accused Sonu Yadav accompanying deceased to parental house of deceased on 10.04.2014 in Ex. PW-1/A and respective examination in chiefs of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 is an important omission and rather it looks that improvement has been done by PW-1 and PW-5 in their cross-examinations in this regard.
State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 42 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 43
89. Only PW-1 in her examination in chief states that she talked with her daughter on telephone on 13.04.2014 at about 08:00 PM. PW-2 and PW-5 are silent in this regard in their respective examinations in chief. Only PW-5 in his cross-examination states that his mother talked to his sister in evening of 13.04.2014 as told by his mother. Non stating by PW-2 and PW-5 in their respective examinations in chief, factum of PW-1 talking with deceased in the evening of 13.04.2014 is an important omission which reduces credit of prosecution story.
90. Another important piece of evidence in this case is alleged suicide note of deceased which though has been identified by PW-24 in court vide Ex. P-2 unfortunately has not been exhibited on record by prosecution but I am considering the same as defence counsel during course of arguments admitted that suicide note on record was written by deceased in her handwriting. Counsel for complainant also did not dispute veracity of this suicide note. PW-1 and PW-2 in their cross examinations stated that they know that their daughter left behind a suicide note just before her death. In contents of suicide note, there is no mention by deceased regarding any demand made by any of the accused qua dowry from her parents or from her for that matter. From contents of suicide note, it appears that deceased was not able to tolerate behaviour of mother and grand mother of her husband State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 43 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 44 and that she wanted her husband to leave his parental house and live separately but her husband did not agree to this proposition of deceased. Deceased also did not like comparison with her Nanads. From suicide note, it appears that deceased was also aggrieved because her expenses being limited despite she earning Rs. 25,000/-. Had deceased was being harassed for any dowry demand, the same should have been reflected in her suicide note as while writing suicide note and while committing suicide, deceased did not have pressure of presence of any one and had it been so, unfortunate incident of deceased committing suicide might have been averted. Further, deceased in her suicide note in the beginning has as title mentioned "Sorry Everyone". From this title, it does not appear that she wishes to blame anyone for her suicide but she is rather feeling apologetic for taking extreme step. From contents of suicide note, it appears that deceased did not have much tolerance and could not tolerate atmosphere of her matrimonial house.
91. It has come in cross-examination of PW-5 that distance between their house and house of his sister is about 1 to 1.5 km. He further stated that shop of his father fall in middle of their house and matrimonial house of his sister. PW-1 in her cross examination stated that distance between her house and matrimonial house of deceased is about one and a half km. This State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 44 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 45 being the case and despite as per PW-1 in Ex. PW-1/A, deceased being tortured, not being fed and physically beaten for not meeting out demand of Rs. 10 lacs, no one from paternal family of deceased visited matrimonial house of deceased is surprising. Though PW-1 in her examination in chief stated that she made deceased understand that she alongwith her father would go to her matrimonial house on the next day and would try to sort out the matter but till 05:45 PM on the next day, no one from paternal family of deceased visited matrimonial house of deceased (though PW-1 has stated that they were in process of going to house of her daughter but PW-2 and PW-5 are silent in this regard which fact does not inspire confidence in deposition of PW-1 in this regard and it appears that PW-1 deposed the same to cover up lacuna in prosecution story).
92. Another awkward fact stated by PW-1 in her cross examination is that despite on 10.04.2014, deceased being accompanied by accused Sonu Yadav to their house, neither of their family member talked to her son-in-law Sonu about anything. She further stated that her daughter and son-in-law remained at her house for about 30 -45 minutes. It is indeed very difficult to believe that despite demand of Rs. 10 lacs being made known to family members of deceased but still nothing is being asked from accused Sonu Yadav regarding the same despite the State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 45 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 46 fact that accused Sonu Yadav allegedly happens to be present at their house. PW-5 in this regard in his cross-examination stated that on 10.04.2014, demand of Rs. 10 lacs was conveyed by deceased to her parents in presence of accused Sonu Yadav. He further stated that on this, his mother told his sister and brother- in-law Sonu that they both were earning handsomely then as to why she was demanding the amount. He stated that both kept quiet on reply of his mother. Version of PW-1 and PW-5 is contradictory and saying by PW-1 that despite accused Sonu Yadav being present was not confronted with regard to demand of Rs. 10 lacs and PW-5 saying that he was confronted dilutes credibility of prosecution story and improvement and addition in version of PWs in this regard is clearly visible as nothing of that sort has been stated by any of the family members of deceased in his /her examination in chief.
93. It was contended on behalf of State and complainant that no suggestion with regard to accused Sonu Yadav not accompanying deceased on 10.04.2014 was made to PW-1 or PW-5 nor any suggestion was made to PW-1 and PW-5 that no such demand of Rs. 10 lacs was made by accused persons which proves factum of demand of Rs. 10 lacs by accused persons soon before committing suicide by deceased and proves case of prosecution so far as offence U/sec 304-B IPC is concerned.
State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 46 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 47
94. I am of the view that argument of State and complainant as mentioned above cannot be accepted firstly as mentioned earlier, none of the public witness in his /her examination in chief has stated that accused Sonu Yadav accompanied deceased to her house on 10.04.2014 and it was only in the cross-examination that this aspect was elucidated by PW-1 and PW-5. It is true that in cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-5, no specific suggestion countering this elucidation was given by defence and merely general suggestion was given that accused persons never subjected deceased to any sort of cruelty i.e. demand of dowry or otherwise or she has ever given beatings by accused persons which suggestion was denied by these witnesses. I am of the view that though specific suggestion in this regard if given by defence would have been better but even if general suggestion covering subject as a whole as has been given is enough in the circumstances of present case as discussed above and non giving of specific suggestion in this regard cannot be made ground for convicting accused persons.
95. Further, defence counsel during course of arguments submitted that admittedly, PW-1 as per Ex. PW-1/A was informed regarding deceased committing suicide at 05:45 PM on 14.04.2014 by accused Sonu Yadav but that statement of PW-1 Ex. PW-1/A was taken by concerned SDM on 15.04.2014 and State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 47 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 48 that on the date of incident, there was no allegation against any of accused persons even to police on part of family members of deceased which fact clearly suggests that Ex. PW-1/A was a thought out statement given after due deliberation just to implicate accused persons falsely in present case as family members of deceased were not able to tolerate factum of deceased committing suicide so early after her marriage. Defence counsel further argued that PW-1 used word "Electronic Upkaran" in her statement given to concerned SDM Ex. PW-1/A but she in her cross-examination recorded on 08.08.2014 stated that she does not know meaning of Hindi Word "Upkaran" which fact clearly shows that Ex. PW-1/A is a guided and thought after statement. Defence counsel further argued that both PW-1 and PW-2 in their cross-examination stated that their daughter mentioned in the suicide note that accused persons tortured her for demand of dowry but that there is no demand of dowry mentioned by deceased on part of accused persons in suicide note left which prima facie shows that PW-1 and PW-2 being parents of deceased and PW-5 being brother of deceased were hellbent to falsely implicate accused persons somehow or the other.
96. Accused relied upon judgment in case titled as "Naveen Vs. The State (GNCT of Delhi) 2014 SCC Online Del 4355"
wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while allowing appeal of State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 48 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 49 convict /appellant and setting aside his conviction by Ld. Trial Court inter alia observed as below:
"Deceased's parents did not lodge any complaint with the police soon after arrival in the hospital despite presence of police officials. On the next day i.e. 29.09.2005, purportedly SDM-Sh. Kedar Nath alongwith Investigating Officer went to the Village of the parents of the deceased and recorded statement of PW-5 (Angoori Devi). Use of various 'words' in Hindi and English in the exhaustive statement Ex. PW-5/A rules out if it was the statement given by PW-5 (Angoori Devi), an illiterate lady. It appears that statement (Ex. PW-5/A) was recorded after due deliberations. .................No reasonable explanation has been given by the parents of the deceased for delay in lodging the complaint with the police and also of making supplementary statements /complaints to the Police."
97. In the present case also, as pointed out by defence counsel, PW-1 /complainant in her cross-examination has not been able to explain the meaning of word "Upkaran" despite use of the same in Ex. PW-1/A. Admittedly, complainant/PW-1 and other family members of deceased got information regarding deceased hanging herself on 14.04.2014 at about 05:45 PM but there was no statement given to police with regard to allegations as leveled by complainant in her statement given to SDM Ex. PW-1/A State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 49 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 50 which was recorded the next day i.e. on 15.04.2014 and possibility of due deliberations in giving statement as given vide Ex. PW-1/A in the present matter cannot be ruled out.
98. Accused also relied upon judgment in case titled as "Sunil Bajaj Vs. State of MP (2001) 9 SCC 417" wherein Hon'ble Apex Court while acquitting appellant held as below (in this case, there was a letter written by deceased to her father before her death) :
" As can be seen from this document on which much reliance is placed by both the courts, there is absolutely nothing to indicate about the demand of dowry and there is no even a whisper about the same. If Suman was pressed by her husband to get money and if that was the cause for her sadness of difficulty, she could not have missed to write about the same, that too having written about the bad work of appellant and his bringing girls to the house. With this evidence on record, it is clear that -
i) There is no evidence of demand of dowry or subjecting Suman to cruelty for or in connection with dowry other than general, vague and inconsistent statements of interested and motivated witnesses PW-4, 5 and 6, being the parents and brother of Suman.
ii) Not a single member, neighbour or a relative of parties either at Bhopal or at Saharanpur has come forward to speak about State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 50 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 51 subjecting Suman to cruelty by the appellant in relation to demand of dowry."
99. In the present case also, as discussed earlier, there is no whisper in suicide note of deceased regarding any demand of dowry made by accused persons. Further, witnesses examined by prosecution in support of its case are only parents and brother of deceased (in whose testimonies, lot of improvement and inconsistency has been noted above) and no neighbour or any colleague or any other relative of deceased other than close family members of deceased has been examined by State.
100. Accused filed judgment in case titled as "Laxmi Narain @ Rajesh Vs. State 2012 SCC Online Del 2301" wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as below:
"Furthermore, if needed PW-4 had been told on 9th March, 2005, telephonically by the deceased about cruelty meted out to her by the accused and his family, he would have stated so to the police, immediately after her death. The police has not made any effort to connect this statement with any phone records. Therefore, the appellant quite rightly argues that these depositions and statements are afterthoughts.
......There were no visible or external signs of injury of the kind for the police to conclude that she was subjected to beatings, or physical violence."
State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 51 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 52
101. In this case also, there is no mention regarding having any telephonic talk by PW-1 with deceased in her first statement given regarding the case to any authority (in this case SDM -Ex. PW-1/A). PW-1 in her deposition before court though speaks regarding the same but surprisingly PW-2 and PW-5 are silent regarding the same in their respective examinations in chief though PW-5 in his cross-examination states regarding the same but that too does not specifically through phone/mobile. It is material omission on part of witnesses examined by state. Further, as discussed earlier, IO did not bother for collection of any phone /CDR for date 13.04.2014 in order to substantiate averment of PW-1 in this regard. Further, as per PW-1 in Ex. PW- 1/A, deceased was being beaten from 10.04.2014 on they negating demand of accused for Rs. 10 lacs but as per PMR of deceased Ex. PW-3/A, deceased was not having any injury over her body except ligature marks. All this points out that mountain has been made out of mole and nothing of the sort as deposed by public witnesses indeed took place in reality.
102. Accused filed judgment in case titled as "Umed Singh & Ors Vs. The State, NCT of Delhi 2014 SCC Online Del 3492"
wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while acquitting appellants in a case U/sec 498-A/304-B IPC held as below:
State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 52 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 53 "The prosecution witnesses have admitted that no complaint whatsoever was ever lodged either by the deceased or any of them against the appellants any time for harassment to the deceased on account of dowry demands. They also admitted that no 'Panchayat' was ever organized to resolve any differences between the parties. The victim was never taken for any medical examination during her stay in the matrimonial home. ..... No independent public witness was associated or examined at any stage of investigation to ascertain if at any time, victim was physically or mentally tortured or subjected to harassment by the appellants in connection with non fulfillment of dowry demands. The investigating officer did not examine any neighbour of the victim to find out the conduct and behaviour of the appellants towards the victim during her stay in the matrimonial home or to infer if any quarrel ever took place on that count. At no stage, the victim reported the incident to the police or to her close relatives. Mahender Singh, mediator in the marriage, was not examined during investigation. Neither the victim nor her family members ever lodged any compliant to him against the appellants for harassment or cruelty meted out to the victim. It is on record that the parents and brothers of the victim used to remain in touch on phone with the deceased. However, no such call details were collected during investigation. PW-2 State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 53 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 54 (Sarla Devi) claimed that a few days before the incident, Rajni in telephonic conversation had requested her to send her clothes through her father."
103. Accused further relied on judgment in case titled as "Sunita and Another Vs. State and Others 2019 SCC Online Del 6550" where in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dismissed an appeal against acquittal in a case U/sec 304-B /498-A IPC and held as below:
"Apart from verbal assertions nothing on record suggests that the deceased was subject to beatings and cruelty by her in laws. The demand of car by the accused persons has not been established by the prosecution. No complaint has been registered by the victim or the complainants before any authority. Nothing on record suggests that soon before death the deceased was subjected to cruelty. Calls made by the deceased to her mother have also not been proved. Moreover, in the month of April, PW- 1 and PW-2 accompanied the deceased alongwith her husband to Haridwar with family which gives an impression of cordial relations between the parties.
........The medical record of the deceased also does not suggest that the deceased was subjected to physical cruelty and torture soon before death. The testimonies of PW-1 (father of the deceased) and PW-2 (mother of the deceased) wherein they State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 54 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 55 claimed physical beatings and torture on their deceased daughter by the respondents also got negated by the report of the medical experts."
104. In this case, PW-1 in her cross-examination stated that they had not taken any Panchayat to the house of accused persons when the fact of beating by accused persons to deceased came in their knowledge. She stated that they had not gone to the house of accused persons when the fact regarding beating to deceased by accused persons came to their knowledge. She volunteered that they tried to make deceased understand that with the passage of time everything will be alright. She stated that they did not make any complaint to any authority, regarding the beating, however the deceased was not at fault as per their perception. Conduct of parents of deceased in this case as per cross-examination of PW-1 does not appear to be very natural. They despite coming to know of beating of deceased neither lodged any complaint, nor got deceased medically examined nor took any Panchayat to house of accused to sort out the matter. After death of deceased, so many allegations have creeped up without any prior record in this regard which in view of law laid down in Umed Singh's case (Supra) reflects revenge on part of family members of deceased to the fact as to how did deceased expire. Deceased herself was a teacher and used to go out daily for her duties but no independent State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 55 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 56 witness has been examined by IO who could support the fact that deceased was being harassed for demand of dowry on part of accused persons or that deceased was ever bet. At the cost of repetition, it is again repeated that IO failed to bring on record any phone record to prove alleged conversation between deceased and her mother on 13.04.2014 i.e. one day prior to death of deceased. As discussed earlier, there are no signs of physical torture to deceased as per her PM report Ex. PW-3/A.
105. Complainant on the other hand filed judgment in case titled as "Brajendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal Nos. 113-114 of 2010" wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as below:
"It is a settled principal of law that the statement of an accused Under Section 313 Cr. P. C can be used as evidence against the accused, insofar as it supports the case of prosecution. Equally true is that the statement Under Section 313 Cr. P. C simplicitor normally cannot be made the basis for conviction of the accused. But where the statement of the accused Under Section 313 Cr. P. C is in line with case of the prosecution, then certainly the heavy onus of proof on the prosecution is, to some extent, reduced....... One of the main objects of recording of a statement under the provision of the Cr. P. C is to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against him as well as to State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 56 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 57 put forward his defence, if accused so desires. But once, he does not avail this opportunity, then consequences in law must follow. Where the accused takes benefit of this opportunity, then his statement made under Section 313 Cr. P. C, insofar as it supports the case of the prosecution, can be used against him for rendering conviction."
106. Complainant further relied on judgment in case titled as "Munish Mubar Vs. State of Haryana Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 2010" wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as below"
"Undoubtedly, in a case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances must be fully established and all the facts so established, must be consistent with the hypothesis regarding the guilt of the accused. The circumstances so established, should exclude every other possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. The circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Circumstantial evidence is a close companion of factual matrix, creating a fine network through which there can be no escape for the accused, primarily because the said facts, when taken as a whole, do not permit us to arrive at any other inference but one, indicating the guilt of the accused.
......It is obligatory on the part of the accused, while being examined Under Section 313 Cr. P. C to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 57 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 58 associated with him, and the court must take note of such explanation, even in a case of circumstantial evidence, so to decide, whether or not chain of circumstances is complete."
107. It was argued on behalf of State that all the accused persons to questions put to them under Section 313 Cr. P. C have either bluntly denied the said evidence or have failed to give any reasonable explanation to the same to which, adverse inference must be taken against accused persons and accused persons must be convicted of offence U/sec 304-B IPC.
108. Defence counsel to this argument of State submitted that all the accused persons have given sufficient explanation with regard to evidence put to them in the column of statement of accused as to whether they wish to say anything else and why the witnesses have deposed against them and may be to most of questions, answer may be in denial but in the end, sufficient explanation has been furnished by accused persons and which explanation does not support case of prosecution and cannot be taken into account for convicting accused persons as per law cited by complainant itself.
109. Explanation furnished by accused persons does not support case of prosecution and so, it cannot be taken into account for convicting accused persons. Accused should have given specific response to specific question put to them under Section 313 Cr. P. State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 58 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 59 C but it is well settled that accused has right to keep quiet and explanation given by accused at end of their statements under Section 313 Cr. P. C is not in parimateria with prosecution case and so, cannot be taken into account for convicting accused persons. So, this contention of state is rejected.
110. Defence on its part has examined one colleague of deceased namely Raj Kumar as DW-1 and one neighbour of deceased namely Ms. Shakuntala as DW-2. DW-1 specifically deposed that during discussions with deceased, it did not seem that she was subjected to sort of any cruelty or harassment by her in laws. DW-2 specifically deposed that deceased never complained about demand of any kind of dowry raised by accused persons. Nothing material has been elicited by State in cross-examination of these DWs. Though, there was no need to discuss defence evidence led by accused persons as case of prosecution as such does not inspire sufficient confidence so as to convict accused persons but as these DWs are independent witnesses and have deposed against case put forth by prosecution, so their main stand has been stated.
111. In view of my above-made discussion, I am of the view that State has failed to prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by accused Sonu Yadav or any of his relative for or in connection with demand of dowry soon before State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 59 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 60 death of deceased and so accused persons cannot be convicted for offence U/sec 304-B IPC and thus, are acquitted for offence U/sec 304-B/34 IPC.
112. Accused persons have also been charged for commission of offence U/sec 498-A IPC.
113. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which makes it punishable if husband or relative of such husband of a woman subject her to cruelty, reads as under:
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
114. It was argued on behalf of State that one of the main ingredients of offence Under Section 498A IPC is subjecting women to cruelty. Explanation (a) of the Section deals with State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 60 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 61 mental or physical cruelty and explanation (b) deals with aspect of harassment in the form of unlawful demand for any property or valuable security /dowry demand.
115. Ld. Additional PP for State and counsel for complainant during course of arguments submitted that as per suicide note, deceased was financially constrained despite she earning Rs. 25,000/- per month which fact in itself amounts to cruelty sufficient to bring case of prosecution under ambit of Section 498-A IPC.
116. It was further argued by State that there are other instances of demand of dowry by accused persons other than and prior to demand of Rs. 10 lacs as has come in testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5. It was submitted that prior to demand of Rs. 10 lacs, there was demand of Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and demand of plot of 200 sq yards on part of accused persons.
117. PW-1 in her examination in chief with regard to demand of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1 lac has deposed that after 2-3 months of marriage, they gave Rs. 50,000/- and two months thereafter, they gave Rs. 1 lac to accused Sonu. PW-2 in this regard deposed that they gave Rs. 50,000/- after 2-3 months of marriage and gave Rs. 1 lac after 2-3 months of giving of Rs. 50,000/-. PW-5 in this regard deposed that after two months of marriage, his mother gave Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1 lac to his sister. The amount of Rs.
State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 61 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 62 50,000/- and Rs. 1 lac has been deposed by these witnesses to have been given on demand of accused persons.
118. PW-1 in her cross-examination stated that sum of Rs. 50,000/- was handed over to her son-in-law by her at her residence in presence of her husband and her son. She stated that there was no special occasion when the payment of Rs. 50,000/- was made. She told month of July, 2013, when she gave Rs. 50,000/-. She further stated that after 2-3 months of above-said payment, sum of Rs. 1 lac was handed over to her son-in-law by her at her residence in presence of her husband and son. She stated that there was no special occasion when payment of Rs. 1 lac was made. She stated the month to be of September, 2013, when payment of Rs. 1 lac was made. PW-2 in this regard in his cross-examination admitted that he in his statement U/sec 161 Cr. P. C stated that Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1 lac were handed over to his daughter Manisha to take the same to her matrimonial home. He further stated that he does not remember whether there was any occasion when Rs. 50,000/- or Rs. 1 lac were handed over to his daughter. PW-5 in this regard in his cross-examination stated that he does not know date when his mother gave Rs. 50,000/- but it was in July and then Rs. 1 lac in September. He stated that on both the occasions, money was handed over by his mother at his house to his sister who in turn gave the same to Sonu.
State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 62 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 63
119. There is difference in version of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 regarding the fact as to whom amount of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1 lac was given by PW-1 as has come in their cross-examinations as recorded above which is a material contradiction between prosecution witnesses interse.
120. With regard to demand of plot of 200 sq yards, PW-1 in her examination in chief deposed that all the accused persons used to taunt that grand mother in law had brought a plot of 200 yards in her marriage and they used to ask her daughter to bring plot of 200 yards and as they were not in a position to fulfill this demand of accused persons, so they refused to give the same. PW-2 in this regard in his examination in chief deposed that after marriage, his daughter was being harassed by accused persons for want of plot. He deposed that his daughter was being harassed by accused persons for plot and when they refused to give the same, they started demanding money. PW-5 in this regard in his examination in chief deposed that grand mother in law of his sister and bua saas namely Santosh used to beat his sister and used to ask to bring plot of 200 sq yards.
121. Not much in regard to demand of plot of 200 sq yards has been put by defence to prosecution witnesses and at one place, PW-5 has been confronted qua his statement U/sec 161 Cr. P. C and suggestions have been given to PWs countering this State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 63 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 64 allegation. To my mind, allegations of prosecution in this regard are not believable as there is no mention of this alleged demand or for that matter with regard to demand of any money on part of accused persons from deceased or her family members in suicide note left by deceased nor there is any police complaint prior to death of deceased by family members of deceased.
122. Further, there are allegations of demand of Santro car, electronic items and jewellery by accused persons before marriage as per PW-1. PW-2 in this regard has deposed that he had given all the customary items as per demand of accused persons as Istridhan to accused persons including one Santro car and jewellery. PW-5 in this regard deposed that before marriage, accused persons demanded a car in marriage and accused Sonu told him that marriage ceremony should be organized at some farm house.
123. PW-1 in her cross-examination stated that she had not borrowed any amount for expenses of marriage of her daughter from anybody. She stated that she had saved Rs. 30-35 lacs from birth of the deceased till her marriage and entire amount was not kept at home. She in her cross-examination further stated that she does not remember when demand of Santro Car, jewellery, furniture and all electronic home appliances and performance of marriage in farm house was made by accused persons. She stated State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 64 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 65 that aforesaid demand was made by accused persons when she and her husband were called by accused persons at their residence. She stated that she does not remember as to what items has been demanded by which of accused. She volunteered that all the accused were demanding some items. She further stated that aforesaid articles were to be given or gifted in marriage of her daughter even if same were not demanded by accused persons. PW-2 in his cross-examination in this regard stated that demand of Santro car, electronic appliances, jewellery were made about 15 days or one month before marriage. He stated that aforesaid demand was made by Sonu in presence of other accused persons. PW-5 in his cross-examination with regard to demand of Santro car stated that Santro car was demanded by accused persons in chorus.
124. There is difference in version of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 with regard to demand of Santro Car, jewellery articles and electronic appliances i.e. by whom as recorded above which creates doubt regarding veracity of prosecution version in this regard.
125. As per stand of prosecution witnesses, amount of Rs. 20 lacs approximately was spent in the marriage. As per PW-1, no amount was borrowed for expenses of marriage of deceased and that they had saved Rs. 30-35 lacs. PW-2 with regard to payment State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 65 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 66 made to caterer and venue of marriage in his cross-examination stated that they had made payment of lumpsum amount of Rs. 8 lacs which includes for farm house and catering. He stated that they were having money with them as his father had taken VRS and he had handed over this amount to him. PW-5 in his cross- examination stated that none of his parents is Income Tax payee. He stated that they did not borrow any money from anybody for this purpose. He stated that some money was available at home, some money was lying in bank apart from lending money by his father.
126. Version of PWs examined by State with regard to resources from which expenses for marriage of deceased were arranged are different which further creates doubt on prosecution version.
127. Stand of prosecution witnesses as mentioned earlier also is to the effect that deceased was beaten at her matrimonial home for various demands made by accused persons for which no medical of deceased was ever got done. Despite distance between matrimonial house of deceased and paternal house of deceased being about 1.5 km approximately only, no word was had by parents of deceased with in laws of deceased with regard to alleged demands of dowry as allegedly made by accused persons from time to time is surprising. Admittedly, no complaint was ever made to any authority with regard to beating of deceased State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 66 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 67 and demands made by accused persons nor any Panchayat was organized to resolve the matter. As mentioned earlier, suicide note of deceased does not mention anything about any demand of money or plot being raised by accused persons. All of a sudden, all the allegations surfaced after death of deceased which cannot be believed on account of ratio of judgments as relied upon by accused persons (accused relied upon judgments in cases titled as "Sunil Bajaj Vs. State of MP (2001) 9 SCC 417, State of Karnatka Vs. Dr. H. A. Ramswamy 1996 SCC Online KAR 97, Naveen Vs. State of Delhi 2014 SCC Online DEL 4355, Umed Singh and Ors Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2014 SCC Online DEL 3492, Krishan Kumar @ Setu and Anr Vs. State of Delhi 2014 SCC Online DEL 1879, Naraini Devi Vs. State of Delhi DHC 1992 Online DEL 119, State of Delhi Vs. Sohan Lal and Others 2011 SCC Online DEL 1650, Vikas and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Sunita and Anr. Vs. State DHC 2019 SCC Online DEL 6550, Lachman Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) 2014 SCC Online DEL 2208, Raja @ Rampal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2011 SCC Online DEL 697, Kanwar Pal Vs. Shakuntala and Others DHC 2015 SCC Online DEL 6827, Laxminarayan @ Rajesh Vs. State DHC 2012 SCC Online DEL 2301, Kartar @ Rajesh Vs. State DHC 2017 SCC Online DEL 8402, Girajo Devi & Ors Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) 2010 SCC Online DEL State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 67 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 68 1329, State by Public Prosecutor Vs. Kamaraj Packiam and State of Gujarat Vs. Hitesh Bhai and Nandu Bhai Shah 2018 SCC Online GUJ 2100").
128. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "State Vs. Sohan Lal DHC 2011 SCC Online Del 1650" held as below:-
"The generic statements that deceased was given beatings without specifications as to how the beatings were given, whether any object/weapon was used to give those beatings and similarly without the details as to how the deceased was harassed would be insufficient to hold that the deceased was treated with cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC."
129. In present case also, there is no specifications given by witnesses as to how beatings were given to deceased nor there is any medical of deceased proved by prosecution on record makes prosecution version insufficient for purpose of conviction of accused persons U/sec 498A IPC.
130. With regard to control of finances of deceased, I am of the view that every household has a budget and monthly expenditure is planned accordingly. In case, even if, there was some limit to expenditure by deceased on part of accused persons, that cannot be construed as cruelty within meaning of Section 498-A IPC.
State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 68 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh 69
131. In view of my above-made discussion, I am of the view that State has failed to prove that deceased was subject to any cruelty by her husband or any relative of her husband within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC and State thus can be said to have failed to prove its case against accused persons for commission of offence U/sec 498-A /34 IPC.
132. Accused persons are accordingly acquitted for commission of offences U/sec 304-B/498-A /34 IPC.
Digitally signed by133. File be consigned to Record Room. SONU SONU AGNIHOTRI AGNIHOTRI Date: 2021.03.04 16:11:53 +05'30' Dictated and Announced (Sonu Agnihotri) in the open court on 26.02.2021 ASJ-02 (South- West), Dwarka Courts, Delhi State Vs. Sonu Yadav and Others Page no. 69 of 69 FIR No. 325/2014, PS Najafgarh