Delhi District Court
State vs . Shashi Mehto Etc. Fir 80/14 (56995/16) on 23 April, 2018
State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16)
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH YADUVANSHI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 05: WEST : DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF
Case No. 56995 /16
FIR No. 80/14
PS Mundka
U/s 304B/498A/302/201/34 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
(1) SHASHI MEHTO (A1)
S/O SH.BAIJU MEHTO
R/O VILLAGE DAAHAOD
PS BAARH, DISTT.PATNA,
BIHAR.
(2) BAIJU MEHTO (A2)
S/O LATE GENDHARI MEHTO
R/O VILLAGE DAAHAOD
PS BAARH, DISTT.PATNA,
BIHAR.
Result: Acquitted Page 1 of 50
State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16)
(3) SUSHILA DEVI (A3)
W/O BAIJU MEHTO
R/O VILLAGE DAAHAOD
PS BAARH, DISTT.PATNA,
BIHAR.
(4) NABEEN MEHTO (A4)
S/O SH.BAIJU MEHTO
R/O VILLAGE DAAHAOD
PS BAARH, DISTT.PATNA,
BIHAR.
(5) SEEMA DEVI (A5)
W/O SANTOSH MEHTO
R/O VILLAGE DAAHAOD
PS BAARH, DISTT.PATNA,
BIHAR.
Date of Institution : 25.06.2014
Date of Reserving Judgment : 21.04.2018
Date of Judgment : 23.04.2018
Offence Complained of : U/s 304B/498A/302/201/34 IPC
Offence Charged with : U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC (against
all accused persons)
U/s 302/201 IPC (against accused
Shashi Mehto)
Result: Acquitted Page 2 of 50
State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16)
JUDGMENT
1.All the five accused persons namely Shashi Mehto (A1), Baiju Mehto (A2), Sushila Devi (A3), Nabeen Mehto (A4) and Seema Devi(A5) have been facing trial for the offence Punishable U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. Accused Shashi Mehto (A1) has been also facing trial for the offence Punishable U/s 302/201 IPC. PROSECUTION'S CASE :
2. The Prosecution's case commenced on the basis of DD nos.32A & 33A received at the local PS on 22.02.2014 which is in respect of a quarrel taking place near Hari Dass School, Bakkarwala. SI Harender (PW14) and Ct.Devender reached the informed place. The SHO had also reached there. They met one Surender stated to be Owner of various Plots where various Jhuggis including that of the accused are situated. The accused Shashi Mehto (A1) was also present on the spot. Besides the Jhuggi, there was a huge heap of Waste Polythene Bags/Plastic in which a deadbody was lying with the face exposed. A1 disclosed that the deadbody was of his wife namely Chunchun aged about 21 years and that he had removed her Result: Acquitted Page 3 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) deadbody from inside the Jhuggi and then put under the garbage.
Crime team was called on the spot. Deadbody of deceased indicated signs of strangulation. Inside the Jhuggi, a black & red colour piece of electric wire converted into shape of 'Noose' was found lying near the 'Charpoy' and one of its piece was still tied to the Bamboo support of the roof. Statement of Surender Kumar was recorded. Case was got registered U/s 302/201 IPC against A1. Concerned SDM was informed for conducting Inquest Proceedings. Investigation revealed that the Victim was married to A1 and Seven years had not passed since marriage.
3. Further, the two brothers of the Victim made statements before the SDM revealing that Victim's husband/A1, Fatherinlaw namely Baiju Mehto (A2), motherinlaw (A3), Dever Nabeen Mehto (A
4) and Devrani Seema Devi (A5) used to harass the Victim for dowry. Sections 304B/498A were added.
4. As per the Postmortem, death of Victim was on account of 'Asphyxia due to antemortem hanging". Accordingly, the accused Shashi Mehto (A1), who was under the influence of alcohol on the Result: Acquitted Page 4 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) day of incident, was arrested on 24.02.2014 and at his instance, the other accused persons except Seema Devi (A5) were arrested. Subsequent opinion of Autopsy Surgeon was obtained indicating that death was possible with the help of piece of electric wire Ex.P.1 seized by the Police. After completion of investigation, Charge sheeted was filed. Seema Devi (A5) was not arrested by then. She was subsequently arrested and a Supplementary Chargesheet was filed against her.
CHARGE :
5. On 01.08.2014, accused Shashi Mehto (A1) was charged for the commission of offence Punishable U/s 302/201 IPC. On the same day, he alongwith other remaining coaccused persons were also charged for committing offence Punishable U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. All the accused persons have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION :
6. To prove its case, the Prosecution has examined 16 witnesses.
7. Brothers of Victim namely Shibhu, Manoj Prasad and Udai Kumar are PW2, PW3 and PW4 respectively. Out of these witnesses, during Inquest Proceedings, only two were examined namely Shibhu Result: Acquitted Page 5 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) (PW2) and Manoj Prasad (PW3). These statements are Ex.PW 2/C and Ex.PW3/A and had been forwarded to the concerned SHO for appropriate action. On behalf of the concerned SDM, the then Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar Sh.J.C.Sehgal (PW5) was examined.
8. The Prosecution had examined the Plot owner Sh.Surender Kumar on whose statement Ex.PW1/B, the case was initially registered, as PW1.
9. There is another public witness namely Gutar Mathur (PW6), who is a resident of Jhuggi at Bakkarwala and Nephew of A1. This witness was examined to show conduct of the accused on the date of incident i.e. 22.02.2014. At 09:00 AM, he told PW6 that his wife has left the home and he left in search of his wife. He returned at 02:00 PM to his Jhuggi and took away his two children with him. He got to know of the incident at 07:00 or 07:30 PM. Likewise, PW1 also claims to have come to know of the incident at about 08:30 PM.
10. The medical evidence is in the testimony of PW7 Dr.Manoj Dhingra and PW10 Dr.P.C.Prabhakar. PW7 Dr.Manoj Dhingra conducted Autopsy on deadbody of Victim and his P.M.Report is Result: Acquitted Page 6 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) Ex.PW7/A. He also made Subsequent opinion Ex.PW7/B to the effect that the hanging, which in this case is antemortem and Suicidal, was possible with the help of Electric wire Ex. P.1 or similar such substance.
11. PW10 Dr.P.C.Prabhakar deposed at the behest of Dr.Simple Cheher and Dr.Priyanka, the then JRs working in SGM hospital. They have left the services of this hospital without informing their whereabouts. These doctors had prepared the MLCs of the accused persons i.e. A2 to A5 which were accordingly proved by this witness. He also proved the MLC of A1 which was prepared by Dr.Priyanka. These MLC's are Ex.PW10/A to Ex.PW10/F respectively.
12. The two main witnesses who reported on the spot of incident in response to the DDs aforestated are PW15 HC Surender Pratap and SI Harinder Singh (PW14). Both of them have deposed about the preliminary investigation conducted on the spot. Further investigation was taken over from PW14 by the case IO/Insp.Prem Chandra (PW16) who has also deposed in this case.
Result: Acquitted Page 7 of 50State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16)
13. The member of the Crime team i.e. Ct.Satyapal (PW8) (Photographer) visited at the spot who clicked Seventeen Pictures of the place of incident and proved the same as Ex.PW8/A.1 to Ex.PW8/A.17 and their Negatives as Ex.PW8/B.1 to Ex.PW 8/B.17.
14. SI Kalyan Singh (PW13) Incharge of the Crime Team prepared his Report Ex.PW13/A. No chance Prints could be developed on the place of incident.
15. Remaining Police officials are formal in nature.
DEFENCE :
16. The incriminating evidence were explained to all the accused persons in their Statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein A2 to A5 have deposed that the Prosecution's case is false and the Prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses who got this case registered against them due to anger on account of unnatural death of the Victim. They as well as A1 do not dispute about the factum of marriage but according to them, it took place more than 7 years prior to the incident. It is their case that after marriage at their Native place, Result: Acquitted Page 8 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) Victim and A1 shifted to Delhi where they first resided in the area of Vikas Nagar and thereafter shifted to Bakkarwala.
17. They also took the plea that they have been residing separately from A1 and the Victim. A1 specifically denied of having told anything to PW6 that his wife was missing and he was searching for her. He even denied that PW1 had produced him on 22.02.2014 before Police officials i.e. PW14 and PW16.
18. None of the accused persons have denied that they were not arrested in this case in the manner stated by the Prosecution. Further, the accused persons opted to lead Defence Evidence. DEFENCE EVIDENCE :
19. DW1 is Bablu Mehto. He is brother of A1. He was examined to primarily show that marriage took place about eight years prior to the death of Victim. He also proved that after marriage, A1 and his wife were residing separately from him and his brothers. He has also deposed that their Parents used to reside with DW1 only.
20. DW2 Shanker Mehto has stated that A1 is his Nephew, being son of Smt.Sushila Devi (A3). He was examined also to show that Result: Acquitted Page 9 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) the marriage took place about 78 years prior to the date of incident.
21. A1 had also filed an application for examining himself as a defence witness U/s 315 Cr.P.C. but he made a statement for withdrawing the same on 15.03.2018. No further Defence witness was examined.
22. This Court has heard Sh.B.B.Bhasin, Ld.Prosecutor in support of the Prosecution's case and also Ld.defence counsel Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of all the accused persons.
23. Record has been perused carefully.
FINDINGS :
24. As stated earlier, Charge against the accused persons was framed on 01.08.2014 jointly U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. The other Charge against A1 of committing offence Punishable U/s 302/201 IPC was also framed on the same date.
25.The Order on Charge has been passed by the Ld.Predecessor after the pronouncement of Judgments in Rajbir (2010) 15 SCC 116 as well as in Jasvinder Saini (2013) 7 SCC 256. I shall quote an exerpt from Judgment of Jasvinder Saini as herein below : Result: Acquitted Page 10 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) "The direction issued in Rajbir, (2010) 15 SCC 116 was not meant to be followed mechanically and without due regard to the nature of the evidence available in the case. The Supreme Court in Rajbir case meant to say that in a case where a charge alleging dowry death is framed, a charge under Section 302 IPC can also be framed if the evidence otherwise permits. No other meaning can be deduced from the order of the Supreme Court". (Para 14) xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx "The question whether it is murder punishable under Section 302 IPC or a dowry death punishable under Section 304B IPC depends upon the fact situation and the evidence in the case. If there is evidence whether direct or circumstantial to prima facie support a charge under Section 302 IPC the trial court can and indeed ought to frame a charge of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, which would then be the main charge and not an alternative charge, as is erroneously assumed in some quarters. If the main charge of murder is not proved against the accused at the trial, the court can look into the evidence to determine whether the alternative charge of dowry death punishable under Section 304B is established. The ingredients constituting the two ofences are different, thereby demanding appreciation of evidence from the perspective relevant to such ingredients. The trial court in that view of the matter acted mechanically for it framed an additional charge under Section 302 IPC without adverting to the evidence adduced in the case and simply on the basis of the direction issued in Rajbir case". (Para 15) Result: Acquitted Page 11 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16)
26. What follows is that Charge U/s 302 IPC cannot be considered alternatively and hence I shall be discussing Charges under Section 302/201 IPC in the succeeding part of this Judgment.
27. There is no direct evidence at all in the present case that the accused (A1) committed murder of his wife Chunchun. As a matter of fact, the exact or even approximate time of incident when Smt.Chunchun died has not surfaced at all. If PW6 is to be considered, then he was informed telephonically by one Jai Prakash from Vikas Nagar (not examined) that deadbody of Wife of A1 was lying in A1's Jhuggi. He received his Call at 07:00 or 07:30 PM on 22.02.2014.
28. Prior to it, A1 met PW6 at 09:00 AM of same day and told PW 6 that his wife has left home (भभग गई) and that he is leaving to search his wife.
29. At 02:00 PM on the same day, A1 came back to his Jhuggi and took his both children with him i.e. one Girl and one boy.
30. PW1 claims that on the 22nd day of the month of 2014, he came to know that a lady is lying hidden under a Pile of Garbage adjacent Result: Acquitted Page 12 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) to jhuggi of A1. He received this information at 08:30 PM when some persons residing in Jhuggis located on his Plot came to his house with this information. The 1 st person who spotted the deadbody was never examined by case IO. His identity is not established.
31. The Police was informed subsequent to the above time and even the Crime Team visited the spot further subsequent thereto.
32. The Chargesheet reveals that the SI Harender and Ct.Devender had responded to DD nos. 32A and 33A. These DDs have not been proved on record. There is another DD no. 33B recorded by DO/HC Jagbir (PW9) regarding quarrel near Hari Dass School, Bakkarwala at 09:02 PM on 22.02.2014. DD no. 36B which is again not proved is also purportedly recorded by PW9 HC Jagbir regarding departure of SHO concerned at 09:50 PM for the spot of incident in response to DD no.32A and 33A. The Prosecution has failed to prove these DD entries.
33. PW14/SI Harender has not provided exact time when he reached the place of incident. Ct.Devender has not been examined in this case.
34. The Crime team members also responded to information received Result: Acquitted Page 13 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) from Control room. PW8 Ct.Satypal (Crime team Photographer) has submitted that he was at the spot with other members of Crime Team from 10 AM to 10:45 AM on 22.02.2014. Likewise, PW13 SI Kalyan Singh (Incharge Crime Team) also reached at the spot and clarifies that the time of incident was about 10:00 PM. His Report is Ex.PW13/A which is contrary to his Court testimony. As per report, the date and time of occurrence is shown as before 08:51 PM on 22.02.2014 but date of examination is from 10 AM to 10:45 AM on 22.02.2014 !
35. The Finger Print Expert from the Crime Team is shown as SI Dharamvir Singh but not cited as a witness.
36. Thus, some confusion has arisen regarding the time when the Crime Team visited the spot however, it has to be logically after PW 13 reached the spot which is definitely after 09:00 PM. Perusal of the photographs Ex.PW8/A.1 to A.17 show that these photographs have been taken with the help of additional light from a battery operated torch/flash light. The logical inference therefore is that the proceedings of Crime Team did not take place between 10:00 to Result: Acquitted Page 14 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) 10:45 AM but between 10:00 to 10:45 PM only, on 22.02.2014.
37. The entire evidence above clearly establishes that the Victim would have died some time prior to 08:51 PM as per the Crime Team Report.
38. Although DD no.33B is not proved but it is in respect of a quarrel only. Same is also recorded in testimony of PW14. PW1/Surender had made PCR Call as per PW14 which fact is affirmed by PW1/ Surender. The PCR Form has not been filed or proved.
39. Death of Victim therefore, definitely occurred sometime prior to 08:51 PM. It had occurred even before 07:00/07:30 PM as per PW6 who was told of deadbody by locals. These locals are not examined.
40. Before that, the accused had spoken to PW1 at 09:00 AM representing that his wife has missing.
41. The Postmortem on the deadboy of the Victim was conducted on 24.02.2014 at 03:00 PM and as per it, the time since death of the Victim is approx. three days. The opinion was formed on the basis of Inquest Papers and not scientifically. Going by the same, the death Result: Acquitted Page 15 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) would have occurred at about 21.02.2014 at 03:00 PM. It cannot be accepted as 'most likely' as opinion is on basis of Inquest history only.
42. Deadbody was discovered on 22.02.2014 sometime prior to 07:00 or 07:30 PM as per PW6. Thus, there is a time gap of almost 28 hours. None of the prosecution witnesses could explain about the activities of the Victim between 03:00 PM of 21.02.2014 till atleast upto morning of 09:00 AM of 22.02.2014. It is in evidence that two minor children of the A1 and his wife were residing with them in their Jhuggi. The age of these children as on the date of incident is not provided to this Court by any of the Prosecution witnesses. However, it is in evidence that the case IO had seized Photographs of A1, his wife (since deceased) and their Children. This Photograph is Ex.PW3/.C.2. As to when the Picture was clicked is not before this Court. However, it is evident that both the Children are very small. It is in evidence that the first Child is a girl child. Thus, the girl shown in the photograph has to be elder than the other child depicted in the said Photograph.
43. The boychild was still an infant. However, the other child shown in the Picture has to be the girl child on the basis of inference to that Result: Acquitted Page 16 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) effect to be drawn from evidence on record. No attempt appears to have been made by the IO to atleast try and examine the Child for throwing some light upon the circumstances in which the Victim had died.
44. It is particularly because as per PW6, A1 left his Jhuggi at 09:00 AM in the morning of 22.02.2014 and returned back to take his children at 02:00 PM. Children so small were therefore unattended for the entire day between 09:00 AM to 02:00 PM. It does not stand to reason as to why they would not have at least started crying on finding their parents absent. Somebody in the neighbourhood ought to have heard such wailing children.
45. The above aspect has been left unexplored. The accused himself has preferred to remain silent about his own whereabouts from 03:00 PM of 21.02.2014 uptill 08:00 or 08:30 PM of 22.02.2014. This is the time when he was spotted coming on a Rickshaw towards his Jhuggi and apprehended by the Public persons in the presence of PW
1.
46. The points above enumerated are the only circumstantial evidence that the Prosecution has been able to produce on record of this case.
Result: Acquitted Page 17 of 50State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) This evidence is so incoherent that it does not form a 'Chain of Circumstances' so complete so as to lead to only one inference that it is the A1 who committed the murder of his wife during the above period. Further, medical opinion has questioned case of murder/homicide.
47. This aspect is further fortified from the fact that Victim's Postmortem Report Ex.PW7/A is silent about the 'manner of death'. The death was caused due to Asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. The manner of death is provided by PW7 during his Court testimony as Suicidal. According to him, "from the Postmortem Report, it is clear that the case is of Suicidal hanging as I have already mentioned in my P.M.Report that Asphyxia is a result of antemortem hanging." It is also observed that strangulation/ligature mark are oblique and absent over nape of neck. It is a typical telltale sign of suicidal hanging.
48. Accordingly, any foul play in the incident is ruled out and it cannot be conclusively said that the accused committed murder of his wife Chunchun in accordance of the Charge dt. 01.08.2014 to the effect that he caused murder of Smt.Chunchun on 22.02.2014 Result: Acquitted Page 18 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) at his Jhuggi i.e. Plot of Surender Kumar behind RBM School, Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
49. The Charge U/s 201 IPC is in reference to Section 302 IPC only.
50. In order to prove commission of Offence Punishable U/s 201 IPC, the Prosecution is required to prove the following viz :
(i) an offence has been committed;
(ii) the accused knew or has reason to believe that such offence has been committed.
(iii) the accused caused evidence thereof to disappear and gave false information respecting such offence knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be false; and
(iv) the accused did so with intent to screen the offender from legal punishment.
51. In the instant case, no direct evidence has come on record that it is the accused who removed the deadbody of the Victim from inside his Jhuggi after cutting the Electric Wire Ex.P.1 (Ligature material) which was used as 'Noose'. There is no direct evidence that it is the accused who had dragged or shifted the deadbody to the adjacent Result: Acquitted Page 19 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) heap of Garbage with an intention to hide it under the Pile of Garbage. The case IO/PW16 Insp.Prem Chandra has admitted that his investigation never revealed of any eye witness who might have seen either Shashi Mehto (A1) or any other accused concealing the deadbody under the Garbage.
52. No telltale signs are found on the body of Victim regarding her forced hanging from the Ceiling of her Jhuggi. There is no sign of any forced strangulation at all. No injury was found present on the body of the Victim as a telltale sign of any alleged beatings by A1 to her in the manner so alleged by the Prosecution on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused. It is otherwise inadmissible in evidence.
53. An alternate argument came up from the side of prosecution that owing to the suicide by the Victim, the accused would have panicked and thus he caused disappearance of evidence of such suicide by hiding the body underneath the heap of garbage. The argument is impressive but remains an arguments only. The Prosecution has to travel the distance between "may have" to "must have".
54. The Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the small children Result: Acquitted Page 20 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) were in the Jhuggi between the period from 09:00 AM to 02:00 PM of 22.02.2014. No investigation on this aspect was made. PW6 is the own witness of the Prosecution. His testimony establishes that the children were present in the Jhuggi. The Prosecution intends this Court to believe that the father of the children ran away from the spot and consumed alcohol leaving behind the concealed deadbody and his children totally unattended. It is possible. But it is next to impossible that the children would not go in a state of alarm due to absence of their Parents for such long.
55. Coupled with this, there is no reasonable justification in the case for A1 to have given an explanation to PW6 that his wife had 'left' and he was going in search of his wife. It is so because if the accused had an intention to shift the deadbody at a later stage (night) then, he could have concocted the story that his wife had left him after getting rid from not only the deadbody but also the other incriminating material in the form of Ex.P.1. It is not understandable as to why the A1 would not also hide Electric Wire Ex.P.1 if he could have hidden the deadbody in the manner as alleged. The Court has had due regard to the fact that the part of Electric Wire was still tied to a Result: Acquitted Page 21 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) Bamboo used to support the roof of the Jhuggi while the other part was lying just besides the "Charpoy".
56. Here, a question arises for consideration is that the Victim might have actually left the accused for whatsoever reason and that he might have actually gone to search for her. The Victim might have returned in his absence and committed suicide. If that angle is allowed to be introduced to the version of Prosecution, the entire argument regarding conduct of accused would stand improbable, doubtful and of dubious nature.
57. Nevertheless, such an aspect introduces two versions of one incident. The suspicion as above would be so grave that its benefit will have to be provided to the accused.
58. Lastly, even if the Court is to hold that it is the accused who had concealed the deadbody under the heap of garbage adjacent to his Jhuggi, then merely shifting/moving of body would not amount to causing the disappearance of evidence of the offence within the meaning of Section 201 IPC as held in Upendra Chandra Poddar and others Vs. Emperor, AIR 1941 CAL 456, 1941 SCC OnLine Cal
50. Result: Acquitted Page 22 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16)
59. Similar view has been taken in Nagendra Bhakta Vs. Emperor, AIR 1934 Cal 144, 1932 SCC On Line CAL 325 that to constitute to an offence U/s 201 IPC, there must be disappearance of some evidence of the commission of an offence.
60. The law as it exists now is clear to the effect that even if the accused is acquitted for a substantive offence, a Conviction simplicitor U/s 201 IPC may follow. Law is also clear on the subject that Section 201 IPC is attracted only on person who causes disappearance of evidence etc. and not the person who actually committed the offence complained of.
61. Having regard to the above, I have no hesitation in holding that the evidence against accused Shashi Mehto (A1) U/s 201 IPC is insufficient.
62. The question that now arises is whether the death of the Victim Smt.Chunchun, in the fact and circumstances of this case, tentamounts to dowry death within the meaning of Section 304B IPC?
63. Having said so, this Court is required to probe keeping in mind the relevant law and the Ingredients of Section 498A IPC and also Result: Acquitted Page 23 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) Section 304B IPC. It will have to be conscious as to whether the Prosecution proves Cruelty and harassment upon Victim Chunchun with respect to demand of dowry on various occasions and also as to whether such demands had a live link with the cause of death of Satyam in the sense that there was a demand which could be considered "Soon before death". The Court will then have to be conscious to say that the Prosecution has "shown" that there was such demand "Soon before death" for drawing presumption U/s 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further, the Court while dealing with the evidence will have to be also conscious if there is evidence regarding abetment of suicide of Satyam within the meaning of Section 306 of the IPC worth enough to raise presumption as per Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act.
64. Section 498A IPC reads as under :
"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 purposes of this section, 'Cruelty' Result: Acquitted Page 24 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) 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 demand.
65. Section 304B IPC reads as under : "Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns of 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 shall be called 'dowry death' and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death." Explanation - for the purposes of this subsection, 'dowry' shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Result: Acquitted Page 25 of 50State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16)
66. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bajaj Vs. State of MP (2001) 9 SCC 417 after noticing the provisions of Section 304B IPC had opined that in order to establish an offence U/s 304B IPC, following ingredients must be established before any death can be termed as dowry death :
(1)The death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances.
(2) Such death must have occurred within 7 years of her marriage.
(3) Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand of dowry.
In this Judgment, it is also held that :
"This Section will apply whenever the occurrence of death of a woman is preceded by cruelty or harassment by husband or inlaws for dowry and death occurs in un natural circumstances. The intention behind this section is to fasten the guilt on the husband or inlaws even though they did not in fact cause the death. It may be noticed that punishment for the offence of dowry death under Section Result: Acquitted Page 26 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) 304B is imprisonment of not less than 7 years, which may extend to imprisonment for life, unlike under Section 498A IPC, where husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty shall be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Normally, in a criminal case accused can be punished for an offence or establishment of commission of that offence on the basis of evidence, may be direct or circumstantial or both. But in case of an offence under Section 304B IPC, an exception is made by deeming provision as to the nature of death as "dowry death" and that the husband or his relative, as the case may be, is deemed to have caused such death, even in the absence of evidence to prove these aspects but on proving the existence of the ingredients of the said offence by convincing evidence. Hence, there is need for greater care and caution, that too having regard to the gravity of the punishment prescribed for the said offence, in scrutinizing the evidence and in arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the above mentioned ingredients of the offence are proved by the prosecution".
67. Section 113B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the case in hand. Both Section 304B and Section 113B of the Evidence Act were inserted by Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 Result: Acquitted Page 27 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 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 had 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)".
68. As per the definition of "dowry death" in Section 304B Indian Penal Code and the wording in the presumptive Section 113B of the Evidence Act, one of the essential ingredients amongst others, in both the provisions is that the woman concerned must have been 'soon before her death' subjected to cruelty or harassment "for or in Result: Acquitted Page 28 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) connection with the demand for dowry". While considering these provisions, Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Srinivasulu Vs. State of A.P. (2007) 12 SCC 443 has observed thus :
"8.4... The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials :
(1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman.
(This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code).
(2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death".
69. A perusal of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B Indian Penal Code shows that there must be material to show that "soon before her death" the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. In other words, the prosecution has to rule out the possi bility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the Result: Acquitted Page 29 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) purview of the "death occurring otherwise than in normal circum stances". The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the oc currence, there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case pre sumption operates.
70. Further, I may as well add at this Juncture itself that improve ments in testimonies which can be said to be minor shall not effect the entire testimony of the Prosecution witness if the testimonies are found to be minor only which do not put the veracity of statements of PW2, PW3 and PW4 under serious Question Mark then they are li able to be ignored. It is held in (1) State of UP Vs. Naresh (2011) 4 SCC 324 that :
"Discrepancies are bound to occur in the deposition of witness due to normal error of observation, error of memory, due to lapse of time or due to mental condition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence".
(2) In 1983 Crl.L.J.1096 (SC), it is held that :
"Much importance should not be given to minor discrepancies. They can overlooked unless discrepancies go to the root of the matter to impeach basic version".Result: Acquitted Page 30 of 50
State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) (3) In 1980 Crl.L.J. 958, it is held that :
"Improvement of the story at the trial in one material particular. Entire evidence cannot be rejected".
Reliance can also be placed in this regard in the Judgment titled as (4) Inder Singh Vs. State (1978) 4 SCC 161, wherein it is held that :
71. "Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline and guilty man cannot get away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes".
when projected through human processes".
72. The Hall Mark of the Judgments on the issue cited by both the sides and also relied by this Court as in above Paragraphs is that the Cruelty or harassment which is to be shown by the Prosecution to exist must not only be "Soon before death of the Victim" but it should also be for or in connection with demand of dowry. It has been also established from Catena of Judgments as above that the relatives of such Victim have the tendency to rope in all the members of family of Victim's Inlaws for various reasons including the reason that they were unable to come to terms with the fact that there may Result: Acquitted Page 31 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) have been some other cause distinct from demand of dowry/Cruelty/harassment which may have propelled the Victim to take away her own life. What is further followed from the Judgments is that the Presumption U/s 113B of the Indian Evidence Act shall be raised only in case of offence U/s 304B IPC and not U/s 498A IPC coupled with the fact that the Prosecution proved that the woman was subjected to Cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives and that the same was for or in connection with any demand for dowry which was "Soon before the death of a Woman". What is also observed from the above Catena of Judgments is that the minor discrepancies and contradictions are not to be used for discrediting the interested witnesses i.e. relatives of the Victim and are to be over looked unless the discrepancy go to the root of the matter to impeach basic version of the Prosecution's case, regard being had to the fact that minor discrepancies may arise due to normal error of observation, memory, lapse of time, mental condition like Shock/Horror etc.
73. Accordingly, it is crystal clear from the analysis of the case law on subject, that for a offence U/s 304B IPC to conclude, the death has Result: Acquitted Page 32 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) been otherwise than under normal circumstances. It is actually the case here and so established and duly discussed in the preceding paragraphs. It is 'Suicidal'.
74. The second important aspect that such death must have occurred within seven years of the marriage of the Victim.
75. It is this above aspect which is the bone of contention in the present case and on which even the defence has also led evidence in the form of DW1 and DW2. Admittedly, the case IO could not seize anything except Photograph Ex.PW3/C1. This photograph appears to be of the marriage Ceremony although not specifically stated either by the PW3 or by the IO. No marriage Card has been seized. As a matter of fact, it is not even clarified if any marriage Card was got printed or not. Evidence as to when the marriage took place is absolutely dicey. The marriage however took place at the Native village of the accused persons.
76. As per PW1, Shashi Mehto (A1) was married about four years ago. The above fact was admitted by PW1 in an answer to a leading question by the Prosecution. He was reminded that in his statement before the police, he told them that he had come to know that A1 was Result: Acquitted Page 33 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) married about four years ago. However, in his crossexamination by defence, the witness has stated that :
"I do not know when accused Shashi Mehto was got married with deceased".
77. PW2 Shibhu states in the Court that :
"I do not remember the date of her marriage".
78. In his crossexamination, he submits, "I cannot tell the exact date of marriage of my sister Chunchun, however her marriage was solemnized about 34 years back. It is wrong to suggest that marriage of my sister was solemnized in the year 2005".
79. Thus, even PW2 is unsure as to when his sister got married with A1.
80. PW3 Manoj Prasad stated that his sister was married with A1 in his Native village about 45 years ago.
81. He is apparently unsure as evident from his further testimony that :
"All the accused persons starting beating my sister Result: Acquitted Page 34 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) Chunchun after 45 years of marriage. Again said, after 45 months of her marriage".
82. In his crossexamination, the extent of confusion that he apparently had regarding the time of marriage stands manifested from his following answers :
" I cannot tell if marriage of my sister Chunchun was performed with accused Shashi Mehto (A1) in the year 2004 or 2005........... I cannot tell the date of her marriage".
83. Udai Kumar/PW4 stated that :
"Chunchun was my sister. She was married with accused Shashi Mehto (A1) present before the Court, in my native village. I do not know the date and year of her marriage."
84. In his crossexamination, the witness stated that :
"I do not remember if the marriage was performed in the year 2004 or 2005". I cannot tell the date of birth of Son & daughter of Chunchun".
85. Lastly, PW6/Gutar Mathur who claimed to be knowing Shashi Mehto (A1) since his childhood, also stated that :
Result: Acquitted Page 35 of 50State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) "I do not remember the year of marriage of accused Shashi Mehto. However, it was performed about 9 years back".
86. What is evident from the above analysis of the evidence on the point in issue is that the Prosecution witnesses including the brother of the Victim herself have neither given any definite date, month nor even the year of marriage of A1 with Chunchun. They are visibly also unsure about the time since Chunchun & A1 were married. So much so is the element of the inconsistency amongst their testimonies on the point is that they are even unable to say if the marriage took place much much prior in the year 2004 or 2005.
87. PW6 Gutar Mathur, who knows the A1 since his childhood is the prosecution witness who has stated that the marriage was performed about nine years ago. He was examined in the Court on 27.02.2016. Even if the witness is calculating nine years from the date of his Court testimony, it will still be more than seven years of a subsisting marriage between the A1 and the deceased Chunchun as on the date of death i.e. 22.02.2014.
88. For reasons which the Prosecution has not clarified at all, this Result: Acquitted Page 36 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) witness (PW6) could have been confronted with his Supplementary statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. dt. 24.02.2014 recorded one day after the incident. In this statement, PW6 purportedly told the IO that the marriage of Chunchun and A1 took place about 45 years prior to 24.02.2014 and that he had also attended the marriage at the Native place of A1. It was not done.
89. This Court has also examined this aspect in the testimony of case IO/PW16. He is silent as to how he came to know that on the night of 22/23.02.2014 the deceased had died within seven years of her marriage. The Chargesheet merely records that the concerned SDM was informed as the incident took place within 7 years of marriage.
90. The then Executive Magistrate/PW5 has stated that he received message from SDM, Punjabi Bagh regarding this incident on 24.02.2014 only. Thereafter, Manoj Prasad and Shibhu came to his office in the morning hours. Exact time when these statements were recorded is not provided on the statements or in the court testimony of PW5. It was recorded, however, in the morning hours.
91. In testimony of IO/PW16, he stated that on coming to learn that Result: Acquitted Page 37 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) the marriage between parties was less than seven years old, he telephonically informed area SDM Sh.J.S.Rana. He also stated that brothers of deceased namely Shibhu, Manoj and Udai had reached at PS but Sh.J.C.Sehgal had directed to call parental relatives of deceased on the next day in his office. By that time, it was 23.02.2014.
92. The above analysis of evidence clearly shows that IO's investigation revealed to him at the initial stage of investigation itself that the marriage was less than seven years old. Same has not supported by the documents/statements. I have referred to the fact that Charge does not discloses as to who told the IO regarding the fact that the marriage was less than seven years old. Court testimony of PW3 is also not of any help. Thus, I referred to Gutar Mathur's supplementary statement purportedly made by him to the police. It is the same statement which I have referred to earlier. It was recorded on 24.02.2014. It is the first statement that throws light on the issue in question.
93. If that is correct then the IO could not have come to know before 24.02.2014 that the marriage took place less than seven years prior to Result: Acquitted Page 38 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) death of the deceased. Even the disclosure statement Mark PW 15/A, which is inadmissible in evidence, was recorded on 24.02.2014.
94. Accordingly, there is absolutely no clarity from the Prosecution on the above aspect although one of the essential ingredients of the offence U/s 304B IPC is that the death must have taken place within seven years of marriage.
95. I earlier referred to the fact that defence produced DW1/Bablu Mehto and DW2/Shanker Mehto and both of them have deposed on oath that the marriage took place seven years prior to the incident. DW1/Bablu Mehto categorically states that marriage took place eight years prior to death of wife of A1.
96. DW2/Shanker Mehto categorically stated that the marriage took place 7/8 years prior to the date of his Court examination i.e. 22.02.2018. Having regard to these two testimonies, the marriage would have taken place more than seven years from the date of death of the deceased.
97. As the Prosecution does not establish the above most essential ingredient of Section 304B IPC, serious doubt has arisen regarding Result: Acquitted Page 39 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) the issue as to whether Smt.Chunchun died unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. It being so, the Charge for dowry death is not established against all the accused persons.
98. The relevant charge U/s 498A IPC against all the accused persons is that since 45 years prior to death of Chunchun i.e. 22.02.2014, the accused persons had been, in furtherance of their common intention, subjecting Chunchun to Cruelty and harassment for or in connection with demands of dowry at their Jhuggi situated on Plot of Surender behind RBM School, Village Bakkarwala, Delhi.
99. The Charge has direct nexus to the demand of dowry.
100. As per PW1, he owns Plot situated near RBM public School. He knew A1 and A4. However this knowledge about A1 and A4 is to be construed only w.e.f. 10/12 days prior to the incident. It is so as A1 and his wife started residing in the Bakkarwala Jhuggi 1012 days prior to incident only as stated by PW1.
101. The Prosecution did not seek clarification from PW1 on this aspect despite the fact that in his Complaint Ex.PW1/B which led to the registration of the FIR, PW1 never stated that A1 and his wife Result: Acquitted Page 40 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) started residing in his Plot since 10 to 12 days before 22.02.2014.
102. PW2 claims that he met Chunchun 15 days prior to her death at Vikas Nagar at the residence of Parents of A1. He did not know name of that place where Chunchun was lastly residing prior to her death. He did not know if his sister ever resided in Bakkarwala.
103. PW3 deposed that when A1 and his sister came to Delhi about 45 months after her marriage, they started residing at Vikas Nagar and left the said place 23 years after her marriage and started residing at the place where she was murdered.
104. PW4 stated on oath that he visited Chunchun's house at Vikas Nagar only once although he is resident of Matiala, Delhi since last 10 years. He stated that A1 had vacated the Vikas Nagar house. He did not provide the details as to the period of time for which A1 and Chunchun resided at Vikas Nagar.
105. The evidence regarding the residence is therefore not inspiring confidence.
106. Still, these three witnesses are claiming that A1 and his family members had been treating the Victim with Cruelty in connection Result: Acquitted Page 41 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) with demand of dowry and that they had been also beating the Victim even prior to her shifting to Delhi from the Native place.
107. The allegations regarding the demand of dowry and consequent beatings are vague allegations. They are not specific. All the three brothers i.e. PW2, PW3 and PW4 have stated that each of them had given an exact amount of Rs.10,000/ to Shashi Mehto (A1). When extensively crossexamined as to when said amounts were given, the witnesses became utterly confused.
108. Perusal of Ex.PW3/A i.e. statement of Manoj Prasad states that the family of deceased had given money to the deceased on 23 occasions on the asking of A1. This aspect is not present in the Court statement of Manoj Prasad (PW3). He only states to have given Rs.10,000/ to A1 during the next year of his marriage and then he stopped paying money. He improved on his previous statement when he deposed on oath that he gave money to A1 twice or thrice in the form of Rs.10,000/. He could not specify the time period as to when these amounts were given. His monthly earnings at the relevant time was Rs.5,000/ per month and he has four children.
Result: Acquitted Page 42 of 50State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16)
109. Ex.PW2/C which is statement of Shibhu Pd. is similar to statement Ex.PW3/A. However, in his court testimony, even this statement is seen to be an improvement. He states of giving Rs.10,000/ to A1 but did not remember date, month and year at all. He has improved on his previous statement to a great extent by introducing an altogether new version that when the accused persons used to beat Chunchun, they simultaneously also telephonically called them at their native place so that they could hear the cries of his sister. This improvement is a material improvement.
110. None of these witnesses have admittedly made any complaint to anyone. No Panchayat was ever called to resolve the dispute is also an admission by the witnesses.
111. It is also found in the statement of PW2 that a year prior to death of Chunchun, the accused gave severe beatings to her due to which she was admitted in a private hospital located in Matiala. No such investigation was conducted and verified by the case IO. No supporting document was produced by the witness.
112. PW2 has also made another drastic improvement thereby introducing an all together new case when he stated that on Saturday Result: Acquitted Page 43 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) at 03:00 PM, Sushila Devi (A3) had come with his sister's daughter to this witness's house in Vikas Nagar, Delhi and told that Chunchun was missing. On the next day, the witness received a call from his Village from his own mother disclosing about death of Chunchun. It is surprising that the witness did nothing to try and locate his missing sister. Thus, the improvement as above is not only a material improvement but it also gives rise to major contradiction. It is diagonally opposite to the case as set up by the prosecution.
113. Lastly, the monthly income of this witness is only Rs.4,000/ to Rs.5,000/ per month. The witness was therefore bound to explain as to how he was able to arrange the installments of Rs.10,000/ that he claims to have paid to A1 on 34 occasions.
114. Likewise, even PW4 is also earning Rs.5,000/ to Rs.6,000/ per month. Moreover, he has three children. He also claims to be sending Rs.1,000/ per month to his mother as her monthly expenses. The witness admittedly never spoke to Chunchun on Phone.
115. The Court is required to look into the consistencies in the statements of material witnesses. If the baseline of their statements is consistent, minor contradictions and minor improvements are liable to Result: Acquitted Page 44 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) be ignored. I have already referred to the case law on this aspect in Para 70 and 71 of this Judgment.
116. Accordingly, the evidence in hand is insufficient to convict any of the accused for the offence Punishable U/s 498A IPC.
117. The Prosecution had also argued that the accused persons are liable to be convicted for committing offence U/s 306 IPC although not charged with the same. He urged that there is sufficient evidence that the Victim took away her life on account of persistent abetment to commit suicide by the accused persons.
118. The Ld.Prosecutor even went to the extent of urging that these accused can, on the same facts and evidence, be also convicted U/s 306 of the IPC as besides ingredients of framing the Charge for commission of offence punishable U/s 304B IPC and in the alternative Section 498A IPC, ingredients for framing Charge U/s 306 IPC also exits in this case. Mere omission on part of trial Judge to mention Section 306 IPC with Section 498A IPC does not preclude the Court in convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved.
Result: Acquitted Page 45 of 50State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16)
119. Mr.Bhasin, Ld.Prosecutor has cited Para 25 of Judgment titled as Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Haryana decided on 04.07.2011 in Crl.Appeal No. 562/2007, which mendates that U/s 215 Cr.P.C., omission to frame Charge U/s 306 IPC will not result in failure of Justice as further opportunity to defence was not required to be granted when accused had ample opportunity to meet the Charge U/s 498A IPC.
120. Ld.Prosecutor also placed reliance upon the Judgment titled as K.Prema S.Rao & Another Vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao & others WITH State of A.P. Vs. Yadla Ranga Rao & Anorther (2003) 1 SCC 217 on Section 306 IPC. In this case, no evidence of demand of dowry 'Soon before her death' was found and hence, Section 304B IPC was not made out. It was however held that since offence U/s 498A IPC was made out, accused can be Convicted for the same and as on the same facts offence U/s 306 IPC was also made out, the accused could be convicted also for the said offence regardless of the fact that such Charges were not framed because alternative Charge U/s 498A IPC was duly framed and Section 215 and 221 Cr.P.C.
Result: Acquitted Page 46 of 50State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) takes care of such situation.
121. In the instant case, the Postmortem report is silent on any injury marks on the person of deceased. It is not clarified as to what transpired on 21.02.2014 and also on the intervening night of 21/22.02.2014 in the residential premises of A1 and the deceased. Presence of the remaining accused in the said premises is not established. Record is replete of evidence that the Victim was residing with her husband A1 and their children only at Bakkarwala. Thus, as to which particular act that occurred during 21.02.2014 and 22.02.2014 leading the Victim to take away her life is not before this Court. No close proximity is seen between other acts of alleged Cruelty.
122. Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW2/C are silent regarding any demand of money by the accused persons from the parental family of the Victim 20 days prior to the death of Chunchun. However, PW2 maintained in his Court testimony that he met his sister 20 days prior to her death. It is not appealing to this court that an incident as old 20 days would turn out as the last straw on the already burdened mental state Result: Acquitted Page 47 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) of the Victim to conclusively decide to put an end to her life.
123. A person may commit suicide for various reasons. In this context, it is held in Judgment titled as NARENDER SINGH ARORA VS. STATE (GOVT.OF NCT DELHI) & OTHERS, 2010 SCC ONLINE DEL 2980 that :
"6.Suicide is a known phenomenon of human nature. Suicides are committed by living human beings for various reasons, some are not able to bear the normal stresses which are common in life. Some are not able to cope up with the circumstances in which they are placed. Some commit suicide because of frustration of not achieving the desired goals. There are many cases where students commit suicide because they failed to achieve certain percentage of marks. Some commit suicide because they are not able to retain top position, some commit suicide because they are not able to cope with the demands of life. Some commit suicide because they suffer sudden loss, some commit suicide out of fear of being caught. There are various reasons for which suicides are committed by men and women. All suicides are unnatural deaths. Suicide is a complex phenomenon. One, who commits suicide, is not alive to disclose as to what was going on in his or her mind when he or she committed suicide. There is no presumption that every suicide committed by a married women in her inlaws' house or at her parents' house has to be because she was suffering harassment at the hands of her husband or her in laws.
7. Normally inlaws are convicted on the testimonies of parents of the girl who, in a fit of anger or because they had lost their daughter, are not prepared to believe that their daughter could Result: Acquitted Page 48 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) commit suicide for any other reason. Xxxxxx xxxxx ".
124. In view of above, it was imperative for the Prosecution to have established that there was some element having close proximity with the allegations of abetment to commit suicide.
125. It is settled law that all ingredients of the offence Punishable U/s 498A IPC are essential to have been established in order to sustain the conviction U/s 306 IPC.
126. Lastly, the Court cannot take recourse to Section 306 of the Indian Evidence Act to say that the accused persons are having burdened of proving facts specially with the knowledge of i.e. activities during 21.02.2014 to 22.02.2014. Admittedly, except A1, rest of the accused persons have been residing separately from A1 and his wife. Thus, it is to be held that no case is made out against any of the accused persons for offence Punishable U/s 306/34 IPC. CONCLUSION :
127. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the Prosecution is not able to prove the case against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Benefit of doubt is given to all Result: Acquitted Page 49 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) the accused persons. All the accused persons namely Shashi Mehto, Baiju Mehto, Sushila Devi, Nabeen Mehto and Seema Devi are hereby acquitted of the offence Punishable U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. Accused Shashi Mehto is also hereby acquitted of the offence Punishable U/s 302/201 IPC.
They are directed to furnish PBs/SBs for Rs.10,000/ each (Rupees Ten thousand each) with one surety each in the like amount, in view of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
Further it is ordered that the case property of this case, if any, be disposed of/destroyed after expiry of period of fil ing appeal, if any.
ing appeal, if any.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (Manish Yaduvanshi) on 23.04.2018 ASJ05(W)/THC Delhi/23.04.2018(P) Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADUVANSHI YADUVANSHI Date: 2018.04.24 13:18:22 +0530 Result: Acquitted Page 50 of 50 State Vs. Shashi Mehto etc. FIR 80/14 (56995/16) Result: Acquitted Page 51 of 50