Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Rajender Prasad on 18 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
II (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No.: 164/2013
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0124832013
State Vs. (1) Rajender Prasad
S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad
R/o I67, Krishan Vihar,
Sultan Puri, Delhi
(Acquitted)
(2) Sita Devi
W/o Rajender Prasad
R/o I67, Krishan Vihar,
Sultan Puri, Delhi
(Acquitted)
(3) Neetu @ Preeti
W/o Nitin Mittal
R/o V148, Arvind Nagar,
Ghonda Yamunapar,
Delhi
(Acquitted)
(4) Krishan Kumar
S/o Shiv Narayan
R/o D2/16, Sector20 Extn.,
Rohini, Delhi
(Acquitted)
St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 1
(5) Mahesh
S/o Shiv Narayan
R/o J89, Krishan Vihar,
Sultan Puri, Delhi
(Acquitted)
(6) Amit @ Anil
S/o Rajender Prasad
R/o I67, Krishan Vihar,
Sultan Puri, Delhi
(Acquitted)
FIR No.: 282/2012
Police Station: Sultan Puri
Under Sections: 304B/498A/34 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to sessions court: 6.9.2013
Date on which orders were reserved: 18.2.2014
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 18.2.2014
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per the allegations, the accused Amit Kumar being the husband of Anita, accused Rajender Prasad being the father in law, Sita Devi being the mother in law, Neetu @ Preeti being the Nanand, accused Krishan and Mahesh being the maternal uncle in law of Anita in furtherance on their common intention subjected Anita to cruelty and harassment for compelling her to meet their unlawful demand of dowry for taking the share in the ancestral property of her father and also made allegations on the character of the deceased. Further, it is alleged that all St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 2 the accused in furtherance on their common intention caused the death of the deceased Anita otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by all the accused for or in connection with the illegal demand of dowry and to take share in the ancestral property of her father.
BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 15.7.2012 at about 8:45 PM on receipt of DD No.39A SI Dhirender Singh along with Ct. Rakesh reached at SGM Hospital where SI Dhirender Singh collected the MLC of deceased Anita and some ornaments which he took into possession. The husband of deceased Anita was found present in the Hospital who was interrogated and he informed the Investigating Officer that the marriage of Anita was solemnized on 15.5.2010 and her death was unnatural within seven years of her marriage, on which SI Dhirender informed the SHO and the SDM concerned who directed him to get the photographs of the scene of crime conducted and get the spot inspected from the Incharge of the Crime Team. On the next date i.e. 16.7.2012 SDM concerned came to the SGM Hospital mortuary and recorded the statements of the father and tau of the deceased. The SDM then made his endorsement on the statement of Rajender Kumar the father of the deceased and directed the SHO to do the needful as per law and lodge an FIR. The SDM prepared St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 3 the inquest proceedings and thereafter recorded the identification statements of the father and tau of the deceased, filled up the Form 25, 35 (1) (b) and prepared the brief facts and then made a request to the Incharge, Department of Forensic Medicines for conducting the postmortem. After postmortem the dead body was handed over to the relative of the deceased and the doctor handed over the various exhibits containing viscera petty, clothes of the deceased to the Investigating Officer which he took into possession. On the basis of the statement of Sh. Rajender the father of the deceased, the present FIR was registered. (3) On 16.7.2012 the accused Rajender Prasad and Smt. Sita were arrested from their house and their disclosure statements were recorded.
At the instance of accused Sita one Sari (ligature) and one wooden stool were recovered from the bathroom of the accused which were taken into possession. On 17.7.2012 the parents of the deceased came to the Police Station and handed over to him the marriage card and marriage photographs of the deceased with accused Amit which he took into possession and Smt. Munni Devi was produced before the concerned SDM who recorded her statement. On 1.8.2012 the statement of the brother of the deceased namely Jitender was recorded. On 4.8.2012 the accused Neetu was formally arrested in this case since she was on anticipatory bail. On 13.8.2012 the accused Kishan Kumar and Mahesh Kumar were also formally arrested as they both were on anticipatory bail. On 04.12.2012 the accused Amit surrendered himself in the police station St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 4 who was interrogated and was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed in the Court against the accused persons.
CHARGE:
(4) Charges under Sections 498A/34 and 304B/34 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Rajender Prasad, Sita Devi, Neetu @ Preeti, Krishan, Mahesh and Amit to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(5) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of Prosecution Witnesses:
Sr. PW Name of the witness Details
No. No.
1. PW1 Ct. Vishal Police Witness who has proved the formal
arrest of accused Preeti @ Neetu
2. PW2 Ct. Nagraj Police Witness who has deposited the exhibits
with FSL
3. PW3 W/HC Chand Kiran Police Witness - Duty Officer
4. PW4 HC Kailash Chand Police Witness - DD Writer
5. PW5 Ct. Vijender Police Witness who has proved the formal
arrest of accused Rajesh Prasahd and Sita Devi
6. PW6 Ct. Manish Police Witness - Crime Team Photographer
7. PW7 Ct. Narain singh Police Witness - Duty Constable at SGM
Hospital
St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 5
8. PW8 SI Anil Kumar Police Witness - Crime Team Incharge
9. PW9 Ct. Bajrang Lal Police Witness who had obtained subsequent
opinion from the Autopsy Surgeon
10. PW10 Ct. Naveen Police Witness - Computer Operator
11. PW11 HC Sushil Kumar Police Witness who has proved the formal
arrest of accused Amit
12. PW12 HC Govind Singh Police Witness - MHCM
13. PW13 Sh. M.L. Meena FSL Expert
14. PW14 Rajender Kumar Public Witness - Father of the deceased
15. PW15 Dr. Bina Witness from SGM Hospital who has proved
the MLC of deceased
16. PW16 Munni Devi Public Witness - Mother of the deceased
17. PW17 Dr. Munish Wadhawan Autopsy Surgeon
18. PW18 Dr. Manoj Dhingra Autopsy Surgeon
19. PW19 Jitender Public Witness - Brother of the deceased
20. PW20 Kuldeep Singh Official Witness - the then ADM
21. PW21 Nand Kishore Public Witness - Uncle/ Tau of the deceased
22. PW22 SI Dhirender Singh Police Witness - Initial Investigating Officer
23. PW23 Insp. Ram Kishore Subsequent Investigating Officer
List of documents:
Sr. Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved by
No.
1. PW1/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Vishal Ct. Vishal
2. PW1/A Arrest memo of Preeti @ Neetu
3. PW1/B Disclosure Statement
4. PW2/1 Affidavit of Evidence of Ct. Nagraj Ct. Nagraj
5. PW2/A Copy of RC 229/21/12
6. PW2/B FSL Receipt
7. PW3/1 Affidavit of Evidence of W/HC Chand Kiran W/HC Chand Kiran
8. PW3/A FIR
St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 6
9. PW3/B Endorsement on Rukka
10. PW4/1 Affidavit of Evidence of HC Kailash Chand HC Kailash Chand
11. PW4/A DD No. 39A
12. PW5/1 Affidavit of Evidence of Ct. Vijender Ct. Vijender
13. PW5/A Arrest memo of Rajender
14. PW5/B Personal Search Memo
15. PW5/C Disclosure Statement
16. PW5/D Arrest memo Sita Devi
17. PW5/E Personal Search Memo
18. PW5/F Disclosure Statement
19. PW6/1 Affidavit of Evidence of Ct. Manish Ct. Manish
20. PW6/A1 to Photographs
A9
21. PW6/B Negatives of Photographs
22. PW7/1 Affidavit of Evidence of Ct. Narain Singh Ct. Narain Singh
23. PW8/1 Affidavit of Evidence of SI Anil Kumar SI Anil Kumar
24. PW8/A Crime Team Report
25. PW9/1 Affidavit of Evidence of Ct. Bajrang Lal Ct. Bajrang Lal
26. PW10/1 Affidavit of Evidence of Ct. Naveen Ct. Naveen
27. PW10/A Certificate U/s 65 B
28. PW11/1 Affidavit of Evidence of HC Sushil Kumar HC Sushil Kumar
29. PW11/A Arrest Memo
30. PW11/B Personal Search Memo
31. PW11/C Disclosure Statement
32. PW12/1 Affidavit of Evidence of HC Govind HC Govind Singh
33. PW12/A Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 11851
34. PW12/B Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 11853
35. PW13/A FSL Report Sh. M.L. Meena
36. PW14/A Dead body Identification Statement Rajender Kumar
37. PW14/B Dead body Identification Statement
St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 7
38. PW14/C Dead body Handing over Teceipt
39. PW14/D Statement of Rajender Prasad
40. PW14/E Seizure memo of Marriage card and
Photograph
41. PW5/A MLC Dr. Bina
42. PW16/A Statement of Munni Smt. Munni
43. PW16//PX1 Statement of Munni u/s. 161 Cr.P.C.
44. PW17/A Postmortem Report Dr. Munish
45. PW17/B Subsequent Opinion
46. PW17/C Opinion
47. PW19/PX1 Statement of Jitender Jitender
48. PW20/A Endorsement on DD NO. 39A Kuldeep Singh
49. PW20/B Endorsement on statement of PW 14/D
50. PW20/C Brief fact
51. PW20/D Form 25:35
52. PW20/E Endorsement on Statement of Rajender
53. PW20/F Endorsement on Statement of Nand Kishore
54. PW20/G Seizure memo of Jewellery
55. PW20/H Endorsement on Statement of Munni Devi
56. PW20/I Request for Postmortem
57. PW22/A DD NO. 39A SI Dhirender Singh
58. PW22/B Seizure memo of clothes of deceased
59. PW22/C Statement of Rajender
60. PW22/D Endorsement on Statement of Rajender
61. PW22/E Site plan
62. PW22/F Seizure memo Sari and Wooden Stool
63. PW22/G Arrest memo of Kishan Kumar
64. PW22/H Arrest memo of Mahesh
65. PW22/J FSL receipt regarding the viscera petty in FSL St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 8
66. PW22/K Notice U/s 91 CrPC
67. PW23/A Request for Subsequent Opinion Insp. Ram Kishore EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Twenty three witnesses as under:
Complainant/ public witnesses:
(7) Sh. Rajender Kumar a shopkeeper by profession is the father of the deceased. He has deposed that deceased Anita was his second child who was married to accused Amit on 15.05.2010 according to Hindu rites and customs. The witness has further deposed that the marriage was solemnized at Aggarwal Dharamshala and at that time there was no demand of dowry. He has also deposed that after marriage he used to receive regular telephone calls from his daughter almost daily but she never complained to him about any demand or harassment. According to the witness, one day before her death i.e. on 15.07.12 he received a call from his daughter who told him that she was fine (usne kaha tha ke papa main theek hoom aur koyee pareshani nahin hai). He has further deposed that he is not aware what had happened thereafter and states that in the intervening night of 15/65.07.2012 they received a call from Police Station Sultan Puri that his daughter had expired and her dead body was lying in SGM Hospital on which he reached Sanjay Gandhi Hospital alongwith his elder brother Nand Kishore where their statements St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 9 regarding identification of dead body was recorded by the SDM. He has proved his statement which is Ex.PW14/A and statement of his brother regarding identification of dead body which is Ex.PW14/B and after postmortem examination they received the dead body of his daughter vide receipt Ex.PW14/C. He has testified that the concerned SDM also recorded his statement about the incident which is Ex.PW14/D. He has proved having handed over the marriage card and photographs of the marriage of his daughter with accused to the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo which is ExPW14/E. He has correctly identified the accused in the Court.
(8) With the permission of the Court, Ld. Addl. PP put leading question to the witness wherein the witness has deposed that that he is 10th class pass and can read Hindi. He has admitted that the SDM had recorded his statement and he had signed the same after reading it. The witness has also admitted that he had told the SDM that when Anita used to call him, she complained of her motherinlaw Sita Devi, Nanad Neetu who used to abuse her by using filthy language by saying i.e. "Charitraheen, Randi etc. (.....Nand kehti thee ki mere pair chhuo, pair chune par galiyan deti thee. Anita ki Nanad Neetu Shadi Shuda hai aur Ghonda, Yamunapaar rehti hai tatha har saptah apne Mayke aa jatee thee. Sasur bhi galiyan deta tha jaise ki Haram ki bachchi, vagerah vagerah"...). He has also admitted that he had told to the SDM in his statement that after the marriage, his daughter Anita used to tell them that St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 10 she was being taunted by accused Sita Devi i.e. motherinlaw, Neetu i.e. Nanad, Rajender Kumar Bansal i.e. fatherinlaw and Krishan Kumar & Mahesh i.e. maternal uncles of the accused Amit on the aspect of the articles which they used to give to his daughter after her marriage. The contents of the statement Ex.PW14/D were read over to the witness which he admitted. He has however denied the suggestion that the accused persons illtreated his deceased daughter to meet their unlawful demands or that he had compromised the matter with the accused persons on account of which he is not deposing against the accused persons to the extent as to whatever his deceased daughter had told him from time to time or that he is deliberately concealing the material allegations which he made to the SDM.
(9) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel witness has deposed that it was after one year of the marriage when his daughter had told him about the abuses details of which he had gave to the SDM.
According to the witness, his daughter told him about the same when she came to visit him but he cannot give the details of the date or month and at that time his wife was present with him. He has also deposed that the marriage was mediated by the accused namely Mahesh and Kishan. He has further deposed that the elder brother of Kishan is married to the daughter of his Tau in the village and that is how they are related. The witness has testified that he had made proper inquiries before the marriage but it was through the mediators and not independently. According to St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 11 him, he had informed Mahesh and Kishan about the abuses given to his daughter. He has stated that after the birth of the daughter to his deceased daughter they also had a gathering of their family members and family members of the accused where the family of the accused was advised not to use foul language against his daughter and for some days everything was alright but then again the abuses continued. He has further testified that he did not make any complaint of it because his daughter did not want any complaint to be done for the fear of spoil of family reputation. He has admitted that no demand of dowry was ever made by the accused persons. According to the witness, at no point of time any complaint was made by him prior to the incident as there was no such incident of demand of dowry and has voluntarily explained that his daughter was happy at her matrimonial home.
(10) A specific Court Question was put to the witness that whenever their daughter complained about the behaviour of her mother in law and sister in law and they abused her in a filthy language whether he and his family members made any attempts to advise them or informed any authority, to which the witness replied in affirmative and explained that he did advise them and thereafter things were normal for some time but then again there were phases when such things used to happen again. He has further stated that his daughter had also remained with him for three months and he had mentioned this fact to the SDM and also to the Investigating Officer but he is not aware as to why it is not recorded in his St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 12 statements recorded by them and has voluntarily explained that he had become absolutely hopeless at that time.
(11) He has denied the suggestion that he has not mentioned these details in his previous statements to the SDM or to the Investigating Officer because no such incidents had taken place as is being claimed by him now. He is however unable to produce any independent documentary record with regard to the harassment caused to his daughter on account of which she returned to his house because she had made no complaints to any authority. He has also deposed that he does not wish to initiate any action against the accused persons as he has no complaints against them.
(12) PW16 Smt. Munni Devi is the mother of the deceased who has deposed that about 2½ years ago she had married her daughter Anita with accused Amit. She has identified the accused Rajender who is the father in law of her daughter; accused Sita Devi is the mother in law; accused Neetu is the sister in law/ Nanand and accused Kishan Kumar and Mahesh were the maternal uncles in law of her deceased daughter. She deposed that her daughter was married according to the Hindu rites and customs and at the time of marriage, there was no demand of dowry and even after the marriage there was no such demand. She deposed that on 15.07.2012 she was told by her son Jitender that Anita was no more after which she along with her family members and her devrani and St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 13 jethani went to the matrimonial home of Anita. However, she is unable to tell as to how and in what circumstances her daughter had died. She has proved that her statement was recorded by the SDM which is Ex.PW16/A. (13) Since the witness was resiling from her previous statement, hence she was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein the contents of her statement Ex.PW16/A was read over to the witness which she has denied having made before the SDM from point and has voluntarily explained that she was in a great shock due to the death of her daughter and she cannot tell whatever she had stated before the SDM. Further, the statement Ex.PW16/PX1 was read over to the witness which she has also denied having made so before the Investigating Officer. She has denied the suggestion that there was a frequent quarrel and torture by father in law, mother in law and sister in law or that accused Sita Devi, Rajender and Neetu used to harass and torture her daughter Anita on petty domestic issues. According to the witness, she had not stated to the SDM that Anita was murdered by the accused persons. However, when confronted with her statement Ex.PW16/A the above fact was found so recorded. She has further deposed that she had not stated to the SDM that accused Amit used to gave all his earnings to his parents and she was not given any money for expenses; that accused Rajender, Sita Devi and Neetu be punished as per law and they were St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 14 responsible for the death of her daughter Anita. However, when confronted with her statement Ex.PW16/A the above facts were found recorded. She has denied the suggestion that she was intentionally concealing from the fact which she had told to the SDM and has voluntarily added that she does not want to proceed against the accused persons as whatever was destined had happened. She has stated that there was no demand of dowry from the accused persons. (14) In her crossexamination by the by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that she and her husband did not make any complaint against the accused persons about their behaviour towards deceased Anita on petty domestic issues and has voluntarily explained that her daughter was well off at her matrimonial home. A specific Court question was put to the witness that whenever her daughter complained about the behaviour of her mother in law and sister in law and about their abusing her in a filthy language whether she and her family members made any attempts to make them understand or advise them or inform any authority, to which the witness replied that she advised them and things were normal for some time and then again such things used to happen sometimes. (15) She has admitted that she has not mentioned the details regarding his daughter crying on phone, one day prior to her death but has denied the suggestion that she was happy at that time and nor crying and that is why she has not mentioned this fact in the statement either to the SDM or to the Investigating Officer. According to the witness, she did St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 15 not give and specify the details regarding the physical and mental harassment given to her deceased daughter and has voluntarily explained that there was no incident of maarpitai or physical harassment but she used to be taunted and abuse. She has denied the suggestion that she did not give the details because no such incident had taken place. She has admitted that the differences and dispute between her daughter and her in laws was on small domestic issues like not wishing the sister in law etc. (16) PW19 Sh. Jitender is the brother of the deceased Anita. He has deposed that Anita was married on 15.05.2010 with accused Amit according to Hindu rites and customs. He has identified the accused Rajender who is the father in law of his sister, Smt. Sita Devi is mother in law, accused Neetu is the sister in law and accused Kishan Kumar and Mahesh are the the maternal uncle in law of his deceased sister. According to the witness, at the time of marriage, there was no demand of dowry and even after the marriage there was no such demand. He has stated that on 15.07.2012 he received information that his sister Anita is no more.
(17) Since the witness was found residing from his previous statement, hence he has been crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he has deposed that he had not stated to the police in his statement Ex.PW19/PX1 that apart from jewellery, Rs.61,000/ were also given when the marriage of his sister was fixed with accused Amit. However, when confronted with the statement Ex.PW19/PX1 the above St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 16 facts were found so recorded. He has denied the suggestion that when accused persons had came with Barat at their house, accused Amit had demanded a motorcycle from his father and if their demand was not fulfilled, they threatened to return without performing the marriage. He has also denied the suggestion that his Tau tried to make the accused understand then anyhow the marriage of his sister was performed or that after the marriage when he went to the matrimonial home of his deceased sister Anita, she used to tell him that the accused Amit demanded Rs. 10,000/ and this fact was of about one month after her marriage. He has also denied the suggestion that he had given Rs.8.000/ to accused Amit and has voluntarily explained that one day he had brought his sister to his house after the birth of the child, she was very cheerful and there was no complaint and there was no demand of any dowry, in cash or any kind of nature. He has however added that occasionally there used to be normal disputes which occurs in the family but there was nothing serious. According to the witness, accused Amit is running a shop but he is unable to tell about his earnings. He has admitted that his sister frequently told to him about financial constrains (paison ki tangi) and he used to give her money. The witness has also admitted that after the birth of female child his sister remained at his house for about three months on account of the fact that she was being abused by her in laws and was never given any day to day expenses. He has also admitted that his father and Tau had gone to the house of the accused alongwith the mediators i.e. accused Mahesh and St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 17 Kishan on which accused undertook not to cause any harassment to his sister. The witness has further admitted that after some time there were some disputes between his sister and her in laws. According to him, after this first incident on one more occasion his father and Tau had gone to the house of accused persons and again there was a settlement about which he is not aware. He has testified that for some days his sister was alright but after some days she was harassed and that is why she ended her life. It has been observed by this Court that this, the witness had said and added of his own.
(18) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that there was no demand at the time of marriage nor after the marriage and has voluntarily explained that only his sister used to speak about financial difficulties/ constrains. According to the witness, they never complained to police or any authority in this regard nor to their community and at no point of time there was a written compromise since both the times the said compromise was oral. He has denied the suggestion that there were no settlement as there was no allegations of harassment and question of settlement does not arise. He has testified that his sister never complained of any physical beating or harassment. He has admitted that there was no demand of dowry from the accused or from his family members and that the disputes of which his sister complained were of petty domestic issues and day to day marital skirmishes.
St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 18 (19) PW21 Sh. Nand Kishore is the uncle/ Tau of the deceased who has deposed that he is residing at A256A, Devli Extention, Upper Ground Flat, Delhi alongwith his family and Rajender is his younger brother and the deceased Anita was his niece who was married with the accused Amit in May 2010 which marriage was arranged through the accused Mahesh and Kishan and one Hari Prashad their elder brother. According to the witness, Rajender never informed him about any problem with Anita and in his capacity as elder brother Rajender sometimes shared his family matters with him. He has also deposed that at the time of conduct of marriage there was a demand of motorcycle and he intervened and there was a compromise and the said demand was then satisfied. It has been observed by this Court that initially the witness stated that the motorcycle was given and then he had changed his statement and stated that the motorcycle was not given. (20) He has further deposed that after two to three months of the birth of the female child to deceased Anita, his brother Rajender told him that Anita was being harassed on account of domestic issues as Amit was not earning and there were financial constraints. According to the witness, his elder daughter is married near the house of Anita and whenever he used to visit, he also visited Anita and gave her some money for her daily expenses. He has further deposed that she (Anita) did not make much demand but did express the issue of financial constrains on which he used to help her by giving her whatever he had like Rs.500 or St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 19 Rs.2000/. The witness has also deposed that after twothree months of the birth of the daughter when he went to the house of the accused alongwith the accused Mahesh and Kishan, he advised them not to trouble Anita and the three Mamas i.e. Mahesh, Kishan and Hari Chand and accused Rajender Prasad undertook not to cause any harassment to Anita but the mother in law never came before them. He has testified that he did not come to know about anything about what had transpired. According to him, in the intervening night of 15/16.07.2012 his brother Rajender made a call and informed him about the death of Anita on which he alongwith Rajender and their family members reached at SGM Hospital Mortuary and identified the dead body of Anita vide memo Ex.PW14/B. The witness has also deposed that after postmortem the dead body of Anita was handed over to them vide receipt Ex.PW14/C. He has proved that his statement was recorded by SDM vide Ex.PW20/B. (21) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that the only dispute which existed between the deceased and the accused were on day to day domestic issues and financial constrains. According to him, no complainant to the police or to any other authority was ever made by them. He has admitted that they did not give any motorcycle to the accused anytime either before or after the marriage nor there was any demand. He has also deposed that he did not speak to the deceased Anita on phone at any point of time not even before the date of her death or a day earlier.
St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 20 Witnesses of Medical Record:
(22) PW15 Dr. Bina has deposed that on 15.07.2012 she was on duty in SGM Hospital as CMO and at about 8.40 PM patient Anita was brought to the hospital by Amit and she was attended by her vide MLC No. 1644. She has further deposed that the patient was in unconscious condition, pulse was not pulpable, BP was not recordable, Heart beat was not audible, the pupils were dilated, per abdomen sounds were not audible, respiratory did not find any movement and the patient was declared brought dead in the casualty. She has proved the MLC of Anita which is Ex.PW15/A and has deposed that thereafter the dead body was sent to the mortuary for postmortem examination. She has not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard.
(23) PW17 Dr. Munish Wadhawan and PW18 Dr. Manoj Dhingra from SGM Hospital have proved that on 16.07.2012 they conducted the postmortem examination on the body of Anita, 25 years, female which was sent by SDM Kuldeep Singh and identified by Rajender Prashad and Nand Kishore with alleged history of brought to SGM Hospital in unconscious state on 15.07.12 at about 8.40 PM and was declared brought dead. According to the witness, on examination a ligature mark 21 cm long was present above thyroid/ cartilage in mid line of neck running obliquely upwards and backwards on both sides and absent at nape of neck, it was .6 cm wide and 5 cm below chin; 1.2 cm wide and 3 cm below right ear; 1.5 cm wide and 2 cm below left ear, the St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 21 base of mark was hard and brownish. They have proved that the cause of death was kept pending till the receipt of chemical analysis report of the viscera and blood and after postmortem examination, the body was handed over to IO alongwith viscera and blood and 8 inquest papers.
They have proved the postmortem report which is Ex.PW17/A. According to the witness, on 11.01.13 an application was received from Inspector Ram Kishore, Police Station Sultanpuri for subsequent opinion on postmortem report No. 620/12 dated 16.07.12 of Anita alongwith chemical analysis report showing phosphide in blood and viscera bases on postmortem report and chemical analysis report after which they opined the cause of death as asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging with aluminium phosphide (sulfas) intoxication, which subsequent opinion is Ex.PW17/B. The witness have further deposed that an application was received from SI Dhirender Singh of Police Station Sultan Puri on 16.08.12 for subsequent opinion on postmortem report No. 620/12 dated 16.07.12 of Anita alongwith a white coloured pulanda sealed with ten seals of DS which contained a multicoloured terricot/ synthetic saree. They have proved that after examining the given ligature material, it was opined that there was possibility of hanging by the ligature material cannot be ruled out, which ligature material was signed, sealed and handed over to Investigating Officer alongwith opinion on the back of application in original which is Ex.PW17/C. Both the witnesses have identified the said multicoloured terricot/ synthetic saree which is St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 22 Ex.P1. These witnesses have not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel, despite opportunity granted in this regard. FSL Expert:
(24) PW13 Sh. M.L. Meena Senior Scientific Officer has deposed that on 14.08.12 the exhibits of the present case were received in FSL, Rohini from Police Station Sultan Puri and the same were marked to him for analysis. He has further deposed that the parcel which was received in FSL, Rohini was sealed with the seal of SGMH Mortuary, Mangol Puri, Delhi and seals on the parcels were intact. According to the witness, he tallied the seal which was on the parcel and it found to contain Ex.1a,1b, 1c and 1d. He has proved having chemically examined the exhibits which were in a plastic jar and during chemical examination Ex.1a was found to contain alumminium phosphide, Ex.1b and Ex.1c were found to contain phosphide, while during chemical examination Ex.1d gave negative test for common poisoning. He has proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW13/A. He has further deposed that after examination of the exhibits he sealed the remnants with the seal of MLM, FSL, Delhi and also sealed the report with the same seal and the same was forwarding to the sending authority.
(25) This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity granted in this regard.
St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 23
Police/ Official witnesses:
(26) PW1 Ct. Vishal is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the formal arrest of accused Preeti @ Neetu vide memo Ex.PW1/A and her disclosure statement which is Ex.PW1/B. He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel but nothing much has come out of the same.
(27) PW2 Ct. Nagraj is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having taken the exhibits of this case vide RC No. 229/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW2/A after which he deposited the exhibits in FSL Rohini vide receipt Ex.PW2/B. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity granted in this regard.
(28) PW3 W/HC Chand Kiran is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW3/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein she has proved the copy of FIR which is Ex.PW3/A and her endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW3/B. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity granted in this regard. (29) PW4 HC Kailash Chand is a formal witness being the DD Writer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW4/1 St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 24 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C) wherein he has proved the DD No. 39A which is Ex.PW4/A. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite an opportunity being granted in this regard.
(30) PW5 Ct. Vijender is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW5/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the arrest memo of accused Rajender Prasad which is Ex.PW5/A, his personal search memo which is Ex.PW5/B and his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW5/C. He has also proved the arrest memo of accused Sita Devi which is Ex.PW5/D; her personal search memo which is Ex.PW5/E and her disclosure statement which is Ex.PW5/F. He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel but nothing much has come out of the same and the witness has reaffirmed what he has earlier stated in the chief. (31) PW6 Ct. Manish is a formal witness being the Crime Team Photographer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW6/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the photographs of the scene of crime which are Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A9.
(32) He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel but nothing much has come out of the same and the witness has reaffirmed what he has earlier stated in the chief.
St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 25 (33) PW7 Ct. Narain Singh is a formal witness being the Duty Constable at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW7/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having informed the Duty Officer regarding the admission of Anita in the hospital who was declared brought dead. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity granted in this regard.
(34) PW8 SI Anil Kumar is a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW8/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the Crime Team Report which is Ex.PW8/A. He has been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel but nothing much has come out of the same and he has stood by the contents of his report. (35) PW9 Ct. Bajrang Lal is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW9/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 16.8.2012 he produced the saree before the Autopsy Surgeon and obtained the subsequent opinion in respect of the same. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity granted in this regard.
(36) PW10 Ct. Naveen is a formal witness being the Computer Operator who has been examined by way of affidavit which is St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 26 Ex.PW10/1 (as per the provisions of section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 16.7.2012 he fed the contents of the rukka in the Computer and recorded the FIR of the present case. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity granted in this regard.
(37) PW11 HC Sushil Kumar is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW11/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the arrest memo of accused Amit which is Ex.PW11/A, his personal search memo which is Ex.PW11/B and his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW11/C. He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel but he has stood by what he has earlier deposed.
(38) PW12 HC Govind Singh is a formal witness being the MHCM who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW12/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) where he has proved the entry in Register No. 19 at Sl. No. 11851 copy of which is Ex.PW12/A; entry at Sl. No. 11853 copy of which is Ex.PW12/B and entry in register No. 21 vide RC No. 229/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW2/A. He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel but nothing much has come out of the same and he has stood by the version given by him in the chief. (39) PW20 Sh. Kuldeep Singh has deposed that on 15.07.2012 he was posted as SDM, Saraswati Vihar Sub Division and on that day he St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 27 received information from Police Station Sultan Puri vide DD No. 39/A about the death of one Anita which was within seven year of her marriage. According to the witness, he made his endorsement on the said DD entry vide Ex.PW20/A and on the next day i.e. on 16.07.2012 he reached the SGM Hospital where father and uncle (Tau) of deceased Anita met him and the body of deceased Anita was preserved in the mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. The witness has testified that he carried out the inquest proceedings and recorded the statement of Rajender Kumar and Nand Kishore regarding the identification of dead body which are Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW14/B respectively after which he recorded the statement of father of deceased and her uncle i.e. tau of the deceased which are Ex.PW14/D and Ex.PW20/B. He has proved having prepared the Brief Facts which are Ex.PW20/C which were got prepared by SI Dhirender Singh and then he got filled up the 25.35(1)(b) form through SI Dhirender Singh which is Ex.PW20/D. According to him, thereafter the body was sent for postmortem after which he directed the Investigating Officer to hand over the body to the relatives of the deceased for her last rites and the receipt regarding handing over of the body is Ex.PW14/C. The witness has testified that he made his endorsement on the statement of Rajender Kumar vide Ex.PW20/E and made his endorsement on the statement of Nand Kishore vide his endorsement Ex.PW20/F. He has further deposed that on 16.07.2012 SI Dhirender produced the seizure St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 28 memo of the jewellery of the deceased which she was having on her body on 15.07.2012 and he his attestation on the seizure memo vide Ex.PW20/G. He has testified that on the next day i.e. on 17.07.2012 Munni Devi, the mother of the deceased was brought to his office by SI Dhirender and he recorded her statement vide Ex.PW16/A and made her endorsement on her statement which is Ex.PW20/H. He has proved his request to perform the Autopsy on the body of deceased which is Ex.PW20/I. According to him, he also visited the place of the incident along with SI Dhirender on 16.07.2012 and at that time nothing incriminating could be found.
(40) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that at the time he interrogated the father of deceased, he did not express any suspicion on his son in law i.e. accused Amit but insisted an action upon his parents and sister. He has further deposed that he had made inquiries from him with regard to the nature of disputes but he did not specify the same and said that they were just day to day marital skirmishes and petty matters but nothing big. According to the witness, he did not disclose about any demand of dowry and about any incident relating to physical harassment and even the mother of the deceased did not express any suspicion on accused Amit and only sought action against the in laws without giving any specific details of physical harassment or demand of dowry.
St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 29 (41) PW22 SI Dhirender Singh has deposed that on 15.7.2012 he was posted in Police Station Sultanpuri and was on emergency duty on receipt of DD No.39A at about 8:45 PM true copy of which is Ex.PW22/A he along with Ct. Rakesh reached at SGM Hospital where he collected the MLC of deceased Anita and some ornaments i.e. two gold ear rings, two silver payjeb, one silver ring and two peetalnuma bangles which he took into possession already Ex.PW20/G. The witness has further deposed that the husband of deceased Anita was present in the Hospital who was interrogated by him who told that the marriage of Anita was solemnized on 15.5.2010 and her death was unnatural within seven years of her marriage. He has also deposed that thereafter he informed the SHO and the SDM concerned who directed him to get the photographs of scene of crime and got inspected the spot from the Inchage of Crime Team and the scene of crime be also got preserved. He has testified that accordingly he acted upon the directions of the SDM and got the preserved the dead body in the mortuary of SGM hospital. The witness has also deposed that on next date i.e. 16.7.2012 SDM concerned came to the SGM hospital mortuary and recorded the statements of the father and tau of the deceased which are Ex.PW14/D and Ex.PW20/B respectively. He has testified that SDM then made his endorsement on the statement of Rajender Kumar the father of the deceased and directed the SHO to do the needful as per law and lodge an FIR. According to him, after recording the statement of the father and tau of the deceased, the SDM prepared the St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 30 inquest proceedings and thereafter recorded the identification statements of the father and tau of the deceased which are Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW14/B; filled the Form 25, 35 (1) (b) vide Ex.PW20/D and prepared the brief facts vide Ex.PW20/C and then made a request to the Incharge, Department of Forensic Medicines which request is Ex.PW20/I. The witness has also deposed that after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relative of the deceased vide memo Ex.PW14/C and the doctor handed over him one sealed parcel containing viscera petty, one sealed containing the clothes of the deceased which were sealed with the seal of SGM Mortuary along with sample seal which he took into possession vide memo Ex.PW22/B. The witness has testified that thereafter he came to the Police Station and deposited the case property in the malkhana and submitted the documents before the SHO who made his endorsement on the statement of Rajender which is Ex.PW22/C and thereafter he (witness) also made his endorsement which is Ex.PW22/D after which the case was registered.
(42) He has testified that on 16.7.2012 he again visited the spot of incident and prepared the site plan Ex.PW22/E and then he along with Ct. Vijender and L/Ct. Kalawati proceeded for further investigations and from the spot he arrested the accused Rajender vide memo Ex.PW5/A; accused Sita was arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/D and their personal search was carried out vide memos Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/E and their St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 31 disclosure statements were recorded vide memo already Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/F respectively. The witness has also deposed that thereafter at the instance of accused Sita one sari (ligature) and one wooden stool were recovered from the bathroom of the accused. He has proved that the said sari was converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of DS and given S. No. 1 and the wooden stool was given sl. no. 2 and both were taken into possession vied memo Ex.PW22/F. He has deposed that thereafter he along with both the accused and the staff and case property came to the Police Station where he deposited the case property in the malkhana and the accused were kept in the lockup and on next day they were produced before the concerned MM from where they were sent to Judicial Custody. The witness has testified that on 17.7.2012 Rajender and his wife Munni Devi came to the Police Station and handed over him the marriage card and marriage photographs of the deceased with accused Amit which he took into possession vide memo Ex.PW14/E and thereafter he produced Munni Devi before concerned SDM where her statement was recorded by the SDM. According to the witness, on 1.8.2012 the brother of the deceased namely Jitender came to the Police Station and he recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC. He has also deposed that on 4.8.2012 the accused Neetu was formally arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/A as she was on anticipatory bail. He has further deposed that on 13.8.2012 the accused Kishan Kumar and Mahesh Kumar were formally arrested vide memos Ex.PW22/G and Ex.PW22/H as they both were on anticipatory St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 32 bail. He has proved that during investigations he collected postmortem report, Crime Team report and photographs of the crime team and also obtained the subsequent opinion from the autopsy surgeon of the ligature mark vide Ex.PW17/C. According to the witness, he got deposited the viscera petty in FSL Rohini through Ct. Nagraj vide receipt no. 5978 copy of which is Ex.PW22/J. He has also deposed that thereafter he served notice under Section 91 Cr.PC upon Jitender Kumar which is Ex.PW22/K but no reply was received and thereafter, investigations were handed over to Inspector Ram Kishore.
(43) The witness has correctly identified all the accused persons in the Court and also identified the ligature material i.e. Sari which is Ex.P1 and the stool which is Ex.P2.
(44) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that he did not join any public persons while recording the disclosure statements of accused Rajender Kumar, Sita Devi, Mahesh, Kishan and Neetu. He has denied the suggestion that he recorded the disclosures of these accused i.e. Rajender Kumar, Sita Devi, Mahesh, Kishan and Neetu of his own or that they did not make any such disclosures. He has admitted that there was no recovery of any article, property etc. pursuant to the aforesaid disclosures. According to the witness, only the brother of the deceased Jitender made allegations regarding demand of dowry. He has admitted that he had given notice under Section 91 Cr.PC to him to disclose the details of the demands and St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 33 the articles so given but he did not provide the details and states that he would produce the same in the court directly. The witness has further deposed that he also interrogated the parents of the deceased on the aspect of demand but they did not disclose anything about the same and confined themselves to the earlier statements they had made to the SDM. He has denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the fair and proper investigations or that the entire family of the accused has been falsely implicated on the persistence of the family of the deceased as they were aggrieved by the death of their daughter and insisted upon action. (45) PW23 Inspector Ram Kishore is the subsequent Investigating Officer who has deposed that on 04.12.2012 investigation of this case was handed over to him and he received the file from the MHC(R). He has further deposed that after perusing the file the accused namely Amit had surrendered himself in the police station who was interrogated and was arrested vide memo Ex.PW11/A, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW11/B and made a disclosure statement which is Ex.PW11/C after which he was produced before the concerned court from where he was sent to Judicial Custody. The witness has testified that on 11.01.2013 he made request to Chairman, Forensic Medicines for seeking the subsequent opinion of the Postmortem Report vide his request Ex.PW23/A and the subsequent opinion on the Viscera report is Ex.PW17/B. He has testified that during the investigations he recorded statement of witnesses and after completing the charge sheet he filed the St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 34 same in the court alognwith relevant documents.
(46) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has denied the suggestion that he took the signatures of accused Amit on blank papers and subsequently the same were converted into incriminating documents against the accused. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused did not make any disclosure statement or that he had prepared the same of his own.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(47) After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied. The accused Rajender Prasad, Sita Devi, Neetu @ Preeti, Krishan Kumar, Mahesh Kumar and Amit have all stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated by the family of the deceased being aggrieved by the death of the deceased. According to the accused, they have never taunted or tortured the deceased for any reason.
They have further stated that on the death of the deceased her parental family were aggrieved by the same and blamed them for the same being highly perturbed but now in the court they have given the true version. (48) However, the accused have referred not to examine any witness in their defence.
St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 35 FINDINGS:
(49) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsels. I have also gone through the evidence on record. My findings are as under:
Identity of the accused:
(50) In so far the identity of the accused persons is concerned the same is not disputed. The accused Amit Kumar is the husband of Anita, accused Rajender Prasad is the father in law, Sita Devi is the mother in law, Neetu @ Preeti is the married sister in law/ Nanand, accused Krishan and Mahesh are the maternal uncle in law of Anita. All the accused have been identified in the Court as such and hence I hereby hold that the identity of the accused stands established.
Unnatural death with seven years of marriage:
(51) It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the marriage between the accused Amit and the deceased Anita was solemnized on 15.5.2010 which was an arranged marriage and her unnatural death took place on 15.7.2012 i.e. within seven years of marriage (precisely within two years and two months of marriage).
Medical Evidence:
(52) Dr. Bina (PW15) from SGM Hospital has proved that on 15.07.2012 at about 8.40 PM patient Anita was brought to the hospital by St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 36 Amit in an unconscious condition, her pulse was not pulpable, BP was not recordable, Heart beat was not audible, the pupils were dilated, per abdomen sounds were not audible, respiratory did not find any movement and hence the patient was declared brought dead in the casualty. She has proved the MLC of Anita which is Ex.PW15/A. (53) Further, Dr. Munish Wadhawan (PW7) and Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW18) from SGM Hospital have proved the postmortem report of the deceased which is Ex.PW7/A according to which on examination a ligature mark 21 cm long was present above thyroid/ cartilage in mid line of neck running obliquely upwards and backwards on both sides and absent at nape of neck, it was .6 cm wide and 5 cm below chin; 1.2 cm wide and 3 cm below right ear; 1.5 cm wide and 2 cm below left ear, the base of mark was hard and brownish. The cause of death was kept pending till the receipt of chemical analysis report of the viscera and blood. However, on 11.01.13 pursuant to the application of the Investigating Officer, after going through the chemical analysis report showing phosphide in blood and viscera bases on postmortem report and chemical analysis report the doctors opined that the cause of death as asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging with aluminum phosphide (sulfas) intoxication, which subsequent opinion is Ex.PW17/B. Dr. Munish Wadhawan (PW7) and Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW18) have also proved having opined that there was a possibility of St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 37 hanging by the ligature material i.e. multicoloured terricot/ synthetic saree Ex.P1 which subsequent opinion is Ex.PW17/C. This being the background, I hold that the medical evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution case of suicidal death of the deceased i.e by consuming Celphos followed by suicidal hanging.
Forensic Evidence:
(54) Sh. M.L. Meena (PW13) Senior Scientific Officer has proved the chemical analysis report Ex.PW3/A according to which Ex.1a was found to contain aluminum phosphide, Ex.1b and Ex.1c were found to contain phosphide, while during chemical examination Ex.1d gave negative test for common poisoning. The above forensic evidence on record establishes that the deceased Anita had consumed Celphos before committing suicide.
Allegations against the accused under Section 498A & 304B IPC (dowry death proximity test):
(55) The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the accused Amit and Anita (now deceased) had taken place on 15.5.2010 according to Hindu rites and customs. The alliance was fixed through the maternal uncles of the accused Amita namely Mahesh and Krishan who are distantly related to the family of the deceased. It is alleged that soon after the marriage the deceased Anita was harassed and tortured by the St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 38 accused persons for or in connection with demand of dowry and she was subjected to cruelty, abuses and physical violence and being fed up with the same, Anita committed suicide.
(56) Before coming to the discussion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution on merits, it is necessary to discuss the law in this regard.
In order to succeed in charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the section. It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health. The use of the expression "willful" in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonably expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative, as the St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 39 case may be. Everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act and such a presumption must necessarily be drawn even if there is no intention to cause any injury or harm to the woman. Whether the conduct in question is likely to drive the woman to cause injury to her life, limb or health, will depend upon a number of factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of awareness of the aggrieved woman, her temperament, state of her health, physical as well as mental and how she is likely to perceive such a behavior. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, it will also constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
(57) The expression "Cruelty" takes in its ambit mental cruelty as well as physical torture of the woman. If the conduct of the accused with a woman is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life and safety, such a conduct would attract criminal liability, envisaged in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
(58) If the woman has been harassed on account of her failure or the failure of her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, that also constitutes cruelty, within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC. The expression "harassment" has not been St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 40 defined in Section 498A of IPC, but its dictionary meaning is to subject someone to continuous vexatious attacks, questions, demands or other unpleasantness, etc. However, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under section 498A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, by positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand.
(59) Further, in order to establish a charge under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, which deals with what is described as "dowry death", the prosecution must necessarily prove the following ingredients: i. The death of a woman must have been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstance;
ii. Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
iii. Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband;
iv. Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry;
v. Such cruelty or harassment is when to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
(60) The term "Dowry" has not been defined in Section 304B of IPC, but, since this expression has been defined in Section 2 of Dowry St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 41 Prohibition Act, it is required to be given the same meaning for the purpose of under Section 304B IPC as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under:
"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 parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before 3 or any time after the marriage 4in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case or persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."
(61) Dowry would include that property or valuable security which is actually given or which is agreed to be given, in relation to the marriage of a person in question. The property or valuable security may be given or may be agreed to be given before marriage or at the time of marriage or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the marriage. However, there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given and the marriage. If at any time before or at the time of or even during marriage, the parents of a woman or any other person related or connected to her agree to give some cash, valuable security or property to her husband or inlaws after marriage, that also would be covered within the definition of dowry as the agreement or promise in such a case would St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 42 be attributable to the marriage or proposed marriage and if there is demand for any cash property, valuable security etc. which is promised, but not given, it would constitute demand for dowry. If the husband of the girl or any other person related or connected to him, demands something from the girl or her parents or any other person related to or connected with her, saying that the articles being demanded by them were expected to be given or ought to have been given in marriage, that would also, to my mind, constitute demand of dowry because even though such an article may not have been agreed or promised to be given by the girl or her family members, it might have been in the contemplation of the boy and/or his family members, on account of the expectation that such an article would be given at the time of marriage. Therefore, such demand would be considered to be a demand in connection with the marriage though made after the marriage has been solemnized. Even demand of articles such as T.V., fridge, jewellery, clothes, furniture, etc. which usually are given or expected in marriages in our country, would, considering the objective sought to be achieved by incorporating Section 304B in Indian Penal Code and enacting Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 fall within the purview of Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. (62) In the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1998 SC 958, the Apex Court has specifically held demand of T.V., Fridge, etc. though not agreed to be given or promised or even demanded prior to or at the time of marriage, to be a demand for St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 43 dowry for the purpose of Section 304B of IPC. If cash or some property, etc. is demanded by the boy or his family members, after marriage, saying that they were expecting such cash, property, etc. to be given in marriage, and the girl, or her parents or any other person related or connected to her promise to fulfill such a demand, that also may fall within the purview of dowry, as the promise though made after marriage, would nevertheless be referrable to the marriage, having been made with a view to preserve the marriage. In case, if the demand is made after marriage and it is in respect of a property or valuable security, which was not demanded, was not expected to be given and also was not in contemplation at any time up to solemnization of marriage, demand of such cash, property or valuable security, etc. cannot be said to be in connection with the marriage and, therefore, would not constitute demand of dowry.
(63) In the case of Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45 while dealing with this issue, the Hon"ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:
"Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties". This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 44 payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304B should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage."
(64) In the case of Appasaheb and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2007 SC 763, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"...... In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning........ A demand for money on account of some financial St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 45 stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure....."
(65) The Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act are both remedial and penal statutes. As such Courts are expected to construe the provisions in a way that the purpose is fulfilled through and within the limits of language employed in the statute. If a case is established then the Courts are to be stringent in dealing with the culprits. The Courts while taking a stringent view and despite the obligation of the Legislature enactment a success have also to keep in mind that the charge should be made out. The main ingredients to be proved for establishing a case under Section 304B IPC are (i) unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and (ii) she being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with any demand of dowry.
(66) The words "it is shown" occurring in section 304B IPC are of significance for the reason that the initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Section 304B IPC do exist on the St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 46 prosecution. This being shown or established, the question of presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would arise. In other words, to draw a presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act the necessary ingredient that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry has to be proved. Only when these facts are proved then by virtue of the deeming provision of section 304B IPC, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death. Though cruelty at any time after the marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and harassment envisaged by Section 304 B is to be soon before the death of a woman.
(67) The Courts are required to scrutinize the evidence carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is a demand and then the atmosphere becomes calm and quiet and then again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of her husband within a short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as the torture and harassment is confined to the four walls of the house. The Courts are, however, required to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in laws are strained for any reason whatever it might be.
St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 47 (68) Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological problem or mental agony or such circumstances that the person committing suicide may think that life he or she is living is more miserable than the pangs and agony of death. The power of tolerance would vary from person to person . Some persons try to make the life easy by tolerance while others even on petty points bring an end to their life. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported as Gurditta Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1992 Crl. L.J. 309). (69) The importance of proximity test is both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive section 304B IPC and Section 113B Evidence Act is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" used in Section 113B of the Evidence Act, Illustration (a) of the Act is relevant. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before"
would normally imply that the interval should not be too much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 48 cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
(70) It is well settled by several judgments that mere suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt. In the case reported as State of Punjab Vs.. Bhajan Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 258, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "......... The circumstances of this case undoubtedly create suspicion against the accused. Suspicion, by itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of the accused....."
(71) In another case reported as Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: ".......Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 49 hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of this innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have benefit of that doubt........ It needs all the same to be reemphasized that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. The courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because the acquittal might have an impact upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record.
Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused...."
(72) In another case reported as AIR 1973 SC 2622, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under : "...... Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before the court can convict and the mental distinction between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure consideration....." (73) Further more, in another case reported as Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 50 was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under : ''......Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this Court in the case of "Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) stated thus:
It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished.
There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted....."
(74) It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. (75) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, at the very Outset I may observe that the star witness of the St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 51 prosecution i.e. complainant Rajender Kumar (PW14) who is the father of the deceased has turned totally hostile on the aspect of harassment caused to his daughter and also with regard to the demand of dowry. He has not supported the earlier version given to the SDM that his deceased daughter had told him that his mother in law and her Nanand used to abuse her or that she was being taunted by her mother in law Sita Devi, father in law Rajender Prasad, Nanand Neetu and maternal uncles in law Krishan and Mukesh. In his crossexamination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State he has admitted having made his statement Ex.PW44/D to the SDM but has denied that his daughter had been illtreated by the accused for meeting unlawful demands or that he has compromised the matters with the accused. In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels he has explained that the marriage had been mediated through Mahesh and Krishan and the elder brother of Krishan is married to the daughter of his Tau in the village and that is how they are related. According to him, there used to be some complaints regarding the abuses etc. but there was nothing serious. A specific Court Question was put to the witness that whenever his daughter complained about the behaviour of her mother in law and sister in law and abuses her in a filthy language whether he and his family members made any attempts to understand them or advise them or inform any authority, to which he stated that he did advise them.
However, he has not been able to place on record any document to show that he had make any complaints to any authority and has simultaneously St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 52 added that he did not wish to have any action against them and has no complaints against them.
(76) Secondly it is not only the complainant Rajender Kumar (PW11) who has turned hostile but also the mother of the deceased namely Munni Devi (PW16), Jitender (PW19) brother of the deceased and Nand Kishore (PW21) uncle/ Tau of the deceased have all resiled from their previous/ earlier statements made to the SDM and police. They have not been able to inform the Court the circumstances in which the deceased and it was only on Court Question that they have conceded that the deceased used to be abused but at the same time has also clarified that this was not something abnormal and were day to day skirmishes of matrimonial life and nothing serious. They have denied that they have compromised with the accused persons due to which they have resiled from their earlier statements and have explained that even the case was registered they had not told the Investigating Officer to register a case or proceed against the accused.
(77) Thirdly Sh. Kuldeep Singh (PW20) the then SDM Saraswati Vihar is the officer who had conducted the inquest proceedings in respect of the deceased who has in his crossexamination stated that when he interacted with the father of the deceased he did not express any suspicion on his son in law i.e. accused Amit but insisted an action upon his parents and sister. The SDM has further stated that when he had made inquiries from the father of the deceased with regard to the nature of St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 53 disputes he (father of the deceased) did not specify the same and said that they were day to day skirmishes and petty matters relating to marital life but nothing big. Here, I may note that it is similar to the statement of the parents and family members of the deceased which they have made before this Court. The SDM Sh. Kuldeep Singh has also confirmed that the father of the deceased did not disclose about any demand of dowry nor any incident of physical harassment and even the mother of the deceased did not express any suspicion on the accused Amit Kumar but sought action against the family of Amit without specifying the demand of dowry and the physical harassment. Here, I may observe that not every case of unnatural death of a woman within seven years of marriage is on account of harassment or demand of dowry. There can be many other reasons which can be attributed to this extreme act committed by the deceased/ victim compelling her to take her own life which would be peculiar to each case and in the present case the prosecution has failed to bring on record any evidence to connect the accused with this extreme act of the deceased.
(78) In view of my above discussion it is clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased Anita had committed suicide by hanging herself at her matrimonial home but the prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment by the accused persons. The prosecution has failed to establish any proximity or live link between the death of Anita or any misconduct by the accused St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 54 persons. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the role of the accused in the commission of the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt nor there is anything on record to show that the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide on account of conduct of the accused or cruelty inflicted upon her. FINAL CONCLUSIONS (79) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 55 conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(80) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that the identity of the accused persons stands established. The accused Amit Kumar is the husband of the deceased Anita; the accused Rajender Prasad is the father in law; the accused Smt. Sita Devi is the mother in law of the deceased; the accused Neetu @ Preeti is the married sister in law of the deceased and the accused Mahesh and Krishan are the maternal uncles in law of the deceased. It has been established that the marriage between the accused Amit and Anita was solemnized on 15.5.2010 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies which alliance was fixed through the accused Mahesh and Krishan who are distantly related to the family of the deceased. It has been established that on 15.7.2012 Anita committed suicide by consuming Celphos and by hanging herself and the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging with aluminium phosphide (sulfas) intoxication. (81) However, the allegations against the accused persons of infliction of cruelty or causing harassment to the deceased in connection with demand of dowry, do not stand established beyond reasonable doubt. The deceased had committed suicide at her matrimonial house but prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment by the accused. Also, the prosecution has failed to establish St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 56 any proximity or live link between the death of Anita or any misconduct by the accused. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the role of the accused persons in the commission of the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt nor there is anything on record to show that the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide on account of conduct of the accused. (82) I hereby hold that the circumstances reflected from the material on record do not stand conclusively established. The facts are also are not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The chain of evidence is not so much complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused persons. The material brought on record by the prosecution are insufficient to hold that each of the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Further, each circumstance has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also not been able to establish a conclusive link connecting each individual circumstance with the other, and the accused. Crucially, the material and evidence on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a court to record a finding of guilt of the accused.
(83) Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Rajender Prasad, Sita Devi, Neetu @ Preeti, Mahesh, Krishan and Amit, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to them who St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 57 are acquitted of the charges under Section 498A/304B Indian Penal Code.
(84) File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 18.2.2014 ASJII(NW)/ROHINI St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 58 State Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc. FIR No. 282/2012 PS Sultan Puri 18.2.2014 Present: Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
All accused are on bail with Sh. Gaurav Kumar and Sh. Ankit Sethi Advocates.
Statements of all the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded. Accused do not wish to examine any witness in their defence. Heard final arguments.
Be listed for orders at 4:00 PM.
(Dr. Kamini Lau)
ASJII(NW)/ 18.2.2014
4:00 PM
Present: Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
All accused are on bail with Sh. Gaurav Kumar and Sh. Ankit Sethi Advocates.
Vide my separate detail order dictated and announced in the open court, the accused Rajender Prasad, Sita Devi, Neetu @ Preeti, Mahesh, Krishan and Amit are acquitted of the charges under Section 498A/304B Indian Penal Code. Their sureties stand discharged as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJII(NW)/ 18.2.2014 St. Vs. Rajender Prasad Etc., FIR No. 282/12, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 59