Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Lalit Kumar on 25 June, 2013
IN THE COURT OF Sh. K.S. Pal: ASJ: KKD COURTS: DELHI
S.C. No: 19/2011
State Versus 1. Lalit Kumar
s/o Soran Singh
r/o D/145, Pandav Nagar,
Ganesh Nagar, Delhi.
2. Shri Soran Singh
s/o Late Leeladhar
r/o D/145, Pandav Nagar,
Ganesh Nagar, Delhi.
3. Shrimati Ram Murti
w/o Shri Soran Singh
r/o D/145, Pandav Nagar,
Ganesh Nagar, Delhi.
4. Shri Devender
s/o Shri Soran Singh
r/o D/145, Pandav Nagar,
Ganesh Nagar, Delhi.
5. Smt Urmila
w/o Shri Devender
r/o D/145, Pandav Nagar,
Ganesh Nagar, Delhi.
FIR No: 147/2011
P.S.: Mandawali
U/s. 498-A/304-B/201/34 IPC
Date of institution of charge sheet
before ld MM 10.07.2011
Date of committal before this court 03.08.2011
Date on which the judgment was reserved 31.05.2013
Date on which judgment has been delivered: 25.06.2013
JUDGMENT
1. All the five accused persons namely - Lalit Kumar; Soran Singh; Ram Murti; Devender and Smt Urmila Devi residents of D-145, Pandav Nagar, Ganesh Nagar, Delhi were arrested by the police of PS Mandawali in case bearing FIR No.: 147/11 and have been challaned to the Court for facing the SC No.: 11/2011 page 1 of 20 trial for the offences punishable u/s. 498-A/304-B/201/34 IPC. After the compliance of provisions of Section 207 CrPC by the court concerned of ld MM, this case was committed to the Court of Sessions which was allocated to this court for trial of these accused persons for the alleged offences.
2. The allegations of the prosecution against the accused persons as mentioned in the chargesheet are that Vinita (now deceased) was married to accused Lalit Kumar on 02.07.2009 according to Hindu rites and customs at Delhi and after marriage Vinita (now deceased) started living at her matrimonial home bearing House D-145, Pandav Nagar, Ganesh Nagar, Delhi with her husband and in-laws. It is stated that after about 10-15 days of the marriage, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention started harassing and torturing Vinita on grounds of dowry demands i.e. four wheeler vehicle as accused Lalit Kumar is an Engineer and when this fact was brought to the knowledge of her father by Vinita, Rs. 70,000/- by way of cheque was given to accused persons on 18.07.2009 but accused persons continued harassment and torture on Vinita and even after the birth of a female child on 07.05.2010 accused persons started inflicting more cruelty to Vinita for demanding money for a four wheeler vehicle and on 10.04.2011 Vinita had talked with her father Krishan Kumar on mobile phone and had told him about her beating and torture on the same ground and on 11.04.2011 Vinita gave an SMS on the mobile of her friend - Manisha and thereafter she was found hanged at her matrimonial home at about 1.20 p.m. Police was informed and DD no. 22 A (Ex. PW 20/A) was recorded on the basis of which police reached the spot and SDM was also called. Thereafter dead body of Vinita was brought down after cutting the chunni with the help of which she had hanged herself and committed suicide and dead body of Vinita was taken to LBS Hospital for MLC and after post- mortem, dead body was handed over to her father. SDM also recorded the statement of Krishan Kumar in the hospital as Ex. PW 2/A on the basis of which SC No.: 11/2011 page 2 of 20 ruqqa was sent by SI Vijay Kumar and present FIR was registered. Police filed the challan in the court after completing the investigation by recording the statements of concerned witnesses and by collecting the incriminating evidence and material during the investigation.
3. After hearing the submissions on the point of charge, vide order dated 08.12.2011, ld predecessor of this court framed charge against accused persons - Lalit Kumar, Soran Singh and Ram Murti for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/34; 201/34 304-B/34 IPC and in the alternative under Section 302/34 IPC to which all these three accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As regards, accused persons - Devender and Urmila charge for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 IPC was framed against them to which these accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the alleged offences, prosecution has examined as many as twenty one witnesses in support of this case and also placed on record all the relevant incriminating documentary evidence.
5. PW 1 - Head Constable Suresh is a formal witness who proved on record computerized copy of the FIR as Ex. PW 1/A.
6. PW 2- Shri Krishan Kumar; PW 4 - Manisha; PW 6 - Surekha; PW 7 - Anamika; PW 8 - Smt Hem Lata; Pw 9 - Varun Gautam and PW 10 - Het Ram are the material witnesses of this case who deposed about the marriage of Vinita (now deceased) with accused Lalit Kumar and her harassment and torture on the ground of dowry demands as well as causing her death of Vinita by hanging under mysterious circumstances.
7. PW 3 - Dr B.N. Acharya proved on record the post-mortem report on the dead body of Vinita prepared by him as Ex. PW 3/A.
8. PW 5 - Dr. O.S. Tomar, CMO, LBS Hospital proved on record the MLC prepared by him on 11.04.2011 as Ex. PW 5/A. SC No.: 11/2011 page 3 of 20
9. PW 11- Const Manoj proved on record positives of photographs taken by him at the spot on 11.04.2011 as Ex. PW 11/A 1 to A 9 along with their negatives as Ex. PW 11/B1 to B9.
10. PW 12 - Constable Vindhyanchal Singh deposed about the taking of dead body of Vinita to mortuary of LBS Hospital on 11.04.2011 on the directions of the IO for the purpose of post-mortem and handing over the same to her relatives on 12.04.2011 after the post-mortem. This witness also deposed ab out the non tampering of dead body of Vinita till it remained under his supervision.
11. PW 13- Hukam Singh, Dy Registrar, the then SDM deposed about his reaching at the spot i.e. D-145, Pandav Nagar, Ganesh Nagar, Delhi wherein a young lady was found hanging with a chunni, brought down the dead body of that lady after cutting chunni, making some inquiries and recording the statement of Krishan Kumar, father of the deceased in LBS Hospital on 11.04.2011 as Ex. PW 2/A, giving the directions to SHO to take necessary action. This witness also prepared inquest proceedings in LBS Hospital on 12.04.2011 as Ex. PW 13/A.
12. PW 14 - Lady Constable Babita deposed about the arrest of accused Ram Murti vide arrest memo Ex. PW 14/A on 24.06.2011 after conducting of her personal search vide memo Ex. PW 14/B.
13. PW 15 - Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodaphone, proved on record CDR of mobile phone number 9873876061 from 10.04.2011 to 13.04.2011 as Ex. PW 15/B along with certificate under Sec. 65-B Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW 15/C.
14. PW 16 - Constable Rajinder Kumar deposed that on 02.06.2011 he joined the investigation of this case with SI Vijay Kumar and on that date, accused persons Devender and Urmila were arrested in this case vide arrest memos Ex. PW 16/A & B respectively bearing his signatures at point A. SC No.: 11/2011 page 4 of 20
15. PW 17 - Rajinder Kumar Gupta, Spl. Asst. with State Bank of Patiala, Mahipalpur, Delhi proved on record computer generated copies of saving bank account no. 550016573544 in the name of Krishan Kumar as Ex. PW 17/B showing that on 21.07.2009 an amount of Rs. 70,000/- was withdrawn from this account.
16. PW 18 - Head Constable Sonu Kaushik proved on record scaled site plan - Ex. PW 18/A prepared by him.
17. PW 19 - Rajiv Ranjan, Nodal officer TATA Teleservices, proved on record original CAF (Customer Application Form) of mobile connection number 9212800850 in the name of Lalik Kumar along with I/D proof as Ex. PW 19/A. Moreover, this witness also proved on record CDR of this mobile connection number for the period of 01.04.2011 to 15.04.2011 as Ex. PW 19/B along with Certificate Ex. PW 19/D under 65-B Indian Evidence Act.
18. PW 20 - SI Vijay Kumar is the IO of this case who deposed that on 11.04.2011 on receipt of DD no. 22 A - Ex. PW 20/A he along with Constable reached at the spot i.e. D - 145, Pandav Nagar, Ganesh Nagar, Delhi where a lady was found hanged with the help of chunni and as such, SDM was informed, crime team was also summoned and in the meantime SHO and SI Veer Singh also arrived at the spot. This witness also deposed that after the arrival of SDM at the spot, dead body of deceased was brought down after cutting the chunni and dead body was sent to LBS hospital wherein victim was declared brought dead and dead body was deposited with mortuary and anklet of deceased were seized by him vide memo Ex. PW 20/B. This witness further deposed that in the hospital statement of Shri Krishan Kumar, father of deceased, was recorded by the SDM on the basis of which ruqqa Ex. PW 20/C was prepared and same was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR of this case was registered. This witness further deposed that thereafter he along with complainant Krishan Kumar reached at the spot and prepared site SC No.: 11/2011 page 5 of 20 plan Ex. PW 20/D and upper part of the chunni with other articles as stool and mobile phone were seized vide memo Ex. PW 20/E. This witness also deposed that in the mobile phone, it was found that there was an SMS in part in in Box of the said phone which was sent to Manisha and as such, language of said SMS was transcripted by him on a white sheet as Ex. PW 4/B. This witness also proved on record arrest memos of accused persons Lalit Kumar and Soran Singh as Ex. PW 20/F and 20/G respectively and also the memos regarding their personal search as Ex. PW 20/H & 20/J respectively. Being IO of the case, this witness also deposed about the handing over of the parcels to him after post-mortem on the body of the deceased which were seized vide memo Ex. PW 20/K. This witness also deposed about the recording of the statements of Smt Hem Lata- mother of deceased; Anamika and Varun Gautam - siblings of the deceased and Het Ram - tau of deceased. Moreover, this witness also deposed that on 19.04.2011 complainant Krishan Kumar along with his son Varun Gautam came to the police station and handed over eleven photos of marriage (Ex. PW 9/C1 to C 11) and marriage invitation card (Ex. PW 9/D) which were seized vide memo Ex. PW 9/B. This witness also deposed that during investigations, statement of Surekha and Manish were also recorded and Section 201 IPC was also added in this case. This witness also deposed about the arrest of remaining accused persons and collection of bank record of accused Soran Singh and complainant Krishan Kumar; obtaining the CDRs of deceased Vinita and witness Manisha. This witness also proved on record subsequent opinion - Ex. PW 20/M given by Dr B.M. Acharya about cause of death of deceased Vinita after obtaining the FSL report - Ex. PW 20/L. This witness also identified the wooden stool as Ex. PW 20/P1; piece of chunni as Ex. PW 20/P2 seized by him during the investigation of this case. This witness further deposed that he filed the challan in the court after completion of investigation of this case.
SC No.: 11/2011 page 6 of 20
19. PW 21 - Shri Anurag, Senior Clerk, Punjab National Bank is a formal witness who proved on record the record of saving bank account no. 15090001000123483 in the name of Soran Singh as Ex. PW 21/A showing that as per this record, an amount of Rs. 70,000/- has been encashed in this account vide cheque bearing number 401543.
20. Statement of each of the accused person under Section 313 CrPC has been separately recorded in order to give each of them an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against them. All these accused persons have admitted the marriage of deceased Vinita with accused Lalit Kumar on 02.07.2009 but they denied other allegations of harassment and torture on Vinita by them for demanding of four wheeler vehicle by taking the defence that deceased was given due love and affection by them and they have been implicated falsely in this case by the parents of the deceased and other family members of deceased Vinita in order to take revenge due to this unfortunate incident. All the accused persons also pleaded their innocence but they did not opt to lead defence evidence.
21. I have heard the arguments made by ld Addl PP for the State duly assisted by ld counsel for the complainant and ld counsel for the accused persons at great length in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case as well as evidence and materials placed on record and also the cases relied upon in support of their respective submissions.
22. Ld Addl PP for the State duly assisted by ld counsel for the complainant submitted that guilt of the accused persons for the alleged offences has been proved against all the accused persons by adducing cogent and convincing evidence by examining prosecution witnesses namely PW 2- Shri Krishan Kumar; PW 4 - Manisha; PW 6 - Surekha; PW 7 - Anamika; PW 8 - Smt Hem Lata; Pw 9 - Varun Gautam and PW 10 - Het Ram and evidence of these witnesses is reliable and trustworthy further submitting that their evidence can SC No.: 11/2011 page 7 of 20 not be disbelieved/discarded merely on the ground of minor contradictions and inconsistencies. It is also submitted that all the essential ingredients for the offences punishable under Section 304-B IPC and 498-A IPC have been fully proved in this case and as such, by virtue of Section 113 (b) of Indian Evidence Act , accused persons - Lalit Kumar, Soran Singh and Ram Murri are guilty of the offences to commit dowry death and this presumption of law could not be rebutted by accused persons by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Even, it is also submitted that victim Vinita did not commit suicide and inf act Vinita was murdered by accused persons after committing of murder by accused persons in furtherance of their common intention and thereafter victim was hanged by accused persons because from the perusal of the photographs Ex. PW 11/A1 to A 9 taken at the spot as well as position and manner of hanging of the victim, it was not possible to commit suicide. It was also argued that minor contradictions and inconsistencies in evidence of material witnesses did not affect the credibility and truthfulness of their version. Reliance has also been placed on record on the case reported as Satnarain Tiwari @ Jolly V State of UP [2011 (1) CC Cases (SC) 117].
23. Ld counsel for the accused persons, on the other hand, vehemently contended that the testimony of PW 2 - Krishan Kumar; PW 6 - Surekha; PW 7
- Anamika; PW 8 - Hem Lata; PW 9 - Varun Gatuam and PW 10 - Het Ram, who are parents and relatives of the deceased are not reliable and trustworthy due to improvements and embellishments made by them during their depositions before the court as is clear from their cross examinations and the story of the prosecution regarding the harassment, beating and maltreatment to Vinita by the accused persons for or in connection with dowry demands i.e. four wheeler vehicle has been demolished to the ground by PW 4 - Manisha, friend of deceased, to whom deceased had sent an SMS from her mobile phone on the mobile phone of Manisha on 11.04.2011 in which there was no mention of SC No.: 11/2011 page 8 of 20 her harassment or torture on the grounds of dowry demands. Even, it was also submitted that these allegations of dowry demands etc have been levelled by PW 2- Krishan Kumar, father of the deceased to implicate the accused persons falsely in order to wrack vengeance and out of anger and ... due to this unfortunate incident of suicide committed by Vinita and there were no previous complaints given to the concerned authority(ies)/police regarding harassment and beating to Vinita on ground of dowry demands as Vinita was given proper love and affection by her husband and in-laws at her matrimonial home as it has also come on record during the cross examination of PW 2 - Krishan Kumar and PW 9 -Varun Gautam who admitted that Vinita was given a mobile phone along with sim by her husband and her bank account was also got opened and even PAN card was also got issued in her name and even Vinita was allowed to appear in the examination of LDC in District Courts. It was also submitted that the amount of Rs. 70,000/- which was given by PW 2 - Krishan Kumar by way of cheque was for the furnitures agreed to be given in the marriage of Vinita and which was got prepared by accused persons at their houses through carpenter at the instance of PW 2 - Krishan Kumar and PW 9 - Varun Gautam who admitted this fact during their cross examination that furnitures to be given in the marriage of Vinita was agreed to be prepared at the house of accused persons as per their wish/desire. It was also urged by ld defence counsel that all the requisite conditions for invoking the applicability of provisions of Section 304-B IPC could not be fulfilled int his case and there is no cogent and convincing evidence and materials to show that Vinita (now deceased) was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons soon before her death for or in connection with dowry demands and presumption under Sec. 113 (b) Indian Evidence Act can not be pressed into service. Even, it was also submitted that mobile phone of Vinita was seized by the IO but it was not sent to FSL for expert report and even the alleged SC No.: 11/2011 page 9 of 20 incomplete message sent by Vinita to PW 4 - Manisha on her mobile phone on 11.04.2011 could not be got retrieved by the IO and the hand written transcription of the said SMS was prepared by the IO himself which is proved on record as Ex. PW 4/B and as such, it can not be relied upon as much trustworthy and truthfulness of such transcription prepared by the IIO is doubtful because PW 4 - Manisha during her cross examination admitted that 1/3rd portion of this SMS transcription Ex. PW 4/B was not received by her on her mobile phone. It is also urged that the alleged suicide note as mentioned by the IO in his hand written transcription of said SMS could not be recovered by the IO from TV trolley and even no finger prints were lifted by the IO and the benefit of this faulty investigation is to be given to the accused persons. It is also submitted that Vinita committed suicide for the reasons best known to her as suicides are committed by persons for various reasons. In support of his submissions, ld counsel has placed reliance on the cases reported as Narender Singh Arora Vs State of NCT decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 01.09.2010 in Crl Revision Petition NO. 555/03; Ramanand & Or V State of Rajasthan [2000 Crl LJ 2522]; Preeti Gupta & Ors V State of Jharkhand [2010 (4) CC Cases 274]; Durga Dass & Ors Vs State of M.P. [2010 Crl.L.J. 3419]; Sunil Bajaj V State of MP [AIR 2001 SC 3020]; Raman Mahajan V State [MANU/DE/6534/2011]; Naraini Devi V State [1992 JCC 284]; Bhairon Singh V State of MP [2009 (3) JCC 2114] and Haldhar Behera V State of Orissa [2008 Crl LJ 3389].
24. I have bestowed my careful consideration to the rival submissions made by ld Addl PP for the State duly assisted by ld counsel for the complainant and ld defence counsel in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence and materials adduced on record as well as cases relied upon by ld counsel for the parties in support of their respective submissions.
25. The question as to what are the essential ingredients of provisions of SC No.: 11/2011 page 10 of 20 Section304-B IPC is no longer res integra by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Curt in the catina of cases. In this respect, reference can be made to the cases reported as Harjeet Singh V State of Punjab [(2006) (1) SCC 463]; Ram Badan Sharma V State of Bihar [(2006) 10 SCC 115]; Kaliya Perumal V State of Tamuil Nadu [(2004) 9 SCC 157]; Pathan Hussain Basa V State of AP [2012 VIII AD (SC) 48] and Kasmir Kaur & Ors Vs State of Punjab [2013 (I) AD (SC) 244].
From the above decisions, the following principles can be called out:
(i) to attract the provisions of Sec. 304 -B IPC, the main ingredient of offence to be established is that soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry demands:
(ii) the death of the deceased was caused by any burns or bodily injuries or some other circumstances which were not normal;
(iii) such death occurred within seven years from the date of marriage;
(iv) that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with dowry demands;
(v) the expression 'soon before death' is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down as to what constitute a period of soon before the occurrence.
26. Similarly to establish the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the husband or his relative has subjected the victim to cruelty as defined in clauses (a) & (b) of the explanation to Section 498-A IPC and it is not every kind of cruelty which comes within the domain of Section 498-A IPC. In this respect, reference can be made to case reported as Inderajeet S. Bind & Ors Vs State of Gujrat [2013 (IV) AD SC 605].
27. When the essential ingredients of provisions of Sec. 304-B IPC are satisfied, then Section 113 (b) of Indian Evidence Act comes into operation which by fiction of law raises presumption against the accused persons SC No.: 11/2011 page 11 of 20 regarding the commission of dowry death but this presumption under Section 113 (b) Indian Evidence Act is however, rebuttable and accused persons can rebut such presumption of dowry death by leading cogent and convincing evidence to the contrary.
28. Keeping in mind the above principles for invoking the applicability of offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and 498-A IPC, now the question which arises for consideration before this court is as to whether in the instant case, prosecution has succeeded in proving on record the essential ingredients of provisions of Section 304-B IPC and 498-A IPC.
29. For this purpose, I have carefully scrutinised and analysed the evidence of material witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the allegations of harassment and torture on Vinita by her husband and in-laws, the accused persons for or in connection with dowry demands. The material witnesses examined by the prosecution are PW 2- Krishan Kumar, father of deceased; PW 4 - Manisha - friends of deceased; PW 6 - Surekha - cousin of deceased; PW 7 - Anamika - sister of deceased; PW 8 - Hem Lata - mother of deceased; PW 9 - Varun Gautam - brother of deceased and PW 10 - Het Ram - tau of deceased.
30. On a careful scrutiny and analysis of the evidence of these material witnesses, namely PW 2- Krishan Kumar; PW 4 - Manisha; PW 6 - Surekha; PW 7 - Anamika; PW 8 - Hem Lata; PW 9 - Varun Gautam and PW 10 - Het Ram, it is apparent that these material witnesses have made improvements and embellishments in their depositions before the court and moreover, there are also contradictions and inconsistencies in their evidence on some material points.
31. From the perusal of testimony of PW 2 - Krishan Kumar, who being father of the deceased, is also a complainant in this case, it is apparent that this witness made improvements and embellishments in his deposition before the SC No.: 11/2011 page 12 of 20 court as compared to his statement Ex. PW 2/A recorded by the concerned SDM on 11.04.2011. During his cross examination, this witness admitted that in his statement Ex. PW 2/A given to SDM he had not told about the payment of Rs. 70,000/- by way of cheque to accused Soran Singh on 18.07.2009, giving of threats to him by accused Lalit Kumar after consuming liquor, his talking to Vinita (now deceased) on phone on 10.04.2011. Even this witness during his cross examination stated that accused persons had given a list of articles to him to be given at the time of sagai/lagan but no such list has been filed on record. Even during his cross examination, this witness also told about the holding of biradari meeting regarding the harassment and torture on Vinita on ground of dowry demands but no particulars of such biradari meetings have been given by this witness and no person attended such meeting has been examined. PW 8 - Hem Lata, mother of the deceased, during her cross examination, stated that no biradari meeting was held for solving the matter regarding the harassment and torture on Vinita by accused persons. In his cross examination PW 2 also admitted that no previous complaints regarding the harassment and maltreatment of Vinita by accused persons for or in connection with dowry demands were ever made to concerned authorities/police prior to 11.04.2011. Not only this, even PW 2- Krishan Kumar also admitted in his cross examination that all the medical expenses of Vinita at the time of her delivery when she gave birth to a female child were borne by her in-laws and even on the occasion of chhathi, social function was arranged by the accused persons which was attended by him as well as his other family members. Even, this witness also admitted in his cross examination that Vinita was given a mobile phone along with a sim by her husband for her personal use and Vinita (now deceased) used to talk with him and his other family members. Even during his cross examination, this witness also admitted that bank account of Vinita was got opened by her husband with Bank of Baroda, SC No.: 11/2011 page 13 of 20 Pandav Nagar, Delhi and photocopy of the pass book has been proved as Ex. PW 2/DA2 and even copy of PAN Card of Vinita issued at her matrimonial address has been proved on record as Ex. PW 2/DA. Even photo copy of the admit card of Vinita for appearing in the examination for the post of LDC with District Courts, Delhi has been proved on record as Ex. PW 2/DA1.
32. As regards the testimony of PW 9 - Varun Gautam, brother of deceased, it is clear that during his cross examination this witness admitted that accused Lalit Kumar had given a mobile phone along with a sim to his sister Vinita (now deceased) for her personal use and even this witness also admitted during his cross examination that when his mobile phone was lost, accused Lalit Kumar had purchased a mobile phone which was given to him. This witness has also made improvements and embellishments in his deposition before this court and during his cross examination, he was confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
33. The testimony of PW 6 - Surekha is only a hear say evidence. Similarly, testimony of PW 7 - Anamika and and PW 8 - Smt Hem Lata - sister and mother of deceased, is also on the same lines as to what PW 2 - Krishan Kumar deposed in his examination in-chief and both these witnesses have also made improvements and embellishments in their statements made before this court and as such, both these witnesses have been confronted by ld defence counsel during their cross examination with their statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
34. It is thus, apparent that PW 2 - Krishan Kumar: PW 6 - Surekha; PW 7 - Anamika; PW 8 - Hem Lata and PW 9 - Varun Gatum have made improvements and embellishments in their depositions before the court. In the cases reported as Tarun @ Gautam V State of West Bengal [2000 (4) Crimes 261]; Anil Kumar V State of Punjab [2000 (4) Crimes 283 (SC)]; Rohtash V State of Haryana [2012 (III) AD (SC) 365]; Bhupinder @ Kale V SC No.: 11/2011 page 14 of 20 State [2012 (7) LRC 24] and Dr Sunil Kumar Shambhu Dayal Gupta V State of Maharastra [2011 (1) CC Cases SC 51] - it has been held that major improvements and embellishments made by material witnesses in their depositions before this court as compared to their statements recorded under Sec. 161 CrPC render the evidence of such witnesses not much reliable and trustworthy.
35. PW 2- Krishan Kumar; PW 7 - Anamika and PW 8 - Smt Hem Lata , father, sister and mother of deceased have deposed in their examination in- chief that Vinita did not commit suicide, rather she has been killed by the accused persons by disputing the correctness of the theory of suicide as mentioned by the prosecution in the chargesheet. This fact goes to show that the allegations levelled against the accused persons regarding the harassment and torture on Vinita for or in connection with dowry demands are an after thought and not believeabe in view of the fact that there were no previous complaints made against the accused persons to any concerned authorities/police regarding such harassment and torture of Vinita on ground of dowry demands. Even PW 4 - Manisha, friend of Vinita, to whom SMS was sent by deceased on her mobile on 11.04.2011 prior to this incident of hanging has also cast a shadow of doubt about the truthfulness and correctness of these allegations regarding the harassment and torture of Vinita by her husband and in-laws for or in connection with dowry demands and even incomplete message sent by Vinita on the mobile of Manisha, there is no mention of such allegations regarding harassment or torture on ground of dowry demands. Not only this, even PW 4 - Manisha during her cross examination by ld Addl PP for the State admitted that in her statement given by the police under Section 161 CrPC, she had not stated about the harassment and torture of Vinita by her husband and in-laws for or in connection with dowry demands and as such, she was confronted with her statement recorded under Section 161 SC No.: 11/2011 page 15 of 20 CrPC. Even PW 4 during her cross examination categorically stated that 1/3rd portion of the hand written transcription of the said SMS (Ex. PW 4/B) regarding the leaving of any suicide note by Vinita in the TV trolley was not received on her mobile phone.
36. The payment of Rs. 70,000/- made by PW 2 - Krishan Kumar from his bank account by way of cheque to accused Soran Singh on 18.07.2009 allegedly towards part payment for four wheeler vehicle to accused persons can not be believed towards part payment in respect of a four wheeler and the defence taken by the accused persons that the said payment was made towards expenses of furnitures got prepared by the accused persons at their house at the time of the marriage as per desire and wish of PW 2 - Krishan Kumar and PW 9 - Varun Gautam appears to be plausible because in their cross examination both these witnesses namely PW 2 - Krishan Kumar and PW 9 - Varun Gautam admitted that the furnitures to be given in the marriage of Vinita was agreed to be prepared by the accused persons at their house as per their desire and wish, but these witnesses did not explain as to how the cost/expenses of such furnitures was paid by them to the accused persons while denying the suggestion given to them by ld defence counsel that this payment of Rs. 70,000/- was made for the furnitures which was got prepared by the accused persons at their house as per wish and desire of PW 2 & PW 9. Had the accused persons been greedy for dowry demands, then such payment by way of cheque could not have been received by the accused persons? This fact also falsifies the allegations of harassment and torture on Vinita by accused persons for or in connection with dowry demands. Moreover, if such allegations of harassment and torture of Vinita by accused persons on the ground of dowry demands are assumed to be true, then Vinita should not have been given any mobile phone with sim by her husband and even her bank account should not have been got opened and no PAN Card was to be prepared. All these facts go SC No.: 11/2011 page 16 of 20 to show that Vinita was given love and affection by her husband and in-laws at her matrimonial home.
37. Now-a-days, there is a growing tendency adopted by the the parents of deceased married woman at her matrimonial home within a period of seven years of her marriage, whatever may be the cause of death of such married woman, to implicate the husband and other relatives by making false allegations of harassment and torture on ground of dowry demands in order to take revenge and due to anger. In the case reported as Narender Singh Arora (supra), it has been observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that whenever a married woman dies an unnatural death, within seven years of her marriage at her in-laws' house, whatever may be the cause of death, the husband and in- laws are implicated falsely by making false and general allegations of harassment and torture on deceased for or in connection with dowry demands.
38. In the case reported as State of NCT Vs Rakesh [2012 (3) CC Cases (HC) 344], Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while hearing an appeal in a case under Section 498-A/406/304-B read with Sec. 34 IPC observed that admittedly till the unfortunate incident, no complaint was ever lodged by deceased or her near relatives against any of the accused persons for demanding dowry or harassment and torture for or in connection with dowry demands and deceased was never maltreated and no medical examination was ever conducted to ascertain such physical torture on deceased and she (deceased) used to converse with her parents and other family members on phone and even no Panchayat was ever held to resolve any disputes and differences, then the general allegations of harassment and torture for or on account of dowry demands levelled against the accused persons after the unfortunate incident resulting in the death of married woman are rendered doubtful and not reliable.
39. Here it is also pertinent to refer the case of Raman Mahajan (supra) wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed that if a husband consumes SC No.: 11/2011 page 17 of 20 liquor daily despite constant protest from wife and husband was in the habit of returning home late in night, it was insufficient to establish initial ingredient of cruelty under Sec. 498-A IPC.
40. In the instant case, there were no previous complaints lodged either at PS or other concerned authorities either by deceased or by her close relatives including her parents against any of the accused persons for demanding dowry and harassing the deceased till this unfortunate incident of 11.04.2011 when Vinita committed suicide by hanging. It is also established on record that Vinita (now deceased) was given a mobile phone with sim by her husband and she used to talk with her parents and other family members and allegations of harassment and torture of Vinita on the ground of dowry demands have been levelled against the accused persons only after this unfortunate incident and material witnesses during their depositions before this court have made improvements and embellishments in comparison to their statements recorded under Sec. 161 CrPC and no evidence has been adduced on record that any Biradari Panchayat was ever held for resolving any dispute regarding such harassment and torture of Vinita, Moreover, Vinita was a well educated lady having diploma in Hotel Management and in her SMS sent to Manisha - PW 4, Vinita (now deceased) never mentioned about her harassment and torture by her husband or in-laws for or in connection with dowry demands. In view of these facts and circumstances, the allegations of harassment and torture of Vinita by her husband and in-law levelled by PW 2- Krishan Kumar, father of deceased, after this unfortunate incident of 11.04.2011 appear to be an after thought and not believeable and trustworthy so as to hold the accused persons guilty for the offences punishable under Section 304-B/498-A IPC.
41. In the instant case, an alternative charge under Section 302 IPC has also been framed against accused persons - Lalit Kumar, Soran Singh and Ram Murti for murder of deceased Vinita and even during the course of SC No.: 11/2011 page 18 of 20 arguments, ld counsel for the complainant assisting ld Addl PP for the State emotionally contended that from the perusal of the photographs - Ex. PW 11/A1 to A9, taken at the spot and manner and position of dead body of Vinita hanged with the help of chunni, it is clear cut case of killing Vinita as it was not possible to commit suicide by Vinita, but I do not find any substance in this submission because from the incomplete message sent by Vinita on the mobile phone of PW 4 -Manisha and from its contents , it can safely be concluded that it was a case of suicide and not a case of murder. Even the medical evidence i.e. MLC Ex. PW 5/A; post-mortem report Ex. PW 3/A; FSL report Ex. PW 20/L and subsequent opinion about cause of death Ex. PW 20/M do not support this alleged theory of murder of Vinita. Even suicide is possible by partial hanging which is a form of asphyxia caused by suspension of the body by a ligature which encircles the neck, the constricting force being the weight of the body. The whole weight of body is not necessary and only a comparatively slight force is enough to produce death. In partial hanging, the bodies are partially suspended, the toes and feet are touching ground are in a sitting, kneeling, laying down posture. The weight of the head acts as a constricting force. Homicidal hanging may be suspected when there were signs of violence and disorder of furnitures or other objects or where the clothing of the deceased is torn or disarranged or where there were injuries either offensive or defensive.
42. Undoubtedly, in the present case, deceased Vinita committed suicide and there may be so many reasons to commit suicide and every suicide committed by any married woman at her matrimonial home, within seven years of her marriage, does not raise the presumption of dowry death in the absence of any harassment and torture on such married woman for or in connection with dowry demands, soon before her death. Some people commit suicide for various reasons, some are not able to bear normal stress which are common in life, some are not able to cope up with the circumstances in which they are SC No.: 11/2011 page 19 of 20 placed and some commit suicide because of failure and not achieving the desired goal and even some married women may commit suicide as they being emotional and sensitive are unable to adjust in the family of her husband or she is unable to bear the normal wear and tear of married life. But for such suicide, husband and in-laws can not be held responsible in the absence of cogent and clinching evidence regarding harassment and torture on such married woman by her husband and in-laws.
43. In the present case, it is established on record that investigation of this case has not been conducted in a fair and proper manner because the mobile phone of the deceased which was allegedly seized by the IO, was not sent to FSL for any expert opinion and even the message sent by Vinita (now deceased) on the mobile of PW 4 - Manisha was not got retrieved and even the transcription Ex. PW 4/B of that SMS was prepared by the IO himself and moreover, no finger prints were lifted by the IO from the TV Trolley wherein alleged suicide note was left as alleged by the deceased. The benefit of this defective investigation has to be given to the accused persons. In this respect, reference can be made to the case reported as Kailash Gour V State of Assam [(2012) LRC 81 (SC)].
44. In view of my above discussion coupled with the reasons given as well as well settled proposition of law, I have come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubts and acccordingly, all accused persons - Lalit Kumar, Soran Singh, Smt Ram Murti, Devender and Smt Urmila are hereby acquitted of the charged offences framed against them.
45. File be consigned to RR.
Announced in the open Court (K.S. Pal)
on 25.06.2013 Addl. Sessions Judge:
KKD Courts: Delhi.
SC No.: 11/2011 page 20 of 20