Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Pankaj Raj on 16 October, 2010
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-II(NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No.: 591/06
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0132522006
State Vs. 1. Pankaj Raj
S/o Sh. Surender Kumar
R/o B-3A/269,
Janak Puri, Delhi
(Acquitted)
2. Surender Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Budh Raj
R/o B-3A/269,
Janak Puri, Delhi
(Acquitted)
3. Smt. Kamlesh
W/o Sh. Surender Kumar
R/o B-3A/269,
Janak Puri, Delhi
(Acquitted)
FIR No.: 207/06
Police Station: Janak Puri
Under Section: 498A/304B/34 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to sessions court: 5.8.2006
Date on which order was reserved: 17.9.2010/ 12.10.2010
Date on which judgment announced: 16.10.2010
JUDGMENT:
As per the allegations on 10.4.2006 the accused Pankaj Raj being the husband of the deceased Smt. Ritu; the accused no.2 St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 1 of 66 Surender Kumar being the father in law of the deceased Smt. Ritu and accused no.3 Smt. Kamlesh being the mother in law of Smt. Ritu, subjected her to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry to the deceased Smt. Ritu and committed dowry death by causing the death of Smt. Ritu within 7 years of marriage.
BRIEF FACTS:
Case of the prosecution:
The case of the prosecution is that on 10.4.2006 DD No.29A was received at Police Station Janak Puri regarding the suicide of a lady at House No. B3A/269, Janak Puri, Distt. Park pursuant to which Sub Inspector Desh Raj along with Constable Ghanshyam reached the spot and found the dead body of one lady Ritu. On inquiry SI Desh Raj came to know that the deceased was being tortured for dowry due to which reason she committed suicide. Information was sent to the SDM, Patel Nagar since the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. On 11.4.2006 the SDM Sh. K.K. Sharma recorded the statements of Satyam Bhambri (brother of the deceased), Smt. Shashi (mother of the deceased) and Sh. Ajay Bajaj. In their statements Satyam Bhambri and Smt. Shashi stated that Smt. Ritu was married to the accused Pankaj Raj on 9.12.2005 and since after two to three days of her marriage she was being harassed and physically beaten by her husband who is supported by his parents in demand of dowry.
Satyam Bhambir has also informed the SDM that his sister visited their house and told him that she was being excessively harassed and tortured and even being denied food for demand of Rs.50,000/-. He St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 2 of 66 has also stated to the SDM that on 10.4.2006 at about 10:15 pm they received phone call from accused Surender Vij that Ritu had locked herself inside the room and was not attending the phone calls pursuant to which he along with his mother Smt. Shashi reached the house of the accused and went to the room at first floor which was bolted from outside. He has further stated that they opened the door and found that his sister was hanging on a ceiling fan and was dead. On the basis of the statement of Sh. Satyam Bhambri who is the brother of the deceased, the present case was registered on the direction so the SDM Sh. K.K. Sharma. Thereafter, all the three accused Pankaj Raj, Surender Kumar Vij and Smt. Kamlesh were arrested and charge sheeted under Section 498-A/304-B/34 Indian Penal Code.
CHARGE:
The Ld. Predecessor of this court has settled the charges under Section 498-A and 304-B read with 34 Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE:
In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses.
Public witnesses:
PW1 Satyam Bhambri is the brother of the deceased Ritu who has deposed that his sister Ritu was married to the accused St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 3 of 66 Pankaj Raj on 9.12.2005 and at the time of marriage his parents had given Refrigerator, Double Bed, Almirah, Dressing Table, Jewellery i.e. two gold sets, two rings, two sets of ear-rings and clothes for Ritu, Pankaj and his family members and an amount of Rs.20,000/- paid in cash towards Shagun. He has further deposed that after marriage his sister resided at B-3A/69, Janak Puri, Delhi at the parental house of the accused Pankaj and his parents Surender Vij and mother Kamlesh also resided in the same house. According to him, within one month of marriage Ritu told him that she was being physically beaten by her husband Pankaj and was being supported by his parents who used to beat her for demand of TV and AC. The witness has further deposed that in the month of January 2006, accused Pankaj and his sister were present in their house when an amount of Rs.12,000/- were handed over to Pankaj towards the value of TV and on 8.4.2006 his sister (the deceased) visited their house and told him that she was being excessively harassed and tortured and even being denied food for the demand of Rs.50,000/- which demand was made by accused Pankaj at the instance of his parents. PW1 has specifically deposed that on 10.4.2006 at about 10:20 pm they received a phone call from accused Surender Vij that Ritu had locked herself inside the room ever since she had returned from her office and was also not answering her mobile phone. He has further deposed that the accused Surender Vij also abused and used filthy language asking them to come and get the door opened. He has deposed that he along with his mother immediately reached the house of the accused and they opened two doors which were bolted from outside and entered the room of his St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 4 of 66 sister who was found hanging from the ceiling fan by a bed sheet and her legs were folded and were easily touching the bed. PW1 has deposed that he then removed her from her hanging position with the help of his mother. According to him, when they were climbing up the first floor accused Pankaj met them outside the main gate, carrying some hand bags which were belonging to his sister and told them that he was going to call the doctor. He has testified that his mother raised alarm but none from the neighbourhood joined and he called from his mobile phone for the police as well as the Ambulance and noticed that the cupboard of his sister had been ransacked. The witness has deposed that accused Pankaj returned to the spot along with the doctor who on examination declared his sister dead and thereafter the police reached the spot and the dead body of the deceased had been taken to mortuary of DDU Hospital. He has proved that the ornaments on the body of his sister had been removed by the police and handed over to him vide memo Ex.PW1/A. According to PW1, his statement was recorded by the investigating officer on the intervening night of 10/11.4.2006 and his statement was also recorded by the SDM on 11.4.2006 which is Ex.PW1/B on the basis of which statement the FIR was registered. The witness has proved having went to the spot of occurrence along with the SDM and pointed out the spot to the SDM who prepared the site plan at his instance. PW1 has also testified that he handed over the marriage card which is Ex.P-3 and photographs of the marriage which are Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 to the investigating officer which were seized vide memo Ex.PW1/C. He has also proved having handed over the list of St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 5 of 66 dowry articles which is Ex.PW1/D and has deposed that the dead body of Ritu was sent to DDU Hospital for postmortem and he identified the dead body of his sister vide his statement Ex.PW1/E and after postmortem the dead body was handed over to him vide memo Ex.PW1/F. The witness has further deposed that at the time of occurrence he used mobile phone bearing no. 9811917279; his sister was using phone number 9811090460 and the accused Pankaj Raj used a mobile phone with last digits begin 4424. According to the witness, his sister Ritu committed suicide because of harassment regarding demand of dowry meted out by her in the hands of the three accused persons. He has correctly identified all the accused persons in the court as well as the case property i.e. the bed sheet with which the his sister found hanging which is Ex.P-1. He has also produced the jewellery articles which were taken into possession by the investigating officer i.e. four bangles which are Ex.M1 to Ex.M4; one pair of payal which is collectively Ex.M5; two diamond rings which are Ex.P-6 & P-7; one Mangal Sutra which is Ex.P-8; one gold ring with two lockets which is Ex.P-9; four ear ring of diamonds which are collectively Ex.P-10; one gold ring which is Ex.P-11 and one silver ring which is Ex.P-12. The witness has been put a leading question by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state wherein he has admitted that accused Pankaj possessed a mobile phone bearing no.
9871654424.
In his cross-examination, the witness has deposed that the SDM recorded his statement on 11.4.2006 between 11:00 am to St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 6 of 66 1:00 pm at Police Station Janak Puri in the room of SHO and none from his family member was present at that time inside the room. He has deposed that from November 2005 to April 2006 he was unemployed but under training with his father since his father was working as an Electrical Contractor. According to him, he had to join the job w.e.f. 10.4.2006 but could not join the same because of the present incident and the accused Pankaj Raj had promised to arrange for a job for him at Naraina but the accused had not given any details or contact number of the said employer to him. He has admitted that accused Pankaj Raj and Ritu use to visit their house together but states that Ritu used to come alone more often and accused used to pick-up his sister from her office or from somewhere on the way and they used to meet him at Ramesh Nagar Metro Station where Ritu handed over empty box to him to be refilled and handed over the same on the next day. He has further deposed that Ritu told him that she was not provided the dinner at her matrimonial home which fact she told him about one month after her marriage. PW1 has admitted that the marriage was finalized through an advertisement in newspaper and they had advertised for an early and simple marriage. According to him, the marriage proposal was finalized in October 2005 and no demand was made by accused persons before finalizing of the proposal nor any demand was made during the period of negotiations nor at the time of marriage. He has deposed that the demands by the accused persons came to his knowledge about a month after the marriage which demands were made by accused Pankaj Raj at their house. The witness has further deposed that they St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 7 of 66 did not make any complaint in this regard to the police nor any letter was written by Ritu to them in this regard. PW1 has testified that he had seen the workshop of accused Pankaj Raj which workshop worked on contract basis and polished diamonds for various customers and accused was also one of their customers. He has further deposed that the diamond ring was given to Pankaj at the time of engagement but he does not remember about the other gold items. He admits that the diamond ring was got prepared by Pankaj Raj but states that they had paid for it. The witness does not remember how much money was paid and the mode how it was given for the diamond ring. He is not aware of the weight of the gold set or the shop from which it was purchased but states that the diamond set was not a gift from relations but purchased by them. He has testified that they had spent more than Rs. 3 lacs on the marriage and some money was withdrawn from his account, some purchases were done on credit and some articles were already with his mother. PW1 has admitted that accused Pankaj Raj had taken the deceased to Darjeeling/ Sikkim for honeymoon but he is not aware if he had taken her by air. He is not aware if the accused had gifted a diamond pendent to the deceased on her birthday and the diamond ear-rings on the eve of new year. The witness has further deposed that Ritu was not in love affair with Hemant or any other person but admits that a marriage proposal with Hemant was considered which did not materialize since the Janam Patris did not match. PW1 has denied the various suggestions put by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and has deposed that the house of accused persons is double storied and the accused Pankaj St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 8 of 66 and Ritu lived on the first floor and the accused no.2 and 3 on the ground floor. He has further deposed that he did not see the accused persons torturing or harassing his sister for demand of dowry and they did not make any inquiries from the neighbours of the accused persons. He is not aware if the accused Surender is a retired Gazetted officer of sister of accused Pankaj is a Professor in Harward University or that accused persons are prosperous family.
PW2 Ajay Bajaj who is a property dealer by profession and carrying out the work under the name of Rohilla Property, has deposed that on 10.4.2006 at about 7:30 pm the accused Pankaj Raj and Surender Kumar came to his office in connection with purchase of a house bearing no. 160 in A4C Block, Janakpuri which property was shown to them by him and they sought a meeting with the owner and promised to come back some time later with money. According to the witness, a meeting was arranged but the deal could not be finalized as the parties did not agree for the sale consideration there being a difference of about 2 to 3 lacs. The witness PW2 has further deposed that next morning he was called to the police station by accused Pankaj when he (PW2) had called him up to know about the reasons for failure of deal and it was at the police station at about 10- 11 am that he came to know that the wife of accused Pankaj had committed suicide on the previous night. According to the witness, accused Pankaj had left his office at about 8:15 pm on 10.4.2006 and had returned about half an hour later and then finally left the office at about 9:15 pm. St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 9 of 66 The said witness has not been cross-examined by the counsel for the accused persons despite opportunity in this regard.
PW3 Smt. Shashi is the mother of the deceased who has deposed that on 9.12.2006 her daughter Ritu was married with accused Pankaj Raj as per the Hindu Rites and Customs and she had given sufficient dowry as per her capacity during the marriage but her daughter was harassed and tortured for the demand of dowry within the 2-3 days after the marriage. According to PW3, a demand of AC and TV was raised by the accused persons on which she had paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- to the accused Pankaj Raj towards the price of TV. The witness has deposed that on 10.6.2006 (wrongly mentioned and should have been 10.4.2006) at about 10:20 pm accused telephonically informed her that her daughter had locked herself in her bedroom and was not responding on which she advised him to make a call on her mobile phone but the accused Surender told her that she was not responding to the phone as well. PW3 has further deposed that thereafter she asked her son Satyam to call on the mobile phone of her daughter and she also made a phone call to her but she (her daughter Ritu) did not respond after which she herself and her son Satyam went to the matrimonial house of her daughter at Janakpuri and Satyam rushed upstairs and found that the door of the bed room of her daughter was bolted from outside. According to PW3, her son opened the door and raised an alarm and when she reached the room, she saw that Ritu was hanging with a bed sheet which was tied around her neck and the other end was tied with the ceiling fan on which they removed her dead body from the hanging St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 10 of 66 position and laid her on bed. She has testified that they tried to revive Ritu but in vain and thereafter they called up the police and in the meantime the accused Pankaj brought a doctor who declared her daughter dead. She has specifically deposed that accused Surender and Kamlesh used to harass and mentally torture her daughter, more than the accused Pankaj and her daughter was denied food for which she used to for her. According to PW3, they used to physically and mentally harass her daughter due to which reason her daughter committed suicide. She has correctly identified all the three accused persons in the court and the wedding photographs which are Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2; wedding card which is Ex.P-3 and the bed sheet with which her daughter was found hanging which bed sheet is Ex.X-4.
In her cross-examination the witness has deposed that her statement was recorded by the SDM on 11.4.2006 between 10-11 am which is Ex.PW3/A. According to PW3, the accused Surender used to ask her prior to the marriage if they would pay for the AC, TV or that they would arrange for snacks and tea for the barat from the place where the barat was to start. She does not remember the date and month when the marriage proposal was finalized but states that the Tika ceremony was carried out on 7.12.2005 and the demand was made couple of days prior or later to that which demand was made telephonically to her. She has further deposed that her real brother namely Shammi, cousin namely C.L. Dhawan, son Satyam and about 50 other persons were present inside when her statement was recorded by the SDM in his office. According to PW3, at the time of ceremony of marriage no demand was made by any accused persons St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 11 of 66 and her daughter was asked to prepare food immediately after she entered the matrimonial house with the 'Doli' and did not remain happy even for one day of marriage which fact was revealed to her by her daughter on the next next day. She has testified that about a month later she (deceased Ritu) was slapped by Pankaj Raj but the deceased did not tell her the reasons for having been slapped but only told her about some verbal altercation and also told that her head was placed on the head board of the bed and the fist blows were given, causing immense pain. The witness has deposed that her son Satyam was present at that time when Ritu narrated the incident to her and no blood was reported to have come out. PW3 has admitted that matrimony was finalized on an advertisement in a newspaper published on 9.10.2005 wherein they had mentioned 'Early and Simple Marriage' and that a matrimonial proposal between her daughter and one Hemant was considered which was not materialized. She has denied that her daughter and said Hemant had been meeting each other about seven months prior to the marriage with accused or that they had a love affair and they exchanged love letters. She is not aware is her daughter and Hemant had a connection of Hutch Phone under Hutch Share Scheme bearing the master no. 9873438169 and the beneficiary number in the name of Ritu Bhambri is 9811090460. She has further deposed that after marriage accused persons had been asking her daughter to arrange for purchase of a house and the demand of money was made by accused Pankaj and Surender within the four months of marriage but she does not know the amount of demand. She has denied that the room where St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 12 of 66 the Ritu was found dead was bolted from inside. PW3 has testified that they never made any complaint to the police regarding the harassment and torture by the accused persons but states that her daughter had disauded her from making a complaint since she wanted to maintain harmonious relations with her in-laws. According to PW3, Satyam (PW1) used to hand over the food to her daughter at the Metro Station on her way of office and some times her nephew Tarun used to carry her tifin. The witness has testified that she had not stated to the SDM that her daughter was denied food which she used to send for her. According to her, at the time of marriage she had handed over a gold set to accused Surender Vij and a pearl and diamond set was given to the accused Pankaj Raj after 20 days of the marriage and apart from the above said jewellery they have given double bed, almirah, double door fridge, dressing table, one travelling bag, one briefcase, clothes for relations and Rs.5,000/- for clothes of accused Pankaj Raj. She has also deposed that the weight of gold set was about 3½ Tola but she does not remember the price of the gold set. The witness has denied that the accused persons never made any demand of any kind from her regarding dowry and her daughter had never been harassed or tortured by the accused persons. She has admitted that after marriage accused Pankaj and Ritu went to Darjeeling and Sikkim by Air for honeymoon and the diamond ear rings worn by the deceased were gifted to her by accused Pankaj Raj. She has further admitted that accused Pankaj had gifted Smt. Ritu a diamond pendent on her birthday and a diamond ring but she is not aware on what occasion.
St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 13 of 66 PW5 Rajeev Chawla is the photographer who has deposed that on 10.4.2006 he received a phone call at 11 pm from SI Desh Raj who asked him to reach house No. B-3A/269, first Floor, Janakpuri. He has proved that at the said house he took the photographs of a dead body of a lady who was lying on the bed. According to him, he took six photographs from different angels on the directions of the investigating officer which photographs are Ex.PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/6 and the negatives are Ex.PW5/7 to Ex.PW5/12.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that the phone call was received by him on his mobile phone when he was at the bus stand. According to him, a large crowd was present in the gali as well as on the first floor of the house and some public persons as well as some police officials were present in the room when he took the photographs.
PW6 Subhash Chand is the friend of the father of the deceased and has deposed that he knew deceased Ritu since her childhood as her father Sh. Madan Mohan is his friend. According to him, Ritu was married to accused Pankaj on 9.12.2005 and at the time of marriage Madan Mohan had given sufficient dowry articles to the accused persons like TV, Fridge Etc. and since other articles were packed therefore, he is not aware of the same. He has further deposed that after marriage Ritu started residing in the house of her in-laws at Janak Puri and about ten days prior to the incident, the deceased had called up her mother telling that she had been beaten by accused Pankaj on which the mother of deceased informed him telephonically St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 14 of 66 and thereafter he along with his wife, Satyam and Smt. Shashi went to the house of accused persons. PW6 has testified that when they were outside the colony of the house of accused persons Satyam called up Ritu informing her that they had reached the locality on which she told him that accused Pankaj was with her and was not prepared to return home as he (accused Pankaj) was unhappy with their visit. The witness has also deposed that on his explanation accused agreed to entertain them and returned home with Ritu where the parents of Pankaj were present when deceased told him that accused used to consume liquor and caused her beatings. According to PW6, he asked the father of accused Pankaj to check him but he expressed his inability and the accused Pankaj agreed that he will not further drink and beat the deceased Ritu and thereafter the deceased Ritu was asked if she wanted to leave the company of accused Pankaj Raj but she said that she would try to improve the accused Pankaj. He has also deposed that accused Surender told him that accused Pankaj also used to beat him under the influence of liquor and on 10.4.2006 he came to know that Ritu had committed suicide.
The said witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he has admitted that 3-4 days after the marriage of Ritu with Pankaj, the accused persons started demanding dowry and used to physically and mentally harass her for demand of dowry. He has further admitted that accused Pankaj used to cause her beatings on the instigation of her parents and that Ritu used to call up her parents whenever she was harassed by the accused persons.
St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 15 of 66 In his cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsel PW6 has admitted that the house of Madan Mohan is triple storied and has deposed that his house is situated about one and a half kilometer away from the house of Madan Mohan. According to him, he knew Madan Mohan since his childhood and they were frequent visitors to each others house and they join each other in times of sorrow and joy and they shared their family problems. He has testified that accused persons had made demand of dowry prior to marriage due to which reason the barat had reached at 4:00 pm though the scheduled time was 1:30 pm. He is not aware as to what demand was raised by accused persons since the same was not made in his presence and has deposed that after 8 to 10 days of marriage accused Pankaj even made a phone call to him demanding money for constructing a house but he did not tell this fact to the investigating officer. PW6 has further deposed that accused and Ritu had attended the birthday party of his grand daughter on 7.2.2006 but he is not aware if Satyam and Smt. Shashi had reached the venue of party i.e. All Heaven in the car of accused Pankaj. According to the witness, he did not ask Ritu as to why she was upset since he was busy in enjoyment. The witness has admitted that about 15/20 days prior to the occurrence his wife was admitted in hospital and Ritu along with the accused Pankaj had visited her and deposed that accused Pankaj used to visit his house at the instance of Ritu though he (accused) himself was not interested. He has deposed that he was told by the mother of Ritu that all the three accused persons used to make demand for dowry and accused Pankaj used to bang on the head of St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 16 of 66 the deceased on the bed and threatened her that he would kill her brother and would manage his release by spending Rs.2 lacs. According to him, he was told about this fact by Ritu but it did not happen in his presence nor he lodged any report to the police as Ritu did not desires so. He is not aware if Ritu had been engaged with Hemant Chawla on 14.8.2005 or that they were scheduled to marry on 23.11.2005 or that if the said marriage was called off since Satyam and parents of Ritu did not like Hemant Chawla. PW6 is also not aware if Ritu had sent E-mail to Hemant chawla on 9th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 25th of September 2005 and 25th of October 2005 or that if those E-mails were replied by Hemant to Ritu on 10th and 11th September and 22nd & 25th October 2005. According to him, he had give up drinking for the last 5 years and after retirement he is selling meat products near his house. He has denied that accused Pankaj or Surender do not consume liquor or that they never caused beating to Ritu or that they never demanded any dowry from her. Medical witnesses:
PW4 Dr. B.N. Mishra has deposed that on 11.4.2006 he was posted at DDU Hospital and on that day he carried out the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Ritu which was sent by SDM Patel Nagar and brought by SI Desh Raj with the alleged history of hanging. According to the witness, all clothes worn by the deceased remain intact and there was no staining & no tearing; the built of the body was good; the rigor mortis developed over the whole body; postmortem staining was seen over back and shoulder; eyes were partly opened; conjunctiva have sub-conjunctival haemorrhage St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 17 of 66 over both eyes with cornea opaque; mouth was partially opened, tongue not protruded, nails cyanosed without any discharge from nose, mouth, ear etc. He has further deposed that on external examination the ligature mark was present on the anterior aspect of neck which was placed non uniform, scattered and defused in pattern (suggestive of soft ligature material like clothes being used for hanging); the grooves (ligature mark) measured 4 x .5 cm was present on the left side of neck; horizontally placed at the level of thyroid cartilage over sub-mandibular area of neck and the colour of mark appeared pale-brown and hard, leathery in consistency. The witness has testified that on internal examination scalp found within normal limit; the skull bones found intact, brain matter and meninges found mild congested; base of skull found intact. He has further testified that on examination of neck all cartilage including hyoid bone remain intact, no bruises are haemorragic spot revealed within soft tissue of neck, the tracheal mucosa appeared mild congested without having foreign body within tracheal lumen. PW4 has also deposed that on examination of the chest area Bony cages/ ribs, pleural cavities found within normal limits; lungs appeared congested; heart was found within normal limits; the liver, gal bladder, spleen, both kidney and pancreas were found within normal limits. Stomach was found empty with normal mucosal appearance without emitting any abnormal smell on section of stomach. The urinary bladder was full of urine and the uterus was empty with menstural phase being noticed. According to the witness, the cause of death was due to hanging and time since death was about 15-16 hours prior to postmortem. He has St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 18 of 66 also deposed that total number of 12 inquest papers and 10 still photographs of autopsy were enclosed with the report. He has proved the postmortem report which is Ex.PW4/A. According to PW4, on 5.5.2006 the investigating officer made an application for expert opinion whether the clothes were used at the time of hanging of the deceased and had produced a pullanda with the seal of DR before him. He has deposed that he opened the same and bed sheet printed red, green etc. colour was taken out and examined by him and after examination he opined that the produced material i.e. the bed sheet could be able to bear the weight of the deceased and it was also compatible, produced ligature mark found on the neck of the deceased. The witness has proved his opinion which is Ex.PW4/B and has identified the bed sheet which is Ex.X-4.
He has not been cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the accused despite opportunity.
Official/ police witnesses:
PW7 Lady Ct. Asha is a formal witness who has joined the investigations of this case with the investigating officer on 11.4.2006. She has proved the arrest of the accused Kamlesh vide memo Ex.PW7/A and the personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW7/B. PW7 has deposed that the custody of the accused Kamlesh was given to her and she got her medically examined in DDU Hospital and after medical examination the MLC was handed over to her to the accused which she further handed over to the investigating officer.
St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 19 of 66 PW8 HC Vijay Kumar is also a formal witness who has proved that on 10.4.2006 he was posted as member in Crime Team as photographer in Crime Team. He has deposed that on that day he along with the Incharge of Crime Team went at house no. B-3A-269, Janak Puri, First Floor where he found the dead body of Smt. Ritu lying on the cot. The witness has proved that as per the directions of the investigating officer he had taken 9 photographs of the body and the room from different angles which photographs are Ex.PW8/1 to Ex.PW8/9 and the negatives which are collectively Ex.PW8/10.
PW9 Ct. Ghanshyam has deposed that on 10.4.2006 on receipt of DD No. 29A he along with SI Desh Raj reached house no. B-3A-269, Janak Puri where they came to know that Smt. Ritu had committed suicide by hanging herself with the help of bed sheet/ chaddar. According to him, crime team was also called at the spot and the Incharge Crime Team prepared the report and handed over the same to the investigating officer and the photographs were also taken by the crime team. He has testified that the bed sheet/ chaddar was taken into possession by the investigating officer vide memo Ex.PW9/A after sealing the same with the seal of DR. PW9 has also deposed that the brother of the deceased namely Satyam was also present and the personal search items of the deceased were handed over to Satyam after which they shifted the dead body of deceased to DDU Hospital. The witness has further deposed that on the directions of SDM the postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted on 11.4.2006 and after postmortem examination the dead body was handed over to Satyam after which he along with the St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 20 of 66 investigating officer again reached at the spot where the accused Pankaj Raj and Surender were arrested and their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW9/B & Ex.PW9/C respectively.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that he does not remember the time of reaching the house of accused persons or the time of starting from the hospital for the house of accused persons. According to him, he had signed the seizure memo of the bed sheet. The witness has been confronted with the seizure memo where the dated 11.4.2006 is recorded after which he has deposed that he did not sign any other document as an attesting witness on 10.4.2006. He does not remember if the investigating officer had made any attempt to associate any neighbour in the arrest of the accused persons. He is unable to explain as to why he had put his signatures as an attesting witness on the personal search memos and not arrest memos of accused Surender and Pankaj Raj.
PW10 SI Mahesh Kumar is a formal witness being the Draughtsman who has deposed that on 4.6.2006 on the asking of investigating officer SI Desh Raj he reached house no. B-3-269, First Floor, Janak Puri, New Delhi where he inspected the spot and prepared the rough notes on the pointing out of investigating officer SI Desh Raj. According to him, on 6.6.2006 he prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW10/A on the basis of rough notes and after preparing the scaled site plan he destroyed the rough notes.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that he had inspected the spot at about 6-6:30 pm on 4.6.2006 but he does not remember if the doors of the cupboards were open or not. He has St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 21 of 66 admitted that there was no other passage to enter the room except the door at point D. PW11 Lady HC Celestina is also a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has proved that on 11.4.2006 at about 11:45 am she received a rukka sent by ASI Desh Raj through Ct. Abhay Singh on the basis of which she recorded the FIR No. 207/06 carbon copy of which is Ex.PW11/A. PW12 Ct. Abhay Singh is again a formal witness who has deposed that on 11.4.2006 the Duty Officer handed over to him copy of the FIR and original rukka after which he reached at the spot i.e. B-3/A-269, Janak Puri and handed over the copy of FIR & original rukka to the investigating officer.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that he proceeded from police station at about 11:45 am and it took about 5/7 minutes in reaching at the spot. According to him, SDM Patel Nagar, investigating officer and some public persons were also present there.
PW 13 Shri K.K. Sharma is the SDM who has deposed that on 10.4.06 he was posted as SDM, Patel Nagar and on that day, he received the information at around 11.00 pm from police station Janakpuri about the hanging of a female namely Ritu and it was reported that the lady Ritu was lying on the floor when the investigating officer reached the spot. According to him, he asked the concerned investigating officer to search the room and send the dead body to the mortuary, DDU Hospital. He has deposed that on the next day in the morning, he reached Police Station Janakpuri and recorded the statements of Satyam (brother of Ritu), Smt. Shashi St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 22 of 66 (mother of deceased Ritu) and Ajay Bajaj which statements were recorded by some police official under his dictation and in his presence. He has proved the statement of Satyam which is Ex.PW1/B and statement of Smt. Shashi which is Ex.PW3/A and statement of Shri Ajay Bajaj which is Ex.PW13/A. He has further deposed that on the basis of statement of Satyam he gave directions to SHO Janakpuri for registration of the case under relevant Sections which direction are Ex.PW13/B. The witness has proved having filled the Form 25:35 which is Ex.PW13/C; Brief facts of the case which are Ex.PW13/D and request for conducting postmortem which is Ex.PW13/E. He has testified that the dead body was identified by Smt. Shashi vide her statement Ex.PW13/F and by Satyam vide statement Ex.PW1/E and after getting conducted the postmortem examination the dead body was handed over to the LRs of the deceased vide receipt Ex.PW1/F. In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that he had recorded the complete statement of Satyam and Shashi and he did not record the statement of Subhash. He is not aware whether the investigating officer had already recorded statement of Satyam and Shashi before recording their statement by him. According to the witness, he had not recorded the statement of Shri Madan Mohan Bhambri, father or deceased and real chacha-chachi who reside in the same house as members of a joint family. He does not remember whether any dowry article list was prepared in his presence or not and deposed that he personally went to the spot but did not record the St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 23 of 66 statement of any neighbourer.
PW14 SI Desh Raj, is the investigating officer of the present case. He has deposed that on 10-4-06 he was posted as Sub Inspector in Police Station Janak Puri & on that day he received DD no.29A copy of which is Ex.PW14/A regarding the suicide of a lady at H.No.B3A/269, Janak Puri, Distt. Park. According to him, he along with Ct. Ghanshyam reached the spot and found the dead body of Ritu W/o Pankaj and found the ligature mark on the neck of the dead body. He has deposed that Crime Team was called who inspected the spot and photographer took the photographs and in the meantime the SHO also came at the spot and on inquiry he came to know that deceased was being tortured for dowry and i.e why she commits suicide. PW14 has further deposed that the belongings of deceased was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/A and the same was handed over to Satyam, the brother of the deceased and the bed sheet with which deceased had committed suicide was taking into possession after putting the same into pullanda and sealed with the seal of DR and seized vide memo Ex.PW9/A. He has testified that since the deceased had died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage therefore, he informed SDM, Patel Nagar on telephone who directed him to send the dead body to mortuary and thereafter he sent the dead body to DDU Hospital mortuary in the custody of Ct. Ghanshyam. The witness has further deposed that on 11.4.06 SDM Sh. KK Sharma came in police station and recorded the statements of Satyam, Smt. Shashi and Sh. Ajay Bajaj after which the SDM Sh. KK Sharma gave directions to SHO for registration the FIR after making St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 24 of 66 endorsement on the statement of Satyam. According to the witness, the SHO was directed to register the case and thereafter the present FIR was registered and he along with SDM Sh. KK Sharma reached at the spot i.e B3A/269, Janak Puri, First Floor where the SDM inspected the spot. The investigating officer has further deposed that Ct. Abhay handed over to him the copy of FIR and the original rukka which he handed over to the SDM and prepared the site plan at the instance of Satyam which is Ex.PW14/A. According to PW14, thereafter he along with the SDM reached DDU Hospital and where SDM prepared the inquest papers & got conducted the postmortem examination after which the dead body was handed over to relatives of the deceased and thereafter he along with Ct. Ghanshyam came back at the spot and he met lady Ct. Asha. The witness has further deposed that he arrested the accused Surender Kumar, Pankaj Rai and Smt. Kamlesh vide arrest memos Ex.PW14/B, Ex.PW14/C & Ex.PW7/A and their personal search were conducted vide memos Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW7/B. He has also deposed that thereafter accused were sent to police lockup and he recorded the statements of Ct. Ghanshyam and Ct. Abhey Singh and accused were sent to medical examination. He has testified that Satyam handed over to him the marriage card which is Ex.X3 and photograph of the marriage which is Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 of deceased which he seized vide memo Ex.PW1/C. According to PW14, list of istridhan was also handed over to him which is Ex.PW1/D. He has deposed that on 12.4.06 the accused were produced before the Ld. MM and were sent St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 25 of 66 to judicial custody and on 5.5.06 the photographs taken during the postmortem examination by photographer Anil Kumar were handed over to him and he took the sealed pullanda containing bed sheet from MHC(M) and reached the hospital for taking the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon. He has proved his application in this regard which is Ex.PW14/D and doctor has given his opinion which is Ex.PW4/B and thereafter re-deposited the pullanda with MHC(M). According to the witness on 10.5.06 he collected the details of the mobile phone of Ritu & Pankaj, the computer generated record of which details are collectively Ex.PX. He has also proved having collected the postmortem report and deposed that on 4.6.2006 SI Mahesh Kumar took the rough notes and measurement at his instance for preparing the scaled site plan and on the basis of those rough notes and measurement prepared the scaled site plan on 6.6.2006. According to him, after completing the investigation challan was prepared and filed in the court. The witness has correctly identified all the three accused persons in the court as well as the case property i.e. the bed sheet which is Ex.X4.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that he had recorded the complete statement of Shashi, Subhash and Satyam under Section 161 Cr.PC. and has denied that he had not recorded any statement of the above witnesses. According to him, he had not met Sh. M.M. Bhamri, the father of deceased Ritu and he had not recorded the statement of Sh. M.M. Bhambri nor the statements of real chacha-chachi of Ritu who resides in a join family in the same house. He has deposed that he had not investigated the fact that St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 26 of 66 marriage of deceased Ritu was to be solemnized with her ex-boy friend on 23.11.05 and engagement ceremony was already solemnized on 14.8.05 and it is not came in his investigation that Ritu remained under depression. He has also deposed that the list of dowry articles were not prepared in his presence and the overwriting at point X of dowry list Ex.PW1/D was already there when the same was handed over to him but Satyam had not disclosed anything whether the items were gifted or they have self purchased. The investigating officer has also deposed that Smt. Shashi did not tell him that the demand of AC and TV was made prior to marriage and he does not remember whether Smt. Shashi told in her statement that Surender Kumar requested the arrangement of tea and refreshment at the starting place of barat. He also does not remember whether Smt. Shashi told him that Ritu was asked to prepare the food the day she arrived at their in- laws place or whether Surender and Kamlesh used to harass Ritu more than Pankaj & that she was not provided food at her in laws place and Shashi used to send her lunch through Satyam. According to him, Shashi told that Surender Kumar and Pankaj used to demand money for construction of house and he had recorded this under Section 161 Cr.PC. He has also deposed that he had not recorded the statement of any neighbourer and Satyam told him that he is doing private job. He does not remember whether he found the kundi of door broken in condition from inside or whether Subhash told him in his statement that he (Subhash Kumar) had seen with his own eyes that TV was given in marriage. The witness has further deposed that he does not remember whether Subhash told him that Pankaj used to St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 27 of 66 give beating Ritu after consuming liquor or whether accused used to demand money for construction of house from Subhash. He has denied the suggestion that he had already written the statements of the witnesses and SDM has only put his signatures. Statements of the accused persons & defence evidence:
After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all incriminating evidence has been put to them which they have denied. All the accused persons have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused persons have examined as many as six witnesses in their defence.
DW1 Amit Sarin Sales Manager from Khanna Automobiles, WZ 1A, Ganesh Nagar Market, Tilak Nagar has proved the details/ invoice issued by Khanna Automobiles dated 26.02.2006 bearing No. TN-3969 in the name of Satyam Bhambari, S/o M.M. Bhambari, R/o 3/26, Block 3, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi which is Ex.DW1/A. According to him, the receipt was issued against purchasing of motorcycle model ACHIEVER bearing registration No.DL-4S-AZ-1484 Hero Honda and at the time of purchasing of this motorcycle Rs.13,814/- were given in cash whereas Rs.40,000/- was paid through credit card and the total value of the motorcycle was Rs.53,814/-.
In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that he did not generate the invoice and that the stamp of Khanna Automobiles on the invoice Ex.DW1/A is not original but it is a St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 28 of 66 photocopy. He has further admitted that there is no certification/ authentication on Ex.DW1/A as required under law and that EX DW1/A does not reflect the person who had paid the cash amount as reflected in the invoice. The witness has further admitted that Ex.DW1/A does not reflect from whose credit card the amount was finally credited. He is unable to tell if the amount was credited from the account of Ritu Bhambri.
The accused no.2 Surender Kumar has examined himself as DW2 who has deposed that deceased Ms Ritu Bahamri was his daughter-in-law and the marriage was fixed through Newspaper advertisement. According to him, the advertisement regarding the marriage of the deceased was "simple and early marriage" and the marriage took place about after one and a half month to two months after reading the advertisement and it was requested by the girl's side specifically by the mother of the girl that less number of Baratis should attend the marriage because they are unable to afford the expenses. He has further deposed that as per their request only fifty Baratis had attended the marriage and in order to save further expenses from the girl's side the marriage was solemnized in day time so that electrical decoration expenses could be save and only close relatives and friends were invited in order to cut shot the size of the baratis. The witness has further deposed that after the marriage his daughter-in-law was showered love and affection, all facilities and the whole family was very exited and happy as the husband Pankaj is his only son and apart from his son he has a daughter namely Dr. Monika Vij who is an Assistant Professor St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 29 of 66 in St. Louis, USA. According to DW2, there were three maids available in his house before and after the marriage and almost all the house hold work used to be done by those maids. He has testified that his daughter-in-law was employed and most of the time he found his daughter-in-law in a pensive and serious mood and he asked her several time if she required anything or to share her feelings but she never gave him any reason. The witness has further deposed that his son and daughter-in-law went to their honeymoon at Sikkim by air and he and his wife gave her gold earrings and cash on her birthday and the birthday was celebrated with great happiness. DW2 has also deposed that his wife used to prepare food for the family and he used to do all regular outdoor works and never asked his daughter-in-law to do or not to do anything and she had full freedom with her without any objections from him or his other family. According to the witness, his daughter-in-law used to go to her parental house and other relatives and friends as per her wishes along with his son and she was given full liberty to wear costly diamond and gold jewellery and she always used to wear the same even during her employment. He has deposed that he does not know till the time of her death as to why she committed suicide since he and his family never demanded anything or harassed her in any manner. DW2 has testified that on the day of the incident his daughter-in-law came back from her employment and locked herself in her room and did not open the door despite repeated efforts and phone calls then he informed her mother. He has testified that his son broke the door after which he first called the private doctor and thereafter called the police. According to St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 30 of 66 DW2, at the time of marriage he had bank balance and shared certificate about Rs.10 lacs. He has placed on record the bill of depository services (Share details) issued by Centurion Bank of Punjab showing the details of the share, computerized copy of which is Ex.DW2/A. He has also deposed that after the death of his daughter-in-law his daughter namely Monika Vij received some E- mails demanding Rs.1 lacs dollar for not prosecuting him and his family which fact was told to him by his daughter on phone and also sent him the copy of the E-mails she received which are collectively Ex.DW2/B-1 to Ex.DW2/B-4. The witness has further deposed that after 55 days of his arrest he was released on interim bail and he came to his house and gone through several documents relating to his daughter-in-law lying in her room. According to him, in one of the small slip he got E-mail ID of his daughter-in-law along with the password and also received her bank account statements and one small personal dairy belonging to his daughter-in-law and then he gone through the contents of the E-mail account of his daughter-in- law and he found that she wanted to marry one Hemant prior to marriage with his son. The witness has further deposed that her engagement and marriage ceremony was fixed but the same could not be solemnized and due to this reason she was upset and under depression. He has placed on record the print outs of the E-mails from the E-mail account of his daughter-in-law showing her feelings with Hemant Chawla which are collectively Ex.DW2/C-1 to DW2/C-14 and the E-mail printout pertaining to HDFC Bank showing her account and the original dairy belonging to his daughter-
St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 31 of 66 in-law having written the name and number of Hemant which is Ex.DW2/D. In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that on 9.12.2005 the marriage of his son Pankaj was solemnized with the deceased Ritu and some domestic items were given by the parents of the deceased to them at the time of marriage. He has deposed that he has no proof showing that he and his wife had given the deceased gold earrings and cash on the birthday. He has further deposed that occasionally his daughter used to prepare food in the evening only and occasionally they used to have guests but they never took food.
According to DW2, he and his wife tried to make inquiries from their daughter in law why she is disturbed but she never told them anything and they never mentioned this fact to her parents and states that his son must have mentioned this to them. He has deposed that he never met Hemant Chawla nor he know any Hemant Chawla and he had tried to search Hemant Chawla but could not succeed. The witness has further deposed that he never noticed any unknown person trying to contact his daughter in law.
DW3 Puneet Suneja has deposed that Smt. Ritu Bhamri was his teacher in Kamal Convent School, Vikas Puri in the year 2000 when he was in class 10th. According to him, on 23.2.2010 he got an order generated reminder which he read on 28.2.2010 and remembering that Ritu Bhambri was his teacher in school and on 28.2.2010 he had sent a mail to Smt. Ritu on her E.mail ID [email protected] from puneet.suneja @gmail.com which is Ex.DW3/A. He has deposed that he had met Ms. Ritu only once after St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 32 of 66 he cleared his class 10th when he was in the same school and thereafter he did not have any link with her. The witness has further deposed that he does not know any person by the name of Hemant Chawla.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that he has no idea when Ms. Ritu Bhambri got married and after class 10th he met her only on one occasion to thank her for her guidance. He has also deposed that after he sent this mail there was no response and there was no boy by the name of Hemant Chawla in his class. According to DW3, he had an E-mail account in the year 2000 and it was for this reason that he had put her Email ID in his account but had never communicated to her and this was for the first time on 28.2.2010 that he noticed the auto generated message as the E.mail ID of Ms. Ritu Bhambri was still in his mail.
DW4 Shashank Bhargava, Manager HDFC Bank has brought the record pertaining to the salary saving account of Ritu Bhambri SB no.00261200002790. He has placed on record the true copy of the account opening form which is Ex.DW4/A running into five pages, containing the photographs and E.mail ID of Ritu Bhambri and the certified statement of account running into 8 pages for the period 2002 to 15.10.09 which is Ex.DW4/B running into eight pages. According to him, the said account is presently also a running account but since the salary is not being received, the same has been converted into a normal savings account and since the customer is not maintaining the minimum balance it has gone into negative. He has also placed on record the credit card statement in St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 33 of 66 respect of card no.5176521000371361 which is Ex.DW4/C running into thirteen pages which statement shows that a payment of Rs.40,000/- had been transferred to Khanna Automobiles on 26.2.06 from the credit card of Ritu Bhambri bearing no.5176521000371361. The witness further also placed on recode the certificate under Section 2A of the Bankers Book of Evidence Act which is Ex.DW4/D. In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that he is deposing on the basis of official record and has no personal knowledge. According to him, there is nothing on official record to show that customer Ritu Bhambri is no more and as per their record the last transaction was on 23.4.2009 and two cheque of Rs.6400/- and other is of Rs.6000/- and the said cheque of Rs.6,000/- was cleared in favour of Ritu Bhambri. He is unable to tell the details of the said clearings and deposed that he is not aware that the customer had expired in the year 2006 and according to him, if that be the case then under no circumstances cheque could have been cleared in the year 2009. He has deposed that they have not received any communication or complaint regarding the aforesaid account of Ritu Bhambri. The witness has testified that the last time when the credit card account was operated in August, 2006 when a payment of Rs.1500/- was credited to the account of Ritu Bhambri and there are no details with regard to the operation of the said credit card thereafter as per rules the credit card would have been discontinued.
The accused Pankaj Raj has examined himself as DW5 and has deposed that Ritu Bhamri was his wife and he was very St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 34 of 66 happy after the marriage. According to him, after one week of the marriage she told him that she is worried about her family's condition since her family was under huge debt which they took from private financers at a very high rate of interest and her brother was unemployed, her mother was heart patient, her father was also Asthmatic and bed ridden and despite all the efforts he did not give up smoking. The witness has deposed that he tried to arrange job for her brother Satyam who told him that he is not interested in doing job of mere Rs.7,000/- to 8,000/- and Ritu and her mother asked him if Satyam can join him in his business which was not possible for Satyam or any other person who has no experience in gems and jewelery trade. He has also deposed that her mother Shashi even asked him to help Satyam financially to open a grossery shop. According to DW5, he and his family was very much concerned about her comfort and safety and he used to drop her to Metro station in the morning and used to pick up in the evening from Darya Ganj which is 14 km from Karol Bagh. He has testified that he presented her four diamond jewelry items within four months of marriage worth more than Rs.1.25 lacs and took her to honeymoon by air to Sikkim and Darjeeling and stayed in a three star hotel and spent approximate Rs.70,000/- on honeymoon. He has also deposed that he also spent Rs.1,00,000/- approximately on her clothes, footwear, bags, cosmetics etc. and on the date of incident he was outside his house and last talked to her about 9:50 pm after that she did not pick up his phone and when he broke open the door he found her hanging on which the doctor was immediately called.
St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 35 of 66 In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that his wife did not disclose the name of financer as to from whom her parent took a huge debt nor he asked her about the same. He is not aware the amount of that debt and has deposed that the parents of deceased took the loan about six months prior to their marriage. According to DW5, his engagement took place about one and half month before their marriage and he was not aware about the financial condition of his in-laws after the day of his engagement and before the marriage. He is unable to tell whether the house in which his in- laws used to reside were belonging to them or not and states that his in-laws used to say that they are owner of the third floor of the house number of which he does not remember. He has further deposed that they had visited the house of his in-laws for about twelve times and he did not see the documents of the said house and hence he is unable tell if the said floor belongs to his in-laws. DW5 has deposed that Ritu disclosed that she was the only earning member of her parents and has admitted that Ritu was having a job upto her death. According to him, he did not help his in-laws financially and his mother-in-law asked to help Satyam financially but he did not help him. He is not aware the rate of interest of the loan taken by his in- laws.
DW6 Sh. Harender Singh Lakhanpal is a Microsoft Certified System Engineer having certificate of excellence from Institute of Network Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Patel Nagar, Delhi Since 2001. He has deposed that he can tell after seeing the internet Emails if the same are tempered with or the dates when the mails St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 36 of 66 were generated or sent to other Email ID. The witness has brought with him his lap top and internet data card to check the Email ID i.e. [email protected], however, some problems have crept in E- mail and the witness could not open the E mail/ file due to the application problem.
FINDINGS:
I have heard the arguments advanced before me and also considered the written memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused as well as on behalf of the State. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses of which PW1 Satyam Bhambri, PW2 Ajay Bajaj, PW3 Smt. Shashi, PW5 Rajeev Chawla and PW6 Subhash Chand Sehgal are public witnesses. The allegations against the accused persons who are the husband, father in law and mother in law of the deceased Ritu are that they in furtherance of their common intention subjected the deceased Smt. Ritu cruelty for demand of dowry and in furtherance of their common intention caused committed dowry death by causing the death of Smt. Ritu within 7 years of her marriage.
SECTION 498-A IPC:
In order to succeed in charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had subjected deceased to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the section. It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The cruelty, so as to St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 37 of 66 attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498-A 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 498-A of IPC 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 reasonable 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 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 498-A of IPC.
St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 38 of 66 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 498-A of IPC.
If the woman has 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 498-A of IPC. The expression "harassment" has not been defined in Section 498-A 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 498-A 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.
In the present case it is evident from the testimony of PW1 Satyam Bhambri, the brother of the deceased and PW3 Smt. Shashi the mother of the deceased that they have tried to improve upon their earlier statements given to the SDM particularly the deceased being subjected to torture and being denied food in her matrimonial house and therefore, their statement are required to be discarded on this count. The testimony of PW6 Subhash Chand St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 39 of 66 Sehgal is, however, relevant which shows that about ten days prior to the death of Smt. Ritu, she had called up her mother telling her that she had been beaten by the accused Pankaj Raj on which the mother of the deceased telephonically informed him. He has deposed that thereafter he along with his wife, Satyam and Smt. Shashi went to the house of the accused persons and while they were outside the colony of the house of accused, Satyam called up Ritu informing her that they had reached her locality but she told Satyam that accused Pankaj was with her and was not prepared to return home as he was unhappy with their visit, however, on his (i.e. PW6) explanation the accused agreed to entertain them and returned home with Ritu. PW6 has further deposed that at his house, the deceased Ritu told them that the accused used to consume liquor and beaten her on which PW6 asked the accused no.2 Surender Singh to check the accused but he expressed in inability on which the accused Pankaj Raj agreed before him that that he will not drink further and beat his wife. According to PW6, when the deceased Ritu was asked if she wanted to leave to company of accused Pankaj Raj she stated that she would try to improve the accused. PW6 has also deposed that the accused no.2 Surender had also told him that the accused Pankaj Raj used to beat the deceased under the influence of liquor. The said witness does not say anything about the demand of dowry but in the cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP admitted to the same but the allegations with regard to the dowry demand are all general. He in his cross- examination admitted that the and the accused and the deceased had attended the birthday party of his grand daughter whose venue was St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 40 of 66 "All Heaven" on 7.2.2006 which is about two months before her death but has denied that the accused and deceased were happy together. He has further admitted that about 15-20 days prior to the death of Smt. Ritu, his own wife was admitted in the hospital and Ritu had come to visit them along with the accused Pankaj Raj. Suggestions have been made to this witness by the accused persons that before the marriage of deceased Ritu with the accused Pankaj Raj, she was engaged with one Hemant Chawla on 14.8.2005 and was scheduled to marry on 23.11.2005 which marriage was called off but the deceased Ritu was still interested in Hemant Chawla and she was not happy with the accused Pankaj Raj. No suicide note has been left by the deceased. No neighbour has been brought to the court as a witness to prove that the deceased was being subjected to regular physical torture or mental harassment. What is more surprising is that the father of the deceased and her uncle/ aunty (Chacha/ Chachi) who are stated to be residing in the same house being a part of the joint family have neither been examined nor cited as witnesses. In so far as the aspect of the accused Pankaj Raj consuming alcohol and thereafter subjecting the deceased to beatings, is concerned PW6 has in his oral testimony highlighted one incident which according to him occurred about ten days prior to the death of the deceased. I may observe that no doubt beating a wife under the alcohol tantamounts to inflicting physical and mental torture but in order to bring the case within the ambit of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code the allegations should be direct and not based upon hear-say. PW6 Subhash Chand had not seen the incident of beating himself. His testimony does not find a St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 41 of 66 corroboration from any other source. Neither the mother nor the brother of the deceased have deposed before this court regarding the accused Pankaj Raj being a habitual drunkard or that he used to beat the deceased after consuming alcohol. This aspect also does not find a mention in their statements recorded by the SDM Sh. K.K. Sharma who has been examined as PW13. It is an admitted case of PW6 that within the short period of five months of subsisting marriage between the accused Pankaj Raj and the deceased Ritu, the deceased Ritu had visited his (Subash Chand's) family on two occasions with the accused Pankaj Raj. Even PW1 Satyam Bhambri has in his testimony deposed that the deceased used to cone to their house with her husband. He also admits that the accused Pankaj Raj used to drop and picking the deceased in her way to office. The evidence on record also shows that the accused Pankaj Raj had been showing his affection to the deceased by giving her expensive gifts. The oral testimony of the brother and mother of the deceased (PW1 and PW3) on the aspect of cruelty does not find due corroboration from the circumstances as borne out from the record.
Neither the dates of the alleged cruelty have been spelt out nor the manner in which the same has been committed is elaborated nor it is explained which accused has committed which cruelty. The allegations are vague and unspecific and reliance cannot be placed on the same. More so, in view of the evidence of the mother and brother of the deceased there does not appear to be any cruelty or any demand in connection with the marriage.
St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 42 of 66 In the absence of any corroboration, the oral testimonies of PW1, PW3 and PW6 on this aspect is not sufficient to bring the case of the prosecution with the ambit of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code.
SECTION 304-B IPC:
In order to establish a charge under Section 304-B 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.
The term "Dowry" has not been defined in Section 304- B of IPC, but, since this expression has been defined in Section 2 of St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 43 of 66 Dowry Prohibition Act, it is required to be given the same meaning for the purpose of under Section 304-B IPC as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satvir Singh & Ors. v. 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."
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 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 St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 44 of 66 woman or any other person related or connected to her agree to give some cash, valuable security or property to her husband or in-laws after marriage, that also would be covered within the definition of dowry as the agreement or promise in such a case would 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 article being demanded by them was 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 304-B in Indian Penal Code and enacting Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 fall within the purview of Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code.
In the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1998 SC 958, the Apex Court has St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 45 of 66 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 dowry for the purpose of Section 304-B 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.
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 St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 46 of 66 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 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."
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 St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 47 of 66 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 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."
Applying the settled principles of law to the fact of the present case Firstly it is evident from the record that in so far as the St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 48 of 66 factum of marriage of deceased Ritu with the accused no.1 Pankaj Raj is concerned, the same is not disputed. It has been proved that the deceased Smt. Ritu got married to accused Pankaj Raj on 9.12.2005.
Secondly it has also been proved that the said marriage was arranged through an advertisement in the Newspaper and was solemnized during the day.
Thirdly it has been proved that the deceased had expired on 10.4.2006 i.e. after about 5 months of her marriage in her matrimonial home i.e. house no. B-3A/269, Janak Puri, Delhi.
Fourthly it has been proved that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan with the help of bed sheet and the cause of death was due to hanging. PW4 Dr. B.N. Mishra has proved that the bed sheet recovered from the spot could bear the weight of the dead body and the injuries on the body of the deceased were compatible to the ligature marks present on the neck of the deceased.
Fifthly it has also been proved that the Crime Team had visited the spot of the incident i.e. B-3A/269, Janak Puri where Smt. Ritu had allegedly committed suicide and had also taken the photographs of the deceased which fact has been duly proved in accordance with law.
Sixthly in so far as the allegations regarding the demand of dowry are concerned, the record reveals that it is only the the mother of the deceased namely Smt. Shashi (PW3) and brother of the deceased namely Satyam Bhambri (PW1) who have deposed that the deceased was being physically and mentally tortured for demand of St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 49 of 66 dowry. It is alleged that the accused persons have started harassing the deceased for bringing dowry and TV & AC as a result of which they (parents of the deceased) had paid Rs.10,000/- to them for TV. These allegations are evident from the oral testimonies of PW1 and PW3 made before the court and also from their earlier statement made by them before SDM Sh. K.K. Sharma who has been examined as PW13. I have gone through the said statements. It is evident that both PW1 and PW3 have admitted that no demand of dowry was made by the accused persons at the time of negotiation and also at the time of marriage. One of the allegation is that the Barat had reached late that is at 4:00 pm instead of 1:30 pm but this in itself is not sufficient for inferring any demand of dowry and there is nothing on record to show that this delay was on account of any demand raised by the accused. The statements of PW1 and PW3 to the extent of demand of dowry and demand of TV & AC also do not inspire confidence of the court in view of the fact that PW6 Subhash Chand Sehgal who was allegedly known to the deceased from her childhood being the father of her father, has specifically deposed before this court that the father of the deceased had given to the accused sufficient dowry articles like TV, Fridge etc. If this be so, then where is the question of making a fresh demand of TV and AC. The testimonies of PW1, PW3 and PW6 also do not inspire confidence of the court since the material on record conclusively shows that the accused no.2 Surender Kumar Vij is a retired government officer which aspect is not disputed. He has placed on record the statement of his bank account (which has gone unrebutted) which shows that St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 50 of 66 even at the time of solemnization of marriage he had a huge bank balance. Further, it is evident from the testimony of PW2 that on the date of death of the deceased accused No.1 Pankaj Raj and accused No.2 Surender Kumar Vij had gone to the property dealer (PW2) in connection with the purchase of a new house at Janak Puri which deal incidentally could not be finalized. This proves that the financial position of the accused being much more sound than that of the paternal family of the deceased. The question of the accused making the demand of dowry articles like TV and AC etc. does not appear to be plausible.
Seventhly the record reveals that the sister of the accused no.1 namely Dr. Monika Vij who is the daughter of accused no.2 Surender Vij and accused no.3 Smt. Kamlesh, is an Assistant Professor in St. Louis, USA. The accused no.1 Pankaj Raj is the only son of his parents that is accused no. 2 Surender Vij and accused no.3 Smt. Kamlesh and the accused no.1 Pankaj Raj is into business of gems and is financially well off. Under the given circumstances, the question of there being any harassment in connection with demand of dowry appears to be remote.
Eightly it is also not disputed that the deceased Smt. Ritu was herself employed and was therefore, capable of taking care of her financial requirement. In fact the evidence on record shows that she was maintaining her independent bank account. It is evident from the statement of DW1 Amit Sarin, Sales Manager from Khanna Automobiles that PW1 Satyam Bhambri (brother of the deceased) had purchased a motorcycle model ACHIEVER bearing registration St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 51 of 66 no. DL-4S-AZ-1484 Hero Honda and at the time of purchase of this motorcycle only a sum of Rs.13,814/- were given in cash whereas Rs.40,000/- were paid through Credit Card since the total value of the motorcycle was Rs.53,814/-. DW4 Shashank Bhargava, Manager HDFC Bank has proved the bank record of the deceased Ritu and Ex.DW4/C which is the statement of account of the deceased shows that a payment of Rs.40,000/- had been transferred to Khanna Automobiles on 26.2.2006 from the Credit Card of Ritu Bhambri, the deceased. This proves that the deceased was taking care of the financial requirements of her brother even after her marriage. The question of there being any harassment being caused to her only for a demand of article like TV and AC does not seem possible.
Ninthly it is evident from the record that the accused no.1 Pankaj Raj and the deceased Ritu had gone to Sikkim and Darjeeling for their Honeymoon by air and the accused Pankaj Raj had also gifted her expensive gifts like diamond pendent on her birthday and diamond ear-rings on the eve of new year, which aspect has gone unrebutted. This being so, the allegations of the deceased being harassed for brining insufficient dowry appear to be incorrect.
Tenthly it is further evident that PW1 Satyam Bhambri was unemployed and it was specifically suggested to Satyam Bhambri that before her death his sister was worried about him and had spoken about him to accused Pankaj Raj who had promised to get him employed somewhere, which suggestion he had denied, though he admits that the accused Pankaj Raj had promised to arrange for him a job at Naraina but according to him, the accused did not give any St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 52 of 66 contact number or details of the employer to him.
Eleventhly it has been admitted by PW1 Satyam Bhambri brother of the deceased and PW3 Smt. Shashi mother of the deceased, that the deceased and accused Pankaj Raj used to come to their house together. Even PW6 Subhash Chand Sehgal has admitted that both the deceased and the accused no.1 Pankaj Raj had visited his house together on two occasions during investigations. Not only that it has also been admitted by the mother and brother of the deceased that the accused Pankaj Raj used to drop the deceased to her office and pick her up either from her office or from other convenient place. If this is correct, then there is no question of harassment being caused to the deceased who was rather being taken care of well by the accused persons.
Twelvethly it is evident that the father of the deceased and her uncle/ Chacha and aunty/ Chachi have not been cited as witnesses nor examined in the court. In case if there were any problem in the matrimonial life of the deceased, her father and other members including uncle/ aunty who all are residing in the same house would have known, which is not the case. No other person from the paternal family of the deceased has been examined to corroborate the allegations made by the mother and the brother of the deceased.
Lastly it has also come on record that prior to her marriage with the accused Pankaj Raj, there was a marriage proposal between the deceased Ritu and one Hemant a fact which has been admitted by both the mother of the deceased Smt. Shashi (PW3) and St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 53 of 66 the brother of the deceased Satyam Bhambri (PW1), though they have denied that deceased Ritu could not reconcile with her relationship with the present accused on account of her previous affair with Hemant.
Not every case of unnatural death within seven years of marriage can be categorized as dowry death. The most essential condition for the application of Section 304-B Indian Penal Code is that it must be shown that the woman before her death, had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any other relative of her husband for or in connection with the demand of dowry.
The death of the deceased in the present case occurred within approximately 5 months of her marriage as she had committed suicide by hanging herself on the ceiling fan. Mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to bring in the application of section 304-B IPC and it has been shown in addition that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand of dowry.
It is clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased has committed suicide but it cannot be related to any dowry related harassment by the accused persons as apparently there is no proximity or link between her death and the alleged mis- conduct by the accused persons.
It is clear from the record, especially the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that there was neither any demand by the accused persons for dowry at the time of the marriage of the deceased with accused Pankaj Raj nor there was any demand for dowry St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 54 of 66 subsequently. There is no harassment or cruelty by the accused persons in connection with the demand of dowry. Although the deceased has died in unnatural circumstances by hanging but it is apparently not due to any harassment for dowry or cruelty by the accused persons. This case is neither covered by Section 498-A IPC nor Section 304-B IPC and not even Section 306 IPC.
DOWRY DEATH-PROXIMITY TEST 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 304-B 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.
The words "it is shown" occurring in section 304-B IPC are of significance for the reason that the initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Section 304-B IPC do exist on the prosecution. This being shown or established, the question of presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act would arise.
St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 55 of 66 In other words, to draw a presumption under section 113-B 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 304-B 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.
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 become 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.
Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological trouble or mental agony or such circumstances that the person St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 56 of 66 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).
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 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive section 304-B IPC and section 113-B Evidence Act is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" used in section 113-B 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 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.
St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 57 of 66 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 v. 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.'' 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 hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 58 of 66 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..
In another case reported as AIR 1973 SC 2622, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :-
St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 59 of 66 ''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.'' Further more, in another case reported as Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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:
St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 60 of 66 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.'' 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.
In the present case, the death of the deceased Smt. Ritu has happened within five months of the marriage but it is evident from the record that there is nothing on record to show that immediately after the marriage, any act has been attributed to either of the accused persons before this court with regard to the demand of dowry and cruelty compelling her to commit suicide in this regard. Rather, on the contrary PW2 has in his statement made before the SDM stated that at the same time when the deceased was not opening the door of her room, at about 7:30 pm the accused Pankaj Raj and Surender Kumar were in the office of the Property Dealer and were trying to finalize a deal for purchase of a property at Janak Puri. His statement is very clear wherein he has stated that Pankaj Raj and St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 61 of 66 Surender remained with him in his office till 8:20 pm but the deal could not be struck of due to which reason they went back but thereafter Pankaj Raj came back at about 8:30 pm and requested him to call the owner of the premises for purposes of further discussion on the deal but since again the deal could not be struck of, the accused Pankaj Raj left the office at about 9:00 pm. This only goes to show that both the accused Pankaj Raj and Surender Kumar were not present at the house at the time when the deceased committed suicide. I may point out that the matrimonial family of the deceased, comprise only the mother in law, father in law and her husband who all have been made accused in the present case. The sister of the accused Pankaj Raj and the daughter of accused no. 2 and 3 is a resident of St. Louis and is based at United States and not in India. The accused no.2 Surender Kumar is a retired government servant as evident from the record and the family of the accused is well off. The record rather reflects that the financial condition of the accused (in-laws of the deceased) is much more sound than her parental family and the question of anybody causing any harassment on this aspect does not appear to be plausible. The prosecution has not been able to prove beyond doubt the aspect of such harassment for purposes of dowry. The only incident narrated with regard to the harassment is by PW6 Subhash Chand wherein he has deposed that ten days before her death the deceased had told him that she had been beaten by her husband who was an alcoholic. The dates of no such incident have been given. He is not a witness to the incident. His testimony on this aspect does not find a corroboration not even from the testimonies of the mother St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 62 of 66 of the deceased and brother of the deceased. Even otherwise no explanation is forthcoming why the deceased chose to confide in him rather than her own father, mother, brother, uncle (chacha) and aunty (chachi) who are all residing together. Even otherwise it is evident from the cross-examination of PW6 that he himself was an alcoholic but according to him had given up taking drinking about five to six years back. On the one hand PW6 orally alleges harassment whereas on the other hand he admits that within this short span of five months the deceased had visited his house on occasions of two functions with her husband. Had there been any restrictions imposed upon her as alleged, thus would have not been so.
In the present case under consideration, when there is no evidence that there was any demand of dowry prior to the marriage and regarding the demand thereof subsequent to the marriage, the witnesses, PWs 1, 3 and 6, had improved their version in the Court from what they had deposed before the Police and the SDM, and therefore the prosecution case is not established. More importantly, there is nothing on the record which could show that there was any cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. It is also clear that the parents of the deceased had not made any complaint against the accused during the life time of the deceased. All these facts also indicate that the accused and the deceased did not have any disputes. The accused has neither treated the deceased with cruelty for dowry nor are responsible for her death in any manner.
There is no proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. The alleged St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 63 of 66 incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the deceased and it would be of no consequence.
There does not appear to be any proximity or live reason between the death of the deceased and any overt act of the accused, as is clear from the evidence of PW1 Satyam Bhambri, PW3 Smt. Shashi and PW6 Subhash Chand.
Applying the law enunciated in the above referred judgments, I am 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.
I find on perusal of the evidence of PW4 Dr. B.N. Mishra, that it is a case of suicide by the deceased. However, there is nothing on the record which could show that it is due to the conduct of the accused that the deceased took the extreme step of committing suicide.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
All the above overwhelming discrepancies and glaring blemishes in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are too significant to be ignored and are fatal to the prosecution case and are sufficient for throwing out the case of the prosecution as they strike at the root of the substantive allegations as against the accused. These blemishes shatter the veracity of the prosecution case, thereby throwing a shadow of doubt on the prosecution story.
St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 64 of 66 I am of the considered view that the above discrepancies occurring in the deposition of various witnesses are not usual and natural and strike at the root of the matter and are fatal for the prosecution, thereby throwing a shadow of doubt on the prosecution story and shatter its veracity. All the above discrepancies, contradictions and blemishes in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are to significant to be ignored and appear to be fatal and are sufficient for throwing out the case of the prosecution as they strike at the root of the substantive allegations as against the accused persons.
The evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not appear to be reliable. The prosecution story does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of credence. The role of the accused persons as the culprits in the prosecution story has not been proved.
The prosecution has to prove its case beyond all shadow of doubt on its own strengths and cannot take advantage of the weakness, if any, of the defence. An accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. It cannot be ignored that the greater the crime, the stronger is the proof required and fouler the crime, higher the proof. The prosecution has failed to establish any circumstance which could point a finger of doubt towards the accused persons and their role in the commission of the alleged offence. If there are two views coming forth in the prosecution case, the one which is favourable to the accused is required to be taken. The prosecution has failed to fully satisfy the requirements of Section 113-B of the St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 65 of 66 Evidence Act and Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC.
It is clear from the above discussion and analysis that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused namely Pankaj Raj, Surender Kumar and Kamlesh for the offence under sections 498-A/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code that in between 9.12.2005 to 10.4.2006 at B-3A/269, Janak Puri, Delhi, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention subjected Smt. Ritu (deceased wife of accused accused Pankaj Raj) to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and she had died an unnatural death by hanging herself within seven years of her marriage on 10.4.2006 at B-3A/269, Janak Puri, Delhi due to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry.
The prosecution story does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of credence, especially in view of the above elaborated glaring contradictions and overwhelming inconsistencies.
The conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charge against all the accused persons. Accordingly, the accused Pankaj Raj, Surender Kumar and Smt. Kamlesh the accused persons, are hereby given the benefit of doubt and are acquitted of the charges.
Their sureties stand discharged. Original documents of the sureties be returned as per the rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 16.10.2010 ASJ-II(NW): ROHINI
St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 66 of 66
State Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc.
FIR No. 207/06
PS Jahangir Puri
16.10.2010
Present: Addl. PP for the State.
Accused Pankaj Raj is absent.
Accused Surender Kumar and Kamlesh in person.
Accused Surender Kumar has filed an application seeking exemption of accused Pankaj Raj from personal appearance. It is submitted that the accused Pankaj Raj had left the house on 15.10.2010 after which he did not return home and in this regard DD No.31B of Police Station Janak Puri had been lodged. Copy of the said DD has also been attached along with the application. Therefore, under these circumstances, the accused Pankaj Raj is exempted from personal appearance through the co-accused Surender Kumar.
Judgment is ready and no useful purpose would be served by delaying the pronouncement of judgment. Vide my separate detailed order dictated and announced in the open court, all the accused namely Pankaj Raj, Surender Kumar and Kamlesh are acquitted of the charges under Section 498-A/304-B/34 Indian Penal Code. Their sureties stand discharged. Original documents of the sureties be returned as per the rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ-II(NW)/ 16.10.2010 St. Vs. Pankaj Raj Etc., FIR No. 207/06, PS Janak Puri Page No. 67 of 66