Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Ajay Singh on 24 January, 2017
FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI S.C. No. 57647/2016 State Vs. 1. Ajay Singh S/o Sh. Balbir Singh R/o Jhuggi No. 225, CD Park, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. 2. Balbir Singh W/o Sh. Hari Singh R/o Quarter No. 3, Kirori Mal College, Delhi. FIR No. : 325/14 Police Station : Jahangir Puri Under Sections : 498A/304B/34 IPC Date of committal to Sessions Court : 17.02.2014 Date on which judgment was reserved: 24.01.2017 Date on which Judgment pronounced : 24.01.2017 JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The above named accused persons had been sent to face trial in respect of offences punishable U/s 498A/304B IPC on the allegations that both of them in furtherance of their common intention had subjected Annu to cruelty and harassed her with a view to coerce her to meet their unlawful State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 1 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 demands and also subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death, due to which Annu died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage with accused Ajay.
2. The case of the prosecution as mentioned in the chargesheet is as under:
(i). That on 02.05.2014 at 11.28 am, DD No. 16A was recorded in PS Jahangirpuri to the effect that one lady had committed suicide by hanging herself in jhuggi of CBlock, CD Park, near Sheetla Temple. Same was entrusted to ASI Naresh Kumar (PW18), who alongwith Ct. Uday Bhan and Ct. Balaji Shinde reached at the place of information. One dead body of lady was lying on the floor and one piece of chunni was lying near the dead body. On enquiry, it was revealed to be dead body of Annu W/o accused Ajay Singh. Place of occurrence was got inspected and photographed through Crime Team officials and SDM concerned was also informed. Relevant exhibits were seized from the place of occurrence and dead body was got removed to Mortuary of BJRM Hospital;
(ii). It is further the case of prosecution that Sh. Vinod Dhatrawal (PW15) recorded statement of Smt. Dropti (PW10) who was mother of deceased, wherein she levelled allegations regarding demand of dowry and harassment of deceased at the hands of State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 2 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 accused persons. Executive Magistrate issued directions for taking action under the law. Accordingly, FIR in question got registered U/s 498A/304B IPC and investigation was carried out by Inspector J.P. Meena (PW14);
(iii). It is further the case of prosecution that during investigation, postmortem was got conducted on the body of deceased, whereafter dead body was handed over to the relatives. IO prepared rough site plan at the instance of ASI Naresh Kumar and recorded statement of Sh. Vikas Kumar, who was brother of deceased, wherein he also made allegations regarding demand of dowry and harassment caused to deceased by her inlaws. IO also recorded statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of relevant public witnesses. Viscera was got preserved and relevant exhibits were deposited by IO in FSL, Rohini. Investigation was transferred to Inspector Radhey Shyam (PW12). During further investigation, he got the scaled site plan prepared through Draftsman and collected opinion about ligature material from the Autopsy Surgeon. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in this case.
3. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS
4. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 3 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 Predecessor of this Court framed the charge for offence punishable U/s 498A/304B IPC against accused Ajay Singh, vide order dated 02.12.2014 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
It may be noted here that accused Balbir Singh had also been chargesheeted without his arrest in the chargesheet filed before the Court of Ld. Magistrate, but Ld. Magistrate did not pass any order qua said accused before committing the case to the Court of Sessions. During pendency of trial, the prosecution had moved an application U/s 193 Cr.P.C. for summoning Balbir Singh as an accused in this case. The said application was allowed vide detailed order dated 13.05.2015 passed by the Court. Thereafter, separate amended charge were framed against both the accused namelyi Ajay Singh and Balbir Singh for the offences punishable U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC, vide order dated 09.02.2016, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined nineteen witnesses namely PW1 Sh. Vikas, PW2 Sh. Ashok Kumar, PW3 Smt. Darshana, PW4 Sh. Rahul, PW5 Sh. Deepak Kumar, PW6 Sh. Mukesh Kumar, PW7 Smt. Mala, PW8 Smt. Anita, PW9 Dr. Sanjay Kumar, PW10 Smt. Dropti, PW11 Sh. Rajat Goel, PW12 Inspector Radhey Shyam, PW13 ASI Dev Dutt, PW14 Inspector J.P. Meena, PW15 Sh. Vinod Dhatrawal, PW16 Ms. Kamlesh, PW17 Smt. Bhagwati, PW18 ASI Naresh and PW19 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary, during trial.
6. It may be noted that Ld. Additional PP dropped PW Dr. Bhim State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 4 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 Singh from the list of witnesses as he was witness of repetitive facts in respect of which other witness namely PW9 Dr. Sanjay Kumar had already been examined in this case.
7. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to note that both the accused persons made joint statement during trial on 12.01.2017 that they were not disputing the contents of FSL results dated 28.08.2014 and 17.09.2014 prepared by Ms. Manisha Upadhyay, Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology) and Dr. Kanak Lata, Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry), factum of preparation of scaled site plan dated 03.04.2014 by Draftsman Inspector Manohar Lal, factum of preparation of Crime Team Report dated 02.05.2014 by ASI Krishan Kumar, factum regarding taking photographs by Mobile Crime Team Photographer Ct. Sandeep, factum of deposition of case property in Malkhana by MHC(M) HC Gumaan and the factum of deposition of case property in FSL, Rohini by Ct. Kuldeep, relied by prosecution in this case and they had no objection in case said documents are read in evidence as they did not want to cross examine the said witnesses. In view of said statement, both the FSL results dated 28.08.2014 and 17.09.2014 were exhibited as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, scaled site plan was exhibited as Ex.P4, Crime Team Report was exhibited as Ex.P5 and 16 photographs taken by Crime Team Photographer were exhibited as Ex.P6 (colly.) respectively and the relevant prosecution witnesses namely Ms. Manisha Upadhyay, Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology), Dr. Kanak Lata, Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Draftsman Inspector Manohar State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 5 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 Lal, Crime Team Incharge ASI Krishan Kumar, Photographer Ct. Sandeep, MHC(M) HC Gumaan, Ct. Kuldeep, were dropped from the list of witnesses on 12.01.2017. It may further be noted that Ld. Additional PP also dropped PWs namely Ct. Uday Bhan, Ct. Balaji Shinde, Ct. Suresh and Ct. Devender from the list of witnesses on 12.01.2017 as they were witnesses of repetitive facts in respect of which other witnesses had already been examined in this case.
8. Thereafter, statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of both the accused persons were recorded, during which all the incriminating evidence were put to them. However, they denied the same and claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Their defence is of general denial. However, the accused persons opted not to lead evidence towards their defence.
9. I have heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Ld. Counsel Sh. Aman Saroha, Adv. on behalf of accused persons. I have also gone through the material available on record.
10. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which have come on record. The said testimonies are detailed as under: PUBLIC WITNESSES
11. PW1 Sh. Vikas: He is the brother of deceased Annu. He State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 6 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 deposed that Annu got married with accused Ajay in the year 2012. After her marriage, Annu was residing in her matrimonial house with her husband and inlaws peacefully. She was blessed with girl child. His father wanted to give Hero Honda Splendor bike to accused Ajay but he insisted for Pulsar bike 135 CC. On his demand, Pulsar motorcycle was given to accused Ajay, who asked him and from his paternal uncle (Tau) to give RC of said bike. After 23 months thereof, accused Ajay dropped his sister Annu at their house. However, after 45 days thereof, accused Ajay took her back with him. On the way, he made call to his father i.e. co accused Balbir that he was abducted by some bad element in Bhiwani, on which accused Balbir Singh made telephone call to them and extended threat that in case anything untoward happened with his son, he would not spare anyone at Bhiwani. On 02.05.2014, he was telephonically informed by accused Balbir Singh that Annu had committed suicide. Accordingly, he alongwith his family members reached at PS Jahangir Puri and from PS, they had gone to BJRM hospital, where he identified dead body of Annu vide identification his statement Ex.PW1/A. After postmortem examination, dead body of Annu was handed over to them, vide memo Ex.PW1/B. He had made statement Ex.PW1/C before Executive Magistrate. He had also handed over photographs of the Marriage Mark A, Marriage Invitation Card Mark B and invoice and temporary registration form Mark C (colly.) of motorcycle to the IO.
During cross examination, he admitted that Sh. Sultan Singh State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 7 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 (who was husband of Kanta) was mediator in the said marriage. Smt. Kanta is his cousin. He admitted that inlaws of Annu had complained to them that they were receiving letters regarding his sister Annu. He denied the suggestion that his sister Annu had premarital affairs and when said fact came to the knowledge of her inlaws, she came under depression and committed suicide of her own.
12. PW2 Sh. Ashok Kumar: He deposed that on 03.05.2014, he alongwith Vikas had gone to BJRM Hospital, where he had identified the dead body of deceased Annu, vide his identification statement Ex.PW2/A. After conducting postmortem on body of deceased, dead body of Annu was handed over to Vikas. He has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
13. PW3 Smt. Darshana and PW4 Sh. Rahul: Both these witnesses were residing in nearby jhuggi of accused Ajay Singh at CD Park, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. They deposed that on 02.05.14, PW4 had received phone call on his mobile no. 9250574806 from accused Ajay Singh who requested him to talk to his wife Annu. Accordingly, PW4 went to the jhuggi of accused Ajay Singh and knocked the door but since there was no response, he informed accused Ajay Singh about the same. Accused Ajay Singh again requested him to talk to his wife. Accordingly, PW3 and PW4 went to the jhuggi of accused Ajay Singh but again there was no response from inside. However, they heard that child was crying inside the jhuggi, on which PW3 peeped inside through window and found Annu hanging State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 8 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 with hook affixed on the ceiling fan of the jhuggi with the help of chunni. Accordingly, they raised alarm on which other negibourers including Mukesh, Deepak and Rahul collected over there. They broke open the door of said jhuggi and removed the dead body from the hook. Someone made PCR call at 100 number, on which PCR Van came and removed Annu to hospital where she was declared brought dead.
PW3 also deposed that accused Ajay Singh occasionally used to take his wife and minor daughter to the house of his parents situated at Staff Quarters at K.M College.
During cross examination, PW4 clarified that deceased Annu was not having any mobile phone and that is why, accused Ajay used to call on his mobile phone as and when he wished to talk to his wife. He never saw or heard accused Ajay Singh and his wife fighting or quarreling over any issue and they were having cordial relationship with each other.
14. PW5 Sh. Deepak & PW6 Sh. Mukesh Kumar: Both these witnesses were also residing in the neighbourhood of the Jhuggi of accused Ajay Singh at C.D Park, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. Both of them have deposed on identical lines to the effect that on 02.05.14 at about 10.30 am, they heard noise being made by their neighbourers namely Rahul and Smt Darshana, on which they went towards them and came to know that minor daughter of accused Ajay Singh was crying inside his house but main door was bolted from inside. They broke open the main door of the Jhuggi of accused Ajay Singh with the help of other neighbourers and found that State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 9 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 Annu was hanging on the hook of ceiling fan with the help of chunni. PW5 untied the chunni with the help of other neighbourers and brought down the body of deceased Annu onto the ground. PCR Van removed the dead body to BJRM hospital.
In their respective cross examination, both the witnesses deposed that accused Ajay had been residing in the said house since about 910 months prior to the occurrence. They did not see or hear any altercation or quarrel between accused Ajay Singh and his wife Annu.
15. PW7 Smt. Mala & PW8 Smt. Anita: Both these witnesses were also residing in the neighbourhood of the Jhuggi of accused Ajay Singh at CD Park, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. They also deposed on similar lines as deposed by PW5 and PW6 to the effect that on hearing the noise raised by Rahul and his mother Smt Darshana, they went near them and came to know that minor daughter of accused Ajay Singh was crying inside the house and main door was bolted from inside. After breaking open main door of the jhuggi of accused Ajay Singh, they entered inside the jhuggi and found that Annu was hanging on the hook of ceiling fan with the help of chunni. Her body was brought down and PCR Van removed the dead body to the hospital.
During her cross examination, PW7 deposed that she was on visiting terms with Annu during her lifetime. Annu never made any complaint either against accused Ajay Singh or against any of her inlaws regarding demand of dowry or harassment or cruelty in connection with State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 10 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 demand of dowry as and when she used to visit her house. She volunterred that Annu seemed to be happy during those visits. She never saw any altercation or quarrel between accused Ajay Singh and his wife Annu. She never saw accused Balbir visiting the house of accused Ajay Singh during life time of Annu.
During her cross examination, PW8 deposed that she never saw any altercation or quarrel between accused Ajay Singh and Annu. Accused Balbir occasionally used to visit the house of accused Ajay Singh. She had seen one boy aged about 2022 years visiting the house of accused Ajay Singh in his absence in order to meet Annu.
16. PW10 Smt. Dropti: She is the mother of deceased Annu. She deposed that Annu got married with accused Ajay in August 2012 at Arya Samaj Mandir, ISBT, Delhi. They had given cash of Rs. 51,000/ to accused Balbir Singh in the said marriage apart from jewellery, clothes, utensils, etc. to her daughter Annu and relatives of accused Ajay. After about one year of her marriage, Annu was blessed with girl child. Her husband was willing to give Hero Honda motorcycle out of his own happiness to accused Ajay, but said accused demanded Pulsar Bike 135 CC. Accordingly, Pulsar motorcycle 135 CC was given to accused Ajay, but when they were returning back to their house, accused Ajay started quarreling with mediator Sultan Singh.
She also deposed that after marriage of Annu, both the accused used to demand a sum of Rs. 2 lacs from them. Annu used to tell her that State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 11 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 accused Ajay used to give beatings to her, but she made Annu to understand that she should adjust in the matrimonial house. After about 23 months of the birth of their daughter, accused Ajay dropped Annu to their house at Bhiwani, but after 45 days thereof, he took Annu back with him. On 02.05.2014, her son Vikas received telephone call from accused Ajay that Annu had committed suicide. Accordingly, they all went to PS Jahangirpuri and then to BJRM Hospital, where they identified dead body of Annu. Her statement Ex.PW10/A was recorded by Executive Magistrate at PS Jahangirpuri.
During cross examination, she expressed ignorance regarding receipt of certain letters by accused persons regarding her daughter Annu. She was confronted with her previous statement Ex.PW10/A made before SDM, wherein the demand of Rs. 2 lacs made by accused persons, was not found recorded. She denied the suggestion that accused did not demand any particular model of motorcycle from them or that Annu was having pre marital affair with any boy and when said fact came to the knowledge of in laws, she went into depression and committed suicide.
17. PW11 Sh. Rajat Goel: He was working as Manager with Shree Shyam Bajaj Auto Limited situated at Maham Road, Bhiwani. He deposed that on 07.08.2013, they had sold one motorcycle make Pulsar 135 CC bearing temporary no. HR99QB Temp.1606. The said motorcycle was sold to one Ajay S/o. Balbir, but the payment for said motorcycle was made by Sh. Vikas Kumar. Their company had issued receipt bearing no.
State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 12 of 31FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 21762 dated 07.08.2013. During investigation, IO had met him and he had produced the documents in respect of sale of said motorcycle i.e. Temporary Registration Certificate duly attested by him to IO. He exhibited Temporary Registration Certificate as Ex.PW11/A, Sales Certificate as Ex.PW11/B and invoice as Ex.PW11/C. He had also handed over copy of Form No. 22 (Mark PW11/D), which was issued by the company. He has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
18. PW16 Ms. Kamlesh and PW17 Smt. Bhagwati: Both these witnesses were residing in the neighbourhood of staff quarters, wherein accused Balbir was residing. They deposed on identical lines to the effect that accused Ajay was residing separately alongwith his wife and minor daughter somewhere at Jahangirpuri. In the month of May 2014, they heard that Annu had committed suicide by hanging herself. They also deposed that Ajay used to drop his wife and minor daughter at the house of his parents before leaving for his job and used to pick up them after finishing his duty. They never heard or saw accused Ajay or his family members entering into any altercation with Annu during her lifetime.
During their cross examination, both the witnesses admitted that Annu used to leave happily at the house of accused Balbir Singh. They used to visit the parental house of accused Ajay and Annu also used to visit their house. During those visits, Annu never made any complaint of any sort either against accused Ajay or against any of her inlaws. Annu State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 13 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 had met them even few days prior to the incident and even at that time, she was found to be happy and did not make any complaint against accused Ajay or against any other inlaw.
POLICE WITNESSES
19. PW12 Inspector Radhey Shyam: He had conducted part investigation of this case from 10.07.2014 till filing of the chargesheet. He deposed that during investigation, he had interrogated accused Balbir Singh, collected photographs of the place of occurrence from Crime Team Photographer and had recorded statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of crime team officials.
During cross examination, he admitted that investigation revealed that accused Balbir Singh was residing separately from accused Ajay for last 34 years prior to the incident in question. He deposed that the letters Mark PW12/A (colly.) {(which were subsequently exhibited as Ex.PW14/DA (colly.)} were never handed over to him by the accused persons during investigation.
20. PW13 ASI Dev Dutt: He is the Duty Officer, who has proved factum regarding recording of FIR No. 325/14 in PS Adarsh Nagar. He proved copy of said FIR as Ex.PW13/A and his endorsement as Ex.PW13/B made on the rukka. He also exhibited the certificate U/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW13/C. He has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 14 of 31FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017
21. PW14 Inspector J.P. Meena: He is the main IO of this case. He deposed that on 02.05.2014, DD No. 16A was marked to ASI Naresh Kumar. On receipt of information about contents of said DD entry, he also rushed to the place of information i.e. CD Park, Jahangirpuri, Delhi, where he met local staff as well as crime team officials. Concerned SDM and Tehsildar were also informed about the incident. After leaving local staff at the spot, he returned back to PS. On some day at about 3 pm, he was telephonically informed that concerned Tehsildar had inspected the place of occurrence. He directed ASI Naresh to remove body of deceased Annu to the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital. In the morning hours, mother and brother of deceased visited PS Jahangirpuri. Concerned Tehsildar Sh. Vinod Dhatrawal was also called at PS, where he recorded their statements. Thereafter, Tehsildar issued directions for taking legal action under the law. Accordingly, he made endorsement Ex.PW14/A and got recorded the FIR in question. Investigation was entrusted to him and he collected all the relevant memos prepared by ASI Naresh.
He also deposed that he had prepared rough site plan Ex.PW14/B at the instance of ASI Naresh and had recorded statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the relevant witnesses. After inquest proceedings, postmortem on dead body of Annu was got conducted and dead body was handed over to the relatives, vide receipt Ex.PW1/B. Relevant exhibits produced by Ct. Balaji Shinde, were seized vide memos Ex.PW14/E and Ex.PW14/F. On 03.05.2014, accused Ajay was arrested vide memo State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 15 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 Ex.PW14/G. Brother of Annu produced photographs MarkA of marriage and marriage invitation card MarkB and he had seized the same. Relevant exhibits were got deposited in FSL on 19.05.2014. He had also applied for CDR of relevant mobile phone, whereafter he was transferred.
During cross examination, he deposed that despite efforts made by him to examine independent public witnesses, who may have seen accused persons committing cruelty upon deceased or demanding dowry from her or from her family members, no public person made any such statement before him. He denied that the letters Ex.PW14/DA (colly.) were produced before him by the accused persons or that he intentionally did not seize the said letters on account of pressure of parents of deceased.
22. PW18 ASI Naresh: He deposed that on 02.05.2014, on receipt of DD No. 16A, he alongwith Ct. Balaji Shinde rushed to the place of information i.e. Jhuggi no. 225, CD Park, Jahangirpuri, Delhi, where main door of jhuggi was found in broken condition. Dead body of one lady was found lying near the bed. Few public persons met him over there. He got the spot inspected and photographed through Mobile Crime Team officials. The Executive Magistrate/ Tehsildar namely Sh. Vinod Dhatrawal also reached there and inspected the scene of crime. He sealed the chunni and keel top by preparing their separate pullandas and seized them vide memos Ex.PW18/A and Ex.PW18/B. He had also seized broken door vide memo Ex.PW18/C. He also deposed that dead body was got removed to Mortuary of BJRM Hospital.
State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 16 of 31FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 During cross examination, he deposed that during enquiry, he made efforts to examine independent public witnesses who may have seen accused committing cruelty upon deceased or demanding dowry from her, but no such statement was made by any public person. He also deposed that letters Ex.PW14/DA (colly.) were never produced before IO by any of the accused persons during investigation.
OFFICIAL WITNESS:
23. PW15 Sh. Vinod Dhatrawal: He was posted as Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar, Model Town. He deposed that on receipt of call from SDM Model Town regarding commission of suicide by one lady within seven years of her marriage, he had reached at PS Jahangirpuri. From PS Jahangirpuri, he had accompanied ASI Naresh to the place of occurrence i.e. Jhuggi No. 225, CD Park, Jahangirpuri. He had inspected the place of occurrence. Upon his instructions, the body of deceased Annu was shifted to BJRM Hospital by police official. From the spot, they went to PS Jahangirpuri, where they met mother namely Smt. Dropti and brother namely Vikas Kumar of deceased. In the PS, he had recorded statement Ex.PW10/A of Smt. Dropti and statement Ex.PW1/C of Sh. Vikas Kumar. Thereafter, he had issued direction to concerned SHO for taking appropriate action. He had carried out inquest proceedings U/s 176 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW15/A. He had also instructed the concerned police official for handing over the body of deceased to relatives after postmortem.
State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 17 of 31FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 In his cross examination, he deposed that when he had reached at the PS, mother and brother of deceased were already present there. He himself had not contacted mother and brother of deceased. He denied the relevant suggestions put to him on behalf of accused persons.
MEDICAL WITNESSES:
24. PW9 Dr. Sanjay Kumar: He alongwith Dr. Bhim Singh had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Annu in BJRM Hospital on 03.05.2014. After carrying out postmortem, they prepared postmortem report no. 353/14. He proved said postmortem report as Ex.PW9/A. He deposed that after carrying out postmortem, they had given opinion that cause of death of Annu was asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. On the request of IO, they had preserved viscera and blood of deceased to rule out any intoxication and after sealing it, had handed over the aforesaid exhibits to the IO. They also opined time since death to be around 24 hours. He further deposed that after going through FSL report dated 17.09.2014, since no common poison was detected in the viscera of deceased, the cause of death was opined to be the same as opined by them in postmortem report Ex.PW9/A. He further deposed that during investigation, Dr. Bhim Singh had also received one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of NK stated to be containing one chunni. Dr. Bhim Singh had examined the material contained therein i.e. chunni. After examination, Dr. Bhim Singh had State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 18 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 prepared his report to the effect that ligature mark mentioned in postmortem report Ex.PW9/A, could be possible by the said chunni. He proved the subsequent opinion as Ex.PW9/B and identified the signature of Dr. Bhim Singh on said opinion. He has not been cross examined by the accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
25. PW19 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary: He was deputed to appear and to depose on behalf of Dr. Mohit Tiwari, the then CMO as concerned doctor had already left the services of M.V. Hospital and his whereabouts were not available in the hospital. He deposed that as per the MLC of patient Annu, she was medically examined on 02.05.2014 by Dr. Mohit Tiwari. He proved the MLC of said patient as Ex.PW19/A. He further deposed that as per said MLC of patient Annu, she was declared brought dead on 02.05.2014 at 4.10 pm. The body of Annu was handed over to IO and same was directed to be shifted to Mortuary of BJRM Hospital. He has not been cross examined by the accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND CASE LAW CITED
26. While opening the arguments, Ld. Additional PP referred to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined during trial. He heavily relied upon ocular evidence in the form of testimonies of PW1 Vikas (brother of deceased) and PW10 Smt. Dropti (mother of deceased) as also upon medical evidence in the form of testimony of PW9 Dr. Sanjay Kumar Autopsy Surgeon, PM report Ex.PW9/A and subsequent opinion State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 19 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 Ex.PW9/P, in order to bring home his point that prosecution has been able to establish the charges levelled against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. He vehemently argued that PW1 and PW10 have supported the case of prosecution and have testified during trial that the accused persons used to treat deceased with cruelty and used to demand dowry from her. He further argued that accused Ajay Singh got married with deceased Annu in August 2012 and Annu has committed suicide on 02.05.2014 i.e. within seven years of her marriage and her death is otherwise than under normal circumstances. He, therefore, urged that the accused persons should be convicted in this case.
27. Per contra, Ld. defence counsel vehemently argued that the entire burden to prove its case rested upon the prosecution. However, the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden beyond shadow of doubt. He heavily relied upon the testimonies of public witnesses i.e. PW3 to PW8 and PW16 and PW17 in support of his contention that all these witnesses have deposed against the prosecution story by testifying that deceased was residing happily in her matrimonial house. He further argued that the alleged demand of motorcycle make Pulsar 135 CC and of Rs. 2,00,000/ as disclosed by PW1 and PW10 do not fall within the purview of 'dowry' as defined under the law. He therefore, urged that the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted in this case.
28. The term 'dowry' has not been defined in Section 304B of IPC, but since this expression has been defined in Section 2 of Dowry State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 20 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 Prohibition Act. It is required to be given the same meaning for the purpose of Section 304B IPC as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter titled as "Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab" reported at 2001 (4) Crimes 45.
Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under: "2. Definition of 'dowry': In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or
(b) by the 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 (or any time after the marriage) in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include) dower or mehar in the case or persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."
29. A careful analysis of the abovereferred definition would show that dowry would include 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. But, there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given and the marriage. If at any time before or at the time of or even during marriage, the parents of a woman or any other person related or connected to her agreed to give some cash, valuable security or property to her husband or inlaws after marriage, that would also be covered within the definition of dowry as the State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 21 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 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.
30. If the husband 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 also, to my mind, would 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.
31. The prosecution was enjoined to prove the following ingredients for proving its case in respect of offence punishable U/s 304B IPC:
(i) That death of deceased Annu had been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under natural circumstances;
(ii) That the death of deceased Annu occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(iii) That deceased Annu had been subjected to cruelty or State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 22 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 harassment by accused in connection with demand of dowry; and
(iv) That such cruelty or harassment was caused by accused to the deceased soon before her death.
32. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as "Kanwar Pal Vs. Shakuntala And Ors." reported at 2015 IV AD (Delhi) 450, has held that the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused. In that case, it was observed from the evidence of the prosecution witness and in particular PW1 and PW4 that they have made general allegations of harassment by the appellant towards the deceased and have not brought in evidence any specific acts of cruelty or harassment by the appellant on the deceased. The onus was also on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredients of Section 489A IPC. Relevant portions from the said judgment read as under: "xxxxxxxx In any case, to hold an accused guilty of both the offences under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and in particular PW1 and PW4, we find that they have made general allegations of harassment by the appellant towards the deceased and have not brought in evidence any State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 23 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 specific appellant on the deceased........
In our considered opinion, the evidence of DW1 (the appellant) and Ext. D19 cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution story that the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. In our view, onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient of Section 498A, IPC and the essential ingredient of offence under Section 498A is that the accused, as the husband of the deceased, has subjected her to cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A IPC. Similarly, for the Court to draw the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act that the appellant had caused dowry death as defined in Section 304B, IPC, the prosecution has to prove besides the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty caused by the accused to the deceased soon before her death. Since the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt this ingredient of harassment of cruelty, neither of the offences under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC has been made out by the prosecution. xxxxxx"
33. Now, adverting back to the facts of the present case. No doubt, it has been duly established on record that deceased Annu got married with accused Ajay Singh in August 2012 and she had committed suicide on 02.05.2014 i.e. within seven years of her marriage with accused Ajay Singh. It is also quite evident from the testimony of Autopsy Surgeon i.e. PW9 Dr. Sanjay Kumar that Annu had committed suicide by hanging herself and thus, her death was suicidal in nature. In other words, it is also proved beyond doubt that death of Annu took place otherwise than under State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 24 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 normal circumstances.
34. Now, the main question which arises for consideration before the Court is as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond shadow of doubt that Annu was subjected to cruelty and/or she was harassed by accused persons in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. In order to prove the same, the material witnesses examined by prosecution are PW1 Sh. Vikas and PW10 Smt. Dropti who are brother and mother respectively of deceased. Both these witnesses have testified in their respective depositions recorded during trial that on the occasion of birth of female child of Annu, they wanted to give Hero Honda motorcycle out of their own happiness to accused Ajay Singh but said accused demanded Pulsar bike 135 CC and accordingly, said motorcycle was given to him. Although, PW1 did not whisper about demand of Rs. 2,00,000/ made from the side of accused persons but PW10 has come out with the story that accused persons used to demand sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ from them and her daughter (deceased Annu) used to tell her that accused Ajay Singh used to give her beatings. So far as the demand of Pulsar bike is concerned, there is no iota of evidence available on record to show that said demand was actually made or that same was in connection with demand of dowry. Rather, both these witnesses themselves have testified that they wanted to give motorcycle make Hero Honda to accused Ajay Singh on the occasion of birth of his daughter. It is totally immaterial that instead of Hero Honda motorcycle, accused Ajay Singh wanted them to State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 25 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 give Splendor motorcycle. Thus, same would not fall within the definition of the term 'Dowry' as defined in Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
35. So far as demand of Rs. 2,00,000/ made by accused persons is concerned, relevant portion of the testimony of PW10 is found to be an improvement on her part made during the course of trial. It is pertinent to note that PW10 had made statement Ex. PW10/A before Executive Magistrate who has been examined as PW15 during trial. In her said statement made before Executive Magistrate, PW10 has claimed that accused persons were demanding Rs. 2,00,000/ on interest from them and that too immediately after the marriage of Annu with accused Ajay Singh. In other words, the demand of Rs. 2,00,000/, if at all was made by accused persons, was in August 2012 when deceased got married with accused Ajay Singh. Although, said demand cannot be termed as demand for dowry or in connection with marriage between the parties as accused persons were demanding the said amount against payment of interest as loan amount but even if it be presumed for the sake of arguments that said demand was in connection with marriage, it was not made soon before the death of Annu who is shown to have committed suicide on 02.05.2014 i.e. after about two years from the said demand.
36. Ld. Additional PP vehemently argued that PW10 has also categorically deposed during trial as also in her statement Ex. PW10/A made before Executive Magistrate that accused Ajay Singh used to beat deceased during her lifetime and thus, presumption provided U/s 113B of State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 26 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 Indian Evidence Act comes into play and it is for the accused persons to disprove the said presumption. However, said argument is found to be devoid of any merit. The allegations with regard to beatings given to deceased by accused Ajay Singh is totally vague inasmuch as PW10 has nowhere specified any particular date, month or year when accused Ajay Singh actually gave beatings to Annu during her lifetime. So much so, PW10 has also failed to specify any particular date, time or month when deceased told her about the same. In other words, the said allegation is quite general and vague in nature and same is not sufficient to attract the presumption contained in Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act against the accused persons.
37. In the matter titled as "Krishan Kumar @ Setu & Anr. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi" reported at 2015 (1) JCC 116, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that Section 304B IPC presupposes the following essential ingredients which have prima facie to be established by the prosecution before the presumption U/s 113 (B) of the Evidence Act can be attracted: i. The incident of death has occurred within 7 years of marriage;
ii. It was an abnormal death;
iii. There have been dowry demands within the definition of 'dowry' as contained in Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act;
iv. These dowry demands must have been made 'soon before death' and what is 'soon before death' has to be examined in the light of the State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 27 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 facts and circumstances of each case.
38. In the case in hand, the parameters mentioned at pointsi and ii above have been proved, but the prosecution has failed to show that there was a dowry demand either before or after the marriage of Annu or that deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty soon before her death.
39. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as "Vipin Jain Vs. State of A.P. represented by Public Prosecutor" passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1431/2007 decided on 13.03.2013 has held that general allegations of harassment by accused towards deceased would not be sufficient to bring the case within the purview of Section 498A/304B IPC.
40. Moreover, there are more than one prosecution witnesses examined during trial, who have contradicted the testimony of PW10 with regard to allegations of harassment or demand of dowry or ill treatment of deceased by the accused persons. PW3 Smt. Darshana and PW4 Sh. Rahul are the immediate neighbourers of the matrimonial house, where deceased had committed suicide. Out of said two witnesses, PW3 deposed during chief examination itself that parents of accused Ajay Singh did not use to visit the said house during lifetime of deceased. PW4 has testified during cross examination that he never saw or heard any fighting or quarrel over any issue between accused Ajay Singh and his wife and they were having cordial relationship with each other. Likewise, PW5 Deepak Kumar, PW6 Mukesh Kumar, PW7 Smt. Mala and PW8 Smt. Anita, who are also the neigbourers of the matrimonial house where suicide was committed by State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 28 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 Annu, have deposed on identical lines during their respective cross examination that they never heard or saw any altercation or quarrel between accused Ajay Singh and his wife. Not only this, PW7 has also testified during cross examination that deceased was on visiting terms with her and as and when deceased used to visit her jhuggi, she seemed to be quite happy during said visits and she never made any complaint either against accused Ajay or against any of her inlaw regrading demand of dowry or harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. PW8 also testified during cross examination that one young boy aged about 2022 years used to visit the jhuggi of accused Ajay Singh in his absence in order to meet Annu. Said part of her testimony stands corroborated by the copies of seven letters Ex.PW14/DA (colly). The contents of said letters would demonstrate that threats were extended to accused persons before as well as after the marriage of Annu with accused Ajay Singh that deceased was having physical relationship with several persons before her marriage and thus, accused Ajay Singh should not marry her. Not only this, deceased Annu herself is stated to have written a letter to accused Balbir Singh (her fatherinlaw), wherein she purportedly confessed her physical relationship with several persons even prior to her marriage with accused Ajay Singh and has expressed remorse apart from her confession that she did not deserve to be wife of accused Ajay Singh.
41. Apart from above, there are other prosecution witnesses namely PW16 Ms. Kamlesh and PW17 Smt. Bhagwati who have also State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 29 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 testified during cross examination that as and when deceased happened to be present in the parental house of accused Ajay Singh and used to visit their house, they found her to be quite happy and Annu never made any complaint of any sort either against accused Ajay Singh or against any of her inlaws. They also testified that deceased had met them just few days before committing suicide and even at that time, they found her to be quite happy having no complaint whatsoever against the accused persons.
42. Furthermore, IO i.e. PW14 Inspector J.P Meena as also PW18 ASI Naresh who had initially visited the spot on receipt of DD no. 16A, have deposed that despite their efforts to examine independent public witnesses who might had seen accused persons committing cruelty upon deceased or demanding dowry articles from her, no such public witness made any such statement before them in that regard.
43. It is evident from the aforesaid discussion that there is no evidence available on record showing that any of the accused had subjected deceased to any sort of cruelty or harassment either soon before her death or at any point of time during her life time. The prosecution has also failed to lead any evidence showing or proving that there was any sort of cruelty or harassment directly or indirectly from the side of accused persons for or in connection with demand of dowry or that there was any act attributable to the accused persons which led deceased Annu to commit suicide. In the absence of any cogent evidence being available on record in this regard, Court has no other option but to hold that prosecution has State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 30 of 31 FIR No. 325/14; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri DOD 24.01.2017 miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused persons in respect of offences punishable U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC beyond shadow of doubt. Resultantly, both the accused persons namely Ajay Singh and Balbir Singh are hereby acquitted of the charges levelled against them by giving them benefit of doubt to them. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
Announced in open Court today
On 24.01.2017 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State V/s Ajay Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 31 of 31