Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . (1) Harinder Singh@ Pinto on 2 July, 2013

        IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS 
         JUDGE ­II: (NORTH WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

Session Case No. 57/2013
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0449102006

State                       Vs.                (1)       Harinder Singh@ Pinto
                                                         S/o Mohan Singh
                                                         R/o WZ­42, Plot No. 35­A,
                                                         Ravi Nagar, Vishnu Garden,
                                                         Delhi
                                                         (Acquitted)

                                               (2)       Varinder Singh
                                                         S/o Mohan Singh
                                                         R/o WZ­42, Plot No. 35­A,
                                                         Ravi Nagar, Vishnu Garden,
                                                         Delhi
                                                         (Acquitted)

                                               (3)       Davinder Jeet Kaur 
                                                         W/o Mohan Singh
                                                         R/o WZ­42, Plot No. 35­A,
                                                         Ravi Nagar, Vishnu Garden,
                                                         Delhi
                                                         (Acquitted)

                                               (4)       Kamalpreet Kaur @ Rakhwant Kaur
                                                         W/o Varinder Singh 
                                                         R/o WZ­42, Plot No. 35­A,
                                                         Ravi Nagar, Vishnu Garden,
                                                         Delhi
                                                         (Acquitted)


St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar                      Page No. 1 of 88
                                                (5)       Mohan Singh 
                                                         S/o Late Mahender Singh
                                                         R/o WZ­42, Plot No. 35­A,
                                                         Ravi Nagar, Vishnu Garden,
                                                         Delhi
                                                         (Acquitted)


FIR No.:                                                 641/06
Police Station:                                          Subhash Place
Under Sections:                                          498­A/306 Indian Penal Code

Date of Committal to session court:                           4.1.2007

Date on which orders were reserved:                           2.7.2013

Date on which judgment was announced:                         2.7.2013


JUDGMENT:

(1) As per allegations in between 3.10.2003 and 25.8.2006 at WZ­42, Plot No. 35­A, Ravi Nagar, Vishnu Garden, Delhi the accused Harinder Singh being the husband of Gurpreet Kaur; accused Varinder Singh being the bother in law (Jeth); accused Davinder Jeet Kaur being the mother in law; accused Kamal Preet Kaur being the sister­in­law (Jethani) and accused Mohan Singh being the father in law of Gurpreet Kaur in furtherance of their common intention subjected her to cruelty. Further, as per the allegations all the above accused persons subjected the deceased Gurpreet Kaur to cruelty on account of demand of dowry soon before her death and on 25.8.2006 Gurpreet Kaur died otherwise than normal St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 2 of 88 circumstances within seven years of her marriage. It has also been alleged that the accused persons abetted Gurpreet Kaur to commit suicide. BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION :

(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 25.08.2006 at about 8.40 PM information was received at Police Post Khyala of Police Station Tilak Nagar regarding suicide committed by a lady at WZ­42, Plot no.35, Ravi Nagar, Vishnu Garden, Delhi. Pursuant to the said information DD No. 30 was lodged and SI Madan Lal along with Ct. Virender reached the spot where they came to know that one Gurpreet was removed to some unknown hospital by her father and her in laws. In the meantime he also received DD No. 33 through Ct. Ashok at the spot regarding the admission of said Gurpreet in DDU Hospital where she was declared brought dead.

On This SI Madan Lal left Ct. Virender at the spot and himself went to DDU Hospital where he obtained the MLC of Gurpreet and the dead body was shifted to the mortuary of the hospital. SI Madan Lal came to know that the marriage of Gurpreet had taken place three years before and hence, he informed the SDM Patel Nagar after which he came back at the spot and called the crime team. On 26.08.2006 the SDM Sh. K.K. Sharma reached the spot and called the parents of the deceased i.e. Sh. Paramjit Singh & Smt. Surinder Kaur and got recorded their statements. (3) In their statements the parents of the deceased stated that Gurpreet Kaur was their eldest child and was married to the accused St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 3 of 88 Harender Singh on 3.10.2003 as per Hindu rites after which her daughter started living at her matrimonial house at 42­A, Plot No. 35, Ravi Nagar, Delhi. They have alleged that soon after the marriage their daughter was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demands by her husband, mother in law, father in law, Jeth and Jethani and that the accused persons had compelled the deceased Gurpreet Kaur to commit suicide. On the basis of the statement of the father of the deceased the present case was got registered and the accused persons were thereafter arrested. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against the accused persons before the Court.

CHARGE:

(4) Charges under Sections 498­A/34 Indian Penal Code were settled by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court against the accused Harender Singh, Davinderjeet Kaur, Mohan Singh, Varinder Singh and Kamal Preet Kaur. Further, charge under Section 304/34 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Harinder Singh, Davinder Jeet Kaur and Mohan Singh and a charge under Section 306 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused Harender Singh. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

EVIDENCE:

(5) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as twenty witnesses as under:

St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 4 of 88 Public witnesses / complainant :

(6) PW9 Paramjeet Singh is the father of the deceased Gurpreet Kaur, who has deposed that he operates a lathe machine at his house and has two more daughters and one son. He has deposed that Gurpreet Kaur was the eldest child, who was married to accused Harender Singh on 03.10.2003 as per Hindu rites and Anantkar ceremony was solemnized at that time. According to him, his daughter started living at the matrimonial home bearing house no. 42­A, Plot No.35, Ravi Nagar, Delhi and after 10­12 days of the marriage, Gurpreet Kaur came to his house and told that Mohan Singh­father in law; Devenderjeet Kaur­mother in law; Varinder Singh­brother in law and her husband Harender Singh used to whisper to each other that insufficient jewellery was given at the time of her marriage.

He has further deposed that Gurpreet Kaur told him that her mother in law said that according to them insufficient jewellery was given. The witness has further testified that on the eve of festival, accused Mohan Singh (father­in­law) talked with him over telephone to invite him to the matrimonial home of his daughter and at the same time they used to ask Gurpreet Kaur to talk to them that they should bring articles or items demanded by them (accused persons). He has also deposed that one day prior to the first Lohri festival of the year 2004, his daughter telephoned him and told him that accused Mohan Singh (father­in­law) and accused Devenderjeet Kaur (mother­in­law) while talking to each other were saying that Refrigerator was not amongst the articles given at the time of marriage, St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 5 of 88 on which he (witness) showed his helplessness to his daughter to give a refrigerator. While narrating another incident, the witness has deposed that his daughter told him over the telephone that she was blessed with a daughter on which he and his wife reached Sehgal Nursing Home to see their daughter and the newly born baby. The witness has further deposed that at that moment also, the accused Devenderjeet Kaur (mother­in­law) remarked to them that they should come to the hospital with four gold bangles to which, he did not respond. However, he gave clothes for all the family members, kangan, anklets and clothes for the newly born baby alongwith some eatables to the matrimonial house of his daughter when he alongwith other family members of his house had visited the matrimonial house of his daughter after 10­12 days of her delivery. The witness has further testified that in that last days of September i.e. about one and half month after the visit to the matrimonial home, the accused Mohan Singh telephoned him and asked him to foot the bill of Rs.40,000/­ regarding medical expenses incurred at the time of delivery, on which, he arranged the amount and delivered the same to the accused Mohan Singh (father­in­ law). He has also deposed that at that time accused Mohan Singh told him that his daughter was unwell and they had to get her surgically operated upon. The witness has further deposed that the accused Mohan Singh asked him to come to his house the next day and take his daughter with him for getting her surgically operated and has further stressed that the expenses of the treatment were to be borne by him (witness) only. St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 6 of 88 According to him, he again visited the matrimonial house of his daughter from where he took her to Kartik Nursing Home, Janakpuri where she was surgically operated upon and after her discharge from the hospital, he took Gurpreet Kaur to his house and she went to his matrimonial house prior to the festival of Diwali in good health. According to the witness, Gurpreet Kaur left this world on 25.08.2006 and her death was caused by her husband and the family members of her husband. While unveiling the story, the witness testified that two months prior to 25.08.2006, he received a call from the mobile of accused Harender Singh (husband) when he heard hue and cry of his daughter saying that he should save her and thereafter the call was disconnected. According to him, thereafter he and his wife had visited the matrimonial house of their daughter but accused Devenderjeet Kaur (mother­in­law) asked them to go back saying that it was their internal matter. The witness has further deposed that on the day of Raksha Bandhan his daughter Gurpreet came to their house and informed them that her husband was demanding Rs. One Lac from her for his business and further disclosed that her husband had threatened her with death in case his demand of Rs.1 Lac was not met with. According to the witness, he and his wife pacified and made their daughter understand and sent her back to her matrimonial house showing their inability to fulfill the demand of Rs. One Lac. He has also deposed that thereafter on 25.08.2006 at about 8:20 PM accused Harender Singh (husband) telephoned him and told him that Gurpreet Kaur had taken Crocin tablet and her condition was serious and St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 7 of 88 that he should visit the matrimonial house. He has testified that he along with his wife reached the matrimonial home of his daughter and found that all the family members namely Mohan Singh, Devenderjeet Kaur, Varinder Singh, Harender Singh and Kamalpreet Kaur were present in the street in front of their house and when he enquired about his daughter from Varinder Singh he replied that she was on the first floor of the house. According to the witness, on reaching the room on the first floor of the house, they found that Gurpreet Kaur was lying on the bed and they also noticed a ligature mark on the neck of Gurpreet Kaur. He has testified that Gurpreet Kaur was dead at that time and in the meantime, his son namely Gur Iqbal Singh also came there. The witness has also deposed that he called his brother Gurbaksh Singh informing him telephonically and they all finding that the body of Gurpreet Kaur was still warm, removed her to Bagga Nursing Home, Meera Bagh where the doctor declared Gurpreet Kaur dead. He has testified that thereafter they returned to the matrimonial house of his daughter, where police found present and the Investigating Officer directed him to remove Gurpreet Kaur to Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital, where the doctors declared her brought dead and the dead body was deposited in the mortuary. According to him, thereafter they returned to police station Tilak Nagar but his statement was not recorded on that day, however on the next day, in the morning his statement and the statement of his wife were recorded by IO Madan Lal. Witness has testified that his statement was not recorded by anyone else. According to St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 8 of 88 him, then he and his wife went to Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital where the dead body of their daughter was handed over to them after autopsy and identification of the same vide Ex.PW7/E. (7) The witness has further deposed that during her lifetime, his daughter used to tell them that she was subjected to beatings by her husband many a times and her father­in­law and mother­in­law used to ask her to bring money for the business. According to him, she told them about the beating several times but they do not remember the dates. Witness has deposed that whatever he told to the Investigating Officer was not recorded in entirety and his statement was recorded only once and his signatures were obtained by the police on certain documents. The witness has identified his signatures at point A on the seizure memo of marriage card and photograph which seizure memo is Ex.PW9/A. He has also identified his signatures on the personal search memo of Harender Singh and Virender Singh which are Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW9/C. The witness has further identified his signatures on the arrest memos of accused Harender and Virender Singh which are Ex.PW9/E and Ex.PW9/F. (8) With the permission of the Court, leading questions were put to the witness by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, wherein the witness has denied having made any statement Ex.PW2/B before the SDM. He has however, identified his signatures on the same. He has stated that on 25.08.2006 when the body was deposited in the Mortuary the SDM was not available and he (SDM) did not visit the hospital during the night of St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 9 of 88 25.8.2006. According to him, it was in the morning of 26.8.2006 that he and others contacted the area MLA and then the SDM was contacted who told them that he would be deputing someone for recording of statement. He has further stated that at about 10:30­11:00 AM on 26.8.2006 the SDM reached the Police Station and signed the statement recorded by the Sub Inspector in the presence of the SHO which statement is Ex.PW2/B which is not complete, as it was not having the factum of demand of Refrigerator so raised by accused persons and also the factum of insufficient supply of jewellery items; insufficient demand of jewellery items; factum of paying of Rs.40,000/­ by him after pressing hard by accused persons were not mentioned by the Investigating Officer. The witness has clarified that he had made two complaints against the Sub Inspector in this regard and have placed on record the copies of the complaints which are Mark PW9/A and Mark PW9/B. He has denied the suggestion that at the time of recording of his statement, the Sub Inspector asked him to give his statement in brief and he could state in detail while making statement in Court. He has further denied that his statement was dictated by SDM to Sub Inspector. According to witness, he produced the wedding card Ex.PW9/1 and two photographs of marriage Ex.PW9/2 and Ex.PW9/3 which were seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW9/4. Witness has further testified that police arrested accused Harender and Virender in his presence. Witness has further denied that he attested arrest memos and personal search memos of St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 10 of 88 accused Harender and Virender which are Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/E and Ex.PW9/F. Witness further stated in his cross examination by learned Addl. PP that police accompanied him to the spot and prepared rough site plan in his presence and stated that he could not state this fact due to lapse of time. Witness testified that he has statement was recorded four times by the police and his statement was also recorded at the time of arrest of accused Harender and VIrender when police informed him telephonically about their arrest.

(9) The witness was cross examined by learned defence counsel wherein he has deposed that he does not remember whether police recorded his statement four times or not. According to him, he had told the police while making his statement that accused Mohan Singh invited him on the eve of the festival and they used to ask the deceased to talk to them they should bring particular gift items; that his daughter telephonically informed him that Mohan Singh and Devenderjeet Kaur told him that the Refrigerator was not amongst the articles given at the time of marriage. However, when confronted with his statements Mark PW9/DA to PW9/DD and also Ex.PW2/A the said aspects were not found so recorded. (10) Witness has further deposed that he has two more daughters namely Gurmeet Kaur and Gurjeet Kaur and they did not reach the matrimonial home of Gurpreet Kaur or at Bagga Hospital or at Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital on receipt of information regarding the death of Gurpreet Kaur. According to the witness, he was having his mobile phone St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 11 of 88 with him while he was present at Bagga Hospital. Witness has further deposed that when he reached the hospital the dead body of his daughter had been deposited in the mortuary. He has testified that he informed the PCR staff that Gurpreet Kaur was subjected to death by her in­laws while he was present at the matrimonial house of Gurpreet Kaur and also informed the PCR officials the names of family members of her in­laws. According to him, he had not made any statement on 25.08.2006. He has denied the suggestion that Gurpreet Kaur used to remain ill or that she committed suicide on account of her illness. Witness has further deposed that his house is in built on an area of 70 square yards and he was earning a sum of Rs.7,000/­ or Rs.8,000/­ in the year 2006 and has voluntarily explained that his son Gur Iqbal Singh was having salary of Rs.4,500/­ per month and used to handover his salary to him. He has also deposed that he never visited the house of the accused prior to the marriage of his daughter. According to the witness, Smt. Nindar the daughter of his maternal uncle, had acted as Mediator for the marriage of his daughter. He has denied the suggestion that Smt. Nindar is daughter of his father's sister. He has testified that Rajender Singh the husband of Smt. Nindar was having good relations with his daughter Gurpreet Kaur and Rajender Singh and his wife never went to the police station to report any matter to police. He has also deposed that his daughter never made any complaint to police against the accused. He has further deposed that his grand­daughter i.e. daughter of Gurpreet Kaur is being brought up by accused persons and he never applied St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 12 of 88 for her custody. He has admitted that the accused Virender was an employee in ONIDA Company but has denied the suggestion that Virender had helped his son in getting employment in ONIDA company. The witness has further admitted that he and his wife had visited the parental house of the accused Kamalpreet Kaur on the occasion of Kriya ceremony of her Bua. Witness has further testified that he and his wife also visited Patel Nagar on the occasion of death of brother in law of accused Mohan Singh. He has also deposed that he, his wife and his son never attended any function organized by the accused persons and has admitted that his grand­daughter was born on 19th of August. The witness was confronted with a photograph Mark PW9/AA which depicts the witness, his wife, grand­daughter and his daughter in a function. Learned defence counsel further shown a photograph Ex.PW9/DA which depicts the witness, his two daughters namely Gurmeet Kaur, Gurjeet Kaur and his grand­daughter which was clicked at the second birthday of his grand­daughter Nova. He has testified that at the time of death of deceased, his grand­daughter was about two years of age. He has denied the suggestion that the left kidney of his daughter Gurpreet Kaur had got damaged during the days she left this world. He has admitted that Gurpreet Kaur remained admitted in Sehgal Nursing Hospital from 25.06.2004 to 27.06.2004 but has denied that during the said period, right kidney of his daughter was not functioning well or that she remained admitted at Lady Harding Medical College, New Delhi for treatment of her kidney, though she was once taken to that hospital. St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 13 of 88 Witness has further deposed that he got his daughter Gurpreet Kaur admitted in Kartik Nursing Home, Janak Puri from 04.10.2004 to 10.10.2004 as she was surgically operated there due to blockage in urine passage and has denied that she was operated upon there for her right kidney. He has denied the suggestions put to him by learned defence counsel that Gurpreet Kaur was got admitted in AIIMS Hospital or that both the kidneys of his daughter had got damaged and due to this reason, she suffered depression or that this was the cause of commission of suicide by her. He has also denied the suggestion that after the death of his daughter Gurpreet Kaur he proposed marriage of his daughter Gurmeet Kaur with accused Harender and has voluntarily explained that there was no question of any such proposal.

(11) He is unable to tell as to what are the contents of Mark PW9/A and Mark PW9/B given by him to the police and has explained that these were got dictated by their Advocate when he narrated to him the facts. He has admitted that these complaints were submitted with the police after the bail order was passed in favour of Kamalpreet Kaur. According to the witness he had stated to the police in his statement that after 10­12 days of the delivery when his daughter was discharged from the Nursing Home he along with his other family members visited the matrimonial home of his daughter and provided clothes for all the family members in addition to kangan, pajeb and clothes for the newly born baby and some eatables. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW2/B the aforesaid St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 14 of 88 aspect and the aspect of whispering of accused with regard to insufficient jewellery, the factum of calling the witness to his house by accused Mohan Singh and demanding of refrigerator by accused persons etc. are not mentioned.

(12) PW10 Smt. Surender Kaur is the mother of the deceased Gurpreet Kaur who has deposed that she has three daughters and one son. She has deposed that Gurpreet Kaur was her eldest daughter. According to the witness, Gurpreet Kaur was married to accused Harinder Singh on 3.10.2003 which marriage was solemnized in the Gurdwara of J­Block, Vishnu Garden, Delhi. She has deposed that for the first time, when she came to their house after marriage, she (deceased) told her (witness) that her mother­in­law was harassing her and her husband used to beat her and threaten her. According to the witness, her daughter told her that her mother in law was demanding more jewellery items saying that the jewellery items given at the time of marriage were insufficient. She has testified that her daughter also told her that her husband used to beat her and whenever she told her brother in law Virender Singh and father in law Mohan Singh about the beatings, they also used to threaten and asked her (Gurpreet Kaur) to bring money from her parents. The witness has also deposed that accused Harender Singh is into repair and manufacture of computers. She has testified that in January 2004 Gurpreet Kaur came to their house and told her that her mother­in­law and father­in­law asked to bring some big items at the eve of first Lohri. She has further stated St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 15 of 88 deposed on 19.08.2004, her daughter was blessed with a female child and on that occasion, they had gone to see the newly born baby at hospital when the mother­in­law of her daughter remarked that they should have brought four gold bangles. According to the witness, after about 10­15 days when they visited the matrimonial house of their daughter to give gifts on account of newly born grand­daughter the mother­in­law, sister­in­law and Nanad Nimmi remarked that they had come with silver karas instead of gold karas and the mother in law further remarked that she had asked for four gold bangles and that whether she (witness) did not intend to settle her daughter at the matrimonial home. She has testified that before the birth of her grand­daughter the mother­in­law of her daughter demanded a washing machine and they supplied the same. Witness has further testified that in September, 2004 on the asking of accused Mohan Singh, she alongwith her husband visited the house of her daughter where accused Mohan Singh (father­in­law) told them that their daughter was not keeping good health and whatever was spent by them on her treatment was to be repaid to them and that demand was fulfilled by giving Rs.40,000/­ in cash by witness and her husband to accused father­in­law and mother­in­law. According to her, none else was present there at the house of accused when amount was so given. She has further deposed that no other demand was made on the occasion of any other festival. Witness has further stated that in May 2006 accused Mohan Singh, Devender Jeet Kaur, Harinder Singh and Kanwaljeet Kaur gave beatings to her daughter and then, accused Harender Singh St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 16 of 88 asked her daughter to talk to her father on phone and the deceased while crying told him that she was subjected to beatings by the accused persons and that the accused persons would kill her. Witness has further testified that on 09.08.2006 on the day of Raksha Bandhan her daughter Gurpreet Kaur alongwith her accused husband came to her house and told her that her husband had demanded a sum of Rs. One Lac from her to run his business and to buy land. She has also deposed that she conveyed this demand to her husband but he showed his inability to meet the said demand. According to her, the accused Harender Singh had stated to her daughter that either he would kill her or she should commit suicide as his demand for money had been turned down by her. The witness has testified that thereafter about 10­20 days on 25.08.2006 at about 8:30 PM her husband received a call from accused Harender Singh who told that Gurpreet Kaur had consumed Crocin tablets and was serious, on which she along with her husband reached in front of the house of accused where they found many persons gathered and on inquiry from Virender Singh she told them to go upstairs at the first floor. She has also deposed that they reached the first floor and found Gurpreet Kaur lying dead on the bed and they noticed some deep marks of strangulation on the neck of their daughter. According to her, Devenderjeet Kaur told her on inquiry that her daughter had committed suicide. She has testified that her husband, her brother in law Gurbakash Singh, Inderjeet Pal Singh, her father­in­law Balwant Singh and her son Gur Iqbal Singh had removed the dead body of St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 17 of 88 Gurpreet Kaur to Bagga Nursing Home where she got medically examined by the doctor, who declared that she had been died about two hours prior thereto. She has further deposed that at the time when she and her husband reached the matrimonial home of her daughter they found all the accused persons present there. Witness has testified that her statement was recorded by the police which was signed by her and at that time no other officer was present at that time. The statement dated 26.08.2006 Ex.PW7/A was put to the witness on which she identified her signatures (13) In her cross examination by the defence counsel the witness has deposed that when they received information regarding the death of her daughter Gurpreet Kaur, her other two daughters had not gone to the matrimonial house of Gurpreet to see her. Witness has admitted that Gurpreet Kaur was removed to Bagga Nursing Home where she was declared dead for around two hours back but states that police did not come at Bagga Nursing Home. Witness has further stated that from there Gurpreet Kaur was removed to Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital where doctors declared her brought dead. She does not remember whether they informed the police or not at DDU Hospital. According to her, she had not given her statement to the police in Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital nor she informed the police telephonically about the death of her daughter either from her house or from her neighbourhood. She has also deposed that she had not given any statement to the police on the day when her daughter had expired. She has denied the suggestion that she had not lodged complaint St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 18 of 88 against accused persons as they used to keep her daughter decently with love. She has testified that her two other daughters had not made any statement before the police. She has admitted that before marriage both the sides had inquired about the status of each other. She has admitted that Sh. Rajender Singh was a mediator in the marriage of Gurpreet Kaur and his wife namely Smt. Narender Kaur is her first cousin. According to the witness they did not make any complaint to the police at any time prior to the death of Gurpreet regarding any behaviour of the family members nor any such complaint was made in the panchayat or in the biradari, though they had made complaint to Sh. Rajender Singh, however, she does not remember the date, month or year of the said complaint. She does not remember whether Rajender Singh and his wife came to police station or to the SDM to make complaint against the accused persons. Witness has admitted that her maternal grandchild is in the custody of accused persons and states that she never approached them to take her custody. The witness has further deposed that they had attended the first birthday ceremony of her grandchild and they had given parents to the child. She has admitted that prior to the death of her daughter, she used to give gifts and presents on all important events and festivals to the family members in her matrimonial house. The witness has also admitted that her daughter Gurpreet Kaur was taking treatment from different hospitals but has denied that the kidneys of her daughter were not functioning or that first the left kidney of her daughter failed and thereafter her right kidney also failed. St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 19 of 88 She has admitted that Gurpreet Kaur was getting treatment from Sehgal Nursing Home, Meera Bagh, Delhi and has voluntarily explained that she was getting treatment during pregnancy. She has denied the suggestion that her daughter was under treatment from Lady Harding Medical College in respect of her kidneys. Witness has further admitted that Gurpreet Kaur was getting treatment from Kartik Nursing Home, Janakpuri and has voluntarily explained that it was to remove a tube attached with her kidney. She has also admitted that Gurpreet Kaur remained admitted there from 4.10.2004 to 10.10.2004 but has denied that the right kidney of her daughter was operated upon in the said nursing home. The witness has also admitted that her daughter also took treatment from AIIMS but has denied that Gurpreet Kaur committed suicide due to her kidney problems and has voluntarily stated that she was killed by the accused persons. (14) According to the witness, she had told the police in her statement regarding the factum of strangulation of her daughter by her in­ laws; that her daughter came to her house 10/15 days after her marriage and told that her mother­in­law was harassing her and demanding more jewellery; that the mother in law and sister in law of the deceased demanded gold karas from them on their visit to the matrimonial home of her daughter; that mother in law of her daughter had demanded a washing machine which they had given; that in September 2004 accused father­in­ law telephoned her husband on which she alongwith her husband had gone to the house of her daughter where the accused mother­in­law asked them St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 20 of 88 to repay the expenses incurred by them in the treatment of their daughter to the tune of Rs.40,000/­ which was later on repaid by them to accused father­in­law in their next visit to their daughter's matrimonial house; that in May 2006 father­in­law, mother­in­law and husband of her daughter gave beatings to her daughter and accused Harender Singh asked her daughter to talk to her; that her daughter while weeping told her that her mother­in­law would kill her; that on 09.08.2006 on the eve of Rakshabandhan her daughter came to them alongwith her husband and demanded Rs. One Lac to run his business and buy land on which, her husband showed his inability to fulfill their demand and the accused husband told her daughter that either he would kill her daughter or she (her daughter) should commit suicide herself; that on 25.08.2006 at about 8:30 PM accused husband informed her husband that their daughter had consumed Crocin tablet and was serious. However, when confronted with her statement Ex.PW7/A the aforesaid facts were not found so mentioned and are found to have been introduced in her testimony before the Court for the first time.

(15) PW12 Sh. Gurbaksh Singh is the uncle (brother) of the deceased's father and has deposed that he was running an electronic shop Vishnu Garden. According to him, after the marriage Gurpreet Kaur went to her matrimonial home at WZ­42, Plot no.35, Ravi Nagar, Khyala, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. He has testified that at the time of her marriage, his brother gave dowry articles to her as per his capacity and after about 10­15 days of St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 21 of 88 her marriage, Gurpreet Kaur came to her parents house where he (witness) was also present and she (Gurpreet Kaur) told that she was being taunted by the accused persons about the bringing of less dowry and demand of more jewellery was made by them. According to him, the expenses incurred by the accused persons during the pregnancy and at the time of delivery of the girl child was also demanded by the accused persons in the tune of Rs.40,000/­. He has deposed that his brother was not in a position to give such a big amount and hence he (witness) assured him to give this amount. According to the witness, after making arrangements of Rs. 40,000/­ he gave the said amount to his father since his brother (father of the deceased) was not present at home at that time and after the delivery, the mother in law of deceased demanded four gold bangles instead of four silver bangles from his brother and his wife when they had gone to meet their daughter and to see the new born child. He has also deposed that on the eve of Raksha Bandhan in the year 2006 accused Harinder demanded Rupees One Lac from the brother of the deceased for running business and this fact was told to him by Gurpreet Kaur on telephone. The witness has also deposed that after a few days of this demand, on 25.08.2006 his niece Gurpreet Kaur was killed by the accused persons at her matrimonial home which fact was informed to him by his brother. According to the witness he along with his brother and other family members went to the matrimonial home of Gurpreet Kaur where he saw his niece lying on the bed at the first floor of her house and they were informed that she had St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 22 of 88 committed suicide after consuming crocin tablets. The witness has also deposed that he noticed some ligature marks on the neck of her niece and some one in the gali had informed the police. According to the witness, the dead body of Gurpreet Kaur was removed to the hospital and after postmortem the dead body was received against receipt Ex.PW7/F. (16) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that firstly he met the police on 25.08.2006 at the matrimonial house of the deceased and no inquiry was made from him by police at that time. He has further deposed that he had not made any statement before the police against the accused at that time and thereafter he remained with the police on the said night but he did not make any complaint to the police against the accused persons. According to him, thereafter he met the police on 26.08.2006 and the SDM also met him on the said day. The witness has testified that he had made an oral complaint to the police on 26.08.2006 but his statement was not recorded by the SDM or the police on the said day. He has testified that the autopsy on the dead body of his niece was conducted at Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital, where he had also reached and the police was present at the said hospital at the said time but SDM was not present. He has also deposed that the SDM might be present which could not be brought to his notice. He is unable to tell if the statements of his nephew namely Gur Iqbal Singh was recorded by the SDM or not. The witness has further deposed that after the autopsy, he had not made any statement either to the police or to the SDM. St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 23 of 88 According to the witness, he received the information that his niece had consumed Crocin through his brother after which he along with his wife had reached the said matrimonial house of the deceased. He has also deposed that there were eight or ten family members who reached the said house of the deceased. He has further deposed that all family members told the police regarding the deceased having been killed by the accused but it was not reduced to writing. He has admitted that he had been the Perokar of this case and when the anticipatory bail application of accused Kamalpreet Kaur was fixed for hearing on 8.9.06 he along with his counsel Sh. S.C Bhuttan Advocate was present in the court. He has admitted that bail orders were passed in favour of the said accused on the said date and that he made the statement before the police for the first time on 8.9.2006. He has denied the suggestion that since the said anticipatory bail was granted, on legal advice he made a statement on that day for the first time. He has denied that he got recorded his false statement on 8.9.2006 in connivance with the police in order to support the prosecution case. According to the witness, he could not make any statement before the SDM since the SDM had directed only recording of the statements of his brother and his wife. (17) The witness has admitted that the deceased was having two other sisters who were of marriageable age in the year 2006. He has testified that deceased used to speak to him on his mobile no. 9213355313. According to the witness, he had seen the family of the accused prior to the marriage of the deceased. He has also deposed that he knew Sh. Rajinder St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 24 of 88 Singh who was the Mediator in the said marriage and states that he was informed about the death of the deceased who also reached there at that time. He has testified that he had not informed regarding the conduct of the accused towards the deceased to Rajinder Singh. He has denied the suggestion that the deceased used to remain seriously ill prior to her marriage or that she was suffering from kidney disease and for the said illness she was hospitalized in differed hospitals. He has admitted that the deceased underwent surgery for kidney problem. The witness has further denied the suggestion that the deceased was disturbed due to failure of her both kidneys on account of which she committed suicide. He has also denied that no demand of Rs.40,000/­ was allegedly made nor the gold bangles were demanded by the accused persons. He has admitted that prior to the marriage no demand of dowry was made. He is unable to tell if the accused Harinder had purchased an insurance policy from M/s. Aviva Life Insurance wherein the deceased was his nominee. The witness has denied the suggestion that they wanted to marry one of the two younger sisters of the deceased with accused Harinder after the death of the deceased to which he refused. According to him, the delivery of the female child took place in a private nursing home. He has admitted that the expenses of the delivery were borne by the accused Harinder. He has denied that he had made a statement before the police as an after thought. (18) PW13 Sh. Guriqbal Singh is the brother of the deceased Gurpreet Kaur who has deposed that deceased was his elder sister. St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 25 of 88 According to the witness, Gurpreet Kaur was married to accused Harinder Singh on 3.10.2003 as per Sikh customs and after marriage, his sister went to matrimonial home at WZ42, Plot no.35A, Ravi Nagar, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. According to him, after 10­15 days of her marriage, Gurpreet came to his house and told all the family members that her mother in law i.e. accused Devenderjeet Kaur and sister in law Kamalpreet Kaur taunted her for bringing less jewellery in the marriage and they asked her to bring more jewellery for them. The witness has testified that she further disclosed that when she complained about the demands and cruelty of her mother in law and sister in law to her husband he used to tell her to obey them other wise, she would be given beatings. According to the witness, his sister also disclosed that when she complained about the above mentioned facts to her father in law and brother in law they also demanded money for running computer business for accused Harender. He has testified that when their demands were not fulfilled by their family, the father in law of deceased told them that his sister used to remain ill and they have already incurred a huge amount on her medical expenses. He has further deposed that in the month of September 2004, his father had given Rs.40,000/­ to accused Mohan Singh towards the expenses for treatment and delivery of his sister. According to him, on 19.8.04 on the birth of a female child to his sister, he went to her matrimonial home on which accused Devenderjeet Kaur taunted him that like his father, he had also come empty handed and he should have brought some gold ornaments on the said occasion such as St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 26 of 88 four gold bangles or anklets (Pajeb). He has further testified that when he met accused Harender, he taunted him that his sister had given birth to a female child whereas he wanted a son. According to the witness, he met his sister who told him that her mother in law was taunting her that he and his father came empty handed on the said occasion. He has further deposed that whenever he had a talk with his sister on telephone, she used to disclose that her mother in law and sister in law used to give her beatings that after delivery no ornaments were given by his parents and their demands were not fulfilled. He has also testified that the father and mother in law of his sister used to ask her to tell his father to bring some costly items on the occasion of festivals otherwise, she would be treated in the same manner as earlier.

(19) The witness has also deposed that one day he suddenly went to matrimonial home of his sister and found her weeping and on inquiry, she told him that she was given beatings by accused Kamalpreet, Virender and Devenderjeet Kaur. He has further deposed that on 13.8.06, he purchased a new two wheeler scooter and called her sister on telephone that he would come to her house with some sweets on which her sister asked him to talk with accused Harender, who told him that his father had no money to give him when he demanded Rs. One lac from him whereas he got a new scooter purchase for him. The witness has testified that on 25.8.06 at about 8.30 PM accused Harender called his father on telephone and told him that his sister had consumed Crocin tablets and is not well on which he along St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 27 of 88 with his parents went to the matrimonial home of his sister and saw her lying on a bed. According to him, ligature marks were seen on her neck and she was not responding. He has further deposed that all the accused persons were present outside their house in the gali and when his father inquired the accused Virender replied that she was lying upstairs. The witness has also deposed that his sister was taken to a private hospital by his parents where she was declared as dead after which the body of his sister was shifted to DDU Hospital where she was declared as brought dead. According to the witness, his statement was recorded by the police and he identified the dead body of his sister in the mortuary of DDU hospital vide statement Ex.PW7/D. (20) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State the witness has deposed that police met him on 25.8.2006 in the gali outside the matrimonial home of the deceased and at that time he did not give any statement to the police. He has further deposed that no PCR call was made by him after seeing the condition of his sister and after receiving the phone call from accused Harender they immediately rushed to the matrimonial home of the deceased but did not inform the police at that time. According to the witness, SDM did not meet him on the same night of 25.8.2006 nor he met him on 26.8.2006. He has denied the suggestion that the SDM had met him on 26.8.2006 or that he recorded his statement also on the same day. He has also denied that the SDM met him in the mortuary of DDU hospital on 26.8.2006 but he along with his father was present outside the St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 28 of 88 mortuary of the said hospital on the said date. According to the witness, he had tried to write a complaint to the police on 25.8.2006 and 26.8.2006 but could not write the same in the given circumstances. He has further deposed that he himself did not give any statement to the SHO on 26.8.2006 against the accused persons but his parents made their statements. He does not remember if he had given any statement to the police on 27.8.2006 against the accused persons and states that he had given one statement before 8.9.2006 but he does not remember the exact date and it may be in first week of September 2006. He has denied the suggestion that prior to 8.9.2006 he had not given any statement to the police against the accused persons for harassing and committing cruelty upon his sister as a result of which she committed suicide. The witness is unable to tell if accused Kamal Preet Kaur was released on anticipatory bail on 8.9.2006 by the concerned court. He has denied the suggestion that after the grant of bail to the said accused on 8.9.2006, he made his statement to the police in connivance with each other in order to fabricate a false case against the accused. He has admitted that he made his statement against the accused on 8.9.2006 and that besides the deceased, he has two other sisters. According to him, in the year 2006 they had no land line telephone connection in the house but they were having mobile phone. He has further deposed that his two other sisters used to talk to the deceased Gurpreet Kaur on phone or at the time of her visit at their house. The witness has testified that his parents made inquiries regarding the family of St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 29 of 88 the accused where the deceased was to be married. He has also deposed that he is working in Nokia company and doing the work of mobile repairing. According to the witness, he had worked in Onida company also but he is not aware if accused Virender was also working in Onida company. He has denied the suggestion that suggest that accused Virender arranged a job for him in the said company. He has also deposed that he himself, his parents, his sisters, his cousin brothers and other family members had attended the birthday party of the daughter of his deceased sister. He has denied the suggestion that his sister had a kidney problem. He has deposed that he has no idea if his sister remained admitted in any hospital in connection with her alleged illness nor has he any knowledge if his sister had undergone any kidney operation. He does not remember the specific dates, months or years when his sister was harassed for or in connection with demand for dowry. He has denied the suggestion that due to said kidney failure, his sister used to live in depression and because of the said reason she had committed suicide.

(21) The witness has further deposed that he had not stated before the police in his statement Ex.PW13/DA that his sister told about the demand made by the accused after 10­15 days of the marriage. According to him, he had told to the police regarding his sister informing him about the taunts of her in laws with regard to his reaching the said place at the time of birth of a female child of the deceased, empty handed; that father and mother in law of his sister used to ask her to tell his father to bring St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 30 of 88 some costly items on the occasions of festivals otherwise, she would be treated in the same manner as used to be treated earlier. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW13/DA the said facts were not recorded. According to him, neither he nor his sister prior to her death, lodged any complaint regarding the harassment and demand of dowry to the Police nor her medical examination was got conducted for the beatings given to her. He has also deposed that after the death of his sister, he never met her daughter. He is unable to tell in which school the daughter of his deceased sister is studying and in which standard nor is he able to tell as to whether she had been provided with a proper education well nurturing and nourishment at present at the hands of the accused. He is not aware if accused Harender had purchased any insurance policy having the deceased as his nominee in the same. He has denied the suggestion that accused Harender never demanded Rs. One lac as deposed by him. He has also denied that after the death of the deceased, they had offered marriage proposal to the accused to any one out of his two remaining sisters, to which the accused refused and that was why, the accused have been falsely implicated in the present case.

(22) PW19 Rajesh Kumar is running a photo studio by the name of Sanjay Photo Studio opposite BSES Office, Tagore Garden. According to him, on 26.08.2006 he was called by the Investigating Officer at the DDU Hospital mortuary where he took photos of a lady and her viscera from different angles as per the directions of the doctor by his digital camera. He St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 31 of 88 had seen the photos which are the same which were taken by him and the slip depicting PM number which photographs are Ex.PW19/A­1 to Ex.PW19/A­17. He has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard.

Medical witnesses :

(23) PW1 Dr. Anil Shandil is the Autopsy Surgeon who has deposed that on 28.08.2006 he conducted postmortem on the dead body of Smt. Gurpreet Kaur, aged 25 years female brought by Sh. K.K Sharma, SDM at DDU hospital which was identified by Constable Ravi Prakash Police Station Tilak Nagar with alleged history of brought dead in casualty DDU Hospital with history of hanging as per inquest papers. He has testified that on external examination the patient was having ligature mark traversing from middle right side of neck to upper base of chin, left side of neck just below left angle of mandible and behind left ear, oblique incompletely encircling the neck having dimensions 35 cm x 1 cm, 6 cm from hyper extended chin, 6.3 cm from right angle of mandible. The witness further proved that on internal examination of Neck no extra vasation of blood and clots seen in underlying tissues of neck, strape muscles, back of trachea contained froths; Head­congested edematous with engorged cerebral vessels; Chest­Bilateral lungs congested edematous with petechials; Heart­NAD; Abdomen­Stomach dark fluid about 70 ml congested with reddening at places and all abdominal viscera were St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 32 of 88 congested. He has further stated that the opinion was kept pending till the receipt of blood and viscera chemical analysis report. According to the witness, after postmortem the inquest papers and viscera were preserved, sealed and handed over to IO for examination at Central Forensic Science Laboratory. He has proved the Postmortem Report prepared by him which is Ex.PW1/A. He has further proved that on 05.01.2007 he further gave opinion upon receiving of application alongwith visceral chemical analysis report vide FSL report No. 2006/C­3047 dated 14.12.2007 vide Ex.PW1/B. He has proved having opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to antemortem ligature hanging vide his report Ex.PW1/C. He has not been cross examined by the learned defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (24) PW5 Dr. Ajay Sharma has proved the MLC of deceased Gurpreet Kaur W/o Harender Singh which is Ex.PW5/A according to which MLC Gurpreet Kaur was brought to the hospital by her mother Smt. Surender Kaur with alleged history of brought to casualty in an unconscious state. The witness has further deposed that Dr. Swati Aggarwal had medically examined the patient and after examination Gurprret Kaur was declared brought dead by Dr. Swati Aggarwal. He has not been cross examined by the learned defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard.

St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 33 of 88 Police / official witnesses :

(25) PW2 HC Laxmi is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has proved that on 26.08.2006 the SHO handed over a tehrir to her on the basis of which she recorded FIR of the present case vide Ex.PW2/A. The witness further proved the note at the end of the tehrir appended by her vide Ex.PW2/B. (26) In her cross­examination the witness has deposed that as per the FIR book brought by her the next FIR bearing no. 642/06 was recorded in the police station on 28.08.2006 at 5.50 PM, however the same was not recorded by her. The witness further denied the suggestion that the FIR Ex.PW2/A and note Ex.PW2/B were anti­timed.

(27) PW3 Constable Dinesh is also a formal witness being the Duty Constable at Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital. He has proved that in the intervening night of 25­26.08.2006 at about 9:30 PM one lady namely Gurpreet Kaur W/o Harinder Singh, R/o WZ­42, Plot no.35, Ravi Nagar, Khyala, Tilak Nagar, Delhi has been admitted in the hospital by her mother Surender Kaur and the doctor declared her brought dead on which information was sent by him to Police Post Khyala and in this regard DD No. 13 was recorded. He has not been cross examined by the learned defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard. (28) PW4 Sh. Anil Kumar is again a formal witness being the In­ Charge, Mobile Crime Team. He has deposed that on 25.08.2006, after St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 34 of 88 having received the information he alongwith other members of the crime team reached at WZ­42, Plot no.35, Ravi Nagar, Vishnu Garden, Delhi and inspected the scene of crime. He has proved having prepared his detailed report vide Ex.PW4/A. He has not been cross examined by the learned defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard. (29) PW6 Constable Jaiveer Singh is also a formal witness being the Photographer in Mobile Crime Team, West District. The witness testified that on 25.08.2006, he along with the other members of the crime team reached at WZ­42, Plot no.35, Ravi Nagar, Khyala, Ravi Nagar, Vishnu Garden where he took five photographs of the scene of crime at the instance of the Investigating Officer. He has further deposed that after developing the negatives, he handed over the photographs to the Investigating Officer which photographs are Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A5 and negatives of the photographs are Ex.PW6/A6 to Ex.PW6/A10. He has not been cross examined by the learned defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard.

(30) PW7 Sh. K. K. Sharma has deposed that on 25.08.2006, he was posted as SDM, Patel Nagar, Delhi and on that day at about 10:30­11:00 PM he received information from police official of police post Khayala Police Station Tilak Nagar that one lady namely Smt. Gurpreet Kaur W/o Harender Singh was brought dead in Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital. According to the witness, he directed the police official to get preserved the dead body in the mortuary and to inform the Crime Branch, St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 35 of 88 if required. Witness has further deposed that thereafter in the morning of 26.08.2006, he went to Police Station Tilak Nagar, where he met with the parents of the deceased and on his dictation the statements of the witnesses namely Paramjit Singh vide Ex.PW2/B and Smt. Surinder Kaur vide Ex.PW7/A were recorded by some police official, which were attested and endorsed by him and he directed concerned SHO to investigate the case and take necessary action as per law with which observations are from point X to X. The witness has proved having filled the inquest papers and having made the request for postmortem vide Ex.PW7/B; having filled Form 25.35 which is Ex.PW7/C; identification statements which are Ex.PW7/D & Ex.PW7/E. He has also deposed that on his request, postmortem was conducted on the body of Smt. Gurpreet Kaur and after postmortem he directed police officers to handover the dead body to its claimants vide Ex.PW7/F. The witness has further proved the seizure memo of the chunni attested by him which is Ex.PW7/G. (31) In his cross examination by learned defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he could not recollect as to which police official had passed on information to him on land­line phone and via which telephone number the information was communicated to him. He has denied the suggestion that the information was conveyed to him at about 8.30 PM. The witness has further deposed that he had not called the police official who informed him nor he reached the hospital immediately on St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 36 of 88 receipt of information. According to the witness, he had not visited the spot immediately after reaching the Police Station though he had visited the spot afterwards however he does not remember the exact date and time. He has denied the suggestion that he had not inspected the spot. He is unable to tell the name of the police official who had recorded the statements of the parents of the deceased on his dictation nor could he even tell the rank of that police official. He has further deposed that other relatives of the deceased were also present in the police station but he does not remember their names and he had not made any inquiries regarding this case from them. He has testified that at the time of inquest proceedings, no statement of any relative of Gurpreet was recorded by him and he had not made inquiries from any person from the neighbourhood. The witness further denied the suggestion that the police had already recorded the statements of the parents of the deceased and he only attested the same.

(32) PW8 Constable Om Prakash is a formal witness being the DD Writer at Police Post Khyala of Police Station Tilak Nagar on 25.8.2006 from 8 AM to 10 PM. He has deposed that at about 8.40 PM, the wireless operator informed him that one Gurpreet Kaur had committed suicide at house no. WZ­42, Plot no.35, Ravi Nagar, Khyala, Tilak Nagar, Delhi pursuant to which he made an entry vide DD No.30 and as per this entry, information was received from mobile phone no. 9212008722. he has proved the copy of the said DD No.30 which is Ex.PW8/A. According to the witness, on the same date at about 9:40 PM he received information St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 37 of 88 from Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital to the effect that Gurdeep Kaur W/o Harinder Singh was brought to the said hospital and was declared brought dead pursuant to which he made entry at serial no.33, copy of which DD No.33 is Ex.PW8/B. He has further deposed that on the same date at about 9:40 PM he received information from ASI Madan Lal to the effect that SDM be informed regarding death of Gurpreet Kaur, on which he made entry at serial no. 34 copy of which DD No.34 is Ex.PW8/C. He has not been cross examined by the learned defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard.

(33) PW11 SI Mahesh Kumar is a formal witness being the Draughtsman who has deposed that on 20.10.2006 he visited the place of occurrence along with Inspector Nirmala. He has further deposed that he took rough notes and measurements at the instance of complainant Paramjeet and his wife who were present there and on the basis of the rough notes and measurements, he prepared scaled site plan which is Ex.PW11/A. According to him, after preparation of scaled site plan, rough notes and measurements were destroyed. This witness has not been cross examined by the learned defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard. (34) PW14 HC Virendra Kumar has deposed that on 8.9.2006 he was posted at Police Station Tilak Nagar and on that day he took four sealed pullandas and one sample seal from the MHCM and deposited the same to FSL, Rohini vide RC no. 217/21 at the instance of the Investigating Officer. According to him, after depositing the same, the receipted copy St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 38 of 88 and the copy of RC was handed over to the MHCM by him. He has proved that till the pullandas remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with. He has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard.

(35) PW15 SI Madan Lal deposed that on 25.08.2006 he was posted at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Police Post Khyala and on that day at about 8.40 PM he received DD No.30 which is Ex.PW8/A regarding suicide committed by a lady at WZ­42, Plot no.35, Ravi Nagar, Vishnu Garden, Delhi. According to him, on this information, he along with Ct. Virender reached the spot where he came to know that one Gurpreet was removed to some unknown hospital by her father and her in laws. He has testified that in the meanwhile, he also received DD No.33 Ex.PW8/B through Ct. Ashok at the spot regarding the admission of said Gurpreet in DDU Hospital where she was declared brought dead on which he left Ct. Virender at the spot and he went to DDU Hospital where he obtained the MLC of Gurpreet who was declared brought dead by the doctor and the dead body was shifted to the mortuary of the said hospital. According to him, he came to know that the marriage of Gurpreet had taken place three years before and hence, he informed the SDM Patel Nagar Sh. K.K. Sharma after which he came back to the spot and called the crime team. He has proved that he lifted one red colour chunni in two parts, empty strips of Disprin tablets and one strip of Crocin tablets having 10 tablets from the spot and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW7/G. He has also St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 39 of 88 deposed that on 26.08.2006 the SDM reached the spot and called the parents of the deceased and got recorded their statements through one Constable under his dictation and got the case registered. He has testified that thereafter he along with the SDM and the family members of the deceased went to the mortuary of DDU hospital where the SDM prepared the inquest papers and got the postmortem conducted on the body of the deceased. According to him, the viscera in a wooden box duly sealed with the seal of the hospital was handed over to him by the doctor as per the instructions of the SDM which was taken into possession by him vide memo Ex.PW15/A. He has further deposed that in the meantime, SI Bijender Singh also reached the hospital and recorded the statements of the parents of the deceased and of the SDM under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The witness has also deposed that thereafter they all came back at the spot where SI prepared the site plan at the instance of the father of the deceased. According to him, efforts were made to arrest the accused who were absconding and the accused Harender was apprehended from a park in the same colony. He has proved that the accused Harender was arrested vide memo Ex.PW9/E; his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW9/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW15/B. According to the witness, thereafter they returned back to the Police Station where the case property was deposited. He has correctly identified the accused Harender and also the case property i.e. chunni of red colour in two pieces which is Ex.P1 and tablets of Disprin and Crocin which are Ex.P2. St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 40 of 88 (36) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that the SDM was informed telephonically at about 9.30 or 10:00 PM. According to the witness on 26.08.2006 the SDM reached the spot at about 11 or 11.30 AM and remained there for about one and a half years or two hours. He has also deposed that from the spot the SDM went to the Police Station where the family members of the deceased i.e. her parents, her sister, her brother in law and other family members were present. He has further deposed that in the Police Station the SDM had recorded statement of Smt. Surender Kaur and her another daughter whose name he is not aware. According to him, the statements in the Police Station were got recorded by the SDM through one Constable namely Ravi Prakash. He has denied the suggestion that the accused Harender was made to sit in the Police Post on the night of 25.8.2006. (37) PW16 WASI Nirmala has deposed that on 12.09.2006 she was posted as a Head Constable at Police Station Tilak Nagar and on that day she joined the investigation with SI Bijender Singh and formally arrested the accused Kamalpreet Kaur vide memo Ex.PW16/A and her disclosure statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW16/B. The witness has further deposed that on 18.09.2006 she again joined the investigation with said SI and formally arrested accused Devender Kaur, who surrendered before the Investigating Officer at Police Post, vide memo Ex.PW16/C, her personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW16/D and her disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW16/E. According to St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 41 of 88 her, the said accused was taken to DDU Hospital for her medical examination and thereafter she was produced before the court from where she was remanded to Judicial Custody. She has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel in this regard.

(38) PW17 Inspector Nirmala has deposed that on 5.10.06 she was posted as Incharge CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar and on that day she received the file of present case for further investigation. According to her, during investigations she got prepared the scaled site plan on 20.10.06 through Draftsman of the spot i.e House no. 42, Plot no.35A, Ravi Nagar, at the instance of Paramjeet Singh. She has testified that she recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, she filed the charge sheet in the court. She has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard.

(39) PW18 Ct. Ravi Prakash has deposed that on 26.08.2006, he was posted at Police Station Tilak Nagar and on that day he along with ASI Madan Lal and SDM Patel Nagar reached the spot at the instance of ICPP SI Vijender. According to the witness, at the spot SDM inspected the spot and thereafter, they all came back to Police Station Tilak Nagar where SDM recorded the statement of parents of deceased and got the case registered. He has also deposed that thereafter they went to DDU Hospital where the postmortem on the body of the deceased was got conducted and handed over the viscera to ASI Madan Lal who took the same into possession. According to him, in the meantime SI Vijender also reached St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 42 of 88 the hospital and recorded the statement of Paramjit Singh after which they came back at the spot and went in search of the accused. He has testified that on the pointing out of Paramjeet Singh the accused Harender was arrested vide memo Ex.PW9/E, his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW9/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW15/B. He has testified that on 27.08.2006 he joined the investigations of this case with SI Vijender and went to the house of accused persons where accused Virender was arrested vide Ex.PW9/F, his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW9/C and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW18/A. He has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard.

(40) PW20 SI Vijender Singh has deposed that on 26.08.2006 he was posted as Incharge Police Post Khyala, Police Station Tilak Nagar and on that day as per the directions of senior officers, the investigations of the present case was entrusted to him after which he went to Deen Dayal Hospital where he met SDM Patel Nagar Sh. K.K. Sharma and ASI Madan Lal along with staff. According to the witness he recorded the statement of witnesses and from the hospital he along with the staff and Sardar Paramjeet Singh father of the deceased went to the spot i.e. matrimonial house of deceased where at the instance of Sardar Paramjeet Singh he prepared the site plan Ex.PW20/A. Witness has further deposed that Paramjeet produced the marriage card Ex.PW9/1 and photographs of the St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 43 of 88 engagement Ex.PW9/2 & Ex.PW9/3 before him and the same were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A. According to the witness on the same day at about 5:00 PM at the instance of Paramjeet Singh he arrested husband of deceased namely Harender Singh @ Pintoo vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/E, his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW9/B and he recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW15/B. Witness has further deposed that the accused was got medically examined and thereafter he was sent to lock up. He has testified that on 27.08.2006 he along with Ct. Ravi Parkash and Sardar Paramjeet Singh reached at the matrimonial house of the deceased for the search of other accused persons and at the instance of Paramjeet Singh he arrested the accused Virender Singh from in front of house No. WZ­42, plot No. 35, Ravi Nagar, Tilak Nagar, Delhi vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/F, his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW9/C and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW18/A. According to the witness, after their medical examination both the accused persons were produced before the concerned court from where they were remanded to Judicial Custody. He has also testified that on 08.09.2006 Ct. Virender deposited the exhibits to the FSL Rohini at his instance. The witness has further deposed that on 12.09.2006 sister in law of deceased (jethani) i.e. accused Kamalpreet Kaur was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW16/A as she was ordered to be released on anticipatory bail and he recorded her disclosure statement vide Ex.PW16/B. He has also St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 44 of 88 deposed that he collected the Postmortem Report of the deceased along with the inquest papers from DDU hospital. The witness has testified that on 18.09.2006 he arrested accused Devender Kaur at Police Post Khyala as she came to surrender vide her arrest memo Ex.PW16/C, her personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW16/D and her disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex.PW16/E. He has proved having recorded the statement of concerned witnesses. According to him, on 28.09.2006 the investigations of the present case was transferred to CAW Cell, West District.

(41) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he is not aware about the time of visit of SDM at police station on 26.08.2006 and he did not try to find out in whose handwriting the statements before SDM was recorded. According to the witness he met SDM during investigation and he did not try to know in whose handwriting the said statements were recorded and has voluntarily explained that the endorsement of the SDM was made under the said statements and hence, he did not try to know about the fact in whose handwriting the said statements were recorded. Witness has further deposed that he is not aware if any constable had recorded the said statements. Witness has denied the suggestion that after recording the statements by the said constable, the said statements were produced before the office of SDM where he made the endorsement under the statements. According to the witness prior to his recording of the statements of parents of deceased by him he was in the St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 45 of 88 knowledge the parents of the deceased had already made statements. He has also deposed that he did not ask the SDM to visit the spot during the period till the investigations remained with him and he did not make any inquiry from any neighbour about the conduct of the accused persons towards the deceased and he did not come to know who was the mediator of the marriage of the deceased with accused Harender. He is not aware if the deceased was first taken to Bagga Nursing Home and thereafter to DDU hospital where she was declared dead. He has stated that he did not come to know during the course of investigation that both the kidneys of deceased were damaged. Witness has denied the suggestion that he is suppressing this fact intentionally that the deceased was under treatment of different hospitals. He has admitted that he has been attending the bail matters in the present case in Sessions court or that accused Kamal Preet Kaur was released on anticipatory bail on 08.09.2006 and by that time statement of Gur Baksh Singh uncle of deceased and Gur Iqbal Singh brother of the deceased were not recorded. Witness has further admitted that there statements were recorded by him after the bail matter was over. He has denied the suggestion that in order to fill up the lacuna he recorded their statement after grant of bail of accused Kamal Preet Kaur or that because of the said fabrication in the case, the investigation of the present case was transferred to CAW Cell, West District. Witness has further denied the suggestion that his investigation was biased and tainted. He has also denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was made by the St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 46 of 88 accused persons or that he obtained their signatures on blank papers under pressure and thereafter the said papers were converted into various documents. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused Harender was called in the police post since 25/08/2006 and he was made to sit there till the negotiation talks of marriage of younger sister of deceased with the accused Harender failed or that thereafter the false case was registered against accused Harender as the said accused did not agree for the said marriage. Witness has denied the suggestion that the deceased committed suicide out of depression due to her kidney problem.

STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED / DEFENCE EVIDENCE:

(42) After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied. (43) The accused Harender Singh has stated that his deceased wife was suffering from kidney problems and was continuously got treated and all the expenses were borne by him. He has further stated that he and his family never demanded any dowry. According to him, his wife committed suicide as a result of depression due to kidney disease. The accused has also stated that he has been rewarded on his honesty by the Bank of India, Keshav Pur, Delhi as the cashier had given him a sum of Rs. One lac extra during the transaction and the same was honestly returned by him.

According to the accused, he had insured himself for a sum of Rs.2 lac and St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 47 of 88 his deceased wife was the nominee.

(44) The accused Varinder Singh has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

(45) The accused Kamalpreet Kaur has stated that she was married much prior to the marriage of the deceased and was having no interference in her marriage life. According to her, the deceased was living separately with her husband having a separate kitchen.

(46) The accused Mohan Singh and Devenderjeet Kaur have stated that they are innocent. According to the accused, they were residing separately along with their daughter in law Kamalpreet Kaur and son Virender. They have stated that they were having no interference in the married life of Harender Singh and Gurpreet Kaur.

(47) The accused Harender Singh has examined six witnesses in his defence. DW1 Dr. Narain Sehgal deposed that he is a self employed medical practitioner and is running a Nursing Home under the name and style of Sehgal Nursing Home at B­364, Meera Bagh, Outer Ring Road, New Delhi. According to him, Ms. Gurpreet W/o Sh. Harender Singh R/o WZ­42, Plot No. 35A, Ravi Nagar, Delhi was treated in his nursing home as per the OPD record. He has proved the duplicate copy of the scan report dated 27.03.2004 which is Ex.DW1/A, discharge summary which is Ex.DW1/B, OPD Slip dated 26.08.2004 which is Ex.DW1/C, OPD Ticket which is Ex.DW1/D, the bill dated 12.08.2004 which is Ex.DW1/E, St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 48 of 88 discharge slip dated 26.07.2004 which is Ex.DW1/F, the pathology report dated 26.07.2004 which is collectively Ex.DW1/G, the OPD ticket dated 18.08.2004 which is Ex.DW1/H, the pathology report dated 22.08.2004 which is Ex.DW1/I and OPD ticket dated 26.08.2004 regarding treatment of new born baby born to Smt. Gurpreet Kaur which is Ex.DW1/J. (48) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State the witness has deposed that the nursing home is a general hospital and does not have any specialty. According to him, they have an operation theater in the nursing home. He has testified that he has a licence from Delhi Government for running a nursing home. He is unable to tell whether the licence from the GNCT of Delhi permits him to have an operation theater in the nursing home and has voluntarily explained that in his request / application to the GNCT Delhi he had asked for permission for operation theater as well. He has admitted that the licence given to him by the Directorate of Health does not specifically mention that he can have an operation theater facility in the nursing home. He has admitted that in respect of OPD patients, a specific serial number is required to be put on the OPD ticket and a corresponding record is required to be maintained in the nursing home. According to him, he has not brought the record maintained in the nursing home and has deposed only on the basis of the record which has now been put to him by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. The witness has further admitted that in so far as Pharmacist is concern a licence has been given to him. The witness has also admitted that OPD St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 49 of 88 tickets Ex.DW1/F and Ex.DW1/G (colly.) (eleven pages), Ex.DW1/H, Ex.DW1/I, Ex.DW1/J are not in his handwriting and has voluntarily explained that only the documents Ex.DW1/C and Ex.DW1/D are in his handwriting and bear his signatures. He has further admitted that in the discharge summary Ex.DW1/B and Ex.DW1/F no identification of the patient in the form of her signatures etc. find a mention. The witness has also admitted that on the basis of record placed before him he can say that the patient examined by him did not suffer from any life threatening problem and has voluntarily explained that there was only a slight problem in right kidney which was working 30%. He has deposed that the patient did not obtain any treatment from his nursing home for the kidney problem and after the ceasarion operation she was discharge from the hospital. He has denied the suggestion that the above documents have been fabricated and prepared in connivance of the accused persons.

(49) DW2 Dr. M. Sridhar has deposed that on 4.10.2004 the patient Gurpreet Kaur was admitted in Kartik Nursing Home and Urology Centre, Janakpuri with alleged history of pain and swelling right side of the abdomen. According to the witness, he examined the patient and diagnosis of right PUJ obstruction with with pyonephrosis was made. He has testified that the patient underwent right sided pyeloplasty during the admission and was discharged on 10.10.2004 in good general condition. He has further deposed that she was later on followed up in the OPD for medication and dressings. He has proved the discharge card which is St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 50 of 88 Ex.DW2/A; OPD follow up slip which is Ex.PW2/B; further OPD follow up slip which is Ex.PW2/C and last follow up dated 10.3.2005 which is Ex.PW2/D. He has also proved the other related documents including various examination report which are collectively Ex.PW2/E running into six pages.

(50) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State the witness has denied the suggestion that the above reports have been fabricated in connivance with the accused persons.

(51) DW3 Ms. Manju Bala, Senior Branch Manager Bank of India has proved the appreciation letter dated 17.7.2006 issued on the letter head of Bank of India, Keshopur Branch, New Delhi, which is Ex.DW3/A. She has identified the signatures of previous Senior Manager Sh. Shiv Ram on the said letter.

(52) In her cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State the witness has admitted that the document Ex.DW3/A is not an appreciation letter but only a thanks letter. She has deposed that there are no written rules of banker customer relationship and this letter has been written by the manager of his own keeping in view the banker customer relationship. (53) DW4 Sh. Shiv Ram deposed that on 17.07.2006 he was posted as Senior Manager at Bank of India Branch, Village Keshopur, Delhi and on that day she had issued a letter of thanks to Sh. Harinder Singh for his integrity and sincerity as he was paid unintentionally Rs.1,10,600/­ instead St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 51 of 88 of Rs.10,600/­ and he sincerely report to him and returned the excess amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ to him. He has proved that the document Ex.DW3/A bears his signatures.

(54) In his cross examination, the witness has admitted that the letter issued by him is a simple letter of thanks which has no legal value and was not required to be used in the court of law and has voluntarily explained that he only wanted to thank him for returning the amount but this communication cannot be taken as a character certification. (55) DW5 Sh. Rajender Singh deposed that he knew the complainant Paramjeet Singh who is the cousin of his wife. According to the witness, he also knew Smt. Surender Kaur she is the wife of Paramjeet Singh and the deceased Gurpreet Kaur was the daughter of Paramjeet Singh. He has testified that he knew the complainant party as well as the accused party and he and his wife were the Mediators in the marriage of deceased Gurpreet Kaur with accused Harinder Singh. He has testified that the marriage was solemnized on 03.10.2003 in J block, Gurudwara, Vishnu Garden, Delhi and his entire family attended the marriage. He has further deposed that it was a simple and dowry less marriage. According to him, deceased Gurpreet Kaur was blessed with a daughter after about ten months of her marriage and his entire family had gone to the hospital to see the new born baby of deceased Gurpreet Kaur where the family of complainant Paramjeet Singh as well as the accused persons were present there. He has also deposed that both families were happy on the birth of the new born St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 52 of 88 baby. According to the witness, in his presence no demand was raise by the accused persons at the time of birth of female child. He has also deposed that after about two months of the pregnancy of deceased, they came to know that she was suffering from abdomen pain and later on he came to know that she was suffering from Kidney problem. The witness has testified that she was operated in Kartik Nursing home in Janakpuri and he and his wife had gone to see her in the said hospital where he came to know through the family of deceased that she remained under treatment at Lady Harding hospital, AIIMS and other hospitals but she could not recovered from the aforesaid illness. He has also deposed that he and his wife met the deceased during her life time for about 15­20 times but she never complaint about any harassment or demand of dowry by the accused persons. The witness has also deposed that he saw the deceased happily living with the accused persons and the deceased was in depression because of her Kidney problems. According to him on 25.08.2006 he received a message from the house of deceased Gurpreet that she had committed suicide on which he immediately rushed to the house of the complainant Paramjeet Singh and thereafter to the house of accused persons. He has testified that during her life time deceased never complaint to them regarding any harassment or demand of dowry.

(56) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State the witness has deposed that he went to Nursing Home after one day from delivery of the child i.e. 20.08.2004. He does not remember the exact date St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 53 of 88 when he visited the Kartik Nursing home and states that he went to Kartik Nursing home at the instance of accused Harender where he remained for about two hours. He has denied the suggestion that the deceased was not suffering from Kidney ailment and at the instance of the accused persons he has deposed falsely regarding the Kidney problem. He has also denied that he has been tutored by the accused persons or that he never visited the matrimonial house of the deceased and never talked with deceased Gurpreet regarding her ailment. The witness has further deposed that he felt no necessity to give this statement to the police to the effect that the deceased Gurpreet Kaur had told him anything about her ailment. (57) DW6 Smt. Nindar Kaur is the wife of Rajender Singh (DW5). She has corroborated the testimony of Rajender Singh DW5 in toto. FINDINGS:

(58) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record. My findings are as under:

Identity of the accused:

(59) In so far as the identity of the accused persons is concerned, the same is not disputed. The accused Harender Singh is the husband of the deceased Gurpreet Kaur; accused Varinder Singh is the bother in law St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 54 of 88 (Jeth); accused Davinder Jeet Kaur is the mother in law; accused Kamal Preet Kaur is the sister­in­law (Jethani) and accused Mohan Singh is the father in law of the deceased Gurpreet Kaur. The accused have not disputed their identity and hence, I hereby hold that the identity of the accused stands established.

Unnatural death within seven years of marriage:

(60) It is an admitted case of both the prosecution and the defence that the marriage of the deceased Gurpreet Kaur was solemnized with the accused Harender Singh on 3.10.2003 as per Sikh customs and she was blessed with a girl child on 18.4.2004. It is also admitted that the deceased Gurpreet Kaur had expired on 25.8.2006 i.e. about two years and ten months (within seven years of marriage). Therefore, it stands established that the death of the deceased was within seven years of marriage which death was not natural.

Medical Evidence:

(61) Dr. Ajay Sharma (PW5) has proved the MLC of deceased Gurpreet Kaur which is Ex.PW5/A according to which she was brought to DDU hospital by her mother Smt. Surender Kaur in an unconscious state and after examination Dr. Swati Aggarwal had declared her brought dead.

Dr. Anil Shandil (PW1) has proved the postmortem report of the deceased St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 55 of 88 which is Ex.PW1/A according to which there was a ligature mark on the neck of the deceased traversing from middle right side of neck to upper base of chin, left side of neck just below left angle of mandible and behind left ear, oblique incompletely encircling the neck having dimensions 35 cm x 1 cm, 6 cm from hyper extended chin, 6.3 cm from right angle of mandible. He has proved that the opinion was kept pending till the receipt of blood and viscera chemical analysis report and on receipt of chemical analysis report he opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to antemortem ligature hanging which opinion is Ex.PW1/C. The entire medical evidence on record has gone uncontroverted since the Autopsy Surgeon has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel. (62) Therefore, I hereby hold that the cause of death was asphyxia due to antemortem ligature hanging and the medical evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution case.

Allegations against the accused under Section 498­A & 304­B IPC (dowry death­ proximity test):

(63) The case of the prosecution is that Gurpreet Kaur (deceased) was married to the accused Harinder Singh on 3.10.2003 and after the marriage Gurpreet Kaur came to her parental house and told her family members that her mother in law was harassing her on the point of dowry and when she (deceased) complaint to her husband, he used to beat her along with his mother. It has been alleged that when she (deceased) St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 56 of 88 complained to her father in law and brother in law they did not pay any heed. According to the complainant Paramjeet Singh he had given Rs.

40,000/­ to the accused Mohan Singh in September 2004 and on 18.8.2004 Gurpreet Kaur was blessed with a girl child and the accused Devenderjeet Kaur put forth a demand of four gold bangles. It is alleged that two months prior to death of his daughter, her in­laws gave her a beatings and when they talk on the phone, Gurpreet Kaur was weeping bitterly and called them to save but her phone was disconnected. The complainant has also alleged that on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan the accused Harinder Singh raised a demand of Rs. One Lac to run his business and on the complainant showing his inability, in anger Harinder Singh remarked that his daughter was of no use as her father could not pay a sum of Rs.1 lac and he would kill her. It is alleged that on 25.8.2006 at about 8:30 PM the complainant received a phone call whereby he was informed that her daughter had taken crocin tablets and when the parental family of the deceased went there, the deceased was found lying on the bed and there was ligature marks on her neck.

(64) In support of its case the prosecution has examined as many as twenty witnesses and the accused has also examined six witnesses in their defence which include the Mediators of the marriage. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the oral testimonies of the parents of the deceased i.e. Paramjeet Singh (PW9) & Smt. Surender Kaur (PW10); her uncle Gurbaksh Singh (PW12) and her brother Guriqbal Singh (PW13). St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 57 of 88 From the combined reading of the testimonies of all the above witnesses the following facts emerge:

➢ That after 10­11 days after marriage, the deceased came to her parental house and told that the accused Varinder Singh and Kamalpreet Kaur used to whisper to each other that insufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage.

➢ That two days prior to the first Lohri in the year 2004 the deceased informed that the accused Varinder Singh and Davinderjeet Kaur stated that refrigerator was not amongst the articles given in the marriage.

➢ That when Paramjeet Singh and Smt. Surender Kaur went to seen their daughter and the newly born baby, the accused Davinderjeet Kaur stated that they should have brought four bangles. ➢ That in the last days of September 2004 the accused Mohan Singh telephonically contacted the complainant and asked him to foot the bill regarding medical expenses incurred at the time of delivery on which Paramjeet Singh arranged Rs.40,000/­ and gave the same to accused Mohan Singh.

➢ That two months prior to 25.8.2006 when the deceased expired Paramjeet Singh receioved a call on his mobile from Harinder Singh and he heard his daughter raising hue and cry saying that he should save her, but the phone was disconnected.

St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 58 of 88 ➢ That when Paramjeet Singh along with his wife Surender Kaur reached the matrimonial home of the deceased, they were sent back by the accused Davinderjeet Kaur saying that it was their internal matter.

➢ That on the day of Raksha Bandhan the deceased came to her parental house and told the complainant that her husband was demanding a sum of Rs. One lac from her for his business and has threatened her with death in case his demand of Rs. 1 lac was not met with.

➢ That the deceased used to tell the complainant Paramjeet Singh and his wife that she was given beatings by her husband and when she used to tell her father in law and mother in law about the same, they used to ask her to bring money for the business of her husband. ➢ That on 13.8.2006 when the brother of the deceased namely Gur Iqbal Singh purchased a new two wheeler scooter and called his sister (deceased) on telephone for giving the news the accused Harender told him that his father had no money to give him when he demanded Rs. One Lac but he purchased a new scooter for him. (65) The Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Counsel for the complainant have vehemently argued that all the material prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case without leaving any scope for contradictions and ambiguity. It is argued that during the lengthy cross­ St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 59 of 88 examination of the witnesses nothing adverse has been brought on record to cast any shadow of doubt to the prosecution case. It is further argued that the story of cruelty and harassment both mental and physical was narrated by the deceased Gurpreet Kaur to her parents including uncle and brother whenever she visited her parents house or through other source of communication. It is pointed out that under the law the episode of cruelty on the point of demand of dowry is admissible under Section 32 of Evidence Act. It is also argued that the deceased had been facing cruelty from the date of her marriage i.e. 3.10.2003 till 25.8.2006 and all the prosecution witnesses have given clear picture of cruelty narrated by the deceased to them. It is further argued that all the suggestion regarding depression due to so called ailment was denied by all the witnesses including defence witnesses and there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was unable to discharge her domestic as well as marital obligation due to any reason whatsoever. Reliance has been placed on the authorities of Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab reported in 2000 Cr.L.J. 2993 Supreme Court and in the case of Deen Dayal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 Cri.L.J. 1119 Supreme Court.

(66) Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused on the other hand has vehemently argued that it is the case of the defence that the deceased was suffering from a serious and long ailment and was under

treatment and had committed suicide on account of depression. It is argued that at no point of time any complaint has been made by the deceased or St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 60 of 88 her parents to any relative, mediator of the marriage, persons of the community, police or any authority. It is submitted that the entire allegations are a matter of after thought and have been made for the first time after the accused Harender Singh had refused to marry another sister of the deceased after her death and after Kamalpreet Kaur had been granted anticipatory bail by the Ld. Sessions Judge. It is also submitted that SI Vijdender Singh who has been examined as PW20 has admitted this fact and also the aspect that he had recorded the statement of the brother and uncle of the deceased after the anticipatory bail had been granted to accused Kamalpreet Kaur. Ld. Counsel has further argued that it is also admitted by the parents of the deceased in their first statement that they have not made any of the allegations which they have now made in the Court and the only explanation given by them was that their statements were never recorded by the SDM whereas on the contrary the SDM Sh.

K.K. Sharma who has been examined as PW7 has denied the same and has stated that the statement of Paramjeet Singh had been recorded on his dictation and has been attested by him. It is pointed out that SI Madan Lal (PW15) has confirmed that the statement of the complainant had been recorded on the dictation of the SDM after which on the directions of SDM the postmortem examination of the deceased was got conducted and the present case was registered. Ld. Counsel has further pointed out that the witnesses/ complainant have been assisted by a professional counsel throughout and the subsequent improvements are made only on legal St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 61 of 88 advise.

(67) Before coming to the evidence on merits, it is necessary to discuss the law in this regard. In order to succeed in charge under Section 498­A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the section. It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498­A of the Indian Penal Code. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498­A of Indian Penal Code, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health. The use of the expression "willful" in the explanation to Section 498­A of Indian Penal Code indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonably expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative, as the 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 St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 62 of 88 injury to her life, limb or health, will depend upon a number of factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of awareness of the aggrieved woman, her temperament, state of her health, physical as well as mental and how she is likely to perceive such a behavior. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, it will also constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section 498­A of Indian Penal Code.

(68) The expression "Cruelty" takes in its ambit mental cruelty as well as physical torture of the woman. If the conduct of the accused with a woman is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life and safety, such a conduct would attract criminal liability, envisaged in Section 498­A of Indian Penal Code.

(69) If the woman has been harassed on account of her failure or the failure of her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, that also constitutes cruelty, within the meaning of Section 498­A of IPC. The expression "harassment" has not been 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 498­A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 63 of 88 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. (70) Further, in order to establish a charge under Section 304­B of Indian Penal Code, which deals with what is described as "dowry death", the prosecution must necessarily prove the following ingredients:­ i. The death of a woman must have been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstance;

ii. Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;

iii. Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband;

                   iv.     Such   cruelty   or   harassment   must   be   for   or   in  
                   connection with demand for dowry;
                   v.    Such cruelty or harassment is when to have been  
                   meted out to the woman soon before her death.  
 

(71)             The term "Dowry" has not been defined in  Section 304­B  of 

IPC, but, since this expression has been defined in Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it is required to be given the same meaning for the purpose of under Section 304­B IPC as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satvir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under:

St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 64 of 88 "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." (72) Dowry would include that property or valuable security which is actually given or which is agreed to be given, in relation to the marriage of a person in question. The property or valuable security may be given or may be agreed to be given before marriage or at the time of marriage or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the marriage.

However, there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given and the marriage. If at any time before or at the time of or even during marriage, the parents of a woman or any other person related or connected to her agree to give some cash, valuable security or property to her husband or in­laws after marriage, that also would be covered within the definition of dowry as the agreement or promise in such a case would 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 St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 65 of 88 girl or her parents or any other person related to or connected with her, saying that the articles being demanded by them were expected to be given or ought to have been given in marriage, that would also, to my mind, constitute demand of dowry because even though such an article may not have been agreed or promised to be given by the girl or her family members, it might have been in the contemplation of the boy and/or his family members, on account of the expectation that such an article would be given at the time of marriage. Therefore, such demand would be considered to be a demand in connection with the marriage though made after the marriage has been solemnized. Even demand of articles such as T.V., fridge, jewellery, clothes, furniture, etc. which usually are given or expected in marriages in our country, would, considering the objective sought to be achieved by incorporating Section 304­B in Indian Penal Code and enacting Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 fall within the purview of Section 304­B of Indian Penal Code.

(73) In the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1998 SC 958, the Apex Court has specifically held demand of T.V., Fridge, etc. though not agreed to be given or promised or even demanded prior to or at the time of marriage, to be a demand for dowry for the purpose of Section 304­B of IPC. If cash or some property, etc. is demanded by the boy or his family members, after marriage, saying that they were expecting such cash, property, etc. to be given in marriage, and the girl, or her parents or any other person related or connected to her St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 66 of 88 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.

(74) In the case of Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45 while dealing with this issue, the Hon"ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:

"Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties". This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for 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 St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 67 of 88 property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage."

(75) In the case of Appasaheb and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2007 SC 763, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

"In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry"

any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning........ A demand for money on account of some financial 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 St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 68 of 88 the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure."

(76) 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.

(77) The main ingredients to be proved for establishing a case under Section 304­B IPC are (i) unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and (ii) she being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with any demand of dowry.

(78) The words "it is shown" occurring in section 304­B IPC are of significance for the reason that the initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Section 304­B IPC do exist on the prosecution. This being shown or established, the question of presumption under Section 113­B of the Evidence Act would arise. In other words, to draw a presumption under section 113­B of the Evidence Act the necessary ingredient that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 69 of 88 cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry has to be proved. Only when these facts are proved then by virtue of the deeming provision of section 304­B IPC, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death. Though cruelty at any time after the marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and harassment envisaged by Section 304­B is to be soon before the death of a woman.

(79) The Courts are required to scrutinize the evidence carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is a demand and then the atmosphere becomes calm and quiet and then again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of her husband within a short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as the torture and harassment is confined to the four walls of the house. The Courts are, however, required to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in laws are strained for any reason whatever it might be.

(80) Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological problem or mental agony or such circumstances that the person committing suicide may think that life he or she is living is more miserable than the pangs and St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 70 of 88 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).

(81) The importance of proximity test is both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113­B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive section 304­B IPC and Section 113­B Evidence Act is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" used in Section 113­B of the Evidence Act, Illustration (a) of the Act is relevant. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before"

would normally imply that the interval should not be too much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of 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. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 71 of 88 (82) It is well settled by several judgments that mere suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt. In the case reported as State of Punjab Vs.. Bhajan Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 258, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:­ ''The circumstances of this case undoubtedly create suspicion against the accused. Suspicion, by itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of the accused."

(83) 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 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........

St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 72 of 88 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...."

(84) In another case reported as AIR 1973 SC 2622, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :­ ''Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before the court can convict and the mental distinction between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure consideration."

(85) Further more, in another case reported as Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under :­ ''......Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but then the law St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 73 of 88 does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this Court in the case of "Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) stated thus:

It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold­blooded 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....."

(86) 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. (87) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, at the very Outset I may observe that the evidence on record establishes that the death of the deceased has occurred in her matrimonial home which is suicidal.

(88) Secondly it has emerged from the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses particularly the parents of the deceased that the accused persons had first informed them that the deceased had consumed St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 74 of 88 Crocin tablets but later where informed by the police officials that she had been found hanging on which they rushed her to the hospital. Here, I may observe that the viscera / chemical analysis report show that the stomach and piece of small intestine of the deceased was containing Salicyclic Acid and Acetyl Salicyclic Acid (which are the components of Crocin) and the pieces of liver, spleen and kidney were found to contain Acetyl Salicyclic Acid, establishing that the information given by the accused to the family of the deceased that the deceased had consumed Crocin was factually correct.

(89) Thirdly in their first statements made to the police neither Paramjeet singh nor Surender Kaur have made any allegations with regard to demand of dowry and the allegations made by them to the police were general, vague, non specific and common. No specific role has been assigned to any of the accused.

(90) Fourthly there are large number of improvements in the testimonies of the father of the deceased Paramjeet Singh (PW9), mother of the deceased namely Surender Kaur (PW10), uncle of the deceased Gurbax Singh (PW12) and her brother Gur Iqbal Singh which are material in nature. For the sake of convenience the improvements made by the family members of the deceased are culled out in a tabulated form as under:

Sr. Name of the Improvements made in the statement/ aspect No. witness introduced in the Court for the first time

1. Paramjeet Singh ➢ That 10/12 days after the marriage, his (PW9) daughter Gurpreet Kaur started living at St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 75 of 88 the matrimonial home i.e. House No.42­A, Plot No.35, Ravi Nagar, Delhi. 10/12 days after the marriage, Gurpreet Kaur came to the parental house and told that Mohan Singh, father­in­law, Devenderjeet Kaur, mother­in­law, Varinder Singh, brother­in­ law and her husband Harender Singh used to whisper to each other that insufficient jewellery was given at the time of her marriage.

➢ That he heard, what his daughter told him and said that they would see to it.

➢ That on the eve of festival, Mohan Singh, accused, used to talk to him on telephone and invite him to the matrimonial home of his daughter and that at the same time, they used to ask his daughter to talk to them telephonically that they should bring such and such items at the time of their visit to her matrimonial home.

➢ That two days prior to the first Lohri festival of the year 2004, his daughter telephonically talked to him and told him that Mohan Singh and Devenderjeet Kaur accused told that refrigerator was not amongst the articles given at the time of marriage.

➢ That on coming to know that his daughter had been blessed with a daughter, he and his wife reached Sehgal Nursing Home to see his daughter and the newly born baby and accused Devenderjeet Kaur remarked that they should have brought at least four gold bangles having come to see the newly born baby on which he did not respond to the same.

➢ That 10­12 days after the delivery his daughter was discharged from the Nursing Home and he alongwith his other family St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 76 of 88 members visited the matrimonial home of his daughter and provided clothes for all the family members at the matrimonial home of his daughter in addition to Kangan, pajeb and clothes for the newly born baby and some eatables.

➢ That in the last days of September i.e. one and half month after their visit to the matrimonial of his daughter, accused Mohan Singh telephonically asked him to pay the bill of Rs.40,000/­ regarding the expenses incurred on the medical bills at the time of delivery.

➢ That he went to the matrimonial home of his daughter after arranging the amount and paid the same to Mohan Singh in the presence of Devenderjeet Kaur.

➢ That at the time of his visit to the house of the in­laws of his daughter, accused Mohan Singh told him that his daughter was unwell and they had to get her surgically operated and he should come to their house the next day and take away Gurpreet Kaur for getting her surgically operated upon and they had to bear all the expenses in this regard.

➢ That on the next day he once again visited their house and brought his daughter back to the parental house and thereafter his daughter was surgically operated upon at Kartik Nursing Home, Janakpuri and after she was discharged from the hospital, he brought her to his house and prior to the festival of Deewali his daughter went to her matrimonial home in good health.

➢ That two months prior to 25.08.2006, he received a call on his mobile phone from the mobile phone of Harender Singh accused and he and his wife reached the St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 77 of 88 matrimonial home of his daughter after having overheard the hue and cry on mobile phone.

➢ That his daughter had told him on Raksha Bandhan festival after having come to their house that her husband was demanding a sum of Rs. One lac for his business and that he had threatened with death in case the demand was not met with on which he pacified his daughter and her husband and made her to understand after which she was sent back to the matrimonial home showing his inability to pay this much amount.

➢ That he and his wife reached the matrimonial home and on reaching there found that all the family members namely Mohan Singh, Devenderjeet Kaur, Virender Singh and Kamalpreet Kaur were present in the street in front of their house and on enquiry from Virender Singh about his daughter, he replied that she was on the first floor of the house.

2. Surender Kaur ➢ That her daughter was killed by her in­laws (PW10) by strangulating her.

➢ That 10­15 days after the marriage of her daughter when her daughter came to their house, she told her that her mother­in­law was harassing her and was demanding more jewellery items.

➢ That in January 2004, when her daughter Gurpreet Kaur came to their house, she told her that her mother­in­law and father­ in­law had asked her that it was the first Lohri after her marriage and that she should bring some big item from them. ➢ That she and her husband went to the matrimonial home of her daughter and when they saw their newly born grand St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 78 of 88 daughter, they gave her whatever was possible for them to the newly born granddaughter, but mother­in­law of her daughter remarked that they should have brought four gold bangles and on that occasion they had gone to the nursing home at that time.

➢ That 10­15 days thereafter, when they visited the matrimonial house of his daughter to give gifts on account of birth of newly born granddaughter, mother­in­law, sister­in­law (jethani Kamalpreet Kaur) and Nand Dimmi remarked that they had come with silver karas instead of gold karas and mother­in­law further remarked that she had asked for four gold bangles and that whether she did not intend to settle her daughter in the matrimonial house. ➢ That before the birth of her granddaughter, mother­in­law of her daughter had demanded a washing machine and they had supplied the same.

➢ That in September 2004, accused Mohan Singh father­in­law of her daughter, telephonically talked to her husband and she accompanied her husband to their house where the accused told them that her daughter was not keeping good health and that they had spent much for her treatment and they should repay the expenses borne by them.

➢ That she had accompanied her husband to the house of the accused persons where the amount of Rs.40,000/­ was paid to Sh. Mohan Singh.

➢ That in May 2006 Mohan Singh, Devender Jeet Kaur, Harinder Kaur and Kawaljeet Kaur gave beatings to her daughter and Harinder Singh switched on his mobile St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 79 of 88 phone and asked her daughter to talk to her.

➢ That she was also present in her house and her husband had asked her daughter as to why she was weeping on which she had named the above persons and while her husband was attending the phone, she was standing by his side.

➢ That her daughter further telephonically informed her husband that her mother­in­ law was saying that they would kill her. ➢ That on 09.08.06 on the day of Rakshabandhan festival, her daughter Gurpreet Kaur had come to their house and told her that her husband Harinder Singh was demanding Rs. One Lac from her to run his business and to buy land on which she assured her daughter that they would look into this demand and do whatever was possible and she conveyed this demand raised by Harinder Singh to her husband. ➢ That at that time when her daughter came to their house on Rakshabandhan festival she was accompanied by her husband i.e. accused Harinder who told her daughter that either he would kill her or she should commit suicide as his demand for money had been turned down by her.

➢ That on 25.08.06 at about 8:30 PM Harinder Singh had telephonically talked to her and inquired about their welfare and then informed her that her daughter had consumed Crocin Tablets and that they should reach there as soon as possible as her condition was serious.

➢ That they had covered hardly five minutes distance from their house and reached in front of the house of accused, where they found many persons gathered there and she St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 80 of 88 inquired from them as to what had happened and she and her husband entered the matrimonial house of her daughter and inquired from Virender Singh as to where was her daughter.

➢ That Devender Jeet Kaur, mother­in­law told her that her daughter had committed suicide and that is why she came to the conclusion that her daughter was killed by the accused persons.

➢ That doctors at Bagga Nursing Home told them that she had died about two hours prior thereto.

3. Gurbax Singh ➢ That after 10 or 15 days of the marriage of (PW12) the deceased she came to her parental house and he was also present at that time when the deceased narrated about demand of more jewellery and taunt for the less dowry.

➢ That on the day of death of the deceased, he had gone to her matrimonial home where the deceased was found lying on a bed and he noticed ligature marks on her neck.

4. Gur Iqbal Singh ➢ That his sister told about the demand made (PW13) by the said accused after 10­15 days of the marriage.

➢ That his sister told him about the taunt of her in­laws with regard to his reaching the said place at the time of birth of a female child of the deceased, empty handed. ➢ That his sister had told him that her mother­in­law, sister­in­law used to beat her in connection with the demand of ornaments.

(91) It is a settled law the the contradictions and discrepancies which are minor in nature are liable to be ignored but those which are St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 81 of 88 material and can go to the root of the prosecution case cannot be ignored.

Where the witnesses make two inconsistent statements then in the absence of any independent reliable corroboration it is not safe to rely upon their testimonies [Ref.: Suraj Mal Vs. State reported in AIR 1979 SC 1408 and Anil Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2000 (4) CRIMES 283 (SC)]. (92) Fifthly it is writ large that during the subsistence of marriage of the deceased Gurpreet Kaur between 3.10.2003 to 25.8.2006 i.e. almost two years and ten months no complaint of any kind had been made by the deceased or her parents or family members to the police or to the community or to any other person including Mediators to the marriage who are their close relatives and it is for the first time that such allegations have been made after the death of the deceased.

(93) Sixthly there has been a delay in registration of FIR. The case of the prosecution is that the parents and other family members of the deceased came to know of the death of deceased Gurpreet Kaur on the date of the incident and consequently they immediately reached the matrimonial house of the deceased. The inquest proceedings were conducted on 25.8.2006 and during the same statement of brother of deceased was recorded which is Ex.PW7/D and also the statement of father of the deceased which is Ex.PW7/E. At that time no allegations whatsoever were made either by Paramjeet Singh (PW9) or by Guriqbal Singh (PW13) against the accused persons at the first instance on 25.8.2006. it is only on 26.8.2006 that the FIR was registered at about 10:55 AM and hence the St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 82 of 88 possibility of allegations being made against the accused as an after thought and on tutoring cannot be ruled out. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought and on account of the delay the aspect of exaggeration on account of deliberation and consultation cannot be ruled out [Ref.: Balwant Singh vs. State reported in 1976 CLR (Delhi) 41].

(94) Seventhly the conduct of the accused Harender Singh and his mother Devenderjeet Kaur is not consistent with the presumption of guilt on behalf of the accused since it is writ large that it is the accused Harender Singh who had informed the PCR regarding the suicide of the deceased at his house and also informed her parents.

(95) Lastly six defence witnesses have been examined by the accused in their defence of whom Rajender Singh (DW5) and Smt. Narender Kaur (DW6) were the Mediators of the marriage of the deceased Gurpreet Kaur with the accused. Both of whom are closely related to the complainant and also to the accused. The mother of the deceased namely Smt. Surender Kaur (PW10) has admitted that Smt. Narender Kaur is her first cousin and that the marriage of the deceased with the accused Harender Singh was arranged through them. At no point of time any demand of dowry was communicated to these persons. It is strange that both these Mediators i.e. Rajender Singh (DW5) and Smt. Narender Kaur (DW6) who are the best persons who could have appeared as witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, rather appeared as defence witnesses and have St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 83 of 88 supported the accused persons. Had there been any instances of cruelty or harassment on account of demand of dowry, I am sure Rajender Singh and Smt. Narender Kaur would be the first persons who would have been informed about the same, which is not the case. It is this which creates a serious doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the allegations made. Further, the medical record of the deceased placed before this Court and duly proved by Dr. Narain Sehgal (DW1) and Dr. M. Sridhar (DW2) shows that though the deceased was not suffering from life threatening disease yet she had suffered constant pain with swelling and other complications which occurred after the birth of the child. The medical record of the deceased show that she was suffering from kidney ailments since March 2004 to July 2006 and was diagnosed for right PUJ obstruction with with pyonephrosis and with the right kidney working upto 30% and underwent right sided pyeloplasty and there was a long history of physical suffering on account of her ailments.

(96) I may observe that it is an admitted case of the parents of the deceased that the daughter of the deceased is still living with the accused persons and is being brought up by them. The accused have also examined two witnesses from the Bank of India i.e. Manju Bala (DW3) and Shiv Ram (DW4) who have proved that on one occasion when Harender Singh had received Rs. One Lac extra on account of mistake of the Cashier and he very sincerely returned the amount to the Bank and this conduct of the accused is not consistent with the character of the accused Harender (as St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 84 of 88 that of a greedy man) as sought to be depicted by the prosecution. Therefore, in the given background the only allegations being oral without any independent reliance corroboration the allegations against the accused that on account of greed they had been demanding money from the parents of the deceased, and had killed the deceased due to non fulfillment of the demand does not stand established.

(97) In view of the above, it is clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased Gurpreet Kaur had committed suicide by hanging herself at her matrimonial home but the prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment by the accused Harender Singh, Varinder Singh, Davinderjet Kaur, Kamalpreet Kaur and Mohan Singh. Also the prosecution has failed to establish any proximity or live link between the death of Gurpreet Kaur or any misconduct by the accused. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the role of the above accused in the commission of the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt nor there is anything on record to show that the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide on account of conduct of the accused or cruelty inflicted upon her.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS:

(98) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 the Apex Court has laid down St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 85 of 88 the tests which are pre­requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:

1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;

2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;

4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

(99) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that the identity of the accused stands established, the accused Harender Singh is the husband of the deceased Gurpreet Kaur; accused Varinder Singh is the bother in law (Jeth); accused Davinder Jeet Kaur is the mother in law; accused Kamal Preet Kaur is the sister­in­law (Jethani) and accused Mohan Singh is the father in law of the deceased Gurpreet Kaur. It also stands established that the marriage of the deceased Gurpreet Kaur was solemnized with the accused Harender Singh on 3.10.2003 as per Sikh customs and she was blessed with a girl child on St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 86 of 88 18.4.2004. It also stand established that the deceased Gurpreet Kaur had expired on 25.8.2006 i.e. about two years and ten months of her marriage (within seven years of marriage) and the cause of death was asphyxia due to antemortem ligature hanging.

(100) However, the allegations against the accused Harender Singh, Varinder Singh, Davinderjet Kaur, Kamalpreet Kaur and Mohan Singh of infliction of cruelty or causing harassment to the deceased in connection with demand of dowry, do not stand established beyond reasonable doubt. The deceased had committed suicide at her matrimonial house but prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment by the accused persons. Also, the prosecution has failed to establish any proximity or live link between the death of Gurpreet Kaur or any misconduct by the accused. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the role of the above accused in the commission of the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt nor there is anything on record to show that the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide on account of conduct of the accused. (101) I hereby hold that the circumstances reflected from the material on record do not stand conclusively established. The facts are also are not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The chain of evidence is not so much complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused persons. The material brought on record by the prosecution are insufficient St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 87 of 88 to hold that each of the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Further, each circumstance has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also not been able to establish a conclusive link connecting each individual circumstance with the other, and the accused. Crucially, the material and evidence on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a court to record a finding of guilt of the accused. Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Harender Singh, Varinder Singh, Davinderjet Kaur, Kamalpreet Kaur and Mohan Singh, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to them who are acquitted of the charges under Section 498­A/304­B/34 & 306 Indian Penal Code. Their sureties be discharged as per rules.

(102)              File be consigned to Record Room.




Announced in the open court                                                 (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 2.7.2012                                                            ASJ­II(NW)/ROHINI




St. Vs. Harender Singh Etc., FIR No. 64/06, PS Tilak Nagar                          Page No. 88 of 88