Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Sessions Case No.34/14 State vs Ravi Etc. Page No. 1/48 on 26 November, 2014

IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA, ADDITIONAL 
    SESSIONS JUDGE­05, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.

        IN THE MATTER OF

        SESSIONS CASE NO.34/14 & Old No. 13/2010
        FIR NO. 22/10
        P.S. Punjabi Bagh
        U/S  498A/304B/34 IPC

        STATE
                         VERSUS

        1.Ravi Kumar
        S/o Late Narender Kumar
        R/o F­216, J.J.Colony, 
        Madi Pur, Delhi.  

        2.Smt.Maya Devi
        W/o late Narender Kumar
        R/o F­216, J.J.Colony, 
        Madi Pur, Delhi.

        3.Ms.Pooja 
        W/o Sh.Vinod Kumar  
        R/o RZ­B­91, Sector­I, 
        Dwarka, New Delhi.  
         
        4.Bharat @ Vikash 
        S/o late Narender Kumar
        R/o F­216, J.J.Colony, 
        Madi Pur, Delhi.

         
        DATE OF INSTITUTION               : 04.05.2010
        DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT        : 20.11.2014 
        DATE OF DECISION                  : 26.11.2014 



Sessions Case No.34/14       State Vs.Ravi etc.                          Page No.     1/48
         JUDGEMENT

1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 23.01.2010, a DD no. 48 PP Madi Pur was received by SI Prahlad Singh. On this, he alongwith Ct. Ramesh no.1022/W went to Balaji Hospital, Paschim Vihar where vide MLC no. 2168, Seema W/o Ravi was admitted and doctor declared her brought dead. The deadbody of the deceased was examined by SI Prahlad Singh and he found that there were injuries marks on the left cheek and below the chin (नीले िनशान) of the deceased. In the hospital, the mother and father of the deceased met SI Prahlad Singh and they told him that marriage of Seema was solemnized with Ravi Kumar on 04.07.2006. Both levelled allegations of dowry demand against the accused and his family members. Then SI Prahlad Singh had narrated the incident to SDM Punjabi Bagh Sh.Pravesh Ranjan Jha, who reached at Balaji Hospital and recorded the statement of mother and father of the deceased.

Mother of the deceased Smt.Poonam Devi in her statement to the SDM has stated that she is a house wife. She has two sons and two daughters. The marriage of her younger daughter Seema who was aged about 23/24 years, was solemnized with accused Ravi Kumar S/o Sh.Narender R/o A­4, Paschim Vihar, Delhi on 04.07.2006 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and as per their capacity. After sometimes of the marriage, she came to know that the boy was unemployed and he was also drug addict (नशा करता था). He also used to pressurize her daughter for Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 2/48 bringing motorcycle and the deceased used to convey her. The mother of accused Ravi Kumar namely Maya Devi also used to harass her daughter for dowry and used to abuse her. The sister in law of the deceased namely Ms.Pooja also used to beat Seema alongwith her mother and used to taunt her for bringing less dowry. It is also mentioned in her statement that two years ago, her daughter, her son in law accused Ravi Kumar and other family members had shifted to F­216, J.J.Colony, Madipur, Delhi and in the meanwhile, the sister in law of deceased namely Pooja also got married. After the marriage of Pooja, whenever she (Pooja) visited at her parents house, she (Pooja) alongwith her mother Maya Devi and Ravi Kumar used to beat her (deceased) daughter. It is also mentioned that she used to give money to the deceased for running the house. It is also mentioned that she had given Rs.20,000/­ and Rs.40,000/­ to accused Ravi and his mother Maya Devi on their asking many times. The deceased used to tell the complainant that her sister in law used to remain at her parents house and she used to tease her and beat her. Today at about 2.30 PM, her daughter had telephoned her and told her that she got a job and now she can lookafter her child properly. At about 10 PM, the mother in law of the deceased namely Maya Devi telephoned her and told that Seema had fallen from the stairs and they were going to the hospital. Then the complainant alongwith her son Pramod Kumar went to Balaji hospital and at the gate of the hospital, the mother in law of the deceased told her daughter that Seema has died. The Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 3/48 complainant had taken permission from the doctor to see the deceased. When the complainant saw her daughter, she was having injury marks/contusions on her both the cheeks and there were also injury marks below her chin. Her left eye was also blue in colour due to the injury. In the hospital, the mother in law of her daughter tried to raise quarrel with her and also abused her. After sometime, her husband came in the hospital and they informed the police by dialing no. 100. It is also mentioned by her in her statement that she is sure that her daughter had been murdered by Ravi Kumar, mother in law Maya Devi, sister in law Ms.Pooja and brother in law Bharat for bringing less dowry.

2. The SDM has also recorded the statement of Sh.Prakash Chand, father of the deceased.

3. On the basis of statement of the complainant, a FIR bearing no.

22/10 PS Punjabi Bagh U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC was registered against all the accused persons.

4. During investigation, site plan was prepared. From the spot one chunni and seizure were taken into possession. Postmortem on the deadbody of the deceased was conducted. Father of the deceased had taken photographs of the deceased in the hospital from his mobile phone and the same were also taken into possession. Mother of the deceased also gave writing signed by the accused Ravi Kumar to the police which was also taken into possession. During investigation, opinion of the doctor was taken that injuries on the person of the deceased were unlikely to be caused by fall from stairs. Injuries were caused by blunt force Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 4/48 impact caused by a blunt surface of blunt object. Cause of death was given by the doctor as asphyxia consequent to hanging caused by ligature material via injury no. 2 to 4. Injury no. 2 to 4 are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

5. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed before the court for the offence punishable U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC against the accused persons namely Ravi Kumar and Maya Devi. Accused Pooja and Bharat were arrested lateron and supplementary chargesheet U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC was filed against them.

6. Charge for the offence punishable U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC and in the alternative offence U/s 302 IPC, has been framed against the accused persons namely Ravi Kumar and Maya Devi on 22.05.2010 by my Ld.Predecessor. Charge for the offence punishable 498A/304B/34 IPC and in the alternative offence U/s 302 IPC, has also been framed against the accused persons namely Pooja and Bharat on 03.12.2010 by my Ld.Predecessor. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. Prosecution in all examined twenty witnesses.

8. Statements of all the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. have been recorded in which accused persons denied the case of the prosecution. Accused Bharat has stated in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he alongwith his family members have been falsely implicated in this case. The marriage of the deceased with Ravi Kumar was love marriage and the parents of the deceased were against this marriage and they used to pressurize the deceased Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 5/48 Seema to leave her husband. At the time of incident, he was not present at home and had gone to his work at Mundka.

Accused Maya Devi has stated in her statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. that she was residing at the ground floor and the incident took place on the third floor. She further stated that her leg got injured one week prior to the incident due to which she was having plaster on her foot, therefore, she could not move when the deceased was taken to hospital. The deceased had committed suicide.

Accused Ravi Kumar has stated in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. His marriage with deceased Seema was love marriage and the parents of Seems were against this marriage and they used to pressurize Seem to leave him. At the time of incident, he was sleeping. When he came to know about the hanging of the deceased, he cut the chunni with scissor by which the deceased was hanging. While cutting the chunni, as he was not able to hold her properly, because he was alone, she fell down on the floor and received injuries. He has further stated in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. that as he was residing on the third floor with the deceased and when he was taking her from stairs, he was not able to hold her properly due to which the deceased again fell down in the stairs and received injuries.

Accused Pooja has deposed in her statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. that at the time of incident, she was not present at her parental home and was at her matrimonial home i.e. D­91, Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 6/48 Mahavir Enclave, Sector­1, Dwarka, Delhi. She further deposed that she used to visit her parental home occasionally and on festivals.

9. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused. Submissions of Sh.Sanjay Kumar, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the state and Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons have been heard. The respective submissions of either side have been considered.

10.PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi, who is mother of the deceased has deposed that the marriage of her daughter Seema was solemnized on 04.07.2006 alongwith the accused Ravi Kumar and at the time of marriage, they had given dowry as per their capacity. She has further stated that after the marriage, in laws of the deceased started pressing her for motorcycle and her daughter told her that Ravi Kumar was harassing her for Motorcycle. She has further deposed that her daughter told her that her mother in law Maya Devi also harassed her for demand of dowry and she also used abusive language and her sister in law also gave beatings to her and taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry. This witness has further deposed that she used to give money to her daughter Seema after concealing from her husband. She had given Rs.20,000/­ on the repeated demands of money to the mother of Ravi Kumar and on the another occasion, she had given Rs.40,000/­ to the mother of Ravi before one month prior to the death of her daughter. Their demand was continuous. This witness also stated that deceased Seema had told her about the harassment caused by Ravi, Maya Devi and Pooja.

Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 7/48

She has further deposed that on 23.01.2010, she received a telephone call from Maya Devi and she told that Seema had fallen from the stairs and they were going to hospital. She has further deposed that when she alongwith her son reached at the hospital, she came to know about the death of Seema. Her husband had also reached at the hospital and he informed the police. This witness has further stated that her daughter Seema was killed by Maya Devi, Ravi Kumar and his sister Pooja as they could not fulfill their demands of dowry. She has further deposed that when she had seen the deadbody of her daughter, she noticed that her face was blue and blackish and injury marks on her chin. Brother in law of deceased Seema namely Bharat also used to harass her daughter and also used abusive language against her. This witness has proved her statement as Ex. PW­1/A. She has further stated that she handedover a letter, proved as Ex. PW­1/B, which was signed by Ravi Kumar and written by her daughter. In this letter, accused Ravi Kumar had assured that he will not quarrel with her daughter. The said letter was seized by the police vide seizure memo which is proved as Ex.PW­1/C.

11.PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand is the father of deceased and he has deposed that the deceased was his daughter and she was married with accused Ravi Kumar on 04.07.2006. Accused Ravi used to give beatings to his daughter and used to demand money from her and press her to bring money for him. He has further deposed that he had fulfilled their demands many times. This witness has further deposed that the deceased was harassed by Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 8/48 Maya Devi, Ravi Kumar, Pooja and Bharat for demand of dowry. About one month prior to the incident, accused Ravi gave beatings to his daughter, then his daughter reached his house alongwith her son and then he tried to reconcile the matter and tried to make Ravi Kumar understand on this issue. Thereafter, accused Ravi Kumar left his house and caused injury on his person and was admitted to Balaji hospital. He has further deposed that after receiving information, he went there and paid Rs.10,000/­ towards the medical expenses of accused Ravi Kumar. Thereafter, his daughter went to the house of Ravi Kumar from the hospital.

This witness has further deposed that on 23.01.2010, he had telephoned the deceased at 8 PM and she told him that she got a job and from tomorrow, she will go to attend her service. He has further deposed that her daughter told him that her mother in law and Ravi are asking for Rs.5,000/­. This witness had told the deceased that he will reach tomorrow to discuss the matter. On the same day, at about 10 PM, when he was coming back from his duty, he received a call from his son about the incident.

He has further deposed that he went to the hospital and found his daughter in dead condition. He informed the police. There were injury marks on the neck of the deceased and her face was blue and blackish badly. He took five photographs of the face of his daughter through his mobile and after developing these photographs, handeover the same to the IO. This witness has also proved the copies of photographs as Ex. PW­2/C1 to Ex.

Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 9/48

PW­2/C5. This witness has further deposed that his daughter had been killed by her husband accused Ravi Kumar, mother in law Maya Devi, sister in law Pooja and brother in law Bharat Kumar for insufficient dowry as he could not fulfill their demands. He has further deposed that motorcycle was also demanded by accused Ravi Kumar and his mother after the marriage. This witness has proved his statement as Ex. PW­2/A. He had also identified the dead body of deceased. This witness has also proved his statement recorded by the SDM which is Ex. PW­2/B. He has also stated that his wife had handedover a letter to the police which was written by his daughter and signed by the accused Ravi Kumar and in this letter, accused Ravi Kumar had assured that he will not quarrel in the family. The said letter is proved by this witness as Ex. PW­1/B.

12.PW­3 Sh.Pravesh Ranjan Jha, SDM Defence Colony has deposed that on 23.01.2010, at about 11.30 PM, he had received information about this case and had reached Balaji hospital where parents of deceased met him. He verified the facts and circumstances from them and thereafter, he came back to the PS. In the PS, statements of Smt.Poonam Devi and Sh.Prakash Chand, parents of the deceased were recorded which are proved as Ex. PW­1/A and Ex. PW­2/A respectively. He made his endorsement which is proved as Ex. PW­3/A and Ex. PW­3/B. He has further stated that he had also directed the IO verbally to register a case as per law on the basis of facts and circumstances.

This witness has further deposed that on the next day Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 10/48 morning, he went to SGMH hospital mortuary. Form 2535 was prepared which is proved as Ex. PW­3/C. Statement of Pramod Kumar Ex.PW­3/D was recorded regarding identification of the dead body of the deceased. Statement of Prakash Chand was also recorded in this regard which is proved as Ex. PW­2/B. He has further deposed that he had prepared brief facts Ex. PW­3/E and form for request for postmortem Ex. PW­3/F was also filled in.

13.PW­4 HC Ashok Kumar MHC(M) has deposed that on 24.01.2010, Insp.R.D.Pandey had produced two pullandas, one viscera box and one sample seal. He made entry in register no. 19 at srl.no. 3046, copy of which is proved as Ex. PW­4/A. He has further deposed that entry regarding sending the exhibits to the FSL, Rohini through Ct.Bhim vide RC no. 13/21/10 were made by HC Bhagwan Sahai.

He has further deposed that pullanda of Chunni and scissor were handedover to Insp. R.D.Pandey on 04.02.2010 who took the same to take opinion from Autopsy surgeon of SGMS hospital and entry in this regard was made in register no. 19. He has further deposed that these pullandas were handedover to Insp. R.D.Pandey through RC no. 10/21/10.

This witness has further deposed that on the same day, after obtaining the opinion from the hospital, Insp. R.D.Pandey handedover both the seal pullandas sealed with the seal of SGMH hospital and he made entry in register no. 19. He has further deposed that so long as exhibits remained in his custody, same were not tampered by him or anyone else in any manner.

Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 11/48

14.PW­5 Ct.Sukram Pal has deposed that on the intervening night of 23/24.01.2010, he was posted at Mobile Crime Team West district and he alongwith other member of crime team reached at the spot. Spot was inspected by the crime team. He took 11 photographs through digital Camera. This witness has proved the CD of the photographs i.e.snap no. 407 to 417 as Ex. P.1.

15.PW­6 Smt.Saroj has deposed that she knew Sh.Prakash Chand, father of Seema. She has been running ironing shop at Paschim Puri. Deceased Seema used to visit her shop and sometime she left her son Tanish at her shop as and when she went for the search of job. She has further deposed that deceased informed her that her husband used to harass her for demand of money after consuming liquor. The deceased also told her that her father had given Rs.40,000/­ to her husband Ravi and even though after taking Rs.40,000/­ her husband did not release her jewellery articles which he had pledged. The deceased also told her that her sister in law namely Pooja also harassed her and Pooja remain stayed in their house for about 20­25 days and Pooja also taunted the deceased. This witness has further deposed that the deceased also complained about the harassment caused by her husband, mother in law, Nand Pooja and Devar Bharat. This witness has correctly identified all the accused persons before the court.

16.PW­7 SI Ramesh Chander has deposed that on 24.01.2010, he was duty officer from 12 AM midnight to 8 AM. On that day, at about 02.45 AM, he had received rukka which was sent by SI Prahlad Singh through Ct. Ramesh and on the basis of said rukka, Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 12/48 he had recorded the FIR of this case. He has further deposed that further investigation of this case was marked to Insp. R.D.Pandey. This witness has proved the computerized copy of FIR as Ex. PW­7/A.

17.PW­8 Ct.Bhim Singh has deposed that on 22.02.2010, on the directions of the IO of this case, he collected viscera petti and sample seal from MHC(M) vide RC no. 13/21/10 and same were deposited by him at FSL, Rohini. After depositing the exhibits, he returned back to PS and handedover the receipt to MHC(M). This witness has further deposed that so long as the exhibits remained in his custody, its seal were remained intact and not tampered by him or anyone.

18.PW­9 W/Ct.Nirmala has deposed that on 23.01.2010, she was posted at police control room and was performing her duty at Extension no. 104. At about 22.26 hours, she had received information through telephone no. 1142888700 and the said information provided by the caller was filled in the form. Information was recorded in the form and further sent to the net for further action. This witness has proved the computerized copy of the form which is Ex. PW­9/A.

19.PW­10 Dr.J.V.Kiran has deposed that on 24.01.2010, he had conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Seema W/o Ravi Kumar. During postmortem, he found six injuries on the person of Seema. This witness has proved the P.M.report of the deceased as Ex.PW­10/A. He has further deposed that in his opinion, the cause of death is asphyxia consequent to hanging cause by Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 13/48 ligature material via injury no. 2 to 4. Injury no. 2 to 4 are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Viscera was seized and handedover to the police.

This witness has further deposed that on 04.02.2010, IO had produced a sealed pullanda alongwith application. Pullanda was opened after removing the seal of RD and it was containing Chunni. After seeing the Chunni, this witness gave opinion that death of lady can be caused due to the said Chunni. This witness has proved his opinion as Ex. PW­10/B. He has further deposed that on 18.04.2010, IO again moved an application with object to obtain opinion whether injuries on the face of the deceased can be caused by falling from the stair cases or by physical assault. This witness has further deposed that after examining the P.M.report, he opined that these injuries is unlikely to be caused by fall from the stairs and opined that injury on the face of the deceased were caused by blunt surface of blunt object.

20.PW­11 HC Awadh Bihari has deposed that on 23.01.2010, at about 10.45 PM, he received a call from control room that doctors of Balaji hospital had informed the control room that patient Seema Kumari was brought dead at Balaji Hospital, Paschim Vihar. He recorded DD no. 48 and copy of the same is proved by this witness as Ex. PW­11/A. Thereafter, he had handedover DD no. 48 to SI Prahlad Singh.

21.PW­12 SI Mahesh Kumar has deposed that on 03.03.2010, at the request of Insp. R.D.Pandey, he reached at PP Madi Pur and from Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 14/48 there, he alongwith Insp. R.D.Pandey and SI Prahlad Singh visited the place of occurrence i.e. third floor, F­216, J J Colony, Madi Pur where at the instance of SI Prahlad Singh, he took rough notes and measurements. He has further deposed that on the basis of the rough notes and measurements, he prepared scaled site plan which is proved as Ex. PW­12/A. He has further stated that after preparation of scaled site plan, rough notes were destroyed.

22.PW­13 ASI Jai Singh has deposed that on 24.01.2010, on receiving call, he alongwith HC Udham Singh and Ct. Sukram had reached at third floor, F­216, J J Colony, Madi Pur. The crime team inspected the spot. The place of incident was already cleaned. One iron scissor and one chunni having two knots were lying on the floor. The victim had already been removed to hospital. He has further deposed that Ct. Sukram Pal took photographs of the spot. He prepared crime team report, which is proved as Ex. PW­13/A and handedover the same to IO/SI Prahlad Singh.

23.PW­14 Ct. Ramesh has deposed that on 23.01.2010, at about 10 PM, on receipt of DD no. 48 PP Madi Pur, he alongwith SI Prahlad Singh, Incharge PP Madi Pur went at Balajit hospital, Paschim Vihar and there they came to know that on the MLC no. 2168, doctor declared Seema Kumari W/o Ravi Kumar as brought dead. SI Prahlad Singh inspected the deadbody. There were blue spots on the face of the deceased Seema. He has further stated that mother and father of deceased Seema were also present at the Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 15/48 hospital and they stated that their daughter Seema was married with Ravi Kumar on 04.07.2006 and her in laws used to demand dowry. He has further deposed that SI Prahlad Singh brought all these facts into the knowledge of SDM of Punjabi Bagh. SDM came at the hospital and inquired from the family members and recorded statement of mother of deceased Seema and thereafter he directed SI Prahlad Singh to conduct the further proceedings.

This witness has further deposed that SI Prahlad Singh gave a written Tehrir to him for getting the case registered. He gave original Tehrir to the duty officer to register the present case and thereafter, he alongwith Insp. R.D.Pandey went at the place of occurrence i.e. F­216, J J Colony, Madi Pur. There SI Prahlad Singh met them and Insp. R.D.Pandey prepared site plan at the instance of SI Prahlad Singh. He has further stated that in the meanwhile, Crime team officials alongwith photographer also reached at the spot who conducted their proceedings and submitted their report to Insp. R.D.Pandey and left the spot.

He has further stated that at the spot, one scissor and one chunni were lying . IO lifted the same, kept them in two separate parcels, sealed the same with the seal of RD and seized vide memo Ex.PW­14/A and Ex.PW­14/B. He has further stated that postmortem on the deadbody of Seema was got conducted and viscera was got preserved at the hospital. Doctor gave him one sealed parcel containing viscera and one sample seal and had given the same to the IO who had taken the same into his possession vide Ex.PW­14/C. Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 16/48 He has further stated that accused Ravi Kumar was arrested by the IO in his presence. This witness has proved the Arrest Memo and personal search memo of accused Ravi Kumar which are Ex.PW­14/D and Ex.PW­14/E. This witness has identified accused Ravi Kumar before the court. This witness has proved the Scissor as Ex.PA and Chunni as Ex. PB.

24.PW­15 W/HC Laxmi has deposed that on 24.01.2010, Insp. R.D.Pandey called him at PS and from there, he alongwith the IO went at the residence of accused Maya Devi i.e. F­216, J J Colony, Madi Pur, Delhi. This witness has proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Maya Devi as Ex. PW­15/B and Ex.PW­15/A respectively.

25.PW­16 SI Prahlad Singh has deposed that on 23.01.2010, on receipt of DD no. 48, he alongwith Ct. Ramesh reached at Balaji hospital, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, where Seema was declared brought dead by the concerned doctor at 10.10 PM on the MLC. He has further deposed that Prakash Chand and Smt. Poonam Devi, parents of the deceased were also present in the hospital. He inspected the deadbody of Seema and found that there were bluish injuries on the left side of her cheek and below her chin. He made preliminary enquiry from her parents and they alleged dowry demand. As Seema died before seven years from the date of her marriage, he accordingly informed area SDM of Punjabi Bagh, Sh.Praveen Ranjan Jha regarding the facts of the case.

He has further stated that SDM came at Balaji hospital and recorded statement of Smt. Poonam Devi and Sh.Prakash Chand, Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 17/48 parents of the deceased Seema. Thereafter, SDM directed him to take further necessary action. He made endorsement on the statement of Poonam Devi which is proved as Ex.PW­16/A and gave Tehrir to Ct.Ramesh for getting the case registered. He made written request in his endorsement to send crime team officials alongwith photographer.

He has further stated that thereafter he alone went at the place of occurrence i.e.H.No. F­216, Third Floor, J J Colony, Madi Pur, Delhi. He inspected the spot. After sometime, crime team officials also reached at the spot. Insp. R.D.Pandey alongwith Ct.Ramesh also reached at the spot and further investigation was carried out by Insp. R.D.Pandey. IO prepared site plan at his instance. IO had taken one Chunni having yellow blackish and Bengani colour flowers. The Chunni was cut in length and one scissor was also lying in that room. IO had taken the Chunni and scissor into his possession, sealed the same with the seal of RD and seized the same vide memo Ex. PW­16/B and C. This witness has also proved on record the Scissor as Ex. PA and Chunni as Ex. PB.

26.PW­17 Insp. R.D.Pandey has deposed that on 24.02.2010, the investigation of this case was handedover to him after the registration of the case. He alongwith Ct.Ramesh went at H.No. F­216, Madi Pur, Delhi where SI Prahlad and Crime Team officials met him. He prepared site plan at the instance of SI Prahlad Singh which is proved as Ex. PW­17/A. He has further stated that he had taken Chunni having two knots and scissor, which was Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 18/48 lying on the floor of the third floor. He kept the chunni and scissor in a cloth parcel and sealed the same with the seal of RD and seized vide memo Ex. PW­16/B and Ex.PW­16/C. Crime team officials gave him their SOC report.

This witness has further stated that he had visited Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital where Ct. Ramesh produced one sealed parcel & one sample seal and he had taken the same into his possession vide Ex. PW­14/C. On the same day, he arrested two accused persons namely Ravi Kumar and Maya Devi in the presence of L/HC Laxmi. This witness has proved the Arrest memo and personal search memos of accused Ravi Kumar and Maya Devi as Ex. PW­14/E, Ex.PW­15/A, Ex. PW­14/D and Ex. PW­15/B. He has further deposed that on 28.01.2010, Sh.Prakash Chand, father of the deceased produced three photographs of his daughter Seema which he had taken from his mobile in the hospital and same have been seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW­17/B. This witness has further stated that on 04.02.2010 and 18.04.2010, he moved applications for obtaining subsequent opinions vide application Ex. PW­17/C and D. On 03.03.2010, SI Mahesh draftsman prepared scaled site plan after taking rough notes and measurements at the instance of SI Prahlad. On 07.03.2010, Poonam Devi, mother of the deceased produced one paper which was signed by accused Ravi Kumar (Raj Kumar) and he had taken into possession through seizure memo Ex. PW­1/C and the documents is already exhibited as Ex. PW­1/B. Viscera Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 19/48 was sent to FSL for analysis through Ct.Bhim Singh on 22.02.2010. On 25.03.2010, SI Mahesh gave him scaled site plan. He recorded statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, challan was prepared. This witness has identified both the accused persons before the court. This witness has also identified the Scissor as Ex. PA and Chunni as Ex. PB.

27.PW­18 Dr.Manoj Dhingra has deposed that he has been deputed by MS of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital to appear and depose on behalf of Dr. J.V. Kiran, the then SR, Forensic Medicine Department, SGM Hospital, Delhi. He has further stated that Dr.J.V. Kiran had left the services of the said hospital and his present whereabouts are not available with the hospital record. This witness has also identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. J.V. Kiran as he had seen Dr. J.V. Kiran as writing and signing during his official duties.

This witness has further deposed that he had seen the P.M. Report bearing no. 76/10 dt. 24.01.2010 conducted by Dr.J.V.Kiran on the body of Seema W/o Ravi Kumar in the present FIR. This witness has also deposed that the P.M. Report, which is already exhibited as Ex.PW­10/A is in the handwriting of Dr.J.V.Kiran and bears hsis signatures at point A. This witness has further stated that as per the endorsement of Dr. J.V.Kiran, cause of death was asphyxia consequent to hanging caused by ligature material via injuries 2­4 sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and time since death was about 12 hours. This witness has also stated that Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 20/48 the subsequent opinion which is already exhibited as Ex. PW­10/B, which is on the back of Ex. PW­17/C is in the handwriting of Dr. J.V. Kiran and bears his signatures at point A. He has also deposed that the opinion which is on the back of Ex. PW­17/D is in the handwriting of DR. J.V. Kiran and the same is Ex. PW­18/A, which bears the signatures of Dr. J.V.Kiran at point A. This witness has also identified the initials of Dr. J.V.Kiran on the inquest papers at point X i.e. Ex. PW­1/A, Ex. PW­16/A, true copy of DD no. 48 PP Madi Pur dt. 23.01.2010, on MLC no. 2168 dt. 23.01.2010 of Acton Medical Institute, Form 25.35 (1) (B), Ex. PW­2/A, Ex. PW­13/A, Ex. PW­3/D and Ex.PW­2/B.

28.PW­19 Sri Narain, Asstt. Director chemistry, FSL, Rohini has deposed that the exhibits i.e. parcel no.1 sealed with the seal of SGMH Mortuary, Mangol Puri, Delhi labeled as PMR no. 76/10, Viscera of Seema pertaining to FIR no. 22/10 was received at office of FSL, Rohini on 22.02.2010 through Ct. Bhim Singh no. 1852/W sent by SHO PS Punjabi Bagh. The exhibit was marked to him for examination.

This witness has further deposed that on 09.09.2010, after comparing the seal of exhibit with the sample seal, parcel no.1 found contained three exhibits, which were given marks Ex. 1A, 1B and 1C. On chemical examination and TLC examination, metallic poisons, Ethyl and Methyl Alcohol, Cyanide, Phosphide, Alkaloids, Barbiturates, Tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in Exhibit 1A, 1B and 1C. He prepared report bearing no. FSL 2010/C­0737 dt. 09.09.2010 which is proved as Ex.

Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 21/48

PW­19/A. The case exhibits/remnants of exhibits were sealed with the seal of 'SN FSL DELHI' and were sent to SHO, PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi through forwarding letter of Dy.Director FSL Dr. Madhulika Sharma which is proved as Ex.PW­19/B.

29.PW­20 SI Subey Deen has deposed that on 10.08.2010, as per the directions of the SHO, he went to Tis Hazari Courts in the court of Sh.Ashish Aggarwal, Ld.M.M. Where accused Bharat and Pooja had surrendered. They were already declared PO in this case. He moved an application before the Ld.M.M. to interrogate them and his application in this regard is proved as Ex. PW­20/A. He interrogated accused Bharat and Pooja and formally arrested them vide memos Ex. PW­20/B and Ex. PW­20/C. Accused Bharat was released on bail in pursuance to the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and accused Pooja was sent to J.C. This witness has correctly identified accused Bharat and Pooja before the court.

30.All the accused persons have not lead any evidence in their defence.

31.I am giving findings whether there is evidence on record to convict the accused persons U/s 302/34 IPC.

32.Ld. counsel for the accused persons has vehemently contended that there is not an iota of evidence on record to connect the accused persons with the offence U/s 302/34 IPC.

PW­10 Dr. J.V. Kiran has opined that the cause of death is asphyxia consequent to hanging caused by ligature material via injury no.2 to 4. It is also opined by Dr.J.V. Kiran that Injury no. 2 Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 22/48 to 4 are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. PW­10 Dr.J.V. Kiran has also proved his opinion as Ex. PW­10/B and after seeing the Chunni, this witness has also opined that the death of the deceased can be caused due to the said chunni. PW­18 Dr.Manoj Dhingra has proved the P.M. Report Ex. PW­10/A and stated that this report is in the handwriting of Dr. J.V. Kiran and he also identified his signatures at point A. This witness has also stated that he had seen Dr. J.V.Kiran as writing and signing during his official capacity and he can identify his writing and signatures.

33.PW­18 Dr.Manoj Dhingra was examined and this witness also in his statement has stated that he has gone through the P.M. Report and as per the endorsement of Dr. J.V.Kiran, the cause of death was asphyxia consequent to hanging caused by ligature material via injury no.2 to 4. It is also opined by Dr.J.V. Kiran that Injury no. 2 to 4 are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and time since death was about 12 hours. This witness has also seen the subsequent opinion made by Dr. J.V.Kiran on the application of IO which is already exhibited as Ex. PW­17/D and Ex. PW­17/D, with the request for subsequent opinion with respect of the recovered chunni and Dr.J.V. Kiran has opined that the death of a lady can be caused due to the said chunni. Moreover, the opinion of the doctor on the postmortem report is clear that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging caused by ligature material via injury no.2 to 4.

In view of deposition of PW­18 Dr.Manoj Dhingra, it is Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 23/48 held that the deceased committed suicide and it cannot be held that the deceased was murdered by the accused persons. Thus, all the accused persons are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC.

34.Now I am discussing whether there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused persons for the offence U/s 304(B)/498A/34 IPC.

35.The accused persons have been chargesheeted for the offence punishable U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. Section 304B IPC reads as under :­ "Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death' and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death."

36.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bajaj Vs. State of MP (2001) 9 SCC 417 after noticing the provisions of Section 304B IPC had opined that in order to establish an offence U/s 304B IPC, following ingredients must be established before any death can be termed as dowry death :

(1) The death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances.

(2) Such death must have occurred within 7 years of her marriage.

(3) Soon before her death, the woman must have Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 24/48 been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband. (4) Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand of dowry.

In this Judgment, it is also held that :

This Section will apply whenever the occurrence of death of a woman is preceded by cruelty or harassment by husband or in­laws for dowry and death occurs in un­natural circumstances. The intention behind this section is to fasten the guilt on the husband or in­laws even though they did not in fact cause the death. It may be noticed that punishment for the offence of dowry death under Section 304B is imprisonment of not less than 7 years, which may extend to imprisonment for life, unlike under Section 498A IPC, where husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty shall be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Normally, in a criminal case accused can be punished for an offence or establishment of commission of that offence on the basis of evidence, may be direct or circumstantial or both. But in case of an offence under Section 304B IPC, an exception is made by deeming provision as to the nature of death as "dowry death" and that the husband or his relative, as the case may be, is deemed to have caused such death, even in the absence of evidence to prove these aspects but on proving the existence of the ingredients of the said offence by convincing evidence. Hence, there is need for greater care and caution, that too having regard to the gravity of the punishment prescribed for the said offence, in scrutinizing the evidence and in arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the above mentioned ingredients of the offence are proved by the prosecution.

Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 25/48

37.Section 113B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the case in hand. Both Section 304­B and Section 113B of the Evidence Act were inserted by Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under :­ "113B. Presumption as to dowry death - When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

Explanation : For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)".

38.As per the definition of "dowry death" in Section 304B Indian Penal Code and the wording in the presumptive Section 113B of the Evidence Act, one of the essential ingredients amongst others,in both the provisions is that the woman concerned must have been 'soon before her death' subjected to cruelty or harassment "for or in connection with the demand for dowry". While considering these provisions, Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Srinivasulu Vs. State of A.P. (2007) 12 SCC 443 has observed thus :

"8.4... The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials :

(1) The question before the court must be whether Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 26/48 the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304­B Indian Penal Code). (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry.

(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death".

39.A perusal of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B Indian Penal Code shows that there must be material to show that "soon before her death" the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. In other words, the prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the "death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances". The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence, there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates.

40.It is contended by the counsel for the accused that the name of accused Bharat is not mentioned in the FIR. Even if we admit the deposition of PW­1 and PW­2, it is not a case that accused Bharat had ever demanded dowry or caused harassment to the deceased on account of dowry demand. It is also argued that allegations against accused Pooja are general in nature. She was married about two years prior to the incident and residing with her husband in Dwarka. There is no specific allegations against accused Pooja and Bharat regarding harassment of deceased and Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 27/48 dowry demand.

41.It has come on record in evidence of PW­1 that accused Pooja also used to beat and taunt her for bringing insufficient dowry. But no specific date of incident has been given by PW­1 Smt. Poonam Devi as to when Pooja used to beat and taunt her for bringing insufficient dowry. Similar statement has been given by PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand in his deposition that his daughter was harassed by accused Ravi, Maya Devi, Pooja and Bharat but this witness also levelled general allegation against accused Pooja and Bharat. PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi has also stated that the brother in law of the deceased namely Bharat used to harass her daughter and he also used abusive language against her daughter. These allegations of harassment against the accused Bharat and Pooja are general in nature and even no specific instance has been given by PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi and PW­2 Sh. Prakash Chand. Even they did not state as to what articles or dowry were demanded by accused Pooja and Bharat. It has also come on record that two years prior to the incident, accused Pooja got married at Arya Smaj Mandir, Cannaught Place and PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi has stated that she do not know whether marriage of accused Pooja was arranged or love marriage. PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand had admitted that accused Pooja had love marriage and he did not know where accused Pooja was married as he did not go in the marriage of Pooja nor the family members went in the marriage of Pooja. This witness also admitted that accused Pooja had married against the wishes of her parents and she eloped with Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 28/48 Sh.Vinod Kumar and did the marriage and the marriage did not take place publically nor any function was done by the parents of Pooja. It is also come on record that accused Pooja at the time of incident was residing at D­91, Mahavir Enclave, Sector­I, Dwarka, Delhi. Thus from the testimony of PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand, it is clear that Pooja had eloped with Sh.Vinod Kumar and performed the marriage two years prior to the incident of death of deceased. There are no specific allegations of dowry demand by accused Pooja and Bharat i.e. soon before her death. Thus, both the accused persons namely Pooja and Bharat are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 498A/304(B)/34 IPC.

42. Now coming to the allegations against accused Ravi and Smt.Maya Devi.

43.PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi has specifically stated in her examination in chief that she had given Rs.20,000/­ on the repeated demand of money to the mother of Ravi Kumar and on the another occasion, she had given Rs.40,000/­ to the mother of Ravi Kumar before one month prior to the death of the deceased. She also stated that demand was continuous as her daughter had complained her about the harassment caused by Ravi, Maya Devi and Pooja. PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi has levelled specific allegations of demand of motorcycle by accused Ravi Kumar. She has also levelled specific allegations of harassment of dowry demand against the accused Maya Devi. This witness also stated that she used to give money after concealing from her husband Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 29/48 and she had given Rs.20,000/­ to the mother of Ravi Kumar and on other occasion, she had given Rs.40,000/­ to Smt.Maya Devi, mother of accused Ravi Kumar prior to one month of the incident.

Nothing fruitful was extracted during cross­ examination of PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi. This witness in his cross­ examination has stated that she had given Rs.20,000/­ and Rs. 40,000/­ to the mother of accused Ravi Kumar after taking some loan and she had also stated that she had borrowed the said amount from her brother. This witness also stated that a sum of Rs.20,000/­ was given to mother of accused Ravi Kumar within a period of one month since the time she handedover a sum of Rs. 40,000/­ to her.

In Ex. PW­1/A, the complainant has mentioned that she has given an amount of Rs.20,000/­ to accused Ravi Kumar and his mother Smt. Maya Devi but in the examination in chief, this witness has stated that the amount was given to only accused Maya Devi. Moreover, PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand does not state that amount of Rs.20,000/­ and Rs.40,000/­ were given to either Ravi Kumar or his mother Smt.Maya Devi. Statement of PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand is silent whether this amount was given to accused Maya Devi or not. Moreover, PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi has not stated in her examination in chief that amount of Rs.40,000/­ was given about one month prior to the death of deceased to the accused Maya Devi. PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi has categorically stated that she does not remember on which date the said money was given. If this amount was given by PW­1, she must have Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 30/48 remembered the date on which the amount was given. Witness in the cross­examination has stated that the amount was given one month prior to the death of deceased but this fact is no where mentioned by PW­1 in the statement recorded by SDM which is proved as Ex. PW­1/A.

44.The prosecution has also examined PW­6 Smt.Saroj who deposed in her statement that she is running an iron shop at Paschim Puri. Deceased Seema used to visit her shop and sometime she left her son Tanish at her shop as and when she went for the search of job. This witness further stated that deceased informed her that her husband used to harass her for demand of money after consuming liquor. This witness also stated that the deceased told her that her father had given Rs. 40,000/­ to her husband Ravi but even though after taking Rs. 40,000/­, he did not release her jewellery articles which he had pledged. This witness also stated that deceased told her that her sister in law Pooja used to taunt her and Bharat also used to harass her.

In the cross­examination, this witness stated that she did not remember the date when Seema had told that her husband used to harass her and beat her. PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand did not state that he had given Rs.40,000/­ to accused Ravi. Thus, testimony of PW­6 about the payment of Rs.40,000/­ cannot be accepted. Thus, it cannot be said that mother of the accused Ravi Kumar had demanded the amount of Rs. 20,000/­ and Rs.40,000/­ from the deceased and it cannot be Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 31/48 held that any amount of Rs.20,000/­ and Rs. 40,000/­ was given by PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi to the mother of accused Ravi Kumar.

45.PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi has specifically stated in her examination in chief that after the marriage, her daughter told her that accused Ravi harassing her for motorcycle. Similar statement is given by PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand that accused Ravi used to give beatings to his daughter and used to demand money from her and pressurized her to bring money from him. This witness also stated that mother in law of the deceased namely Smt.Maya Devi also demanded motorcycle after the marriage of the deceased. PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi has specifically stated that after the marriage, in laws of her daughter started pressurizing her for motorcycle. She has also stated that her daughter had told her that Ravi Kumar is harassing her for motorcycle. Similar statement was given by PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand that accused Ravi used to give beatings to her daughter and used to pressurize her to bring money from him. This witness also stated that motorcycle was also demanded by accused Ravi and Maya Devi. Thus, both the PWs in clear terms stated that motorcycle was demanded by the accused Ravi Kumar and Maya Devi.

46.PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand had given statement that one month prior to the incident, accused Ravi gave beatings to her daughter and then the deceased came to his house alongwith her son and then he tried to reconcile the matter and understand Ravi Kumar on this issue. It is also stated by PW­2 that thereafter accused Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 32/48 Ravi Kumar left his house and caused injury on his person and he was admitted in Balaji hospital. After receiving information, he went there and paid Rs.10,000/­ towards his medical expenses. Thereafter, the deceased went to the house of Ravi Kumar from the hospital.

47.This witness was not cross­examined by the counsel for the accused on these points. No suggestion was given to PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand that one month prior to the death of deceased, she was not beaten by accused Ravi and the deceased was not left the matrimonial house alongwith her son and came at her parental house. It was also not suggested by the accused persons to PW­2 that an amount of Rs.10,000/­ was not given by PW­2 in respect of medical treatment of accused Ravi. This witness in cross­examination also stated the similar fact that one month before the death of deceased, she came to his house and he called accused Maya Devi but she did not come. This witness also stated in cross­examination that lateron she came there and he told accused Maya Devi to take his daughter after a week. This witness also stated that when the deceased came from her in laws house, there were marks on her face and when he asked the reason,then the deceased told him that her husband had beaten her and her mother in law also used to ask her to work. This witness also stated that he did not deposit the amount of Rs. 10,000/­ in the hospital but he gave the same to the mother of accused Ravi on the next date. This witness also stated that he can give the statement from where the said amount had been Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 33/48 withdrawn. It is also not disputed that accused Ravi did not cause injuries to himself and was not admitted in the hospital. It is also not disputed that an amount of Rs.10,000/­ was given by PW­2. No suggestion was given by the accused persons to PW­2 on this point, rather PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand has categorically stated that he gave Rs.10,000/­ on the next day of incident of injuries of Ravi Kumar to the mother of accused Ravi Kumar. The fact of beaten by dog is also admitted by the accused in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. This testimony of PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand was not shattered in any manner. Thus, it is proved that about one month prior to the death of deceased, she was beaten by the accused Ravi and an amount of Rs.10,000/­ was given to accused Maya Devi by PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand for the treatment of accused Ravi Kumar. It is also stated by PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi and PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand that both the accused persons had demanded motorcycle.

48.Now coming to the date of incident i.e. 23.01.2010. PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi has deposed that on 23.01.2010, she received a telephone call of accused Maya Devi that deceased Seema had fallen from the stairs and they are going to the hospital. This witness stated that when she reached at the hospital and after seeing her daughter, she noticed that her face was blue and blackish and there was injury mark on her chin. PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand has also deposed that on 23.01.2010, he telephoned his daughter at 8 PM and his daughter told him that she got a job and from tomorrow she will go to attend her service. This witness Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 34/48 has further stated that his daughter also told him that her mother in law and Ravi were asking for Rs.5,000/­ and he told her that he will reach tomorrow to discuss the matter. He has further stated that on the same day, at about 10 PM, when he was coming back from his duty, he received a call from his son about the incident. He went to the hospital and found his daughter dead and there were injury marks on the neck of his daughter and her face was blue and blackish badly. This witness also stated that motorcycle was also demanded by accused Ravi and his mother Maya Devi after the marriage.

49.It is further contended by the counsel for the accused persons that PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi has not deposed about the demand of Rs.5,000/­ on the day of incident.

50. I have perused the testimony of PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand that at about 8 PM, he had telephoned his daughter at 8 PM and his daughter told him that she got a job and from tomorrow she will go to attend her service. This witness has further stated that his daughter also told him that her mother in law and Ravi were asking for Rs.5,000/­. He has further stated that on the same day, at about 10 PM, when he was coming back from his duty, he received a call from his son about the incident and from there, he straightway went to the hospital. PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand was having no time to tell the fact of demand of Rs.5,000/­ by the accused Ravi Kumar and Maya Devi to PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi or to any other family member. Moreover, fact of demand of Rs. 5,000/­ is also stated by PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand in his statement Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 35/48 before the court. Ld.counsel for the accused was not able to shatter the testimony regarding demand of Rs.5,000/­ from the accused Ravi Kumar and Smt.Maya Devi. It has come in the cross­ examination of PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand that he was having cordial relations with his wife and his daughter used to share things with both himself and his wife. There is no point to dis­ believe the version of PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand regarding talking with the deceased on phone on the date of incident and demand of Rs.5,000/­ by the accused persons namely Ravi Kumar and Maya Devi. It has has also come on record that PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand had telephoned the accused Maya Devi and deceased had a talk with him on her phone. Thus, it cannot be said that accused Maya Devi was not present at the time of incident. Thus, this contention carries no force and it is proved that soon before the death, both the accused persons had demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/­ from the deceased on the day of incident.

51.PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand has categorically stated that his daughter used to share things with him and PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi. His daughter told him about 3­4 months of the marriage that her husband used to beat her after consuming liquor. It has also come in evidence of PW­2 that PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi went to the house of accused and accused Ravi Kumar gave in writing that he will not consume liquor, nor raise any quarrel nor abuse at home. This writing was proved on record as Ex. PW­1/B and this writing is of dt. 31.08.2008. This Ex. PW­1/B is in the handwriting of the deceased. The accused persons have not Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 36/48 denied that Ex.PW­1/B is not in the handwriting of the deceased. No explanation was given by the accused persons as to why the deceased had written Ex. PW­1/B. It is not denied by the accused Ravi Kumar that Ex. PW­1/B does not bear his signatures at point A. No explanation has been given that Ex. PW­1/B was written in respect of whom. Rather when this question was put to the accused Ravi, he denied that he had not signed any such paper but the police had obtained his signatures on blank paper. Thus, this witness is not clearly sure about his signatures on Ex. PW­1/B. I am of the view that it is not denied by the accused that Ex. PW­1/B was not in the handwriting of the deceased and it does not bear his signatures.

52.From the contents of Ex.PW­1/B, it is proved that the accused Ravi Kumar used to raise quarrel in the house and vide this letter, he gave in writing that he will not drink; he will not raise any quarrel. Thus, it is clear that accused Ravi Kumar used to quarrel and beat the deceased after consuming liquor.

53.It is not disputed that there were six injuries on the person of the deceased. It has come in evidence of PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi and PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand that when they visited the hospital, there were injury marks on her face and chin. PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand has also taken six photographs of the deceased from his mobile phone and he had also given these photographs of the deceased to the IO. These photographs show that there were injuries on the face. As per postmortem report :

(1) There was bluish contusion over left side of face 13 Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 37/48 cm x 6 cm and including the chin.

(2) Pressure abrasion 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm horizontally placed extending to the right side of neck from mid­line front of neck, from a point 5 cm below chin in the mid­line, the outer end of wound 8 cm below and in front of right ear lobe.

(3) Pressure abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm present on left front of neck 2 cm below and right to left angle of mandible and 6 cm left to and below middle of chin. (4) Pressure abrasion 1.7 cm x 0.5 cm present on left front of neck 0.3 cm above injury no. 3, 1.5 cm below left base of mandible and 4.5 cm left to and below middle of chin.

(5) Abrasion 5 cm x 2 cm on right side of face 3. 5 cm below outer angle of right eye and 4.5 cm right to nose.

(6) Contusion 7 cm x 4 cm, bluish on middle front of right leg.

54.No plausible reason has been disclosed by the accused persons as to how the deceased received injuries. Moreover, IO has given an application Ex.PW­17/D and the doctor had given opinion Ex. PW­18/A as under :

"As mentioned in the P.M. report and clearly visible in the photographs, there is a diffuse bluish discoloration involving the whole left side of face of size 13 cm. X 6 cm. Also the eyelids both upper and lower, show bluish discoloration on the left side.

Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 38/48

Bluish discoloration is also present in upper and lower lips. Such a diffuse contusion (bluish discoloration) is unlikely to be caused by fall from stairs. The pattern of injury points more towards the fact that it is caused by blunt force impact caused by a blunt surface of blunt object".

55.Accused persons are not able to explain as to how the deceased received injuries. Accused Maya Devi and Ravi had stated that deceased received injuries by falling from stairs. In the statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C., accused Ravi stated that as he was not able to hold the deceased, she fell down on the floor and also stated that as he was residing on the top floor of the house and when he was taking the deceased downstairs, again he was not able to hold the deceased as a result of which she again fell down on the stairs,due to which the deceased received injuries. This story put forward by the accused is not believable. If we presume that deceased had fallen from the stairs, the deceased must have received injuries on the head as well as on the other parts of the body. As per opinion of doctor that injuries were caused by a blunt surface of blunt object. Thus, the deceased was mercilessly beaten on the day of incident and lateron, the deceased committed suicide. I am of the view that the accused Ravi had treated the deceased with utmost cruelty and also demanded dowry from the deceased and her parents and the deceased ultimately committed suicide on the fateful day of 23.01.2010.

56.It is contended by the counsel for the accused that opinions Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 39/48 of the doctor Ex.PW­18/A, Ex. PW­10/B and P.M. report cannot be taken into consideration as PW­10 Dr. J.V.Kiran was not examined and PW­18 Dr. Manoj was unable to identify the signatures and handwriting of PW­10 Dr.J.V.Kiran. Thus, this opinion cannot be taken into consideration.

I fail to appreciate this contention of the Ld.defence counsel for the accused persons. It is true that PW­10 Dr. J.V.Kiran was partly examined. PW­18 Dr.Manoj has specifically stated in his examination in chief that he had seen Dr. J.V.Kiran as writing and signing during his official capacity and he can identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. J.V.Kiran. This witness further proved the P.M. report Ex. PW­10/A and also categorically stated that this Ex. PW­10/A is in the handwriting of Dr. J.V.Kiran and it bears the signatures of Dr. J.V.Kiran at point A. This witness also stated that the opinion has already been exhibited as Ex. PW­10/B which is on the back side of Ex. PW­17/C. This witness also proved the opinion on the back side of Ex. PW­17/D which is in the handwriting of Dr. J.V.Kiran and the same is Ex. PW­18/A, which bears his signatures at point A. I am of the view that PW­18 Dr.Manoj has duly proved P.M. report and opinion of the doctor J.V.Kiran as Ex. PW­10/B and Ex. PW­18/A on the application given by the IO. Thus, this contention carries no force.

57. It is also contended by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that brothers and sisters of the deceased were not examined as a witness and non examination of the witnesses is Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 40/48 fatal to the prosecution.

I fail to appreciate this contention of the ld. Defence counsel as the present case was registered on the statement of mother of the deceased which was given to the SDM and SDM also recorded the statement of father of the deceased. Thereafter, the statement of Sh.Pramod Kumar (brother of deceased) was recorded for identification of the deadbody. I am of the view that when both mother and father of the deceased made statement to the SDM concerned and non examination of brother and other sisters is not fatal to the prosecution case.

58. It is also contended by the ld.defence counsel for the accused persons that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses i.e. PW­1 Smt. Poonam Devi and PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand as PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand had stated that PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi, his wife was against the marriage of the deceased with the accused Ravi Kumar and this fact has not stated by PW­1. It is also contended that PW­1 stated before the court that she attended the marriage of Pooja and PW­2 denied this fact. The counsel for the accused also contended that PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi has stated that deceased was not having mobile phone while PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand stated that she was having mobile phone.

I am of the view that these contradictions are minor in nature and does not go to the root of the case when both PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi and PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand have Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 41/48 specifically stated that the deceased was being harassed on account of dowry by accused Ravi and his mother Maya Devi. Thus, this contention carries no force.

59. It is also contended by the counsel for the accused persons that there was no previous complaint of beating by the accused Ravi to deceased. Thus, it cannot be proved that the deceased was ever beaten by the accused Ravi.

This contention of ld. Counsel for the accused carries no force as PW­1 Smt.Poonam Devi has specifically stated that once she was going to lodge the complaint but at the asking of accused Maya Devi, she did not lodge the complaint. Moreover, PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand has specifically stated that prior to one month of incident, the deceased was beaten by her husband and she left the matrimonial home alongwith her son and came to their house. Thus, this contention carries no force.

60. It is also contended that accused Ravi was residing with the deceased on the top floor of the house and mother in law was residing separately on the ground floor of the house and there were tenants on the first and second floor of the house.

It is true that deceased was residing with the accused on the top floor of the premises and it is also come on record that accused Maya Devi was residing on the ground floor. But there are specific allegations against mother in law also about the dowry demand and harassment being caused to the deceased. Further it is not denied that the accused Maya Devi Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 42/48 was not residing in the same building and no question was put to any of the witness by the accused persons that the deceased was maintaining separate kitchen. Thus, this contention carries no force.

61. The next contention raised by the ld.defence counsel is that the IO has not examined the tenants, residing at the first and second floor of the property.

I also fail to appreciate this contention of ld.defence counsel as non­examination of the tenants by the IO is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as public persons restrained themselves to join the investigation in these types of cases. Further, PW­17 Insp. R.D.Pandey has categorically stated that he had tried to trace the public persons but as it was early morning, nobody was available. The IO also stated in his statement that he had verbally enquired from the public persons, however, their statements were not recorded. If the statement of the tenants were not recorded, there was no necessity to cite them as a witness in the chargesheet.

62. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has placed reliance the Judgment titled as Manohar Lal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2014 SC 2555, wherein it is held that statement of the complainant is general and not specific. Though the allegation of demand of dowry was made none of witnesses including complainant stating that deceased was harassed "Soon before her death" for or in connection with demand of dowry. It is further held that guilt of accused was not proved.

Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 43/48

63.I have perused this judgment and the same is not applicable to the present case as there are specific allegations of dowry demand by PW­1 and PW­2 against accused Ravi and Maya Devi soon before her death. From the record, it is also proved that deceased was beaten mercilessly by both the accused persons on the day of incident when she committed suicide. I am of the view that the deceased was subjected to cruelty of harassment by both the accused persons soon before her death as PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand has categorically stated that the deceased told him that accused Ravi and Maya Devi were asking for Rs.5,000/­ and it is also proved that such cruelty of harassment was for or in connection with the demand of dowry.

64.Ld.Addl. P.P.for the State has also placed reliance on the Judgment titled as Surinder Kumar Vs. State 2010 Cr.L.J. (NOC) 53 (DEL.), wherein it is held that :

"Death of deceased due to burn injuries within six month of marriage. Evidence of witnesses showing that accused husband was persistently taunting and harassing deceased for not having brought sufficient dowry. Merely because deceased and her relatives choose not to make any complaint regarding dowry demand or ill­treatment given to her by accused - it cannot be a ground to discard their testimonies. It was held that conviction of accused was proper".

65. Ld.Addl. P.P.for the State has also placed reliance on the Judgment titled as Amar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2010) INS 573, wherein the Judgment Rattan Singh Vs. State of H.P. Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 44/48 was discussed and it is held that :

"Even if the deceased was nowhere near expectation of death, still her statement would become admissible under Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, though not as a dying declaration as such, provided it satisfies one of the two conditions set forth in this sub­section".

I am of the view that as the deceased had telephoned PW­2 Sh.Prakash Chand on the day of incident and told him that accused Ravi and Maya Devi were demanding Rs.5,000/­, I am of the view that deposition of PW­2 that deceased told him about the demand on 23.01.2010 is admissible in evidence.

66. Ld. Addl. P.P.for the State has also placed reliance on the Judgment titled as Deen Dayal & others Vs. State of U.P. in Crl.Appeal no. 67 of 2006, wherein it is held that there was demand of dowry. The death of bride two months after demand and it is cruelty soon before death. It is also held that meaning of expression "soon before death" are to be understood in a relative and flexible sense. There can be no fixed period in this regard and it would depend upon fact of each case.

67. Reliance can also be placed in this regard on the Judgment State Vs. Jaggu Ram (2008) 12 SCC 51, wherein it is held that "Section 113­B of the Evidence Act lays down that if soon before her death a woman is subjected to Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 45/48 cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with any demand for dowry by the person who is accused of causing her death then the court shall presume that such person has caused the dowry death. The presumption under Section 113B is a presumption of law and once the prosecution establishes the essential ingredients mentioned therein it becomes the duty of the Court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death".

In this Judgment, it is also held that :

"In each case the court has to analyse the facts and circumstances leading to the death of the victim and decide whether there is any proximate connection between the demand of dowry, the act of cruelty or harassment and the death".

68. Reliance can also be placed upon the Judgment titled as Trimukh Vs. State (2006) 10 SCC 681,wherein it is held that:

"When an incriminating circumstances is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete".

In this Judgment, it is also held that :

"when an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution; but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 46/48 burn to establish the charge lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an account to offer any explanation".

69. In the case in hand, both the accused had given false explanation that deceased received injuries by falling from the stairs.

Accused Maya Devi has stated in her statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. that she was having foot injury and she was having plaster, therefore, she was not able to move when the deceased was taken to hospital. This fact put forward by the accused Maya Devi is not believable as she herself had telephoned the mother of the deceased and lateron when the mother of the deceased visited the hospital, she was found present there. Moreover, no documentary evidence has been placed on record by the accused Maya Devi to show that she was having plaster on his leg on the date of incident.

In the statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused Ravi submitted that when he tried to untie the chunni, the deceased fell down on the floor and she received injuries and she again fell down from the stairs. The version given by the accused is not believable. I am of the view that explanation given by both the accused persons is false and it becomes additional link in the chain of circumstances against them.

70.In view of above discussion, accused Bharat and Pooja are hereby acquitted for the charges U/s 304B/34 IPC; 302/34 IPC and 498A/34 IPC. Both the accused persons Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 47/48 are directed to furnish personal bonds for a sum of Rs. 10,000/­each (Rupees ten thousand each) with one surety each in the like amount in view of Provision of Section 437­A Cr.P.C. within 10 days from today.

Accused Maya Devi and Ravi are acquitted from the Charges U/s 302/34 IPC. Further, Accused persons namely Ravi Kumar and Smt.Maya Devi are hereby held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.

Both of them be heard on the quantum of Sentence.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26th NOVEMBER,2014. (NARESH KR. MALHOTRA) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE­05 (WEST) DELHI / TIS HAZARI COURTS Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 48/48 IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE­05, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.

IN THE MATTER OF SESSIONS CASE NO.34/14 & Old No. 249/1/10 FIR NO. 22/10 P.S. Punjabi Bagh U/S 498A/304B/34 IPC STATE VERSUS

1.Ravi Kumar S/o Late Narender Kumar R/o F­216, J.J.Colony, Madi Pur, Delhi.

2.Smt.Maya Devi W/o late Narender Kumar R/o F­216, J.J.Colony, Madi Pur, Delhi.

28.11.2014 :

ORDER ON SENTENCE :

Arguments on the point of Sentence have been advanced. Record perused.

Ld. Counsel for both the convicts submit that both the convicts having clean antecedents and they are not involved in any other case. Convict Maya Devi is aged about 50 years, a Contd....2.

Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 49/48

: 2 :

widow lady. Further, it is contended that due to the children, she did not re­marry.

In respect of accused Ravi Kumar, it is contended by ld. Defence counsel that he is in custody for the last about 5 years. He was 24 years of age, when he was arrested in the present case. He has already spent five years in jail i.e. prime time of his youth. It is further prayed that lenient view be taken.

On the other hand, Ld. Addl. P.P.for the State submits that both the convicts be awarded stern punishment, so that the message should go to the society in these type of cases.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and taking into consideration that convict Maya Devi is a widow lady, I sentence the convict Maya Devi to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/­ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for two months for the offence U/s 304B/34 IPC. Convict Maya Devi is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1,000/­ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 15 days for the offence U/s 498A/34 IPC.

In respect of convict Ravi Kumar who is the husband of the deceased and on the day of incident, he has given Contd....3.

Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 50/48

: 3 :

mercilessly beatings to the deceased. There were contusions on the face of the deceased and it is held in the Judgment that due to the mercilessly beatings by the accused, the deceased had committed suicide. Thus, I deem it proper to sentence convict Ravi Kumar Rigorous Imprisonment for 12 years (twelve years) and fine of Rs. 10,000/­ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for two months for the offence U/s 304B/34 IPC. Convict Ravi is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1,000/­ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 15 days for the offence U/s 498A/34 IPC.

It is further ordered that out of the total amount of fine, an amount of Rs.10,000/­ shall be paid to the complainant i.e. mother of the deceased.

Fine not paid.

All the Sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to both the convicts.

Copy of the Judgment and Order on Sentence be given to both the convicts free of cost.

File be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON:28th NOVEMBER, 2014.

(NARESH KR. MALHOTRA) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE­05 (WEST) DELHI / TIS HAZARI COURTS FOR TRIAL WARRANT OF COMMITMENT ON A SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT BY A SESSIONS JUDGE Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 51/48 (SECTION 383 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE) IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA: ASJ­05 :

WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI SESSIONS CASE NO.34/14 & Old No. 249/1/10 FIR NO. 22/10 P.S. Punjabi Bagh U/S 498A/304B/34 IPC State Vs. Ravi Kumar etc. To The Jail Superintendent Tihar, Delhi.

In the abovesaid case, both the accused persons namely (1) Ravi Kumar S/o Late Narender Kumar R/o F­216, J.J.Colony, Madi Pur, Delhi and (2) Smt.Maya Devi W/o late Narender Kumar R/o F­216, J.J.Colony, Madi Pur, Delhi are held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable U/s 304B/498A/34 IPC. Convict Maya Devi is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/­ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for two months for the offence U/s 304B/34 IPC. Convict Maya Devi is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1,000/­ and in default of payment of fine, Contd....2.

Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 52/48

: 2 :

to further undergo SI for 15 days for the offence U/s 498A/34 IPC.

Convict Ravi Kumar is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 12 years (twelve years) and fine of Rs.10,000/­ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for two months for the offence U/s 304B/34 IPC. Convict Ravi Kumar is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/­ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 15 days for the offence U/s 498A/34 IPC.

It is further ordered that out of the total amount of fine, an amount of Rs.10,000/­ shall be paid to the complainant i.e. mother of the deceased.

All the Sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to both the convicts.

Fine not paid.

This is to authorize and require you, the said Superintendent, to receive both the said convicts into your custody in the said jail together with this warrant to undergo the sentences as awarded by this Court.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this 28th day of November, 2014.

Note :­ Fine not paid. (Naresh Kumar Malhotra) ASJ­05/West/THC/Delhi/28.11.2014 Sessions Case No.34/14 State Vs.Ravi etc. Page No. 53/48