Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Suman Kumar @ Pappu, on 26 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : NORTH EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Unique ID No. 02402R0299002010
SC No. 64/2011
FIR No. 118/2010
Police Station Nand Nagari
U/Section 498A/304B IPC
Reserved for orders on 26.04.2014
Judgment announced on 26.04.2014
State Vs. 1. Suman Kumar @ Pappu,
S/o Joginder Sagar,
R/o H. No.C3/552, Nand Nagari, Delhi.
2. Joginder Sagar, S/o Late Sh. Umedi Lal,
R/o H. No.C3/552, Nand Nagari, Delhi.
:J U D G M E N T:
1.The above named accused persons were charge sheeted by SHO PS Nand Nagari U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC and have faced trial for having committed offence punishable U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC or in the alternative charge U/s 306/34 IPC.
2. FACTUAL MATRIX: It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.04.2010 at 8.30 p.m, on receipt of DD No.51B, regarding quarrel at C3/552, Nand Nagari Masjid, ASI Govind Singh alongwith Ct. Kushi Ram, went to the spot where they came to know that injured Tulsi, aged 22 years was married with Suman Kumar, three years ago, burnt herself by pouring kerosene oil on her State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 1 of pages 36 body due to domestic dispute (kalesh) and she had been removed to GTB Hospital. Since the incident took place within seven years of the marriage of Tulsi with Suman Kumar, so the matter was intimated/reported to the area SDM, who recorded the statements of injured and other relatives at GTB Hospital and at the spot respectively. He inspected the spot. On the MLC of injured Tulsi bearing No.B1773/10 dated 23.04.2010, doctor mentioned as alleged H/O Burn around 8.30 PM on 23.04.2010 and total burn surface 7580% and injured was declared fit for statement. Accordingly, statement of injured Tulsi was recorded by the SDM, wherein she stated that "she got married with Suman Kumar three years prior to the incident according to Hindu Rites and after her marriage, she has been residing at C3/552, Nand Nagari alongwith her husband, JaithJaithani and father in law. Today on 23.04.2010 at about 8.008.30 when her fatherinlaw was saying her to vacate the said house and got away from there, she got annoyed/ angry and after pouring kerosene oil her, she set her on fire. She raised alarm and thereafter, her husband and neighbours admitted her in GTB Hospital. Since her marriage her father inlaw has been asking to vacate the house and due to this reason, she set herself on fire. At that time, she was alone at first floor and other family members were on ground floor".
State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 2 of pages 36 In between ASI Govid Singh obtained the MLC of Suman Kumar (the husband of injured) bearing no.C1807/10 from GTB Hospital wherein he was declared fit for statement. He also lifted one plastic bottle having some kerosene oil therein, one match box having sticks, few burnt sticks and the burnt pieces of wearing clothes of injured Tulsi from the spot and they were taken into possession vide different seizure memoes. Lateron, they were deposited in the malkhana. On 24.04.2010 at about 3.35 PM the information regarding death of injured Tulsi was received vide DD No.37B and the said the information was given to the SDM of the area. On 25.04.2010, postmortem on the dead body of deceased was got conducted vide PM No.547/10 at GTB Hospital and after postmortem the body was kept in mortuary. During Postmortem, the hair of deceased Tulsi were collected and got preserved by the doctors and the same were taken into police possession by ASI vide the seizure memo. Inquest proceeding U/s 176 Cr.P.C was also got conducted and then after recording the statements of the complainant and family members of the deceased, Sh. Vipin Garg, the SDM Seemapuri, vide his report no.SDM/S.Puri/Inquest/1199 dated 28.04.2010 sent a direction to SHO Nand Nagari to take necessary action in the matter, if required as per the relevant provisions of IPC. On receipt of the said report, Sh. Sanjay Nagpal, Insp. ATO Nand Nagri, after obtaining the legal opinion from the Prosecution Branch, got recorded the statement of Sh. Arun Kumar, S/o Sunheri Lal, W/o WZ160, Basai Dara Pur, Moti Nagar, Delhi through SDM, wherein he stated that his sister was got married with Suman Kumar 22.5 years ago and after their marriage, there was no problem and the entire family was living happily at their house at Nand Nagari. Three months prior to the State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 3 of pages 36 incident, father in law of his sister asked for Rs.60,000/ as loan with the assurance to return the same in two months and the said amount was paid by them in two go i.e. firstly Rs. 10,000/ and then Rs.50,000/. Since they were in need for the construction of their house at village, so they demanded back the said money, to which fatherinlaw of his sister stated that st he will return the said money by 1 May. His sister told him that since his brotherinlaw had received a motorcycle in marriage, so the fatherinlaw and husband of his sister asked her to bring motorcycle. He told to his sister that this is beyond his capacity. On 23.04.2010, when he was at his Village Madhem, District Mathura alongwith his father, at about 8.15 he received a phone call of his Jija Pappu on his mobile phone that "Tulsi ne aag laga li hai" and accordingly he departed for Delhi and reached at GTB Hospital at about 3.00 a.m. On the basis of said statement, IO got registered the instant FIR U/s 498A/304B IPC and took over the investigation of the instant case. During investigation, IO prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence. Statements of accused persons U/s 161 Cr.P.C were recorded. On finding sufficient material against the accused Suman Kumar, he was arrested in this case on 08.07.2010 and exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini, Delhi for examination vide RC No.72/21 dated 21.07.2010. Accused Joginder Sagar could not be arrested till filing of challan. Then on completion of investigation, Charge Sheet U/s 498A/304B IPC was filed before the court of concerned Ld. MM (NE), who after supplying copies etc., committed the case for sessions vide order dated 29.10.2010 being the offence alleged exclusively triable by the court of sessions. Than, after hearing arguments on the point of charge, charge U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC or in the alternative charge U/s 306/34 IPC was framed State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 4 of pages 36 against both the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. To prove its case, prosecution examined as many as seventeen witnesses in all.
4. PW1 Arun Kumar, brother of deceased namely Tulsi, stated that his sister was married with accused Suman @ Pappu on 28.02.2008 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and matrimonial house of his sister was situated at C3/552, Nand Nagari. His sister and accused Suman used to reside on the first floor of that house and Sheru, younger brother of accused Suman who got married on 07.02.2010, used to reside on the ground floor of that building, however their kitchen was joint. He further stated that accused Joginder is a drunkard. Prior to the marriage of Sheru, his sister used to live peacefully and there was no complaint. His father was the mediator of the marriage of Sheru. His father had paid Rs.60,000/ to the accused persons i.e. Rs.10,000/ at one time and Rs.50,000/ on the second occasion. The accused persons had promised to repay that amount within one month. They had taken this money for the marriage of Sheru. Sheru was given one motorcycle by his inlaws. Further on one day, accused Suman had asked Sheru to give his motorcycle but instead of giving the motorcycle, he told accused Suman @ Pappu to take or make demand from his inlaws for the motorcycle. Thereafter, both accused started creating pressure on his sister for giving them motorcycle. He also stated that they could not fulfill the demand of motorcycle made by the accused persons and due to this, both the accused persons started to harass his sister including physical beatings. Further when they demanded back Rs.60,000/ (earlier given by them) from the accused persons, State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 5 of pages 36 they did not return the money but gave beatings to his sister Tulsi. On 22.04.2010, accused Joginder kicked his sister on her stomach and on the very same day, accused persons had demanded motorcycle from his sister. Further on 23.04.2010, in the late evening, he received telephonic call from accused Suman @ Pappu, when he was at his native place situated at District Mathura, UP, whereby he informed him that his sister had immolated (set her on fire) herself. On 24.04.2010, he reached Delhi and on 25.04.2010, he had given statement before SDM, Seemapuri Ex.PW1/A. Accused Joginder used to threaten his deceased sister Tulsi that he will debar (bedakhal) them if demand is not fulfilled. On 30.06.2010, he had handed over one wedding invitation card of the marriage of his deceased sister Tulsi and accused Pappu Ex.PW1/B to the police. On 08.07.2010, accused Suman was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D respectively.
During cross examination he stated that the relation between both the accused i.e father and son were very cordial when his sister was married to accused Pappu @ Suman. He confirmed that accused Joginder used to say that he will disown his two sons including accused Suman @ Pappu from his property and Joginder started to say so only after the marriage of his younger son Sheru. He denied that a talk had taken place regarding disowning from the property by accused Joginder prior to the marriage of Sheru or that he was present in that talk or that accused Suman @ Pappu, his brotherinlaw and his deceased sister used to reside separately. He further denied that they used to instigate his deceased sister and accused Suman @ Pappu to have partition from accused Joginder of the property or that he was having cordial relations State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 6 of pages 36 with accused Suman @ Pappu or that Suman had paid him Rs.20,000/ after taking the payment from Committee. He confirmed that he had not made any complaint regarding demand made by accused persons from them. He denied that accused Joginder gave a public notice through newspaper regarding disowning of the accused person. On 22.04.10 his sister gave call from the mobile of accused Suman to his mother at the phone number of their house and informed her that accused Joginder had kicked her with his leg on her stomach. At that time Suman was not present with his sister. He denied that his uncle, his wife and his mother had conversed with his sister, deceased prior to his reaching in the hospital. He clarified that his sister was in ICU. He could not tell as to if SDM had recorded the statement of his sister (since deceased). His statement was recorded first time by SDM on 25.04.10 and police/IO had recorded his statement when the accused Pappu was arrested. He denied that even after the death of his sister (deceased), accused Suman had helped them by making payment of Rs.10,000/ for construction of the house.
PW2 Smt. Meena (mother of deceased Tulsi) stated that her daughter was married to accused Suman Kumar @ Pappu about 2½ years prior to the incident. After marriage her daughter and accused Suman were residing happily in their joint family. Around 3 months prior to the incident, on the occasion of the marriage of the dewar of her daughter, father in law of her daughter namely Joginder had demanded Rs. 50,000/ and the said amount was paid to him. When they requested the accused i.e Joginder to return the money, he did not return the same. On this issue, he started quarreling. Her daughter Tulsi (since deceased) telephonically told her that State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 7 of pages 36 jabse mummi tumne paise vapis mange hai ghar mein jhagda ho raha hai sasur sharab pee kar aata hai. Further one day prior to the death of her daughter, she had informed her that the accused Joginder has been quarreling with her after getting drunk and he had kicked her daughter on her stomach. On that day, her daughter also informed her that both the accused i.e husband and father in law of her daughter are not in mood to return the money and making demand of motorcycle as her dewar was also given motorcycle on her marriage by his in laws. Further the accused persons became dishonest after taking Rs. 50,000/ from them. On 23.04.10 when her son Arun was away at Mathura, he received telephonic call from the accused persons at around 7.30 p.m that Tulsi had been burnt. Her son Arun informed them and then she along with daughter in law Alpana reached at GTB hospital. She was not allowed to see her daughter but after much efforts she could go near her daughter and she told her that mummy mere aadmi or sasur ne mujhe jala diya hai and thereafter, she could not see or meet her daughter and she expired. She further stated that her daughter had also told her that her father in law had given kick blow on her stomach and stated that he would purchase a motorcycle for Suman from the amount which we had given to him ("JO PAISE HUMNE USE UDHAR DIYE THE UN PAISO KA MOTORCYCLE SUMAN KE LIYE KHARIDKAR DEGA"). On the next day i.e. 24.04.10 her daughter had expired. Further after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them vide handing over memo Ex.PW12/A. She could not tell whether her statement was recorded by anyone.
After seeking permission of court, Ld. Addl. PP for State cross examine the witness on some material points, wherein State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 8 of pages 36 she conceded that her statement Ex.PW15/F was recorded by the SDM on 25.04.10 which bears her thumb impression at point B. On one hand she stated that her statement was not recorded by the police, on the other hand she confirmed that her statement u/s 161 Cr PC was recorded by the police. She conceded that she had stated to the police in her statement dt. 30.06.10 that at the time of marriage of Sheru (dewar of her daughter), accused Suman and his father had taken cash amount of Rs. 60,000/ as loan and same were given by them on different dates in installments. She conceded that when they did not agree with Suman and his father that they would purchase a motorcycle from the amount which they had taken from them as loan, accused Suman started giving beatings and maltreating her daughter.
During cross examination she stated that once accused Jogender Sagar had come to her house with her daughter. She had visited the matrimonial house of her daughter for about ten times. There was no mediator in the marriage of her deceased daughter. She stated that they were residing in a tenanted house for the last 30 years. At the time of marriage of her deceased daughter, her husband and her three sons were residing with her. At that time her two daughters had already been married. Besides one room, there is varandah in rented house. At the time of marriage of her deceased daughter, they were paying monthly rent of Rs. 900/. At the time of marriage of her deceased daughter, her husband had been doing the job of thekedari and there was no fixed monthly income of her husband. Her daughter had visited her house along with accused Suman more than ten times. She used to come to meet her and some times when the quarrel took place between accused Jogender and Suman. Accused Suman never gave State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 9 of pages 36 any gift to her deceased daughter on any occasion. Accused Suman was working in a factory but she could not tell about the income of accused Suman. She also stated that accused Jogender was also working. She could not tell as to whether all the expenses of the house was bearing by the accused Jogender. Further one day prior to the incident at about 9.00 p.m, her deceased daughter had talked to her father on phone and not to her. On the same night when the incident had occurred they went to GTB hospital but they were not allowed to meet her. When they had reached at the hospital, police officials besides the husband and dewar of her deceased daughter were already present there. She could not tell the exact time when they were allowed to meet her deceased daughter but they met her on the same night. The fact of accused Jogender giving a kick blow on the stomach of her daughter was told by her daughter to her daughter in law Arpana and not to her. She stated that the cash amount of Rs. 60,000/ were taken by the in laws of her daughter on credit and out of which Rs. 10,000/ were returned by them. There was no one in the room when she was allowed to meet her daughter in the hospital. Her husband came to know the fact that her father in law was saying to her daughter that he would disown them from his property. Her statement was recorded by the police on the same night. He conceded that accused Joginder used to tell to his both the sons that he would disown them from his property and this fact was told by her daughter to her husband.
PW3 Smt. Anita (independent public witness being the neighbour of accused persons) stated that accused persons Joginder and Suman used to reside at their house C3/552 Nand Nagari and still residing there. At the time of incident, State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 10 of pages 36 accused Joginder used to reside there with his two sons Pappu and Sheru and their wives and one unmarried daughter namely Sangeeta. She stated that on 23.4.10 in the evening accused Joginder and accused Pappu were quarreling with each other in the gali. Two police officials came there and in the mean time she saw Tulsi (since deceased) came there in burning condition from the staircase. The public of the locality came there to save her and thereafter she was removed to GTB hospital. Tulsi had fallen down after getting down from staircase. She stated that her statement Ex.PW3/A was recorded by the SDM.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, as she resiled from her earlier version given to the police. She categorically denied that accused Joginder was telling accused Pappu to vacate his house and go away and on this issue there used to be tussle/clash and on earlier occasion Joginder had told his both sons to vacate and he used to say tum mera hi khate ho aur mujshe hi jhagra karta ho. She could not tell if accused persons used to make demand of motorcycle from the deceased Tulsi or for this reason both accused used to harass.
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused persons , she stated that she was not having visiting term with the family of the accused. She stated that when Tulsi had fallen down in burnt condition, accused Suman had also tried to save her and he had also accompanied Tulsi to the hospital with other public persons of the locality.
PW4 Dr. Sushma, while deposing in the court on behalf of Dr. Nitin (who reportedly left the service of hospital) stated that on 24.04.10 at about 9.45 p.m one patient namely Tulsi, female, 22 years was brought by her husband with alleged State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 11 of pages 36 history of burn at about 8.30 p.m on the same day and under her supervision patient was examined by Dr. Nitin, Jr. Residence vide MLC Ex.PW4/A bearing the signature of Dr. Nitin at point A and LTI and RTI of patient Tulsi at point X and Y. There was no history of loss of consciousness, vomiting or ENT bleeding. Her blood pressure was 106/88 mm of hg and pulse rate was 78 per minute. Total burn was around 7580 % and she was fit to make statement. After initial treatment she was referred to surgery emergency as well as gyne emergency as she was in family way with 5 months pregnancy.
PW-5 Sh. Vipin Garg (the then SDM Seemapuri) stated that on 23.04.2010 at about 9.00 p.m, he received information regarding the present case from the Police officials of PS Nand Nagari and at about 9.30 p.m, he reached at GTB hospital, where injured Tulsi W/o Sh. Suman Kumar @ Pappu R/o C3/552 Nand nagari was found admitted. Doctor opined Tulsi in fit condition to make statement and he also checked her capacity and condition and found her fit to make statement and accordingly he recorded her statement whatever she deposed, in his own handwriting at about 10.15 p.m in the ward itself. After recording her statement, he read over the contents of her statement and since her hands were having burn injures, so her right foot toe impression was taken on the statement. Further at the time of recording statement nobody was allowed to remain present in the ward where he had recorded her statement. Said statement of Tulsi on record is Ex.PW 5/A bearing the signature of SDM as well as his seal at point A and the toe impression of right foot of Tulsi patient at point B. The copy was handed over to SHO Nand Nagari for necessary action. On 24.04.2010, he was informed about the death of patient Tulsi. Since the death of the deceased had taken place State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 12 of pages 36 within the seven years of her marriage, accordingly, he took up the inquest proceedings as per law. Dead body of the deceased was ordered to be got preserved at mortuary of GTB. On 25.04.10, during inquest proceeding police officials produced the father and brother of the deceased namely Sunheri Lal and Arun Kumar, who identified the dead body of deceased, vide their statement Ex.PW5/B & C respectively. Thereafter, the inquest form Ex.PW5/D was got filled up. Request was made to the doctor GTB hospital for conducting postmortem on the dead body of the deceased vide Ex.PW5/E bearing his signature at point A and the same also bear the thumb impression of the father and brother of deceased. He had directed ASI Govind singh to hand over the dead body of deceased after postmortem to the relatives of deceased for last ritual. He recorded the statements of Smt. Meena (mother of deceased) Ex.PW5/F, Sunheri Lal (father of deceased) Ex.PW5/G, Suman Kumar (accused and husband of the deceased) Ex.PW5/J, Asha (dewrani of deceased) Ex.PW5/K, Anita and Baby (neighbours) Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW5/H respectively in his handwriting during inquest proceedings whatever they deposed correctly and contents were read over to them and they found the same correct and put their LTI and signatures on their statements. He stated that the statements of Suman and Asha were recorded on 26.04.2010 and the statements of remaining persons were recorded on 25.04.2010. He further stated that on 28.04.2010, he sent all the statements of the witnesses recorded by him during the course of inquest proceedings to SHO PS Nand nagari for taking necessary legal action in the matter, vide forwarding letter Ex.PW5/L bearing his signatures at point A. PW6 SI U. Balashankram stated that on 23.04.2010 at State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 13 of pages 36 about 8.50 p.m, on receiving a wireless message at his office, he alongwith member of crime team, reached at C3/552 Nand Nagari, Ist Floor, Delhi for conducting inspection of the incident place. He commenced the inspection at about 9.15 p.m and completed by 10.15 p.m. Ct. Neeraj had taken the photographs (11 in numbers) mark PW 6/ X1 to X11 of the spot. From the spot burnt match box, kerosene oil (1 lt) bottle containing about 10 ml K. oil inside the bottle were asked to be seized by the IO which was found thereon. After inspection, he prepared his report Ex.PW6/A, in his handwriting and signature.
PW-7 ASI Dal Chand (Duty Officer) stated that on 23.04.2010 at about 8.35 p.m one information was received of brawl at C3/552 Nand Nagari near Mosque from wireless operator, which was recorded by him vide DD No.51B, attested copy of same is Ex.PW7/A. The said DD was marked to ASI Govind Singh for further action, who left for spot along with PSI Kapil and Ct. Khushi Ram. Further on 14.06.2010 at about 4.30 p.m, Inspector Sanjay Nagpal of PS Nand Nagari handed over him rukka for registration of FIR, upon which he made his endorsement Ex.PW7/C and on the basis of same, he registered the present FIR u/s 498A/304 B IPC, copy of the same is proved on record as Ex.PW7/B. PW8 Ct. Ramesh Kumar stated that on 21.07.2010, MHC(M) handed over three parcels, out of which two parcels were sealed with the seal of GS and one parcel was sealed with the seal of VS, alongwith sample seals and took the same to FSL Rohini vide RC no.72/21 and deposited the above said parcels in FSL Rohini. After depositing the above said parcels in FSL Rohini, he handed over the acknowledgment receipt to MHC(M).
PW9 Ct. Neeraj (photographer in the Crime Team) State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 14 of pages 36 stated that on 23.04.2010 he accompanied SI U. Balashankaram incharge of Crime team to the spot i.e. C3/552, Nand Nagri, where SI U. Balashankaram inspected the spot and he took 11 photographs at the instance of IO from different angles. He proved on recored the said photographs as Ex.PW6/X1 to Ex. PW6/X11 and negatives thereof as Ex.PW9/1 to PW9/11.
PW10 Ct. Khushi Ram Yadav stated that on 23.04.2010 at about 8.35 p.m DD No.51B, regarding quarrel, was received by ASI Gobind Singh and after receiving the above said DD by ASI Gobind, he accompanied him to the H. No.C3/552, Nand Nagari, Delhi. On reaching there, they came to know that one Tulsi W/o Suman set herself on fire after pouring kerosene on her and she had already been removed to the GTB Hospital. Thereafter, ASI Gobind went to GTB Hospital after leaving him at the spot. On 24.04.2010, one plastic bottle containing some quantity of kerosene, match box, match sticks (used and unused) and some burnt clothes were taken into possession after sealing the same in three parcels, with the seal of GS and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B and Ex.PW10/C. He correctly identified the case property i.e bottle Ex.PW10/P1, burnt cloth pieces Ex.PW10/P2 (colly.) and piece of match box and match sticks (used and unused) Ex.PW10/P3 (colly.).
During cross examination he stated that it took about five minutes in reaching at the spot after receiving the DD No.51B. About 20 to 25 public persons and Ct. Ramesh, Ct. Ravinder and other two police officials were present there. The incident had occurred at the first floor of the house. He remained at the spot till 8.00 a.m in the morning on 24.04.2010. The IO had made inquiry from the public persons on the ground when he State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 15 of pages 36 was present at the first floor. Before leaving the spot by him, IO ASI Govind lifted the exhibits and sealed the same in separate parcels. SHO of PS Nand Nagri visited the spot twice. Firstly he came to the spot when he was informed by ASI Govind and secondly with the SDM. All the exhibits were lifted from the first floor. After use seal was kept by ASI Govind with himself. At the time of sealing the exhibits, about 1520 public persons were present there.
PW11 ASI Santosh stated that on 24.04.2010 at about 3.35 p.m, he received information from Duty Ct. Karamvir Singh from GTB Hospital regarding the death of one Tulsi W/o Suman, who was admitted in the hospital on 23.04.2010. He reduced the said information into writing vide DD No.37B, copy of which on record is Ex.PW11/A, and after recording the said DD, it was assigned to ASI Gobind Singh for further action.
PW12 HC Bhagmal stated that on 25.04.2010 he alongwith ASI Gobind Singh went to GTB Hospital Mortuary for getting the postmortem conducted on the dead body of deceased Tulsi W/o Suman Kumar and accordingly, ASI Gobind Singh got conducted the postmortem and after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to its relatives vide Handing Over Memo Ex.PW12/A. After postmortem doctor handed over one envelop parcel sealed with the seal of VS alongwith sample seal to ASI Gobind and same was taken into possession by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/B. PW13 ASI Fateh Singh , the then MHC(M) at PS Nand Nagari, stated that on 24.04.2010 ASI Govind Singh had deposited three parcels sealed with seal of GS with him and in this regard, he made entry in register No.19 against Sl. No. 4317, photocopy of which entry is proved on record as Ex.PW13/A. Further on 21.07.10, the abovesaid three parcels State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 16 of pages 36 were sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Ramesh Kumar vide RC No.72/21, photocopy of same is Ex. PW 13/B, and he made entry in register No.19 in this regard. On the same day, Ct. Ramesh handed over the acknowledgment receipt regarding depositing the aforesaid parcels to FSL. He proved on record copy of RC No.72/21 as Ex.PW13/C and photocopy of acknowledgment receipt as Ex. PW 13/D. Further on 23.12.10, he had received three parcels and FSL report through Ct. Pritam and he made entry in this regard in register No.19, photocopy of which entry is proved on record as Ex.PW13/E. PW14 Ct. Ravinder stated that on 08.07.2010, he had joined the investigation of the present case with the IO and they went to the House of accused Suman i.e C3/552 Nand nagari. On reaching there, accused Suman was found present and he was interrogated by the IO and thereafter, he was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/C and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/D. He also stated that at the time of arrest of accused Suman, brother of deceased namely Arun was also present there. He also appended his signatures on the arrest and personal search memo of the accused. Arun also handed over the wedding card of deceased Ex.PW1/B to the IO and same was taken into possession by IO. Thereafter, accused was taken to GTB hospital by him for getting his medical examination During cross examination he stated that they reached at the house of accused Suman at about 8.45 p.m. He could not tell as to whether IO had made the departure entry at the time of leaving the PS or not as he joined him in the investigation from C3 block. At the time of arrest, IO did not ask any public person to join the investigation except Arun.
PW15 SI Govind Singh stated that on 23.04.2010 at State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 17 of pages 36 about 8.40 p.m he received DD No.51B Ex.PW7/A regarding jhagda at C3/552 Near Nand Nagari Masjid and after receiving the said DD, he alongwith PSI Kapil and Ct. Khushi Ram went to the spot and on reaching there, they came to know that one lady namely Tulsi received burn injuries had already been removed to the hospital by her husband and other family members. He came to know that the period of marriage of Tulsi was not completed 7 years, so he informed to the SDM in this regard. After giving information to the SDM, he also went to the GTB hospital after leaving Ct. Khusi Ram at the spot and on reaching there, he collected the MLC of injured Tulsi. In the meantime, SDM Seelam Pur also reached in the GTB hospital and recorded the statement of injured Tulsi Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, he along with SDM came to the spot. Crime Team also reached there as he had already given the message to the Crime Team. SHO Nand Nagari also reached there along with staff. Crime inspected the spot and took the photographs. One plastic bottle having some quantity of kerosene oil (the shape of the bottle was disfigured due to burn) was lifted from the spot and it was put in a plastic container and said container was converted into cloth parcel after sealing the same with the seal of GS and the parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW10/A. From the spot one broken match box and some match sticks (used and unused), lying at the spot, were also collected from the spot and same were put in a plastic polythene bag and converted into the cloth parcel after sealing the same with the seal of GS and parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW10/B. Some pieces of clothes were also lying at the spot and same were also lifted and put in a polythene bag and the mouth of polythene bag was tied with the help of piece of cloth and it State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 18 of pages 36 was sealed with the seal of GS and was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW 10/C. Statements of relatives of Tulsi were also recorded at the spot by the SDM but he could not tell as to whether the statements of any relatives were recorded by the SDM in the hospital or not except the statement of Tulsi and statements of relatives are proved on record as Ex.PW5/F, 5/G, 3/A, 5/H, 5/J and 5/K. Thereafter, SDM handed over all the above said statements to him. Further on 24.04.10 injured Tulsi died in the hospital and he informed to the SDM in this regard. Accordingly, SDM visited the GTB hospital and prepared inquest papers and postmortem on the dead body was got conducted. The dead body was also got identified through its relatives and statements of the relatives in this regard Ex.PW5/B & 5/C were also recorded. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to its relatives vide handing over memo Ex.PW12/A. The statements of the relatives of the deceased, which were recorded in the hospital by the SDM, were recorded on 25.04.10. After postmortem doctor handed over one envelop parcel along with sample seal and same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW12/D. Later on the case was got registered on 14.06.2010 by Inspector Sanjay Nagpal at the direction of the SDM and investigation was assigned to Inspector Sanjay Nagpal. Inspector Sanjay Nagpal prepared site plan mark A on 14.06.10 at his instance. He correctly identified the case property i.e. Bottle as Ex.PW10/P1, pieces of clothes as Ex.PW10/P2 (colly) and piece of match box and match sticks (used and unused) as Ex.PW10/P3 (colly).
During cross examination, he could not tell as to whether the staircase leads to first floor was inside the house or outside State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 19 of pages 36 the house. He had seen the spot during his stay for about 1520 minutes at the spot. At the spot burnt cloth pieces were lying out of which some were lying inside the room and some were lying near the gate. He had gone at the first floor through staircase. The plastic bottle and match sticks and match box were found lying inside the room. He conceded that he had recorded the statements of Alpana (bhabhi of deceased), Meena (mother of the decease), Sunehri Lal (father of deceased) and Arjun singh (chacha of deceased) on 23.04.10. He along with SDM came back to the spot from the hospital at about 10.0010.15 p.m and he remained at the spot for about an hour or 1¼ hours. All the papers work was done by him at the spot at the first floor. After use, the seal was handed over to Ct. Khusi Ram.
PW16 Dr. Meghalikelkar is the witness, who on 25.04.2010 conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Tulsi W/o Sh. Suman Kumar about 22 years female vide postmortem report no.547/10 Ex.PW16/A bearing her signature at point A, who came to GTB hospital with alleged history of burns on 23.04.10 vide MLC no.B1773/10 dated 23.04.10 at 9.45 p.m and was admitted. She also stated that the patient died on 24.04.10 during course of the treatment. She further stated that the postmortem report was also signed by his junior Dr. Vivek Srivastava at encircle portion B, who had assisted him in conducting the postmortem. She gave general observation of the postmortem as under: (1). Height 155 cms.
(2) It was a dead body of adult female of average built was wearing no clothes and was wrapped in a white sheet. Surgical antiseptic dressing were present over State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 20 of pages 36 chest, abdomen, both upper and lower limbs and back. Eyes were closed. Mouth was partially opened. All other natural orifices were NAD. Rigormortis was present in developed stage. Postmortem staining could not be commented upon due to burns. No signs of decomposition were seen.
Details of injury Injury no.1. Superficial to deep antemortem flame. Burns present on face, neck, chest, abdomen, both upper limbs, both thighs (front and back) and back. Singeing of scalp hair, eye lashes, eyebrows and body hairs was seen. The burn areas were reddish erythematous. The burns involved 80 % of total body surface area.
INTERNAL EXAMINATION:
1. Scalp and skull NAD
2. Brain was 1200 gm congested
3. Neck Extravassation of blood seen in soft tissue of both side of front of neck just above clavicle, more on right side which extended retrostern ally in the soft tissue.
Thyroid, caitilege, Hyoid and Crecoid wounds & laryngeal soft tissues were intact. On find dissection extra vessation of blood seen underneath some coloured changes (discoloration) on State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 21 of pages 36 front of right side neck.
4. Rib cages NAD
5. Lungs Right 450 gms and left 400 gms, both were congested and edematous.
6. Heart 220 gms congested
7. Stomach Empty
8. Walls NAD
9. Intestines contained fluid and fecal matter walls were NAD.
10. Liver was 1200 gms, spleen 150 gms, right kidney 110 gms, left kidney 110 gms all were congested
11. Uterus measured 22 cms x 13 cms x 1 cms and contained intact gestational sac & mamranes containing one male fetus (400 gm weight and 25 cms length, ossification centre for calcaneum present) of 5 months intra uterine age, plasanta 1.5 cms x 14.5 cms & 150 gm weight with normal umbilical cord attachment and complete membranes.
Liquor amni was adequate and straw yellow coloured. A small area of retro placental clot 3 cms x 2 cms dark reddish in colour was seen.
State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 22 of pages 36 Cervical Canal was closed.
Internal OS was closed.
12. Overies & Adnexa NAD Articles Preserved:
1. Sealed envelope containing scalp hairs of the deceased (female) for analysis of inflammable substance used.
2. Sample seal of VS.
CAUSE OF DEATH: Shock as a result of ante mortem flame burns involving 80% of total body surface area.
TIME SINCE DEATH was about one day.
PW17 Inspector Sanjay Nagpal, stated that on 02.05.2010 he was posted at PS Nand Nagri as Inspector ATO and on that day reader to SHO handed over report of Sh. Vipin Garg, SDM, Seema Puri dated 28/04/2010 Ex.PW5/L alongwith eight statements Ex. PW1/A (of Sh. Arun),Ex.PW5/A (of Smt Tulsi deceased),PW5/F (of Smt. Meena), Ex.PW5/G (of Sunhari Lal), Ex. PW3/A (of Anita), PW5/H (of Smt. Baby), PW5/J (of Suman Kumar, accused) and PW5/K (of Smt. Asha) written by him on different dates and after receiving the above said documents, he sought opinion from Prosecution vide his application Ex.PW17/A. In the meantime, he had also collected the postmortem record Ex.PW16/A. After receiving the opinion on 14.06.2010, he made endorsement Ex.PW17/B on the statement of Sh. Arun and the present case was got registered u/sec 498A/304B IPC vide FIR Ex.PW7/B. On the same day, he alongwith ASI Govind Singh went to the spot i.e first floor of house no. C3/552 Nand Nagri and inspected the spot and site plan Ex.PW17/C was prepared by him at the instance of ASI Govind Singh. Further on 08.07.2010, he alongwith Ct.
State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 23 of pages 36 Ravinder reached at the spot and accused Suman found present there. In the meantime brother of deceased also reached there and thereafter, accused Suman was arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/C and his personal search was also conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW1/D. PW Arun handed over the marriage card Ex.PW1/B of deceased to him. He recorded the statements of PWs. On 21.07.2010 exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Ramesh vide RC No.72/21. He recorded the statement of MHC(M) and Ct. Ramesh in this regard. He proved on record the FSL report Ex.PW17/D collected by SI Sanjay from the MHCM and same was filed by him.
During cross examination, he denied that he had falsely and wrongly recorded the statement of Arun under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to strengthen the case under Section 304B IPC. He could not tell as to whether the stairs starts from inside the house or outside the house to approach the first floor of the said house. During the course of the investigation, he did not come to know as to whether there were strained relation between the accused persons interse, however, he only came to know that the father wanted to get vacated his house from his son Suman Kumar. He also did not come to know as to whether the father of Suman Kumar got published any public notice in the Newspaper regarding disowning his sons from his property. He further did not come across to the fact that both the accused were quarreling in the Gali at the time of incident. He denied that there were no incriminating evidence against the accused persons or that accused Suman Kumar was arrested without any cogent evidence that is why he was not demanded on PC in the present case.
5. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 24 of pages 36 accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein they claimed innocence on the ground of false implication in this case by the brother of deceased. They also stated that deceased Tulsi used to instigate her husband to grab the property of accused Joginder Sagar (father in law of deceased) and accused Joginder Sagar was trying to disown accused Suman Kumar and his brother from his property. Further on the fateful day, children of accused Joginder Kumar and their wives had come to know that he (Joginder Kumar) had made a publication in the newspaper about their disowning due to which accused Suman @ Pappu was fighting with accused Joginder Kumar in the gali. The deceased could not control her emotions and was threatening to immolate herself and accidentally lit the matchstick after pouring some chemical on her. Further they took her to the hospital immediately. They also stated that they never ever demanded any money from anyone.
Both the accused persons opted to lead evidence in their defence but did not examine any witness in their support despite of giving opportunity and vide order dated 21.04.2014 made submissions that they do not want to lead any evidence in their defence and accordingly, DE was closed.
6. I have perused the entire records carefully and given my prolonged consideration to the controversy in hand.
7. In the instant case the accused persons have been charged for commission of offence punishable U/s 498A/304B/ 34 IPC and in the alternative U/s 306 IPC for abetment of suicide.
8. According to the contentions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the case of the prosecution is crystal clear. Firstly, it is not in dispute that the death of the deceased was an unnatural State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 25 of pages 36 death i.e. caused by burn injuries, and the death was occurred within the period of seven years of the marriage of deceased with the accused Suman. Further by the combined reading of dying declaration of deceased Seema recorded U/s 32 Cr.P.C Ex.PW5/A and the testimonies of PW1 Arun Kumar, PW2 Smt. Meena, PW5 Sh. Vipin Garg (the then SDM) and other prosecution witnesses recorded before the Court, it has been established that the deceased was harassed and subjected to cruelty soon before her death in respect of demand of dowry. First of all there is a clear averments regarding demand of motorcycle by the accused persons and also about raising of demand of Rs.60,000/ from the parents of deceased. In her dying declaration Ex.PW5/A, the victim/deceased had also narrated the entire incident in details by stating that on 23.04.2010 at about 8.008.30 when his fatherinlaw was pressuring her to vacate the said house and to go away from there, she got annoyed/angry and after pouring kerosene oil on her, she set herself on fire. It means she was harassed to that extent that she was left with no alternative but to end her life. The dying declaration Ex.PW5/A was recorded by the Executive Magistrate (an independent reliable person) and the same was signed by him and it was attested by the deceased by putting her toe impression of right foot on the statement at point B and the statement Ex.PW5/A was recorded after the doctor had opined that the victim Tulsi was fit to make a statement. Besides, the medical and scientific evidence (i.e. MLC Ex.PW4/A, postmortem report Ex.PW16/A and FSL result Ex.PW17/D) are in consonance to the story of prosecution. Further the other documents like FIR, seizure memos, memos of arrest and personal search of accused persons etc. have also been proved by the prosecution State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 26 of pages 36 witnesses in their respective testimonies. Further the postmortem notes indicates cause of death "shock as a result of antemortem flame burns involving 80% of total body surface area". Further the material and exhibits lifted from the spot and produced before the court further consolidates the case of the prosecution. Thus the case of prosecution U/s 304 B IPC & 498A IPC is firmly established. Besides that, the case of the prosecution is also established U/s 306 IPC as there was a clear instigation on the part of the accused Joginder by putting pressure upon the deceased to get his house vacated and by way of said pressure, the victim was so much pressurized and instigated as she did not find any way out except to end her life. Both PW1 & PW2 have clearly deposed that the accused persons had firstly demanded and procured Rs.60,000/ from them and when they asked to return the said amount, they started harassing the deceased by raising the demand that the said amount be utilized for purchase of motorcycle for the accused Suman Kumar. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond the shadow of doubt and as such the accused persons are liable to suffer an order of conviction against them.
Per contra, according to Ld. Counsel for accused persons, the prosecution has been miserably failed in its mission of proving its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts and therefore, both the accused persons are entitled for an order of acquittal in their favour. First of all in her entire statement recorded by the SDM, the deceased has neither mentioned about the alleged demand of dowry of Rs.60,000/ and motorcycle made on the part of accused persons nor she had whispered about the harassment in connection of demand of dowry. Dying declaration in itself is sufficient to disclose as State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 27 of pages 36 to what happened on 23.04.2010. Further there is delay of about two months in lodging the FIR as date of incident in the case is 23.04.2010 and FIR was lodged on 14.06.2010. Above all in the present set of circumstances, an important ingredient of Sec.304B IPC is not satisfied as the alleged amount of Rs. 60,000/, admittedly received by the accused persons as a loan or on credit that too in installments and as such it does not fall within the purview of demand for dowry. The expression dowry provided U/s 304B IPC should mean any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage. Even the ingredients of Sec.306 IPC too are not satisfied in this case as the only allegation in the dying declaration levelled by the deceased is that her father in law used to ask the deceased and her husband to vacate the premises and wanted to get them disowned from his property and there was no whisper that the said act of accused was intending that she should commit suicide or he was knowing that she was likely to commit suicide. Rather it was an independent act on the part of deceased. Thus the roles attributed to accused persons do not fall within the purview of Sec.306 IPC.
9. In order to attract application of Section 304B IPC, the essential ingredients to be established are as follows :
(i). The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances.
(ii). The death should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage.
(iii). she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.
State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 28 of pages 36
(iv). such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry.
(v). Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
It is only when that aforementioned ingredients are established by acceptable evidence, such death shall be called dowry death and the husband or his relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death.
In the case of Hira Lal Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, reported as AIR 2003 SC 2865 it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under: "A conjoint reading of Sec.113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment.
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 expression 'soon before' is very relevant where Sec.113B of the Evidence Act and Sec.304B IPC are pressed into service. Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution. 'Soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 29 of pages 36 and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence............." The most important term "cruelty or harassment" to which the prosecution is required to establish has not been defined either in Section 304B of IPC or in Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. However, it has been defined in Section 498A of IPC in which also "cruelty or harassment" is essential. The explanation of Section 498A gives the meaning of "cruelty and harassment."
In order to attract the provisions of Section 304B of the IPC the cruelty or harassment as defined must be meted out to the woman in connection with dowry demand just before her death.
Suicide is a known phenomenon of human nature. Suicides are committed by living human beings for various reasons, some are not able to bear the normal stresses which are common in life. Some are not able to cope up with the circumstances in which they are placed. Some commit suicide because of frustration of not achieving the desired goals. There are many cases where students commit suicide because they failed to achieve certain percentage of marks. Some commit suicide because they are not able to retain top position, some commit suicide because they are not able to cope with the demands of life. Some commit suicide because they suffer sudden loss, some commit suicide out of fear of being caught. There are various reasons for which suicides are committed by men and women. All suicides are unnatural deaths. Suicide is a complex phenomenon. One, who commits suicide, is not alive to disclose as to what was going on in his or her mind when he or she committed suicide. There is no State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 30 of pages 36 presumption that every suicide committed by a married woman in her inlaws' house or at her parents' house has to be because she was suffering harassment at the hands of her husband or her inlaws.
Normally inlaws are convicted on the testimonies of parents of the girl, who in a fit of anger or because they had lost their daughter, are not prepared to believe that their daughter could commit suicide for any other reason.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of both the sides and also perused the entire material placed on record and I find myself in conformity with the submissions made by Ld. Defence Counsel on behalf of the accused persons that the prosecution has been failed in its mission of proving its case against the accused persons either U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC or U/s 306/34 IPC, beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
11. It is a matter of record that deceased Tulsi breathed her last on 24.04.2010 and case was registered on the statement of the brother of deceased namely Arun Kumar that his sister used to be subjected to cruelty by the accused persons for demand of dowry (i.e. motorcycle and for Rs.60,000/ which they paid to the accused persons) and on suspicion expressed by him that she had lost her life because of misdeeds of accused persons.
In the instant case although in their respective testimonies PW1 Arun Kumar and PW2 Smt. Meena have stated that one day before the incident, the deceased was given a kick blow by accused Joginder on her stomach but the said fact does not find mention in the statement of deceased recorded by the SDM which is very significant and it creates doubt as if such an incident would have taken place, then State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 31 of pages 36 certainly it must have been reflected in the statement of the deceased recorded by the SDM and in the absence of any conformity with the statement of deceased, the said allegations levelled by PW1 & PW2 seems to be after thought.
Further, though there is allegation in the complaint regarding asking and taking of Rs.60,000/ by the accused persons from the father of deceased but said demand and obtaining the amount does not fall within the purview of expression of dowry as provided under the provisions of Sec. 304B IPC as in his statement PW1 Arun Kumar (brother of deceased) himself has stated that the said amount was taken by the accused persons on the occasion of the marriage of Sheru (brother in law of deceased) with the promise to repay the same within one month. It reflected that the said amount was taken as a loan. Even PW2 Smt. Meena (mother of deceased) in her cross examination conceded that the cash amount of Rs.60,000/ were taken by the in laws of her daughter on credit and out of which Rs.10,000/ were returned by them. In these circumstances, the alleged amount of Rs. 60,000/ taken by the accused persons can not be termed as dowry.
As regard to the claim of prosecution that accused persons demanded motorcycle from the parents of the deceased, which was duly narrated by PW1 & PW2 in their respective testimonies, the same also can not be believed upon in the absence of any conformity with the statement of deceased, as in her entire statement Ex.PW5/A, she did not level any allegation against the accused persons regarding demand of motorcycle.
Further, admittedly, there is a considerable delay in lodging the FIR as the incident had taken place on 23.04.2010 State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 32 of pages 36 and FIR in this case has been lodged on 14.06.2010 and this fact can not be overlooked. Moreover the allegations regarding torture and harassment of the deceased on the part of the accused persons are of vague and general nature as in their entire testimonies PW1 & PW2, except the incident of 22.04.2010 (a day prior to the date of occurrence) could not specify any specific date as to on what occasions their sister/ daughter was subjected to cruelty and was given mal treatment and if the deceased was actually being maltreated or harassed on the part of accused persons on earlier occasions also, the same should have been reflected in their respective statements made before the SDM but it is not so. Moreover, admittedly no complaint regarding dowry demand or harassment on account of dowry was made by the deceased or even by her parents before police, Court or any other authority during the life time of deceased.
Further the only public witness examined in this case by the prosecution i.e. PW3 Smt. Anita did not support the case of prosecution. She in her statement stated that on 23.04.2010 in the evening accused Joginder and accused Pappu were quarreling with each other in the gali and it is also the case of the prosecution that on 23.04.2010 at 8.35 p.m DD No.51B was recorded in the Police Station Nand Nagari regarding quarrel. She also stated that two police officials came there and in the meantime, she saw Tulsi (since deceased) came there in burning condition from the staircase and Tulsi had fallen down after getting down from staircase. Nowhere in her entire statement, PW3 has stated that accused persons used to maltreat or harass the deceased in any manner. Rather, she categorically denied that accused Joginder was telling accused Pappu that you vacate his house and go away and on State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 33 of pages 36 this issue there used to be tussle/clash and on earlier occasion Joginder had told his both sons to vacate the house and he used to say "tum mera hi khate ho aur mujshe hi jhagra karta ho". She even conceded that when Tulsi had fallen down in burnt condition, accused Suman had also tried to save her and he had also accompanied Tulsi to the hospital with other public persons of the locality and this fact suggests towards the innocence of accused and here I am fortified by the judgment titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Prithavi Raj reported as 1995 SCC (Cri.) Page 934 wherein it has been held that "in cases of bride burning, the conduct of the accused immediately taking the deceased to the hospital is consistent with their innocence".
In the light of aforesaid, case of the prosecution fails U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.
12. Now let us see, as to whether the case of the prosecution succeeds U/s 306 IPC or not?
Sec.306 IPC provides as under: Abetment of suicide - if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
To bring home an offence U/s 306 IPC, it has to be established that the accused persons had abated in commission of the suicide. So far as the term abetment is concerned, it has been defined U/s 107 IPC and Sec.108 of IPC defines the word abettor. As per said section, a person abets an offence by commission of an act, which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. From the perusal of Sec.108 IPC, it is cleared that the State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 34 of pages 36 abettor must have same intention of knowledge as that of abettor in committing an offence.
As the word "abetment" in respect of suicide was used under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it has to be read in the sense in which the word "abetment" was defined and used under Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code. In other words, in order to convict a person for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must show that there was abetment as understood in the aforesaid sections for the commission of the said offence.
According to Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, "abetment" can take place in any of the three forms viz., (1) by instigation, (ii) by conspiracy; and (iii) by intentional aiding. Section 107 with its explanation may shortly be stated as under: "A person commits 'abetment', if he
(i). 'instigates a person to commit an offence',
(a) by willful misrepresentation or (b) by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, causes a thing to be done; or
(ii). engages in a conspiracy to commit an offence and if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of such conspiracy; or
(iii). Intentionally aids a person by any act or illegal omission to commit an offence by any act or illegal omission."
13. In the case in hand, the careful scrutiny of evidence placed on records reveals that even the ingredients of Sec.306 IPC are not satisfied in the present set of circumstances, as the only allegation in the dying declaration levelled by the deceased is that her father in law used to ask the deceased State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 35 of pages 36 and her husband to vacate the premises and wanted to get them disowned from his property and there was no whisper that the said act of accused was intending that she should commit suicide or he was knowing that she was likely to commit suicide. Rather it was an independent act on the part of deceased, who in the heat of anger took the said extreme step. Similarly, there is no material on record to show that the accused persons had instigated the deceased to commit suicide either by willful misrepresentation or by willful concealment of a material fact which they were bound to disclose. There is also no whisper to show that the accused persons were engaged in a conspiracy to commit an offence or they had intentionally aided the deceased to drive her to commit suicide. Thus the roles attributed to accused Joginder and Suman do not fall within the purview of Sec.306 IPC.
14. In the light of aforesaid, I hereby hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as mandated by law. Both the accused persons are accordingly acquitted of the offences charged with. Their existing bail bonds are extended for another period of six months in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court.
15. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in the open
court on 26.04.2014) (RAKESH KUMAR)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:(NE)
KARKARDOOMA COURT:DELHI
State Vs. Suman Kumar @ Pappu & Anr. (SC No.64/2011) Page 36 of pages 36