Delhi District Court
State vs Jaipal Etc(4) on 11 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANISHA KHURANA KAKKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) - 01 (SOUTH), SAKET,
NEW DELHI
SC No. : 34/2015 7129/2016
FIR No. : 214/2011
PS : Fatehpur Beri
State Vs. : JAIPAL ETC
JUDGMENT
(a) Name of complainant : Neelam W/o Sh. Jaipal R/o- A-36, Sanjay Colony, Bhati Mines, New Delhi (Now expired).
(b) Name, parentage & : (1) Jaipal
address of accused(s) S/o Tota Ram
R/o A-36, Sanjay Colony,
Bhati Mines, New Delhi.
Also at A-112/A, Sanjay Colony,
Bhati Mines, New Delhi.
(2) Rajpal
S/o Sh. Babiya Ram @ Tota Ram
R/o R/o A-36, Sanjay Colony,
Bhati Mines, New Delhi.
Also at A-112/A, Sanjay Colony,
Bhati Mines, New Delhi.
(3) Babiya Ram @ Tota Ram
S/o Late Sh Fagun Ram
R/o A-36, Sanjay Colony,
Bhati Mines, New Delhi.
Also at A-112/A, Sanjay Colony,
Bhati Mines, New Delhi.
(4) Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh. Babiya Ram @ Tota Ram
Digitally signed
MANISHA by MANISHA
KHURANA
KHURANA KAKKAR
KAKKAR Date: 2025.03.11
17:11:19 +0530
FIR No.214/2011
PS Fatehpur Beri
State Vs. Jaipal Page No.1 of 30
R/o A-36, Sanjay Colony,
Bhati Mines, New Delhi.
Also at A-112/A, Sanjay Colony,
Bhati Mines, New Delhi.
(c) Offence complained off : 498-A/304-B/34 IPC
(d) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(e) Final order : Conviction
(f) Date of such order : 11.03.2025
Date of Institution : 07.03.2012
Date of conclusion of : 06.02.2025
final arguments
Date of Judgment : 11.03.2025
BRIEF FACTS :-
1. It is the case of the prosecution that accused persons Jaipal, Rajpal, Babiya Ram and Sunil Kumar subjected deceased Neelam with cruelty and harassed her on account of demand for dowry. It is also alleged that on 09.10.2011 between 01.00pm to 02.00pm at House no. A-36, Sanjay Colony, Bhati Mines, within the jurisdiction of PS-Fatehpur Beri, the said accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, committed dowry death/murder of the deceased by setting her on fire.
2. Consequently, charge-sheet for the offence U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC was filed against accused persons.
After the compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C, matter was committed to the Court of Sessions by Ld. MM vide order dated 29.02.2012. Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR KAKKAR Date:
2025.03.11 17:11:26 +0530 FIR No.214/2011 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.2 of 30 Charge:-
3. On the basis of material placed on record, vide order dated 31.03.2012 passed by Ld. Predecessor, charge for the offence u/s 302/498-A IPC and in the alternative charge for the offence under section 304-B/306/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence :-
4. In order to bring home the guilt of accused persons, prosecution had examined 45 witnesses in the prosecution evidence i.e. PW1 Smt Nirmala, PW2 Smt. Dadli, PW3 Smt. Kiran, PW4 HC Ram Phal, PW5 Ct. Dharambir, PW6 Sh. Puran Lal, PW7 Sh. Rajeev Shukla, SDM, PW8 Ct. Ram Singh, PW9 HC Kedar Prasad, PW10 Pratap Singh, PW11 Dr. Mohit Gupta, SR, PW12 Ct. Devender, PW13 Nasib Singh, PW14 HC Mahavir Singh, PW15 Ct. Ajit Kumar, PW16 Smt. Nasiba, PW17 Ct. Harish Yadav, PW18 Ct. Jaiveer Singh, PW19 Ms. Namita Devi, PW20 Chander Pal, PW21 Ishwar, PW22 Sh. Gautam Singh, PW23 Dr. Prerna, PW24 Insp. Naresh Kumar, PW25 Naresh Kumar, PW26 HC Vinay Kumar, PW27 Surender, PW28 ASI (Retd) Enem Topno, PW29 Ct. Ravi Kant, PW30 Kailash Chand, PW31 Insp. Mahesh Kumar, PW32 Sumedha Bodh (Social Worker), PW33 Dr. Sanjay Kumar, PW34 Mitalli Chandola, PW35 SI Kuldeep, PW36 Dr. Thankur Thussu, PW37 Insp. Gurnam Singh, PW38 Insp. Virender Singh, PW39 Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo, PW40 S.S. Badwal, PW41 HC Kedar, PW42 Geetesh Patel, PW43 Dr. Deepti Gupta, PW44 S.S. Badwal and PW45 Sh. Gaurav Sharma, JF/ACE.
Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR KAKKAR Date:
2025.03.11 17:11:34 +0530 FIR No.214/2011 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.3 of 30 Summary of prosecution evidence :-
5. PW1 Smt. Nirmala Devi (Neighbour):- She deposed that she had been residing at Bhati Mines for the last 20-23 years and accused persons had also started living in the area of Bhati Mines. As per her testimony, accused Babiya Ram (father in law) had got married two of his sons namely i.e. accused Jai Pal (husband) and Raj Pal (brother in law) with (deceased) 'Neelam' and her sister namely 'Kiran', who were also residents of Sanjay Colony of Bhati Mines. As per her testimony, in the month of April 2011, both the sisters started living in the same house, after their marriage. She further testified that sometimes, there used to be little disturbance/quarrel in the family of accused persons.
6. As per the testimony PW1 Smt. Nirmala, on 9.10.11, it was Sunday, at about 9/10 AM, she was in her house, when she heard noise of shouting and she came out of her house and saw that 'Neelam' was burning near the gate of her house and a gas stove was also burning, near the door of the house. She further testified that while burning, Neelam came outside her house and sat near the bathroom and her father in law, her elder 'jethani', her younger 'nanad' came running to rescue her while 'Sasur' poured water upon her. She further deposed that Nanad and Jethani put a cloth on her to put off the fire.
7. PW1 Smt Nirmala further deposed that since the clothes of the deceased had stuck to her body, so she brought a scissor and cut her clothes and put a cotton sheet on her. She further stated that since the keys of the car were in a locked room, so accused Sunil broke open the lock of the room and took out the keys Digitally of the car and took the injured to the hospital. signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR KAKKAR Date:
2025.03.11 17:11:40 +0530 FIR No.214/2011 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.4 of 30
8. PW1 Smt. Nirmala Devi further testified that before leaving for the hospital, she had a talk with deceased Neelam as to how she had got burnt, to which, she replied that since her husband suspected that she did not have his child in her womb, therefore, in order to teach him a lesson, she had burnt herself and stated "mai fasane ke liye jali hu".
9. The said witness was, however, cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State on the ground that she was resiling from her previous statement given to the police. During the cross examination conducted by Ld. Additional PP for the State, she denied the suggestion that she had told the police that after the marriage of Neelam and Kiran, accused persons i.e. father in law, 'devar' Sunil and 'Jeth' and their husbands used to quarrel with them regularly. She was, however, confronted with her statement Ex. PW1/PX where it was so recorded.
She also denied the suggestion that deceased Neelam never told her that 'mai fasane ke liye jali hu' and that is why, the said fact was not mentioned in her statement Ex. PW1/PX.
10. During her cross-examination conducted by Ld defence counsel, she deposed that she had not seen any of the accused beating the deceased. She also did not know what was the cause of the quarrel. Furthermore, she could not tell the name and date of such quarrel as well. She further stated that she had not seen accused Sunil fighting with the deceased or with his wife.
11. PW2 Smt. Dadli (mother of deceased) :- She deposed that her daughters Neelam (deceased) and Kiran were married on 24.4.2011 with accused persons Jai Pal and Raj Pal (who were two brothers). She further testified that all the accused persons were residing in Bhati Mines at that time and after marriage, Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR KAKKAR Date:
2025.03.11 17:11:48 +0530 FIR No.214/2011 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.5 of 30 both her daughters started living with the accused persons at their house. In the said marriage, she had given jewellery articles and other articles of household as per their capacity. She further testified that the jewellery articles were gold neckless, nath, tika, pajeb and small jewellery.
12. PW2 Smt. Dadli further stated that after about one or two months of marriage, accused persons had started quarreling with her daughters and had started demanding money from them as the accused persons were not doing any work at that time. She also stated that accused Raj Pal used to drink alcohol daily and used to beat her daughter Kiran. She further stated that accused Jaipal, who was married to deceased Neelam, also used to beat her and she was three months pregnant at the time of incident.
13.As per her testimony, on 09.10.11, during day time, PW2 Smt. Dadli received information that her (deceased) daughter Neelam was burnt at her in laws house. She, therefore, went to the police post at Bhati Mines and from there, she alongwith other family members went to the hospital, where she found her daughter Neelam in a burnt condition. Her statement and statement of her deceased daughter was recorded by the SDM in the hospital i.e. Ex. PW2/A.
14.PW2 Smt. Dadli further deposed that her daughters were also harassed by accused Sunil Kumar (devar), Rama Devi (Nanad) and Babiya Ram (father in law). She further testified that she had a conversation with deceased in the hospital and deceased Neelam informed her that she had been burnt by accused Digitally signed by Sunil, Babiya Ram, Jai Pal and Ram Devi. MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KAKKAR KHURANA KAKKAR Date:
2025.03.11 17:11:53 +0530 FIR No.214/2011 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.6 of 30
15. PW-2 Smt. Dadli further stated that she used to give money to accused persons that is sometimes Rs.500/- or 1000/- rupees. She further deposed that she spoke to her daughter at the hospital and deceased Neelam complained her, "Mummy mujhe kaise ghar me dala".
16. She gave an application to the police regarding the dowry articles given in the said marriage vide Ex. PW2/B and her another complaint vide Ex. PW2/C. She further stated that her daughter was harassed by her in laws and in the hospital, (deceased) Neelam had told her that she had been burnt by the accused persons.
17.During her cross-examination conducted by Ld defence counsel, she deposed that before that incident, she had once made a complaint orally at Bhati Mines Police Post, however, she did not remember the said date. She further testified that police did not obtain her thumb impression on blank papers and that her statement was recorded by the police once. PW-2 Smt. Dadli further stated that her house was at a walking distance of 15 minutes from the house of accused persons and when she used to go to local shop, her daughter used to meet her there and used to tell her about beatings being given to her by her husband.
18.PW2 Smt. Dadli further testified that prior to the date of incident, her daughters had gone to the police and had made a complaint against their husbands for beating them. She further stated that she did not remember if the SDM had recorded her statement or not, as she was disturbed. She further stated that when she met with her daughter Neelam in the hospital, staff nurse was present there and staff nurse told her that her daughter wanted to talk to Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KAKKAR KHURANA Date:
KAKKAR 2025.03.11 17:12:01 +0530 FIR No.214/2011 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.7 of 30 her parents. As per her testimony, at that time, she was not able to speak and she wrote something on a paper slip which was given to the staff nurse.
19.She further testified that her daughter informed her after 3-4 days of the admission in the hospital that she was set ablaze by her husband and family members. She further denied the suggestion that accused namely Rajpal, Sunil, Babiya and Rama Devi were residing separately in a separate house or that her daughter was never beaten up by accused persons.
20.PW3 Smt. Kiran (Sister of deceased) :- She also deposed on the same lines as her mother i.e. PW2 Smt. Dadli. She stated that after her marriage, she alongwith her deceased sister Neelam had started living at the house of their in laws i.e. A-36, Sanjay Colony, Bhati Mines, New Delhi. She further testified that in her marriage, her parents had given jewellery articles of gold i.e. gold hanging, nath and a gold tabiz of neck, pazeb and five silver rings.
21.As per her testimony, accused Raj pal (husband) had started harassing her after 15 days of marriage and he used to ask her to bring money from her parents. She further stated that accused Rajpal used to work sometimes, but he used to drink alcohol daily. PW3 Kiran further stated that she was given beatings several times by her husband i.e. accused Raj Pal.
22.PW3 Kiran further testified that on 09.10.2011, she was present at her parents house at Bhati Mines. During noon time, PW3 Kiran came to know that her deceased sister Neelam, who was at their matrimonial home, was burnt and was admitted at Safdarjung hospital. Thereafter, she alongwith her mother, brother Puran Lal reached there and deceased Neelam informed her that she Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR KAKKAR Date:
2025.03.11 17:12:08 +0530 FIR No.214/2011 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.8 of 30 was burnt by accused Sunil, Jai Pal, Rajpal, Ram Devi and at that time, their father in law i.e. accused Babiya Ram was sitting outside. She, however, stated that deceased Neelam also informed her that she was threatened by her husband to give a statement that she had got burnt accidentally on her own.
23.PW3 Kiran further deposed that she was turned out of the house once in the month of July as well as on another day. As per her testimony, she had once paid Rs.5000/- to her husband, which she had borrowed from her brother. She, further, stated that she had also given a written complaint to the police dated 8- 11-2011 regarding the details of the incident and her jewelry articles vide Ex.PW3/A.
24. She further testified that accused persons used to mentally and physically torture her sister Neelam by beating her, as they were unable to fulfill their demand for motorcycle. As per her testimony, her father in law and two brother in law i.e. accused Sunil and Jaipal also threatened her sister Neelam to bring dowry articles like motorcycle, fridge, Almirah and stated that if she did not bring the said articles from her parental home, she would be killed. PW3 Kiran testified that accused persons also threatened her to bring Rs. 10,000/-, otherwise accused persons would kill her sister Neelam and said that ' teri behan ki laash milegi'.
25.During her cross-examination conducted by Ld defence counsel, PW-3 Kiran deposed that she and her deceased sister had gone to Police Post Bhati Mines to report the matter but police officers got the matter pacified. She further testified that her 'devar' i.e. accused Sunil had also beaten her once and had quarreled with her several times. Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR Date:
KAKKAR 2025.03.11 17:12:15 +0530 FIR No.214/2011 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.9 of 30
26. PW3 Kiran further deposed that she had not made any 100 number call or written complaint when accused persons used to mentally and physically torture her sister. She further stated that she did not know the name of the neighbour, who had informed that her sister Neelam had been burnt by the accused persons. She also did not know the exact time, when her neighbour had informed her about her sister Neelam.
27.PW6 Sh. Puran Lal (brother of deceased) :- He deposed that her sisters had also lodged a complaint in the Police Post regarding beatings and harassment meted to her. He also stated that on 09.10.2011, during noon time, he was present at his house when her 'Mausi' Wajiri informed them that Neelam had been burnt at her matrimonial house. He further testified that first they went to the Police Post and then they went to S.J. Hospital, where deceased Neelam was admitted and was being treated.
28. He also testified that he met his (deceased) sister Neelam in the hospital and she informed him that she had been burnt by accused Rajpal, Jaipal, Sunil, Ram Devi and at that time (father in law) accused Babiya Ram was sitting outside in the house. He further testified that she had informed that her room was bolted, while she was being burnt and after that she was taken to hospital. He further stated that his sister also told him that on the way to the hospital, her husband, 'Jeth' and her brother in law (Devar) had threatened her not to speak about the incident to anyone, otherwise her family members would also face the consequences. Thereafter, his statement was recorded by SDM vide Ex. PW6/A and on 17.10.2011 his sister had expired in the hospital.
Digitally signedMANISHA by MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR KAKKAR Date: 2025.03.11 17:12:22 +0530 FIR No.214/2011 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.10 of 30
29.During his cross-examination conducted by Ld defence counsel, he deposed that he had not given any complaint to the police regarding beating of his sisters by the accused persons. He also did not remember the specific date, when his sisters were beaten up, however, he testified that they were beaten up immediately after one month of their marriage.
30.PW10 Pratap Singh (Uncle of deceased):- He deposed that deceased Neelam was his niece and on 10.10.2011, he had gone to S.J. Hospital (burn ward), where deceased Neelam was admitted. He further stated that he had a talk with her and inquired about the incident from her. He further stated that (deceased) Neelam informed him that the accused persons i.e. her husband, her 'devar' (brother in law) and her 'jeth' had burnt her, as she had not brought her elder sister from their parents house and she was left by them, after being burnt. He also stated that deceased Neelam told him that the door was closed from outside and at that time, her father in law was present out side the room and was watching the incident, but he did not intervene to save her.
31.PW13 Nasib Singh :- He deposed that he alongwith PW10 Pratap had gone to Safdarjung hospital to receive the deadbody of deceased Neelam. He further testified that after postmortem, the deadbody of deceased Neelam was received vide Ex. PW10/A.
32.PW22 Sh. Gautam Singh (Neighbour):- He deposed that accused Jaipal and Rajpal were married with two sisters of a family, known to him, i.e. PW20 Chander Pal. He further testified that he came to know that after about 4-5 months of the marriage that one of the girl was got burnt at her matrimonial house of accused persons. He further deposed that he used to hear quarrel Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR KAKKAR Date: 2025.03.11 17:12:29 +0530 FIR No.214/2011 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.11 of 30 between the accused persons regarding family affairs and he had also seen the accused Rajpal and Jaipal fighting with their wives regarding domestic issues like non installation of electric meter and regarding arranging of money.
33.PW27 Sh. Takhat Singh :- He deposed that he used to live in the back street of accused Jaipal and on the day of incident at about Noon time, he heard that someone was crying in the house of accused Jaipal and noticed that many public persons had gathered in front of the house of accused Jaipal. He came to know from the public that niece of Chander Pal had put herself on fire. He further testified that he informed PW20 Chander Pal from his mobile phone and in the meantime, accused Sunil took deceased to the hospital.
34.The said witness was, however, cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State on the ground that he was resiling from his previous statement given to the police, whereby, he denied the suggestion that he had stated in his statement given to the police (Ex. PW27/A) that the quarrel of the accused and deceased had been reported at PP Bhati Mines.
35.During his cross-examination conducted by Ld defence counsel, he deposed that he did not know the names of the persons who were present in front of the house of accused Babiya Ram, however, Neelam was present in the house at that time.
36.PW30 Kailash Chand (Uncle of deceased) :- He also deposed that after some time of their marriage, both his nieces used to complain about harassment and cruelty by their husbands as well as family members/accused persons. As per his testimony, on several occasions, both the nieces had visited their paternal Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR Date:
KAKKAR 2025.03.11 17:12:53 +0530 FIR No.214/2011 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.12 of 30 home and they used to complain to their parents about harassment and cruelty, by their husbands as well as other family members. He further testified that his sister- Dadli used to give them Rs. 500/- or 1,000/-, whenever, accused persons used to come to her. However, the husbands of both the nieces used to beat the deceased and her sister and they used to spend money on liquor. He testified that they also used to demand money from his both the nieces, for that purpose.
37. He stated that due to harassment as well as cruel behaviour of the husband of his niece-Kiran, she came back to her paternal home and started living there. He further testified that at that time, his niece-Neelam was about four months pregnant, that is why, she did not come to her paternal home. He further testified that the accused persons used to ask deceased Neelam to call back her sister Kiran, however, she refused to get her sister back.
38.PW30 Kailash Chand further testified that on 10.10.2011, he had received a phone call of his Nephew - Puran that Neelam was admitted in ICU at Safdarjung Hospital, as she had been burnt by her husband and his family members. Thereafter, he reached at Safdarjung Hospital, and at that time, he found deceased Neelam in the ICU, in burnt condition. He asked her as to how did it happen, to which, she replied that she had been burnt by her husband, 'Jeth', 'Devar' and 'Nanad', while, her father-in-law was watching from outside the door. He further stated that when she was shifted from ICU to General Ward, his phone was taken by Chandra Pal - his cousin (Tau's son), who recorded the conversation of deceased Neelam and after about one week, Neelam expired in the hospital. Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KAKKAR KHURANA Date:
KAKKAR 2025.03.11
17:12:59
+0530
FIR No.214/2011
PS Fatehpur Beri
State Vs. Jaipal Page No.13 of 30
39.PW32 Sumedha Bodh (Social Workers):- She deposed that he was working as Social Worker and one Chandra Pal, who was a resident of village Bhati Mines, was known to him for the last 5-6 years, prior to the incident. She further testified that on 09.10.2011 at about 09 PM, he received a telephonic call of Chandra Pal that his niece-Neelam (deceased) had been burnt by her in- laws and that she was taken to Safdarjung hospital. He further testified that on 11.10.2011, at about 03:00 PM, she visited the hospital and met deceased Neelam and talked to her. She further testified that deceased Neelam had told her that she was burnt by accused persons.
40.As per her testimony, deceased also told her that while she was being brought to hospital by accused persons, they threatened her not to depose about the incident and to tell the police that she had sustained injuries, due to bursting of stove. She stated that however, police had not recorded this fact in her statement. She further deposed that at that time, one of her relatives had mobile phone with him, and during recording, deceased Neelam again told her that she was burnt by her husband, 'Jeth', 'Devar' and 'Nand'- Ram Devi and she also told that she was caught hold by her 'Jeth', 'Devar' and 'Nanad' while her husband sprinkled kerosene oil upon her and lighted fire.
41.PW32 Sumedha Bodh correctly identified the recording of the deceased played during her testimony in court vide Ex.PW32/A and testified that the said recording was made in her presence and the CD was placed on record as Ex. PW32/X.
42. During her cross-examination conducted by Ld defence counsel, she affirmed that out of four clips, three clips were not recorded in her presence.
Digitally signed by MANISHAMANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR KAKKAR Date:
2025.03.11 FIR No.214/2011 17:13:07 +0530 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.14 of 30 She further deposed that the said clippings were recorded in a mobile, however, she did not recollect the make and colour of the said mobile phone. She further stated that the said mobile belonged to the relative of deceased. However, at that time, two persons were present - one was Kailash and another one was Chandra Pal. She further testified that on 13.10.2011, the said clip was recorded.
Medical Evidence :-
43. PW23 Dr. Prerna :- She deposed that as per death summary, deceased Neelam was admitted vide MRD No. 96911 in the Burnt Department on 09.10.2011 at about 02:45 PM with 70% deep thermal burn with septicemic shock and she expired on 17.10.2011 at 07:45 PM. She placed on record death summary as well death report vide Ex. PW23/A and Ex. PW23/B. Police witnesses:-
44. PW35 SI Kuldeep:- The said IO had conducted the investigation in the present matter and during the investigation, he had seized one kerosene oil cooking stove, one small single burner stove, one small single burner of LPG Cylinder of green colour with regulator and gas pipe, burnt clothes of the deceased.
45. PW37 Inspector Gurnam Singh:- On 19.10.2011, he had seized the CD containing the clippings of the deceased recorded in the hospital, produced by her brother Pooran Lal vide seizure memo Ex. PW37/A. Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR KAKKAR Date:
2025.03.11 17:13:14 +0530 FIR No.214/2011 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.15 of 30
46. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 16.12.2024 and statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded vide order dated 15.01.2025.
47. Thereafter, Defence Evidence was closed vide order dated 16.12.2024.
Appreciation of Evidence and Findings :-
48. It is the case of the prosecution that accused persons namely Jaipal (husband), Rajpal (brother in law), Babiya Ram (father in law) and Sunil Kumar (brother in law) harassed deceased Neelam on account of demand for dowry and on 09.10.2011 between 01.00pm-02.00pm at House no. A-36, Sanjay Colony, Bhati Mines, set her on fire and committed her murder/dowry death.
49. In order to prove it's case, the prosecution had examined the neighbour of the deceased i.e. PW1 Nirmala Devi. She had testified that the deceased was residing alongwith her family in her area. She had deposed that accused Babiya Ram (father-in-law) had been living with his five sons in her locality and two of his sons i.e. accused Jaipal and Rajpal had been married to two sisters i.e. Neelam (deceased) and Kiran, who were also residents of same locality. The said marriage was stated to have been taken in the month of April 2011 and after the said marriage, the said sisters were also living in the same house with the accused persons.
50. As per the testimony of PW1 Nirmala Devi, she had heard some sort of quarrel in the family of the accused persons on some occasions. She had testified that on the day of incident i.e. 09.10.2011, at about 09-10 AM, on hearing someone shout, she had come out of her house and she saw that deceased Neelam was Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR Date:
KAKKAR FIR No.214/2011 2025.03.11 17:13:21 +0530 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.16 of 30 burning near the gate of her house. She also saw a gas stove burning, which was kept near the door of the house. As per her testimony, when deceased Neelam came out of her house and sat near the bathroom, her father-in-law i.e. accused Babiya Ram, her elder jethani, her younger nanad came to rescue her. She also stated that accused Babiya Ram poured water on her, while her nanad and jethani put a cloth on her to put off the fire. Thereafter, deceased was taken to the hospital by accused Sunil. She testified that when she spoke to deceased before she was taken to the hospital, deceased told her that her husband was suspicious that the child in her womb did not belong to him and in order to teach him a lesson, she had burnt herself. She also testified that about one and a half month ago, deceased had a quarrel with her husband, however, she did not have know the reason for the same.
51. Be that as it may, it had been argued by Ld. Defence counsel for accused persons that there were several lapses in the testimony of the said witness and in fact, she had not supported the case of the prosecution. He had pointed out that the said witness had resiled from her previous statement given to the police vide Ex. PW1/PX and had nowhere mentioned the involvement of accused persons in setting the deceased on fire.
52. Be that as it may, the testimony of the said neighbour is relevant to the extent that she had specifically deposed that there was some dispute between the deceased and her husband i.e. accused Jaipal and there were quarrels between them, which she had over heard being their neighbour. Although, she had deposed in her testimony recorded on 24.05.2018 that when she had inquired from deceased, before she was taken to the hospital and deceased had told her that "mai fasaane ke liye jali hu", however, conspicuously no such fact had Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR Date:
KAKKAR 2025.03.11 FIR No.214/2011 17:13:30 +0530 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.17 of 30 been mentioned by the said witness in her statement given to the police vide Ex. PW1/PX and the same appears to be an improvement made by her in her testimony. Having said that, it is well settled that as per section 154 Indian Evidence Act, falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not relevant to Indian law.
53.In Mani @ Udattu Man & Ors Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 382-384 of 2008, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had been held that :-
"4. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient, or to be not wholly credible. Falsity of material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witness or witnesses cannot be branded as liar......"
54. Thus, the said improvement does not render the testimony of the said witness as unreliable in toto and in fact, proves the factum of burning of deceased at her house as well as the presence of accused Sunil, Babiya Ram at the time of incident. It also establishes the factum of frequent quarrel between the deceased and her husband. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the said witness in that respect.
55.Furthermore, the prosecution had also produced the mother of deceased i.e. Smt. Dadli as PW2. She had testified that after the marriage of deceased Neelam and her other daughter Kiran to accused persons Jaipal and Rajpal respectively, they were residing together at Bhati Mines. She also testified that Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR FIR No.214/2011 KAKKAR Date:
2025.03.11 PS Fatehpur Beri 17:13:36 +0530 State Vs. Jaipal Page No.18 of 30 they had given jewellery articles and other household articles in the said marriage. As per her testimony, after about 1-2 months of their marriage, accused persons had started quarreling with her daughters and used to demand money from them as they were not doing any work at that time. She had also stated that accused Rajpal used to consume liquor daily and used to beat her daughter Kiran, while accused Jaipal also used to beat her daughter i.e. deceased Neelam. She further stated that deceased was three months pregnant at the time of incident.
56.She had also testified that her daughters were also harassed by their devar Sunil Kumar and nanand Rama Devi alongwith accused Babiya Ram (father- in-law). She had testified that when she had spoken to her daughter in the hospital, deceased Neelam had informed her that she had been burnt by accused Sunil, Babiya Ram, Jaipal, Rajpal and Rama Devi. She also stated that the statement of her daughter was recorded by the SDM in the hospital and that she had also given her statement to the SDM vide Ex. PW2/A.
57.The said testimony of the mother of the deceased was also corroborated by the testimony of the other sister of the deceased, who was living in the same matrimonial house i.e. PW3 Kiran. She had also deposed on the same lines as her mother. She had also stated that her husband i.e. accused Rajpal used to harass her to bring money from her parents and he often used to beat her up. She had also testified that on 09.10.2011, she was present at her parental house at Bhati Mines and during noon time, she came to know that her sister had been burnt and had been admitted in Safdarjung hospital. She also stated that when she reached at the hospital and spoke to her sister, she was informed that Digitally signed MANISHA by MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR KAKKAR Date: 2025.03.11 17:13:43 +0530 FIR No.214/2011 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.19 of 30 accused Sunil, Jaipal, Rajpal and Rama Devi had burnt her, while her father-in- law i.e. accused Babiya Ram was sitting outside.
58.She further testified that deceased Neelam also told her that she was threatened by her husband and in-laws to give a statement that she had burnt accidentally, on her own. She further testified that she was turned out from her house in the month of July. She also stated that once she had paid Rs. 5,000/- to her husband and she also made the complaint to the police dated 08.11.2011 vide Ex. PW3/A. During her cross-examination, she deposed that once she and her deceased sister had gone to police post Bhati Mines to report the matter, however, no written complaint was made.
59.She had testified in her testimony dated 02.08.2018 that the accused persons used to demand motorcycle from her father and accused Jaipal used to beat her (deceased) sister Neelam. She also stated that they used to mentally and physically torture her sister by beating her, as they were unable to fulfill their demand for motorcycle. She had further testified that she was thrown out from matrimonial home in the month of July 2011. As per her testimony, father-in- law, brother-in-law Sunil and accused Jaipal also threatened her sister Neelam to bring dowry articles such as motorcycle, fridge, almirah and if she did not bring the same from her paternal home, she would be killed. She further deposed that deceased was pregnant, when she was ousted from her matrimonial home. She also stated that they had threatened her to bring Rs. 10,000/- otherwise they would kill her sister Neelam. Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KAKKAR KHURANA Date:
KAKKAR 2025.03.11
17:13:49
+0530
FIR No.214/2011
PS Fatehpur Beri
State Vs. Jaipal Page No.20 of 30
60.As per her testimony, on 09.10.2011, she was informed by her neighbour that her sister Neelam had been burnt by her sister in law Ramdevi, Sunil (devar), Jaipal (husband), Rajpal and Babiya Ram (father-in-law).
61.Ld. Defence counsel had tried to assail the testimony of the aforesaid material witnesses and had argued that even though PW3 Kiran had stated that there were earlier complaints of harassment against the accused persons, however, no written complaint had been placed on record to substantiate the same. Be that as it may, PW3 Kiran had herself stated that she and her deceased sister had gone to Police Post Bhati mines to report the matter, however, no written complaint was given and in fact, she had stated that the police had got the matter 'pacified'. Thus, from her testimony it is apparent that the matter did not reach the stage of filing of written complaint against the accused brothers and it was settled before that at the behest of the police. Therefore, there is no merit in the said contention raised by Ld defence counsel and infact, the same goes to prove that there had earlier been instances of harassment by the accused persons against the sister.
62.Ld defence counsel for accused persons had further tried to demolish the case of the prosecution on the ground that PW3 Kiran had testified that she did not know the name of the neighbour who had informed that her sister had been burnt by the accused persons and she also did not know the exact time when her neighbour had given the said information. It had, thus, been argued that the said fact makes her testimony unbelievable and unreliable.
63.Be that as it may, perusal of the testimony of PW2 Smt. Dadli shows that the information regarding burning of her daughter on 09.10.2011 was received by Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KAKKAR KHURANA Date:
KAKKAR 2025.03.11
FIR No.214/2011 17:13:55
+0530
PS Fatehpur Beri
State Vs. Jaipal Page No.21 of 30
her, even though PW3 Kiran had also stated that she had been informed by her neighbour regarding the said incident, however, she had also added that her mother had gone to the police and thereafter to the hospital. Thus, from the said fact, it appears that the said information was first received by her mother and not by PW3 Kiran, who had directly reached the hospital after receiving the information. Moreso, it is but natural that after receiving information about the burning of her sister, she might not have been able to register such details, as to how she had received the said information, being reeling under shock. Therefore, the said fact does not render her testimony as unreliable.
64. However, Ld. Defence counsel had further argued that as per the testimony of PW-3 Kiran, she was told about the incident by deceased Neelam after 2-3 days and that the said fact is hard to believe. However, there is no merit in the said contention and as per the death summary dated 17.10.2011 i.e. Ex. PW23/A of deceased Neelam, she had suffered 70 % burns after the incident and thus, would obviously be in a critical condition and could not have immediately spoken about the incident with her relatives. PW-3 Kiran had specifically deposed that she was not allowed to meet her sister in the hospital initially. The said fact infact, give more credence to the testimony of PW3 Kiran and makes it reliable.
65.The prosecution had also examined another material witness i.e. PW10 Pratap Singh (uncle of deceased). He had testified that on receiving the information about the said incident, on 10.10.2011, he had gone to Safdarjung hospital, burn ward and had spoken to the deceased about the incident. He had further testified that deceased had informed him that accused persons, her husband, her devar, her brother-in-law and her jeth had burnt her as she did not get her Digitally signed MANISHA by MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR KAKKAR Date: 2025.03.11 17:14:02 +0530 FIR No.214/2011 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.22 of 30 elder sister i.e. PW3 Kiran back from the parental house. He had further stated that after burning her, the said accused persons had left her in burnt condition and the door was closed from outside, while her father-in-law was present outside the room and he did not even try to save her.
66.He further testified that she was taken to the hospital and on the way, she was threatened not to disclose the real facts of the incident, otherwise they would kill her or her family members. PW10 Pratap had placed on record his statement given to the SDM vide Ex. PW7/E. He had also stated that the accused persons used to harass deceased Neelam and her sister Kiran (PW3) on account of demand for dowry and PW3 Kiran was even turned out of the house by the accused persons. He further stated that deceased was pregnant at that time and she had returned to the house of accused with the hope that her pregnancy would improve matters, however, PW3 Kiran did not return back, after she was beaten up and remained at her parental house.
67.Ld defence counsel had tried to assail the testimony of the said witness on the ground that the said witness was unable to tell the date when he was informed by the family members of the deceased regarding the demand for dowry.
68.Be that as it may, PW10 Pratap was not the only witness who deposed regarding the demand for dowry by the accused persons and infact PW3 Kiran, who was also herself a victim of the harassment meted out by the accused persons, had also deposed that the accused persons used to demand money and motorcycle from her father and they used to mentally and physically harass them as they were unable to fulfill their demand for motorcycle. Thus, even though PW10 Pratap was not a direct witness to the harassment of the deceased Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR Date:
KAKKAR 2025.03.11 FIR No.214/2011 17:14:08 +0530 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.23 of 30 and her sister at the hands of the accused person, however, the testimony of PW-3 Kiran itself is sufficient to prove the same as aforementioned.
69.The prosecution had also examined a material independent witness i.e. PW32 Sumedha Bodh, social worker working in an organization NACDOR. She had also testified that on 09.10.2011 at about 09 PM, she had received a telephonic call of uncle of deceased namely Chandra Pal and on receiving the same, she had visited Safdarjung hospital on 11.10.2011 at about 03 PM. After taking permission from the doctor, she had gone inside the ICU of burn department and had met the deceased Neelam. She further stated that deceased told her that her statement was recorded by the SDM, however, the said statement did not cover what she had stated and the statement was not read over to her.
70. As per her testimony, deceased wanted to give another statement to the SDM that she was burnt by her husband, jeth, devar, nanand while her father-in-law watched the incident from outside the door of the room. She further deposed that deceased told her that while she was being brought to the hospital by her in-laws, they had threatened her not to disclose the incident and to tell the police that she had sustained injuries due to bursting of stove. She further stated that despite the request of the hospital, no police official visited the hospital again for recording the statement of the deceased, therefore, one of her relatives made a video recording of deceased with his mobile phone, whereby deceased stated that she was burnt by her husband, jeth, devar, nanand Rama devi. During her testimony, the said CD was produced and was Digitally signed placed on record as Ex. PW32/X. by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR KAKKAR Date:
2025.03.11 17:14:14 +0530 FIR No.214/2011 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.24 of 30
71. Ld Defence counsel for accused had further argued that there were no eye witness of the alleged incident and all the witnesses were produced by the prosecution were interested witness. It had been further argued on behalf of the accused persons that as per the first statement given by the deceased to the SDM placed on record as Ex.PW7/A, she had stated that a quarrel had taken place with her husband in the morning and her husband had put kerosene on her and had asked her to die, however, she had put herself on fire. Ld. Defence counsel had further argued that the said statement was inconsistent with the testimony of not only the testimonies of the relatives of the deceased but was also inconsistent with the testimony of the Social Worker i.e. PW-32 Sumedha Bodh. It had further been argued that the video clippings of the deceased placed on record vide Ex. PW32/A are completely contradictory to her first statement given to the concerned SDM and therefore, the same cannot be relied upon.
72.Be that as it may, perusal of the testimony of PW-32 Sumedha Bodh had specifically deposed that on 11.10.2011, she had herself met deceased Neelam, whereby, deceased Neelam had told her that her statement which was recorded by the SDM does not include all the facts and were never read over to her , she wanted to give another statement to the SDM whereby she wanted to implicate accused persons that is her husband, accused Rajpal, accused Sunil as well as her sister in law and wanted to state that her father in law was standing outside the door of the room and was watching the incident.
73.The said testimony of PW-32 Sumedha Bodh is also inconsonance with the testimony of PW-10 Pratap Singh (uncle) who had also testified that deceased Neelam had informed her that she was set ablaze by the accused persons that Digitally signed MANISHA by MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR KAKKAR Date: 2025.03.11 FIR No.214/2011 17:14:22 +0530 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.25 of 30 her husband, her dever and her brother in law and her jeth while accused Babiya Ram was standing outside and watching the incident and did not intervene. His statement was placed on record as Ex. PW7/E whereby it had specifically stated that she had also told him that whatever statement she had given to the SDM, they were given under duress as the accused persons kept threatening her on a her way to the hospital, when they accompanied the deceased to the hospital. Even, PW-6 Puran Lal had also deposed similarly and he had also testified that deceased was threatened on the way to the hospital by her husband, Jeth and brother in law and they had told her not to speak about the incident, otherwise her family members would face dire consequences. The said testimony was also corroborated by his statement given to the SDM vide Ex. PW6/A on 18.10.2011.
74.Having said that the other material piece of evidence which is corroborative of the above mentioned testimonies of the relative of the deceased is the video clippings of the deceased herself, which had been placed on record. In the video clippings of the deceased i.e. Ex.PW32/A, the deceased can be clearly seen in a burnt condition in the hospital whereby she has specifically stated that she was burnt by her husband, her Jeth Rajpal, her Dever Sunil and her Nanad while accused Babiya Ram was outside.
75.Ld. Defence counsel had tried to assail the said video footage on the ground that the same were never forensically examined to prove it's authenticity. However, there is no merit in the said contention raised on behalf of the accused persons and infact, prosecution had examined PW45 Sh. Gaurav Sharma, Cyber Forensic Division, FSL Rohini who had placed on record the FSL report prepared by Dr. Narayan Waghmare vide Ex. PW38/A and as per Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR Date:
KAKKAR FIR No.214/2011 2025.03.11 17:14:28 +0530 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.26 of 30 the said report, the video clippings were extracted from Nokia mobile phone. Therefore, the said video footages stand duly authenticated.
76. It has been held that in "Laxmi Vs Om Prakash (2001 AIR SCW 2481) as under:-
" A dying declaration, if found reliable, can form the basis of conviction. A court of facts is not excluded from acting upon an uncorroborated dying declaration for finding conviction. A dying declaration, as a piece of evidence, stands on the same footing as any other piece of evidence. It has to be judged and appreciated in the light of the surrounding circumstances and its weight determined by reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence. It is, as if the maker of the dying declaration was present in the court making a statement, stating the facts contained in the declaration, with the difference that the declaration is not a statement on oath and the maker thereof cannot be subjected to cross examination."
77. It is well settled that the basis of considering dying declaration as a vital piece of evidence is that a person who is under the legitimate expectation of death, would not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. In the present matter as well, the dying declaration which was specifically made by the victim when she was on her death bed can not be negated and infact, is a forceful piece of evidence, which would weigh strongly in favour of the prosecution. Moreso, in light of the fact that all the material witnesses have corroborated the said dying declaration. MANISHA by Digitally signed MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR KAKKAR Date: 2025.03.11 17:14:34 +0530 FIR No.214/2011 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.27 of 30
78.From the video footage placed on record, it is apparent that the said dying declaration was made when the deceased was of sound mind and was not under any influence of pressure, threat or under any kind of infirmity of mind. Therefore, there is no hindrance in relying upon the said dying declaration which is relevant under section 32 of Indian Evidence Act.
79.Thus, there is no merit in the contentions raised by Ld. Defence counsel that there were no eye witnesses of the alleged incident or that the case of the prosecution is based upon merely interested witnesses.
80. The moot question that is now involved is regarding the roles of the accused persons. As per the said dying declaration of the deceased, accused Sunil, Jaipal and Rajpal were all involved in setting the deceased on fire while accused Babiya Ram was outside and was watching the incident. Ld. Defence counsel had argued that as per the case of the prosecution, accused Babiya Ram was merely standing outside, when the deceased was set on fire and therefore, he had no role to play in the alleged incident. However, the said contention is based upon a false premise that there has to be a overt act for fastening guilt of the accused. It is well settled that as per section 34 IPC, the common intention can be imputed on the accused, if it is evident that there was prior concert/meeting of minds of the accused persons in the commission of the offence. In the present matter, the deceased had categorically stated in her dying declaration that accused Babiya Ram was kept watching from outside while the other accused persons set her on fire. Conspicuously, the said accused did not make any effort to prevent the said offence or to subvert the acts of the other accused persons in cornering the deceased and in setting her ablaze. Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR Date:
KAKKAR 2025.03.11 17:14:41 +0530 FIR No.214/2011 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.28 of 30
81. In fact, PW-3 Kiran had specially deposed that the said accused Babiya Ram alongwith other accused persons had demanded dowry items such as almirah, fridge, motorcycle etc and had also threatened to kill her, in case, she failed to bring the same from her parents. Thus, the said facts make it evident that the said accused was also actively involvement in the harassment, threatening of the deceased and her subsequent demise at the hands of the accused persons. The said accused therefore, cannot be absolved of his liability, merely on the ground that he was not one of the immediate/active participants in the offence, even though, he was harboring the same intention as the other accused persons and also shared a common motive of extracting dowry articles from the deceased.
82. Thus, from the aforesaid facts, testimonies of material witnesses as well as dying declaration of the deceased, it stands duly established that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention used to harass the deceased on account for demand for dowry and they eventually, murdered her. However, Smt. Rama Devi was not sent up for trial.
83. It is unfortunate that for decades, women have been subjected to cruelty by the in laws and are treated with apathy, as a medium of monetary gains in the name of marriage. The mindset of extracting money from the parents of brides, by arm twisting them in the name of marriage, is archaic, redundant and should be deterred. Moreso, in light of the fact that this mind set often leads to instances of brutal bride burning at the hands of the in laws, which is deplorable and has to be viewed strictly by the courts. Digitally signed by MANISHA MANISHA KHURANA KHURANA KAKKAR Date:
KAKKAR 2025.03.11 17:14:48 +0530 FIR No.214/2011 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.29 of 30
84.The prosecution has therefore, proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. They are hereby convicted for the offences under section 498-A/302/34 IPC.
85. Copy of judgment be given free of cost.
Digitally signed by MANISHAMANISHA KHURANA KAKKAR ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT KHURANA Date: on 11.03.2025 KAKKAR 2025.03.11 17:14:54 +0530 (MANISHA KHURANA KAKKAR) ASJ (FTC) - 01, SOUTH DISTRICT SAKET: NEW DELHI/11.03.2025 FIR No.214/2011 PS Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Jaipal Page No.30 of 30