State vs Ravinder Sharma on 22 April, 2025

[Cites 37, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs Ravinder Sharma on 22 April, 2025

         IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA: ADDL.
          SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST DISTRICT:
               KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI

SESSIONS CASE No. 37/2017
CNR No. DLNE01-005569-2016
FIR No. 355/2016
P.S.: Karawal Nagar
U/s : 498A/304B/34 IPC
      & Section 4 of DP Act

STATE

                                        Versus

(1) Ravinder Sharma
s/o Sh. Chanderpal
r/o B-306, Gali no. 4, Prem Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi

(2) Chanderpal
s/o Sh. Shankar Lal
r/o B-306, Gali no. 4, Prem Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi

(3) Smt. Bimlesh Devi
w/o Sh. Chanderpal
r/o B-306, Gali no. 4, Prem Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi


Date of Institution :        16-02-2017
Date of Argument :           05-04-2025
Date of Judgment :           22-04-2025


JUDGMENT

1. The facts of this case, in brief, are that on 17-10-2016, at about 8:15 pm, an information was received at PS Karawal Nagar through Wireless Operator that a lady had hanged herself at a FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 1 of 45 place near Ganga Memorial Hospital, Prem Vihar, Phase-4. The information was reduced into writing vide DD no. 71B (Ex. PW10/A) and the same was marked to SI Sandeep Kumar, (hereinafter referred to as first IO/Investigating Officer). Thereafter, first IO along with HC Ishwar Singh reached at the spot i.e. H. No. B-306, Gali no. 4, Prem Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. Upon inquiry, the first IO came to know that Jyoti, aged 22 years old, who got married about six months ago, had hanged herself with ceiling fan with the help of sari in a room situated at first floor of the aforesaid house and she was brought to the ground by her mother-in-law Bimlesh Devi and father-in-law Chanderpal. Thereafter, they took her to GTB hospital. Thereafter, IO along with HC Ishwar Singh reached GTB hospital and collected MLC of victim Jyoti wherein the doctor concerned had endorsed, "A/H/O hanging and brought dead". The IO then informed the SDM concerned and Crime Team was called. The dead body was removed to mortuary. After some time Crime Team reached at the hospital and inspected the dead body. Thereafter, crime team went to the spot, carried out inspection and took photographs. One wooden table, one green and black colour sari and one broken aluminium kabza containing some broken wooden piece were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/A. On 18-10-2016, the IO produced the brother and mother of deceased namely Sandeep Sharma and Smt. Anarkali before the Executive Magistrate, who recorded their statements. The brother Sandeep Sharma stated that his younger sister Jyoti, aged 22 years old, got married with Ravinder Sharma on 26-04-2016. Ravinder Sharma was working as blood sample collection agent at a lab. The marriage of his FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 2 of 45 sister was solemnized with full pomp and show. In the engagement ceremony, Rs. 51,000/- cash was given. Apart from jewellery and other dowry articles, they had also given cash of Rs. 1,30,000/- for purchasing one Apache motorcycle during marriage. The matrimonial life of his sister was not good. After about four days of marriage, her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband started pressurizing his sister to come back home along with four wheeler vehicle or else do not come back. On 16-10- 2016, in the afternoon, he went to the matrimonial house of his sister for handing over gifts on the occassion of Karvachauth i.e. sari for mother-in-law and sister-in-law, bangles, puja stuff and five packets of sweets. The mother-in-law of Jyoti asked him to bring four wheeler vehicle for Jyoti. Then Jyoti interrupted by saying that said issue can be discussed after festival. On 17-10- 2016 at about 7:30 pm, he received phone call of father-in-law of Jyoti, who informed that Jyoti had hanged herself. After informing his mother, he along with his younger brother Kuldeep went to the house of Jyoti. Nobody was found present in the house. However, Jyoti was found lying outside. She was immediately taken to GTB hospital in an auto where ECG was done but no response came. He raised suspicion that Ravinder Sharma, Chanderpal and Bimlesh Devi might have killed his sister. Statements of mother of deceased namely Anarkali was also recorded, who had revealed the same facts as revealed by Sandeep Sharma. On the basis of statements of family members, the present FIR came to be registered. The accused persons were interrogated and during interrogation, they had confessed about committing torture upon the deceased by making consistent demand of four wheeler vehicle. Their disclosure statements FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 3 of 45 were recorded. All the accused persons were arrested. Postmortem report was obtained wherein cause of death was opined as "asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging". Scaled site plan of the spot was got prepared through draftsman Inspector Mahesh Kumar. PCR form was collected. CDRs of mobile phone number 7053848392 of deceased Jyoti and that of mobile number 9958755185 of her mother Anarkali were obtained. Upon analysis of CDRs, it was revealed that on 17-10- 2016 between 10:30 am to 11 am, deceased Jyoti had talked with her mother on a mobile phone for about 16 minutes. Subsequent opinion regarding ligature material was obtained. After completion of necessary formalities, chargesheet was filed in the court of Ld. Ilaqa MM.

COMMITTAL

2. After taking cognizance and compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C., the present case was committed to the Courts of Sessions vide order dated 06-02-2017 by the Ld. CMM/NE/KKD. The same was allocated by the then Ld. District and Sessions Judge to the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. CHARGE

3. After hearing the arguments and finding that prima facie case was made out against the accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 498A/304B/34 of IPC, charge was framed by ld. Predecessor against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution got examined as many as 26 witnesses.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

4. PW1 ASI Dharamvir Singh deposed that on 17-10-2016, he was posted in PCR, NE and on that day at about 8:15 pm, he FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 4 of 45 received information from Control Room that in H. No. B-306, Gali no. 4, Prem Vihar, one lady had committed suicide by hanging herself. Thereafter, he along with his PCR staff reached there, where he did not find any injured or deceased. They came to know from neighbourhood that the deceased was taken to GTB hospital by her family members from maternal side. Inspector Sanjeev and SI Sandeep also met him at the spot.

During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that he did not meet any family member of deceased from her parental home.

PW2 Sandeep Sharma deposed that deceased Jyoti was his younger sister. About 10 years ago, his father had expired. He is eldest amongst his brothers. After death of his father, all the responsibility came on his shoulders.

On 26-04-2016, his sister Jyoti married with Ravinder Sharma in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies at Prem Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. They had given all the istridhan to his sister Jyoti as per their financial capacity. At the time of engagement of his sister, they had given a sum of Rs. 51,000/- in cash and Rs. 1,30,000/- in cash for purchase of motorcycle. One gold ring, TV, Fridge, Almirah, Washing Machine, Home Theater System, Sewing Machine, Bed, Sofa and other household articles were also given at the time of engagement. At the time of marriage, one gold chain was given to Ravinder i.e. husband of his sister and some other articles were also given. After marriage, Jyoti shifted to her matrimonial house at Prem Vihar, Karawal Nagar. After four days of her marriage, his Jija Ravinder, his mother Bimlesh and his father Chander Pal started torturing his sister Jyoti stating that she did not bring four FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 5 of 45 wheeled vehicle in dowry. When he along with his younger brother Kuldeep and middleman Manish Sharma visited the matrimonial house of Jyoti on the occasion of Chauthi (which is after four days of marriage) to bring Jyoti, all the three accused asked him to give a four wheeled vehicle and to send Jyoti only in that vehicle. He called his mother from his phone and the accused persons talked to his mother and told her as well that they should send Jyoti back only in a four wheeled vehicle or else to keep Jyoti at their house. He brought Jyoti to their home. Thereafter, they sent back Jyoti to her matrimonial house with the accused by make her to understand the circumstances.

On 16-10-2016, he went to the matrimonial house of his sister Jyoti occasion of Karwachauth and he took one sari for mother-in-law of his sister, one sari for his sister, five boxes of sweets and some other articles used for religious purpose. At that time, Bimlesh in the presence of Chander Pal and Ravinder demanded four wheeled vehicle. At that time, his sister intervened and stated that they will talk about four wheeled vehicle after the festival of Karwachauth. At that time, he got his mother talked with all the three accused persons on mobile phone. All the accused again demanded a four wheeled vehicle. When he was leaving matrimonial house of Jyoti, all the accused told him to arrange the vehicle by Diwali or else they would face dire consequences.

On the next day i.e. 17-10-2016 at about 10:30 am, he received a phone call from his sister Jyoti, who appeared to be weeping. She told him that after he had left the house, accused Chander Pal and Bimlesh had again raised demand of vehicle and accused Ravinder in the morning had also quarreled with her on FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 6 of 45 the issue of vehicle. His mother also talked with Jyoti and she told her the same facts. She also told that accused Ravinder was accused her that it was she who was restraining them from giving the four wheeled vehicle to them. Thereafter, the phone was disconnected and they again tried to connect the call but it was not reachable. He thought that he would visit at the house of his sister in the evening. At about 7:30 pm, when he was busy in his work, he received a phone call from Chander Pal and he told him that Jyoti had hanged herself. Thereafter, they immediately went to the matrimonial house of his sister. There they saw that his sister Jyoti was lying in the gali near the house of accused persons. They immediately took Jyoti to GTB hospital. After checking Jyoti, the doctor declared her brought dead.

On 18-10-2016, SDM also recorded his statement Ex. PW2/A and statement of his mother. On 25.10.2016, he had handed over to the IO CDs of marriage of his sister, the bills regarding various articles given by them in the marriage, some samples of handwriting of Jyoti which were available with them and photocopy of certificate issued by the institute where Jyoti had learnt sewing. He had also given six photographs of marriage along with the marriage card to the IO. All these above- said articles were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B. He identified all the three accused in the court.

He had handed over documents and CDs of marriage vide Ex.PW2/B as already stated on 21.07.2017. He had seen photocopy of certificate of Jan Sikshan Sansthan Prayas, Delhi as Ex.PW2/C, photocopies of four colour pages containing handwriting of deceased Jyoti Sharma are Ex.PW2/D-1 to D-4, six postcard colour photographs of marriage of Jyoti with FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 7 of 45 accused Ravinder Sharma are Ex.PW2/E-1 to E-6, four video CDs of marriage of Jyoti with Ravinder Sharma are Ex.PW2/F-1 to F-4, one invitation card of marriage of Jyoti with Ravinder is Ex.PW2/G and photocopies of 22 bills and slips of dowry articles are marked as Mark PW2/H (colly.).

He had brought originals of photocopies of 22 bills/slips of dowry articles which were marked earlier as Mark PW2/H (colly.), which were exhibited as Ex. PW2/H (colly.) During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that no demand of any specific model of car was raised by the accused persons. At that time, he made a call to his mother from his mobile no. 9958755185 to have a talk with accused persons. The call was made on the mobile phone of one Raju who was working in his factory at his home. Manish Kumar was the mediator of the marriage and they had complained him about the demand of four wheeled vehicle made by the accused persons. Later on, when they had left the house of Jyoti, Manish had also told him that Jyoti had complained him also about the demand of four wheeled vehicle by the accused persons. They had taken Jyoti with them on the day of Chauthi. At the time of engagement ceremony, Rs. 51,000/- was given in Shagun and on the demand of accused persons, Rs. 1,30,000/- was given to them for purchasing of an expensive bike. After demand of accused persons, he had complained to Manish Kumar who was mediator after about one month of the occasion of Chauthi. He had made similar complaint to him 2-3 times thereafter. On that day also, he had made a phone call from his mobile phone no. 9958755185 at mobile no. 9716705446 which belongs to one Ansar Ali who was working in his factory and at that time, accused persons had FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 8 of 45 talked to his mother telephonically and told his mother about demand of four wheeled vehicle. Accused persons had also told his mother that if their demand of four wheeled vehicle was not fulfilled till Diwali, they would have to face dire consequences. On the day of Chauti, Jyoti had also complained to Manish about the demand of four wheeled vehicle by the accused persons. His mother came to know for the first time about the demand of four wheeled vehicle on phone call made on the occasion of Chauthi.

PW-3 Manish Sharma deposed that on 26.04.2016, deceased Jyoti married with accused Ravinder Sharma. I was the middleman of the said marriage. At the time of engagement of Jyoti with accused Ravinder Sharma, Rs.51,000/- in cash, another Rs.1,30,000/- in cash for motorcycle and some other household articles were given to family of the accused. The marriage took place in accordance with Hindu rites. Amount of Rs.1,30,000/- were demanded by accused persons for purchasing expensive motorcycle. No description of the motorcycle was given. At the time of marriage, one gold chain was given to husband of Jyoti and some other household articles including electronic and furniture items and clothes for all the relatives and family members. At the time of marriage, no demand of dowry was made by the accused persons however after marriage, they started demanding dowry. On the fourth day of marriage, he alongwith Sandeep, the brother of deceased, Kuldeep another brother of deceased and one relative namely Virender went to the matrimonial house of Jyoti (on the occasion of Chauthi). At that time, all the three accused persons stated to Sandeep in his presence that Jyoti should be sent back at her matrimonial house with a four wheeled vehicle otherwise she should not be sent.

FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 9 of 45

Police recorded my statement. He correctly identified all the accused persons in the court During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that when he went to matrimonial house of deceased on the occasion of Chothi, Chanderpal, Ravinder, Bimlesh, Jyoti and other family members were present there. They said to him that next time when Jyoti comes to their house, she should bring a four wheeled vehicle. The demand of money for the costly bike was made by the accused persons from Sandeep in his presence on the occasion of engagement ceremony around 10/ 11 pm. The money was given by Sandeep which he brought from his house to accused persons.

PW4 Smt. Anarkali deposed that deceased Jyoti, aged about 22 years, was her daughter. On 26.04.2016, her daughter was married with accused Ravinder at Prem Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. In the engagement ceremony, they had given all clothes of all the family members of in-laws. One gold ring was also given to Ravinder. They had also given TV, fridge, sewing machine, washing machine and other household articles. Rs.51,000/- in cash were given at the time of engagement. The in-laws stated that they are having two motorcycles and they wanted to purchase expensive motorcycle and for that they demanded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- but they gave them a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- in cash for purchasing the motorcycle.

At the time of marriage, they had given a gold chain to accused Ravinder and some other household articles. After marriage, her daughter had gone to her matrimonial home. After four days of the marriage, her elder son Sandeep, another son FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 10 of 45 Kuldeep and Manish Sharma the middleman of the marriage went to the matrimonial house of her daughter on the occasion of Chauthi ceremony to take her back to her parental home. At that time, accused Chander Pal (father-in-law), Bimlesh (mother-in- law) and Ravinder (husband) demanded a four wheeled vehicle from them. On this, her son Sandeep made her to talk on mobile phone with all the three accused persons. All the accused persons repeated their demand of four wheeled vehicle stating that they should send Jyoti only in four wheeled vehicle to the matrimonial home or else not to send her. They could not fulfill the demand of four wheeled vehicle due to their weak financial condition as her husband had already died around 10 years back. Her sons and Kuldeep brought Jyoti back to her parental house after four days of the marriage. Thereafter after about 4-5 days, accused Ravinder alongwith some other relatives came to their house to take back his daughter Jyoti. They sent back Jyoti matrimonial house after making Ravinder and other relatives understand their financial condition.

In the meanwhile, whenever he talked on mobile phone with the in-laws of Jyoti, all the three accused persons used to demand four wheeled vehicle every time. As per the Court's observation, PW4 started weeping and took time to give further answers. PW4 further deposed that whenever all the accused persons used to visit their house, they always raised the demand of four wheeled vehicle. They also used to tell him that either give four wheeled vehicle or otherwise take back Jyoti.

On 16.10.2016, his son Sandeep went to the matrimonial house of Jyoti on the occasion of Charwa Chauth to give gifts to the in-laws. From the house of in-laws of Jyoti, Sandeep made FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 11 of 45 her to talk with Ravinder, Chander Pal and Bimlesh on phone, they again demanded from them a four wheeled vehicle. They also stated to him that if they did not give the four wheeled vehicle by Diwali, they would have to face dire consequences. Thereafter his son returned at their house on the same day. On the next day, i.e. 17.10.2016 at about 10:30 am, she received a phone call from her daughter Jyoti and she stated to her that in the night of 16.10.2016, Chander Pal and Bimlesh had quarreled with her on the issue of demand of four wheeled vehicle. She further told her that in the morning. accused Ravinder also quarreled with her on the same issue and her daughter also told her that Ravinder accused Jyoti that it was she who was not allowing them to give four wheeled vehicle to them. Accused Chander Pal and Bimlesh had also taunted her daughter that their nephew Amit was given a car in his marriage and why they were not giving a car to the accused persons. On the same day at about 7:30 pm, her son Sandeep received a phone call from accused Chander Pal and he told him that Jyoti had hanged herself. After receiving the information, her son Sandeep, Kuldeep and Manish, the middleman went to the matrimonial house of her daughter. She also followed them to the matrimonial house. On reaching there, he saw that her daughter Jyoti was lying in the gali near the house of accused. Then her sons Sandeep and Kuldeep alongwih Manish took Jyoti to GTB hospital. In the hospital, Jyoti was declared as brought dead by the doctor.

She also gave statement before the SDM which is now Ex.PW4/F. In the mortuary, she identified the dead body of her deceased daughter. After postmortem examination, the dead body of her daughter was handed over to them. She correctly FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 12 of 45 identified all the accused persons in the court.

During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, she deposed that they came to know about the demand of dowry from the side of in-laws when her son along with other relatives went to the matrimonial house of her daughter on the occasion of Chauthi i.e. 4th day of marriage. Nothing was demanded by the in-laws before said Chauthi. They did not lodge any complaint to the police for demand of dowry. She volunteered that she did not want to disturb the matrimonial life of her daughter.

PW5 W/ASI Asha was the lady police official who had accompanied the IO for witnessing the arrest proceedings of lady accused Bimlesh. She has proved the arrest related documents as Ex. PW5/A to Ex. PW5/C. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

PW6 SI Mukesh Chauhan was the in-charge of Crime Team, NE, which had inspected the dead body at the GTB Hospital Emergency ward as well as the spot on 17-10-2016. He has proved the scene of crime report prepared by him as Ex. PW6/A. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

PW7 Surender Kumar was the person who made call at 100 number. He deposed that about 10-12 months back, he had gone to SBI ATM at Shiv Vihar, near Ganga Memorial Hospital to check his balance. There, he noticed a crowd of people in the gali near the said hospital and he came to know that one lady had hanged herself. Thereafter, he made a phone call at 100 number from his mobile phone no. 9250709548.

FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 13 of 45

During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that he had made a call between 7-8 pm. PW-8 HC Jile Singh was the photographer of the Crime Team on 17-10-2016. He has proved the photographs of the spot and dead body lying at GTB hospital, clicked by him as Ex. PW8/A-1 to A-26 and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding proper functioning of his digital camera as Ex. PW8/B. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

PW9 SI Devender Kumar was the official of Police Control Room. He has proved the computer generated PCR form as Ex. PW9/A and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW9/B. The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.

PW10 Ct. Mohit Sharma was the DD Writer posted at PS Karawal Nagar on 17-10-2016. He has proved the DD no. 71B recorded by him on the basis of information received through Wireless Operator as Ex. PW10/A. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

PW-11 HC Devraj deposed that on 18-10-2016, he was posted at PS Karawal Nagar. On that day, he took the FSL team at the spot ie. H. No. B-306, Gali No.4, Prem Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. There SI Sandeep met him. FSL team inspected the spot. At the spot, they noticed that one table was kept on a bed and one black and green colour saree was also there. One broken hinge (kabja) with wooden piece was also found at the spot. The aforesaid saree was kept in a white cloth and it was converted FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 14 of 45 into a parcel sealed with the seal of SK. The aforesaid hinge with wooden piece was also kept in a white cloth and it was converted into a parcel sealed with the seal of SK. The aforesaid two sealed parcels and said table were taken into possession vide memo which is now Ex PW11/A bearing his signature at point A. Seal after use was handed over to him. Thereafter, he returned to the PS and he handed over the aforesaid two parcels and table to the MHC(M).

He again returned to the spot with SI Sandeep. At the spot, SI Sandeep and Insp. Sanjeev made inquiry from Nanad of deceased namely Madhu Sharma and Jethani of deceased namely Rama. Their statements were recorded u/s 161 CrPC. Insp. Sanjeev prepared the site plan at the instance of SI Sandeep. Thereafter husband of deceased namely Ravinder Sharma was interrogated and after interrogation, he was arrested vide memo which is now Ex PW11/B bearing his signature at point A. His personal search also conducted vide memo which is now Ex.PW11/C bearing his signature at point A. At that time, Insp Sanjeev also recorded disclosure statement of accused Ravinder which is now Ex PW11/D bearing his signature at point A. He correctly identified accused Ravinder.

PW11 claimed that on the next day I.e. 19 10.2016, he alongwith IO/Insp. Sanjeev and W/HC Asha again went to the spot and there they met father-in-law of deceased namely Chanderpal and he was apprehended and after making inquiries from him, he was arrested vide memo Ex. PW11/E. His personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW11/F. At that time, disclosure statement of accused Chanderpal was also recorded vide Ex. PW11/G. He correctly identified accused Chanderpal.

FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 15 of 45

The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

PW12 Surender Kumar is the Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd. He has proved the CAFs, CDR and subscriber documents in connection with mobile phone numbers 8826408117, 9250709548, 9650776648, and 9958755185 as Ex. PW12/A to Ex. PW12/L. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

PW13 ASI Ram Kumar deposed that on 25-10-2016, he was posted as HC at PS Karawal Nagar On that day, when he was present at the PS, one Sandeep Sharma (brother of deceased) had come to the PS before Inspector Sanjeev Chahar. At that time, he had handed over six coloured photographs of marriage of his sister Jyoti with Ravinder Sharma alongwith invitation card. He had also produced 22 photocopies of regarding dowry articles given in the marriage and four video CDs He had also given one photocopy of certificate and four colour pages containing handwriting and signatures of Jyoti. The aforesaid documents and articles were taken into possession by IO/Insp Sanjeev Chahar vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B. His statement was recorded by the IO.

On 24.11 2016, as per directions of the IO, PW13 had taken one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of SK containing green and black colour saree from MHC(M) vide RC No. 136/21/16 for subsequent opinion. Accordingly the same were deposited by him in the Forensic Department, GTB hospital. he had also obtained acknowledgment receipt regarding the same which he had handed over to the MHC(M) after coming back FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 16 of 45 from the hospital. Till the time pullanda remained in his possession. he had not tampered with the same. His supplementary statement was also recorded by the IO.

The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

PW14 Shishir Malhotra is the Nodal Officer from Aircel Ltd. He has proved the CDR of mobile phone no. 7053848392 for the period 15-09-2016 to 17-10-2016, CAF and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act in connection with the above mobile phone number as Ex. PW14/A to Ex. PW14/E. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

PW15 HC Sumdev was the Duty Officer posted at PS Karawal Nagar at the relevant time. He has proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW15/A, endorsement made by him on rukka prepared by the IO as Ex. PW15/B and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding proper functioning of computer device as Ex. PW15/C The witness was not cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.

PW16 Ct. Sandeep was the investigating police official who was assigned the task of collecting the exhibits from the mortuary of GTB hospital on 30-11-2016 and to hand over the same to the IO. He has proved the seizure memo in this regard prepared by the IO as Ex. PW16/A. He claimed that till the time pullandas remained in his possession, the same were not tampered by him in any manner.

The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 17 of 45

PW17 HC Yogesh Kumar was the MHCM at PS Karawal Nagar at the relevant time. He has proved the entries made by him in register no. 19 regarding ingress and egress of exhibits at PS Karawal Nagar during investigation of the present case. The official records proved by him are Ex. PW17/A(Colly.) The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

PW18 Prem Chand was the owner of Goyal Electronics. He has proved the invoices of articles i.e. Videocon refrigerator, Intex LED, Videocon Washing machine, Usha Iron Press, Bajaj Induction Cooker and Sewing machine which were purchased from his shop vide Ex. PW18/A. The witness was not cross-examined by accused persons despite having given the opportunity.

PW19 HC Sachin Rana is the investigating police official, who was assigned the task of depositing exhibits at FSL on 06- 12-2016. On 26-12-2016, he had taken one suicide note photograph and four coloured pages of documents from MHCM and deposited the same at FSL Rohini and obtained acknowledgment therefrom.

The witness was not cross-examined by accused persons despite having given the opportunity.

PW20 Inspector Mahesh Kumar was the official draftsman. He proved the scaled site plan of the spot prepared by him on 02-01-2017 as Ex. PW20/A .

The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.

PW21 Dr. Pankaj Malia, SR was deputed by MS to identify handwriting and signatures of Dr. Shalney Razdan. He FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 18 of 45 has proved the postmortem report and subsequent opinion report prepared by Dr. Shalney Razdan as Ex. PW21/A and Ex. PW21/B. He deposed that as per the subsequent opinion report, the alleged ligature mark was possible with the ligature material produced by the IO, as mentioned in Ex. PW21/B. He had also seen the FSL report no. 2016/C-9153 dated 22-12-2016 and stated that no common poison alcohol was detected in Ex. 1A, 1B and 1C.

The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

PW-22 SI Sandeep Kumar is the first IO of the present case. He deposed that on 17.10.2016, he was posted as SI at PS Karawal Nagar. On the intervening night 17/18.10.2016, he was on emergency duty at the PS since 8:00 pm to 8:00 am. At about 8:15 pm, on receipt of DD No. 17B, he alongwith HC Ishwar had reached at the spot i.e. H. No. B-306, Gali No. 4, Phase-IV, Prem Vihar, Karawal Nagar, where on enquiry, he came to know that one Jyoti W/o Ravinder Sharma who was married six month before had committed suicide by hanging with the ceiling fan with the help of sari in a room at the first floor and that her mother in law Bimlesh Devi and father in law Chander Pal had brought her down after opening the knot. He also came to know that the said Jyoti was taken to GTB hospital by her parental family members. Other police officials of the PS including beat staff had also reached there. After that, she alongwith HC Ishwar reached GTB hospital where he had collected MLC of victim Jyoti on which doctor had opined her brought dead with alleged history of hanging. After that she had informed SDM of the area and crime team. After some time, crime team had come at the FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 19 of 45 hospital and crime team photographer had taken the photographs and I/C Crime Team had inspected the dead body. The dead body of Jyoti was removed to the mortuary of the hospital. I/C crime team had handed over the crime team report to him. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Ishwar had reached at the spot alongwith crime team. I/C Crime team had also inspected the scene of crime and crime team photographer had taken photographs of the scene of crime. One table was found kept on the bed and one green and black colour sari was lying on the floor in the room and one broken aluminium kabja containing some broken wooden piece was found in the room. He had prepared pullanda of the sari and aluminium kabja with wooden piece. Same were sealed with the seal of SK. Same along with table were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/A. On 18.10.2016, he had taken brother of deceased namely Sandeep Sharma and mother of deceased namely Smt. Anarkali at the office of SDM. Nand Nagari where Executive Magistrate Sh. Rajesh Dhawal had recorded their statements. On the statement of Sandeep Sharma, Executive Magistrate had directed to take action as per law and to ascertain the cause of death through postmortem. After that they had reached the mortuary of GTB hospital where FSL team who was already called, had arrived. The FSL team had inspected the dead body and taken photographs of the dead body including photographs of the palm of the deceased which contained some handwriting in Hindi. After that he along with HC Ishwar who had accompanied him, had come back to the PS where on the statement of Sandeep Sharma, he made rukka for registration of the case u/s. 498-A/304-B/34 IPC and Section 4 of DP Act and gave rukka to FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 20 of 45 Duty Officer with request made in the rukka to handover investigation to SHO Insp. Sanjeev Chahar.

On 08.12.2016, he joined investigation of this case with IO/Insp. Sanjeev Chahar. On that day, Insp. Mahesh Kumar, draftsmen came to PS Karawal Nagar and thereafter, he alongwith Insp. Sanjeev Chahar and Insp. Mahesh Kumar reached to the spot i.e. 1 st floor of H. No. B-306, Gali No.4, near Ganga Memorial Hospital, Prem Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. At his instance and pointing out, Insp. Mahesh Kumar had taken rough notes and measurements of that place and inspected the spot. Later on, Insp. Mahesh Kumar had prepared scaled site plan of the place of incident on the basis of those rough notes and measurements and handed over the same to the IO. IO recorded his statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. in this regard at the spot.

He correctly identified the case properties produced by MHC(M) i.e. one green and black colour floral printed sari as Ex.PW22/Article-1; one broken aluminium kabja containing some broken wooden piece as Ex.PW22/Article-2 and one wooden table as Ex. PW22/Article-3.

PW22 further deposed that on 18.10.2016, he alongwith Insp. Sanjeev Chahar and Ct. Dev Raj reached to the house of accused i.e. H. No. B-306, Gali No.4, near Ganga Memorial Hospital, Prem Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi, where accused Ravinder Sharma was found present. He was interrogated and thereafter, arrested by the IO in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW11/B. Personal search of accused Ravinder was also conducted by the IO vide Ex. PW11/C. After completion of the investigation at the spot, he alongwith accused Ravinder, Insp. Sanjeev Chahar and Ct. Dev Raj had returned to the PS. IO Insp.

FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 21 of 45

Sanjeev Chahar again interrogated accused Ravinder Sharma in the PS and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW11/D. His statement was also recorded by Insp. Sanjeev Chahar in this case u/s. 161 CrPC. He correctly identified accused Ravinder who was present in the court that day.

The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

PW23 Smt. Beena Bharti deposed that during the period April 2010 to September 2016, she was working with an NGO under the name and style of CFAR/GRC as a Fashion Designer instructor. Jyoti Sharma (since deceased) took training in Fashion Designing at Harsh Vihar Centre about one year prior to 2016, however, she did not recollect the exact period during which Jyoti Sharma took the said training. During the said training, students used to prepare notes and PW23 used to check the same being their instructor. PW23 added that about one year prior, police officials from PS Karawal Nagar came to her house and shown her four pages and asked her if she could identify the handwriting of the person who had prepared those notes.

At that stage, four sheets of paper on which notes having headings "belt wali salwar, patiala slawar, char kali ka petticoat and six kali ka petticoat" were shown to PW23 from the judicial file and after seeing the same, PW23 stated that she had told the police official who came to her that she could not identify the handwriting of the person who had prepared said notes as many students used to take training from her and she used to check their notes/copies.

Since she was resiling from her previous statement given to the IO on some material aspects, she was cross-examined by FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 22 of 45 Ms. Sushma Badhwar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State. During her cross-examination, PW23 affirmed that police officials made enquiries from her, however, her statement was not recorded by the IO at that time. It is affirmed that she had stated to the IO that Jyoti Sharma (since deceased) took training in Harsh Vihar Centre from October 2014 to March 2015. She denied the suggestion that she had stated to the IO that four pages having headings "belt wali salwar, patiala slawar, char kali ka petticoat and six kali ka petticoat" are in the handwriting of Jyoti Sharma and bore her signatures at point A on each page. The initials appearing at point B on each page of Ex.PW2/D-1 to Ex.PW2/D- 4, were hers. She voluntarily stated that she had put those initials while checking the said notes during normal course of her duty as an instructor over there. She denied the suggestion that intentionally and deliberately she was not identifying the handwriting and signatures of Jyoti on Ex.PW2/D-1 and Ex.PW2/D-4, due to threat, pressure or coercion from the side of the accused persons. She denied the suggestion that her statement u/s. 161 CrPC dt. 05.12.2016 was recorded by the IO as per her version. She denied the suggestion that she deposed falsely with regard to aforesaid facts before the court.

The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given opportunity.

PW24 Vijender Singh, Asstt. Director, FSL Rohini was the FSL expert who had examined the photographs of the alleged suicide note written at the palm of deceased. He has proved the report prepared by him as Ex. PW24/A. The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.

FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 23 of 45

PW-25 Sh. Rajesh Dhawal deposed that on 18.10.2016, he was posted as Executive Magistrate, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. On that day at about 9:50 am, he was present in his office. SDM Yamuna Vihar Sh. Denial Masish had telephonically informed him that statement of parents of deceased are to be recorded in a dowry death case. At about 1:00/1:15 pm, SI Sandeep Kumar from PS Karawal Nagar alongwith one constable produced mother and brother of deceased before him. He made enquiries from them and recorded their statements as per their narration.

PW25 correctly identified the statement of brother namely Sandeep Sharma of deceased as Ex.PW2/A and Statement of mother namely Smt. Anar Kali of deceased as Ex.PW4/A. PW25 identified his signature and official seal on the statement Ex.PW4/A at point B on both the pages.

PW25 further deposed that after recording statement of Sandeep Sharma and Anar Kali, he had made endorsement on Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW4/A, directing IO to take necessary action as per law as there were allegations of dowry. The said endorsement on statement Ex.PW2/A is Ex.PW25/A and that on statement Ex.PW4/A is Ex. PW25/B. On the next day, at about 10:30 am, he had reached in the mortuary of GTB hospital, where Sl Sandeep Kumar and relatives of deceased were present. Inquest papers were prepared by the IO. Request for postmortem was exhibited as Ex.PW25/C, Form No. 25.35(1)(B) was exhibited as Ex.PW25/D (running into two pages). Brother Sandeep Sharma and cousin Virender Sharma of deceased had identified the dead body of deceased Jyoti, regarding which IO SI Sandeep recorded their statements which were exhibited as Ex.PW25/E and Ex.PW25/F respectively. He made endorsement FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 24 of 45 on Ex.PW25/C to hand over the body of deceased to IO SI Sandeep Kumar after postmortem and also instructed SI Sandeep to handover the body of deceased to the relatives. The said endorsement was exhibited as Ex.PW25/G. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

PW-26 Inspector Sanjeev Chahar is the second IO of the present case. He deposed that on 18.10.2016, he was working as SHO PS Karawal Nagar. On that day, Duty Officer informed him that investigation of the present case was marked to him after registration of the FIR. After that, he alongwith SI Sandeep and Ct. Dev Raj went to B-306, Gali No. 4, Prem Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi in search of accused Ravinder Sharma, Chander Pal and Bimlesh Devi. He inspected the spot and prepared site plan of place of incident at the instance of SI Sandeep vide Ex.PW26/A. Accused Ravinder was present there. He made enquiries from him and arrested him in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW11/B. His personal search was also conducted by him, vide memo Ex. PW11/C. On interrogation, accused Ravinder made disclosure which was recorded by him vide Ex.PW11/D. After that, they alongwith accused Ravinder went to the nearby places in search of accused Chander Pal and Bimlesh, however, they could not be traced. Thereafter, they returned back to PS alongwith accused Ravinder. Accused Ravinder was sent to the lock up. He recorded statements of SI Sandeep and Ct. Dev Raj at the PS. On the next day, PW23 alongwith Ct. Dev Raj and W/HC Asha again went to the house of accused persons in search of accused Chander Pal and Bimlesh. Accused Chander Pal and FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 25 of 45 Bimlesh in the court were present there. He made enquiries from accused Chander Pal and arrested him in this case, vide arrest memo Ex.PW11/E. His personal search was also conducted by him, vide memo Ex. PW11/F. On interrogation, accused Chander Pal made disclosure which was recorded by him, vide disclosure statement Ex PW11/G. He also made enquiries from accused Bimlesh and arrested her in this case vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/A. Her personal search was also got conducted by W/HC Asha regarding which he had prepared personal search memo vide Ex. PW5/B. On interrogation, accused Bimlesh made disclosure which was recorded by him vide Ex. PW5/C. Medical examination of accused Bimlesh and Chander Pal was got conducted at GTB hospital. After that accused Chander Pal, Bimlesh and Ravinder Sharma were produced before the court concerned and as per order of the court, they were sent to JC. Thereafter, he alongwith his staff returned back to the PS. He recorded statement of W/HC Asha. Ct. Desh Raj, mother and brother of deceased.

PW23 claimed that on 25.10.2016, Sandeep, brother of deceased had produced six photographs, invitation card of marriage, receipts of dowry articles, four video CD of marriage of deceased Jyoti with Ravinder Sharma, photocopy of certificate of Jan Shikshan Sansthan Paryas Delhi and four pages of writing of deceased were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B. On 30.11.2016, Ct. Sandeep collected sealed pullandas containing viscera box and other exhibits of deceased and handed over to him which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/A. On 08.12.2016, draftsman Insp. Mahesh Kumar was called at the spot. He alongwith SI Sandeep also reached there FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 26 of 45 and in his presence, Insp. Mahesh Kumar had taken measurements of the spot and prepared rough notes in this regard. Later on, Insp. Mahesh Kumar had prepared the scaled site plan and same was collected by him and placed on record. He also collected 26 photographs from photographer Mobile Crime Team and filed the same on record. PM report was got collected and subsequent opinion regarding ligature material was obtained.

He further claimed that on 06.12.2016, exhibits of the present case were sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Sachin. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was prepared and filed before the court of law. During trial, result FSL was collected and filed before the court. FSL result dt. 22.12.2016 prepared by Dr. Lingraj Sahoo, SSO, (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini (running into two pages) was collectively exhibited as Ex. PW26/B FSL result dt. 08.03 2017 prepared by Sh. Indresh Kumar Mishra, Assistant Director (Biology). FSL, Rohini (running into two pages) was collectively exhibited as Ex. PW26/C The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein incriminating facts were put to the accused persons, which were denied by them. They stated that they are innocent and falsely implicated in this case. Accused Ravinder Sharma stated that he never made any demand of four wheeler or any other article as FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 27 of 45 dowry from deceased or her family members at any point of time. He loved his deceased wife Jyoti. She used to remain happy in his house during her lifetime. He and his family members used to keep Jyoti happy and used to take care of her during her lifetime. During her lifetime, his wife Jyoti once told him that she wanted to marry with son of her bua but her family members were against the same as son of her bua was not having any plot in Delhi and ultimately, her parents got her married with him. He and his family member never made any demand of dowry from Jyoti or from her family. On 17.10.16, he was not even present at his house and was on his duty at the office of his employer situated at Hauz Khas. While he was on his way back to house at about 6:30 pm, he received a phone call from his father Chander Pal, who informed him that Jyoti had committed suicide by hanging herself. He rushed to the house. His neighbourers told him that his in-laws i.e. his both elder brothers- in-law namely Sandeep and Kuldeep, as also the mediator Manish had caused beatings to his parents and were also claiming that they would even kill him. He had immediately made PCR call at 100 number. Due to fear of his life, he left the house. In the meantime, his in-laws took body of his wife Jyoti from their house. He got a phone call from his father that police officials were asking about him, on which he went to PS Karawal Nagar, where he was arrested in this case. Accused Chander Pal Sharma and Bimlesh also stated that they loved their daughter-in- law Jyoti like their daughter. She used to remain happy in their house during her lifetime. The accused persons opted to lead defence evidence and examined two witnesses. 6 DEFENCE EVIDENCE FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 28 of 45 DW-1 Smt. Rama deposed that deceased Jyoti told her mother-in-law that she did not know how to cook vegetable of singhada, upon which her mother-in-law told her that Rama will prepare the said vegetable. Thereafter, she told Jyoti that she will make the sabzi and she can make chapatis and after that Jyoti went upstairs. After about 10 minutes, her sister-in-law went to the first floor for toilet and notices sari in the jaal (window). She went upstairs and knocked the door of room of Jyoti but she did not respond. She came down and told her mother-in-law and father-in-law that Jyoti had done something with herself upon which, both her mother-in-law and father-in-law went upstairs and broke open the lock of the door with the help of iron saria. The body of deceased Jyoti was got down. She told her father-in- law to make call to the parents of Jyoti. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law were taking Jyoti to hospital and on the way, parents of Jyoti met them. They gave beatings to all of them and had snatched dead body of Jyoti.

During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, she deposed that one gold chain and one gold ring were given by the family of Jyoti to Ravinder at the time of sagai/ engagement.

To a question as to what was dowry articles including jewelery, clothes, other household articles etc. were given by the family of Jyoti to Ravinder or his family members, she deposed that gold earrings, two rings (challa) of silver, two nose pins, around 20-25 sarees and 25-30 pant-shirts were given by Jyoti's family to their family and the Mangalsutra was given to Jyoti by their family.

She and Jyoti used to prepare very tasty food. Jyoti told her FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 29 of 45 that she did not know how to cook Singhada sabzi and requested her to prepare the same and told her that she was going on first floor and would return in five minutes but she did not return within five minutes. She did not know as to who informed the police first time for this occurrence.

DW-2 Ravinder Sharma deposed that on 17.10.2016 at about 6:45 pm, he was present in his office. At that time, he received a phone call from his father who told him that Jyoti had hanged herself. He immediately went to his house and when he reached 20 steps before his house, his neighbour met him and told not to go home otherwise family members of deceased Jyoti would kill him. After that, he made a call to the police at 100 number at some distance from the place of incident and told the police about the incident. Thereafter, he went to the house of his relative. After some time, his father telephoned him and told that police was enquiring about him. Thereafter, he went to his house and his parents took him to the PS, where police made enquiries from him. After interrogation, police arrested him in the PS. His wife told him that she wanted to marry with a boy who was son of her Bua. As the said boy was not having any property in Delhi, her family members did not agree for this marriage.

The witness was cross-examined by ld. Addl. PP for State.

FINAL ARGUMENTS

7. This court has heard the arguments and perused the record as well as written submissions filed on behalf of accused persons.

It is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that prosecution has got examined three star witnesses i.e. PW2, PW3 and PW4. PW2 is the elder brother of the deceased. PW3 is the FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 30 of 45 Mediator of the marriage between deceased Jyoti and accused Ravinder Sharma. PW4 is the mother of the deceased. There is evidence to indicate there was demand of dowry prior to the marriage of deceased with accused Ravinder Sharma as well as post marriage . The star witnesses have categorically deposed about demand of Rs. 1,30,000/- in cash for purchase of motorcycle which demand was made prior to the marriage and the said demand was even fulfilled. Further, all the star witnesses have deposed about demand of four wheel vehicle from the side of accused persons, which demand was raised continuously w.e.f. 4 days after marriage. The star witness of the prosecution have deposed categorically about demand of four wheeled vehicle made to the brother of the deceased when he visited the matrimonial house of deceased one day before the incident i.e. on the occasion of Karwa chauth.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. PCR form Ex. PW9/A and Crime team report Ex. PW6/A falsify the claim of family members of deceased that dead body of deceased was lying outside matrimonial home when they reached there.

The photographs indicating suicide note on the palm of deceased A-12, A13 and A14 itself disproves the case of the prosecution wherein the deceased herself has not put any blame on any one for taking extreme step of committed suicide. One Rama, the sister-in law of the deceased was cited as witness in the charge sheet. However, she was not purposely examined by the prosecution as she would have revealed the truth about the state of affairs prevailing in the matrimonial house of deceased FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 31 of 45 and that is why the accused persons have got her examined as DW1. She was not cross examined by the prosecution with respect to the foundational facts of the offence punishable U/s 498A and 304B of IPC i.e relation between the husband and wife prior to the incident.

It is most humbly submitted that the truth of the matter has been deposed by the Accused Ravinder himself, during his examination before this Hon'ble Court as DW2. It is most humbly submitted that the deceased Jyoti i.e., the wife of the accused Ravinder, committed suicide, not because she was being tortured by the accused persons for extorting dowry, but because of the misdeeds of her own family members i.e, her mother (Anarkli ) and her brother (Sandeep Sharma).

Ld. counsel for the accused placed reliance upon following authorities in support of his submissions:

1. Nirdosh Kumar Vs. Padma Rani, 1984 SCC On Line P & H

378.

2. Harbans Singh v. Gurcharan Kaur, 1989 SCC OnLine Del 404.

3. Vipin Jaiswal V. State of A.P., (2013) 3 SCC 684.

4. Netai Dutta V. State of W.B., (2005) 2 SCC 659.

5. State of U.P V. Babu Ram, (2000) 4 SCC 515.

6.State of Haryana V. Ram Singh, (2002) 2 SCC 426.

7. Banti V. State of M.P., (2004) 1 SCC 414.

8. Harjit Singh V. State of Punjab, in (2006) 1 SCC 463: 2006 (1) C CrLR (SC) 414.

9. Neeraj Kumar V. Suraj Prakash & Others 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7994.

10. Kanwar Pal Vs. Shakuntala and Ors. 2015 SCC ONLine Del 6827.

FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 32 of 45

11. Amar Singh V/s State of Rajasthan [(2010) 9SCC 64].

12. Budhiman Singh Vs. State of U.P [Criminal Appeal No. 987 of 2016, decided on 20 April, 20018].

13. Durga Prasad and Anr. V. State of M.P [(2010) 9 SCC 73].

14. Baijnath and Ors. v. State of M.P.[(2017) 1 SCC 101].

15. Rani Vs. State NCT of Delhi 1LR 2011 (1) Delhi1.

16. Krishna & Anr. Vs. State of Delhi, 1LR 2013(IV) Delhi.

17. Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2010 (1) C.C. Cases (SC) 214.

18. Sohan Raj Sharma Vs. State of Haryana 2008 (2) Crimes 175(SC).

19. Sonu Kumar & Ors. V/s State of Delhi I Crl.A No. 852/2008. 20 Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2010 (1) C.C. Cases (SC) 214.

21. Bhagwan Das Vs. Karta Singh & Ors. 2007 (11) SCC 205.

22. State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal, 1994 (1) SCC 73.

23. Netai Ghosh and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal dt.

21.06.2021 in CRA/147/2017.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

8. Before analyzing the evidence led by the Prosecution in the present case, this court deems it proper to refer to some provisions of law and citations of Superior courts, which are found to be applicable to the facts of the present case.

Sections 304B, 498A, and 113B Indian Evidence Act read as under:-

"304B. Dowry death--Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 33 of 45 or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

113B. Presumption as to dowry death--When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, on in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation--For the purpose of this section, "dowry death"

shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

09. It is pertinent to note that the principles governing the cases u/s 304B of IPC have been culled by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a landmark case titled Sudhakar Singh Vs. State on 18-07-2014 in Crl. Appeal No. 240/1998 as follows:

17.1. To attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC the main ingredient of the offence to be established is that soon before the death of the deceased she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. 17.2. The death of the deceased woman was caused by any burn or bodily injury or some other circumstance which was not normal.

17.3. Such death occurs within seven years from the date of her marriage.

17.4. That the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.

17.5. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.

17.6. It should be established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death.

FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 34 of 45

17.7. The expression "soon before" is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. 17.8. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

17.9. Therefore, the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate or live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. In other words, it should not be remote in point of time and thereby make it a stale one.

17.10. However, the expression "soon before" should not be given a narrow meaning which would otherwise defeat the very purpose of the provisions of the Act and should not lead to absurd results.

17.11. Section 304-B is an exception to the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence that a suspect in the Indian law is entitled to the protection of Article 20 of the Constitution, as well as, a presumption of innocence in his favour. The concept of deeming fiction is hardly applicable to criminal jurisprudence but in contradistinction to this aspect of criminal law, the legislature applied the concept of deeming fiction to the provisions of Section 304-B. 17.12. Such deeming fiction resulting in a presumption is, however, a rebuttable presumption and the husband and his relatives, can, by leading their defence prove that the ingredients of Section 304-B were not satisfied.

17.13. The specific significance to be attached is to the time of the alleged cruelty and harassment to which the victim was subjected, the time of her death and whether the alleged demand of dowry was in connection with the marriage. Once the said ingredients are satisfied it will be called "dowry death" and by deemed fiction of law the husband or the relatives will be deemed to have committed that offence."

10. Now, let this court apply the above-mentioned principles to the facts of the present case. Indisputably, the deceased Jyoti had expired within seven years of her marriage. Her death had taken place under abnormal circumstances as reflected from postmortem report Ex. PW21/A wherein the cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. From the FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 35 of 45 testimony of PW2 Sandeep Sharma, PW3 Manish Sharma, and PW4 Anarkali, it is apparent that immediately after the solemnization of marriage of the sister of the complainant with the accused, the accused persons started torturing the deceased for bringing further dowry of four wheeled vehicle. PW2 Sandeep Sharma had categorically deposed that after four days of marriage of his sister, his brother-in-law Ravinder (accused herein), his mother Bimlesh (accused herein) and his father Chander Pal (accused herein) started torturing his sister Jyoti stating that she did not bring four wheeled vehicle in dowry. When he along with his younger brother Kuldeep and middleman Manish Sharma visited the matrimonial house of Jyoti on the occasion of Chauthi (which was after four days of marriage) to bring Jyoti, all the three accused asked him to give a four wheeled vehicle and to send Jyoti only in that vehicle. He called his mother from his phone and the accused persons talked to his mother and told her as well that they should send Jyoti back only in a four wheeled vehicle or else to keep Jyoti at their house.

11. Similarly, independent witness PW3 Manish Sharma, who was the middleman of marriage between the deceased and accused Ravinder Sharma, too had categorically deposed that on the fourth day of marriage, he along with Sandeep, the brother of deceased, Kuldeep another brother of deceased and one relative namely Virender went to the matrimonial house of Jyoti (on the occasion of Chauthi). At that time, all the three accused persons stated to Sandeep in his presence that Jyoti should be sent back at her matrimonial house with a four wheeled vehicle otherwise, she should not be sent.

PW4 Anarkali corroborated the version of PW2 and PW3 FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 36 of 45 regarding the demand of four wheeled vehicle on the fourth day of marriage of deceased Jyoti with accused Ravinder Sharma.

12. The testimony of star witnesses of the prosecution i.e. PW2, PW3 and PW4 reveals that the demand of four wheeled vehicle on the part of accused persons was persistent till the date of incident i.e. the date on which the deceased Jyoti committed suicide. PW2 Sandeep Sharma had deposed with clarity as to what had transpired in the matrimonial house of deceased Jyoti when he visited there on the occasion of Karvachauth i.e. 16-10- 2016 (one day prior to the date of incident). On this aspect, he categorically deposed that on 16-10-2016, he went to the matrimonial house of his sister Jyoti occasion of Karwachauth and he took one sari for mother-in-law of his sister, one sari for his sister, five boxes of sweets and some other articles used for religious purpose. At that time, Bimlesh in the presence of Chander Pal and Ravinder demanded four wheeled vehicle. At that time, his sister intervened and stated that they would talk about four wheeled vehicle after the festival of Karwachauth. At that time, he got his mother talked with all the three accused persons on mobile phone. All the accused again demanded a four wheeled vehicle. When he was leaving matrimonial house of Jyoti, all the accused told him to arrange the vehicle by Diwali or else they would face dire consequences.

13. PW4 Anarkali corroborates the version of PW2 Sandeep Sharma regarding the state of affairs prevailing in the matrimonial house of deceased Jyoti, one day prior to the date of incident. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW2 and PW4 on this aspect as similar allegations of demand of four wheeled vehicle on 16-10-2016 have been levelled by them in FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 37 of 45 their respective statements before the Executive Magistrate Sh. Rajesh Dhawal i.e. Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW4/A during the course of inquest proceedings.

14. Both PW2 and PW4 have added that on the next day i.e. 17-10-2016 at about 10:30 am, they received a phone call from deceased Jyoti, who told them that after her brother (PW2) had left the house, accused Chander Pal and Bimlesh had again raised demand of vehicle and accused Ravinder in the morning had also quarreled with her on the issue of vehicle. The CDR Ex. PW12/I corroborates the factum of call made by the deceased Jyoti from her mobile phone no. 7053848392 to the mobile phone of her mother i.e. 9958755185 between 10:30 am to 11 am. Perusal of testimony of star witnesses of the prosecution reveals that it is not the case of dowry demand simplicitor. The demand was accompanied with the threat that the in-laws would not permit the entry of deceased Jyoti if the demand is not met. It is true that no allegations of physical torture have been levelled by the family members of deceased yet, the record clearly indicates that there were consistent demand of four wheeled vehicle by all three accused persons since the inception of marriage till the date of incident. Such incidents would have definitely disturbed the mental equilibrium of the deceased thereby prompting her to take the extreme step of ending her life by committing suicide. The word 'cruelty' appearing in Section 498A and 304B of IPC covers not only physical torture but also mental torture. It is established that there is existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand of four wheeled vehicle and the death of deceased by suicide.

15. Thus, it can safely be inferred from the above stated FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 38 of 45 findings that it is shown by the prosecution that soon before the death of the deceased, she has been subjected to cruelty by accused persons in connection with demands of dowry. Thus, there is sufficient material on record to draw the presumption u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act.

16. In order to rebut the presumption, the ld. Defence counsel has placed reliance upon the testimony of DW1 Rama, sister in law of the deceased and DW2 Ravinder Sharma (accused himself). Both DW1 and DW2 nowhere claimed that the deceased was living happily in her matrimonial home. Even though DW2 Ravinder Sharma had claimed only in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and in his testimony dated 17-02-2020 that his wife (deceased) told him that she wanted to marry with a boy who was son of her Bua. As the said boy was not having any property in Delhi, her family members did not agree for this marriage. However, the star witness of the prosecution i.e. PW2 to PW4 were not confronted on all these aspects in their respective cross-examinations. Nor DW2 had claimed in his deposition that allegations of demand of dowry of four wheeled vehicle accompanied with threat of restraining entry of deceased in her matrimonial house if the demand is not met are false allegations. Nor he revealed anything regarding mental state of deceased in her matrimonial home during her short span of matrimonial life of about 6 months months. As per the MLC Ex. PX-1, the deceased was brought at GTB hospital by her brother Sandeep Sharma. There is no explanation from the side of DW-2 as to why he did not take the deceased to the hospital upon reaching his house following receipt of phone call of his father. Thus, the testimonies of DW1 and DW2 fail to inspire the FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 39 of 45 confidence of this court and in the opinion of this court, the accused persons have failed to rebut the presumption u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act.

17. It is contended on behalf of accused persons that there are several contradictions and material improvements in the testimonies of PW2 to PW4 with respect to the allegations leveled by them. Merely because there is some discrepancy in their depositions with regard to the timings or dates on which the demand of dowry was raised, their entire testimony cannot be rejected.

18. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer here the case of State of H.P. v. Lekhraj and another reported in JT 1999 (9) SC 43, wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that:-

"In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like.........

.......The traditional dogmatic hyper technical approach has to be replaced by rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial." Further, in the case of Surender Singh v. State of Haryana reported in JT 2006 (1) SC 645, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under :- "It is well-established principle of law that every discrepancy in the witness statement cannot be treated as a fatal to the prosecution case. The discrepancy, which does not affect the prosecution case materially, does not create infirmity."

As far as minor inconsistencies are concerned in the statement of the witnesses it is held in Ousu Varghese v. State of Kerala, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 767 that minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of their testimony. In the case of Jagdish v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1167, the Supreme Court has held that when the discrepancies were comparatively of minor character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. Also in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki, reported in (1981) 2 FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 40 of 45 SCC 752 it has been held that in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person.

(133) Even otherwise, when an eye witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non discrepant. But Courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in evidence of witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. (134) The Supreme Court had an opportunity to discuss as to why discrepancies arise in the statements of witnesses. In the judgment of Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC: AIR 1983 SC 7453 (1), the Supreme Court pointed out the following reasons as to why the discrepancies, contradictions and improvements occur in the testimonies of the witnesses:

(a) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.

(b) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.

(c) The powers of observation differ from person to person.

What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.

(d) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.

(e) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time sense of individuals which varies from person to person.

(f) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 41 of 45 a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.

(g) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, of fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him perhaps it is a sort of psychological defence mechanism activated on the moment.

19. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sonu Arora Vs. State on 21 July, 2010 in Crl. A. No. 241/1997 that:-

"If the discrepancies found in the testimony of a witness are normal and attributable to loss of memory with the passage of time or they are on matters which are peripheral or trivial, not forming the core of the case, his testimony cannot be rejected on account of such minor variations or infirmities. But, where the contradiction relates to the main incident forming core part of his testimony, that could depending upon the nature of the contradiction and other facts and circumstances of the case, seriously affect the credibility and truthfulness of the witness since he is not expected to give contradictory version with respect to the important material parts of the incident which he claims to have witnessed."

20. In the case of Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar Vs. State of Kerala reported in MANU/SC/0166/1981 : 1981 Supp. SCC 31:

1981 CriLJ 743, the apex Court has held that it is no doubt true that the prosecution evidence does suffer from consistencies here and discrepancies there but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies, etc., go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the incongruities obtaining in the evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 42 of 45 available to it.

21. Merely because certain suggestions have been put to the prosecution witnesses during cross-examination with regard to the expenditure incurred by the accused persons or by the family members of the deceased during or after marriage, which are denied can hardly have any effect of proof or evidence.

22. In case of Khimjibhai Kurjibhai vs. The State Of Gujarat, reported in 1982 Cr.L.R. (Guj), P. 381, it has been held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court that:-

"Suggestion in cross-examination are no evidence. This proposition of law is good both in the case of the prosecution and the defence. Mere hurling of some such suggestions which are denied, can hardly take the place of proof or evidence. The Law of Evidence is alike both for the prosecution and for the defence. If the accused wants to establish a certain fact, he has to lead evidence on that score. Such suspicion cannot have any place in the realm of appreciation of evidence. We reiterate that a suggestion denied by a witness remains only a suggestion and has no evidentiary value at all".

23. Thus, the contention regarding discrepancies/ contradictions/ improvements in the statement of PW2 to PW4 is liable to be rejected. The prosecution has successfully established the fact that the deceased Jyoti was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons in connection with demand for dowry. Thus, the court is duty bound to draw the presumption u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act. The burden is, therefore, upon the accused persons to rebut the presumption u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act. However, in the opinion of this court, as observed in the preceding paras, the accused persons have failed to rebut the presumption u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act.

24. The photographs indicating suicide note on the palm of FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 43 of 45 deceased A-12, A13 and A14 will neither be of any help to the prosecution nor to the accused persons as it is not proved that the handwriting on the palm of deceased is that of deceased herself or of anyone else.

25. The citations relied upon by the Ld. Defence counsel in support of his submissions are not found to be applicable in this case in view of peculiar facts of the present case.

Decision of the Court

26. In the opinion of this court, the testimony of prosecution witnesses comes out to be clear, convincing, trustworthy and inspires confidence of this court. Nothing material came out in their respective cross-examination. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of prosecution witnesses. All the ingredients of sections 304B/34 and 498A/34 of IPC are satisfied. The prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that between the period 26-04-2016 to 17-10-2016 at H. No. B-306, Gali no. 4, Prem Vihar, Shiv Vihar, Delhi-110094, accused persons subjected the deceased Jyoti to cruelty for unlawful demand of dowry and on 17-10-2016 before 8:15 pm, at H. No. B-306, Gali no. 4, Prem Vihar, Shiv Vihar, Delhi- 110094, Smt. Jyoti died unnatural death otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and accused persons subjected her to cruelty soon before her death in connection with unlawful demand of dowry thereby, you all committed dowry death of deceased Jyoti. Accordingly, all the accused persons namely Ravinder Sharma, Chanderpal and Bimlesh Devi are hereby convicted of the charges punishable u/s FIR No. 355/16 State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc. Page 44 of 45 498A/34 and 304B/34 of IPC. Let the convicts be heard on the quantum of sentence and grant of compensation on the next date of hearing.


ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
 ON 22-04-2025                                 PANKAJ   Digitally signed by PANKAJ
                                                        ARORA

                                               ARORA    Date: 2025.04.22 17:47:13
                                                        +0530


                            (PANKAJ ARORA)
                 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/
                              KARKARDOOMA/22-04-2025




FIR No. 355/16       State Vs. Ravinder Sharma Etc.                Page 45 of 45

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs Ravinder Sharma on 22 April, 2025