Delhi District Court
State vs . on 13 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 05 : EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No.545/2016
FIR No. 304/2010
PS: Krishna Nagar
U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC
State
Vs.
1. Sunil Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma
R/o H. No. X3700B, Gali No. 6
Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar
Delhi.
2. Vinay Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma
R/o H. No. X3700B, Gali No. 6
Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar
Delhi.
3. Prameshwari Devi
W/o Late Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma
R/o H. No. X3700B, Gali No. 6
Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar
Delhi.
4. Seema Sharma
D/o Late Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma
R/o H. No. X3700B, Gali No. 6
Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar
SC No. 545/2016 1 of 61
Delhi.
5. Sunita Sharma
W/o Sh. Anup Sharma
R/o H. No. A505, GD Colony
Mayur Vihar, Phase III, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 25.03.2011
Date of Arguments : 22.08.2019
Date of Judgment : 13.09.2019
JUDGMENT
1. The present case was registered on the complaint of Sh. Sunehari Lal Sharma, the father of the deceased Ruchi Sharma @ Sonu.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 27.11.2010 Dr. Rakesh Tyagi of Jain Charitable Hospital, Raghubar Pura Gali No. 5, Delhi, informed Police Chowki, Old Seelampur, that one lady namely Ruchi Sharma wife of Sh. Vinay Sharma had been admitted in the hospital by her husband. She was declared 'brought dead'. On this information HC Rajbir, Ct. Mandeep and SI Kamta Prasad reached at Jain SC No. 545/2016 2 of 61 Charitable Hospital. The MLC and other medical papers of the deceased Ruchi Sharma were obtained by SI Kamta Prashad. Sh. Sunehari Lal, the father of the deceased Ruchi Sharma, also reached at the said hospital. SDM of Preet Vihar was informed. The dead body was sent for Postmortem at mortuary of Civil Hospital, Delhi. The SDM conducted inquest proceedings. Sh. Sunehari Lal Sharma, the father of the deceased, gave a written complaint to the SDM wherein he stated that her daughter i.e. the deceased Ruchi @ Sonu was married to the accused Vinay Sharma on 20.02.2006 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Sufficient dowry articles were given in the said marriage. The inlaws of his deceased daughter Ruchi were not satisfied with the dowry articles. The inlaws of her daughter i.e. motherinlaw, sisterinlaw (nanad) and brotherinlaw (devar) used to demand dowry from her daughter. The motherinlaw, sisterinlaw (nanad) and brotherinlaw (devar) used to beat her daughter Ruchi SC No. 545/2016 3 of 61 and also used to mentally torture her. His deceased daughter Ruchi used to tell him about the said acts of the accused persons. He stated that he talked to Vinay Sharma and inlaws of her deceased daughter Ruchi, but of no avail. The deceased Ruchi @ Sonu was having one son. On the birth of her son, he gave gifts (chuchak) to the inlaws which they threw away. The inlaws of her deceased daughter Ruchi used to demand four wheeler and used to harass Ruchi. On 27.11.2010 at about 11.14 p.m., accused Vinay Sharma informed the complainant that Ruchi had hanged herself. The complainant reached at the matrimonial house of his daughter. He came to know that the deceased Ruchi had been taken to Jain Nursing Home. He went to Jain Nursing Home, where the doctor told him that Ruchi had died. He stated that he had suspicion that her daughter Ruchi Sharma had been killed by her inlaws.
SC No. 545/2016 4 of 61
3. After registration of the FIR, investigation was carried out by the police. After completion of the investigation, accused persons were charge sheeted. The Ld. M.M. supplied the copies to the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. As the offence is exclusively Sessions triable, so the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
CHARGE
4. The Ld. Predecessor Court on 04.04.2013 framed charge against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 498A/34 IPC and 304B/34 IPC. A separate charge for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC was also framed against the accused Sunil Sharma. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges against them and claimed trial. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In support of its case, prosecution has examined Twenty One witnesses.
SC No. 545/2016 5 of 61
6. PW1 is Sh. Sunehari Lal Sharma. He is the father of the deceased Ruchi Sharma and the complainant of this case. He deposed that his daughter i.e. deceased Ruchi Sharma was married to the accused Vinay Sharma on 20.02.2006, as per Hindu Rites. He had given istridhan (dowry articles) to his daughter Ruchi as per his capacity. The accused persons i.e. Vinay Sharma (husband), Prameshwari Devi (motherinlaw), Seema (Nanad) and Sunita (Nanad) and Sunil Sharma (Devar) were not satisfied with the dowry articles given in the marriage. They used to harass his daughter i.e. deceased Ruchi on account of demand of dowry. His daughter used to tell him about the harassment and torture meted out to her by her inlaws whenever she used to come to her parental house. On 22.02.2006, the accused Vinay Sharma along with Ruchi Sharma came to his house. The complainant told the accused Vinay Sharma that he had already given Rs. 40,000/ for SC No. 545/2016 6 of 61 purchasing motorcycle even then his daughter was being tortured. Thereafter, Ruchi and Vinay left his house. The inlaws of Ruchi started torturing her for demand of dowry. Accused Sunita used to come to the matrimonial house of his deceased daughter Ruchi on every Sunday. Accused Seema and Sunita used to make calls to the complainant regarding quality of dowry articles given to the deceased Ruchi. The deceased Ruchi used to complain against her brotherinlaw (devar) i.e. accused Sunil Sharma that he used to tease her under the influence of liquor and enters her room without her permission. Accused Sunil Sharma used to harass the deceased Ruchi in front of other accused persons and asked her to bring a car for Vinay Sharma and a motorcycle for himself. During the period from March 2006 till February 2007, Ruchi Sharma was given beatings several times by the accused persons and was thrown out of the house. The deceased Ruchi was turned out of her matrimonial house in the month of March SC No. 545/2016 7 of 61 2006 and April 2006. On the occasion of the birth of son of the deceased Ruchi Sharma, the complainant gave gifts (chuchak) to the inlaws of the deceased. Accused Prameshwari Devi and Sunita threw away the said gifts outside. They told the complainant to bring car and insulted him. In the month of June 2006, the wife of the complainant told him that their daughter Ruchi had told her that accused Sunil had a bad eye on her. She also told that Sunil used to take liquor everyday. Accused Sunil used to ask deceased Ruchi to bring food in his room. If Ruchi was little late, Sunil used to abuse and beat her. He also used to threaten Ruchi to rape her. On 05.11.2010 on the occasion of Diwali he went to his daughter's house with sweets, fruits and cash. When her deceased daughter Ruchi went to prepare tea, the accused Prameshwari Devi and Sunita demanded a gold chain from the complainant. When the complainant refused, they started speaking loudly. His deceased daughter Ruchi came out of the SC No. 545/2016 8 of 61 kitchen and told them not to do so, accused Sunita and Prameshwari slapped Ruchi. Thereafter, Sunil, Vinay and Seema started quarreling with the complainant. Accused Sunil started shouting that if a car was not given to his brother and a motorcycle to him they will not spare his daughter. On 07.11.2010 on the occasion of Bhaiyaduj when the deceased Ruchi came to her parental house, she had injury marks on her body. On asking she told that when the complainant left, accused Vinay, Prameshwari, Sunita and Seema had beaten her. He took Ruchi to her matrimonial house and tried to make her inlaws understand. On 25.11.2010 deceased Ruchi made a telephone call to the complainant and told that Vinay had been asking for a car on her birthday. On 26.11.2010, deceased Ruchi made a call to him and talked to other siblings that she was feeling afraid. On 27.11.2010, his daughter telephoned the complainant and told that she was being harassed by her inlaws (i.e. accused persons).
SC No. 545/2016 9 of 61 On 27.11.2010 at about 11.14 p.m. the complainant received a phone call from accused Vinay and he told that Ruchi had committed suicide. The complainant immediately reached the house of her deceased daughter Ruchi, where he came to know that Ruchi had been taken to Jain Nursing Home. The complainant went to the Jain Nursing Home, where he was informed that his daughter Ruchi has died. The statement of the complainant was recorded by the SDM on 28.11.2010, which is Ex.PW1/A. He also gave a complaint which is Ex.PW1/B to the Chowki Incharge, Old Seelampur. He also gave a complaint to the Investigating Officer, which is Ex.PW1/C.
7. PW2 is Smt. Munni Devi. She is the mother of the deceased Ruchi Sharma. She stated that her daughter Ruchi was married to accused Vinay Sharma. At the time of her marriage, Ruchi was given sufficient dowry articles. Immediately, after the marriage her husband i.e. accused SC No. 545/2016 10 of 61 Vinay Sharma started demanding a car. Whenever Ruchi used to come to her parental house, she used to tell that the accused Sunil Sharma (Devar) was demanding a bike. Accused Prameshwari Devi used to demand a gold chain. Accused Sunita and Seema used to demand a gold chain. She stated that the accused persons used to beat the deceased Ruchi and was thrown out of the house several times. Two days prior to the marriage, Rs. 40,000/ were given to the accused Prameshwari Devi on their demand for purchasing a bike. After one year of her marriage, the deceased Ruchi gave birth to a son. In the Chuchak ceremony, certain gifts were given to the inlaws of deceased Ruchi. Accused Prameshwari Devi and Sunita threw away the articles given in chuchak ceremony. They also insulted the complainant and his family. After chuchak ceremony, the deceased Ruchi came to her parental house and told that the accused persons were harassing her for not bringing good quality of dowry articles and for SC No. 545/2016 11 of 61 not meeting out their demand of car, bike and gold chain. On the occasion of Diwali festival, when PW1 i.e. Sh. Sunehari Lal went to Ruchi's house for giving gifts, accused persons started quarreling with him for not bringing sufficient articles of good quality and Ruchi was slapped by the accused Sunita and Prameshwari Devi. When Ruchi came to her parental house on the festival of Bhaiyaduj, she (PW2) noticed injury marks on her body. On the occasion of the birthday of Ruchi, she made a call to PW1 (Sunehri Lal) and told that she was afraid of accused persons as they were demanding a car. On the next day of her birthday, Ruchi again made a phone call to her (PW2) and informed her about the demand of a car by the accused persons. She stated that after Diwali her husband i.e. PW1 (Sunehari Lal) received a phone call from the accused Vinay Sharma that Ruchi had died by hanging herself. Accused Sunil Sharma used to harass, insult and molest Ruchi under the influence of liquor.
SC No. 545/2016 12 of 61
8. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State put some leading questions to this witness, to which she admitted that the marriage of her deceased daughter Ruchi was performed on 20.02.2006. She admitted that the accused Sunil Sharma used to molest her deceased daughter Ruchi and also tried to commit rape with her daughter Ruchi several times. She identified all the accused persons during her deposition in the Court.
9. PW3 is Dr. D. Chakravarty. He was working as Chief Medical Officer at SDN Hospital, Delhi. He examined accused persons Sunil Sharma and Vinay Sharma on 11.12.2010 vide MLCs No. 2706/10 which is Ex.PW3/A and 2705/10 which is Ex.PW3/C. He also examined one Jatin Sharma, vide MLC which is Ex.PW3/E.
10. PW4 is Dr. Akash Jhanjee. He is the Specialist, SC No. 545/2016 13 of 61 Forensic Medicine, Subzi Mandi Mortuary, Delhi. On 28.11.2010 he was working as Junior Specialist. He conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Ruchi Sharma @ Sonu. He found several external as well as internal injuries on the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death as Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem ligature hanging. All the injuries were antemortem and fresh in duration. Asphyxia produced is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Time since death was around 12 to 18 hours. The postmortem report is Ex.PW4/A. He preserved viscera and sealed the clothes, blood sample and vaginal swab of the deceased and handed over the same to the IO.
11. PW5 is Sh. Vijay Sharma. Accused Vinay Sharma is his nephew. He was residing at the ground floor of the house of the accused Vinay Sharma. He deposed that deceased Ruchi Sharma had committed suicide by strangulating SC No. 545/2016 14 of 61 herself in the intervening night of 27/28.11.2010. On 28.11.2010 he identified the dead body of the deceased Ruchi Sharma @ Sonu in the hospital in the presence of the SDM. His statement to this effect was recorded which is Ex.PW5/A.
12. PW6 is Sh. Bablu Sharma. He is the brother of the complainant. He stated that the deceased Ruchi was married to the accused Vinay Sharma on 20.02.2006. The complainant gave sufficient dowry articles in her marriage and Rs. 40,000/ in cash in lieu of motorcycle. Two days after the marriage of Ruchi Sharma, she came to the house of the complainant and told her mother in his presence that accused persons were harassing her and demanding a car. After one month when he (PW6) was present at the house of the complainant, the deceased Ruchi Sharma told that she was being harassed by the accused persons on account of bringing less dowry. She SC No. 545/2016 15 of 61 also told that accused Sunil Sharma was having evil eye on her and she would commit suicide. After three years of her marriage, Ruchi Sharma committed suicide at her in laws house.
13. PW6 was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement. In his crossexamination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he admitted that the accused persons were greedy and used to taunt Ruchi Sharma for bringing less dowry. He admitted that the accused persons used to beat the deceased Ruchi Sharma. He admitted that accused Sunil was having evil eye on Ruchi. He admitted that the deceased Ruchi had committed suicide due to the harassment caused by the accused persons on account of demand of dowry.
14. PW7 is Dr. Saurabh Kansal. He was working as SC No. 545/2016 16 of 61 Consultant Physician at Jain Charitable Hospital Raghubarpura No. 2, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. He stated that on 09.11.2010 the deceased Ruchi Sharma was brought to the said hospital with history of having found hanged at home. On examination, he found no sign of life. He declared Ruchi Sharma 'brought dead', vide MLC which is Ex.PW7/A.
15. PW8 is Sh. Dinesh Kumar. He is the neighbourer of the complainant. He stated that the deceased Ruchi Sharma was the daughter of the complainant. She was married to accused Vinay Sharma. The complainant gave sufficient dowry articles to the inlaws of Ruchi Sharma in the marriage. The complainant had told him prior to the marriage that the accused persons were demanding one motorcycle and he had given Rs. 40,000/ to accused Vinay for purchasing motorcycle. After the marriage when Ruchi came to her parental house on phera ceremony, she SC No. 545/2016 17 of 61 visited his house also and told that her inlaws were greedy. One year later, Ruchi again visited his house and told that the accused persons i.e. motherinlaw, sisterin laws and brotherinlaw used to beat and harass Ruchi on account of demand of a car. She also told that Sunil used to misbehave with her.
16. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State put some leading questions to this witness, wherein he admitted the date of marriage as 20.02.2006 and his statement was recorded by the I.O. on 30.11.2010. He admitted that inlaws of Ruchi were not satisfied with the dowry articles given in her marriage. He admitted that the inlaws of Ruchi were harassing her and demanding a car from Ruchi. He admitted that the deceased Ruchi Sharma had expired due to the harassment meted out to her by the accused persons and due to demand of dowry. He identified all the accused persons during his deposition in the Court.
SC No. 545/2016 18 of 61
17. PW9 is Ct. Dhanraj Meena. On 11.12.2010, he joined the investigation of this case along with Inspector Subhash and reached at Gali No. 6, Shanti Mohalla, Delhi. There, the accused Sunil Sharma was apprehended and arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex.PW9/A. The personal search of the accused Sunil was conducted, vide personal search memo which is Ex.PW9/A1. The accused was medically examined at SDN Hospital. The blood sample of the accused Sunil Sharma was handed over to the I.O. and the same was seized, vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW9/B. One suspect Jatin was also medically examined and his blood sample was seized, vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW9/C. Accused Vinay Sharma was also medically examined and his blood sample was also seized, vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW9/D. On 21.12.2010, he deposited the exhibits of this case in FSL Rohini.
SC No. 545/2016 19 of 61
18. PW10 is Ct. Mandeep Kohar. In the intervening night of 27/28.11.2010 he was on emergency duty in Police Station Krishna Nagar. On that day, during inquiry of DD No. 24, he along with SI Kamta Prasad and HC Rajbir had gone to Jain Charitable Hospital and found the deceased Ruchi Sharma was declared as 'brought dead'. I.O. obtained her MLC and other medical papers. The dead body of Ruchi was got preserved at Subzi Mandi Mortuary. He along with I.O. reached at House Number X3700, Gali No. 6, Shanti Mohalla, Old Seelampur, Delhi. One cream colour chunni and one bed sheet were lifted by the I.O. which were seized, vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW10/A. Postmortem was got conducted on the dead body of deceased Ruchi. The doctor had handed over four sealed parcels which were seized, vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/B. He identified the Chunni as Ex.P1 and Bed sheet as Ex.P2.
SC No. 545/2016 20 of 61
19. PW11 is ASI Rajbir. On 27.11.2010, he was posted as Head Constable at Police Post Old Seelampur of Police Station Krishna Nagar Delhi. At about 11.30 p.m. he received DD No.24. He along with Ct. Mandeep reached at Jain Charitable Hospital, where the deceased Ruchi Sharma was declared dead by the doctor. He obtained the MLC of Ruchi Sharma. He handed over MLC and DD No. 24 to SI Kamta Prasad, who conducted further investigation.
20. PW12 is Smt. Kiran. She is the neighbour of the accused Prameshwari Devi. She stated that she was acquainted with accused Smt. Prameshwari Devi as she was her neighbour. She stated that she did not know if there was any dispute in the family of Prameshwari Devi. She identified all the accused persons during her deposition in the Court.
SC No. 545/2016 21 of 61
21. PW13 is Smt. Pushpa. She is the neighbour of accused Parmeshwari Devi. She did not support the case of the prosecution.
22. PW13 was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as she was resiling from her previous statement. In her crossexamination by the Ld. Addl. PP, she admitted that she came to know that the deceased Ruchi Sharma had committed suicide by hanging in the year 2010. She denied that a quarrel took place between Vinay and Ruchi Sharma twice.
23. PW14 is Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma. He was a Goldsmith and running his shop under the Name and Style of 'M/s Sweety Jewellers' at 1/6818, East Rohtash Nagar, Delhi. He deposed that on 28.01.2006 the complainant Sunehari Lal Sharma purchased gold jewellery approximately of Rs.
SC No. 545/2016 22 of 61 28,000/ from his shop for the marriage of his daughter Ruchi. The photocopy of the receipt is Mark PW14/A.
24. PW15 is Sh. Suresh Bansal. He was the President of Vaish Sabha Dharamshala situated at C460, Chhaju Pur, Shahdara, Delhi. On 20.02.2006, he booked the said Dharamshala in the name of Sunehari Lal Sharma for the purpose of marriage of his daughter. The photocopy of the receipt is Mark PW15/A.
25. PW16 is Sh. Hukum Singh. On 28.11.2010, he was posted as SDM, Preet Vihar, Delhi. On that day, he was looking after additional charge of SDM Gandhi Nagar. On that day, he reached at Aruna Asif Ali mortuary upon the information of death of one lady namely Ruchi. He met her father i.e. Sunehari Lal Sharma and recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/A. He directed the SHO Krishna Nagar to take legal action as required. He SC No. 545/2016 23 of 61 prepared the Death Report after proper identification of the dead body. The death report i.e. Form No. 25.35(1)(B) which is Ex.PW16/A. He gave directions to the concerned Medical Superintendent to conduct the postmortem and thereafter, for handing over the body to its family members. His letter in this regard is Ex.PW16/B.
26. PW17 is Sh. Jitender Kumar. He was a photographer by profession. He did not remember the exact date, month and year nor he could tell the time when he had taken the photographs pertaining to this case. He visited Gali No. 6, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, but he did not remember the house number where he had visited nor he could tell the name of the person who was resident of the said house. He stated that the photographs attached with the charge sheet (11 in number) are the same photographs which he clicked on that day and the same photographs are Ex.PW17/A. SC No. 545/2016 24 of 61
27. PW17 was put a leading question by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, wherein he admitted that on 28.11.2010 he visited the House No. X/3700B and clicked the photographs and he could not tell this fact due to the lapse of time.
28. PW18 is ASI Arun Kumar. On 28.11.2010 he was working as MHC(M) in Police Station Krishna Nagar. On that day SI Kamta Prasad deposited some articles i.e. chunni of cream colour, one double bed sheet and viscera box along with sample seal. He made relevant entry in Register No. 19. On 11.12.2010 IO/Inspector Subhash Kumar deposited nine articles. He made relevant entry in Register No. 19. On 21.12.2010 exhibits were sent to FSL. On 26.08.2011 the result was received and handed over to SI Subhash. He produced original Register No. 19 which is Ex.PW18/A. SC No. 545/2016 25 of 61
29. PW19 is Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo. On 21.12.2010, he was working as Senior Scientific Officer at FSL Rohini, Delhi. He deposed that on that day one sealed wooden box was received at FSL in case FIR No. 304/10 which was containing viscera of the deceased Ruchi Sharma. On examining the same, he did not find any poison in the same. He prepared detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW19/A.
30. PW20 is Inspector Subhash Kumar. On 28.11.2010, he was posted as Inspector ATO in Police Station Krishna Nagar. On that day after registration of the case, the investigation of this case was marked to him. Thereafter, he along with SI Kamta Prasad reached at the spot i.e. X 3700B, Gali No. 6, Gandhi Nagar, Shanti Mohalla Road, Delhi. Accused persons were not present there. Thereafter, he called private photographer who took the SC No. 545/2016 26 of 61 photographs of the spot from different angles. Photographs are Ex.PW17/A. He prepared the site plan at the instance of SI Kamta Prasad which is Ex.PW20/A. The FIR of this case is Ex.PW20/B. On 29.11.2010, he examined Sunehri Lal Sharma and Munni Devi who were parents of the deceased at their house at Chhajupura, Mauj Pur, Delhi. On 30.11.2010, he examined uncle of deceased namely Bablu Sharma, Chandra Prakash and and Dinesh Kumar. He tried to find out the accused persons, but of no avail. On 10.12.2010, he collected postmortem report of the deceased which is Ex.PW4/A. On 11.12.2010, he arrested accused Sunil Sharma at Gali No. 6, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, upon the information of the secret informer. Thereafter, medical examination of accused Sunil Sharma was got conducted at SDN Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi. He called the husband of deceased i.e. accused Vinay Sharma in the same hospital along with one suspect Jatin Sharma and got SC No. 545/2016 27 of 61 conducted their medical examination in SDN Hospital. Doctor handed over him one blood sample and semen sample of all above mentioned persons in duly sealed condition and he seized the same, vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW9/D. He prepared the arrest papers of accused Sunil Sharma which are Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/A1. Thereafter, he returned to the Police Station and the exhibits were kept in the malkhana. On 28.01.2011, he obtained NBW of remaining accused persons namely Vinay Sharma, Seema Sharma, Sunita Sharma and Prameshwari Devi. On 04.02.2011, he recorded supplementary statements of Sunehri Lal Sharma and Munni Devi under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 09.03.2011, he obtained subsequent opinion with regard to the cause of death of the deceased Ruchi Sharma. His request letter in this regard is Ex.PW20/C. Dr. Akash Jhanjhee gave subsequent opinion and confirmed that the cause of death was asphyxia. His report is Ex.PW20/D. SC No. 545/2016 28 of 61 Exhibits were sent to FSL by SI Kamta Prasad. During investigation, Sunehri Lal Sharma handed over a list of articles which he gave to the accused persons during marriage of deceased. The list is Ex.PW20/E. He also gave him photocopy of booking receipt of Vaish Sabha Dharamshala. The same is Mark PW15/A. He also handed over one receipt of purchasing of jewellery which is Ex.PW14/A. He placed DD No. 24 dated 27.11.2010 with regard to information of death, in the charge sheet. The same is Ex.PW20/F. Thereafter, he filed charge sheet against accused Sunil Sharma. Remaining accused persons were absconding at that time. On 29.04.2011, he formally arrested the accused Sunita and Seema, vide arrest memo Ex.PW20/G and Ex.PW20/H. On 26.08.2011, he collected the FSL result and placed the same in the charge sheet. The FSL results are Ex.PW20/J and Ex.PW20/J1. On 20.10.2011, accused persons namely Vinay Sharma and Prameshwari Devi were declared SC No. 545/2016 29 of 61 Proclaimed Offenders and thereafter, on 29.10.2011, he filed supplementary charge sheet against accused persons Seema Sharma, Sunita Sharma, Vinay Sharma and Prameshwari Devi. He identified all the accused persons during his deposition in the Court.
31. PW21 is Dr. Dhruv Sharma. He is the Assistant Director (Biology) FSL Rohini, Delhi. On 21.12.2010, ten parcels were received in his office pertaining to this case which were found containing some clothes, blood samples, Vaginal swab etc. He gave his report and Serological analysis which are Ex.PW20/J1 and Ex.PW20/J. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C.
32. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the allegations against them and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have stated that SC No. 545/2016 30 of 61 the witnesses have falsely deposed against them as they are interested witnesses.
33. Accused Sunil Sharma stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he is innocent. He stated that the deceased Ruchi Sharma used to remain under depression and due to this she committed suicide.
34. Accused Vinay Sharma has stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that this is a false case. The deceased Ruchi used to get tensed over small matters. He stated that the deceased Ruchi had committed suicide under depression.
35. Accused Prameshwari Devi stated in her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that she is innocent. She stated that this is a false case and all the witnesses are false and interested witnesses.
SC No. 545/2016 31 of 61
36. Accused Seema stated in her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that she is innocent. She stated that all the witnesses are false and interested witnesses.
37. Accused Sunita Sharma stated in her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that she has been falsely implicated in this false case being the sisterinlaw of the deceased Ruchi. She is innocent. She was living in her matrimonial house with her children. She occasionally used to visit her parental house. She had cordial relations with the deceased Ruchi. She did not demand anything from the complainant. She stated that all the witnesses are false and interested witnesses.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
38. Accused Sunita led evidence in her defence. She examined one witness i.e. DW1 Sh. Anoop Sharma.
SC No. 545/2016 32 of 61
39. DW1 is Sh. Anoop Sharma. He is the husband of accused Sunita. He stated that Sunita got married to him on 22.02.2002. After the marriage Sunita went to her matrimonial house at H. No. 2712, Chowk Raiji, Nai Sarak, Roshanpura, Delhi. He stated that after the death of his mother, Sunita used to take care of the family. Sunita used to visit her parental house on festivals only. Sunita never demanded anything from the deceased Ruchi or from Ruchi's parents. He stated that he met with an accident on 15.11.2010 and since then he was on bed rest till the death of Ruchi. He placed on record his treatment papers and receipts which are Ex.DW1/A. Ex.DW1/B is the copy of the Death Certificate of his father. He stated that Sunita is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant.
40. Accused Seema Sharma examined herself under Section 315 Cr.P.C. in her defence as DW2. She stated that Sunil SC No. 545/2016 33 of 61 Sharma is her brother. The deceased Ruchi Sharma was working in TATA AIG Life Insurance Company since September, 2009. She also used to work in the same company. She stated that prior to her death, the deceased Ruchi Sharma used to remain tensed. She stated that she never committed any cruelty to the deceased Ruchi Sharma. She stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
41. I have heard Sh. Gaurav Pandey, Ld. Addl. P.P for the State and Sh. M.P.Singh Rathore, Advocate for all the accused persons. I have also perused the file. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
42. It was submitted by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State that the prosecution case stands proved from the statements of the witnesses. It was argued by the Ld. Addl. P.P. that all the witnesses are consistent and corroborative and hence, there is no reason to disbelieve their version.
SC No. 545/2016 34 of 61
43. It was submitted that in this case the material witnesses are PW1 i.e. the complainant Sunehari Lal Sharma (father of the deceased Ruchi Sharma), PW2 Smt. Munni Devi (mother of the deceased Ruchi Sharma), PW6 Bablu Sharma (brother of the complainant) and PW8 Dinesh Kumar (neighbour of complainant). It was argued that these witnesses are consistent and have fully supported the prosecution case regarding the demand of dowry and harassment by the accused persons.
44. It was submitted that PW1 i.e. the complainant Sunehari Lal Sharma and PW2 Smt. Munni Devi have also supported the prosecution case that accused Sunil Sharma used to keep an evil eye on deceased Ruchi Sharma and used to misbehave with her. It was argued that both the said witnesses have also fully supported the prosecution case that the accused Sunil Sharma used to SC No. 545/2016 35 of 61 behave indecently with Ruchi Sharma after consuming liqour and also outraged her modesty. It was argued that accused Sunil Sharma also attempted to rape Ruchi Sharma.
45. It was argued that the deceased Ruchi Sharma died unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and the accused persons are responsible for causing her dowry death. Therefore, presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act is attracted in this case. The Postmortem Report (Ex.PW4/A) of the deceased Ruchi Sharma also supports the prosecution case. The accused persons have failed to rebut the presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act. It was also argued that the other witnesses, who were associated with the investigation or joined the investigation have also supported the prosecution case. It was argued that the Prosecution Witnesses could not be shaken from their SC No. 545/2016 36 of 61 stand in their crossexamination. Hence, their statements have to be believed.
46. It was contended that from the statements of witnesses and other material placed on record the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS
47. On the other hand, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the accused persons are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case.
48. It was contended that in this case the material witnesses i.e. PW1 Sunehri Lal Sharma (father of the deceased) and PW2 Smt. Munni Devi (mother of the deceased) have not supported the case of the prosecution. It was argued that the allegations of harassment to the deceased Ruchi Sharma by the accused persons as stated by PW1 SC No. 545/2016 37 of 61 (Sunehari Lal Sharma), PW2 (Munni Devi), PW6 (Bablu Sharma) and PW8 (Dinesh Kumar) is only hearsay evidence, which is not admissible. The crossexamination of the said witnesses demolishes the case of the prosecution.
49. It was argued that the allegations of harassment of the deceased Ruchi Sharma by the accused persons and the allegations regarding demand of dowry as narrated by the prosecution witnesses are vague.
50. It was argued that none of the prosecution witness has mentioned any specific instance or dates to show that the deceased Ruchi Sharma was harassed by the accused persons.
51. It was argued that the allegations against accused Sunil Sharma in respect of Charge under Section 354 IPC are SC No. 545/2016 38 of 61 also baseless and unbelievable. Therefore, the charge against accused Sunil Sharma under Section 354 IPC cannot be sustained.
52. It was argued that in the absence of any evidence to prove the fact of demand of dowry made 'soon before death', cruelty, mental or physical torture, the entire case of prosecution fails. It was argued that most of the evidences are hearsay in nature and thus, inadmissible. It was contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons and accordingly, the accused persons deserve acquittal.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
53. The first charge against the accused persons is under Section 498A/34 IPC. To prove this charge, prosecution has examined PW1 Sh. Sunehari Lal Sharma (complainant as well as father of the deceased), PW2 Smt. Munni Devi (mother of the deceased), PW6 Bablu SC No. 545/2016 39 of 61 Sharma (brother of the complainant), PW8 Dinesh Kumar (neighbour of the complainant) PW12 Smt. Kiran (neighbour of the accused Prameshwari Devi) and PW13 Smt. Pushpa (neighbour of the accused Prameshwari Devi).
54. The most material witnesses in this case are the complainant i.e. PW1 Sh. Sunehari Lal Sharma (father of the deceased Ruchi) and PW2 Smt. Munni Devi (mother of the deceased Ruchi). From the scrutiny of the statements of these witnesses, it is revealed that the evidence which has come on record against the accused persons in respect of charge under Section 498A/34 IPC is as under:
• Accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry articles and the quality thereof.
• Accused persons used to harass deceased Ruchi Sharma for bringing car and motorcycle.
SC No. 545/2016 40 of 61
• Accused persons used to beat the deceased Ruchi
Sharma.
• Accused persons were not satisfied with the gifts
given on the birth of the son of the deceased Ruchi Sharma.
• Accused Prameshwari Devi, Sunita and Seema used to demand gold chain.
• The deceased Ruchi Sharma was turned out from her matrimonial house.
55. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines "dowry" as under: "2. Definition of 'dowry' In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or
(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other persons, at or before (or any time after the marriage) (in connection with the marriage SC No. 545/2016 41 of 61 of the said parties, but does not include) dower or mahr in the case or persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."
56. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported as Satvir Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. 2001 (4) Crimes, 45 has held that: "There are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is 'at any time' after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties". This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses.
For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". Hence, the dowry mentioned in Section 304B should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage."
SC No. 545/2016 42 of 61
57. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case reported as Mahavir Kumar & Ors. Vs. State MANU/DE/1321/2014 has held as under:
"A bare reading of Section 498A goes to show that the term cruelty which has been made punishable under the Section, has been defined in the explanation appended to the said section. Therefore, the consequences of cruelty, which are either 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 harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coerce 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, are required to be established in order to prove an offence under Section 498 IPC."
58. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a case titled as Hansraj Sharma and Ors. Vs. State reported as SC No. 545/2016 43 of 61 MANU/DE/0476/2010 has held as under:
"10........It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498A of IPC. The cruelty, as defined in the explanation to 498A of IPC, is altogether different from the cruelty, which can be subject matter of proceedings, under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498A of IPC, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health. The use of expression 'willful' in the explanation to Section 498A of IPC indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonable expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative, as the SC No. 545/2016 44 of 61 case may be. Everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequence of his act and such a presumption must necessarily be drawn even if there is no intention to cause any injury or harm to the woman. Whether the conduct in question is likely to drive the woman to cause injury to her life, limb or health, will depend upon a number of factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of awareness of the aggrieved woman, her temperament, state of her health, physical as well as mental and how she is likely to perceive such a behaviour. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, it will also constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section 498A of IPC. Of course, the expression "cruelty" would take in its ambit mental cruelty as well as physical torture of the woman. If the conduct of the accused with a woman is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life and safety, such a conduct would attract criminal liability, envisaged in Section 498A of IPC."
SC No. 545/2016 45 of 61
59. In this case statement which is Ex.PW1/A of PW1 Sh. Sunehari Lal was recorded by SDM on 28.11.2010. The case was registered on this statement Ex.PW1/A. The perusal of this statement shows that the allegations levelled by the complainant in this complaint are general. No specific instances or dates of demand of dowry or harassment have been mentioned by Sh. Sunehari Lal Sharma in his statement Ex.PW1/A. The complainant Sunehari Lal Sharma made a complaint which is Ex.PW1/B to the Chowki Incharge, Seelampur. The perusal of this complaint shows that Sh. Sunehari Lal Sharma has levelled allegations of harassment and dowry demand against the accused persons. However, in this complaint also he has not made specific instances or dates of demand of dowry and other harassment. Later on, the complainant gave another complaint which is Ex.PW1/C in the Police Station, but the said complaint is undated. No explanation has been given by the SC No. 545/2016 46 of 61 prosecution as to how this complaint came on record. Even IO could not tell when this complaint was made by the complainant Sh. Sunehari Lal Sharma.
60. In the first two complaints Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B, the complainant Sunehari Lal Sharma did not specify the dates and other details of harassment. However, there is another complaint which is Ex.PW1/C which was given by PW1 Sunehari Lal Sharma. This complaint is undated. The prosecution has failed to explain as to when and how this complaint has come on record. It has also not been explained by the prosecution when there were two complaints already on record, then why the third complaint has come on record. Even IO could not tell in the Court as to when this complaint has come on record. Therefore, under these circumstances, possibility of giving this complaint Ex.PW1/C after due deliberations cannot be ruled out and also the possibility of filling up the lacunae SC No. 545/2016 47 of 61 by the complaint Ex.PW1/C cannot be ruled out.
61. PW1 Sh. Sunehari Lal Sharma has stated in his cross examination that her deceased daughter Ruchi Sharma had given a complaint in CAW Cell against the accused persons about one month prior to her death, but the said complaint was not brought or proved on record. The deceased Ruchi Sharma, as stated by Sh. Sunehari Lal Sharma and other witnesses, was continuously harassed for dowry, but neither the deceased Ruchi Sharma made any complaint in any forum nor her parents has made any such complaint before any forum. PW1 Sunehari Lal Sharma has stated that he requested the accused persons to mend their ways several times, but of no avail. Even then, he did not make any complaint against the accused persons before any authority or to the police regarding the cruelty and harassment meted out to his deceased daughter Ruchi Sharma by her inlaws.
SC No. 545/2016 48 of 61
62. So far as the allegations against the accused persons regarding the beatings given by them to the deceased Ruchi Sharma are concerned, no medical examination of Ruchi Sharma was ever got conducted. No dates regarding beatings given to Ruchi Sharma by the accused persons have been mentioned in the statements given by the witnesses. Nor any complaint was ever made by PW1 Sunehri Lal Sharma before any authority before the death of Ruchi Sharma regarding the beatings given to her by her inlaws. It is also important to note that it has come on record that deceased Ruchi Sharma was an educated lady and was doing job. Even then, she did not make any complaint or got herself medically examined regarding the beatings given by the accused persons to her.
63. It has come in the evidence that the deceased Ruchi Sharma was once turned out from the house. Even then, SC No. 545/2016 49 of 61 no PCR call was ever made by the deceased Ruchi Sharma or by her parents. Nor any complaint was filed before any forum in this regard.
64. So far as the testimonies of PW1 Sunehari Lal Sharma (Father of the deceased), PW2 Smt. Munni Devi (Mother of the deceased), PW6 Bablu Sharma (Brother of the complainant) and PW8 Dinesh Kumar (Neighbourer of the complainant) are concerned, it is not covered under the 'torture' and cannot be equated with 'torture'. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of Mintu Mia Vs. State reported as 2013 SCC Online Cal. 9714.
65. Two independent witnesses PW12 Smt. Kiran and PW13 Smt. Pushpa have not supported the prosecution case.
66. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that evidence led by the prosecution in SC No. 545/2016 50 of 61 respect of charge under Section 498A/34 IPC has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence led by the prosecution do not meet the requirement of the offence under Section 498A IPC as mentioned in the judgments Mahavir Kumar & Ors. Vs. State (supra) and Hansraj Sharma and Ors. Vs. State (supra).
67. The next charge against the accused persons is for the offence punishable under Section 304B/34 IPC. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Hansraj Sharma and Ors. Vs. State (supra) has held that before a person can be convicted under this Section, which deals with what is described as "dowry death", the prosecution must necessarily prove the following ingredients: i. The death of a woman must have been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstance;
ii. Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
iii. Soon before her death, the SC No. 545/2016 51 of 61 woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband;
iv. Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry;
v. Such cruelty or harassment is when to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
68. Admittedly, the death of Ruchi Sharma took place otherwise than under normal circumstances and she died within seven years of her marriage.
69. The third ingredient of Section 304B IPC is that 'soon before her death' the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by the relatives of her husband.
70. The perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses show that no cogent evidence has come on record which could show that the victim/ deceased Ruchi SC No. 545/2016 52 of 61 Sharma was subjected to cruelty 'soon before her death'. The best evidence available to the Prosecution in this regard was that of PW1 Sunehari Lal Sharma, who is the father of the deceased Ruchi Sharma and PW2 Smt. Munni Devi, who is the mother of the deceased Ruchi Sharma. The perusal of the statement of PW1 Sunehari Lal Sharma shows that he has stated that on 25.11.2010 his daughter telephoned him that a car should be gifted to her. He further stated that on 26.11.2010 his daughter made a telephone call to his children that she (Ruchi) was very afraid. He further stated that on 27.11.2010, he received a telephone call of his daughter that she was being harassed by the accused persons and she would do anything as she was fed up with the harassment. However, the complainant PW1 Sunehari Lal Sharma has not stated in his complaint dated 28.11.2010 which is Ex.PW1/A and complaint dated 28.11.2010 which is Ex.PW1/B that he has received phone call of his daughter SC No. 545/2016 53 of 61 on 26.11.2010 and on 27.11.2010 that his daughter was being harassed by the accused persons for demand of dowry and also she was afraid and could do any act out of fear or harassment. Further, the PW1 Sunehari Lal Sharma has not mentioned the phone number on which he has received the call of his daughter nor he has stated the phone number from which the call was made by his daughter Ruchi. PW2 Smt. Munni Devi, the mother of deceased, has stated that on the next day of the birthday of her daughter Ruchi, she (Ruchi) made a phone call to her informing that if the demand of accused persons regarding car is not met, she (Ruchi) was not certain/ sure as to what would happen to her.
71. As discussed above, PW1 Sunehari Lal Sharma has not stated in his complaint Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B regarding the phone calls received by him or his wife on 26.11.2010 and 27.11.2010. No reason has been assigned by the SC No. 545/2016 54 of 61 prosecution as to why this material fact was not mentioned by him at the earliest available opportunity in the complaints Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B. No phone numbers have been mentioned by PW1 Sunehari Lal Sharma from which and at which phone number the said calls were made by Ruchi Sharma. The best evidence in this regard was the call detail records of the phone numbers. The call detail records have not been produced by the prosecution nor any explanation has come on record as to why the call detail records have not been produced. Therefore, under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to lead cogent evidence that soon before her death, deceased Ruchi Sharma was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons.
72. It was argued on behalf of the State that the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act goes against the accused persons. I am not in agreement with SC No. 545/2016 55 of 61 this contention of the Ld. Addl. P.P. as this presumption is firstly, rebuttable and secondly, it comes into play only when it has been proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment on account of demand of dowry 'soon before her death'. When the prosecution fails to prove the basic ingredients of this Section, the application of this presumption does not arise at all. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sher Singh Vs. State of Haryana which is reported as AIR 2015 SC 980. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the offence under Section 304B IPC and therefore, the presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act is of no help to the prosecution.
73. Thus, in view of the discussion above and the case laws discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt SC No. 545/2016 56 of 61 that the deceased Ruchi Sharma was harassed and subjected to cruelty by the accused persons for or in connection with dowry 'soon before her death'. Therefore, the charge under Section 304B IPC cannot be sustained against the accused persons.
74. The next charge is under Section 354 IPC against the accused Sunil Sharma. PW1 Sunehari Lal Sharma has stated in the Court that accused Sunil Sharma used to tease his daughter Ruchi under the influence of liquor and he used to enter her room without her permission. He also stated that accused Sunil Sharma was having an evil eye on her deceased daughter Ruchi. He also stated that accused Sunil Sharma threatened to rape his daughter Ruchi. PW2 Munni Devi has stated in the Court that accused Sunil Sharma used to harass her daughter Ruchi and tried to molest her. She also stated that Sunil Sharma tried several times to rape her daughter Ruchi.
SC No. 545/2016 57 of 61
75. As per the version of PW1 Sunehari Lal Sharma and PW 2 Smt. Munni Devi accused Sunil Sharma used to tease and molest their daughter Ruchi. PW1 Sunehari Lal Sharma has stated that Sunil Sharma threatened Ruchi to rape her whereas PW2 Munni Devi has stated that accused Sunil Sharma several times tried to commit rape of her daughter Ruchi Sharma. PW1 Sunehari Lal Sharma in his statement Ex.PW1/A which was recorded by SDM on 28.11.2010 has not levelled any such allegation against accused Sunil Sharma. However, in his complaint made to the Chowki Incharge which is Ex.PW1/B he has stated that accused Sunil Sharma used to misbehave with Ruchi after taking liquor. In complaint Ex.PW1/A there is no allegation of attempt to rape/ molestation made by PW 1 Sunehari Lal Sharma against accused Sunil Sharma and in complaint Ex.PW1/B the only allegation against accused Sunil Sharma is regarding misbehavior after taking liquor.
SC No. 545/2016 58 of 61 PW1 Sunehari Lal Sharma has not levelled allegations in his complaints Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B regarding which he has deposed in the Court.
76. It is also important to note that despite being molested and attempts of rape and threats of being raped by accused Sunil Sharma the deceased Ruchi Sharma did not make any complaint against accused Sunil Sharma before any forum nor her parents made any such complaint before any forum.
77. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported as AIR 2004 SC 1677 has held that the word 'modesty' has not been defined in IPC. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. It was also held that the reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to lead any cogent evidence regarding the SC No. 545/2016 59 of 61 culpable intention of accused Sunil Sharma. The deceased Ruchi Sharma did not react to the alleged actions of accused Sunil Sharma as he did not make any complaint against accused Sunil Sharma.
78. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Sunil Sharma for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC.
79. In view of the above discussion, accused persons are acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Section 498A/34 IPC and 304B/34 IPC by giving them the benefit of doubt. The accused Sunil Sharma is also acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC by giving him the benefit of doubt.
80. The bail bonds of the accused persons are cancelled and SC No. 545/2016 60 of 61 their sureties are discharged.
81. File be consigned to Record Room. (This judgment has been typed directly by the P.A. on my dictation). Digitally signed by
SURINDER SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA
Announced in the Open KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2019.09.13 16:23:30
+0530
Court on 13.09.2019 (SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA)
Additional Sessions Judge05
East District, Karkardooma Courts
Delhi
SC No. 545/2016 61 of 61