Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Ashok Kumar on 9 February, 2024

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

SESSIONS CASE NO. 44747/2015
CNR No. DLNE01-000291-2012
FIR No. 150/2012
P.S. Karawal Nagar
U/s : 498A/304B/34 of IPC

STATE

                                          Versus

(i) ASHOK SHARMA
S/o Sh. Govind Prasad Sharma
R/o H. No. A-27, Gali no. 3
Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar
Delhi.

(ii) BHARAT SHARMA
S/o Sh. Ashok Sharma
R/o H. No. A-27, Gali no. 3
Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar
Delhi.

Date of Institution :     03-09-2012
Date of Argument :        20-12-2023
Date of Judgment :        09-02-2024


JUDGMENT

1. Brief facts of this case are that on 12-05-2012 at about 4pm, an information was received through Wireless Operator that one lady has committed suicide at H. No. A-27/3, Rama Garden, Delhi, which was reduced into writing vide DD No. 20A (Ex.PW2/A) and marked to SI Ashwani Ambariya (hereinafter referred to as first Investigating Officer/ IO). Thereafter, SI FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 1 of 45 Ashwani Ambariya along with Ct. Rohtash went to the spot and found that dead body of a lady was lying on a cot and ligature mark were present around the neck of the deceased. On inquiry, the IO came to know that deceased Neetu Sharma was married with Bharat Sharma on 28-02-2012. Since the death of the deceased has taken place within seven years of marriage, the SDM concerned was informed. Crime Team was called who inspected the spot, took photographs and prepared scene of crime report. After some time, SDM Sh. Radha Charan concerned also reached at the spot and as per his directions, the dead body was removed to mortuary of GTB hospital through Ct. Rohtash for its preservation. The parents of the deceased had also reached the spot. Thereafter, the parents of the deceased came at the police station along with SDM as it was raining on that day. The SDM recorded statement of Sh. Ram Prakash, father of the deceased, who stated that he got her daughter Neetu married with accused Bharat Sharma s/o Ashok Sharma r/o A-27, Gali no. 3, Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar, Delhi on 28-02-2012 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. During marriage, he incurred expenses beyond his financial capacity. On the demand of in-laws, the arrangement of marriage was done at Parshuram Dharamshala. Rs. 4 lakhs were spent in the marriage, which amount was arranged by him by selling his house, yet the in-laws of his daughter were not satisfied with the arrangements. About 20 days ago, he went to the house of in-laws of his daughter where he did not receive any hospitality and the in-laws were also not happy with his arrival. While returning, he handed over Rs. 100 as shagun to his daughter Neetu and Rs. 100 to the mother in-law, whereupon accused Ashok Sharma (father-in-law of his daughter) retorted FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 2 of 45 "iske paise wapas kar do, bhikari se kyon le rahe ho". He came back quietly. He further stated that his daughter is no more in this world on that day i.e. 12-05-2012 but her in-laws i.e. father- in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and husband did not inform him about the same. He got the information about demise of his daughter from one Heera Lal Sharma, resident of Shiv Vihar. About 15 days prior to the incident, his daughter stated to him that she won't commit any act which would harm his reputation. She would speak to her husband and sort out the matter at her own. Her father-in-law used to torture her. According to him, the father-in-law of his daughter is responsible for the incident and he prayed for justice. He further stated that prior to the marriage, father-in-law Ashok Sharma had demanded Rs. 5 lakhs through mediator S. Kumar. The mediator informed that about Rs. 5 lakhs would be spent in the marriage. He stated that he could spend at the most Rs. 4 lakhs and beyond that he could not afford that is why, he has sold his flat and spent the sale consideration in the marriage. The above-stated facts were stated by the Mediator in the presence of his wife, daughter-in-law Neelam, his daughter Neetu and father-in-law Ashok Sharma. On the basis of above-stated statement of father of deceased, the present FIR came to be registered for the offence punishable u/s 498A/302B of IPC and further investigation was assigned to IO Inspector S. R. Mavi, who prepared the site plan (Ex. PW16/A) at the spot. Accused Ashok Sharma was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/A. Accused Ashok Sharma had produced one scissors and two pieces of chunni, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/B. During interrogation, accused Ashok Sharma made disclosure statement vide memo FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 3 of 45 Ex. PW16/C. On 13-05-2012, postmortem of the deceased was got conducted at GTB hospital and after completion of postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives. One sealed parcel containing the viscera along with sample seal were handed over by the postmortem doctor which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A. In the evening at about 6-7 pm, accused Bharat Sharma was arrested on the basis of secret information from his house vide arrest memo Ex. PW10/A. After completion of necessary formalities, chargesheet was filed in the court of Ld. Ilaqa Metropolitan Magistrate.

COMMITTAL

2. After taking cognizance, compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C., the present case was committed to the Courts of Sessions. 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 and 304B/34 of IPC or in the alternative u/s 302/34 of IPC, charges were framed by ld. Predecessor against accused persons, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently on the application u/s 216 of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of accused persons, the charge was altered and amended charge for the offence punishable u/s 498A and 304B/34 of IPC was framed, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution got examined as many as 20 witnesses.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

4. (i) PW1 SI U. Balashankram is the member of the crime FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 4 of 45 team who reached the spot on 12.05.2012. He claimed that he inspected the spot and found that the dead body of one lady was lying on the cot. Ligature marks were present around the neck of the deceased. Photographer Ct. Sanjay took the photographs. He proved his scene of crime report as Ex.PW1/A. Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(ii) PW2 HC Biresh Kumar was the duty officer posted at PS Karawal Nagar at the relevant time. He has proved DD No. 20A as Ex.PW2/A whereby an information was received at PS regarding commission of suicide by hanging one lady.

Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(iii) PW3 HC Bijender Singh was the duty officer posted at PS Karawal Nagar at the relevant time. He has proved the endorsement made by him on rukka presented by SI Ashwani as Ex.PW3/A; the factum of registration of present FIR as Ex.PW3/B. Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(iv) PW4 Ram Prakash is the father of the deceased. He deposed that the marriage of her daughter Neetu (since deceased) was solemnized on 28th of February, but he did not remember the year. However, it was held about two years ago, according to Hindu rites and customs, with accused Bharat Sharma. The marriage was organized by him at Parshuram Dharamshala as per the advise of Mediator Dr. S. Kumar. He had spent Rs. 4 lacs in the said marriage after sold out his house i.e. H.No. E-462, Subhash Vihar, Gali No. 11, near Bhajanpura water tank, Delhi.

After 2-1/4th month of the marriage of his daughter, his daughter was murdered by her in-laws. One day prior to the incident (death of his daughter), his daughter made a call at about 10 pm and told him "Meine Aap Ko Kuch Bola Tha". On this, he replied that "Beta Tumne Mujhe Kuch Nahi Bola". Then, his daughter asked him to give the phone to his wife. Accordingly, he gave phone to his wife and she talked with his wife and his wife told to his daughter to his daughter " Jab Tujhe Jyada Tang Kare To Tu Police Mein Phone Kar Dena ". On the next day, his daughter was expired. On that day, a phone call was received from the matrimonial house of his daughter and it was received either by his wife or his sons. They told that " Dekho Tumhari Ladki Kya Kar Rahi Hai". At that time, he was at his job/working place. After receiving the above-said call, his wife and his both sons went to the matrimonial house of his daughter. On reaching there, they found that his daughter was already expired and her body was lying on the folding bed. He also received a phone call from the son of his mausi (cousin) about the death of his daughter at about 5 pm. After receiving the said call, his sister-in-law also made a call and told him that she would pick him up from his work place. Thereafter, he alongwith his sister-in-law went to matrimonial house of his daughter and reached there at about 8:00 pm. On reaching there, he found that dead body of his daughter was lying on a folding bed. Police officials were also present there. Thereafter, dead body was removed to GTB Hospital. On the next day, which was Sunday, the postmortem on the dead body of his daughter was conducted by the police. After postmortem, dead body was handed over to them vide handing over memo Ex.PW4/A. The identification of FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 6 of 45 the dead body was also got established by the police from him and his statement in this regard was recorded by the police which is Ex.PW4/B. He further deposed that his wife had also told him that when she alongwith his sons reached at the matrimonial house of his daughter, the in-laws of his daughter told them that "Agar Ye Zinda Hoti to Ise Hospital Le Jate, Ab Ise Tayyar Karo Iske Kriya Karam Ke Liye". The accused persons never talked to him. Once when he went to the matrimonial house of his daughter and at that time of leaving the matrimonial house of his daughter, he had given Rs. 100/- to his daughter Neetu and Rs. 100/- to her mother-in-law. On this, father-in-law of his daughter Ashok Kumar told his wife "Iss Bikhari se Paise Kyon Le Rahi Ho". When he reached at the matrimonial house, they did not give respect to him and Ashok Kumar told his wife "Isse Iski Ladki Ke Pass Hi Bithal Do". His statement was recorded by the SDM and the same is Ex.PW4/C. In leading question asked by Ld. Addl. PP for the State he affirmed that he performed the marriage of his daughter at Parshram Dharamshala as per desire of in-laws of his daughter. He affirmed that before marriage, accused Ashok Kumar (father- in-law of his daughter) had demanded Rs. 5 lacs through Mediator Sh. S. Kumar from him. He affirmed that he had also handed over the marriage card of his daughter to the police and it was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/D. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that he did not remember the date and month when he had visited to her matrimonial house. He denied the suggestion that there was a family dispute between his daughter-in-law and them. He denied the suggestion that his daughter-in-law did not FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 7 of 45 attend the marriage of his deceased daughter. He did not remember the date, month and year when he had sold out his house but it was sold three months prior to the marriage of his deceased daughter. He said house was sold out worth of Rs. 20 lakhs. On the date of his deposition, he did not have any sale agreement of the said house. He denied the suggestion that he had sold the said house after the marriage of his deceased daughter. Dr. S. Kumar had told him to spend Rs. 5 lakhs in the marriage of his daughter but he told him that he could spend only Rs. 4 lakhs. He got purchased a mobile phone amounting Rs. 1600/- to her daughter and the papers of the said mobile phone was with her daughter. There was no landline phone or mobile phone in his house. His father-in-law, mother-in-law and other family members including accused Bharat had their own mobile phones. Accused Ashok Sharma visited his house with Dr. S. Kumar twice. Accused Ashok did not disclose the reason as to why he was in hurry in marriage of his son with his daughter. He denied the suggestion that he had demanded Rs. 80,000/- from Dr. S. Kumar and Dr. S. Kumar had given the above-said amount to him after taking the same from accused persons. He had sold his house No. E-462, Subhash Vihar toone Mullah ji whose name he did not remember. The witness had produced a photocopy of agreement to sell dated 03.01.2012. In response to court question, he replied that the witness was not able to clarify whether both the names were of the same person or of separate persons. He further deposed that the house was agreed to be sold prior to the marriage but sale deed was registered after the marriage. He had received Rs. 5 lacs of the sale amount prior to the marriage and the balance thereafter. He denied the suggestion FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 8 of 45 that accused Ashok Kumar had paid Rs. 80,000/- towards the cost of renting the Dharamshala.

(v) PW5 Sumit Sharma is the brother of the deceased. He deposed that marriage of his sister Neetu was solemnized at Parshuram Dharamshala with accused Bharat Sharma on 28.02.2012 according to Hindu rites and customs as per the desires of in-laws of his sister. After marriage, when he had gone to bring his sister back from her matrimonial house, there father- in-law of his sister, namely, Ashok Sharma demanded Rs. 5 lacs from the sale proceeds of their house while saying that "Ladki Ka Bhi Haq Banta Hai Aur Mein Court Ke Dwara Bhi Le Sakta Hun". On this he told Ashok Sharma to talk with his father in this regard. Thereafter, Ashok Sharma told him that "Saadi Mein Char Lagene Ke Bawjood Bhi Hamein Rs. 50,000/- Aur Bike Tak Nahi Mili". On this he told that "Jitna Hua Hamne Kiya". Thereafter, he brought back his sister to his house. His sister told him at his house that physical relations were not developed between her and her husband till that time. His sister remained at his house for three days and thereafter, he took her to her matrimonial house as a call was made by the mother-in-law of his sister that Bharat was ill and sustained injuries in an accident on the bike. He advised his sister to live peacefully in her matrimonial house. One day prior to the death of his sister, she made a call to him and told him that she was living peacefully and she had no problem of any type. On the next day i.e. the day of incident, accused Bharat Sharma made a call to him and told him that "Akar Dekho Tumhari Bahan Ne Kya Kar Liya". After receiving above said call, he alongwith his mausi, mother and brother Amit went to matrimonial house of his sister and on FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 9 of 45 reaching there they found that dead body of his sister was lying on a wooden cot (chaarpai). Thereafter, he made a call at 100 number. Police reached there. They were informed by the in-laws of his sister that his sister had hanged herself with ceiling fan, but wings of ceiling fan were in straight position. Police did their proceedings there and thereafter, dead body was removed by police to GTB Hospital. Postmortem on the dead body was got conducted and after postmortem, her belongings (bichchuae) were handed over to them vide memo Ex.PW4/A. Identification of dead body was also got established by police and his statement in this regard was recorded as Ex.PW5/A. His statement was recorded by the SDM as Ex.PW5/B. In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he affirmed that they had spent Rs. 4 lacs in the marriage of their sister. He affirmed that they were asked through mediator S. Kumar to spend Rs. 5 lacs on the marriage, but they told that they could spend Rs. 3-4 lacs on the marriage. He affirmed that when he went to the matrimonial house of his sister, after one month of her marriage, the husband of his sister got told through his father that "Shaadi mein Apne Kya Diya, Pachas Hazar Ka Bhi Saman Nahi Hai". He denied the suggestion that he stated in his statement to SDM that "Shaadi Ke Baad Paanch Chhe Din Jab Bahin Ko Lene Gaya To Hamare Dost Ke Samne Kaha Ki Shaadi me Bahut Kuchh Karenge Parantu Kuchh Nahi Kiya Yeh Baat Bahin Ke Sasur Ne Kahi Hai". He volunteered that he had not gone to the matrimonial house of his sister at that time. He affirmed that when his sister (since deceased) had come to their house to see his father (when he received injuries on his person), she told in front of his parents that "mere sasur mujhe gale FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 10 of 45 lagate hain, mujhe bilkul pasand nahi hai, meine apni saas to bataya toh unhone danta". He further affirmed that his sister had told that "sasur ne meri saas se kaha, Bhalu (name of saas) tuh toh mar jayegi, bahu ka dhyan toh mujhe he rakhna hai". He further admitted that the father-in-law of his sister had told after the marriage that "mere anusaar bike aur Rs. 51,000/- aur hone/dene chahiye, humhara baap bahut hoshiyar hai". He further affirmed that due to lapse of time he had forgotten the above said facts.

In his cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that his statement Ex.PW5/B was recorded by the SDM on the same day. He had stated before the SDM in his statement that Ashok Sharma demanded Rs. 5 lakhs from the Sale Proceed of their house while saying that "ladki ka bhi haq banta hia aur mein court ke dwara bhi le sakta hun". All the conversation regarding expenditure which had to be spent in the marriage was held through Dr. S. Kumar. The accused persons told that they would take the bride in two pair of clothes. The house was sold out after the marriage of his sister. However, they had received advance from the commission agent (property dealer) namely Shyam Priya Vastra Bhandar prior the marriage of his sister. He denied the suggestion that accused Bharat had not visited to their house with his sister. He volunteered that he had come only once to their house. He affirmed that he had stated to the SDM in his statement dated 11.05.2012 that his sister had told to him that she would talk to her husband and she had also stated that she herself would manage the things.

(vi) PW6 Ct. Rohtash Singh was the investigating police official, who accompanied the IO at the spot on 12.05.2018. He FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 11 of 45 deposed on the same lines on which SI Ashwani Ambariya (PW18) has deposed that till the handing over of a parcel by the doctor who conducted the postmortem.

Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(vii) PW7 Smt. Sunita is the mother of the deceased. She deposed that her deceased daughter Madhu @ Neetu Sharma was married with accused Bharat Sharma on 28.02.2012 as per Hindu rites and customs. In the marriage they had given sufficient stridhan articles. After the marriage, when her daughter used to come to her house she used to complain that her in-laws were demanding more dowry. She used to make her understand and used to send her for her matrimonial house. On 11.05.2012, her daughter was expired in her matrimonial house. On the next day i.e. 12.05.2012 at about 3:00 pm, mother-in-law of her daughter made a call and she received the said call. Her mother-in-law her "dekho aap ki beti ne kya kar liya hai aur aap yahan aa jao". After some time, her mother-in-law again made a call and told her to come at the matrimonial house of her daughter-in-law. Thereafter, she alongwith her two sons went to matrimonial house of her daughter. At that time, her husband was on duty at Jahangirpuri. On reaching there, they saw that the dead body of her daughter was lying on the single wooden bed (palang) and ligature mark were present on her neck. Thereafter her son Sumit had made a call to police at PS Karawal Nagar. Police reached at the spot. The dead body of her daughter was removed to GTB Hospital. After postmortem, dead body was handed over to them and it was cremated by them. Thereafter, they went to the PS and her statement was recorded. Except this, FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 12 of 45 she does not want to say anything.

In her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she deposed that her statement was recorded by the police. She affirmed that on 05.11.2012 she was talking with her daughter on phone as she had to go to her matrimonial house for bringing her back to her house and her daughter told her on phone that her father-in-law was keeping evil eye on her ( buri nazar se dekhte hein). Thereafter, she had talked to her mother-in-law namely Saroj and her husband Ashok about this and they told that they would not send her to her house. They further told that they did not want to maintain any relationship with her and if she would come to their house, she would not be allowed to enter their house. She further affirmed that when her son made a call to police, on this Ashok told them not to call the police. She affirmed that when her son made a call to the police, on this Ashok told them not to call the police and do the cremation. She affirmed that accused Ashok Sharma used to harass her daughter on the issue of dowry and used to say to my daughter " tere baap ne saadi me kya diya hai, tera baap fakir hai". She admitted that the husband and father-in-law of her daughter had demanded cash amount of Rs. 51,000/- and one motorcycle while they had solemnized the marriage of their daughter with accused with full pomp and show and given sufficient stridhan/dowry articles or that they had spent Rs. 4 lacs in the marriage of her daughter after selling their house. She admitted that her statement was not recorded by the SDM. However, the statement of her son was recorded as Ex. PW5/E. In her cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, she affirmed that S. Kumar, mediator left and did not pursue about FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 13 of 45 the marriage and they had spent the amount on the marriage by their own sweet will. She had stated to the police in her statement that her daughter used to complain against the accused persons when she used to come at her house on every week and she so stated in her statement. She affirmed that there was a dispute between her son Sumit and his wife. She had not made the complaint against the accused persons regarding demand of Rs. 51,000/- and motorcycle, to the police. They did not make complain to S. Kumar, mediator of the marriage regarding the above-said demand. On the day of sagai, accused demanded Rs. 51,000/- and a motorcycle from them and told that they should go with the cash amount of Rs. 51,000/- and a motorcycle at the time of sagai at the resident of accused Bharat.

(viii) PW8 Ct. Mohan Kumar is the investigating police official who accompanied the second IO Insp. S. R. Mavi (PW16) at the spot till the arrest of accused Ashok Kumar.

Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(ix) PW9 HC Sanjay Kumar is the photographer of the mobile crime team. He proved the photographs clicked by him alongwith the negative as Ex. PW9/A-1 to A-9 and Ex. PW9/B-1 to B-9.

Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(x) PW10 SI Ashok Kumar is also an investigating police who assisted the second IO/Insp. S R Mavi (PW16) in the investigation of the present case on 13.05.2013 till the arrest of accused Bharat Sharma.

Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 14 of 45 out in his cross-examination.

(xi) PW11 HC Anand is the police official who had deposited the sealed exhibits at FSL on 12.06.2012. He has deposited correctly about the role performed by him.

Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(xii) PW12 Amit Sharma is the brother of the deceased. He deposed that his deceased sister was married with accused Bharat Sharma on 28.02.2012, according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, when his deceased sister used to visit his house, she used to tell that her husband and father-in-law etc. used to harass her on the issue of dowry demand. They used to make her understand to adjust herself with the family of her in- laws. After 15-20 days of the marriage, his deceased sister informed him through phone that her father in law used to keep ill eye on her and he inappropriately touched on her back etc or whatever body parts these may be. Thereafter, a phone call made by the mother-in-law of his deceased sister was received by his mother and she informed that her sister had done something and asked her to come at the matrimonial house of his sister. Thereafter, he alongwith his mother, his brother and his mausi went to the matrimonial house of his deceased sister. On reaching there, they saw that the dead body of his deceased sister was lying on the cot and the father in law told them that his sister had committed suicide in their absence. Thereafter, they made a complaint to the police by making a call at 100 number. Police reached at the spot and did inquiry and removed the dead body of his sister to GTB Hospital. In the hospital, after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them.

In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he affirmed that SDM had recorded the statement of his brother Sumit Sharma. He affirmed that when his sister used to visit his house, she used to tell that her father-in-law and her husband used to harass her mentally and physically and used to taunt her on petty issues In her cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that he had stated to the police in his statement that after 15-20 days of the marriage, his deceased sister informed him through phone that her father-in-law used to keep ill eye on her and he inappropriately touched on her back etc or whatever body parts these may be. He denied the suggestion that since he was not working and due to this reason, his family became indebted or that his sister (since deceased) was annoyed of all these things or she was mentally disturbed for these alleged reasons. His parents had sold the house after 2-3 months of the marriage of his sister (since deceased).

(xiii) PW13 Dr. Surender Kumar Sharma is the mediator of the marriage of the daughter with the accused Bharat Sharma. He deposed that the t marriage of deceased Neetu was solemnized with accused Bharat Sharma, on 28.02.2012 and he was the mediator of the said marriage. There was no demand from the side of Bharat Sharma at the time of marriage. Later on he came to know that Neetu had committed suicide but he did not know what was the issue of the said suicide.

In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he denied the suggestion that before the marriage, father of Bharat Sharma namely Sh. Ashok Kumar told him that the marriage would be performed according to their status otherwise they FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 16 of 45 would feel insulted in the society or that this message was conveyed by him to the father of the deceased or that he had so stated in his statement mark A dated 21.07.2012. He denied the suggestion that after marriage there was strained relations between both the families i.e family of accused and family of the deceased on account of demand of dowry or that husband of Neetu namely Bharat Sharma and his father used to harass deceased Neetu on account of demand of dowry or that he had so stated in his statement mark A. He denied the suggestion that after marriage, the accused persons used to raise demand of dowry and they used to harass the deceased on account of the said demand. He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not deposing the true facts as he has been won over by the accused persons or that he was deposing falsely.

Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(xiv) PW14 Sh. Radha Charan is the SDM concerned. He deposed that on o 12.05.2012, he was posted as SDM at Seelampur, Delhi. On that day, he received a call from PS Karawal Nagar at about 4.30 PM and he was informed that one lady had committed suicide by hanging. After receiving the call. He went to the spot i.e A-27 Gali No.3, Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. He reached there at about 6.00 PM. At the spot, the police officials of PS Karawal Nagar were present. He inspected the spot and at that time the dead body of one lady was lying on the ground. One chunni was lying on the cot there. Thereafter, he gave directions to the police officials to remove the dead body to GTB mortuary. Father of the deceased was also present there along with many other persons. Thereafter, he asked the father of FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 17 of 45 the deceased to get his statement recorded. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the father of deceased namely Sh. Ram Prakash in the Police Station Complex. The statement of Ram Prakash on record is Ex.PW4/C. Thereafter, he made endorsement on the statement of Ram Prakash, regarding directions to the SHO to take appropriate step and same is encircled in red on Ex.PW4/C. The said statement was handed over to the police. Thereafter, he came back to his office. He further deposed that on the next day i.e 13.05.2012, he went to Mortuary of GTB Hospital and there the brother of the deceased namely Sumit met him and he also got recorded his statement in the mortuary of GTB hospital complex, with him. The statement of Sumit Sharma on record is Ex.PW5/B. He had also made endorsement on the above statement regarding directions to the SHO Karawal for appropriate action and his endorsement in this regard on Ex.PW5/B is encircled in red in mark Y and bears his signature at point Y and the same was handed over to the IO there. Thereafter, he filled up the inquest paper i.e request for postmortem which is Ex. PW14/A and form No. 25:35 (1) (b) Ex.PW14/B. Thereafter, the identity of the deceased was got established and he recorded the statement of Ram Prakash and Sumit (father and brother of the deceased) in this regard and same are Ex. PW4/B and Ex.PW5/A. He had given the directions to IO to hand over dead body of the deceased to its relative after postmortem. He had also made endorsement in this regard on Ex.PW14/A which is encircled in red at mark Z which bears his signature at point B. Thereafter, after giving appropriate directions to the IO, he came back to his house.

Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 18 of 45 out in his cross-examination.

(xv) PW15 Dr. Anil Kohli is the doctor who had proved the postmortem report of the deceased, prepared by Dr. Rahul Ambulkar, as Ex.PW15/A. The cause of death opined in the PM report is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(xvi) PW16 Insp. S.R. Mavi is the second IO. He deposed that on o 12.05.2012, he was posted at PS Karawal Nagar as ATO. On that day, after registration of the present case, Duty Officer handed over computerized copy of the FIR which is Ex.PW3/B and rukka in original, to him as the investigation of the present case was assigned to him. He along with SI Ashwani and Ct. Mohan Singh and complainant Ram Prakash reached at the spot i.e H. No. 27/3, Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. At the spot, accused Ashok Sharma was found present. He inspected the spot at the instance of the complainant and prepared site plan Ex. PW16/A. The dead body had already been removed from the spot to the Mortuary of the GTB Hospital. Accused Ashok Sharma produced one scissor and two pieces of a chunni to him. The said pieces of chunni were taken into possession by him after sealing the same in a parcel with the seal of SRM, vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/B. Thereafter, accused Ashok Sharma was interrogated and thereafter, he was arrested. Disclosure statement of accused Ashok Sharma on record is Ex.PW16/C. His arrest memo on record is Ex.PW8/A and personal search memo of accused Ashok Sharma is Ex.PW8/B. At the spot, he had also recorded the statement of PWs. Thereafter, accused was brought to the PS. He deposited the case property with the MHC(M). Thereafter, the FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 19 of 45 medical examination of accused Ashok was got conducted through Ct. Mohan Singh and after his medical examination, he was put in the lockup of PS Bhajanpura. He further deposed that on the next day i.e 13.05.2012, he along with SI Ashwani reached at Mortuary of GTB Hospital at about 11.00 AM and there SDM Sh. Radha Charan along with Ct. Rohtas met them and he conducted the proceedings of inquest and got the postmortem. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the parents of the deceased. In the mortuary, SDM recorded the statement of Sumit Sharma, brother of the deceased which is Ex.PW5/B. After completing postmortem, the doctor handed over three sealed parcels to Ct. Rohtas and from there he came to the KKD Courts as Ct. Mohan Singh had brought the accused Ashok in the court on his direction. Thereafter, accused Ashok was produced before the court concerned by him and from there he was remanded to J/C. Thereafter from the KKD Courts, he went to PS Karawal Nagar. On the same day in the evening time at about 6-7 PM, when he along with ASI Ashok Kumar was present at Karawal Nagar Chowk for the purpose of the investigation of the present case, there he received a secret information that other accused of the present case was present at his house. Thereafter, he along with ASI Ashok reached at the H. No. A-27/3, Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar, Delhi and from there accused Bharat Sharma was arrested at the instance of the secret informer. The arrest memo of the accused Bharat Sharma on record is Ex.PW10/A and his personal search is Ex.PW10/B. Thereafter, accused Bharat Sharma was brought to PS. In the PS, he recorded the statement of ASI Ashok and accused Bharat Sharma was sent to the hospital for his medical examination through Ct. Rajeev.

Subsequently, after his medical examination, he was put in the lock of PS Bhajanpura. In the PS, he joined SI Ashwani in the investigation and in his presence, Ct. Rohtas handed over three parcels along with sample seal, received by him from the hospital after postmortem, he took those parcels along sample seal vide separate seizure memo Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW16/D and Ex.PW16/E. He recorded the statement of PWs and deposited the above case property with the MHC(M). He further deposed that on 14.05.2012, accused Bharat Sharma was produced before the court concerned and from there he was remanded to J/C. On the same day, the investigation of the present case was marked to SI Ashwani and he handed over the case file to MHCR of PS Karawal Nagar. On 10.07.2012, the present case was again assigned to him for investigation and same was received by him from MHCR. He collected the photographs from the Crime Team. Photographs are on record Ex.PW9/A1 to A9. On 21.07.2012, he also recorded the statements of witnesses namely Dr. S. Kumar, Ct. Rajeev and Amit Sharma in the present case. On 26.07.2012, he also recorded the statement of Sumit Sharma. Thereafter, after the completion of the investigation, on 09.08.2012 the charge-sheet was prepared and filed before the court concerned. SHO PS Karawal Nagar filed FSL report and same is Ex. PW16/F. Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(xvii) PW17 ASI Inder Pal Singh was the MHC(M) posted at PS Karawal Nagar. He has proved the entries made by him in register No. 19 with regard to deposit and dispatch of case properties. He has also proved the relevant road certificates. The FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 21 of 45 records proved by him are Ex.PW17/A to Ex.PW17/F. Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(xviii) PW18 SI Ashwani Ambariya is the first IO of the present case. He deposed that on 12.05.2012, he was posted at PS Karawal Nagar and on that day, he was on emergency duty. On that day, at about 4.00 PM, he received DD No. 20-A regarding hanging by one girl at H. No. A 27/3, Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. The above said DD number is Ex. PW2/A. After receiving the said DD, he along with Ct. Rohtas went to the spot. On reaching there, they found that the dead body of a lady was lying on a cot and ligature marks around the neck of deceased were present. On inquiry, he came to know that the deceased namely Neetu Sharma was married with Bharat Sharma on 28.02.2012. Since the death of the deceased had taken place within seven years, he informed the SDM Seelampur, Delhi. He had also called the Crime Team at the spot. Crime Team inspected the spot and took the photographs which are Ex. PW9/A-1 to PW9/A-9. The In-charge of Crime Team had also prepared SOC report and same is Ex.PW1/A. SDM also reached at the spot and he directed to remove the dead body from the spot to the mortuary of GTB Hospital for its preservation. The parents of the deceased also reached at the spot. The dead body was got removed to the mortuary, GTB Hospital through Ct. Rohtash. Thereafter, the parents of the deceased came to the police station along with SDM as it was raining at that time. In the police station, SDM recorded the statement of Sh. Ram Prakash, father of the deceased and same is Ex.PW4/C. Thereafter, after making endorsement on the said statement by the SDM for taking FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 22 of 45 necessary action, the above said statement (Ex.PW4/C) was handed over to him by the SDM for taking action. Thereafter, he prepared rukka Ex. 18/A, which bears his signature at point A and same was presented before the Duty Officer for registration of the case. After registration, the investigation of the case was assigned to Inspector S.R. Mavi. Thereafter, he joined the investigation of the present case with Inspector S.R. Mavi and he along with Inspector S.R. Mavi, Ct. Mohan and complainant Ram Prakash went to the spot. On reaching there, IO prepared site plan which is Ex.PW16/A. At the spot, accused Ashok Sharma (father-in-law of the deceased) was present. IO interrogated accused Ashok Kumar and he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/A and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW8/B. During course of interrogation, accused Ashok Kumar made disclosure statement already Ex.PW16/C. Thereafter, after getting the medical examination conducted of the accused, he was put in the lock up. His statement was recorded by the IO in this regard. He further deposed that on 13.05.2012, he again joined the investigation of the present case with the IO. On that day, he along with the IO went to the mortuary of GTB Hospital. SDM Seelampur had already reached in the mortuary. The relatives of the deceased were also present there in the mortuary. SDM filled up the inquest papers for postmortem and postmortem was got conducted. After postmortem, doctor handed over one sealed parcel (viscera peti) along with sample seal to Ct. Rohtash and Ct. Rohtash further handed over the same to the IO/Inspector S.R. Mavi, who took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A. Ct. Rohtash also handed over other four sealed FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 23 of 45 parcels containing exhibits of the deceased and same were taken into possession by Inspector S.R. Mavi into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/E. Ct. Rohtash had also handed over one sealed parcel containing clothes of the deceased to the IO/Inspector S.R. Mavi and same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW16/D. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. In the hospital, SDM had also recorded the statement of Sumit Sharma (brother of deceased) and same is Ex.PW5/B. His statement was recorded by the IO. He further deposed that on 05.06.2012, the investigation of the present case was assigned to him. He recorded the statement of the mother of the deceased u/s 161 Cr. P.C. Exhibits were sent to FSL through Ct. Anand. He recorded the statement of MHC(M) and Ct. Anand on 20.06.2012. On the same day i.e. 20.06.2012, father of the complainant met him in the police station and produced the marriage card of the deceased and he took the same card into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/D. He recorded the statement of Crime Team officials and other PWs. Thereafter, the investigation was again assigned to Inspector S.R. Mavi and he handed over the case file to MHC(R). IO had also seized scissor and chunni from the spot after sealing the same in separate cloth parcels, on 12.05.2012 vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/B. Witness correctly identified accused Ashok Sharma. Witness correctly identified one chunni and scissor and stated that chunni and scissor are same which were seized by him at the spot. The chunni is Ex. PW18/P-1 and scissor is Ex. PW18/P-2.

Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(xix) PW19 Insp. Lekh Raj Singh was the SHO of PS Karawal Nagar at the relevant time. He has performed only limited role i.e. filing of FSL result (Ex.PW16/F) through supplementary charge-sheet on 01.01.2019.

Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

(xx) PW20 Dr. Kanak Lata Verma is an FSL expert who had carried out the examination of viscera collected from the body of the deceased. As per her report, no poison was detected by her in viscera. She proved her report as Ex. PW16/F. Witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein incriminating facts were put to the accused, which were denied by them. Accused Ashok Sharma stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.

Accused Bharat Sharma stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. He stated that his marriage was solemnized with the deceased Neetu on 28-02-2012 and his relations with his wife were very cordial and there was no dispute between them. His wife Neetu was mentally disturbed on account of dispute in her parental family as her brother Amit Sharma had taken a huge loan from several persons and on account of this loan amount, debtors used to visit her parental home and extended threats to family members of his wife. His wife Neetu told him that her family had to sell his house to pay the loan amount of her brother Amit Sharma to said debtors.

Amit Sharma came to their house to drop Neetu on 10-05-2012 and in presence of his parents, Amit Sharma raised demand from Neetu to give him her gold set and when Neetu refused, a hot argument took place between them. Neetu informed them that there was matrimonial dispute between her brother Sumit and his wife so she did not attend their marriage. Neetu also informed them that wife of her brother Amit Sharma also extended threats to her parental family members to destroy the matrimonial life of Neetu. He already had two bikes in his name so, he had never raised any demand of motorcycle. Even he purchased a mobile phone make Reliance for his wife Neetu on 04-04-2012.

On 12-05-2012, he was not present at his home and his parents had gone to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital to meet his maternal uncle as he was admitted in said hospital and he came to know that his parents made call to Neetu to inform her that they were coming but Neetu did not pick their call and when they came back, his father knocked the door a number of times but there was no response. He further made call to Neetu but no response. Thereafter, his father entered into the house via roof of their neighbour. His father-in-law Ram Prakash informed his father that he sold his house after the death of Neetu on 02-11-2018 on the birthday of his father to wish him. His father-in-law also informed his father that he never want to file this case against them but due to pressure of his both sons, he deposed falsely against them. Neetu was happy in her matrimonial home and she was having cordial relations with them. There was no demand raised by them at any point of time.

Both accused opted to lead defence evidence and two witnesses i.e. DW1 Ashok Sharma and DW2 Bitton Devi were FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 26 of 45 examined.

DEFENCE EVIDENCE

6. DW1 Ashok Sharma deposed that marriage of his son Bharat Sharma was solemnized with Neetu (since deceased) on 28-02-2012, according to Hindu rites and customs at Parshuram Dharamshala. For the booking of the said Dharamshala, he had paid a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to the owner of Dharamshala on behalf of father of deceased as financial condition of the parents of Neetu was not good. The said marriage was solemnized in a very simple manner and no demand was raised from the parents of the deceased at any point of time. His son already had two bikes bearing registration No. DL3S-BM-0450 and DL5S- AG6914 in his own name and registration Certificates of the same are Ex. DW1/A and Ex. DW1/B. There was no demand of bike and cash from Neetu and her family members. In the month of March, 2012, his daughter-in-law went to her parental house on the occasion of Holi and she remained there for about one month. When she came back at her matrimonial home on 04.04.2012, on the same day, his son Bharat Sharma gifted a mobile phone to his wife (since deceased), original bill of mobile phone is Ex. DW1/C. His daughter in law Neetu was living happily with his son in her matrimonial home and she had also good relations with them. His daughter-in-law Neetu was disturbed on account of disputes in her parental home. Parents of Neetu sold their house after marriage of Neetu with his son Bharat Sharma on account of debts of brother of Neetu namely Amit. There was no difference of opinion between both the families. Father of deceased had also come to meet and wish him on his birthday on 02.11.2018 and even he had apologized from FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 27 of 45 him for filing the present case at the instance of his children and wife. On the same day, they also clicked photograph Ex. DW1/D together. On the day of incident, he went along with his wife to see his brother-in-law, who was admitted in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi. His daughter-in-law was alone in her matrimonial home and his son had gone at his shop. When they came back and knocked the door many times but there was no response. They also made calls on her mobile phone but she did not pick the call. Ultimately, from the roof of his neighbour, they entered into his house and found that his daughter-in-law committed suicide by hanging.

The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State. During cross-examination, he denied that he had not entered in his house after jumping from the roof. He denied that he and accused Bharat Sharma demanded Rs. 5 lakhs from the parents of Neetu at the time of marriage or that they had spent Rs. 4 lakhs in the said marriage. He denied that he told the parents and brother of Neetu that bike aur Rs. 51,000/- aur hone/ dene chahiya, tumhara baap bahut hoshiar hai. He denied that he had concocted a false defence in this case only to save him and his son Bharat.

DW2 Smt. Bitton Devi deposed that she knows accused Bharat Sharma and Ashok Sharma as they are her neighbours and their house is situated adjacent to her house. She had attended the marriage of Bharat Sharma, however, she did not remember the date, month and year of the marriage. She had not met the wife of accused Bharat Sharma. She had not heard about any quarrel in the house of Bharat Sharma and Ashok Sharma. She did not know who was present in the house of Ashok Sharma on the date FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 28 of 45 of the incident. On the date of the incident, Ashok Sharma knocked his door. After hearing the noise, she came out and asked Ashok Sharma to enter his house through the roof of her house. Thereafter, Ashok Sharma entered into his house through the roof of her house. Police came in the gali. She did not know anything.

During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, she affirmed that she was not regularly visiting the house of accused persons. She affirmed that accused persons were not regularly visiting her house. She did not know as to why Ashok Sharma entered in his house through the roof of her house. FINAL ARGUMENTS

7. This court has heard the arguments and perused the record and written submissions filed on behalf of accused persons. It is submitted on behalf of accused persons that they are falsely implicated in this case. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. No witness has deposed that 'soon before death', the deceased was subjected to cruelty. The allegations made by the in-laws of the deceased can be treated as taunt but not cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry. No prior complaint in this regard was made by either the deceased or her relatives at any point of time prior to date of incident. The independent witness PW5 Sumit Sharma has failed to support that case of the prosecution. Further, the testimonies of relatives of deceased are full of discrepancies, exaggeration and omissions. The attention of the court is drawn towards cross- examination of PW4 Ram Prakash and it is submitted that PW4 gave evasive responses with regard to particulars of alleged sale transaction of his house. He could not reveal the date, month of FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 29 of 45 his visits to the house of in-laws of deceased. In his examination in chief, he claimed that marriage was organized at Parshuram Dharamshala at the advice of Mediator. However, during cross- examination by ld. Addl. PP for State, he changed his stance and stated that marriage was organized as per the advice of in-laws of his deceased daughter. The allegations with regard to demand of Rs. 5 lakhs through Mediator was made only in response to leading question put by ld. Addl. PP for State. At one point in his cross-examination, PW4 stated that he has sold his house to one Mullaji but later on when he produced the sale agreement, it was revealed that property in question was sold to one Rahim Khan and not Mullaji. It is claimed by PW4 Ram Prakash that one day prior to the incident, his daughter made a call to him and talked to her mother but the IO has not collected any call details record during investigation in this regard. Reliance is placed upon the testimony of accused/ DW1 Ashok Sharma wherein he has placed on record some photographs and deposed that father of the deceased had met with accused Ashok Sharma on his birthday and stated that he has filed complaint under the pressure of his both sons. It is further submitted that cross-examination of PW5 Sumit Sharma also falsifies the allegations levelled by him in his examination in chief with regard to allegations of dowry demand. His cross-examination also indicates that he has made material improvements from his statement made before the SDM. In his examination in chief, PW5 Sumit Sharma deposed that one day prior to death of his sister, his sister made a call to him and told him that she was living peacefully and had no problem of any type. It is further submitted that during the cross- examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, PW5 had also stated that FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 30 of 45 father-in-law of deceased sister told to her mother-in-law that "Bhalu (name of saas) tuh toh mar jayegi, bahu ka dhyan toh mujhe his rakhna hai", which indicate that father-in-law had love and affection for his deceased daughter-in-law. Similarly, PW7 Smt. Sunita did not state anything regarding demand of dowry in his examination in chief. She only admitted the suggestion put by Ld. Addl. PP for State. In her cross-examination, she admitted that they had spent in the marriage by their own sweet will. She had made significant improvements to the statement made before IO. PW12 Amit Sharma has also made significant improvements from his statement recorded by IO. PW5 and PW12 contradicts each other with regard to relations between Sumit Sharma and his wife Pinki. No independent person in the locality was joined in the investigation of the present case.

8. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses is sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. The case of the Prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt. PW4 Ram Prakash, PW5 Sumit Sharma, PW7 Smt. Sunita and PW12 Amit Sharma, the family members of the deceased have fully supported the case of the prosecution. However, he has conceded that there is no evidence that accused persons have committed offence u/s 302 of IPC. The family members of the deceased have levelled allegations that the deceased was not only subjected to harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry, accused Ashok Sharma was also keeping an evil eye on the deceased. The deceased has died within 2¼ months of her marriage with accused Bharat Sharma. PW4, who is the father of the deceased Neetu, has duly corroborated his statement Ex.

PW4/C recorded by the SDM wherein he has alleged that once when he went to the matrimonial house of his daughter and when he was leaving from there, he had given Rs. 100 to his daughter and Rs. 100 to her mother-in-law whereupon father-in-law i.e. accused Ashok Sharma had humiliated him in the presence of his daughter by stating that "iske paise wapas kar do, bhikari se kyon le rahe ho". It is also proved that during marriage also, accused Ashok Sharma had demanded Rs. 5 lakhs through mediator S. Kumar. The allegations with regard to demand of dowry have also been levelled by PW5 Sumit Sharma wherein he has specifically alleged that after marriage when he had gone to bring his sister back from her matrimonial house, the father-in- law Ashok Sharma had demanded Rs. 5 lakhs from the sale proceeds of their house while stating that "ladki ka bhi haq banta hai, aur main court ke dwara bhi le sakta hun". He has also admitted the factum of demand of Rs. 5 lakhs during marriage which was made through mediator S. Kumar. The factum of humiliation of PW4 Ram Prakash, father of deceased, is also admitted by PW7 Sunita, mother of deceased, by affirming these facts during cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State where she stated that Ashok Sharma used to harass her daughter on the issue of dowry and used to say to his daughter, "tere baap ne shadi mein kya diya, tera baap fakir hai". PW4 Ram Prakash has also proved the statements Ex. PW4/C (father of deceased) and Ex. PW5/B (brother of deceased) which were recorded immediately after the incident.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

9. Before analyzing the evidence led by the Prosecution in the present case, this court deems it proper to refer to some FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 32 of 45 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, 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)."

10. 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 FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 33 of 45 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.

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."

11. Now, let this court apply the above-mentioned principles to the facts of the present case. From the testimony of PW4 Ram Prakash, PW5 Sumit Sharma, PW7 Sunita and PW12 Amit Sharma, it is apparent that immediately after the solemnization of marriage of the daughter of the complainant with the accused, the accused Ashok Sharma, who is father-in-law of the deceased, had humiliated the father of the deceased in the presence of deceased. The testimony of PW4 clearly indicates instances of mental harassment of the deceased in connection with demand of dowry on the part of accused Ashok Sharma. PW4 Ram Prakash has categorically deposed that one day prior to the incident (death of his daughter), his daughter made a call at about 10 pm and told him "Meine Aap Ko Kuch Bola Tha". On this, he replied that "Beta Tumne Mujhe Kuch Nahi Bola". Then his daughter asked him to give the phone to his wife. Accordingly, he gave phone to his wife and she talked with his wife and his wife told to his daughter to his daughter "Jab Tujhe Jyada Tang Kare To Tu Police Mein Phone Kar Dena". At the end of his examination in chief dated 15-02-2014, PW4 added that once when he went to the matrimonial house of his daughter and at that time of leaving the matrimonial house of his daughter, he had given Rs. 100/- to his daughter Neetu and Rs. 100/- to her mother-in-law. On this, father-in-law of his daughter Ashok Kumar told his wife "Iss Bikhari se Paise Kyon Le Rahi Ho ". When he reached at the matrimonial house, they did not give respect to him and Ashok Kumar told his wife "Isse Iski Ladki Ke Pass Hi Bithal Do". PW4 Ram Prakash had also claimed that he had also sold his house for the purpose of organizing the marriage of his daughter at Parshuram Dharamshala as per the desires of in-laws of his FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 35 of 45 daughter. Similar allegations have been levelled by him immediately at the time of incident before the SDM Sh. Radha Charan vide statement Ex. PW4/C.

12. PW5 Sumit Sharma, brother of the deceased, in his deposition dated 15-02-2014, has also levelled allegations of demand of dowry and ill treatment of deceased on the part of accused Ashok Sharma. He categorically deposed that after marriage, when he had gone to bring his sister back from her matrimonial house, there father-in-law of his sister, namely, Ashok Sharma demanded Rs. 5 lacs from the sale proceeds of their house while saying that "Ladki Ka Bhi Haq Banta Hai Aur Mein Court Ke Dwara Bhi Le Sakta Hun". On this he told Ashok Sharma to talk with his father in this regard. Thereafter, Ashok Sharma told him that "Saadi Mein Char Lagene Ke Bawjood Bhi Hamein Rs. 50,000/- Aur Bike Tak Nahi Mili". On this he told that "Jitna Hua Hamne Kiya". In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he has affirmed the allegations levelled by him in his statement Ex. PW5/A recorded before the SDM, wherein he has alleged that when his sister had revealed to him during her lifetime that her father-in-law used to hug her; when she reported about the same to her mother-in-law but mother-in- law scolded her. This fact is also corroborated by PW7 Sunita, the mother of the deceased, during her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State when she had affirmed that on 05-11-2012, her daughter told her telephonically that her (deceased) father-in-law was keeping evil eye on her (buri nazar se dekhte hai). Similarly, PW12 Amit Sharma, another brother of the deceased, has categorically deposed in his deposition dated 12-04-2018 that after 15 to 20 days of the marriage, her deceased sister informed FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 36 of 45 her through telephone that her father-in-law used to keep ill eye on her and he inappropriately touched on her back etc. for whatever body parts these may be.

13. Thus, it can safely be inferred from the above stated findings that it is shown by the prosecution that soon before the death of the deceased, she has been subjected to cruelty by accused Ashok Sharma in connection with demands of dowry. Thus, there is sufficient material on record to draw the presumption u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act.

14. In order to rebut the presumption, the ld. Defence counsel has placed reliance upon the testimony of DW1 Ashok Sharma (accused himself) wherein he has claimed that her daughter-in- law was living happily with his son in her matrimonial home. Her daughter-in-law Neetu was disturbed on account of dispute at her parental home. The parents of deceased sold their house after marriage on account of debts incurred by brother of Neetu namely Amit. The father of the deceased had wished him on his birthday and even he had apologized him for filing the present case at the instance of his children and wife. It is pertinent to note that the star witness of the prosecution i.e. PW4 Ram Prakash was not confronted on all these aspects when he was cross-examined on two dates i.e. on 06/05/2014 and thereafter on 21-01-2016. Nor DW1 had ever claimed that the allegations of humiliation and dowry demands as levelled by PW4, PW5, PW7 and PW12 are false allegations. Nor he revealed anything regarding mental state of deceased in her matrimonial home during her short span of matrimonial life of 2¼ months in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Another defence witness got examined by the accused persons is DW2 Bitto Devi, who is neighbour of FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 37 of 45 accused persons, who claimed that she had not heard about any quarrel in the house of Bharat Sharma and Ashok Sharma. Interestingly, in her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she had admitted that she was not regularly visiting the house of accused persons. In these circumstances, in the opinion of this court, she is alien to the circumstances prevailing inside the matrimonial house of deceased. Thus, the testimonies of DW1 and DW2 fail to inspire the confidence of this court and in the opinion of this court, the accused Ashok Sharma has failed to rebut the presumption u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act.

15. It is contended on behalf of accused that there are several contradictions and material improvements in the testimonies of PW4, PW5, PW7 and PW12 with respect to the allegations leveled by them. The independent witness i.e. PW13 Dr. Sunder Kumar Sharma, who is the mediator of the marriage of deceased with accused Bharat Sharma, has failed to support the case of the prosecution and therefore, in light of the testimony of PW13, no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of witnesses from the family members of the deceased. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that it is well settled that it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity, which matters. Merely because one of the witness did not support the case of the prosecution, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away. Moreover, PW13 is not cited as a witness to depose anything with regard to relations prevailing between the deceased and her in-laws subsequent to marriage. Further, the testimony of PW4 Ram Prakash is consistent with his statement Ex. PW4/C which was recorded by the SDM immediately after the incident and thereby ruling out any possibility of embellishment therein. There is no FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 38 of 45 contradiction in his testimony on material aspects. Despite lengthy cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he stood firm on his stand. He has even brought the photocopy of property documents with regard to the sale of his house merely at the asking of Ld. Defence counsel though there was no order/ direction of the court to produce the same. Merely because there is some discrepancy in the deposition of PW4 with regard to name of transferee and the date of sale transaction, his entire testimony cannot be rejected.

16. 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 SCC 752 it has been held that in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 39 of 45 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 a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 40 of 45 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.

17. 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."

18. 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 available to it.

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

20. 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".

21. Thus, the contention regarding discrepancies/ contradictions/ improvements in the statement of PW4, PW5, PW7 and PW12 is liable to be rejected. The prosecution has successfully established the fact that the deceased Neetu Sharma was subjected to cruelty by the accused Ashok Sharma 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 Ashok Sharma 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 Ashok Sharma has failed to rebut the presumption u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act.

22. It is further noted that the family members of the deceased have levelled specific allegations pertaining to subjecting the deceased Neetu to cruelty 'soon before death' for or in FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 42 of 45 connection with demand of dowry within just 2¼ months of marriage only against accused Ashok Sharma. Only general allegations have been levelled against accused Bharat Sharma by the family members of deceased either in the statement recorded before the SDM or during investigation or during trial. Thus, there is no material on record to draw presumption u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act 'qua' accused Bharat Sharma.

23. In Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 3363, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India stated that, "the tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. Hence, the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases."

24. In Anju Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., Crl. Rev. P. 730/2016 decided on 04-02-2019, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that, "9. Revisional Court has in my view committed no error in coming to the conclusion that apart from general and omnibus allegations roping in all the relations, there is no material on record to justify framing of charge under Section 498A/34 IPC. It may be noted that charge has already been framed against the husband and he is facing trial.

10. For a charge to be framed, the evidence gathered by the prosecution should not only give rise to suspicion but there should be grave suspicion that the accused have committed the offence.

11. In the present case apart from bald, omnibus allegations without their being any specifics about date time or place, there is no incriminating material found by the prosecution even during investigation to give rise to grave suspicion against the respondents."

25. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, Crl. Appeal no. 195/22, Arising out of SLP (Crl.) no. 6545/20 dated 08-02-2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that, FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 43 of 45 "18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general ombibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."

In light of the above-mentioned findings of the Superior Court, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge for the offence punishable u/s 498A/304B of IPC against accused Bharat Sharma.

26. 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

27. 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 and 498A of IPC are satisfied. The prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that between the period 28-02-2012 to 12-05-2012 at H. No. A- 27/3, Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar, Delhi, accused Ashok Sharma being father-in-law of deceased Smt. Neetu Sharma subjected her to cruelty for unlawful demand of dowry and on 12-05-2012 between 11 am to 3 pm, Smt. Neetu died unnatural death otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven FIR No. 150/12 State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr. Page 44 of 45 years of her marriage and accused Ashok Sharma subjected her to cruelty soon before her death in connection with his unlawful demand of dowry. Accordingly, the accused Ashok Sharma is hereby convicted of the charges punishable u/s 498A and 304B of IPC. However, accused Bharat Sharma is acquitted of the charge punishable u/s 498A and 304B of IPC. Let the convict Ashok Sharma be heard on the quantum of sentence and grant of compensation on the next date of hearing.

Announced in the Open Court
   On 09-02-2024                    PANKAJ             Digitally signed by
                                                       PANKAJ ARORA

                                    ARORA              Date: 2024.02.12
                                                       17:08:09 +0530

                             (PANKAJ ARORA)
                 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/
                          KARKARDOOMA/09-02-2024




FIR No. 150/12         State Vs. Ashok Sharma & Anr.        Page 45 of 45