Delhi District Court
Ps- Shalimar Bagh vs Ramesh Chand & on 25 February, 2009
-:1:-
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK GARG
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 28/1
Date of institution of the case: 21/11/2008
Date of Decision: 25/02/2009
State
Versus
1) Sat Prakash
S/o of Sh. Ishwar Singh
R/o Village Bamdola, PS Jhajjar,
District Jhajjar (Haryana)
2) Smt. Parmeshwari
W/o Sh. Ishwar Singh
R/o Village Bamdola, PS Jhajjar,
District Jhajjar (Haryana)
FIR No. 821/2000
PS- Shalimar Bagh
U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC
Judgment
As per the case of prosecution, deceased Smt.
Meena @ Monika was married to accused Sat Prakash in the
year 1992 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the
marriage, Meena @ Monika started living at her matrimonial
home in Village Bamdola, District Jhajjar, Haryana, and at
-:2:-
that time, accused Sat Prakash was working in Delhi Police
as Constable and from the said wedlock, two children,namely,
Sahil and Gudia were born. Further as per prosecution,
Monika lived at her matrimonial house in Village Bamdola,
District Jhajjar (Haryana) for about 5/6 years after her
marriage and during this period, she was tortured by accused
Sat Prakash and his mother Smt. Parmeshwari to bring
dowry. Accused Sat Prakash got promotion in the year 1996
and he became Sub Inspector and thereafter, he took a
government flat in Shalimar Bagh and Meena @ Monika
started residing with him in the said flat. Further as per
prosecution, after promotion, the desires of accused for more
dowry increased and he started telling his wife Meena @
Monika to bring more dowry from her parents as he wanted to
raise his standard of living and he started beating his wife
Meena @ Monika when the demand of dowry was not met. In
the first week of November 2000, Meena @ Monika came to
her parents house and pressurised her father,namely, Sh.
Jagpal to give money and her father asked for time of about
one week to fulfill the said demand. Further on 13/11/2000,
accused Sat Prakash sent his brother to the house of Sh.
-:3:-
Jagpal (father of the deceased) and Sh. Jagpal gave him Rs.
One lac and put the said amount in the dickey of the two
wheeler scooter of his brother. Further as per case of
prosecution, on 24/11/2000, Sh. Naresh Kumar, brother of the
deceased, had come to Delhi to sell his wheat and he
telephoned his sister to know about her well being and the
phone was received by the accused who told him to come to
his house at Shalimar Bagh, and when he went to his house,
he found that his sister Meena @ Monika and her two children
were dead and their bodies were lying on the bed. Sh.
Naresh telephoned his father Sh. Jagpal who also came there
and after receiving copy of DD No.74B, police had also come
there. SI Tejpal Singh went inside the house and found dead
body of Meena @ Monika and two minor children lying on the
bed and foam was oozing out from mouth of both the children.
Investigating Officer SI Tejpal recorded statement of Sh.
Jagpal and on the basis of the same, he made his
endorsement and got the FIR registered. Photographer was
also called who took the photographs of the scene of crime.
Crime team was also called and the finger print expert lifted
the chance prints which were available on the spot. SI Tejpal
-:4:-
Singh also conducted proceedings U/s.174 CrPC. The
ornaments of deceased Meena @ Monika consisting of gold
earring, nose pin, pair of two silver rings, silver pajeb (anklet),
gold ring, silver ring, gold chain and artificial bangles were
taken into possession and kept in a pullanda which was
sealed with the seal of "TPS" and the same was seized by the
police. One steel mug, one steel glass, steel spoon and a
bed-sheet were also taken into possession by the police. The
three dead bodies were taken to mortuary, Subzi Mandi, for
the purpose of postmortem and the police got the postmortem
carried out on the body of Smt. Meena @ Monika as well as
both the children. Dr. Ashok Jaiswal handed over viscera and
clothes etc. of the deceased to the police in a sealed cover
which were later on sent to FSL for analysis. The police
further took the postmortem report and also took the opinion
of the doctor regarding the cause of death of the deceased
persons. Both the accused persons,namely, Sat Prakash and
Paremeshwari were arrested by the police and after
completion of investigation, police filed challan U/s.
498A/306/34 IPC.
After compliance with provisions of Section 207
-:5:-
Cr.PC, case was committed to Court of Session vide order
dated 05/12/2001.
Prima facie case having been made out, charge
for offences U/s. 498A/306 IPC was framed against both the
accused persons on 19/02/2003. Since the accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial, prosecution was called upon to
lead its evidence.
In support of its case, prosecution has examined,
in total, 16 witnesses,namely,PW1 Sh. Jagpal; PW2 Head
Constable Yashwant Singh; PW3 Sh. Naresh Kumar; PW4
Head Constable Rajender; PW5 Constable Beer Singh; PW6
Head Constable Vikram Singh; PW7 ASI Jai Prakash; PW8
Lady Constable Preeti; PW9 Constable Nihal Singh; PW10
Constable Ranbir Singh; PW11 SI N.K. Sharma; PW12 Dr.
K.L. Sharma; PW13 Dr. Ashok Jaiswal; PW14 Head
Constable Ved Singh; PW15 Constable Avadh Kishore
Pandey and PW16 Retired SI Tejpal Singh.
The evidence led by the prosecution can be
broadly divided into following categories:
I) Statement of complainant and other public
witnesses:
Complainant Sh. Jagpal has been examined as
-:6:-
PW1. He is the father of deceased Smt. Meena @ Monika.
He has stated that deceased Meena @ Monika was her
second child and she was married to accused Sat Prakash in
November 1992 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. He
has further stated that at that time, Sat Prakash was working
as Constable in Delhi Police and he got promoted in 1996
when he became Sub Inspector in Delhi Police. He has
further stated that after Sat Prakash became Sub Inspector,
he took a government flat in Shalimar Bagh and his daughter
Smt. Meena @ Monika started living with him there. He
further stated that after promotion, the desires of Sat Prakash
increased and he started telling Smt. Meena @ Monika to
bring more money from her parents. He further stated that he
was not in a position to give more money as per the demands
of Sat Prakash and whenever his daughter used to come to
their house and whenever she used to telephone them, she
used to tell them that she was being tortured by Sat Prakash.
He further stated that this continued for four years. He further
stated that in the first week of November 2000, his daughter
Smt. Meena @ Monika had come to their house and
pressurised him to give her money and that he asked for a
-:7:-
period of about one week to fulfill the demand and on
13/11/2000, Sat Prakash sent his younger brother to his house and he gave Rs. One Lac to him by putting the money in the dickey of his two wheeler scooter and at that time, his daughter was at her matrimonial home. He further stated that on 24/11/2000, he came to know about the death of his daughter and her two children. He also stated that he lodged a complaint to the police and his statement was recorded by the police which is Ex. PW1/A. Sh. Naresh Kumar (PW3) is the brother of the deceased Smt. Meena @ Monika. He has deposed about the factum of marriage of his sister with accused Sat Prakash in the same way as per the deposition of his father Sh. Jagpal (PW1). He has further stated that after the marriage, his sister started living in the village with her mother in law for about 5/6 years and during this period, she was tortured by Sat Prakash and his mother for dowry. He has further stated about the promotion of accused Sat Prakash in the year 1998 and has further stated that demands of Sat Prakash and his mother increased day by day as they wanted to raise their standard of living. He has further stated that his sister was -:8:- beaten by the accused persons when their demand was not fulfilled. He has further stated that on 13/11/2000, his father handed over Rs. One lac to the brother of Sat Prakash, but he stated that he did not know as to why that amount was given. He further stated that around 10/15 days prior to the same, his sister had come to their house to ask for money. He further stated that on 24/11/2000, when he had come to Delhi to sell his wheat, he came to know about the death of his sister and her children and he alongwith his uncle i.e. his father's brother reached the matrimonial home of Smt. Meena @ Monika at Shalimar Bagh and he found Sat Prakash there alongwith his friends and found his sister alongwith two children lying on the bed. He has further stated about the investigation conducted by the police on the spot.
II) Medical Evidence:
Dr. K.L. Sharma (PW12), retired Senior Chief Medical Officer and In-charge, Subzi Mandi Mortuary, had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Smt. Smt. Meena @ Monika on 25/11/2000 and he has proved his postmortem report which is Ex. PW12/A. He further stated that opinion was kept pending in expectation of chemical -:9:- analysis of viscera which was preserved and duly sealed and was handed over to the Investigating Officer. He further stated that subsequently after analysing the FSL report which revealed presence of potassium cyanide, he opined that the cause of death in the case was histoxic asphyxia consequent to consumption of cyanide poison. He has proved his report in this regard which is Ex. PW12/B. Dr. Ashok Jaiswal, Head of Department, Subzi Mandi Mortuary, Delhi, has been examined as PW13 who conducted postmortem examination on the bodies of Sahil and Gudia and he has proved his reports Ex. PW13/A and Ex. PW13/B qua the deceased Sahil and reports Ex. PW13/C and Ex. PW13/D qua the deceased Gudia. He has also given the cause of death due to Histoxic asphyxia consequent to consumption of cyanide poison.
III Investigation conducted by the police:
PW2 Head Constable Yashwant Singh was the photographer who was called on the spot by SI Tejpal Singh and he took photographs which are Ex. P1 to Ex. P5. The negatives of the said photographs have also been proved as Ex.P6 to Ex.P10.-:10:-
PW4 Head Constable Rajender has stated that on 25/11/2000, he was posted as duty officer in PS Shalimar Bagh and Constable Vikram Singh produced three sealed parcels having viscera of Monika, Sahil and Gudia respectively and their clothes in three separate parcels duly sealed alongwith the sample seal which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. He has further stated that he has deposited the said parcels with the MHC(M) on the same day.
PW5 Constable Bir Singh is also a witness of the preparation of seizure memo Ex.PW4/A and he has identified his signatures on the said memo at point B. PW6 Head Constable Vikram Singh accompanied Investigating Officer SI Tejpal Singh who come on the spot after receiving DD No.74B. He is also a witness of the investigation conducted by the police. He has further stated that on 25/11/2000, postmortem was conducted on the dead bodies of three deceased persons and doctor handed over to him three viscera boxes, three pullandas of clothes which he handed over to duty officer and which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A. He is also witness of the arrest of accused Sat Prakash vide his personal search memo Ex. -:11:- PW6/A and his arrest memo Ex. PW6/B. PW7 ASI Jai Prakash was the duty officer on the night of 24/25.11.2000 at PS Shalimar Bagh and he had registered the present FIR, copy of which has been proved as Ex. PW7/A. He also made his endorsement on the ruqqa which is Ex. PW7/B. PW8 Lady Constable Preeti is the witness of the arrest of accused Parmeshwari vide her arrest memo and personal search memo Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B respectively.
PW9 Constable Nihal Singh had taken the parcels and the FSL form from MHC(M) and deposited the same at FSL, Malviya Nagar, Delhi.
PW10 Constable Ranbir Singh took the finger prints of accused Sat Prakash and deceased Meena @ Monika, Sahil and Gudia and deposited the same at CFSL, Malviya Nagar, and he handed over the receipt of the same to the Investigating Officer.
PW11 SI N.K. Sharma was the member of the crime team which was called on the spot and he stated that two chance prints were lifted from steel glass which were -:12:- developed by him and he has proved his report in this regard which is Ex. PW11/A. PW14 Head Constable Ved Singh has stated that on 25/11/2000, he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Shalimar Bagh and SI Tejpal had handed over to him seven sealed parcels alongwith sample seal and he made entry in register No.19 at serial No. 2737, copy of which is Ex. PW14/A. He further stated that on 09/01/2001, exhibits of this case were sent to FSL vide RC No. 2/21 through Constable Nihal Singh and he made an entry at point A on Ex. PW14/A. He further stated that Constable Nihal Singh handed over to him receipt of FSL which was on the back of RC and copies of which have been proved as Ex. PW14/B and Ex. PW14/C. He further stated that so long as the case property remained in his custody, the same was not tampered with.
PW16 SI Tejpal Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case who has stated that on 24/11/2000, he received DD No. 74B, copy of which is Ex. PW16/A and on receipt of the same, he alongwith Constable Vikram Singh reached C4, Police Colony, Shalimar Bagh, and he found dead bodies of one lady Monika and two minor children,namely, Sahil and -:13:- Gudia, lying on the bed and he further stated that foam was oozing out from the mouth of both the children. He recorded statement of Sh. Jagpal who was the father of deceased Monika which is Ex. PW1/A and on the basis of the same, he prepared a tehrir which is Ex. PW16/B and he handed over the same to Constable Vikram Singh for registration of FIR. He further stated that crime team and photographer were also called and the photographs Ex. P1 to Ex. P5 were taken on the spot. He has also proved site plan Ex. PW16/C and the seizure of the ornaments of the deceased Monika vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C. He further stated that he found one mug and glass near the spot and the said mug and glass and a bed sheet of black colour were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/C. He also arrested accused Sat Prakash vide memo Ex. PW6/B. He also got conducted postmortem of all the deceased and after recording statements of the witnesses about the identification of the dead bodies, the dead bodies were handed over to its claimants vide memo Ex. PW1/B. He further stated that doctor had taken viscera from all the dead bodies and the same were sealed and handed over to Constable Vikram -:14:- Singh which were handed over by Constable Vikram to the duty officer vide memo Ex. PW4/A. On 13/12/2000, he collected postmortem reports of all the three deceased from the mortuary and on 25/12/2000, he arrested accused Parmeshwari vide her arrest memo Ex. PW8/A. He also collected FSL result of viscera which is Ex. PW16/E and he also collected the opinion of doctor about the cause of death vide Ex. PW12/B, Ex. PW13/B and Ex. PW13/D. He also collected result from finger print bureau which is Ex. PW16/F in which the expert opined that no opinion could be given regarding those prints. He also identified the case property which is Ex. P1 to Ex. P14.
After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of both the accused persons U/s. 313 CrPC were recorded. In their statements U/s. 313 CrPC, the accused persons admitted their relationship with the deceased,namely, Meena @ Monika and both the children,namely, Sahil and Gudia. It is further admitted by them that after the marriage, deceased Meena @ Monika lived at her matrimonial house in Village Bamdola, District Jhajjar, Haryana, for about 5/6 years, but they have denied that during that period, she was -:15:- tortured by either of the accused for bringing dowry or for any other purpose. As per the accused, deceased was kept with full love and care. Accused Sat Parkash has denied that after his promotion as Sub Inspector in Delhi Police, his desires for more dowry increased and that he started asking his wife to bring more dowry from her parents or that he wanted to raise his standard of living. As per the accused, Meena @ Monika was suffering from severe depression with loss of sleep and suicidal tendency since 1996 and that she was admitted to All India Institute of Medical Sciences on 25/06/96 and she was discharged on 15/07/96 and during her admission, she had premature delivery and the child after birth expired and after that the psychological condition of Meena @ Monika became disoriented. As per accused Sat Prakash, he wrote an application dated 27/12/99 to police headquarter for his transfer from South District to North West District which was near his house for the purpose of looking after his wife and children. Further as per the accused, Meena @ Monika received treatment for her depressive tendencies from CGHS Dispensary at Paschim Vihar and Nirman Bhawan. Further as per the accused, Smt. Meena @ Monika committed suicide -:16:- and she administered some poisonous substance to her children due to her depressive tendencies. Accused Sat Prakash has further stated that he has no relations with his brother after the family dispute which arose in the year 1998 and as such he separated from his brother and hence it is stated that there was no question of his deputing his brother to receive any amount from the complainant and as such allegations levelled against them were stated to be totally false. Accused Parmeshwari Devi has also stated the same. Accused have further stated that Smt. Meena @ Monika had lodged a complaint addressed to SHO, PS Shalimar Bagh on 25/08/2000 against Rajesh @ Bablu who is the brother of Sat Prakash which was duly received by the concerned staff of PS Shalimar Bagh.
The accused persons have examined six witnesses in defence.
PW1 Ved Vrat was the class fellow of accused Sat Prakash during his school days and he has stated that he and Sat Prakash are good friends and are on visiting terms with each other. He also attended marriage of Sat Prakash and he stated that after marriage, Sat Prakash used to visit -:17:- his house alongwith his wife and he has stated that Sat Prakash was having very good relationship with his wife and he used to kept her with full love and care. He has further stated that in the year 1996, wife of Sat Prakash fell ill as she was suffered from jaundice and thereafter she started suffering from depression and Sat Prakash got her admitted in All India Institute of Medical Sciences. He further stated that on 24/11/2000, he accompanied father of Sat Prakash and other persons to go on the spot where he observed that many people had gathered there and father in law and brother in law of Sat Prakash were demanding Rs. Two lacs and they threatened that otherwise they will get him falsely implicated in the case. He further stated that Sat Prakash expressed his inability to meet said demand and because of which they got annoyed and got the accused persons falsely implicated in this case.
DW2 Rajbir Singh is the Record Clerk, AIIMS hospital who could not bring the record pertaining to the year 1996 regarding the treatment of Smt. Meena @ Monika stating that record in question has been destroyed. However, the witness was shown the photocopy of discharge summary -:18:- of Meena @ Monika who remained admitted in the said hospital between 25/06/96 to 15/07/96 and the witness admitted that it was the record of AIIMS hospital. Copy of the same is Ex. DW2/B. DW3 Head Constable Joginder Singh has proved that on 25/08/2000, he was posted at PS Shalimar Bagh and duty officer had handed over to him a complaint which was submitted by Ms. Monika, wife of accused Sat Prakash against her brother in law Rajesh @ Bablu. The witness was shown carbon copy of complaint dated 25/08/2000 which was admitted by him to be the same complaint which was submitted by Ms. Monika and the same is Ex. DW3/A. He further stated that the said complaint bears the seal of the police station and the signatures of duty officer at point A. He further stated that the said complaint was assigned to him and in this connection he spoke to Ms. Monika on the same day and it was told to him by Ms. Monika that her Devar Rajesh @ Bablu had come to her residence at Shalimar Bagh under influence of liquor and he was demanding a sum of Rs. 3000/- and she asked him to speak with his brother Sat Prakash. He further stated that Ms. Monika stated to him that Rajesh @ -:19:- Bablu misbehaved with him and due to which she lodged complaint Ex. DW3/A. He further stated that record pertains to year 2000 and it has been destroyed by the order of Additional DCP, North-West, Delhi vide order dated 24/01/2005. Copy of the said order is Ex. DW3/B. DW4 SI Ramesh Kumar stated that he knew Sat Prakash from the last 12 years and he met Sat Prakash during his training at PTS Jharoda in the year 1996. He further stated that during training, Sat Prakash told to him that his wife had fallen seriously ill and that she was admitted in hospital in the year 1996 and thereafter she was suffering from depression tendencies. He further stated that he was also residing in police colony, Shalimar Bagh and he saw that Sat Prakash used to keep his wife and children with full love and care and there was no problem in their marital life . He further stated that accused Sat Prakash had approached police headquarter with request to post him near his residence so that he could look after his wife who was suffering from depressive tendencies. He further stated that on many occasion, he spoke to Smt. Monika and she used to speak about her loss of interest in life and he further stated -:20:- that they used to encourage her to take appropriate treatment and that she will be alright soon. He further stated that on the day of the incident, he was present near the house of accused Sat Prakash and father in law of Sat Prakash demanded a sum of Rs. Two lacs from him and Sat Prakash expressed his inability to pay the same and on this, they extended threat to get him implicated in a false case.
DW5 SI Mahesh Pal brought the register in which posting record of accused was maintained and as per record, SI Sat Prakash was transferred from South District to North- West District on 11/02/2000 and the copy of posting record is Ex. DW5/A. DW6 Dr. T.P. Singh, CGHS Dispensary, Sunder Vihar, Delhi, stated that in the year 1997-98, he was working as Chief Medical officer at CGHS Dispensary, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, and he had examined Monika, wife of Sat Prakash on 22/07/97, 16/05/98, 07/07/99, 24/01/2000, 05/07/2000 and 07/11/2000. He has further stated that Ms. Monika was under
his treatment for severe depression and psychosis. He gave treatment to her during the intervening period of 22/07/97 to 07/11/2000 and he has proved the prescription slips which -:21:- are Ex. DW6/A to Ex. DW6/B which bear his signatures at point A and B on Ex. DW6/A and at point A to D on Ex. DW6/B. He further stated that Ms. Monika had already made suicidal attempts twice.
Whether ingredients of Section 498A IPC are satisfied in the present case?
Section 498 A IPC provides as under: :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 willful 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 -:22:- 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 her such demand."
A bare perusal shows that the word 'cruelty' encompasses any of the following elements:-
(i) Any 'willful' conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide; or
(ii) any 'willful' conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the woman; or
(iii) any 'willful' act which is likely to cause danger to life, limb or health whether physical or mental of the woman.
So far as criminality attached to word 'harassment' is concerned, it is independent, of 'cruelty' and is punishable in the following circumstances:-
(a) Where the harassment of the woman 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
(b) Where the harassment is on account of failure by -:23:- her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
It is apparent, neither every cruelty nor every harassment has element of criminal culpability for the purposes of Section 498-A. It has been held by our own Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Savitri Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand & Ors 2003(2) C.C. Cases (Head Constable) 195:
For the purpose of Section 498A IPC which is peculiar to Indian families victim spouse is always the 'wife' and guilty is the husband and his relatives-near or distant, living together or separately. Ingredients of 'cruelty' as contemplated under section 498A are of much higher and sterner degree than the ordinary concept of cruelty applicable and available for the purposes of dissolution of marriage i.e. divorce. In constituting 'cruelty' contemplated by Section 498A IPC the acts or conduct should be either such that may cause danger to life, limb or health or cause 'grave' injury or of such a degree that may drive a woman to commit suicide. Not only that such acts or conduct should be 'willful' i.e. intentional. So to invoke provisions of Section 498A IPC the tests are of -:24:- stringent nature and intention is the most essential factor. The only test is that acts or conduct of guilty party should have the sting or effect of causing grave injury to the woman or are likely to cause danger of life, limb or physical or mental health. Further conduct that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide is of much graver nature than that causing 'grave injury' or endangering life, limb or physical or mental health. It involves series of systematic persistent and willful acts perpetrated with a view to make the life of the woman so burdensome or insupportable that she may be driven to commit suicide because of having been fed up with marital life.
Similarly offence of 'harassment' is peculiar to Indian conditions and society where evil of dowry and its perpetuation through customary gifts or demands is widely prevalent and is eating the very vitals of matrimony and tearing familial social fabric apart. To curb this evil, the acts of not only the husband but the entire household have been brought within the net of 'harassment of a woman" if done to coerce her or her relatives to fulfill the unlawful demands for property or valuable security.-:25:-
The word 'harassment' in ordinary sense means to torment a person subjecting him or her through constant interference or intimidation. If such tormentation is done with a view to 'coerce' any person and in this case, the wife to do any unlawful act and in this case to meet the unlawful demand of property or valuable security, it amounts to "harassment" as contemplated by Section 498-A. Word 'Coercion' means persuading or compelling a person to do something by using force or threats. Thus to constitute "harassment" following ingredients are essential:-
(i) Woman should be tormented i.e. tortured either physically or mentally through constant interference or intimidation.
(ii) Such act should be with a view to persuade or compel her to do something which she is legally or otherwise not expected to do by using force or threats;
(iii) Intention to subject the woman should be to compel or force her or her relatives to fulfill unlawful demands for any property or valuable security.-:26:-
It has been argued by Ld. Addl. PP that prosecution has been able to prove case U/s. 498A IPC, but in my view, the answer is in negative.
Sh. Jagpal (PW1) who is the father of deceased Smt. Meena @ Monika is completely silent about any alleged role of Smt. Parmeshwari in the commission of the offence in question. He has not uttered even a single word that while stay of Meena @ Monika in her matrimonial house at Village Bamdola, District Jhajjar, Haryana, she was treated with cruelty by any of the accused. As per this witness, after Sat Prakash became Sub Inspector in Delhi Police, he alongwith Meena @ Monika started living in a government flat in Police Colony, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, and after his promotion, the desires of Sat Prakash increased and he started asking Meena @ Monika to bring more money from her parents and that whenever Meena @ Monika used to come to their house, she used to tell that she was being tortured by Sat Prakash. Further as per this witness, on the demand of Sat Prakash, he gave Rs. One lac to the younger brother of Sat Prakash who had come to his house to collect the said money.
-:27:-
Sh. Naresh Kumar (PW3) is the son of Sh.
Jagpal, brother of deceased Meena @ Monika and he in his testimony has stated that during the stay of his sister at matrimonial home in Village Bamdola, District Jhajjar, Haryana, she was tortured by Sat Prakash and Parmeshwari for dowry. Nothing has been specified as to how Meena @ Monika was tortured by accused for dowry. Further as per this witness, the demands of Sat Prakash and his mother increased after the promotion of Sat Prakash as they wanted to raise their standard of living and Meena @ Monika was beaten by the accused persons when their demand was not fulfilled. It is relevant here to state that nothing has been specified as to when, how and in what manner Meena @ Monika was tortured by the accused persons. It is not the case of prosecution that accused Parmeshwari was also residing with her son Sat Prakash in the government flat at Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. As per prosecution, she continued to reside in Village Bamdola, District Jhajjar, Haryana. There is nothing on record as to how she could have treated Meena @ Monika with cruelty or harassed her when she was not living with them in the government flat at Shalimar Bagh, New -:28:- Delhi. Further the allegations of cruelty and harassment are very general and vague in nature. As discussed above, in order to attract Section 498A IPC, allegations of cruelty and harassment should be specific in nature and the same should be of much higher and sterner degree than the ordinary concept of cruelty and the same must be of such a nature that may drive a woman to commit suicide. The allegations of demand and dowry etc. are also bereft of material particulars.
As per defence, the relation between accused Sat Prakash and his brother,namely, Rajesh @ Bablu were strained. Defence has proved complaint Ex. DW3/A made by deceased Meena @ Monika against her devar Rajesh @ Bablu which was addressed to SHO, PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, and the same is dated 25/08/2000. This letter has been proved by DW3 Head Constable Jogender Singh who has stated that after receiving the said complaint, he had gone to the house of Sat Prakash and he had spoken to complainant Ms. Meena @ Monika who had told him that her brother in law,namely, Rajesh @ Bablu had misbehaved with her and hence she had lodged the said complaint. In view of the fact that when Smt. Meena @ Monika had herself given a -:29:- complaint against her brother in law in PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, it very well shows that the relations between Sat Prakash and his brother Rajesh @ Bablu were strained at that time. In such circumstance, it cannot be believed that Sat Prakash would depute his said brother to collect the amount of Rs. One lac from Sh. Jagpal, father of the deceased. Further, Sh. Naresh Kumar (PW3) has stated in court that he did not know as to why the amount of Rs. One lac was given by his father to the brother of Sat Prakash. It is highly improbable that Sh. Naresh Kumar who was the adult member of the family and who was very well aware of the alleged cruelty and harassment carried out by the accused persons, would not know that his father was paying Rs. One lac to the brother of Sat Prakash on the demand of Sat Prakash himself or that the same was to meet the demand of dowry etc. Hence, prosecution has not been able to prove the allegations of the complainant qua the payment of Rs. One lac to Rajesh @ Bablu on the demand or at the instance of accused Sat Prakash.
As stated above, there is lack of proper and reliable evidence so as to connect the accused with the -:30:- offence U/s. 498A IPC. It follows, therefore, that there is no legal evidence tendered in court which could be made the basis for returning a finding with respect to the alleged cruelty of the accused with the deceased. In the absence of any legal evidence produced in the case, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused had committed the offence U/s. 498A IPC and find that it is a fit case where the accused are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.
Whether the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are satisfied in the present case?
Section 306 IPC provides for abetment of suicide as under:
"If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of suicide, and if any person commits suicide due to that reason, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Abetment has been defined in Section 107 IPC to mean that:-
" A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
Firstly:- Instigates any person to do that thing, or -:31:- Secondly:- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly:- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
Abetment is thus constituted (1) by instigating a person to commit an offence, or (2) by engaging in a conspiracy to commit it, or (3) by intentionally aiding a person to commit it.
In an authority titled as Laxmi & Anr. Vs. State 2000 [2] JCC [Delhi] 297 our own Hon'ble High Court of Delhi referred to a case titled as Emperor Vs. Amiruddin Solebhoy AIR 1923 Bombay 44 where the meaning of word "instigate" was explained as under:
"A person is said to instigate another to act when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or -:32:- of hints, insinuation or encouragement."
In Rishi Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 1988 (1) All India Criminal Law Reports 615, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has also explained the meaning of the word "instigate" as under:
"The word "instigate"
literally means to goad, urge forward, to provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement."
Thus, in the context of the offence, the word "instigate" would mean to suggest, provoke, incite or encourage or stimulate to do an act or to urge forward.
"Conspiracy" consists in a combination and agreement by persons to do some illegal act or to effect a legal purpose by means. In order to constitute the offence of -:33:- abetment by conspiracy, there must be a combining together of two or more persons in the conspiracy and an act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing.
And a person abets by aiding when by any act done, either prior to, or at the time of, commission of an act, he intends to facilitate and does in fact facilities the commission thereof.
In order to constitute abetment by aiding, the abettor must be shown to have 'intentionally" aided the commission of the crime (Sri Ram Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1975 SC 175).
In the present case, prosecution case is that the accused persons treated the deceased with cruelty and harassed her for demand of dowry and in such way, they created such atmosphere that there was no other alternative for Meena @ Monika except to commit suicide and to kill her children. It is relevant here to state that, it has been discussed by the Court in earlier part of the judgment that the prosecution has failed to prove that deceased Meena @ Monika was treated with cruelty or harassment within the -:34:- meaning of Section 498A IPC. There is nothing on record to suggest that the accused persons instigated or entered into a conspiracy or intentionally aided Meena @ Monika to commit suicide.
In State of West Bengal V. Orilal Jaiswal and another, 1994(3) RCR (Crl.) 186 (SC): 1994(1) SCC 73, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trail for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpired to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
In the present case, the case of defence is that -:35:- Meena @ Monika was suffering from severe depression with loss of sleep and suicidal tendencies since 1996 and she was admitted to AIIMS hospital with effect from 25/06/96 till 15/07/96 and during her admission, she had a premature delivery and the child after birth expired and after that the psychological condition of Meena @ Monika became disoriented and Meena @ Monika was also receiving treatment for her depressive tendencies from CGHS dispensary, Paschim Vihar and Nirman Bhawan.
Defence has examined Rajbir Singh, record Clerk, AIIMS hospital as DW2 who had admitted about the discharge summary of deceased and that she remained admitted in AIIMS hospital during the said time. Further, Dr. T.P. Singh (DW6) has also testified that deceased Monika was under his treatment from 22/07/97 to 07/11/2000 for severe depression psychosis and he has proved prescription slips which are Ex. DW6/A and EX. DW6/B. Further, DW1 Sh. Ved Vrat and DW4 SI Ramesh Kumar who are the family friends of accused Sat Prakash have also corroborated the same that the deceased who was the wife of accused Sat Prakash was suffering from depression and that she had lost -:36:- interest in life and that she was under treatment for the disease of depression. In such circumstance, it cannot be ruled out that Meena @ Monika committed suicide owing to her ill-health or due to disease of depression with which she was suffering.
It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP that admittedly Meena @ Monika had consumed cyanide and it is stated that cyanide is such a substance which cannot be procured by ordinary person and the same can be procured either by criminals or by law enforcement agency like police etc. Hence, it is stated that there is possibility that accused Sat Prakash might have procured the cyanide and administered the same to the deceased. The defence has vehemently opposed the same. In my view, it is not the case of prosecution that accused Sat Prakash had procured cyanide in question or that he administered the same to the deceased or that he facilitated in the commission of the suicide committed by his wife. There is no evidence on record in support of the same. Hence, there is no merit in the contention of State.
Abetment within the meaning of Section 306 IPC and Section 107 IPC involves active complicity on the part of -:37:- the abettor at a point of time prior to the actual commission of the offence and it is of the essence of the crime of abetment that the abettor should substantially assist towards the commission of the offence. In other words, in order to convict a person of abetting the commission of a crime, it is necessary to connect him with those steps in the transaction which are criminal. It is not the case of the prosecution that when the deceased had committed suicide, the accused were present at the place of incident. There is no material, direct or indirect, to show that the accused had either instigated or conspired or aided the deceased in committing the suicide at that time, and it could not be said that the accused persons had abetted the suicide. On the material available, no offence punishable under Section 306/34 IPC is made out against either of the accused.
In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that prosecution has not been able to prove the case against both the accused persons U/s. 498A & 306 IPC. Hence, both the accused persons are accordingly acquitted in this case. Their bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged.-:38:-
Case property, if any, be destroyed in accordance with rules on expiry of period of appeal/revision, if none is preferred or subject to decision thereof.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court on Dated 25th of February, 2009 ( Deepak Garg ) Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court Rohini : Delhi -:39:-