Delhi District Court
State vs Lalit on 18 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03/SPECIAL JUDGE
(COMPANIES ACT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
(More than 7 years old case)
CNR No. : DLSW01-019908-2018
SC No. : 1057/2018
State Vs. : Lalit
FIR No. : 318/2018
U/s. : 498A/304B/34 IPC
P.S. : Chhawla
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW01-019908-2018
2. Date of commission of offence : 15.08.2018
3. Date of institution of the case : 12.11.2018
4. Date of committal to Sessions Court : 03.12.2018
5. Name of the complainant : Sh. Rajinder Singh
6. Name of accused, parentage &
address : Lalit
S/o Sh. Satbir Singh,
R/o H.No.283,
Village Paprawat,
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
7. Offences complained of in
chargesheet : 498A/304B/34 IPC
8. Offences under which charges
were framed : 498A/304B IPC
9. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
10. Date on which arguments heard : 18.09.2025
11. Date of final order : 18.09.2025
12. Final order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
Facts
1. Investigation in this case was set into motion on receiving SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 1 of 21 State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla DD No.32A PS Chhawla at 02.15 pm regarding hanging of a female. The said DD was marked to ASI Birender Singh who alongwith Ct. Ravinder reached H.No.283, Village Paprawat, Najafgarh, Delhi. On the first floor of the house, a room was found locked. They broke the latch of the said door and found a lady, whose name was later on revealed as Anita, hanging on the ceiling fan with green colour dupatta around her neck. Her left knee was on the double bed and the right leg was in a hanging position. One small diary and pen was also found in the room but no suicide note was found. Some broken bangles were scattered around the room. Accused Lalit and his mother Smt. Kaushlaya were found at the spot. Crime team was called and photographs of scene of crime were taken. Deceased Anita was brought down by cutting the dupatta from the middle and was shifted to RTRM hospital, Jaffar Pur where she was declared 'brought dead'. The dead body was kept in Mortuary and intimation was sent to the concerned SDM as well as to Sh. Rajinder Singh, father of deceased at District Etah, U.P. The dupatta, broken latch, diary and pen were taken into possession. On 16.10.2018 Sh. Rajinder Singh and Smt. Ganga, parents of deceased arrived at the police station and SDM concerned was called who recorded their statement.
2. In his statement, Sh. Rajinder Singh, father of deceased stated that his daughter Anita got married to the accused on 04.12.2013, however, immediately four months after the marriage, accused Lalit started harassing her. The accused did not want a child and used to administer contraceptive pills for the SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 2 of 21 State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla same to her, however, even then a female child was born. After a female child was born, deceased was taunted for giving birth to a girl child. She was beaten and she sustained injuries on her eyes for which a complaint at 100 number was also made. On 20.08.2017 Sh. Rajinder Singh alongwith his relatives gathered for a compromise and accused Lalit undertook not to beat the deceased again. Thereafter, a complaint against accused Lalit before CAW Cell was also moved where again he acknowledged his mistake and a compromise was done. Even thereafter, he continued to harass her and used to force her to demand money from her parents. Accused Lalit had illicit relations with one of his relative. He used to threaten the deceased to throw her out of the house and used to give beatings to her mercilessly.
3. Postmortem on the dead body of Anita was got conducted. On the basis of statement of complainant, FIR was got registered. Further investigation was carried out. During investigation, documents from CAW Cell were collected. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Lalit keeping him in Column no.11 and other family members i.e. mother-in- law, jeth and jethani of deceased Anita were kept in Column No.12.
4. Cognizance was taken by the Court of ld. JMFC against accused Lalit and after compliance of Section 207/208 Cr.P.C, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
5. During the course of trial, supplementary chargesheets in SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 3 of 21 State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla respect of FSL report qua the exhibits sent to FSL were also filed, copies of which were duly supplied to accused.
Charges
6. Charge under Section 498A/304B IPC was framed against the accused on 31.07.2019 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
7. Prosecution cited as many as 19 witnesses in the main chargesheet and 6 witnesses in the supplementary chargesheets, out of which 8 witnesses have been examined. Since accused admitted DD No.32A dated 15.08.20218 PS Chhawla; copy of FIR No.318/2018 of PS Chhawla; MLC No.E-88354 dated 15.08.2018 of deceased; FSL report dated 14.01.2019; FSL report dated 27.03.2019; scene of crime report No.892/2018; rukka dated 16.08.2018 PS Chhawla; final report for closure on the complaint of deceased Anita in CAW Cell alongwith inquiry papers; and DD No.24A dated 20.08.2017 PS Chhawla as Ex.A-1 to A-9, the witness pertaining to aforesaid documents were dropped in view of the statement of the accused recorded under Section 294 CrPC. PW Atibal has expired and he was dropped from the list of witnesses.
8. Testimony of prosecution witnesses who have been examined is reproduced hereinunder:-
9. PW-1 Dr. Pawan Kumar deposed as under:
"On 16.08.2018, I was working as Specialist in SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 4 of 21 State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla Department of Forensic Medicine in Rao Tula Ram Memorial Hospital, Jafarpur, New Delhi. On that day, dead body of female namely Anita W/o Lalit Kumar, aged 28 years, r/o House no.283, Village Paprawat, Najafgarh, Delhi was brought by ASI Birender Singh of PS Chhawla with alleged history of deceased being found hanging at her resident on 15.08.2018 at about 2.30 pm. The dead body was identified by Sh. Rajender Singh, s/o Late Sh. Ganga Singh and Sh. Atibal, S/o Sh. Rajender Singh.
I had conducted autopsy on the body of aforesaid deceased female on aforesaid date. During external examination, there was ligature mark found in the form of pressure abrasion present over neck measuring 26 cm long, varying in width from 2.0 cm to 3.5 cm wide, situated over anterior aspect of neck, 5 cm below chin in midline and 8 cm above suprasternal notch, going obliquely upwards and backwards on both sides of neck, 4 cm below tip of right mastoid process on right lateral aspect of neck, 2 cm below tip of left mastoid process on left lateral aspect of neck, absent posteriorly over back of neck for 9 cm long. Total neck circumference was 31 cm. The base of the ligature mark was dry, hard and parchmentised and margins echymosed. No other external injury was seen over the body.
During internal examination, the following injuries were found:-
(i) Subcutaneous tissue below the ligature mark was white and glistening. However, there was no extravasation of blood seen in the neck muscles;
(ii) Both lungs were congested and oedematous.
Petechial hemorrhages seen over interlober surface at places. On cut section blood tinged fluid oozes out.;
(iii) Petechial hemorrhages seen over ventricular surface at places over heart.
Time since death was approximately 12-24 hours as per inquest papers. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. However, SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 5 of 21 State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla viscera was preserved to rule out any intoxication.
Ligature material i.e. green colour chunni was found present around neck with a sliding knot over back of neck.
After conducting postmortem examination, I had prepared PM Report No.206/2018 dated 16.08.2018 and was handed over to IO of the case. Today I have seen the said report as available in the judicial file which bears my signature and official stamp at point-A. The same is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. On the basis of injuries, internal as well as external, as mentioned in the report Ex.PW1/A and the description of ligature material found present round the neck of deceased, I say that the possibility of ante mortem injuries due to hanging being caused by said ligature material, cannot be ruled out.
I can identify the aforesaid ligature material, if shown to me today.
[At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one sealed pullanda, sealed with the seal of FSL. The same is opened after breaking the seal. On opening the seal, one green color chunni and one open packet between seal of RTRM Hospital and signature of Dr. Pawan is produced. The same is shown to the witness.] It was the same chunni which was seized from the body of deceased at the time of conducting the postmortem. The same is now exhibited as Ex.P1."
10. PW-2 Sh. Rajinder Singh, complainant/father of deceased deposed on 08.02.2022 as as under:
"On 04.12.2013, I got married my daughter namely Anita with accused Lalit present in Court today (Correctly identified). Accused Lalit started harassing my daughter after about 4 months of the marriage. Accused used to gave contraceptive pills to my daughter against her will. After about 2 years of marriage, baby girl born out to my daughter. Then, SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 6 of 21 State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla mother of accused Lalit started taunting to my daughter for giving birth to a baby girl as she wanted a baby boy. Once, the accused had beaten mercilessly my daughter and she had sustained severe injuries near her eyes and she would have lost her one eye. On 20.08.2017, a PCR complaint was made against the accused and on the intervention of the police, all the relatives gathered and the accused Lalit in the presence of relatives had given in writing and assured us that he would never harass my daughter in future and would treat her well and would not give any beating in future. But after sometime, accused started demanding dowry and he compelled my daughter to bring money from us. My daughter informed me that accused used to threat and asked her to bring money or she would be not kept in the house. On demand of accused and his family members, my son had given an Almirah to the accused. All the money were forcibly got withdrawn by the accused from her account prior to 10-15 days of her death. Moreover, the accused was having illicit relation with the daughter of brother-in-law of his brother. Smt. Kaushlya (mother of accused), Smt. Seema & Smt. Sunita (Bhabhis of accused), Sh. Virender & Sh. Narender (brothers of accused) all used to beat my daughter on demand of dowry. Vol. Once the accused persons had torn all clothes of my daughter and a complaint was made to this effect to the police on 100 number. Even they all had beaten my daughter in my presence and had thrown her out of the house. All the accused persons killed my daughter on 15.08.2018.
My statement was recorded by Magistrate on 16.08.2018, same is bearing my signature and now Ex.PW2/A bearing my signature at point A. My wife Smt. Raj Kumari (mother of deceased) also signed statement Ex.PW2/A at point B."
PW-2 was duly cross examined by learned counsel for accused on 04.09.2023. Since PW-2 has completely changed his version during the cross examination conducted by learned counsel for accused, he was re-examined by learned Addl. PP for SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 7 of 21 State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla the State wherein he was questioned by learned Addl. PP for the State as to which statement of PW-2 was corrected i.e. statement recorded in the Court on 18.08.2022 or the version stated by him during cross examination on 04.09.2023 to which he stated the statement made by him on 04.09.2023 during cross examination was correct and his statement recorded on 18.08.2022 was given by him under the influence of police officials. Thereafter, PW-2 was cross examined by learned Addl. PP for the State but he did not support the case of prosecution.
11. PW3 Insp. (Retd.) Krishan Kumar deposed as under:
"In the month of October 2018, I was posted at PS Chhawla as Inspector ATO. On 21.10.2018, further investigation of the present case was marked to me by the SHO. Investigation of the case was already complete by then. I prepared the charge-sheet and filed before the concerned court. After receiving of the FSL report, I again supplementary charge-sheet in the present case."
12. PW-4 Smt. Raj Kumari, mother of deceased deposed as under:
"On 04.12.2013, I got married my daughter namely Anita with accused Lalit (present in the court and correctly identified by the witness). After the marriage, she went at her matrimonial house situated at Paprawat, New Delhi. After two years of marriage, she was blessed with baby girl. My daughter was living happily with accused Lalit. I came to know that my daughter had expired at her matrimonial house. I do not want to say anything else. I cannot tell role of anyone in her unnatural demise."
Since PW-4 did not support the prosecution case, she was cross examined at length by learned Addl. PP for the State, SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 8 of 21 State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla however, she did not change her version.
13. PW-5 SI Birender Singh deposed as under:
"On 15.08.2018, I was posted at PS Chhawla as ASI. On that day, my duty timings were from 08:00 am to 08:00 pm. On that day, at about 2:35 pm, I receiving DD No. 32A with regard to hanging of a lady at H. No. 283, Paprawat Village, Delhi. Thereafter, I along with Const. Ravinder went to the spot and went to the room of the said lady which was bolted from inside. We broke open the door and saw that a girl was hanging on a fan with the help of chunni. Some bangles were found broken on the spot. One dairy and one pen were also found at the spot. Crime team was called at the spot. Photographs of the spot were taken. The chunni was cut from the middle and the lady was taken down and she was shifted to RTRM Hospital. The piece of chunni was seized by me vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A bearing my signature at point A. The diary, pen, broken pieces of bangle and broken latch of the door were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B bearing my signature at point A. No suicide note was available at the spot. The parents of the deceased were informed. The concerned SDM was informed with regard to the incident.
On 16.08.2018, I prepared inquest paper and the postmortem of deceased Anita was got conducted. Thereafter, the exhibits were handed over to me by the concerned doctor vide memo Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D, bearing my signatures at point A. Thereafter, the clothes were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/E bearing my signature at point A. Then, the parents of the deceased gave written complaint to the SDM. After making endorsement on the same, the said complaint was handed over to me for registration of FIR. Thereafter, I went to the PS and got the FIR registered.
Thereafter, the further investigation of the present case was marked to SI Naresh. I can identify the case property, if shown to me.SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 9 of 21
State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is yellow envelope Parcel No. 1 duly sealed with the seal of FSL PS Delhi. Same is opened with the permission of the court and found containing ligature material i.e. green colour piece of chunni. Witness correctly identifies the same. The same is Ex. P-1.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is yellow envelope Parcel No. 2 duly sealed with the seal of FSL PS Delhi. Same is opened with the permission of the court and found containing greenish colour pieces of chunni tied together. Witness correctly identifies the same. The same is Ex. P-2.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is white cloth pullanda duly sealed with the seal of 'BS'. Same is opened with the permission of the court and found containing pen, diary, latch of the door and broken pieces of bangle. Witness correctly identifies the same. The same are Ex. P-3 (colly)."
PW-5 was duly cross examined by learned counsel for accused.
14. PW-6 Sh. Santosh, brother of the deceased deposed as under:
"My sister Anita was married to accused Lalit Kumar on 04.12.2013. After about 4-5 months, some arguments/ altercation took place between accused Lalit Kumar and my sister Anita. Thereafter, my sister was blessed with a baby girl. On 15.08.2018, I came to know that my sister had committed suicide at her matrimonial house due to some misunderstandings with the family members of accused. Accused Lalit Kumar is present in the court and correctly identified by the witness."
Since PW-6 did not support the prosecution case, he was cross examined at length by learned Addl. PP for the State, SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 10 of 21 State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla however, he did not change his version.
15. PW7 SI Naresh Kumar deposed as under:
"On 16.08.2018, I was posted at PS Chhawla. On that day, investigation of the present case was marked to me for further investigation by the SHO. Accused Lalit was arrested by me from his house vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/A bearing my signature at point A. I conducted personal search of accused vide memo Ex.PW7/B bearing my signature at point A. Exhibits were sent to the FSL. The proceedings before CAW Cell was got verified by me. I prepared the site-plan of the matrimonial house of deceased Anita, same is Ex.PW7/C bearing my signature at point A. The accused was then sent to JC.
I collected the photographs of the marriage of the accused with deceased Anita. Same are Ex.PW7/D (colly). Thereafter, the investigation of the present case was marked to Insp. Krishan Kumar."
16. PW8 Sh. Chhatarpal deposed as under:
"Anita was daughter of my distant relative Rajender. She was married to accused Lalit Kumar on 04.12.2013. She was blessed with a baby girl. On 15.08.2018, I came to know that she had committed suicide at her matrimonial house due to some misunderstandings with the family members of accused. Accused Lalit Kumar is present in the court and correctly identified by the witness."
Since PW-8 did not support the prosecution case, he was cross examined at length by learned Addl. PP for the State, however, he did not change his version.
17. The request made by Ld. Addl. PP for the State for calling remaining witnesses had been declined as number of opportunities had already been granted to the prosecution to lead SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 11 of 21 State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla prosecution evidence.
18. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
Statement under Section 313 CrPC and Defence Evidence
19. Statement under Section 313 CrPC of the accused was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence which came on record during prosecution evidence, was put to him which he denied and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police at the instance of complainant.
20. Accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
Arguments on behalf of parties
21. Sh.Vijender Singh Kharb, ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that the prosecution has duly proved that SDM has recorded the statement of father of deceased on the basis of which, the FIR has been registered. He has argued that it has been proved that deceased died within 7 years of her marriage under unnatural circumstances and her death was suicidal. Ld. Addl. PP had further argued that the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act can be raised in order to hold the accused guilty. He has submitted that the accused be convicted for the offence under Section 498A/304B IPC.
22. On the other hand, Sh. Anuj Chowdhary, ld. Counsel for accused has argued that none of the public witnesses i.e. PW-2 Sh. Rajinder Singh, (father of deceased), PW-4 Smt. Raj Kumari SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 12 of 21 State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla (mother of deceased), PW-6 Sh. Santosh (brother of deceased) and PW-8 Sh. Chhatarpal (relative of deceased), have not supported the prosecution story. It has not been proved that the deceased had committed suicide in pursuance to the cruelty meted out to her by accused for or in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death. Therefore, accused be acquitted for the offence under Section 498A/304B IPC.
23. I have heard arguments on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and ld. Counsel for accused and have perused the record carefully.
Analyisis, Reasoning & Findings
24. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance in this regard is placed on Nasir Sikander Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (SC) 2005 Crl.L.J. 2621 and Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab (SC) 1996 (1) RCR 465.
25. The relevant provisions of law which are relevant for the purposes of deciding this case are as follows:
"304-B. Dowry death-(l) 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 SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 13 of 21 State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla be deemed to have caused her death.
*Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."
26. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 defines "dowry" as under :
"2. Definition of "dowry"-In this Act, "dowry"
means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly -
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to an other person.
At or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of said parties, but does not include Dower or Mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation I-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any presents made at the time of a marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this section, unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the said parties.
Explanation II- The expression 'valuable security' has the same meaning as in in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code."
27. Section 113B of Evidence Act raises a presumption against the accused and reads:
"113-B 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 had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 14 of 21 State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such a person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code."
28. The legal position firmly established is that 'suicidal death' of a married woman within seven years of her marriage is covered by the expression "death of a woman is caused xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances" as used in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. (Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, [2000] 8 SCC 663).
29. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand" 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454 has held that :
"13. A conjoint reading of Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act with reference to the presumption raised was discussed in para 32 of the aforesaid judgment, which is extracted below:-
"32. This Court while often dwelling on the scope and purport of Section 304-B of the Code and Section 113-B of the Act have propounded that the presumption is contingent on the fact that the prosecution first spell out the ingredients of the offence of Section 304-B as in Shindo v. State of Punjab [Shindo v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 517: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 394] and echoed in Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana [Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 16 SCC 640 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 346]. In the latter pronouncement, this Court propounded that one of the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304-B of the Code is that the accused must have subjected the woman to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death and that this ingredient has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and only then the Court will presume that the accused has committed the offence of dowry death SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 15 of 21 State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla under Section 113-B of the Act. It referred to with approval, the earlier decision of this Court in K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao [K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, (2003) 1 SCC 217:
2003 SCC (Cri) 271] to the effect that to attract the provision of Section 304-B of the Code, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty and harassment "in connection with the demand for dowry".
With reference to the legal position as referred to above, the matter is now required to be examined as to whether the case in hand falls in the category where the presumption can be raised against the accused relieving the prosecution from proving its case and putting the onus on the accused.
30. Section 304B IPC is attracted only when the woman dies under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage. It is not disputed that deceased Anita had expired within four years and eight months of her marriage with accused Lalit. The postmortem report has been proved by PW-1 Dr. Pawan Kumar as Ex.PW1/A wherein following external injuries were found on her body :
"Ligature mark in the form of pressure abrasion present over neck, measuring 26 cm long, varying in width from 2.0 cm to 3.5 cm wide, situated over anterior aspect of neck, 5cm below chin in midline and 8 cm above suprasternal notch, going obliquely upwards and backwards on both sides of neck, 4cm below tip of right mastoid process on right lateral aspect of neck, 2cm below tip of left mastoid process on left lateral aspect of neck, absent posteriorly over back of neck for 9 cm long. Total neck circumference is 31 cm. The base of the ligature mark is dry, hard and SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 16 of 21 State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla parchmentised and margins echymosed. External injury seen over the body."
31. The cause of death was given as "asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging." From this report, it is clear that the manner of death was suicide. Therefore, deceased had died under unnatural circumstances.
32. PW-2 Sh. Rajinder Singh is father of the deceased. In his testimony, following allegations were made by him against the accused:-
(i) After four months of the marriage of his daughter with accused Lalit, he started harassing his daughter. He used to give her contraceptive pills against her will. After two years of marriage, female child was born to her and she was taunted for giving birth to a female child but he wanted a male child.
(ii) Accused has mercilessly beaten his daughter due to which she sustained injury in her eye and she lost her one eye.
(iii) On 20.08.2017 a PCR complaint was made and in the presence of all the relatives with the intervention of police, accused Lalit assured that he would never beat her.
(iv) After sometime accused started demanding dowry and he compelled his daughter to bring money from them. Accused used to threat his daughter and asked her to bring money or she would not be kept in the house.
(v) On demand of accused and his family members, his (PW-2's) son had given an almirah to the accused.
(vi) All the money was forcibly withdrawn by the accused from the account of his daughter prior to 10-15 days of her death.SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 17 of 21
State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla
(vii) Accused was having illicit relations with daughter of brother-in-law of his brother.
(viii) Accused alongwith his family members used to beat her on account of demand of dowry.
(ix) Accused and his family had torn all clothes of his daughter and she was beaten in his presence and was thrown out of the house.
33. A careful reading of the testimony of PW-2 Rajinder Singh, as stated above, either individually or together does not specify any particular date or occasion on which specific article was demanded and on non-fulfillment of the same, she was harassed or cruelty was meted out to her by the accused. The allegations of giving contraceptive pills and beating her mercilessly have not been stated to be in consequence of non- fulfillment of demand of dowry and therefore, for these allegations, Section 304B IPC cannot be invoked. There is only specific deposition of giving almirah to the accused by son of PW-2 on demand, however, it is relevant to note that PW-6 Sh. Santosh Kumar, son of PW-2 Rajinder Singh has appeared in the witness box and did not depose anything of this sort. PW-6 Sh. Santosh Kumar only stated that his sister had committed suicide due to some misunderstanding with the family of accused. In the testimony of PW-2 Sh. Rajinder Singh, general and vague allegations of demand of dowry have been made by him. Neither any specific date nor any occasion has been given on which money was demanded. The amount of money which was demanded is also not given in the testimony of PW-2. It is SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 18 of 21 State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla further noted for the purpose of record that during his cross examination PW-2 has admitted that his daughter had never complained to him about any cruelty meted out to her by the accused or demand of dowry made by the accused. In the cross examination of PW-2 conducted on behalf of accused, he completely turned hostile. He was cross examined extensively by learned Addl. PP for the State, however, he did not support the statement given by him in his examination-in-chief. Though he had turned hostile during his cross examination, however, even if the testimony of PW-2 given initially in the Court is accepted to be true, no ingredient of Section 498A/304B IPC are made out.
34. The other public witnesses i.e. PW-4 Smt. Raj Kumari, mother of deceased; PW-6 Sh. Santosh Kumar, brother of deceased and PW-8 Sh. Chhatarpal, relative of deceased have not supported the prosecution case at all and did not state anything incriminating against the accused. It is the settled law that testimony of hostile witnesses is not to be discarded as a whole. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manoj Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi in Crl.A. No.677/2010 decided on 24.11.2010 , has held in para 27 of the judgment as under:
"27. This is no more res-integra that if a prosecution witness turns hostile then his testimony is not to be treated as effaced or washed for altogether. The Apex Court has held in a number of cases that it can be accepted to the extent the testimony of the hostile witnesses is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence. Reliance for this proposition can be placed on Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389: 1976 SCC (Cri) 7: AIR 1976 SC 202; Rabindra Kumar SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 19 of 21 State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla Dey v. State of Orissa, (1976) 4 SCC 233:1976 SCC (Cri) 566: AIR 1977 SC 170; Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, (1980) 1 SCC 30: 1980 SCC (Cri) 59: AIR 1979 SC 1848; Khujji v. State of M.P, (1991) 3 SCC 627: 1991 SCC (Cri) 916: AIR 1991 SC 1853."
35. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it is noted that the incriminating part in the testimony of a hostile witness and the deposition which is worth credence can always be relied upon but to the utter dismay, prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-2, PW-4, PW-6 and PW-8 did not depose anything against the accused herein and therefore, no part of testimony of these witnesses can be relied upon and has to be discarded as a whole.
36. None of the above witnesses supported the prosecution case in respect of the harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased in connection with demand for dowry. Therefore, it does not stand proved that there was either any demand for dowry from deceased from the side of accused or she was harassed at any point of time by any of the accused in connection with or demand for dowry.
37. Though it has been proved that deceased died under unnatural circumstances in her matrimonial home by hanging herself within four years and eight months of her marriage with accused Lalit, however, prosecution has failed to demonstrate that she was compelled to end her life due to harassment or cruelty caused to her in connection with or demand for dowry. Therefore, the presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act cannot be raised.
SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 20 of 21State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla
38. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused for the charges framed under Section 498A/304B IPC.
39. Hence, accused Lalit stands acquitted of the charges framed under Section 498A/304B IPC in present FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla.
Announced in open court Digitally signed by
VANDANA VANDANA JAIN
on 18.09.2025
JAIN Date: 2025.09.18
15:14:47 +0530
(Vandana Jain)
ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi Note: This judgment contains twenty-one (21) pages and having my signature on each page. Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.09.18 15:14:53 +0530 (Vandana Jain) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi SC No.1057/2018 Page No. 21 of 21 State vs. Lalit FIR No.318/2018, PS Chhawla