Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Briefly Stated The Facts Of The Case Are ... vs Unknown on 5 March, 2022

               IN THE COURT OF MS DEEPALI SHARMA:
            ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE ­04: EAST DISTRICT
                   KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI

CNR No. DLET01­003311­2015
SC No. 906/2016
FIR No. 25/2015
U/s. 498A/304B/34 IPC
P.S Kalaynpuri

In the matter of :

State

versus

1) Pawan
S/o Sh.Shishpal Yadav,
R/o H.No. 25/246, Trilok Puri, Delhi­91.

2) Shishpal Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Dhan Singh,
R/o H.No. 25/246, Trilok Puri, Delhi­91.

3) Barfi Devi,
W/o Sh. Shishpal,
R/o H.No. 25/246, Trilok Puri, Delhi­91.

4) Prabhu Dayal
S/o Sh. Shishpal,
R/o H.No. 25/246, Trilok Puri, Delhi­91.

5) Seema Devi,
Sessions Case No. 906/2016                 .               Page 1/45
 W/o Prabhu Dayal,
R/o H.No. 25/246, Trilok Puri, Delhi­91.

6) Hema
D/o Shish Pal,
R/o H.No. 25/246, Trilok Puri, Delhi­91.


Date of Institution                :      30.07.2015
Date of reserving Judgment         :      22.02.2022
Date of pronouncement              :      05.03.2022

Appearances

For the State                      :      Shri.Santosh Kumar,
                                          Additional Public Prosecutor.
For all accused persons            :      Shri Daya Nand Sharma,
                                          Advocate.


JUDGMENT

1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 06.01.2015 a PCR call was received at PS Kalyanpuri at 07.19 pm that a lady had hanged herself and the room was locked from inside at H.No. 25/246, Block No. 25, Trilok Puri, Delhi. DD No. 43A Ex. PW12/D was recorded in this regard. The said DD was assigned to ASI Om Prakash, who left for the spot. Upon reaching the spot ASI Om Prakash found the said premises bearing No. 25/246, Block­25, Trilok Puri, Delhi, to be constructed upto three floors and the offence had occurred on the second floor of the building.

Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 2/45

The IO/ASI Om Prakash went to the second floor and he found the room locked from inside. He peeped through the window and saw a lady hanging with hook of ceiling fan with the help of a stole/chunni. Crime team was called and after the arrival of crime team the door of the room was broken. The Crime Team examined the scene of offence and photographs were taken. Upon inquiry it was revealed that deceased Vimlesh was married to the accused Pawan Kumar in the year 2010 and she was living with her husband on the second floor. The parents of deceased were also informed. As the incident occurred within seven years of her marriage, SDM, Mayur Vihar, was informed. As per the directions of SDM, the dead body was shifted to LBS hospital. On 07.01.2015 inquest proceeding of the deceased was conducted by the Executive Magistrate, Mayur Vihar, on behalf of SDM, Mayur Vihar. Post mortem of the deceased was conducted and dead body was handed over to her father. The statements of the parents of the deceased Vimlesh were recorded by the Executive Magistrate and were handed over to the IO for necessary action.

2. In her statement recorded before the SDM Smt. Kiran, mother of deceased, stated that she was the mother of deceased Vimlesh, who was married to Pawan Kumar s/o Shishpal on 10th Dec. 2010. There was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage but they had given Rs. 3.5 Lakhs cash, one motorcycle, 5 Tola gold and other articles. After marriage her daughter i.e. deceased Vimlesh used to stay at her matrimonial home with Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 3/45 her mother­in­law Barfi Devi, father­in­law Shishpal, brother­in­law (Jeth) Prabhu Dayal, sister­in­law (Jethani) Seema Devi and their two children, sister­in­law (Nanand) Hema and her husband Pawan. After one year of her marriage, her in­laws started to harass her and asked her to get a Mahindra Magic car from her paternal house. Her son­in­law Pawan was a drug addict and used to not to do any work. The brother­in­law (Jeth) and father­in­law of the deceased used to beat her son­in­law Pawan to get a car. Everyone used to quarrel with her daughter and due to the same her daughter mostly resided at her parental house. Her daughter did not have any child. She went to her matrimonial house on 28.11.2014. They used to talk telephonically. She used to tell about the quarrels at the house. She also used to tell that her brother­in­law (Jeth) and father­in­ law used to keep an evil eye on her. On 06.01.2015 at 10 am she had made a telephonic call to take her to the parental house and Smt. Kiran sent her husband at 08.00 pm to the matrimonial house of her daughter and when he reached there, he got to know that his daughter had hanged herself and had been taken to the LBS Hospital Mortuary. Smt. Kiran further stated that she suspected the father­in­law Shishpal, brother­in­law (Jeth) Prabhu Dayal, mother­in­law Barfi Devi, sister­in­law (Nanad) Hema and husband of deceased i.e. Pawan Kumar. They did not inform them about the demise of her daughter, therefore, she suspected that they had killed her daughter Vimlesh. On the basis of the statement of mother of deceased, namely Smt. Kiran Ex. PW3/A, the present case FIR bearing no. 25/2015 was registered u/s 498A/304B IPC.

Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 4/45

3. Further investigation was conducted and the husband of deceased i.e. accused Pawan was arrested. Photographs and DVD of marriage of deceased were seized by the police and statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The post­mortem report was collected as per which a definite opinion regarding the cause of death was to be given after receipt of report of chemical analysis of viscera. The viscera of deceased was deposited with FSL, Rohini for chemical analysis. The site plan of the scene of crime was prepared. After further investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Pawan, Shishpal Yadav, Barfi Devi, Prabhu Dayal, Seema Devi and Hema u/s 498A/304B IPC. The charge sheet against accused persons except accused Pawan was filed without their arrest. Viscera report dated 24.06.2015 was also subsequently placed on record.

4. On the basis of charge­sheet and the documents submitted with it, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (East), Karkardooma Court, took cognizance of offence under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC and after complying with the provisions contained in Section 207 Cr.P.C, vide order dated 20.07.2015 committed the case to the Court of Session for 30.07.2015.

Charge :

Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 5/45
5. On 26.11.2015, after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel for the accused, charge was framed against all the accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC. The charge so framed was read over and explained to all the accused persons to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

Prosecution Evidence :

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined following witnesses.
(i) PW1 was Dr. Arti, CMO, LBS Hospital, Delhi, who alongwith Dr. Pranav Kumar - Junior Resident, medically examined the deceased vide MLC No. 3111/2015 (Ex. PW1/A). She identified the signature and handwriting of Dr. Pranav Kumar and deposed that one female was brought in her presence by the police in unconscious situation in the hospital and she was declared brought dead. Strangulation marks were found present around her neck.
(ii) PW2 HC Phire Ram was the Duty Officer, who registered the FIR and handed over a copy of the FIR to Insp. Rajiv Vimal.
(iii) PW3 Smt. Kiran was mother of the deceased Vimlesh.
Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 6/45
(iv) PW4 Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Specialist Forensic Medicines, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, alongwith Dr. Ashok Sagar conducted post mortem of deceased vide post mortem report Ex. PW4/A. On 16.07.2015 he gave the final opinion after receipt of chemical analysis report vide Ex.

PW4/B. He also identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Ashok Sagar. 

(v)       PW5 Ram Nivas, father of deceased Vimelsh.


(vi)      PW6 Meenu, sister of deceased Vimlesh.

(vii) PW7 Dr. Pranav Kumar. He examined a 22 years old female vide MLC Ex. PW1/A. She was brought to emergency in LBS Hospital on 06.01.2015 in unconscious condition and he declared her brought dead.

(viii) PW8 Radhey Shyam, neighbour of the accused Shishpal.

(ix) PW9 Dharmender Kumar, neighbour of the accused Shishpal. 

(x)       PW10 Prempal, uncle of deceased Vimlesh.




Sessions Case No. 906/2016                 .                         Page 7/45
 (xi)      PW11 HC Kamla Singh, who received the PCR call that a lady had

committed suicide at H.No. 25/246, Block No. 25, Trilok Puri, Delhi. He proved the PCR form Ex. PW11/A.

(xii) PW12 Sh. R.K.Pandey, Superintendent Officer of DM (South­ West), Kapaskhera, New Delhi, was posted as Executive Magistrate, Mayur Vihar on 07.01.2015 and he was assigned and he conducted the proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C. in the present case.

(xiii) PW13 ASI Sanjiv was photographer of Mobile Crime Team. He took 11 photographs of the spot i.e. H.No. 25/246, Trilok Puri, Delhi.

(xiv) PW14 ASI Sonu Kaushik prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PW14/A.

(xv) PW15 Insp. Narender, Incharge of Mobile Crime Team, who prepared the SOC report Ex. PW15/A. (xvi) PW16 Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodaphone Mobile Services Ltd., who produced the summoned record i.e. CDR of mobile phone no. 8376874688 for the period between 01.01.2015 to 10.01.2015.

(xvii) PW17 ASI Gabbar Singh Rawat, who was the MHC(M) of PS Kalyanpuri.

Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 8/45

(xviii)PW18 Const. Karorimal had taken the sealed exhibits containing viscera alongwith sample seal from the MHC(M) Kalyanpuri for depositing the same with FSL Rohini vide RC No. 06/21/15. Exhibits were deposited by him at FSL Rohini and acknowledgement of same was deposited by him with MHC(M).

(xix) PW19 Const. Aasif had joined part investigation of the case alongwith IO on 07.01.2015 including arrest of accused Pawan from his house.

(xx) PW20 SI Om Prakash was the first IO of the case. He identified the case property i.e. ligature material by which the deceased was found hanging at the spot i.e. one pink colour stole Ex. P­1.

(xxi) PW21 Insp. Rajiv Vimal was second IO of the case and he deposed about investigation conducted by him in this case.

7. Since the learned counsel for the accused persons did not dispute the genuineness of the viscera report dated 24.06.2015, the same was exhibited as Ex. C­1 and PW Amar Pal Singh was dropped from the list of witnesses.

Documentary Evidence :

Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 9/45

8. The prosecution also relied on following documents tendered into evidence i.e MLC No. 3111/15 (Ex. PW­1/A), copy of FIR No. 25/2015 (Ex. PW­2/A), endorsement of Duty Officer on rukka (Ex. PW­2/B), Certificate u/s 65­B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex. PW­2/C), statement of PW3 Smt. Kiran recorded by Sh. R.K.Pandey, Executive Magistrate (Ex. PW­3/A), dead body identification statement of PW3 Smt. Kiran (Ex. PW­3/B), post­mortem report (Ex. PW4/A), opinion regarding cause of death of deceased Vimlesh given by PW4 (Ex. PW­4/B), statement of PW5 Ram Nivas recorded by Sh. R.K.Pandey, Executive Magistrate (Ex. PW­5/A), dead body identification statement of PW5 Ram Nivas (Ex. PW­5/B), dead body handing over memo (Ex. PW­5/C), seizure memo of 11 photographs and two DVDs (Ex. PW5­/D), 11 photographs (Ex.PW­ 5/1 to Ex. PW­5/11) and two DVDs (Ex. PW­5/12 & 13), arrest memo of accused Pawan (Ex. PW­5/E), personal search memo of accused Pawan (Ex. PW­5/E1), death certificate of victim (Ex. PW­7/A), certified copy of PCR form (Ex. PW­11/A), endorsement of PW12 on statement of PW3 Smt. Kiran (Ex. PW­12/A) and on statement of PW5 Ram Nivas (Ex. PW­ 12/B), request form for conducting post mortem (Ex. PW­12/C), copy of DD No. 43A attached with request form for conducting post mortem (Ex. PW­12/D), Form No. 25.35(1)(b) (Ex. PW­12/E), copy of site plan attached with the form (Ex. PW­12/F), 11 photographs (Ex. PW­13/A1 to A11), negatives of photographs (Ex. PW­13/B1 to B11), scaled site plan (Ex. PW­14/A), SOC report (Ex. PW­15/A), CAF of Ram Niwas Singh (Ex. PW­16/A), copy of Election I­Card of customer (Ex. PW­16/B), Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 10/45 CDR of mobile no. 8376874688 (Ex. PW­16/C), certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex. PW­16/D), photocopy of register no. 19 in respect of entry no. 3200 (Ex. PW­17/A), photocopy of Road Certificate No. 6/21/15 (Ex. PW­17/B), acknowledgement regarding deposit of exhibit in FSL Rohini (Ex. PW­17/C), seizure memo of viscera & sample seal (Ex. PW­20/A), seizure memo of sealed pullanda containing ligature material and sample seal (Ex. PW­20/B), unscaled site plan (Ex. PW­ 20/C), endorsement of IO on rukka (Ex. PW­21/A) and unscaled site plan (Ex. PW­21/B).

Statement of accused persons :

9. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, on 28.01.2020 statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded wherein they denied the correctness of all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They pleaded that they had not demanded any dowry, however, one motorcycle, one gold chain, one gold ring and household articles were given by the parents of deceased Vimlesh of their own.
10. Accused Pawan, husband of the deceased, further stated that his wife Vimlesh was a temperamental lady and she used to extend threat that she would falsely implicate him and his family members are committing Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 11/45 suicide, if she was not taken to her parents house and other places as and when she desired.
11. Accused Shishpal, father­in­law of deceased, further stated that he was not present in the house when deceased Vimlesh had committed suicide.
12. Accused Barfi Devi, mother­in­law of deceased, stated that she was present on the ground floor of the house and a telephonic call was made to the parents of deceased Vimlesh about her committing suicide but the call was not picked up by them. She stated that the police also tried to call parents of deceased Vimlesh telephonically. It was also stated by her that they had not demanded any dowry in the marriage and there is no question of demand of dowry after the marriage. She stated that Pawan and Vimlesh used to reside separately on the second floor. Vimlesh was a hot tempered woman, who committed suicide in order to falsely implicate them.
13. Accused Prabhu Dayal, brother­in­law of deceased, stated that he was not present in the house when Vimlesh committed suicide. He was informed telephonically about the incident whereupon he returned to the house. He further stated that since he used to ply auto rickshaw, he used to remain outside house whole day. He did not know why Vimlesh committed suicide.
Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 12/45
14. Accused Seema, sister­in­law of deceased, further stated that she was not present in the house when Vimlesh committed suicide as she had gone to her parental house. When she received information about the suicide of Vimlesh, she returned home. She further stated that she alongwith her husband and children used to reside separately on the first floor of the house. They did not have any concern with the accused Pawan and deceased Vimlesh, who used to reside on the second floor of the house. She stated that Vimlesh was a short­tempered woman and on previous occasions she had injured her hand herself. She was not able to control her anger. She did not know why Vimlesh committed suicide.

She was never harassed by her family. She stated that she is residing peacefully with her family for the last about 15 years.

15. Accused Hema, sister­in­law of deceased, stated that on the date of incident she was unmarried and used to reside with her parents on the ground floor. On the day when Vimlesh committed suicide, she was not present in the house as she used to do job in an Optical shop situated in Mayur Vihar. She was informed about the incident and then she returned to her house. She further stated that since she used to do job, she used to remain outside the house. Pawan and Vimlesh used to reside separately on the second floor. She did not know why Vimlesh committed suicide. She stated that Vimlesh was a short tempered lady and used to talk rudely and that is why she used to not talk with her. The accused persons opted Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 13/45 to lead evidence in their defence and they examined DW1 Subodh Yadav, neighbour of the accused persons. After leading evidence of DW1, ld. Counsel for the accused persons closed defence evidence vide statement recorded on 23.11.2021.

16. It is contended by ld. Counsel for the accused persons that though the parents i.e. PW3 and PW5 of the deceased Vimlesh have stated that their daughter was harassed by the accused persons, however, no complaint in that regard was ever made to the police. No specific details of the alleged demands have been placed on record by the prosecution. No specific details of the harassment have been given and it remains only a bald averment. It is stated that the mother of the victim i.e. PW3 has not stated anything against the accused persons in her examination­in­chief recorded before the court, it is only upon her cross­examination by the Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State that she only affirmed whatever was put to her. It is also urged that the alleged demand of Mahindra Magic car was also not mentioned by the father of the victim PW5 in his examination­in­chief and he only affirmed the same during his cross­examination by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State. It is also urged that even as per the prosecution version, deceased Vimlesh used to remain at her parents' house most of the time and therefore it cannot be stated that the accused persons were cruel to her and if it were so, the victim would not have been staying for long duration at her parental house. It is urged that there was no child born out of the wedlock of accused Pawan and deceased Vimlesh and she Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 14/45 used to remain quite most of the times and that could also been reason for Vimlesh to commit suicide. It is also urged that is is revealed in the testimony of the witnesses PW3, PW5 & PW6 that they were aware that the applicant/accused was not working at the time of marriage between the accused Pawan and deceased Vimlesh. Deceased Vimlesh got married to the accused Pawan after one year of their engagement and they used to meet each other during that period and therefore his habits were also known to the family of Vimlesh at the time of the marriage.

17. It is also contended that though the father of the victim has deposed that when he saw the dead body of his daughter Vimlesh, she was bleeding from her nose and there were injury marks on her body, however, the post­mortem report clearly belies the said assertion of PW5, thereby indicating that the testimony of PW5 is not reliable and he has given an exaggerated version in order to falsely implicate the accused persons. It is also stated that PW3 has deposed that on 06.01.2015 when her daughter Vimlesh had called her at 10.00 am she told her that she had not taken food for the past four days, however, the post­mortem report Ex. PW4/A reveals that there was food in her stomach at the time when she committed suicide and therefore, the said fact also indicates that the parents of deceased are trying to falsely implicate the accused persons in the present case. It is stated that no cruelty was committed upon the complainant by the accused persons and no marks of injuries were indicated in the post­mortem report of deceased Vimlesh except the Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 15/45 ligature marks on her neck due to hanging. It is stated that the said assertions are also belied in the testimony of PW12 which reveals that the colour of the body was normal. There was no external abnormality found at that time except the ligature marks on the neck. He did not notice any blood oozing out of her nose. It is also urged that PW5 has categorically deposed that there was no demand made by the accused persons for dowry at the time of marriage and hence, there was no occasion for them to have demanded anything later. Moreover, PW8 and PW9, who are independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is stated that PW3 and PW5 did not witness any incident of alleged cruelty themselves and are thus hear say witnesses. It is contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Section 304B & 498A IPC, therefore, accused persons are liable to be acquitted.

18. On the other hand, it is contended by the Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State that the testimonies of PW3, PW5 and PW6 are consistent regarding harassment upon deceased Vimlesh and the dowry demand of a Mahindra Magic car by the accused persons. It is urged that the said witnesses have described in detail as to how deceased Vimlesh used to be harassed by the accused persons and eventually she died within seven years of marriage with accused Pawan. It is accordingly prayed that the accused persons are liable to be held guilty for the offences that they are charged with.

Testimonies of material public witnesses:

Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 16/45

19. PW3 Kiran was mother of deceased Vimlesh. She deposed that Vimlesh was married with Pawan Kumar on 10.12.2010. She stated that about Rs. 7­8 Lacs and again said Rs. 6­7 Lacs were spent on the marriage. They had given one motorcycle to accused Pawan, five tola gold, furniture etc. and Rs. 50,000/­ on the date of marriage. After the marriage her daughter used to reside at her in­laws house alongwith her husband Pawan Kumar, her father­in­law Shishpal, her mother­in­law Barfi Devi, her brother­in­law (Jeth) Prabhu Dayal, her sister­in­law (Jethani) Seema Devi and her sister­in­law (Nanand) Heema. Accused Pawan used to do no work and used to remain at home and after their marriage her daughter Vimlesh used to remain at her parental home most of the time. She further stated that after her marriage, for one or two months Vimlesh stayed quite well at her in­laws house. Prior to her death, on 06.01.2015 her daughter Vimlesh called her telephonically and told her to take her to her parental house as she had not taken food for the last four days. PW3 told her that she would send her father in the evening. PW3 informed her husband and told him that Vimlesh had called her telephonically and she was puzzled and PW3 requested her husband to get Vimlesh to their house. Her husband went to the house of accused persons in the evening and informed PW3 from there that Vimlesh had expired. Thereafter, PW3 alongwith her family members and 40­50 persons of locality reached the house of accused persons at Trilok Puri and they did not find dead body of their daughter Vimlesh there and thereafter they reached PS Kalyanpuri. There her statement Ex. PW3/A Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 17/45 was recorded by one officer. Thereafter, they went to the hospital from where the dead body of her daughter was received by her husband.

20. PW3 was also cross­examined by learned Addl.P.P. for the State as she was not disclosing complete facts and she stated that she was an illiterate persons. Her statement was recorded by SDM Rakesh Pandey on 07.01.2015. She stated that she had given Rs. 3.5 Lacs in cash to the accused persons in the marriage. She further stated that after about one year of marriage of her daughter Vimlesh, accused persons started harassing her and started demanding Mahindra Magic vehicle. Accused Pawan was unemployed and used to consume liquor and he was pressurized by accused Shishpal and Prabhu Dayal to demand the said vehicle from Vimlesh and accused persons used to harass her for the same and therefore, her daughter Vimlesh used to remain at her parental home most of the time. On 28.11.2014 Vimlesh went to the house of her in­ laws and she used to talk to PW3 on mobile phone and also used to tell her that she was being harassed by the accused persons. She also told PW3 that accused Shishpal and Prabhu Dayal had an evil eye on her. On 06.01.2015 at about 10 am PW3 was present at her house when she received a telephonic call from Vimlesh, who told her that she was being harassed by the accused persons and she requested PW3 to take her back and thereafter PW3 sent her husband at about 8 pm. After reaching there her husband informed her that Vimlesh had committed suicide and she had been taken to the LBS Hospital. PW3 also stated that she had great Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 18/45 suspicion that accused Shishpal, Prabhu Dayal, Barfi Devi, Hema, Seema and Pawan Kumar have killed her daughter Vimlesh. She stated that after death of Vimlesh, accused persons did not inform them. She stated that she had forgotten to tell said facts in her examination­in­chief as she is an illiterate person and she is a house wife.

21. PW5 Ram Niwas, father of the deceased, deposed that Vimlesh was his daughter. She was married to Pawan Kumar on 10.01.2010. No dowry demand was made at the time of marriage. They had given Rs. 3.5 Lacs in cash, a motorcycle, 4 Total of gold articles. Accused Pawan was not doing any work. He was addicted to liquor and drug. His daughter used to ask accused Pawan not to take liquor and drugs, upon which he used to beat his daughter. The other accused persons, who were family members of accused Pawan also used to harass his daughter. These facts were told to him by his daughter Vimlesh on her visit to his house. Accused Prabhu Dayal used to beat accused Pawan, his brother, to compel her to ask Vimlesh to bring a Mahendra Magic car from her parents. Accused Shishpal and Prabhu Dayal were keeping evil eye upon his daughter Vimlesh. PW5 stated that he did not have the capacity to give the said vehicle. Vimlesh stayed at his house for 6­7 months. About 10 days before her death, she returned back to her matrimonial house. On 07.01.2015 at about 7.00 am she made a telephonic call at his house and stated that she was being harassed by the accused persons and asked him to take her back but he could not go to her matrimonial house because of Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 19/45 some problem. At about 9 pm he was informed by someone from his village about the death of his daughter. The accused persons did not inform him about the same. He alongwith his brother and other relatives went to the house of the accused persons and asked them about his daughter Vimlesh but they told that they did not know anything about her. Thereafter, they went to PS Kalyanpuri and came to know that his daughter was in the hospital. He stated that next day, he alongwith other relatives reached the hospital and saw his daughter Vimlesh and saw that she was bleeding from her nose and injury marks were present on her shoulders. After post mortem dead body of Vimlesh was handed over to him and they performed her last rites.

22. PW6 Meenu, younger sister of deceased Vimlesh, deposed that deceased Vimlesh was married on 10.12.2010 with Pawan Kumar. Prior to the marriage, her sister Vimlesh used to stay in the same room with her. She deposed that after her marriage whenever Vimlesh used to come to her house, she used to tell everything about her in­laws. Vimlesh told her when she used to come to her parental house after her marriage, that her husband alongwith other co­accused persons used to harass her, beat her and also used to demand Mahindra Magic car from her. She used to weep at that time when telling those facts to her. She also told that accused Pawan did not work and was not earning anything and that her father­in­ law and brother­in­law (Jeth) Prabhu Dayal used to have an evil eye on her. She further stated that after about one year of her marriage, PW6 had Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 20/45 gone to the house of accused persons and she saw that they were quarreling with her sister Vimlesh and were taunting her as to for how long they will look­after her and that her husband Pawan Kumar was not working and was not earning anything. PW6 also stated that she stayed with her sister on that night and when Pawan Kumar came to house in the night, he quarreled with Vimlesh and also gave beatings to her. Next morning PW6 came back home and thereafter also whenever Vimlesh used to come to their house, she used to tell that accused persons were not behaving properly with her and she was being harassed by them. PW6 had told her father about the same and thereafter her father alongwith some relatives went to the house of the accused persons to request them not to harass Vimlesh. On 06.01.2015 they came to know that her sister Vimlesh committed suicide at the house of accused persons. When her parents and other relatives reached at the house of accused persons, they were told that their daughter Vimlesh had committed suicide.

23. PW8 Radhey Shyam, neighbour of accused Shishpal, deposed that he was the neighbour of accused Shishpal for past about 8­10 years. Accused Shishpal had two sons namely Prabhu Dayal and Pawan Kumar. He stated that Prabhu Dayal alongwith his wife Seema used to reside on the first floor of the house and accused Pawan with his wife Vimlesh used to reside on the second floor of the house. He stated that accused Pawan and his wife Vimlesh were living happily and he had never seen them quarreling whenever he visited their house. He stated that he had never Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 21/45 seen accused Pawan having any quarrel with Vimlesh or beating her at any point of time whenever he visited their house. On 06.01.2015 when he came to his house in the evening, he came to know that Vimlesh has committed suicide. PW8 was cross­examined by learned Addl.P.P. and he denied that accused Pawan used to quarrel with his wife Vimlesh and also used to beat her daily. He was confronted with statement made to the police in this regard. He also denied that accused Pawan used to consume liquor and he did not do any work. He also denied that Vimlesh had committed suicide due to harassment and quarrel with accused Pawan on daily basis. He further denied that he had been won over by the accused persons and therefore, he had deposed falsely before the court in order to save them.

24. PW9 Dharmender Kumar, neighbour of the accused Shishpal, deposed on the same lines as PW8 deposed in his examination­in­chief. PW9 was also cross­examined by learned Addl.P.P. for the State. In his cross­examination by learned Addl.P.P. for the State PW9 denied that accused Pawan used to consume liquor and did not do any work. He further denied that accused Pawan used to quarrel with his wife Vimlesh and also used to beat her daily. He denied that Vimlesh has committed suicide due to harassment caused to her and quarrels with accused Pawan on daily basis. He was also confronted with the relevant portion of his statement recorded before the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C.

Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 22/45

25. PW10 Prempal was uncle of deceased Vimlesh. He deposed that deceased Vimlesh was his niece (Bhatiji). He stated that his brother Ram Niwas had given dowry articles in the marriage of Vimlesh with accused Pawan. After the said marriage, whenever his brother Ram Niwas used to come to him or when he used to visit Ram Niwas, he used to tell him that in­laws of Vimlesh were not keeping her well and used to beat her and harass her. His brother Ram Niwas did not tell any reason for the quarrel and harassment. He deposed that the accused persons did not inform them about the incident. On 06.01.2015 his brother Ram Niwas (Father of deceased) informed PW10 telephonically that Vimlesh had committed suicide. PW10 was also cross­examined by learned Addl.P.P. for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement. In his cross­ examination he affirmed that whenever he used to visit his brother Ram Niwas and when he used to come to him, Ram Niwas used to tell him that in­laws of Vimlesh were harassing her and were demanding Mahindra Magic car. He denied that one day he alongwith his brother Ram Niwas and other relatives had gone to the house of accused persons, where father­in­law of Vimlesh and her in­laws behaved very rudely and they told that it was their family matter and no one should interfere in the same and they made them leave their house. He affirmed that Vimlesh had committed suicide due to harassment by the accused persons at her in­ laws house and that all the accused persons were responsible for the suicide committed by Vimlesh. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the accused persons.

Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 23/45

26. Accused persons have been charged for offences under section 304B/34 IPC and Section 498A/34 IPC. The offence of Dowry Death has been dealt with in section 304B IPC and it provides as under:

304B. Dowry death­ (1) 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.
Explanation­ for the purpose of this sub­section, 'dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 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.

27. Thus in order to prove an offence under Section 304B, the following ingredients must be proved : ­

(i) death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances

(ii) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 24/45

(iii) and soon before her death, woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband

(iv) such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with the demand of dowry.

28. Vimlesh passed away on 06.01.2015. It is deposed by PW3 and PW5 i.e. mother and father respectively of the deceased that on 06.01.2015, Vimlesh had called and asked to be taken to their house. The father of the deceased went to the matrimonial house of their daughter Vimlesh, where they were informed that Vimlesh had expired. In this regard the prosecution also examined PW7 Dr. Pranav Kumar, who deposed that on 06.01.2015 a 22 years old female was brought to the emergency in an unconscious state. Her vitals were not recordable. There were strangulation marks present around her neck. She was declared brought dead vide MLC No. 3111/15 Ex. PW1/A. Death certificate issued by PW7 in this regard is Ex. PW7/A. The body of deceased was sent for post­mortem and the post­mortem was conducted by PW4 Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh, who deposed that upon examination following external injuries were present on the body of the deceased:

i) Ligature pressure abrasion present over thyroid cartilage infront and side of the neck of size 24x3­4.5 cm, ligature mark Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 25/45 situated 3.5 cm below the right ear, 3 cm from the chain and 4.5 cm below from the left ear.

He also deposed that sealed viscera was handed over to the IO for forensic examination and the cause of death was kept pending for want of chemical analysis report. The post­mortem report No. 7/15 dated 07.01.2015 is Ex. PW4/A. Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh PW4 further deposed that on 16.07.2015 a final opinion was given after receipt of chemical analysis report and that the cause of death was due to asphyxia consequent upon ante­mortem hanging. The subsequent opinion is Ex. PW4/B.

29. In this regard the IO SI Om Prakash, PW20 has deposed that on 06.01.2015 upon receipt of DD No. 43A he reached H.No. 25/246, Trilok Puri, Delhi, where other police officials from PS Kalyanpuri were found present. They reached on the second floor of the building. The room was found locked from inside. He peeped inside the room from the window and he saw one lady hanging from the ceiling fan with the help of a chunni. Senior police officials were informed and crime team was called at the spot. He also informed SDM regarding the incident. When the Crime Team reached at the spot, door of the room was pushed due to which it opened. Thereafter the dead body was pulled down upon instructions of the SDM and was shifted to the Mortuary LBS Hospital.

Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 26/45

30. PW20 also identified the ligature material i.e. Chunni / stole by which the deceased was found hanging on the spot. The same is Ex. P­1. Perusal of the post­mortem report Ex. PW4/A reveals that General External Appearance also records a ligature material in­situ pink & white colour stole with slippery knot on right side. The External Examination shows ligature pressure abrasion present over thyroid cartilage infront and side of the neck of size 24x3­4.5 cm, ligature mark situated 3.5 cm below the right ear, 3 cm from the chain and 4.5 cm below from the left ear. PW4 had deposed that the cause of death was asphyxia consequent upon ante­mortem hanging. From the post­mortem report Ex. PW4/A it emerges that strangulation marks which were found at the time of conducting the post­mortem of the dead body were owing to the ligature pressure caused to the neck by the ligature material i.e. in­situ pink & white colour stole Ex. P­1. No other external injury was found on the body of the deceased.

31. As discussed, IO SI Om Prakash, PW20 has deposed that on 06.01.2015, when he reached the spot, he alongwith other police officials went to the second floor of the building and the room was found locked from inside. He peeped inside the room from the window and he saw one lady hanging from the ceiling fan with the help of a chunni. In view of the aforesaid, it can be safely concluded that the victim deceased Vimlesh had committed suicide on 06.01.2015.

Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 27/45

32. It is settled law that section 304B IPC does not describe the death as the homicidal, suicidal or accidental in as much as all such circumstances would be covered under the description of "Otherwise then under normal circumstances". Hence, a death under setction 304B IPC encompasses all cases of death which are homicidal, suicidal or accidental. In the present case the death of the Vimlesh was caused due to suicide within seven years of her marriage and hence first two ingredients of Section 304B IPC stand fulfilled. However, it remains to be seen if the deceased was treated with cruelty or harassment "soon before her death" and whether such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand of dowry.

33. In this regard it would be relevant to consider the case laws on the subject as laid down by the superior courts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Narayanamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2008(16) SCC 512 has held as under

"22. It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304­B is to be invoked. But it should have happened `soon before her death'. The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words `soon before her death' is to emphasise the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 28/45 be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry­related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval which elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept `soon before her death'."

19. In Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi [(2003) 8 SCC 80], this Court observed that: (SCC pp. 86­87, para 9] "The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive S. 304­B, I.P.C. and S.113­B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test.

No definite period has been indicated and the expression 'soon before' is not defined. A reference to expression 'soon before' used in S. 114. Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods 'soon after the theft, is either the thief has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.' The determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before' is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression 'soon before' would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death.If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence."

34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1 has held as under :

"14. Considering the significance of such a legislation, a strict interpretation would defeat the very object for which it was enacted. Therefore, it is safe to deduce that when the legislature used the words, "soon before" they did not mean "immediately before". Rather, they Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 29/45 left its determination in the hands of the courts. The factum of cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. Even the spectrum of cruelty is quite varied, as it can range from physical, verbal or even emotional. This list is certainly not exhaustive. No straitjacket formulae can therefore be laid down by this Court to define what exacts the phrase "soon before" entails. The aforesaid position was emphasized by this Court, in the case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207, wherein the threeJudge Bench held that:
"15. ... "Soon before" is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any timelimit. ... In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. .... Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough." (emphasis supplied) A similar view was taken by this Court in Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477.
15. Therefore, Courts should use their discretion to determine if the period between the cruelty or harassment and the death of the victim would come within the term "soon before". What is pivotal to the above determination, is the establishment of a "proximate and live link" between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim."

35. It is now therefore necessary to scrutinize the statements of the prosecution witnesses in light of the law discussed above. In this regard mother and father of the victim i.e. PW3 Kiran and PW5 Ram Niwas respectively have deposed that deceased Vimlesh was married with accused Pawan on 10.12.2010 and at the time of marriage they had given one motorcycle to the accused, about 4­5 tolas of gold articles. PW3 Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 30/45 Kiran, mother of the victim, stated that they had given Rs. 50,000/­ in cash on the day of marriage and PW5 on the other had had deposed that they had given Rs. 3.5 Lakhs in cash. Pertinently, PW5 had deposed that no dowry demand was made at the time of marriage. Even PW3 in her statement recorded before the Executive Magistrate Ex. PW3/A stated that no dowry demand was made at the time of marriage. However, no such assertion was made by her while recording her testimony. In their statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. also while denying other incriminating material, all the accused persons stated that they had not demanded any dowry at the time of marriage and one motorcycle, one gold chain, one gold ring and household articles were given by the parents of deceased on their own. The said fact accordingly stands corroborated in the statement of PW5, who has also categorically stated that no dowry demand was made by the accused persons at the time of marriage.

36. It is also apparent on record that the deceased was married to accused Pawan on 10.12.2010 and she committed suicide on 06.01.2015 ie after about 4 years and 1 month of her marriage and therefore, it has also to be seen as to whether the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. The present case was registered on the basis of statement of Kiran, mother of deceased, which she made before Executive Magistrate, Ex. PW3/A. In her statement Ex. PW3/A she stated that after one year of the marriage, Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 31/45 the in­laws started harassing her daughter Vimlesh and telling her to get a Mahindra Magic car from her paternal house. Her husband was a vagabond and an addict and not used to do any work. The brother­in­law and the father­in­law even used to beat accused Pawan, husband of the deceased to get Mahindra Magic Car. They also used to quarrel with her daughter and therefore she mostly used to stay at her paternal house. She also did not have any child. Subsequently on 28.11.2014 the victim went to her matrimonial house and she also used to talk about quarrels in the house. The victim also told her mother that her brother­in­law and father­ in­law had an evil eye on her. On the date of incident the victim had called at 10.00 am and asked for getting her to their house.

37. In her testimony record before the Court, PW3 Kiran deposed that on the date of incident her daughter called her telephonically and told her to take her to her house as she had not taken food for the past four days, to which she told her daughter that she would send her father in the evening. The mother of the victim did not state anything regarding any demand made by the in­laws in her examination­in­chief and was cross­examined by the Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State as she was not disclosing complete facts. In her cross­examination by the Ld. Addl.P.P. she deposed on the lines of her initial statement given to the SDM Ex. PW3/A. In her cross­ examination by the ld. Counsel for the accused she deposed that she had not made any complaint to the police when her daughter informed her that Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 32/45 accused persons used to beat and harass her. She affirmed that whenever Vimlesh used to come to her house, she was accompanied by her husband i.e. accused Pawan and that he was unemployed and was not earning. She stated that she was not a witness to the beatings of her daughter Vimlesh by the accused persons at her house and she was informed about the same by her daughter Vimlesh telephonically.

38. PW5 deposed that accused Pawan used to not to do any work and was addicted to liquor and drugs. Her daughter used to ask accused Pawan not to take liquor and drugs, upon which he used to beat her daughter. Other accused persons also used to harass her daughter. Those facts were told to him by his daughter upon her visits at his house. PW5 also deposed that accused Prabhu Dayal used to beat accused Pawan, his brother, to compel him to ask Vimlesh to bring a Mahindra Magic car from her parents. Accused Shish Pal and Prabhu Dayal used to keep an evil eye on his daughter Vimlesh. He stated that Vimlesh stayed at his house for about 6­7 months. About 10 days before her death, she returned to her matrimonial house. On the date of incident Vimlesh made a phone call at his house and told him that she was being harassed by the accused persons and asked him to take her back but he could not go to her matrimonial house.

Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 33/45

39. For the purpose of Section 304B IPC, it has been held by the Superior Courts that the expression 'soon before her death' does not mean immediately before. It implies that there must be existence of a proximate and live link between the fact of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.

40. PW3 in her examination­in­chief did not state anything regarding any demand of a Mahindra Magic car and it is only upon her cross­ examination by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State that she stated that the accused persons started harassing and demanding a Mahindra Magic vehicle from her daughter after about one year of her marriage. It is noteworthy that the victim passed away after about four years and one month of her marriage. The father of the victim PW5 did not specifically state that the demand of a Mahindra Magic car was made from the deceased Vimlesh and infact he stated that accused Prabhu Dayal i.e. brother of accused Pawan, used to compel Pawan to ask his daughter Vimlesh to bring a Mahindra Magic car from her parents. No assertion has been made that any demand has been made to the victim by the accused persons directly. PW5 was also cross­examined by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State wherein he affirmed the suggestion that after about one year of the marriage of his Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 34/45 daughter Vimlesh all the accused persons started harassing her and demanding a Mahindra Magic vehicle.

41. In this regard PW6 deposed whenever her sister Vimlesh used to come to their house, she used to tell everything about her in­laws. She also told her that her husband, parents­in­law alongwith other co­accused persons used to harass her, beat her and also used to demand a Mahindra Magic car from her. She also told her that her husband Pawan was not working and was not earning anything. That her father­in­law and brother­in­law had an evil eye on her. PW6 also deposed about an incident when she went to the house of accused persons and she saw that accused persons were quarrelling with her sister and taunting her as to how for long would she be looked­after by them and that her husband Pawan was not working and not earning anything. PW6 stayed at the house of the accused persons that night and stated that when her brother­ in­law i.e. accused Pawan came to the house that night, he quarrelled with her sister Vimlesh and also gave beatings to her. Next morning PW6 went back to her house. PW6 further deposed that whenever her sister Vimlesh came to their house, she told her that accused persons were not behaving with her properly and she was being harassed by them.

Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 35/45

42. It is pertinent to note that the sole demand that has been asserted against the accused persons is demand of a Mahindra Magic car after one year of the marriage of the deceased Vimlesh with accused Pawan. The said assertion has not been made either by PW3, mother of the deceased Vimlesh, or by PW5, father of the deceased Vimlesh, in their examination­in­chief and were only affirmed at the stage of their cross­ examination by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State. From record, it is evident that no specific details of the demand, as to when they were made lastly, have been place on record. Though the initial demand has been stated to have been made after one year of the marriage, however, no further details regarding the said demand have been place on record. PW6 in this regard has stated that accused persons used to harass the deceased Vimlesh, beat her and also used to demand Mahindra Magic car from her. However, there is no assertion by her that the demand for Mahindra Magic Car was made in her presence when she had visited the matrimonial house of the deceased and stayed there overnight.

43. It is relevant to note that the testimony of the above said witness does not reveal as to the period when such demand of Mahindra Magic car was made except that it was made after one year of the marriage of deceased Vimlesh with accused Pawan. PW5 father of deceased Vimlesh also deposed that, the victim returned to her matrimonial house, after staying in their house for 6­7 months about 10 days before her death. The Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 36/45 mother of the victim PW3 also stated that deceased Vimlesh had come to their house about 15 days prior to going to her in­laws house in the month of November 2014 but she did not remember the date when Vimlesh had gone to her house. Hence, there is contradiction as regards the period for which the victim had come to stay at the house of her parents. On one hand, mother of the victim had stated that the victim had come to their house for 15 days, on the other hand father of the victim had stated that the victim stayed at their house for about 6­7 months and had returned to her matrimonial house 10 days prior to her death, whereas mother of the victim has stated that the victim had returned to her house on 28.11.2014. There is no assertion by the parents of the victim that the victim informed them regarding any demand of Mahindra Magic car made by the accused persons while she stayed at her parental house. There is no assertion that the victim after going back to her matrimonial house was harassed in connection with demand for said Mahindra Magic car. The mother of the victim, PW3 deposed that after going to her in­laws house, Vimlesh used to tell her that she was being harassed by the accused persons and that her father­in­law accused Shishpal and her Jeth Prabhu Dayal were having an evil eye on her. However, there is no mention of demand of a Mahindra Magic car in the recent conversations between the victim and her family members or that she was being harassed in that context. Accused Barfi Devi in her statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that they had not demanded any dowry in marriage so there was no question of any demand of dowry after marriage. Be that as it may, there does not appear Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 37/45 to any live or any proximate link between the demand for Mahindra Magic car by the accused persons and the suicide committed by the victim. In these circumstances the necessary ingredients of Section 304B IPC that the victim was treated with cruelty or harassed "soon before her death" in connection with demand of dowry does not stand proved on record. The accused persons are thus acquitted of the said charge under section 304B IPC.

44. The accused persons have also been charged for the offence u/s 498A/34 IPC. Section 498A IPC is reproduced as under for ready reference :

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 Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 38/45 security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

45. In the present case, it is evident from record that the cruelty as provided under Clause (b) of section 498A IPC has not been proved on record as discussed hereinabove as regards the demand of Mahindra Magic car. Except the assertion that such demand was made by the in­ laws of their daughter, after one year of her marriage with accused Pawan, in the cross­examination of PW3 and PW5 by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State and an assertion in that regard by PW6, no details, of specific period as to when such demand was made or by whom, have been proved on record. PW5 also deposed that accused Prabhu Dayal used to beat accused Pawan, his brother, to compel him to ask Vimlesh to bring a Mahindra Magic car from her parents. It is not alleged that deceased Vimlesh was beaten in connection with the demand. No demand was also made by the accused persons in the presence of PW6, when she went to the matrimonial house of the deceased. Hence, cruelty as defined in Clause (b) of explanation of Section 498A IPC does not stand proved on record against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The accused persons are thus given benefit of doubt.

46. Accordingly, it has to be now seen if cruelty as described under Explanation (a) of Section 498A IPC was committed upon the victim Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 39/45 which led Vimlesh to commit suicide. In this regard, it is to be noted that the mother of the victim PW3 has deposed that accused Pawan was not doing any work and he used to remain at home. Prior to her death, her daughter Vimlesh called her and told her to take her to their house as she had not taken any food for the past four days. In her cross­examination by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State PW3 stated that on 28.11.2014 deceased Vimlesh had gone to her in­laws house and she used to talk to PW3 on mobile phone and she told PW3 that she was being harassed by the accused persons and she specifically told her that accused Shishpal and Prabhu Dayal were having an evil eye on her. PW3 in her cross­ examination stated that she had not made any complaint to the police when her daughter Vimlesh informed her that the accused used to beat and harass her.

47. PW7 in her cross­examination also deposed that she did not have any complaint from accused Pawan, her son­in­law. However, she voluntered that he was unemployed and was earning livelihood for his wife. She also stated that they were on talking terms with the in­laws of Vimlesh even at present.

48. In this context PW5 deposed that his daughter Vimlesh used to ask accused Pawan not to take liquor and drugs, upon which he used to beat Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 40/45 his daughter. The other accused persons also used to harass his daughter. Accused Shishpal and Prabhu Dayal used to keep an evil eye on deceased Vimlesh. Pertinently, he stated that on 07.01.2015 at about 07.00 am deceased Vimlesh made a phone call at his house and told that she was being harassed by the accused persons and asked him to take her back. Subsequently, at about 9 pm he was informed by someone from his village about the death of his daughter. In his cross­examination by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State PW5 affirmed that most of the time after her marriage, Vimlesh used to remain at their house. She did not have any child. Accused Pawan used to demand money from her time and again and also used to beat her. He also affirmed that accused Pawan had stolen cash from his house but he did not make any complaint against him as he did not want to break house of his daughter. He further stated that on 06.01.2015 deceased Vimlesh had called him telephonically at about 10 am and requested him to take her at his house and at that time accused Pawan was quarrelling with her. He also told that PW5 should not come there and he would bring Vimlesh to their house.

49. In this regard PW6 has deposed that whenever her sister Vimlesh used to come to their house after her marriage, she told PW6 that her husband, parents­in­law alongwith other co­accused persons used to harass her, beat her and also used to demand a Mahindra Magic car from her. The deceased also told her that her husband Pawan did not do any Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 41/45 work and her father­in­law and Jeth Prabhu Dayal have an evil eye on her. She also deposed that after about one year of the marriage PW6 had gone to the house of the accused persons and she saw that accused persons were quarrelling with her sister Vimlesh and were taunting her as to for how long they will look­after her and that her husband Pawan was not working and was not earning anything. On that night her brother­in­law, accused Pawan had quarrelled with her sister Vimlesh and also gave beatings to her. Subsequently, whenever her sister came to their house, she told PW6 that accused persons were not behaving with her properly and she was being harassed by them. In her cross­examination PW6 stated that her father was aware that accused Pawan was not earning anything at the time of marriage and that he was a student. She also stated that the marriage between deceased Vimlesh and accused Pawan was performed after one year of engagement and during the said period her sister Vimlesh and accused Pawan used to talk to each other on telephone. She further deposed that on 06.01.2015 deceased Vimlesh had called telephonically and after saying 'Hello' PW6 gave mobile phone to her mother. She stated that Vimlesh talked with her mother on mobile for about 10/15 minutes. Her mother did not tell her about conversation between her and deceased Vimlesh.

50. It is also note­worthy that in his testimony recorded before the court PW5, father of the victim, deposed that when he alongwith his relatives Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 42/45 reached the hospital and saw his daughter Vimlesh, he noticed that she was bleeding from her nose and mark of injury were also present on her shoulder. However, the post­mortem report Ex. PW4/A does not indicate presence of any external injury on the body of deceased except the ligature pressure abrasion present on her neck. It also does not indicate that the victim was bleeding from her nose. Additionally PW3 in her testimony recorded before the court deposed that the victim called her on the day of her death and told that she had not taken food for the last four days, however, the internal examination of the victim reveals that digested food was present in her stomach indicating thereby that the parents of the victim have tried to exaggrate the facts regarding the death of their daughter. Be that as it may, it is settled law that their evidence is not to be discarded on this ground alone, however, in light of the embellishment in the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, the court has to be circumspect in weighing their deposition.

51. Noticeably, in the testimony of the witnesses PW3, PW5 and PW6 no specific details as regards the harassment caused to deceased Vimlesh by the accused persons except accused Pawan, have been indicated. References to harassment, ill­treatment and beatings are vague without any specifics. Though it has been also alleged that accused Prabhu Dayal and Shishpal had an evil eye on deceased Vimlesh, however, no particulars regarding any incident have been placed on record and hence, Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 43/45 it remains only a bald averment. Accordingly, the prosecution has not been able to prove that cruelty as described under section 498A Explanation (a) of IPC was committed upon the victim by accused Shishpal, Prabhu Dayal, Barfi Devi, Seema Devi and Hema, beyond reasonable doubt.

52. As regards accused Pawan, there are specific and consistent assertions by PW3, PW5 and PW6 that accused Pawan was not doing any work and he used to remain at home after his marriage with deceased Vimlesh. PW5 also stated that accused Pawan was not doing any work and he was addicted to liquor and drugs. His daughter asked accused Pawan not to take liquor and drugs, upon which accused Pawan used to beat his daughter. As discussed above PW6 has also deposed regarding an incident when she had gone to the house of accused persons and accused Pawan had quarrelled with deceased Vimlesh and gave beatings to her. It has been deposed by PW5 that accused Pawan had stolen cash from his house but no complaint regarding the same has been made as he did not wish to break house of his daughter. PW5 has also deposed that when the deceased called him telephonically on the date of incident ie 06.01.2015, at about 10.00 am, accused Pawan was quarrelling with her and accused Pawan also said that PW5 should not come there and he would bring Vimlesh to their house.

Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 44/45

53. It is thus manifest on record that accused Pawan was not working. He was addicted to liquor and drugs and he used to beat the deceased leading to quarrels between the deceased and accused Pawan including on the date of incident i.e. 06.01.2015. Accordingly, on the basis of evidence on record including the testimony of PW3, PW5 and PW6, it is proved on record that accused Pawan subjected his wife to cruelty as defined under Explanation (a) to Section 498A IPC and is hence, held guilty for the said offence.

54. In view of aforesaid discussion, accused Pawan is convicted for the offence punishable under section 498A IPC and acquitted for the offence punishable under section 304B IPC.

55. All remaining five accused persons namely Shishpal Yadav, Barfi Devi, Prabhu Dayal, Seema Devi and Hema are acquitted of the charged offences punishable under section 498A/304B/34 IPC. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. Bail bonds u/s 437A Cr.P.C. have already been furnished by the accused persons.

order Announced in the open Court DEEPALI Digitally signed by DEEPALI SHARMA on this 05th day of March, 2022 SHARMA Date: 2022.03.05 16:13:56 +0530 (Deepali Sharma) Additional Sessions Judge­04 East District/KKD Courts/Delhi.

Sessions Case No. 906/2016 . Page 45/45